Should YouTube take down Catholic videos desecrating the Eucharist? The church demands them gone.

[bobhikes]

...so they have a hatred for crackers then?

If they had a hatred of crackers, they would go to a mass(says that's how they got it). Wait all the way through the end of the mass. Process up the aisle to a priest that says an oath. Take the host from the Priest and pretend to eat the host or pretend it is for a sick relative that couldn't go to mass. Then go home and burn it. I doubt their hatred is for crackers they could of gone to the nearest convenience store.

 

[Glaurung]

Seems like you can literally buy them online. And without transubstantiation through the blessing, it's literally just a wafer even to the faithful.

Hey, I'm pretty sure that's the brand my parish buys. And you're right, if it hasn't been consecrated then it's nothing but wafer. Although that doesn't subtract from the malice that is inherent to uploading such a thing.

Of course, I hope that the wafer in question was unconsecrated. (I have not and will not watch the video). Nevertheless the stealing of consecrated hosts does happen. It wouldn't be that hard to pull off if you're discreet.

 

[Jumi]

It's symbology, even the Catholics know this.

Which is why it is extremely lame.

In Catholicism transubstantiation is not symbolic and there is even a movement in protestantism where I live where they want to return the belief in a literal transformation back to Church, like the good old times. It has always been believed to be a true transformation of bread into flesh of Jesus, only some more modern branches of Christianity deviated from this. You could have literally died if you disbelieved it in medieval times and voiced it.

 

[dianaiad]

I didn't call the beliefs lame.

I said someone lighting a wafer on fire to make an anti-religous statement is lame and boring.

I said taking offense to a wafer lit on fire is lame.

You are correct. Lighting the wafer on fire to make an anti-religious statement is lame. My apologies for the misunderstanding.

Taking offense to such a thing? Ineffective and a waste of one's time, but not 'lame.' Natural and understandable, yes, but not 'lame.'

And It is symbolic, otherwise Catholics would be considered cannibalistic vampires! The wafer is symbolic of the body, and the wine is symbolic of the blood of Christ. It's symbolism, literally haha!

You think so. I think it's symbolism as well, but it's what the Catholics think about it that counts, yes?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'm not going to watch the video but desecrating a consecrated host is probably the most profound insult you can lay at Catholicism. It's roughly equivalent to burning a Qur'an or smashing a Hindu temple idol. Don't pretend that an act of desecration filmed for all the internet to see isn't an act of hatred or profound contempt.

Catholicism is one of the few religions it is socially acceptable to attack. Heck, they'd be facing legal trouble in many countries had they burned the Talmud or the Qur'an.

Catholicism is also the only religion with a seat at the UN. It's the official religion of many countries. Here in Ontario, it's practically the only religion that's directly subsidized with tax dollars.

OTOH, it's also the only religion discriminated against in our constitution, and the whole reason why we subsidize the Catholic Church goes back to a history of discrimination against Catholics.

So is desecrating a host "punching up" or "punching down?" That's the key question for me.

Host desecration is excommunication latae sententiae. In other words, you're excommunicated by the act alone, whether anyone else knows it or not. But you are right regarding the pitiful state of Catholic practice in much of the Anglosphere these days.

I'd guess that the people desecrating hosts on YouTube were already not in communion with the Catholic Church.

 

[Kenny]

We shouldn't allow free speech to be washed away by tears. If they don't like the videos, couldn't they simply, you know, not watch them?

Hmmmmm.... I wonder... does that apply to seeing babies, through exrays, aborted by pulling the parts out, piece by piece?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The church has NOT asked him to remove them, nor has it asked Youtube to remove them. It COULD....the man broke the law in order to get those videos.

Why do you think they broke the law? Do you think they stole the hosts?

... or are you thinking of the blasphemy laws they have in some countries?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Hmmmmm.... I wonder... does that apply to seeing babies, through exrays, aborted by pulling the parts out, piece by piece?

Honestly, there are things that happen in this world that definitely should be put in front of people so that a greater understanding can be had, and so that "ignorance" cannot be an excuse. That sounds like a good candidate. Alongside watching the condition and treatment of animals raised in factory farms. Alongside videos of children working in sweatshop conditions to produce products we take for granted. Alongside videos of the emotional barrages many foster kids face who are placed with family after family by "the system". Anything that causes suffering that we try and turn a blind eye to and yet have a hand in propagating, or at least are complacent about should be thrust in our faces. And any of those would have far more meaning than this stupid video that has the Catholics up in arms.

People likely burn bread in their ovens every day. I don't care if a priest did say some words over it... this bread is no more important.

 

[Ponder This]

The video is offensive because of the symbolic nature of the wafer. If it was just a cracker without any symbolic meaning, then it wouldn't be offensive. That said, being offensive is not sufficient grounds to limit free speech.
However, there doesn't appear to be any message associated with the video except hate directed at a religion for no apparent reason whatsoever. Is that sufficient grounds to remove the video as hate speech?
I find the burning of a nation's flag to be an act of hate. Perhaps that should be removed as well.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

The video is offensive because of the symbolic nature of the wafer. If it was just a cracker without any symbolic meaning, then it wouldn't be offensive. That said, being offensive is not sufficient grounds to limit free speech.
However, there doesn't appear to be any message associated with the video except hate directed at a religion for no apparent reason whatsoever. Is that sufficient grounds to remove the video as hate speech?
I find the burning of a nation's flag to be an act of hate. Perhaps that should be removed as well.

Sticks and stones are something to get butt-hurt over. Not the destruction of one of your personal symbols. Giving it attention only gives something like this power... or rather shows the people performing the act that they do, indeed, have power over you.

It would be no different than if Disney were publicly outraged because someone bought all their Princess-themed barbie-dolls and set them on fire on video. Who gives a crap?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I find the burning of a nation's flag to be an act of hate. Perhaps that should be removed as well.

The burning of a nation's flag can also be an expression of protest against the authority of that nation's government.

Like I alluded to before, I see "punching up" as generally okay and "punching down" as generally not.

Burning one's national flag to protest an unjust law or burning a host to protest church interference in goverment... I see this as legitimate expression.

Burning another country's flag to intimidate immigrants from that country, or burning a host to intimidate Catholics in an area where they're a minority... not okay, IMO.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Sticks and stones are something to get butt-hurt over. Not the destruction of one of your personal symbols. Giving it attention only gives something like this power... or rather shows the people performing the act that they do, indeed, have power over you.

It would be no different than if Disney were publicly outraged because someone bought all their Princess-themed barbie-dolls and set them on fire on video. Who gives a crap?

So you're taking it as given that the Catholic position - i.e. that the host is not just symbolic - is not valid?

 

[Enoch07]

No, it isn't a symbol, it's real. In Catholicism the consecrated host is believed to be literally the very flesh and blood of Jesus Christ Himself. The doctrine is called transubstantiation.

No

 

[Enoch07]

In Catholicism transubstantiation is not symbolic and there is even a movement in protestantism where I live where they want to return the belief in a literal transformation back to Church, like the good old times. It has always been believed to be a true transformation of bread into flesh of Jesus, only some more modern branches of Christianity deviated from this. You could have literally died if you disbelieved it in medieval times and voiced it.

It's symbolic.

Otherwise it is literally idolatry.

End of story

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

So you're taking it as given that the Catholic position - i.e. that the host is not just symbolic - is not valid?

You're asking if I feel it should be considered somehow more than symbolic? What would that "more" be? That it actually becomes the body of Christ? Is that what should be suspected as being possible here? Something that can't simply be ruled out?

Unfortunately, if we can't rule out that possibility, then I suppose we should ALL recognize the possible reality that cows truly are sacred, right? When was the last time you had a burger? A beef taco? Nachos topped with beef? A roast beef sandwich? Give me a break.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You're asking if I feel it should be considered somehow more than symbolic? What would that "more" be? That it actually becomes the body of Christ?

Yes.

Is that what should be suspected as being possible here? Something that can't simply be ruled out?

Not "suspected as possible;" acknowledged as a sincere belief.

It's one thing to say that the video should be allowed despite the offense it causes; it's another to say that people shouldn't be offended at all. The one approach says that Catholics shouldn't have the right to dictate the behaviour of non-Catholics; the other says that being Catholic isn't a legitimate option.

Unfortunately, if we can't rule out that possibility, then I suppose we should ALL recognize the possible reality that cows truly are sacred, right? When was the last time you had a burger? A beef taco? Nachos topped with beef? A roast beef sandwich? Give me a break.

No; we should acknowledge that Hindus sincerely consider cows sacred.

... which we do. For instance, restaurants are expected to make it clearly known when beef is an ingredient in food. We don't force everyone to follow Hindu rules, but we do acknowledge being Hindu as a legitimate option.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No

Do we get to pass judgement on your beliefs now, too?

 

[Akivah]

An attack on Catholicism doesn't get much more direct or insulting. It's more offensive to Catholics than burning a Qur'an or drawing the Prophet Muhammad would be to Muslims.

How can you measure such a thing? Plenty of Muslims got very upset about the Muhammad cartoons or the quran burning. I don't know how you can say one group is more offended than another. Either both are allowed or neither.

 

[Enoch07]

Do we get to pass judgement on your beliefs now, too?

How have i passed judgement on anyone's beliefs?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

How can you measure such a thing? Plenty of Muslims got very upset about the Muhammad cartoons or the quran burning. I don't know how you can say one group is more offensive than another. Either both are allowed or neither.

Why an all-or-nothing approach? Desecrating a religion's sacred object has very different effects if it's directed at the powerful state church of the religious majority than if it's directed at a tiny religious minority with no political clout and a history of being persecuted.