Desecration of the Blessed Sacrament

Recently in the Catholic news, a story broke out about an atheist that purposely and deliberately desecrated a consecrated Eucharistic host. This is a clear violation of religious freedom, which protect people's right to live out their faith peacefully. The act in question is undeniably aggressive against the Catholic faith and disrepectful to religious people, of any faith.

Catholics should pray for the souls of people whose hearts are filled with such hatred and contempt for religion. Justice will always prevail. Let us not be swept with hatred and hostility, but with righteous anger.

Fr. Tom Euteneuer, President of Human Life International wrote (heatedly) about the subject:

As if we needed more evidence of the growing rejection of God in our modern world, in July, a college professor in Minnesota, Paul Myers, publicly vowed to desecrate the Eucharist to make a point about his sick atheistic beliefs. Apparently now he has done the blasphemous deed with the help of someone who sent him a Host stolen from a Mass in London. This person posted a video of the theft on the internet proving that the arrogant sin of one has spawned the sacrilege of another.

Unfortunately, in the internet age, it is likely that this kind of crime against Our Lord will generate even more profanity. Never in the history of the world has there been such a deep-seated and wide-spread campaign of blasphemy against Jesus, and there is only one word for it - satanic.

Prof. Myers claims to be a militant atheist; I only hope, for the sake of his own soul, that he is invincibly ignorant of the terrifying consequences of his "faith." In this society, the First Amendment allows him to practice any religion, including atheism, which is a belief system that generally appeals to narrow-minded people like liberal college professors, newspaper editors and Hollywood elites. Yet, even so, he is not entitled to maliciously desecrate the beliefs and Sacraments of others! His act of sacrilege should be taken as a heinous offense against any and all of us who believe in God.

Myers claims to have deliberately desecrated the Most Holy Eucharist last month. These were the words that the professor from hell posted on his blog explaining this satanic act: "I thought of a simple, quick thing to do: I pierced it with a rusty nail (I hope Jesus's tetanus shots are up to date). And then I simply threw it in the trash, followed by the classic, decorative items of trash cans everywhere, old coffee grounds and a banana peel. My apologies to those who hoped for more, but the worst I can do is show my unconcerned contempt."

That was apparently a fulfillment of his public promise to desecrate the Host where he invited others to join him in this conspiracy against our Lord: "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..., 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." Nothing could please the devil more.

Sadly, the person who allegedly stole the Host from the London Oratory placed a video of his connivance on the internet which pictured the Sacred Species next to a condom, blaming the Vatican for the AIDS pandemic in Africa. (I did mention that these people were "narrow-minded," didn't I?)

Our response to these escalating crimes: to renew our Baptismal promises. We forcefully "reject Satan and all his works and all his empty promises," and we reject these particular acts of sacrilege against our Blessed Lord. And as for Prof. Myers and his co-conspirators in blasphemy - let them be forewarned that the malice they show now will be the malice they receive from their unclean spirits who will have an eternity to take it out on them. We, as men and women of faith, will simply pray for their wretched souls to be saved from this evil that grips them.

The Oratorians of London have issued a general call for people of faith this week to make reparation for "all the outrages against the Blessed Sacrament around the world." Given the new glut of internet blasphemy these days, we have our work cut out for us.

Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion

General Principles
by Pope Benedict XVI

1. Presenting oneself to receive Holy Communion should be a conscious decision, based on a reasoned judgment regarding one’s worthiness to do so, according to the Church’s objective criteria, asking such questions as: "Am I in full communion with the Catholic Church? Am I guilty of grave sin? Have I incurred a penalty (e.g. excommunication, interdict) that forbids me to receive Holy Communion? Have I prepared myself by fasting for at least an hour?" The practice of indiscriminately presenting oneself to receive Holy Communion, merely as a consequence of being present at Mass, is an abuse that must be corrected (cf. Instruction "Redemptionis Sacramentum," nos. 81, 83).

2. The Church teaches that abortion or euthanasia is a grave sin. The Encyclical Letter Evangelium Vitae, with reference to judicial decisions or civil laws that authorize or promote abortion or euthanasia, states that there is a "grave and clear obligation to oppose them by conscientious objection. [...] In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to 'take part in a propaganda campaign in favour of such a law or vote for it’" (no. 73). Christians have a "grave obligation of conscience not to cooperate formally in practices which, even if permitted by civil legislation, are contrary to God’s law. Indeed, from the moral standpoint, it is never licit to cooperate formally in evil. [...] This cooperation can never be justified either by invoking respect for the freedom of others or by appealing to the fact that civil law permits it or requires it" (no. 74).

3. Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.

4. Apart from an individual's judgment about his worthiness to present himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, the minister of Holy Communion may find himself in the situation where he must refuse to distribute Holy Communion to someone, such as in cases of a declared excommunication, a declared interdict, or an obstinate persistence in manifest grave sin (cf. can. 915).

5. Regarding the grave sin of abortion or euthanasia, when a person’s formal cooperation becomes manifest (understood, in the case of a Catholic politician, as his consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws), his Pastor should meet with him, instructing him about the Church’s teaching, informing him that he is not to present himself for Holy Communion until he brings to an end the objective situation of sin, and warning him that he will otherwise be denied the Eucharist.

6. When "these precautionary measures have not had their effect or in which they were not possible," and the person in question, with obstinate persistence, still presents himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, "the minister of Holy Communion must refuse to distribute it" (cf. Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts Declaration "Holy Communion and Divorced, Civilly Remarried Catholics" [2002], nos. 3-4). This decision, properly speaking, is not a sanction or a penalty. Nor is the minister of Holy Communion passing judgment on the person’s subjective guilt, but rather is reacting to the person’s public unworthiness to receive Holy Communion due to an objective situation of sin. [N.B. A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia. When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favour of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.]

St. Paul expressed similar sentiments here:
For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, "This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me." In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me." For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died. But if we judged ourselves truly, we should not be judged. But when we are judged by the Lord, we are chastened so that we may not be condemned along with the world. (1 Corinthians 11:23-32)