Prof. Myers On Catholic Radio Intl.

[mommas_boy]

Interesting interview on Catholic Radio International. Dr. Myers interviews with Fr. Thomas Loya of Annunciation of the Mother of God Byzantine Catholic parish in Homer Glen, IL. The interview is available [url="http://www.catholicradiointernational.com/heartofmatter/mp3/hom071808.php"]here[/url], or directly [url="http://www.catholicradiointernational.com/heartofmatter/mp3/hom_071808.mp3"]as an mp3[/url].

The first half of the interview deals with the relationship between faith and reason, and the nature of knowledge. It's a pretty good discussion on epistemology, though Dr. Myers doesn't quite get it, and seems to be an adherent of Scientism (empiricism as the only valid way of "knowing" ... which is rather unscientific of him).

The second half of the interview (starting at 36:06 minutes in) deals with the ongoing [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PZ_Myers#Eucharist_controversy"]Eucharist controversy[/url] being discussed in [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=82736"]other[/url] [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=82355"]threads[/url]. If you aren't interested in hearing the philosophical talk at the beginning, jump to 36:06 on [url="http://www.catholicradiointernational.com/heartofmatter/mp3/hom_071808.mp3"]the mp3[/url].

In all, the interview is very cordial, and I actually have some respect for a man who would defame Our Lord. Myers' closing comments are quite poignant, and Fr. Loya voices agreement with them. Myers is concerned over the state of Catholics who would threaten his life or job, and asks if the discussion shouldn't be over these malicious comments rather than the state of the Eucharist (it should be over both, actually). The closing remarks begin at 49:53.

In all, a very interesting interview. I highly recommend that anyone listen to it, as both sides make some very good points that should be heeded.

[Apotheoun]

I think that prayer is the key, and that it should be the focus of Catholic action. Nevertheless, a Catholic (or any person of good will for that matter) is free to complain to the professor's employer.

Edited July 20, 2008 by Apotheoun

[Aloysius]

the man should be arrested, and if we had a really just society, given life imprisonment. he is committing the worst crime possible for any human being. Our Lord would not want us to kill him over it, but using force to retrieve the Eucharist even if it puts this sick man's life in danger would be perfectly justified.

as the law actually stands, he should at least be loaded up with heavy fines for what is the classic definition of a "hate crime"

[Barbarus]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1604081' date='Jul 20 2008, 03:30 PM']the man should be arrested, and if we had a really just society, given life imprisonment. he is committing the worst crime possible for any human being. Our Lord would not want us to kill him over it, but using force to retrieve the Eucharist even if it puts this sick man's life in danger would be perfectly justified.

as the law actually stands, he should at least be loaded up with heavy fines for what is the classic definition of a "hate crime"[/quote]
Not a big fan of the first amendment, I take it?

[Didymus]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1604081' date='Jul 20 2008, 03:30 PM']the man should be arrested, and if we had a really just society, given life imprisonment.[/quote]

If society were just, we would all be imprisoned for life.

[Aloysius]

no, that's not true, that would be an unjust action by the state because they do not have the authority to punish us for such sins. this action, however, not only should be against the law but IS against the law.

the first amendment does not protect this action whatsoever. I'm not talking about having a state religion, I am talking about the state protecting religions (especially the True Religion) from unjust attacks like this. this is an offense that the state has every right to punish with the full force of the law, and under the current law of the land (perfectly in line with the first amendment), this man is breaking the law by committing a hate crime

please show me anything in the first amendment which prohibits congress from making a law that says you cannot desecrate the Eucharist? if nothing else, it's a matter of public order. I can't paint swastikas on a bunch of copies of the Torah and throw it around in a synagogue; he can't have people take the Eucharist under false pretenses and desecrate it.

THIS IS ILLEGAL. IT IS A HATE CRIME. this man should be arrested, or at the very least fined a large amount. I think the diocese should file a lawsuit against him. this is not free speech, this is a criminal action.

[picchick]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1604244' date='Jul 20 2008, 10:12 PM']THIS IS ILLEGAL. IT IS A HATE CRIME. this man should be arrested, or at the very least fined a large amount. I think the diocese should file a lawsuit against him. this is not free speech, this is a criminal action.[/quote]

Agreed. Totally 100%.

[dominicansoul]

yup. if there is a definition for hate crime...this is definitely one!

And what if this starts a trend???

[Barbarus]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1604244' date='Jul 20 2008, 10:12 PM']no, that's not true, that would be an unjust action by the state because they do not have the authority to punish us for such sins. this action, however, not only should be against the law but IS against the law.

the first amendment does not protect this action whatsoever. I'm not talking about having a state religion, I am talking about the state protecting religions (especially the True Religion) from unjust attacks like this. this is an offense that the state has every right to punish with the full force of the law, and under the current law of the land (perfectly in line with the first amendment), this man is breaking the law by committing a hate crime

please show me anything in the first amendment which prohibits congress from making a law that says you cannot desecrate the Eucharist? if nothing else, it's a matter of public order. I can't paint swastikas on a bunch of copies of the Torah and throw it around in a synagogue; he can't have people take the Eucharist under false pretenses and desecrate it.

THIS IS ILLEGAL. IT IS A HATE CRIME. this man should be arrested, or at the very least fined a large amount. I think the diocese should file a lawsuit against him. this is not free speech, this is a criminal action.[/quote]
Actually, you should listen to the radio program. He's not getting from people who got it under false pretenses; he is getting it from people who are "Catholic" (at least, they are members of the Church on paper) who don't believe in the Real Presence and who go up to receive the Eucharist then send it on.

He's not doing it under false pretenses, he's not doing it on church property. He is solely doing it as a means of thumbing his nose at our beliefs.

[mommas_boy]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1604244' date='Jul 20 2008, 10:12 PM']THIS IS ILLEGAL. IT IS A HATE CRIME. this man should be arrested, or at the very least fined a large amount. I think the diocese should file a lawsuit against him. this is not free speech, this is a criminal action.[/quote]

You may have a point, here. Here's the relevant section of Minnesota state law:

“Whoever intentionally causes damage to another person’s physical property without the other person’s consent because of the property owner’s actual or perceived ... religion ...” is guilty of a gross misdemeanor, “if the damage reduces the value of the property by not more than $250.” (Minn. Stat. § 609.595, subd. 2b (CDP in the third degree)). (Absent bias, this would be a misdemeanor-level crime.)

The punishment for a "gross misdemeanor" is $3,000 fine, one year in jail, or both.

The key here might be the "another person's physical property" bit. A smart defense attorney would make the point that the Eucharist is the property of Myers because it was "given" to the person who received it at Communion (thereby bestowing ownership on the communicant), and that this person "gave" the Eucharist to Myers (thereby bestowing ownership on Myers). Myers actually makes this point in the radio show, if I remember right (at least, Fr. Loya attempts to counter it).

It would be up to the prosecution to demonstrate that the Eucharist is still the "property" of the Church, despite being "given" out at Communion.

[ardillacid]

But there are tacit conditions for being given the Eucharist, and immediate consumption is one of them

[Hassan]

[quote name='mommas_boy' post='1604064' date='Jul 20 2008, 02:03 PM']Interesting interview on Catholic Radio International. Dr. Myers interviews with Fr. Thomas Loya of Annunciation of the Mother of God Byzantine Catholic parish in Homer Glen, IL. The interview is available [url="http://www.catholicradiointernational.com/heartofmatter/mp3/hom071808.php"]here[/url], or directly [url="http://www.catholicradiointernational.com/heartofmatter/mp3/hom_071808.mp3"]as an mp3[/url].

The first half of the interview deals with the relationship between faith and reason, and the nature of knowledge. It's a pretty good discussion on epistemology, though Dr. Myers doesn't quite get it, and seems to be an adherent of Scientism (empiricism as the only valid way of "knowing" ... which is rather unscientific of him).

The second half of the interview (starting at 36:06 minutes in) deals with the ongoing [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PZ_Myers#Eucharist_controversy"]Eucharist controversy[/url] being discussed in [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=82736"]other[/url] [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=82355"]threads[/url]. If you aren't interested in hearing the philosophical talk at the beginning, jump to 36:06 on [url="http://www.catholicradiointernational.com/heartofmatter/mp3/hom_071808.mp3"]the mp3[/url].

In all, the interview is very cordial, and I actually have some respect for a man who would defame Our Lord. Myers' closing comments are quite poignant, and Fr. Loya voices agreement with them. Myers is concerned over the state of Catholics who would threaten his life or job, and asks if the discussion shouldn't be over these malicious comments rather than the state of the Eucharist (it should be over both, actually). The closing remarks begin at 49:53.

In all, a very interesting interview. I highly recommend that anyone listen to it, as both sides make some very good points that should be heeded.[/quote]


I'm about halfway through it. That Priest sounds a bit confused. HE just stammers on with almost no substance.




Hm, he said he would return the Hosts if a Church official would denounce Donahue's tactics and the death threats raised aghinst him.

They just rolled right over that, makes me doubt their honesty to be hones

Edited July 21, 2008 by Hassan

[Aloysius]

the Church would probably have no problem denouncing the death threats, but there is no reason we should denounce Donahue's tactics and he's completely out of line trying to blackmail us to do so.

I think a good case could be made that it is still the Church's property. Basically, the transaction in the Church is like this: "you can come up to eat this if you are Catholic, in a state of grace, and will consume it here"

If I go into a party where they are serving food to be consumed on the premesis, and I take a whole tray of orderves and leave, can I claim that that was GIVEN to me? I don't think so.

and it's even more clearcut at a mass than at a party; the GIVER of the food not only gives it on the condition that it is received in the Church, but on the condition that it is received in the presence of the minister of holy communion.

is it not perfectly legal to make a conditional gift? the implicit contract of the transaction is: "i will give you this if you will eat it now" and if you do not, then you have taken someone's property under false pretenses.

[Hassan]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1604577' date='Jul 21 2008, 01:40 PM']the Church would probably have no problem denouncing the death threats, but there is no reason we should denounce Donahue's tactics and he's completely out of line trying to blackmail us to do so.[/quote]

I don't think it's black mail. He was haveing a conversation and in response to a question floated that out there. The host and the Priest just skimmed right over it and moved on

[quote]I think a good case could be made that it is still the Church's property. Basically, the transaction in the Church is like this: "you can come up to eat this if you are Catholic, in a state of grace, and will consume it here"

If I go into a party where they are serving food to be consumed on the premesis, and I take a whole tray of orderves and leave, can I claim that that was GIVEN to me? I don't think so.[/quote]

No but if you are at a party and someone gives you a piece of cake and you leave with it, I don't think anyone could seriously claim that was theft. That one female poster who's name I forget is a lawyer, perhapse she could shed some light on this.

[quote]and it's even more clearcut at a mass than at a party; the GIVER of the food not only gives it on the condition that it is received in the Church, but on the condition that it is received in the presence of the minister of holy communion.[/quote]

I am not trying to defend people takeing the host. I find it immoral, ignorant, and immature. However I really don't think this legal angle has wings to fly on.

[quote]is it not perfectly legal to make a conditional gift? the implicit contract of the transaction is: "i will give you this if you will eat it now" and if you do not, then you have taken someone's property under false pretenses.[/quote]

ok, conditioned in that is that the individual has maintained a fast forone hour before receiving the Host. Are you now claiming that someone who eats right before Mass is legally liable?

[Aloysius]

there wouldn't be any legal case to be made for that or for someone who wasn't in a state of grace receiving it; but the understandable requirement that it be consumed in front of the minister of holy communion is one side of an implicit contract being entered into by the two parties, in my opinion.

breaking the fast or not being in a state of grace are spiritual disciplines asked of people, receiving it in the presence of the minister, however, should be viewed as a legal requirement of receiving it.

if you trick someone into giving you something that doesn't belong to you by lying to them, it's a scam and can be viewed as theft, can it not? that's what's being done when people take hosts, they walk up and act as if they are going to do what you want them to do with the property you are offering them, and then they do not do so.

if I offer to give someone $100 if they promise to me in person that they are going to spend that $100 on food, that's a verbal contract and if they didn't do it then they took that $100 off of me under false pretenses and are liable, are they not? The Church offers the Eucharist to people if those people promise to receive it in the presence of the minister of holy communion and if they do not do so, they are in breach of an implicit verbal contract and that is not their property.

I could think of a thousand examples... it makes perfect sense to me that you can offer conditional gifts and if people misrepresent themselves to receive those gifts, then they are liable for stealing those gifts.