Monday, September 29, 2008

Eucharistic Desecration Videos

If you haven't already seen and signed the petition to have You Tube remove forty videos of a guy desecrating Hosts, you can find the link here. I guess there is no way to tell if the Hosts are actually consecrated, but the videos are horrible to watch. I saw one today and couldn't even get through it, and definitely could not watch a second one. Here is the link to the videos. I just read the creep's profile, and I see he is from Canada. Figures. So much for Communion in the hand.


Joe of St. Thérèse said...

Communion in the Hand MUST be abolished...and must NOT be allowed to creep into any TLM's OR NO's anywhere :)

I've converted from Communion in the Hand as of 2 years ago. (well, 2 years Oct 16)

I'm converting the youth at my parish from Communion in the Hand, and anyone who comes in contact with me who still does so.

Marilena said...

i don't think i can watch it. it would irritate me to no end. i will sign the petition, but i don't want to watch it.

Owen said...

I wrote to YouTube personally. I did not watch the desecrations as it is not necessary.

I'm Canadian. Why does his corruption figure that he is from Canada? I don't follow.

By the way, I receive on the tongue as a result of conviction and a personal experience at this years International Eucharistic Congress during the final Mass.

Owen said...

I also meant to note that I wrote YT myself before there was a petition and form letter, though these are good if they help people to get the word out.

paramedicgirl said...

Owen, I am also Canadian. We have had such poor catechesis in Canada, that even if this person is a Catholic, he probably doesn't have a clue that Jesus is God, and that through Transubstantiation Jesus becomes physically present in the Host during the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. I grew up knowing none of these things, and I went to a Catholic school, and went to Mass until I was thirteen.

Canadian bishops are for the most part very liberal (except Calgary's Bishop Henry, God bless him). The CCCB denounced Pope Paul VI encyclical Humanae Vitae in 1969, which paved the way for Catholics in our country to start using birth control.

They also denounced the GIRM, refusing to comply with the liturgical direction for the Mass set forth by Rome. They did this by sending back to Rome a long list of written requests to make changes to the GIRM for Canada, which served to ensnare it in the slow process of Vatican approval, which takes years.

Who sufferers from this lack of direction and disobedience? The Catholic faithful. We grow up not knowing our catechism, not knowing that Jesus is God, not having a clue that at Communion we are really and truly receiving the Body and Blood of Our lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ.

I learned all these things as an adult. I learned my Catholic faith as an adult, not at the hands of my very liberal nun-teachers and priest (who went to jail for sexually abusing children, BTW).

So is it any wonder this boy who desecrates the Host is from Canada? No. I am not surprised.

Marilena said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
paramedicgirl said...

Owen, I forgot to mention that it would be a lot harder to steal a consecrated Host if all Masses only gave Communion on the tongue. It would still be possible, I suppose, but a whole lot more difficult.

Communion in the hand was something that was forced by the people, it was not an initiative of Rome's. I have done a post on it before; somewhere in my archives. I highly suggest anyone who does not know the history of how Communion in the hand came to be so widely practiced, that they read the document Memoriale Domini.</A

Owen said...

Right, I kidda thought you were a fellow Cannuck. Yes, thanks for explaining. I would agree now with the fuller explanation.

One of the sad things in my reconciliation with the Catholic Church (I prefer this term over convert) is the actual state of the Church as compared with the Church found in the history and apologetic books.

I was made aware early of the liberal nature of Catholicism in Canada (the infamous Winnipeg Statement Liberalization been happening for a long time in our nation as we can look back to the Trudeau era and beyond for poor leadership among clergy and laity.

This young man is in desperate need of our prayers. Certainly he understands enough to know that some people do believe what he does not and for whatever reason is intentionally wanting to cause offence. Lord, have mercy.

paramedicgirl said...

Pierre Elliot Trudeau is probably the worst thing that ever happened to Canada. Well, that and the Winnipeg Statement.

Marilena said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Owen said...

One good thing that's happened is that I and several thousands of other protestant ministers have reconciled with the Catholic Church. This has always been happening since the protestant rebellion but not in the numbers we are now seeing.

On my previous blog I wrote about how I came to receive on the tongue only. I was received a fair amount of criticism from someone who otherwise spoke about being loving and non judgemental. They utterly missed my reasoning. I agree that on the tongue would mean far less abuse of our Lord in the consecrated host.

With respect I, who do not consider myself a modernist and who has just mentioned the nastiness of a modernist find that sadly yappiness is not the soul domain of modernists. There is often a tremendous harshness and lack of gentleness among traditionalists when correcting wrong doctrine and practice among those who they disagree with.

Personally I don't think there is an excuse for this from either side as we have clear instruction in sacred scripture on how to correct those in error and perhaps save a soul.

I am actually very drawn to the TLM and all things traditional. One of the detractions is people who hold those so dearly they seem to have so little love left for their fellow brothers and sisters in Christ.

Thank you paramedicgirl for the opportunity to think this through more via your post and let us pray for this deceived and deceiving young man.

Smiley said...

I did not watch it. I cant, i may not be a good Catholic, but i cant watch this.
I am going to say a rosary for these misguided fools. They do not know it is Jesus. If they knew they would not hurt Him. They are just like those poor fools who crucified Him, they also did not know. Jesus has mercy on them, let us pray for them.

paramedicgirl said...

Owen, I didn't know you were a Protestant minister before becoming Catholic. It is absolutely amazing how many Protestant ministers have converted to the Catholic Church! For many of them, (I have read) it was reading the Scriptures that called them home to Catholicism. That is truly the Holy Spirit at work!

One story I found amusing was that a Protestant seminary somewhere around Connecticut has a really high number of conversions to Catholicism. Turns out it was a Catholic seminary before being used to train Protestant ministers, and the brothers and priests who used to reside there prayed for conversions all the time. I can't remember the location of this seminary or any more of the particulars, but it's a fascinating story. God does have a sense of humour, doesn't he?

I thank you for bringing up harshness and a lack of gentleness when dealing with people who may not hold the same traditional views. Harshness, or yappiness as you call it, will win no one to your argument. It just serves to turn people away. We all need to remind ourselves of that, and use our best apologetics to get our point acros

Tom in Vegas said...


I wonder if they are consecrated? This dolt (and he really is, in every sense of the word, a dolt) is doing this to get attention. People who have something intelligent to say do so without making a rear-end out of themselves.

Marilena said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Angela M. said...

Scott Hahn mentions the school in one of his books. I think it might be Gordon-Conwell Seminary in Grove City, Pennsylvania - the school Scott Hahn attended.

Shirley said...

I signed the petition on Therese's blog, and I too decline to watch the videos- I wouldn't want to validate him. I take Communion on the tongue at my NO Mass, as do a number of the other parishoners. To those who continually put down the NO Mass, I have this to say: You are either part of the problem or part of the solution. Complaining about the NO Mass and patting yourself on the back because you don't have to attend one does not fix the problem. We don't all have the availability of a TLM, so we do the best we can with what we have- and try to give witness by our actions and words, and set an example for others to follow. Remember that change is difficult for many people, and when they become accustomed to seeing others take Communion on the tongue it may encourage them to do likewise- as well as many other traditional ways of doing things that are (much too slowly) creeping back into practice.

paramedicgirl said...

Shirley, that is so well stated. Thank you.

Angela M. said...

Thank you, Shirley.

I live in a remote northern town and I highly doubt we will ever have the TLM here because of a shortage or priests never mind ones trained to offer the TLM.

When I returned to my parish after a lengthy absence from the Church I noticed some people were now kneeling during the Consecration. They were generally people I knew to be devout and orthodox Catholics. I wanted to be like them so I started kneeling too. We don't make a big deal of it even though we don't have kneelers - we just lead by example as you stated in your excellent comment.

Thanks again.

Marilena said...

shirley, i know what your saying. i take the correction.
iam not trying to pat myself on the back, only saying that i do not agree with the changes that were made. iam concerned about the welfare of the Church, and think that the changes were detrimental to the Church, and did not benefit it at all, and that it should not have happened. all the things that have occured in the Church in the last 40 years, the liturgical abuses, the protestanism of the Mass, etc, made me thankful that i found the TLM. but in being thankful, one should also not state anything about the NO i guess, even if i state that i will never attend one again. i was not charitable, and i apologized for that. please, accept my apologies yet again.

Smiley said...


The traditionalist are the only folks who are true to the church. they might call you schismatic but they are the schismatic ones.

paramedicgirl said...

M, restated, it sounds so much better that way. But you should seriously consider - if you were living in Chetwynd, or Whitehorse, or some other rural town in Nowhere, Canada, would you really forgo the Mass? The Novus Ordo is far from perfect, but it is still the Holy Sacrifice. I still go to it occasionally when I can't make the forty-five minute drive to the Latin Mass. Yes, it leaves me wanting, but I have still fulfilled my obligation.

Owen said...

Shirley, well said. I would attend as we are fortunate at this point to have one in the city but my family, who all reconciled with me, are not all ready for it; its two hour format, its solemnity, its Latin. My 'job' is to hold the family together in the faith not divide it by showing preference one for Paul and the other for Apollos, as it were. Thanks for what you noted about your own situation and the N.O.

marilena, I am happy for you that you have the TLM. You need to know that you did not offend me. I take no offence personally in anything you said. I have said my piece. The only thing I will note is that you restated your justification (I am not using that word in a loaded way) for being harsh.

No one is saying you should not state that you will not attend a N.O. again. No one said that in being thankful for the TLM you cannot mention the N.O. Just as there is no there's no reason to qualify your apology.

Anita Moore said...

Re the NO Mass: I think the problem with it is not the thing itself, but the way it is celebrated. The people who wanted to tinker with it apparently found it easier to manipulate than the TLM. I think it is not too strong to call this manipulation "protestantization," because a lot of the innovations are in fact Protestant in origin, and of old vintage.

Owen, I'm glad you made it home to the Catholic Church. I don't know what denomination you were before, but it must have been an awful sacrifice to reconcile with the Church, since you probably had to give up not only Protestantism but also your means of making a living. I know, though, that God will reward your sacrifice. Maybe He used it to save a lot of souls who otherwise wouldn't have been saved.

As for this guy desecrating Hosts, I sincerely hope they are hosts with a small "h" and not Hosts with a big "H" (if you know what I mean). Either way, you'll never convince me that Communion in the hand doesn't make this sort of thing a lot easier to do. I think having to stand for Communion instead of kneeling, discouraging people from kneeling at any time during Mass, and chit-chatting in church also contribute, as they serve to make us forget Who is truly present in the Sacrament.

Anonymous said...

I didn't read through all the posts, so forgive me if I'm repeating things said by others. I only have a couple of points to make:

Firstly, the "creep" as you call him is clever; he took the Eucharist on the tongue then quickly left the church and removed it from his mouth. His depraved actions don't belong anywhere in the debate about hand vs tongue. Those arguments should be left to stand or fall on their own merit without reference to him.

Secondly, what help is there in calling him a creep? His actions deserve our censure, but his person deserves our prayers. We children of God have been given the great gift of reason, and while some – even Christian sects – teach their followers to abandon reason for faith, we fortunate Catholics know that everything about our faith IS reasonable, and that we abandon our reason at our own peril. Our statements and actions should always reflect the imperative we have to use our reason. Calling names and spewing vitriol only weakens our position. Again, let the strength of your arguments either stand or fall on their own merits. I assure you, the reasonableness of our faith will ensure that only truth will stand the test of time.

paramedicgirl said...

Anonymous, I stand corrected. I should not have referred to someone who flushes a Consecrated Host down a toilet, feeds Jesus to ducks, crushes Him and smokes Him, purees Him in a blender, or drills holes in His Sacred Heart with a nail gun as a creep. No, the word creep was not appropriate. Perhaps you would suggest I refer to him as a gentleman?

Smiley said...

Dare I say but i suspect that the Ducks would recognize their Creator and would have had much more reverence than the person who perpetrated such blasphemy

Anita Moore said...

Anonymous, some questions:

1. How do you know this guy received Communion on the tongue?

2. How can you view with equanimity the desecration of the Blessed Sacrament, yet be upset by the use of the word "creep" to describe the perpetrator?

3. If "creep" is your idea of vitriol, are you not wasting your indignation on unworthy subjects, so that you have none left for when it really counts? If it makes you squeamish to hear something called by its right name, so that you are moved to spend your energy reproaching the person who so called it instead of the person who earned the title, should that not be a cause for concern?

4. If we weaken our position by calling someone a creep who desecrates the Sacrament, then how do you cope with the names Jesus called the scribes and the Pharisees:

-- Children of the devil (John 8:44)

-- Liars (John 8:55)

-- Whited sepulchres (Matthew 23:27)

-- Brood of vipers (Matthew 3:7, 12:34, 23:33; Luke 3:7)

-- Hypocrites (passim)

St. John Chrysostom said heretics should be stricken across the face, and made to fear ever publicly ventilating their errors. Now we live in an age when you can't even call a desecrater of the Blessed Sacrament a creep. I guess that's progress.

Anonymous said...

I see I may have touched a nerve here. I apologize for any offense given, particularly to you paramedicgirl since it was your words I criticized. This blasphemy is very difficult to bear, I know. I’ve been reading a lot of what is out there about this, and I found in the writings on your blog a place that I might join in the discussion among my brothers and sisters. I did not mean to give any offense, and I apologize completely for any injury.

Anita, I’ll answer your questions as best I can.

"1. How do you know this guy received Communion on the tongue?"

I don’t know for sure. I didn’t watch any of the videos, and haven’t been to you tube at all since learning about them (Incidentally, I won’t be back either until they do the right thing and remove them). There has been plenty of secondary writing about the videos, and I’ve read more than one source report that this was how he tricked the Eucharist minister into giving him Our Lord. I’m afraid I don’t have the fortitude to watch and confirm for myself. Point taken though, the information I’m providing is tertiary at best.

"2. How can you view with equanimity the desecration of the Blessed Sacrament, yet be upset by the use of the word "creep" to describe the perpetrator?"

I strive in all things to behave with equanimity, so thank you. I’m pleased to know that while suffering the massive injury perpetrated by this act of sacrilegious violence, I have managed – through prayer and great effort – to not descend to a baser version of myself. If you read my post again, you’ll see that the word creep does not upset me. I do suggest that name calling (which I acknowledge as understandable considering what we have suffered in this) is not helpful. But I can see that my point was not entirely clear. Let me try again; the wickedness of his actions do not require embellishment. But likewise, the wickedness of his actions should induce us to pray for him.

"3. If "creep" is your idea of vitriol, are you not wasting your indignation on unworthy subjects, so that you have none left for when it really counts? "

I don’t think I demonstrated indignation. I believe that your question implies that because I can care about this human person I won’t be able to care about other human persons? There are – as yet anyway – no limits on the love I bear for humanity. I pray daily that I never reach such a limit.

"3. If it makes you squeamish to hear something called by its right name, so that you are moved to spend your energy reproaching the person who so called it instead of the person who earned the title, should that not be a cause for concern?"

Creep is not his right name. Sinner, blasphemer, pitiable, wretched, desecrator (one of yours and a good one) this all describe him aptly. Creep is indeed mild compared to much of what is out there describing this poor sinner. I didn’t bother to post at sites besides this. My feels and those of posters at other sites were too far apart to yield constructive dialog. What I read here before posting led me to believe a more fruitful discussion was possible. I don’t consider honest dialog between open hearts a waste of energy.

"4. If we weaken our position by calling someone a creep who desecrates the Sacrament, then how do you cope with the names Jesus called the scribes and the Pharisees… St. John Chrysostom said heretics should be stricken across the face, and made to fear ever publicly ventilating their errors. Now we live in an age when you can't even call a desecrater of the Blessed Sacrament a creep. I guess that's progress."

I don’t know what your question is here. It has never occurred to me to criticize the actions or words of Christ, and I fail to see your point. What is clear to me is that I seem to have become a target for your anger. As I said before, this is very difficult, for all of us. I didn’t mean to offend you, but I think if you try re-reading my original post with a bit more charity for me in your heart, you may find something of value. Something worth talking about.

Anita Moore said...

Anonymous, let me help you with the question you claim not to understand (though, frankly, as it couldn't be clearer, I suspect you understand perfectly well). My point was to refute your claim, which you have now repeated, that name-calling is not "helpful" and "weakens our position." It is irrefutable that the Founder of our Faith Himself called His opponents much harsher names than "creep." Unless you are going to take the position that you are more morally alert than He, this fact would seem to weaken your view.

There is, by the way, a place for anger (witness the enraged Jesus driving the moneychangers out of the Temple), and there are times when equanimity is a symptom rather than a virtue. But as for what is or what is not in my heart, do please resist the temptation to judge.