07.14.08
PZMyers and the stolen Eucharistic Host - as seen by Margaret Johnston
You heard in the news last week about the college kid who stole a Eucharistic Host after receiving communion in a Catholic Church? (The article appears here http://www.wftv.com/news/16798008/detail.html and http://www.wftv.com/news/16806050/detail.html.)
And the Catholic Church was of course in an uproar about this. And then this blogger, PZ Myers (Pharyngula: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/07/its_a_goddamned_cracker.php) wrote a post ridiculing what he thought was a gross overreaction to this situation of the part of the Catholic Church. Of course he is entitled to his opinions but I think he carried it a bit too far (though I hear that is his style all the time) when he asked that someone send him a consecrated Host so that he could subject it to ”profound disrespect and heinous cracker abuse.”
Apparently this comment sparked a vicious reaction on the part of a certain Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League. It seems now Mr. Donohue has inspired a group of his followers to write to PZ Myers’ employer, University of Minnesota president Robert H. Bruininks in attempt to threaten his carreer. In turn, PZ Myers is now asking his supporters to write to Doctor Bruininks in his defense.
This is where I come in: I got an E-mail from someone in my religious community asking that we send in letters in PZ’s defense. Here is mine:
Regarding PZ Myers:
This whole incident makes me feel sad. PZ Myers obviously feels he is right in asserting that the Catholic Church overreacted ridiculously on the issue of the stolen Eucharistic Host. The problem results from PZ Myers’ failure to understand that to the Catholic, the Eucharist is more than symbol. To a fervent Catholic, the Eucharist IS THE BODY OF JESUS CHRIST just as the wine delivered at the communion rail is literally his blood. (I know, I never understood it either – which is one of many reasons I no longer call myself a Catholic.)
While those of us not involved in Catholicism can plainly see the item in question is “just a cracker,” to the Catholic it is a literal embodiment of their God. Seen this way it is easy to understand the depth of Church reaction against Webster Cook, the student who stole it. Seen this way, PZ Myer’s reaction against the Church now begins to sound immature and mean. His outlandish threat to treat a Eucharist “with profound disrespect and heinous cracker abuse” was of course written to enrich his writing career by drawing even more attention to his blog. But then he should not be surprised when that comment gathers fervent wrath from the likes of Catholic League president Bill Donohue and his followers.
Though we need not agree with those who choose a literal interpretation of their church’s teachings, there is no reason to treat their faith with the degree of outright disrespect shown by PZ Myers.
I received an E-mail plea from someone in my religious community, the Northern Virginia Ethical Society, to write a letter to Robert H, Bruininks, President of the University of Minnesota, PZ’s employer, in defense of his behavior. Apparently PZ Myers has asked his readers to send such polite messages of support to the president, lest Mr. Donohue’s efforts have some deleterious effect on PZ’s academic career.
Instead, let me offer the suggestion that both PZ Myers and Mr. Donohue undergo some sort of mediation counseling about accepting that we are all entitled to our opinions, the right to express them AND the importance of respecting other people’s beliefs. Never happen you say?
Well then, how about this explanation? Both Mr. Donohue and PZ Myers are members of belief stages in which they are incapable of understanding any degree of validity in the beliefs held by others. They are members of different levels of spiritual development, each of which claims superiority over the other.
Judging solely by his reaction to PZ Myers, we can say that Mr. Donohue is a member of the “Faithful” group. These people insist that their God is the only correct one and everyone who fails to believe as they do is plain “wrong,” thus deserving less respect than members of their own church.
PZ Myers on the other hand is clearly and irreparably in the “Rational” category. To him, only science and reason count. Anyone believing any old religious superstitions is just plain silly. While this is actually considered a more highly developed position of spiritual development than the Faithful, it is not the last word. Both Mr. Donohue and PZ Myers suffer from a type of “other blindness” that prevents them from according proper respect to anyone who believes differently from them.
What neither of them can see is that there is another way! There is the possibility of seeing validity in everyone’s beliefs. The Catholic is right to latch onto that personified God up in the sky because that is the type of God who will allow him to live the best life. It is a type of God most Catholics – at their “Faithful” level of development - need. If that type of belief includes a ceremony where a cracker is transformed into the body and blood of that God, so be it. This belief harms no one – their reaction to the antics of Webster Cook (the student who stole the Host) notwithstanding.
The Rational is right because he simply does not need that sort of God - or in most cases, any other. The more mature position would be to simply understand that Mr. Donohue’s faith includes things PZ Myers’ does not – because Mr. Donohue needs them. The more mature position for PZ Myers would be to simply accept that this type of faith is important to some people and in fact holds their world together. This is called religious tolerance and it is supposed to be a good thing – a goal in a civilized society.
I will not take the position of defending PZ Myers against Mr. Donohue’s attacks. I hope however that the above perspective will cause PZ Myers pause before he inflicts further such self-promoting, inflammatory statements on the public. He may be enjoying a great deal of public acclaim from his writings, but he puts forth such commentary in full knowledge of the risk it may impose on his career.
Henceforth he will also do so in full knowledge of the impact it has on folks at the Faithful stage. He will know that his comments tear away at the very fabric of faith in a people whose well-being depends on them understanding the world in that just certain way. His ridicule of them is not likely to convert them to his way of seeing things. It only incurs their retribution in the only way they know how.
Let PZ Myers consider this before he again treats religious faith with such contempt and immature disrespect.
But for the record, I hope Doctor Bruininks will treat this situation with lenience toward PZ Myers for “he knew not what he was doing.”
Margaret Johnston
BeliefStagesandGrowth.com