Sunday, July 13, 2008 | Reason : In the News | print version

Host Desecration is Old Anti-Semitic Nonsense

by ButterfliesAndWheels, Wikipedia

UPDATE: PZ has started posting some of his hate mail regarding the cracker story.

Ophelia Benson of ButterfliesAndWheels.com writes:

I did a scornful post on Bill Donohue's attack on PZ and the Florida student at Butterflies and Wheels a couple of hours ago, and a commenter who is a former Anglican priest (a very very disenchanted one) pointed out that this desecration stuff is old anti-Semitic nonsense. I looked it up and Wikipedia confirms. I thought RDF readers might be interested. Bill Donohue is meddling in some very nasty stuff.

See here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Host_desecration

Add to del.icio.us Posted: Sunday, July 13, 2008 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 50 of 54 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #209809 by mordacious1 on July 13, 2008 at 11:47 am

Aren't we smart? This has all been covered already.

Other Comments by mordacious1

2. Comment #209812 by pulsar1z on July 13, 2008 at 11:50 am

It is my belief that any group or single person who believes a cracker can become the body of Christ is or are mentally Ill. They have no grip on reality and live in a fantasy world. That's not bad it is just fact. Why advertise you are crazy.

Other Comments by pulsar1z

3. Comment #209813 by other on July 13, 2008 at 11:51 am

Are you kidding me?

Anti-Semitic people have accused Jews of committing Host Desecration.
Bill Donohue is accusing one person of committing Host Desecration.
Therefore, Bill Donohue is anti-semitic.(!?!)

Yeah, thanks for elevating the conversation.

Other Comments by other

4. Comment #209814 by Notcrowingbutyawning on July 13, 2008 at 11:52 am

The whole thing is almost a definition of insanity, certainly of irrationality. But it's that thing about people believing the big lie more readily, I suppose. What a sad little species we can be.

Other Comments by Notcrowingbutyawning

5. Comment #209818 by Mango on July 13, 2008 at 11:55 am

Consuming one's deity is pretty creative.

Other Comments by Mango

6. Comment #209827 by Copernic on July 13, 2008 at 12:01 pm

Other,

You are the one making the link. No one is accusing BD of being anti-semitic, nor was the intent to make that inference.

The point is that host desecration is a made-up offense, used to demonize "the other" (not you), used to rile up the base and attack the offender they never liked to begin with.

Its actually a rather interesting conversation to have, despite your objections.

Other Comments by Copernic

7. Comment #209830 by Border Collie on July 13, 2008 at 12:03 pm

So, if we could get enough consecrated crackers and wine together in one place and mix it all together, we could make a new Jesus? Scary.
I've found that in the South when enough crackers and wine get together there's usually a shootout or a pickup gets turned over.

Other Comments by Border Collie

8. Comment #209831 by Rationalartist on July 13, 2008 at 12:04 pm

In reference to comment number 3 by "other". Where does Ms. Benson accuse Donahue of being anti-semetic? She merely states that he is "meddling in some very nasty stuff", which he is clearly doing. I for one am glad this was brought to our attention. I wasn't aware of the bloody history of "host" desecration. It's incredible that this kind of superstition can be taken seriously at all in this day and age.

Other Comments by Rationalartist

9. Comment #209832 by Colwyn Abernathy on July 13, 2008 at 12:04 pm

mordacious1,

For those of us just tuning in, I reckon. ;)

EDIT:

Consuming one's deity is pretty creative.

But hardly new or original. Pagan warriors were consuming their enemies' flesh to steal their strength and speed centuries before Christ, and across the globe. Not to mention turning other body parts into talismans and fetishes. To the Catholics, Padre Pio's SCABS are magical! Leave it to the Catholics to meld mind-numbing doctrine with pagan mysticism, and continue to do so even in the 21st century.

Other Comments by Colwyn Abernathy

10. Comment #209835 by panajache69 on July 13, 2008 at 12:08 pm

But a cracker IS the body of Crisp.

Other Comments by panajache69

11. Comment #209837 by Colwyn Abernathy on July 13, 2008 at 12:12 pm

Other,

Anti-Semitic people have accused Jews of committing Host Desecration.
Bill Donohue is accusing one person of committing Host Desecration.
Therefore, Bill Donohue is anti-semitic.(!?!)

Yeah, thanks for elevating the conversation.

A very excellent point. Especially considering Cook isn't jewish....wait, IS he then? And has anyone in the hate mail mentioned this dastardly jewish plot? "Donnae move, or the Lord gets it!"

Other Comments by Colwyn Abernathy

12. Comment #209843 by mordacious1 on July 13, 2008 at 12:19 pm

Colwyn

Does that mean I get to repeat my "Cracker?"
"I hardly know her!", joke?

Other Comments by mordacious1

13. Comment #209857 by catskill on July 13, 2008 at 12:36 pm

Border Collie makes a good point. Perhaps we can grow the cracker in a petri dish, extract the DNA and clone a new Jesus! Maybe the Christians will realize that science is their best friend, since they are all waiting for Jesus to return, and they have access to Jesus's flesh and blood, science can bring them what they have been waiting for all this time!

Other Comments by catskill

14. Comment #209860 by Colwyn Abernathy on July 13, 2008 at 12:40 pm

Well, it's the first time I've heard it, mord. ;) I've heard "poker" but not "cracker". Sounds kinky. An osteopath gag, mebbe?

Other Comments by Colwyn Abernathy

15. Comment #209866 by Spinoza on July 13, 2008 at 12:51 pm

A relevant excerpt from one of my namesake's letters:

These absurdities might still be tolerated if you worshipped a God infinite and eternal, and not one whom Chastillon in the town of Tienen gave with impunity to the horses to eat. [Spinoza is speaking about a consecrated host from a Catholic Mass being fed to horses -- by a Protestant I presume. Catholics believe during Mass the host becomes consecrated, turning into the literal (but invisible) body and blood of Jesus. I might add for my Protestant friends that even the apostle Paul writing to the earliest Christian churches took the idea of the Lord's Supper so seriously as to believe God was punishing "many" Corinthian Christians with "illnesses" and even striking some "dead" for not celebrating the Lord's supper the right way. See 1 Cor. 11:27-30: "Whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord. But a man must examine himself, and in so doing he is to eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For he who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself if he does not judge the body rightly. For this reason many among you are weak and sick, and a number sleep. But if we judged ourselves rightly, we would not be judged." I also assume from Spinoza's story about the horse being fed the host that both rider and horse survived. Otherwise I'm sure that Catholics living back then, including Burgh, might have cited the illness or deaths of horse or rider as yet another reason to become a Catholic.--E.T.B.]

And do you, unhappy one, weep for me? And do you call my Philosophy, which you have never seen, a Chimera? O brainless youth, who has bewitched you, so that you believe that you swallow the highest and the eternal, and that you hold it in your intestines? [Spinoza is again speaking about a consecrated Catholic host.--E.T.B.]

Other Comments by Spinoza

16. Comment #209873 by Lev-CapeTown on July 13, 2008 at 1:01 pm

I was going to write a long essay, but the following should do the trick....

ITS A CRACKER!!! Period.

Other Comments by Lev-CapeTown

17. Comment #209875 by Notcrowingbutyawning on July 13, 2008 at 1:03 pm

'And do you, unhappy one, weep for me? And do you call my Philosophy, which you have never seen, a Chimera? O brainless youth, who has bewitched you, so that you believe that you swallow the highest and the eternal, and that you hold it in your intestines?'

After the best part of four hundred years this continues to sum it up doesn't it?

Other Comments by Notcrowingbutyawning

18. Comment #209879 by D'Arcy on July 13, 2008 at 1:13 pm

With a name like D'Arcy, I should be a Catholic, (Irish/French), but I'm not, thanks to my dear father who lost his temper with a bullying priest for telling him that he, (my father), couldn't read anything written by Alexandre Dumas. My father's copy of The Three Musketeers was thrown accross the room by the priest, and my father stormed out saying something like "no bloody priest is going to tell me what I can read!" This all happened before I was born, but the result for this D'Arcy was that he was not subjected to any religious indoctrination. I'm lucky.

Maybe the Christians will realize that science is their best friend, since they are all waiting for Jesus to return, and they have access to Jesus's flesh and blood, science can bring them what they have been waiting for all this time!

Since when did faith need science? Never. If there were ever any evidence at all for God, we would be hearing it shouted form the rooftops and in our dreams. Faith is a leap in the dark. I'm reminded of that crazy Christian 2-3 years ago in ?Kiev who literally climbed into the lion's enclosure in the zoo saying something like "God will protect me!". Needless to say the lions killed him.

Other Comments by D'Arcy

19. Comment #209882 by Spinoza on July 13, 2008 at 1:17 pm

Notcrowingbutyawning, indeed, unfortunately for the better part of 350 years (roughly, 1650-2008) Spinoza has been hated and vilified for no good reason. The legacy of Descartes' substance dualism has ridden on religious coattails into folk psychology... and it's not going away any time soon, even in academic philosophy circles.

But goddamn if Spinoza didn't hit it right on the head there.

Other Comments by Spinoza

20. Comment #209883 by Diacanu on July 13, 2008 at 1:18 pm

Y'know what flushes the magic crackers out of my desperate pleading colon?

Shmegalamonga!!!

Now with Splenda!

http://dickynoo.blogspot.com/

Other Comments by Diacanu

21. Comment #209900 by Notcrowingbutyawning on July 13, 2008 at 1:40 pm

19. Comment #209882 by Spinoza on July 13, 2008 at 1:17 pm

''Notcrowingbutyawning, indeed, unfortunately for the better part of 350 years (roughly, 1650-2008) Spinoza has been hated and vilified for no good reason.''

As a youth I bought a copy of 'Philosophy Made Simple' and came out of it with an admiration of Spinoza in particular. I couldn't be at all specific as to why, it being some thirty years later, but perchance I have just started to be reminded.

Mind you, 358 years is the better part of 400 and in excess of 350 ;O)

Other Comments by Notcrowingbutyawning

22. Comment #209902 by NJS on July 13, 2008 at 1:41 pm

Of all the bat shit crazy ideas that make up religion I've always had a special place in my heart for transubstantiation.

I don't know if being raised a catholic makes that so but the notion is the one that makes me want to scream "how can you be so fucking stupid?!" with all my might.

I know there are plenty of other contenders - "God" himself being a classic but there's just something about "this bread is the body of Christ" that just gets me.

I agree with the earlier poster - it's a symptom of mental illness.

Other Comments by NJS

23. Comment #209912 by Notcrowingbutyawning on July 13, 2008 at 1:49 pm

22. Comment #209902 by NJS on July 13, 2008 at 1:41 pm

It's the BIG LIE, thus very attractive. It's almost as if they are saying 'believe this and there's no going back since why should you?''. It's so patently absurd that acceptance of it is actually a great comfort. Winston Smith finally loved Big Brother afterall.

Other Comments by Notcrowingbutyawning

24. Comment #209914 by Layla Nasreddin on July 13, 2008 at 1:52 pm

Yeah, I noted that in the other thread. I felt/feel physically ill when contemplating the long and sordid history of "host desecration" -- and that some people TODAY are still upset over it! Like I said, this whole affair has more than a whiff of the medieval about it, doesn't it?

I'm just surprised that the long and often anti-Semitic history of this canard wasn't picked up on right away. Study your medieval history, damn it! You'll have never-ending ammunition against the Church! ;-)

Other Comments by Layla Nasreddin

25. Comment #209949 by F_A_F on July 13, 2008 at 3:35 pm

Part of me hopes that this runs it's course. Proving that foodstuffs have mystical powers, significance and transmogrify into assorted body parts should do a huge amount to discredit a church which is trying it's damnedest to sound all clever and scientific these days...ID etc.

Other Comments by F_A_F

26. Comment #209979 by amalthea on July 13, 2008 at 5:01 pm

Deep, deep deep down, I really agree that the whole thing is nonsense. A cracker is a cracker.

But then again, I do see the point of conferred value, where a number of paople agree that a simple object, whatever it is, has some particular value for them, but maybe none to anyone else. It may be artists conferring a value on a work of art, vintners upon a bottle of wine, Bob Dylan fans with bootleg tapes etc........

then I remember what complete idiots these people are, they would confer value on a piece of waffle mix if it looked remotely like.... oh, wait, that happened already.

On balance, my decision is screw 'em, especially if they're going to bring up 'host desecration' and by extension 'blood libels'.

Can i call them fucktards now?

A

Other Comments by amalthea

27. Comment #210005 by Ascaphus on July 13, 2008 at 6:21 pm

Catskill said:

...we can grow the cracker in a petri dish, extract the DNA and clone a new Jesus! Maybe the Christians will realize that science is their best friend, since they are all waiting for Jesus to return...

Well, not if it involves stem cells, cloning, or any of the other scientific ideas that have been declared suspect by the faithful. :(

In the end I suppose that there are very few new religious ideas, and all of the current absurdities are merely old absurdities in a new package. This stuff will probably be ruining people's lives long after all knowledge gained since the enlightenment has faded away. Life can be disappointing if you let it.

Matt

Other Comments by Ascaphus

28. Comment #210013 by MelM on July 13, 2008 at 6:36 pm

I wonder if the Catholic Church has ever repudiated all those accusations resulting in Jewish deaths?

I'd never heard of this thread in Catholic history; it certainly is not a good idea to stir up "host desecration" rage. Bill should have left the matter alone although public awareness of this nonsense could result in some doubt among the believers: always a good thing.

Crackers are crackers; holy men are crackpots.

Other Comments by MelM

29. Comment #210041 by The Schuermannator on July 13, 2008 at 7:39 pm

*update* Darn it!
catskill - You beat me to it man!

How about if we turn over a host to some genetic scientists and see if we can extract some Jesus-DNA from the cracker. Maybe then we can clone him and bring the Second Coming of Christ thru SCIENCE!!!

But first we've got to find a willing virgin...

Other Comments by The Schuermannator

30. Comment #210060 by Godfree Gordon on July 13, 2008 at 8:31 pm

To the owner/manager,

I have copied an email sent to a prominent scientist by someone at your business whose email is mkroll@1800flowers.com.

I trust this will be of interest to you.

Other Comments by Godfree Gordon

31. Comment #210070 by mmurray on July 13, 2008 at 9:35 pm

The idea of cloning Jesus was written about (quite some time ago) in a novel by Peter Goldsworthy called `Honk if you are Jesus'. Amazon seem to have copies. In the book they used blood from relics not communion wafers.

http://www.petergoldsworthy.com/

Michael

Other Comments by mmurray

32. Comment #210073 by mmurray on July 13, 2008 at 9:39 pm

By the way if you want to keep up with the latest Papal stupidity keep an eye on

http://www.abc.net.au/news/default.htm

for the next week for all the World Youth Day news.

Michael

Other Comments by mmurray

33. Comment #210088 by Robert Maynard on July 13, 2008 at 10:54 pm

The historical recounting of host desecration and the other shit Catholics used to get away with was one of the saddest parts of The End of Faith.

Some of them clearly wish they still had that kind of muscle today.

Other Comments by Robert Maynard

34. Comment #210090 by ricklend on July 13, 2008 at 11:12 pm

If you eat the cracker (body) without drinking the wine (blood), apparently you are still eating the whole Jesus? Right?

Other Comments by ricklend

35. Comment #210091 by MelM on July 13, 2008 at 11:17 pm

A cracker is a cracker: nothing less and nothing more. It's the fundamental fact underlying our ability to study crackers and apply that knowledge.

For religion, however, a cracker can be anything a god(s) wills. "Answered prayers", "miracles", "life after death", "walking on water", "talking snakes", "virgin birth", "flooding cities" ... all involve violation of the "a cracker is a cracker" principle (the foundation of naturalism). Religion voids the very premise that allows us to get out of bed in the morning, start our day and actually go about validly thinking about anything at all--which, I suppose, is why the minds of holy men so totally belong in the realm of psychopathology. Giving up the "cracker is a cracker" principle is a ticket to "batshit crazy land" and out of reality.

Other Comments by MelM

36. Comment #210121 by stephenray on July 14, 2008 at 1:10 am

Look - isn't this the point?

Unless I misunderstand the mumbo-jumbo (entirely possible) there's nothing special about the host until the priest blesses it immediately before placing it in the mouth of the believer, and even then it only undergoes the magical transformation in the believer's mouth.

Until then, it's just a rather tasteless biscuit.

Otherwise, wouldn't every one of us be guilty of desecrating the blood of christ every time we swig some red wine? (Except teetotallers, of course.)

I welcome being set straight by any lapsed catholics out there...

Other Comments by stephenray

37. Comment #210122 by Raiko on July 14, 2008 at 1:10 am

Oh, do I love wikipedia!

These accusations may have been based on the paradoxical belief that Jews considered the host the literal body of Jesus;...

(emphasis added)

Wikipedia knows best!

Other Comments by Raiko

38. Comment #210125 by TIKI AL on July 14, 2008 at 1:18 am

New church for a Christain ontopofmanure. ($$$)

1. Submerge a foreskin in an alchohol filled Ball canning jar.
2. Place on an altar in a repoed church.
3. Hang sign: "The Church of the Holy Jesus Foreskin".
4. Open doors Sunday morning.
5. Open offshore bank accounts on Monday.
6. Sell your wine and cracker stock on Tuesday.

Other Comments by TIKI AL

39. Comment #210137 by piloti on July 14, 2008 at 1:51 am

... far be it from me to scorn the truth that is wikipedia, but......
... wikipedia does not make it so.

Re Bill Donohue, I think I've got to the point where I feel 'who really cares......'.

P.

Other Comments by piloti

40. Comment #210156 by Oolon Colluphid on July 14, 2008 at 3:10 am

Border Collie said:

"So, if we could get enough consecrated crackers and wine together in one place and mix it all together, we could make a new Jesus?"

Nonono, that's not how it works. Your 'tornado in a junkyard' analogy is flawed. You need to get the bits of cracker together, sure, but as a breeding population, then select the most Son-of-God-like descendants over a multitude of generations. You can't make a new Jesus, but we might be able to selectively breed one.

Or something.

Other Comments by Oolon Colluphid

41. Comment #210169 by Duff on July 14, 2008 at 3:37 am

You people are wrong wrong wrong! The cracker is jesus only for as long as it takes the average priest to put it in the parishioner's mouth. If it takes longer than 5.98 seconds, jesus dissolves back into his previous state as just a cracker. For that reason it would be impossible to get a cracker out of the church and into a petri dish while it had any jesus active in it. If, however, you could get a priest into the lab...

Other Comments by Duff

42. Comment #210241 by debaser71 on July 14, 2008 at 6:32 am

atheism is the new jew?

Other Comments by debaser71

43. Comment #210246 by Layla Nasreddin on July 14, 2008 at 6:39 am

Raiko wrote:

Oh, do I love wikipedia!

These accusations may have been based on the paradoxical belief that Jews considered the host the literal body of Jesus;...

(emphasis added)

Wikipedia knows best!

I assume this means it's ridiculous to think that a group of people who emphatically did NOT subscribe to the church's doctrines would in fact believe that the host turned into the body of Jesus. Add to the fact that they didn't believe in Jesus as anything other than a human being to begin with, and you end up with some pretty bizarre imputations of belief. "The Jews KNOW that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, but they're just evil and so go on rejecting him!" Similar to the Muslim belief that the Jews in Medina did in fact "recognize" Muhammad as a prophet, but rejected him...presumably because they were stubborn, evil bastards, or something. I mean, that's pretty messed up! The idea that one might reject the whole notion of transubstantiation or of prophecy never seems to have entered their minds.

Other Comments by Layla Nasreddin

44. Comment #210250 by jimbob on July 14, 2008 at 6:43 am

You are what you eat -- ergo: god is crackers! ;-)

Other Comments by jimbob

45. Comment #210258 by BicycleRepairMan on July 14, 2008 at 7:09 am

"old anti-Semitic nonsense" As opposed to the regular catholic nonsense?

Other Comments by BicycleRepairMan

46. Comment #210362 by kev_s on July 14, 2008 at 10:51 am

You might like this comment on Pharyngula I noticed that was posted by: Arne Langsetmo July 11, 2008 11:50 PM :

BTW, they have a new diet communion wafer being introduced. Its brand name? "I Can't Believe It's Not Jesus".... <*bah-da-bump*>

Made me laugh anyway.

Other Comments by kev_s

47. Comment #210367 by Sargeist on July 14, 2008 at 11:11 am

Layla, your comments about what the Jews were accused of is similar to what I get on many occasions that my atheism comes up (or gets brought up, by me) in conversation. Most Catholics I meet have this odd idea that I know god exists, but that I'm just saying he doesn't to be awkward, or annoying, or something. Or they think that I know god exists but I don't like him, so I have to keep saying I don't believe in him.

Other Comments by Sargeist

48. Comment #210379 by phil rimmer on July 14, 2008 at 12:20 pm