Prof. Myers, Webster Cook, and the Eucharist

This will likely be a long post, or will at least seem like a long one. Please indulge me. I plan to add things to it as necessary, though I’ll be sure to mention this when it is done.

The layout is simple enough; first comes a thorough recounting of the situation at hand. This is followed by a pair of declarations of position, and then a series of responses to and meditations upon certain factors involved in both Webster Cook’s actions and Prof. P.Z. Myers’ later response. Those who are quite familiar with the situation already may scroll down to the “Formal Statements” section of the post if they’d like to save some time.

UPDATE (7/21/08 – 4:30PM): Webster Cook, far from winning the sympathy of his student government colleagues, has been impeached.

UPDATE (7/21/08): A few items to add. Cook’s charges against CCM dismissed; new promises from Prof. Myers; other things.

UPDATE (7/18/08): Prof. Myers has appeared on “The Heart of the Matter,” a show on Catholic Radio International, in an extensive interview (an hour) on the subject at hand as well as other things. There’s some debating, some banter, and some generally genial interaction. It’s available for download at the link, but you’ll have to scroll down ever so slightly to find it. It’s under the heading, “We Need to Talk.” It is not, in my own opinion, an especially successful interview for anyone involved, but it’s worth presenting here in the interest of completeness.

UPDATE: A reader who was at the mass in question at UCF has granted permission for me to post his account below. You will find it under the “Webster Cook at the Mass” heading in the third section of this post.

UPDATE 2 (7/15): Recent developments available here. Nothing too major, but some more to flesh things out.

UPDATE 3 (7/16): More new opinions and links here, including link to Cook’s official incident report as filed with UCF and the UCF student newspaper’s editorial response to the incident.

UPDATE 4 (2PM): Still more: employee fired for sending death threats to Prof. Myers; views from an unlikely source.

The Situation

There are a number of different-yet-connected things going on here, so it would be prudent to get them all sorted out and into their proper order before moving ahead with the analysis. What follows is the story I’ve been able to piece together from several unfortunately poor news reports (and one better one), the updates provided by the religious-news-in-media watchdog service GetReligion, comments from the student at the heart of the initial controversy, as posted at the Orate Fratres blog (here and here), and from the student’s father at Vive Christus Rex! (here). In determining the course of events on the student’s end I’ve left out irate secondary sources on both sides (P.Z. Meyers, Bill Donohue) because they add little and detract much. I’ll get to them in due time.

On June 29th, Webster Cook, a student at the University of Central Florida, presented himself to receive the Eucharist at a mass being performed by representatives of his local chapter of the Catholic Campus Ministries; the mass was evidently on school property. Cook is himself a Catholic, though of what depth or devotion I couldn’t say. Whatever the case may be, what happened next is well-substantiated: instead of consuming the consecrated host as is proper and expected, Cook decided to keep it. Early reports varied as to whether this purloining was planned or a “spur of the moment” sort of thing, though I’m inclined to lean towards “planned” for reasons that shall shortly become apparent.

The reaction was swift and fairly intense. Someone watching Cook noticed he had done this and questioned him quite forcefully about it. This questioning apparently turned into an attempt at physical detainment (Update: a correspondent who was at the mass in question notes that the “assault and detainment” were apparently perpetrated by a girl half Cook’s weight; this correspondent’s full account appears later in the post), and from that point on things began to escalate horribly. Cook initially claimed that he had intended to consume the host after showing it to a non-Catholic friend who had attended the mass with him (but who had not, as is proper, presented himself for communion). As it is, though, incensed by the treatment he was receiving from those who were themselves incensed by his scandalous treatment of the Eucharist, Cook left the mass, the host still in his possession, and thereafter telescoped the incident into what he claims was an orchestrated protest of the funding of religious functions on school property. Formal complaints have been filed all around (about which more later), and the university is quite understandably vexed by the whole affair.

(NOTE: The description of Cook’s “assailant” as “a girl half his weight” is not meant to be a slander on his manliness, or anything like that. This is how she was described in the report sent to me, and it’s important to know this as a counter to the image presented by various news reports of “a woman” assaulting “a student.”)

Cook has claimed that he feels threatened after all of this, but other than this there seems to be little evidence that he has, in fact, received literal death threats per se. GetReligion wonders (not unreasonably, but it’s a stretch) if a citation of 1 Corinthians 11:28-29 may have been taken the wrong way (“For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself. That is why many among you are ill and infirm, and a considerable number are dying”). Still, more about this later.

Whatever the case may be, after some soul-searching and interaction with Catholics more patient than enraged (of which there were unfortunately many in the latter category), Cook has returned the host. He would still like to meet with the local bishop, and also to receive an apology for the treatment he received at the mass; both seem to be possible, and beneficial, options.

That might have been the end of this peculiar affair but for the efforts of two other gentlemen.

In the Catholic corner we have “Shoutin’ Bill” Donohue, president of and spokesman for the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights. On July 7th he provided this fuel for the fire:

“For a student to disrupt Mass by taking the Body of Christ hostage—regardless of the alleged nature of his grievance—is beyond hate speech. That is why the UCF administration needs to act swiftly and decisively in seeing that justice is done. All options should be on the table, including expulsion.”

This might have had all of the impact that any pronouncement from the Catholic League has (none officially and little informally), but it was instead picked up by Prof. P.Z. Myers, an associate professor at the University of Minnesota-Morris. His response to this issue has been absurdly extensive, beginning with this post (warning: vulgarity) on his popular blog, Pharyngula. Even that might have been the end of it, given Cook’s return of the host, but no; Prof. Myers upped the ante considerably:

So, what to do. I have an idea. Can anyone out there score me some consecrated communion wafers? There’s no way I can personally get them — my local churches have stakes prepared for me, I’m sure — but if any of you would be willing to do what it takes to get me some, or even one, and mail it to me, I’ll show you sacrilege, gladly, and with much fanfare. I won’t be tempted to hold it hostage (no, not even if I have a choice between returning the Eucharist and watching Bill Donohue kick the pope in the balls, which would apparently be a more humane act than desecrating a goddamned cracker), but will instead treat it with profound disrespect and heinous cracker abuse, all photographed and presented here on the web. I shall do so joyfully and with laughter in my heart. If you can smuggle some out from under the armed guards and grim nuns hovering over your local communion ceremony, just write to me and I’ll send you my home address.

Since that post his blog has received thousands of comments (most in raucous support of his plans), and he himself has continued to press the issue every day since it became one. Naturally Bill Donohue leapt back into the fray – let it never be said that he stood idly by while outrage was being manufactured somewhere – with two more press releases from the League (here and here) directed at Prof. Myers personally. As the affair has continued to escalate, Prof. Myers has announced that he has himself received death threats related to this subject, and at least one person has been fired for sending them. In interviews since his solicitation of consecrated hosts, he has suggested that his threat to desecrate them was more in the line of satire and protest than an actual declaration of intent. Whatever the case, though, he continues to milk this for all it’s worth, and appears to take great pleasure in publishing samples of the mail he claims to have been receiving about this (here and here, for example).

This takes us more or less to the present moment. We’re at the dawn of a new work week and a new news cycle, so who knows what might happen? Only time will tell.

Formal Statements Before Proceeding Further

1. The issuing of death threats over matters of religious controversy is intolerable. It should not be done by anyone, and should be roundly condemned when it is. This is especially true in the case of Catholics, who should be mindful of our own long history with regard to both how it feels to suffer injury and death for religion’s sake, and also to the evident infamy and basic ineffectuality of dealing out such injury or death for the same reason. Consider the words of the Byzantine Emperor Manuel II Paleologus, as cited so recently (and so ironically, given what followed) by Pope Benedict XVI in his address to the University of Regensburg:

The emperor [...] goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. “God”, he says, “is not pleased by blood – and not acting reasonably (σὺν λόγω) is contrary to God’s nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats… To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death…”

It seems incredible to add this, but it is also the case that issuing death threats you have no intention whatever of carrying out is also a species of lying, and would be morally illicit on those grounds alone quite apart from the more troubling aspects involved. The bottom line: don’t do it.

2. The unconsecrated host is, indeed, a small disc of wheat with no more value than what its owner paid for it. You can get them all over the place; often quite cheap, in fact. The consecrated host, however, is the Body of Christ. This is a position attested to by Scripture (see especially the incidents described in John 6:32-71, the Last Supper of Luke 22:7-20, and Paul’s statements in 1 Corinthians 10 and 11), the Early Fathers, and the unbroken Tradition of the Church. St. Ambrose of Milan’s formulation of the issue is particularly appropriate for the current situation, and can be read here (scroll down to Ch. 9).

The Catechism of the Catholic Church says (in part):

1324: The Eucharist is “the source and summit of the Christian life.” “The other sacraments, and indeed all ecclesiastical ministries and works of the apostolate, are bound up with the Eucharist and are oriented towards it. For in the blessed Eucharist is contained the whole spiritual good of the Church, namely Christ Himself, our Pasch.”

1325: “The Eucharist is the efficacious sign and sublime cause of that communion in the divine life and that unity of the People of God by which the Church is kept in being. It is the culmination both of God’s action sanctifying the world in Christ and of the worship men ofer to Christ and through him to the Father in the Holy Spirit.”

1326: Finally, by the Eucharistic celebration we already unite ourselves with the heavenly liturgy and anticipate eternal life, when God will be all in all.

CCC 1333-44 describe the institution of the Eucharist, with a natural focus on the bread and the wine as such. This would be well worth reading (start here). Most crucially, though, in this case, we have CCC 1413:

By the consecration the transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ is brought about. Under the consecrated species of bread and wine Christ himself, living and glorious, is present in a true, real, and substantial manner: his Body and his Blood, with his soul and his divinity.

This is what Catholics believe. Keep this in mind.

Responses to Items of Note

1. Webster Cook at the Mass

This situation seems to have been badly handled by all involved.

Cook’s first claimed intention was to show the consecrated host to his non-Catholic friend, who did not go up to receive communion, as is right and proper. If this was indeed his intention (which does not seem likely, given his later actions), there are far more prudent ways in which Cook could have gone about this. Had he approached the presiding priest and simply asked if his friend could see the Eucharist at some other time, and ask questions about it (if he had any), the whole affair might have ended without incident. Indeed, any Catholic worthy of the name would be delighted to assist with such a thing, if the request were sincere.

But instead he performed acts of subterfuge. Trying to just walk away with it in the first place was an inappropriate action, under the circumstances, and subsequently pretending to eat it only to spit it out again once he returned to his pew only made things worse. That said, the response of those at the mass to his actions was not in any way conducive to resolving the issue. I do not for a moment believe that he was “physically assaulted” by the usher or anyone while there (our modern culture sometimes seems to think that physical assault is synonymous with touching, in any event), but there seems to be no question that he was restrained against his will and in defiance of repeated requests to be released. That is not to be counseled. I will not say that such a response would always be out of place during mass, for it would depend entirely upon what was transpiring, but in the case of Webster Cook it is clear that cooler heads did not prevail when they otherwise might have.

UPDATE (Tuesday, noon): An account from an eyewitness casts some doubt on the roughness of the treatment Cook actually received. So far there have been no on-the-ground accounts of this incident except as filtered through Cook’s own perspective, so this is a worthwhile addition indeed.

The following account is provided by “Quasius,” a correspondent who was at the mass in question and who was witness to Cook’s departure from the premises. He wishes to stress both that officials have asked that names and extravagant details not be publicized while investigations continue, and also that he was not himself a firsthand witness to the initial altercation that started all of this. He did see Cook arguing with an associate campus minister and then leaving with the host, but his account of the “assault” itself is second-hand information from people whose reports he trusts.

Sunday before last at Catholic Campus Ministry mass, two guys came in and generally made a nuisance of themselves during mass. They had apparently come to cause trouble. Then after receiving the consecrated Eucharist, they didn’t consume Jesus. When confronted, they started calling it assault.

After Mass, our associate campus minister cornered them to talk to them. I was actually standing outside the hall and strongly considering tackling them if they bolted. Eventually the campus minister decided to let them go.

So then, holding the Eucharist hostage, he (apparently a student senator) went on a week-long attention whoring campaign talking about how he didn’t think student activity funds should go to CCM or any other religious groups on campus and talking about how he was viciously attacked by a girl half his weight.

He gave Jesus back in a plastic bag sometime before Mass last Sunday. Apparently the peer-pressure was getting to him. He got a ton of emails and someone threatened to break into his dorm to recover the Eucharist. He apparently wasn’t getting much popularity from the move either as a student gov representative.

This last Sunday there were local media crews at Mass as well as armed UCF guards.

The local on-line coverage is here and here. I’ve heard there are you tube videos of the TV coverage where he’s talking about “use of force” to recover the Eucharist. The ironic thing is that our associate campus minister is strong, well-built, and works out. He could have taken the punk out in a few seconds if he wanted to. The only “force” was a girl grabbing his arm.

I (and a lot of other people) were pretty pissed. I’m not sure what (if any) the rest of the fallout from this will be, but I’m most thankful that the Eucharist was recovered.

Thanks again to Quasius for his permission to post this, and for contributing in the comment thread below.

Anyway, a troubling element in all of this is that Webster Cook was at least in theory catechized at some point. To put it more bluntly: he ought to know better.

2. Webster Cook’s Response to All This

In some ways it has seemed somewhat conciliatory; in others, not so much at all.

At first he really did declare his intention to functionally “hold the Eucharist hostage,” as you can read here:

Their initiation of physical force was inappropriate and unnecessary in this situation. It is also the reason I did not eventually consume the holy wafer. I will keep the holy wafer until I receive a sufficient apology and a meeting with the bishop to discuss the Catholic Church’s policies.

This is not something just invented by Bill Donohue to exacerbate the situation, as Prof. Myers has contended; Cook actually said this.

Still, after receiving e-mails from (presumably quite calm) members of the Catholic community, Cook then returned the host, saying this:

I still want the community to understand that the use physical force is wrong, especially when based on assumptions. However, I feel it is unnecessary to cause pain for those who are not at fault in this situation.

I want to thank the individuals who explained the emotional and spiritual pain my possession of the Eucharist caused them to experience. They have demonstrated that the use of reason is more effective than the use of force.

Not bad at all. But then the other shoe dropped.

Cook is still pursuing his “case” against Catholic Campus Ministries, and the means he is employing to do so are troubling. Cook has taken the unusual and (in my opinion) deplorably stupid position that the CCM has violated a rule put in place to prevent certain fraternity hazing rituals, alleging that their insistence that he either consume the host or return it violates rules against forced feeding. It gets worse:

Cook also filed charges accusing the Catholic club of violating the school’s underage alcohol policy by serving communal wine to underage students.

In response to those who might suggest that Cook is in no way guilty of “being a dick” about all of this, I give you exhibits A and B. We can add to that the classy move of stuffing the host in his mouth and then spitting it out again later.

Another troubling aspect of this more recent article is that he seems to have changed his story about how and why he returned the host. Whereas before it was apparently due to him simply changing his mind about it after e-mails from reasonable people, he now maintains that

he decided to return the Eucharist after receiving threats against his life, and afterlife, from angry Catholics. [He] maintains he did nothing wrong, and still deserves an apology for being “attacked” during Mass.

What’s more:

Cook also denied he apologized for his actions, as UCF officials claimed he did in a statement.

This may seem baffling at first, but it is certainly true. His statements here, upon a closer reading, are of that marvelous sort that manage to ooze contrition without actually admitting of any guilt.

3. Bill Donohue’s Response to Webster Cook

It’s one thing for the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights to challenge government and media biases or infringements upon the dignity and/or liberty of Catholics, but it’s quite another for it to issue press releases condemning and calling for punitive action against private citizens. In Webster Cook’s case this line is, I will grant, somewhat blurred by the fact that he is also a member of UCF’s student government.

Nevertheless, it remains entirely improper for Bill Donohue to call for Webster Cook’s expulsion from a secular academy for an issue of religious offense. This matter is between Cook and God, and those immediately involved; if we are to extend the matter further, the diocese of Orlando might have something to say about it (I’ve read that there may be a case for Cook having excommunicated himself through his actions), but it does not reach up to the national or international level. Graver and more numerous insults are done to the Eucharist every week in countless parishes across the continent by those intent on partaking of It in a state of obstinate sin, and it is unlikely that the imprudent foolishness of some guy nobody ever heard of (until your press release, Mr. Donohue) would serve as a catalyst for anything worse.

Just as troubling is Donohue’s typically overwrought declaration that Cook’s actions are “beyond hate speech.” They are not, for one; and if they were, this is not a line of argument that could fruitfully be pursued in any case. “Hate crime” laws are troubling and imperfect, at present, and possibly by definition. We would not do well to support them. In a similar manner, though it might be tempting to file frivolous lawsuits to get back at enemies, or (as in Canada) file nuisance grievance reports with your local Human Rights Commission, the legitimacy that such outlets gain by their being employed by those who would otherwise rightly criticize them is too great a price for any short-term gains accrued in the execution.

I am not arguing that the mere political climate in North America should trump the defence of the Eucharist, but rather that we must be cautious not to tie up that defence with the laws of Caesar when we can otherwise avoid it, and in this case we most assuredly can.

4. The Defence of the Eucharist

Turning again to the Catechism, we read (CCC 2120):

Sacrilege consists in profaning or treating unworthily the sacraments and other liturgical actions, as well as persons, things, or places consecrated to God. Sacrilege is a grave sin especially when committed against the Eucharist, for in this sacrament the true Body of Christ is made substantially present for us.

The question that must be answered in the case of Webster Cook is whether or not what he did constitutes sacrilege in this sense. He has certainly reduced it to an instrument in some larger tiff he has with the CCM and groups like it, and taking it in the manner he did was not appropriate at all. That said, if it does qualify as sacrilege (and the case for that is strong), well, it’s bad news indeed for him. The Code of Canon law does not mince words:

Can. 1367 A person who throws away the consecrated species or takes or retains them for a sacrilegious purpose incurs a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See; moreover, a cleric can be punished with another penalty, not excluding dismissal from the clerical state.

Ouch.

UPDATE: Geoff, in the comments, notes:

…incurring a latae sententiae excommunication is not as easy to do as one might think. In particular, he would have had to be aware that there is a canonical penalty of some sort attached to what he did, which I think is not terribly likely.

This is an important point, and certainly worth making.

For our own parts, our responsibility when it comes to defending the Eucharist from harm is clear. All reasonable means must be taken to ensure that such offenses do not occur, but shooting first and asking questions later, so to speak, as those in the Mass at UCF seem to have done, is not effective. Begin with reason and work your way up as circumstances dictate.

That said, there are precedents for more extraordinary defences. St. Tarcisius, for example, gave his life rather than allow a mob to descrate the host he was carrying. Abp. Oscar Romero lost his life while in the act of elevating the host. But then, that having been said, Webster Cook was not offering a chance for martyrdom, here, and even if he were great care would have to be exercised. If we wish to see a good example of the rush to protect the Body of Christ from harm, we need look no further than the arrest of Jesus in the garden of Gesthemane and Peter’s attempted defence of his Lord. Take that as your model, however viscerally unsatisfying it may be. His is the cup, and He must drink of it; in the Eucharist God makes Himself vulnerable that we might partake of Him, and that vulnerability has implications now just as it did twenty centuries ago.

I would welcome input from others on this issue, as what I’ve written here is in the main a matter of opinion and could very well be wrong. I’ve searched the Catechism and the Code of Canon Law for recommendations concerning the physical defence of the host from abuse, but no real guidelines have presented themselves.

5. Prof. P.Z. Myers and the “Desecration Challenge”

Prof. Myers has thrown an interesting and alarming new wrench into what was already a convoluted affair.

He wants his readers to obtain the hosts for him. To do this they must commit similar acts of purloining and subterfuge to that perpetrated by Webster Cook, but in this case with far graver purpose. Does it constitute theft, though? It is true that the Church “gives the hosts away,” in a sense, but there are conditions to this. Prof. Myers’ readers would by necessity have to obtain the hosts under false pretenses, which is one thing, and in clear violation of the conditions set by the Church vis-a-vis the contract entered into by those presenting themselves for communion. In other words, “some restrictions apply,” and you should consult your nearest Catechism for details. In no sense could any of Prof. Myers’ atheistic readers obtain a host for him without breaking such rules and thus voiding their “right” to obtain the host being offered, and his Catholic readers (if he has any) would most definitely find themselves under the same latae sententiae excommunication that potentially looms over Webster Cook if they were to take consecrated hosts for the purposes of later desecration.

The question of “theft,” then, seems quite clear: what is being offered is only offered under certain conditions which are impossible for anyone involved in these shenanigans to meet, and the right of the Church to distribute her property as she sees fit is in such circumstances being infringed.

While it is troubling on a Christian level that Prof. Myers should seem so determined to commit such acts against that which we hold so dear, on a merely intellectual level it is batshit insane. Prof. Myers places great stock in his atheism, and his initial writing on this issue confirms that his opinion of the host can be summarized thus: “it’s a frakking cracker” (here I use the correct spelling of “frak;” sorry, Professor, but your Battlestar powers are weak; UPDATE: But then, I had been spelling his name wrong the whole time – an extra “e” – so I’ve hardly got grounds to complain). He sees no hint of divine significance to the thing. No power. No importance. Thus, and so very understandably, if that is true, his outrage.

The trouble with this is that it’s entirely incomprehensible when once we consider how he’s reacted to this. It is not the act of a mind convinced that something is entirely unimportant to take special efforts to track it down and destroy it in creative ways, thereafter posting pictures and video of the destruction for the entertainment of hundreds of other people who, similarly, believe that the thing being destroyed has no importance whatsoever. The childish thrill he seems to get from announcing such actions and the even more evident joy he takes in prolonging this debacle do not redound to the credit of a rationalist and a humanist.

For indeed, in what way may we reconcile a desire to insult and frustrate a great mass of people – many of whom one has never met, nor ever shall, and who have done no one an ounce of harm – with either rationalism or humanism? How is it an effective use of time and resources in the first case, or the humane and reasonable action in the second? In what way are goadings of this sort in the spirit of the “bright”ness he so ardently claims to espouse? Has he died to the polemicist within him? Has the grumbler died to the grumble? Such things have happened before.

The only answer that I can see to why he has pursued this plan of desecration is that, in spite of his feigned incredulity, he really does understand the difference between a consecrated host and a regular “cracker.” I doubt very much that he believes that the host really is in any sense God (though it is certainly difficult to effectively blaspheme something that isn’t), but he at least understands that Catholics believe this, and therein lies his rationale, which really is just to be crude and insulting to Catholics as a group, or even as individuals if and when the possibility might present itself.

That, then, is the thing. For any atheists reading this, what you should take away from it is not that we as Catholics expect you to believe that the consecrated host really is the Body of Christ (though of course it is), but rather, at least, to accept that we believe that. That’s the first requirement for you, or for Webster Cook, or for Prof. Myers or anyone in situations like this if you’re to actually respond with maturity. Aristotle famously declared that the mark of an educated and reasonable mind is the ability to entertain an idea without necessarily accepting it, and that’s really the minimum we’re asking of you, here. In doing so, you might be able to overcome the “social autism” that Ransom mentions in the comments on the last post and understand that even if in your view the God is not real, the people certainly are.

At any rate, a further note is necessary on a later development. Prof. Myers has discovered that a great many of the seemingly raging, intolerant and hateful “Catholics” posting comments on his posts are really just one person writing under different names. He somehow manages to spin this into greater evidence of the deceit and bigotry of Catholics everywhere, but it should rather be asked, I think, just why we should think that the posts are coming from a Catholic at all.

As it happens, anyway, I should mention that Prof. Myers gets one thing right, though I naturally take issue with his use of the word “real” near the bottom:

Wait, what? Holding a cracker hostage is now a hate crime? The murder of Matthew Shephard was a hate crime. The murder of James Byrd Jr. was a hate crime. This is a goddamned cracker. Can you possibly diminish the abuse of real human beings any further?

Take note, Bill Donohue. What Webster Cook has done was foolish and possibly sacrilege, but to call it a hate crime is to surrender to the sort of stupefying hyperbole that has so poisoned our modern discourse in the first place.

Concluding Remarks

Let’s sum the whole business up:

1. What Webster Cook did qualifies neither as an innocent mistake nor a canonically insigificant act; indeed, there is much to suggest that he has excommunicated himself through an act of sacrilege. That having been said, however, appeals to the secular arm of the law in this case are quite unnecessary, and academic punishments should not be pursued. A qualified apology from those who grabbed him is necessary, and a meeting between Cook and someone at the diocese might also be worthwhile.

2. While he is free to pursue his complaints against those who physically restrained him, he should drop his insane food-and-drink-based charges against CCM.

3. Death threats addressed to Webster Cook, or Prof. Myers, or indeed to anyone are both ill-advised and gravely wrong. They are to be condemned entirely. I certainly condemn them.

4. Prof. Myers should cease his crude vendetta against the Eucharist. If he were truly unaware of the difference between the consecrated host and another “cracker” of comparable size he would not have any reason to do what he’s doing, and since he clearly is aware of that difference what he is doing is grossly inappropriate for a professor in any field and incompatible with the virtues of rational humanism anyway. While the protection of the secular law in the case of Prof. Myers’ proposed theft of consecrated hosts would be more appropriate than in the case of Webster Cook, it would be highly difficult to prevent him and his readers from doing it, or prosecute them once it was done, and as such we may only hope that the professor’s sense of honor and rationality will prevent him from transgressing against the Church’s property rights as outlined so far above.

5. Bill Donohue of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights does not represent Catholicism except insofar as he, as a Catholic, is a witness to the faith. His pronouncements are entirely non-binding and may safely be ignored. The good work that the League can (and does) do is often overshadowed by its own shrill press releases, and an approach less rash and more reasoned would in future be most appreciated.

6. The defence of the Eucharist from abuse and sacrilege is indeed the duty of every Catholic, but all efforts must be taken to ensure that any blood spilled in this defence is first and foremost our own.