What’s Wrong with the World

The point of desecrating the host isn’t to make people angry--it’s to demystify and desanctify nonsense. It’s how we wake people up--by showing that their beliefs are powerless.

To be fair, one cannot simply equate this matter as being Christianity v. Atheism (as if to make this incident seem a parallel between Elijah (Christianity) vs. the Pagan Priests (Atheism)).

That is, this very incident is not unlike those incidents in Christian history wherein Protestants themselves had likewise challenged Catholics on this very matter concerning The Real Presence wherein certain of the former (in particular, those of the Calvinist tradition) had poisoned Communion and challenged Catholics at the time to partake of it: if the Communion had truly been transformed into the Body and Blood of Christ (so they claimed), Catholics would suffer no harm as a consequence of Transubstantiation.

However, they failed to realize that their challenge was not testing Catholics but actually Our Lord Himself (and not only testing Him but, even worse, blaspheming Him).

1 Cor 10:16: The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?

To be clear, Prof. Meyers himself did not post that on Rod Dreher's blog at all; it was a comment he made on another atheist's blog about a week ago that was then quoted at Rod's by someone else.

I have no sympathy whatever for Prof. Meyers' position, naturally, but it would be wrong to suggest that he's done anything to Rod Dreher's comment thread, much less "befouled" it.

The problem with trying to test the belief by blaspheming the Eucharist is that you may not find out the result until you die - and then it's a bit of a stinker if you were on the wrong side of the test.

Is PZ insulting Christianity here or just Catholics? I stumbled onto this blog through a friend of mine, so I'm new and don't know which denominations or positions are represented here, but as a Protestant I'd just like to point out that the cracker is not at all Christ's body (and the wine/juice ain't really His blood either). I realize that's a different argument, but it makes me question what PZ is really arguing about.

On one hand, I see it as him arguing against the cracker turning to flesh, and on the other hand...well, I don't know. But there seems to be two different thoughts at work here, both of them quite ignorant.

Communion is a symbol of the church waiting for Christ's return, a way of bonding us together in remembrance. But it's also viewed as us physically taking Christ's body, Transubstantiation.

Which is he arguing about? Or is he just arguing to argue? At which point, why bother responding.

Stuart, the notion that belief in Transubstantiation is "ignorant" is an insulting and, come to think of it, ignorant remark. (Men much more well-read and brilliant than yourself have believed it, and not out of ignorance.) Not surprising, then, that you seem to have missed the entire point of Maximos' post, which is that Meyers is not "arguing" at all.

Yes, lots of Catholics read this blog and are represented here among its authors, as are Orthodox and Protestants as well. Your snotty and dismissive tone re: the Eucharist is hardly welcome, though not everyone here agrees on that doctrine in particular.

I don't _think_ he meant that belief in transubstantiation is ignorant but that whatever Myers is doing, Myers seems ignorant. But I might be getting him wrong.

In any event, it's my opinion that even an memorialist would, or should, think twice about desecrating the communion wafer. They don't, in fact, do so (nowadays--I hadn't known about the older cases Aristocles cited). I have an old post called "Are there any mere symbols?" that I think may be relevant here:

http://whatswrongwrongwiththeworld.net/2007/11/are_there_any_mere_symbols.html

The application here is that even someone who believed that the communion wafer is "just" a symbol will usually treat that symbol respectfully rather than deliberately treating it disrespectfully, and that precisely because it _is_ a symbol of something he believes to be very important. Rather like your mother used to tell you, "No running and screaming in church."

Myers has a problem with Christianity generally and is trying to "diss" it. He's just choosing Catholicism as the biggest object around to take a pot-shot at, perhaps hoping that Protestants will feel some sort of weird support for his attack without realizing that it's directed at them as well. (David Hume does something oddly similar, in a rhetorical sense, when he begins his attack on the very possibility of establishing miracles by testimony--miracles that all Christians believe in--with sly remarks about transubstantiation.) Does anyone think Myers would be any kinder to, say, a cross or a picture of Jesus Christ? So all Christians should have a problem with him, because believe me, he hates all of us. I don't use the word lightly.

Myers' tack is quite funny. It reminds me of the people who prove God doesn't exist by asking God to strike them with lightning and when he doesn't, there's the proof God is a delusion.

I wonder if after Myers' desecration, anything bad should happen to him like cancer, a terrible car accident, whatever, if someone saying - "see, that's what you get for messin' with Jesus" would have any effect?

After all, if you play the "this is just a superstition" game. When reality bites you in the butt, are you allowed to claim it couldn't have been payback from God?

I always hope fools will turn from their folly, but in fact, almost none do so I look forward to watching Myers wailing and gnashing his teeth from my more pleasant perch.

Stuart,
As a fellow Protestant (Baptist), let me encourage you to consider more the meaning of the Lord's Supper. Even from a purely symbolic interpretation, you must still believe that Christ is truly present with you in the act of taking the Lord's Supper.

The best way that Jesus could display the meaning of the atonement was through breathing new meaning into the story of the Passover meal. Once they saw his blood shed on the cross and experienced the resurrection, the meal had new meaning. The words that he said had to be interpreted in a new light. The "blood of the covenant" had now actually come about. The "body broken for you" had truly been broken for them.

Therefore, even from a purely symbolic and Protestant interpretation, the act of P.Z. Myers brings insult to the action of our Lord in instituting the meal. It brings insult to the church for participating in the meal, and it brings insult to the atonement of our Lord by mocking the clearest way that the church remembers it.

Random observations and responses:

To be fair, one cannot simply equate this matter as being Christianity v. Atheism (as if to make this incident seem a parallel between Elijah (Christianity) vs. the Pagan Priests (Atheism)).

Yes and no. The more direct parallel, is, of course, with past Protestant provocations and sacrileges. However, my broader point is that when Protestants have comported themselves is such a manner, and when they do so comport themselves now - for I have heard many a low-church Baptist inveigh against the "superstitious sacramentalism" of Catholics and Orthodox in terms almost identical to those of Myers - they have been behaving like primitive pagans. Primitive pagans, not even the noble and enlightened ones of Greek history, whose works and philosophies some Protestants accuse Catholics and Orthodox of cribbing, thereby adulterating the Faith with "vain philosophy", and not even like, you know, sensible Protestants, as Lydia and others have observed. They - Myers and some crude Protestants - actually believe that getting away with sacrilege disproves the thing profaned. It is as fully preposterous as the belief that cargo planes are benevolent divinities who can be enticed to bestow upon us material bounties by the construction of crude airstrips.

Forgotten in all of this controversy is the fact that God does condition his interactions with mankind, or portions of mankind, in accordance with our, or their, level of spiritual awareness. Tangible signs correspond to a less-completely-differentiated level of religious consciousness.

To be clear, Prof. Meyers himself did not post that on Rod Dreher's blog at all; it was a comment he made on another atheist's blog about a week ago that was then quoted at Rod's by someone else.

Duly noted. Nonetheless, such ignorant sentiments as those expressed by Myers defile the forums in which they are aired; ignorance befouls its auditors, which is why it is rightly regarded as a reproach.

I wonder if after Myers' desecration, anything bad should happen to him like cancer, a terrible car accident, whatever, if someone saying - "see, that's what you get for messin' with Jesus" would have any effect?

No, that would merely be additional evidence that God does not exist, for, after all, what God could permit such things as cancer and car accidents to transpire? Whatever does not happen disproves God, and whatever happens does as well. God cannot exist. QED.

Men much more well-read and brilliant than yourself have believed it, and not out of ignorance.) Not surprising, then, that you seem to have missed the entire point of Maximos' post, which is that Meyers is not "arguing" at all.

Wait, is that an argument? Just curious.

Lydia,
Take a deep breath. Myers doesn't hate all of you. I can't see the two of you have a picnic anytime soon, but you're really making baseless claims about his psychology and character and really should know better.

Someone recommended on my blog (in response to my own post on this subject: http://exploringourmatrix.blogspot.com/2008/07/let-jesus-contend-with-p-z-myers.html ) that I visit here. Glad I did!

I think the biggest issue is that so many Christians fail to understand the significance of being followers of one who was mocked, beaten and killed, and did not fight back...

PZ Myers is correct in what he's doing. He's taking a stand for free speech and freedom of religion. If everyone must treat a cracker the way Catholics do, then we are living in a theocracy. If we live in a place where it is acceptable to kill a man over a divine (to one religion) food item, we are in a theocracy. Fortunately, we aren't. Our government is secular. Myers can do what he wants with items that he legally obtains whether another group believes that item to be divine or not.

If you are not one of the crazy Catholics who are calling for him to be killed, then his statement isn't about you. People threatened his life for what is, in all religions (and nonbelief) but Catholicism, simply a cracker. This is about those fringe Catholics shoving their beliefs down other people's throats.

As an atheist, I disagree with Catholic beliefs, but it is my understanding that most of you are not mindless maniacs. Not everyone is the lunatic fringe (which exists in ALL groups, AFAIK). I understand that you may feel offended, but you shouldn't.

You should support Myers in his statement or you are enabling the crazies. Your passiveness, your focus on the fact that he's being offensive rather than on the fact that people -- within your group -- are threatening to -kill- him, is something you should consider. If you encourage him in this act, despite it being contrary to your beliefs, in the name of freedom of speech and religion, that would be far more open minded and less self centered.

Myers has posted emails on his blog, as you know, of people who threatened his life. One got a woman fired, as you know, but the other, last I checked, was still there. Why haven't you contacted this person and told him or her that threatening the life of someone isn't the Catholic way? Perhaps it would be a fruitless endeavor, but I doubt it would be more fruitless than writing (out of anger?) about Myers.

Where were you when those Danish cartoons were published? Did you believe that they shouldn't be published, or that freedom should be encouraged? I ask because most Catholics (like Andrew Sullivan) supported free speech in this case, but when it was their religion on the recieving end, they changed their tune (again, like Andrew Sullivan). Since you seem to be familiar with Myers's blog, I would guess you're familiar with this observation.

I'd like to point, one last time, that atheists don't think all religious people are dangerously nuts. We think most religious people are merely wrong, but they provide cover for those who -are- on the nutty side. And, it's clear to see, that's what's happening here.

"Myers can do what he wants with items that he legally obtains whether another group believes that item to be divine or not."

The Eucharist would have to be stolen for Myers to be in possession of the Host. Theft is against the law. But, just curious, what are the rights of those who hold the Host to be Divinity Himself in this matter?

"I understand that you may feel offended, but you shouldn't."

Explain why you think we should be offended? Let's see how familiar you are with the opposing viewpoint.

"As an atheist, I disagree with Catholic beliefs, but it is my understanding that most of you are not mindless maniacs."

Gee, thanks. Do you now expect a compliment in return?

"Did you believe that they shouldn't be published, or that freedom should be encouraged?"

I thought the cartoons emblematic of a desacralized culture unable to engage in mature dialogue, but quite adept at vulgar mindlessness. You?

"...ask because most Catholics (like Andrew Sullivan) supported free speech in this case, but when it was their religion on the receiving end,..."

If he completes his threat, he has performed an act and not merely engaged in hate-filled speech.
Yet, do you think it is out of cowardice, or conviction that he is not desecrating the Koran?

Look forward to your response.

Um, Kami - I think you're being mislead by the commenters on other websites. Catholics do not hold that crackers are sacred. We do not insist that "everyone treat a cracker the way Catholics do." Go buy a box of Ritz and have fun.

However, in our own ceremonies, on our own property, a priest consecrates bread and gives it to certain people - Catholics without great sin on their soul. We call this a sacrament: a sign that effects what it signifies. The bread signifies Christ, and so is Christ's body. As long as it retains the appearance of bread, it is Christ. (Sorry, very brief explanation, and I hope I haven't messed it up.)

"Freedom of speech" doesn't cover what Myers wants to do. Your own argument - that we should support Myers' desecration of a host in order to oppose WWwtW members who have threatened to kill him? - smacks of, well, incongruent ideas.

In reply to Kevin...

"The Eucharist would have to be stolen for Myers to be in possession of the Host."

This isn't strictly true.

First, harmless deception isn't a crime. If it were, our prisons would be overflowing. One could, without disrupting a church, receive communion and create the illusion of taking it convincingly. I suspect this has been done plenty of times before by accident and intention. It breaks tradition, sure. I'd ask you to please explain, in (dare I say) secular terms, how this harms anyone/is taking something not given to you.

Second, consecrated wafers are available on the internet. Apparently they are even available in large numbers for less money, which is why they do this.

Another suggestion is that one could find a deconverted minister to do the consecration.

Considering the ease of the second and third options, I do not think people will be attending church simply to get a wafer.

"But, just curious, what are the rights of those who hold the Host to be Divinity Himself in this matter?"

The exact same rights as everyone else. I do not have the right to forcibly make you believe the Eucharist to be just a cracker, nor stop you from harmless practices involving it. At the same time, you cannot do the converse. Why should one have to obey rules of a religion that are not his?

"Explain why you think we should be offended? Let's see how familiar you are with the opposing viewpoint."

I said I thought you should -not- be offended. Perhaps you typo'd... whatever the case, I have never studied Catholicism. I grew up Protestant. What I've gathered since hearing about the hubbub Cook has started though, is that, simply put, wafer = body of Jesus and wine = blood of Jesus, in the literal sense. This is why I say I can understand why this is alarming to Catholics.

"I thought the cartoons emblematic of a desacralized culture unable to engage in mature dialogue, but quite adept at vulgar mindlessness. You?"

What you thought of them is irrelevant -- the point is whether they should be published or not, legally speaking. Should the people responsible for them have been fired or jailed for mocking a religion? Or are they free to do that?

"If he completes his threat, he has performed an act and not merely engaged in hate-filled speech."

It sounds like a Catholic somewhere would try to press charges by that statement. In a court room, a consecrated wafer is still a wafer. Unless PZ Myers gets his wafer by burglary or theft, nothing will likely be done legally.

"Yet, do you think it is out of cowardice, or conviction that he is not desecrating the Koran?"

I direct you to the following link: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/07/desecration_its_a_fun_hobby.php

To my knowledge, he never -did- it, but neither did he have special reason to. It seems the Islamic world doesn't know his blog exists, or, at least, they had better things to fume about at the time. Disrespecting an object to send a message is the point -- "I can get away with this, as I should. You can't stop me, and that's the way it should be." -- but when there is no audience to receive it, it's pointless.

--

In reply to Catherine Nolan...

"'Freedom of speech' doesn't cover what Myers wants to do."

Assuming he gets the consecrated crackers in a legal way, how have you come to this conclusion?

Kami,
Thanks for sending us more thoughts from Myers;
"...overwrought sanctimony must be met with disrespectful insolence. So I'm thinking of picking up a cheap copy of the Qu'ran. And I'm thinking … what to do, what to do. It will, of course, be something in the privacy of my home, with my very own copy — none of this public vandalism and veiled threats to people who believe."

A certain type of trousered ape might see Myers as a cutting-edge iconoclast, bravely threatening to "simply urinate" on an object others hold sacred. Yet, more swaggering nihilists might see his middle-aged prudence ("none of this public vandalism and veiled threats")as rank cowardice. Let's do our best to garner some visibility for Myers in front of the Islamic world, agreed? As you say, without a real audience his whole act is "pointless" and this becomes a desperate bid for affirmation by a resentful burn-out.

You are clearly smitten by Myers, but at some point you will have to leave campus. Playing acolyte to a paunchy, past his prime George Carlin imitator whose claim to fame is his "disrespectful insolence", is unbecoming in a man. When you do enter manhood, may you find someone who can instill a sense of the sacred and reverence within you.

Let the empty life Myers is leading, serve as a cautionary tale.

And let's recall, too, that you can _buy_ copies of the Koran, but you can't just, y'know, order consecrated Hosts on the Internet or pick one up at your local religious curio shop. The whole libertarian idea of "doing what you want with your private property" is rather insufficient to cover an object that one can obtain for the purpose of desecrating it only under false pretenses, by going into a religious house and pretending that one is going to consume it there and then, then pocketing it--taking it under circumstances where the people who had it before would not give it to you if you weren't engaging in fraud.

First, harmless deception isn't a crime.

First, we would have to agree it is harmless. We do not agree on that. Deceptively taking the last photograph of your deceased spouse and desecrating it would hardly count as harmless to most sane people. To you, the photograph may be nothing more than chemicals on a piece of paper. To the person you took it from, it has far more significance which normal people recognize.

Likewise, it matters not whether you believe the Eucharist to be what it is, but what the person(s) you take it from or intend to offend believe it to be. That's why extortionists usually take something of value to the person from whom they seek to extort, regardless of whether it has any intrinsic value to anyone else (extortion doesn't work as well if your target doesn't care about what you take).

Imagine if someone were to take the original Constitution and threaten to burn it (or the real Mona Lisa, or whatever). Its just paper and ink, right?

how this ... is taking something not given to you.

Because it is being taken under false pretenses - if I told you that I would investment your money for you and you willingly gave me your money, which I immediately put in a Swiss account for my own benefit as I made off to Brasil, are you saying there is no crime committed and that I haven't done anything wrong? (if so, I have a great investment for you...).

The Eucharist is given to the recipient with the understanding that (1) he is in a proper moral and sacramental state to receive it, and (2) it will be consumed by the recipient as nourishment for his soul - not to be used in some wacko defiling scheme.

I think a good analogy is a situation where some publication is given out for free to be read, and those who dislike what is in the publication take it in armloads and publically burn it so no one else can read it. The free distribution of the publication is understood by all parties to be for the purposes of its being read or at least potentially read, not destroyed in bulk. That is why it was stated that liberal groups who took entire print runs of free conservative student newspapers on college campuses and publically burned them in barrels (this really happened) were stealing the print runs.

That should be "invest" your money (and if you still agree its not wrong, the "investment" is still available through my Nigerian contact).

PZ Myers is correct in what he's doing. He's taking a stand for free speech and freedom of religion.

He's taking a stand for free speech and freedom of religion????

Are you really serious about this statement????

If that's so, it's no wonder why he's ATTACKING the Catholic's right to FREEDOM OF RELIGION!

It reminds me of those fanatics who claimed they were standing for FREEDOM OF RELIGION, yet were protesting against the Pope's visit to the United States!

It seems that everybody else has a right to practice their religion all except Catholics!

And, by the by, Catholics are not the only ones who believe in The Real Presence (going back to the early church) -- countless other Christians do as well!

Heck, Fr. Martin Luther himself believed in such and even opposed Calvin on account of it! The only difference is that his beliefs were more along the lines of Consubstantiation.

If you are not one of the crazy Catholics who are calling for him to be killed...

And just who are these 'cracy Catholics' who you claim are calling for him to be killed???

I challenge him to produce evidence of such!

I highly doubt the very veracity of this and I wouldn't be so surprised if it were but a prevarication on his part!

Lydia, the term Kami used was "harmless deception" in place of theft or fraudulent procurement. Which suggests he might not be ready for taking his exams in an unsupervised setting.

He says on one hand; "Disrespecting an object to send a message is the point." Yet contradictorily maintains we "shouldn't be offended." I think Myers is sweating a little and his disciples are trying a bunch of incoherent dodges to make the whole thing go away.

But, wait until CAIR and other Moslem groups weigh in on his private sessions with the Koran. I hope Myers doesn't lose his head and disappoint his camp followers. And let's see if there is a double-standard in University of Minnesota response to the Islamic grievances.

While I can agree that Myers is being rude and hurting people’s feelings by threatening to harm something other people care about (for whatever reason), and I think he’s wrong to do so, I don’t think the arguments here about theft are accurate either.

Once someone hands you something, especially to put it into your mouth with the purpose of essentially destroying it, they’ve pretty much given up all claims to ownership. And since no particular contract agreement or loyalty oath was made at any point, no agreement has been broken either. Certainly the church can bar people who behave like jerks in such a fashion, and harshly criticize them. They could proactively even create some form of contract. But especially if we’re talking single incidents like Cook, I don’t think it’s accurate to speak of either theft or infringing on anyone’s religious freedoms. People are free to be jerks, and other people are free to kick people out of their services for acting like jerks. No legal restrictions or even continued disruptive harassment is present.

Apropos of nothing, this controversy is especially odd in that, here “desecrating” something means someone NOT sliming it with corrosive bodily fluids, destroying it via acid, and then digesting it.

Bad:

There is such contract made in the form of oral agreement wherein in order for a communicant to even acquire a Communion host from ecclesial authorities, one must respond "amen".

Thus, it is not so totally unreasonable to consider theft in this regard since should unauthorized individuals were to obtain it under false pretenses, I dare say that there would have occurred in such an instance an act of fraud.

Apropos of nothing, this controversy is especially odd in that, here “desecrating” something means someone NOT sliming it with corrosive bodily fluids, destroying it via acid, and then digesting it.

1. Does this mean that should a person take candies from a candy store without having paid for it, since the end result would ultimately be the culprit subjecting it to the digestive operations within his person; it is an act that should by and large be considered acceptable and not even criminal?

2. Would you consider it “desecrating” if a person were to paint a swastika on the wall of a Temple?

Clue: find out first what “desecrating” means in this context prior to even asserting it as simply "someone NOT sliming it with corrosive bodily fluids, destroying it via acid, and then digesting it."

Lydia:

"[Y]ou can _buy_ copies of the Koran, but you can't just, y'know, order consecrated Hosts on the Internet"

As a matter of fact you can buy them on the internet. You can buy them in bulk, more for less. There are probably churches that do it.

-

Kevin:

"Lydia, the term Kami used was 'harmless deception' in place of theft or fraudulent procurement."

It isn't theft. Being given something isn't stealing.

"I think Myers is sweating a little and his disciples are trying a bunch of incoherent dodges to make the whole thing go away."

The only thing Myers has to worry about are the psychos. I do find it odd that you would root for that sort of person, but I can tell you seem to hope some harm comes to Myers for destroying a cracker. But most of the loudmouths, on the other hand, calling for him to be fired and whatnot are a joke. Republican blowhards like Donohue are just amusing. Myers won't be fired for calling a cracker a cracker. Seems obvious to me, but to someone raised to believe a wafer is the dead body of a god's son, I suppose it isn't.

-

c matt:

"Deceptively taking the last photograph of your deceased spouse and desecrating it would hardly count as harmless to most sane people. To you, the photograph may be nothing more than chemicals on a piece of paper. To the person you took it from, it has far more significance which normal people recognize."

Your analogy, like most analogies I've seen so far, is very very different from the actual situation. A photograph like the one you mention is irreplaceable, while wafers are mass produced and indistinguishable from one another. Imagine if this photograph you're talking about was in every supermarket. Now imagine someone else bought one, and he decided to burn it. At most, this should get a "whoop-de-do" from those "sane people" you mention.

The other analogies I've read here are just as odd. I won't bother unless by request.

-

Aristocles:

"It seems that everybody else has a right to practice their religion all except Catholics!"

Nobody has done anything to stop Catholics from practicing their religion. One person borrowed a wafer from them, and then he returned it. One other person has said he would desecrate a wafer. Neither actions prevent Catholics from going about their merry way or even receiving communion themselves.

Kami is so culturally uninformed that he or she (I can't tell) really doesn't know the difference between consecrated and unconsecrated communion wafers. He thinks churches probably buy consecrated communion wafers on the Internet in bulk. How do you talk with someone that clueless? Is there any point in trying education, even just about what Catholics (and some Anglicans, too) actually _do_ and _believe_ in their churches? Nah, probably not.

Kami,
"...but I can tell you seem to hope some harm comes to Myers for destroying a cracker."

I have no intention of forwarding your link to CAIR, and neither does Myers. My motive is mercy. His is cowardice.

The reason he's nervous is that his shock jock act doesn't fare too well on a bigger stage. His target audience is made up of insolent, irreverent, culturally ignorant and socially estranged loners like you. This time he ventured outside his comfort zone and knows he's in over his head. He's looks around at the caliber of his defenders and feels both embarrassed and isolated.

Guys like you will grow-up and move on. He's stuck playing the role of village atheist and class cut-up at a time when men his age have better things to achieve.

Has anyone noted that sending death threats would be a grave sin according to catholic moral teachings?

Have any Cahtolics sent any death threats? If Myers really wanted to flirt with danger he could make sure his warped screed on the Koran gained visibility.

Nobody has done anything to stop Catholics from practicing their religion.

So are you saying then that I can freely paint swastikas on the walls of Jewish Temples?

After all, I'm not stopping them from practicing their religion as well by such an act.

The deed is done:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/07/priorities_1.php

Evil triumphs hands down.

1 Cor 11:26-29
26 For as often as you shall eat this bread and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come.
27 Therefore, whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord.
28 But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread and drink of the chalice.
29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord.

Nobody has done anything to stop Catholics from practicing their religion. One person borrowed a wafer from them, and then he returned it. One other person has said he would desecrate a wafer. Neither actions prevent Catholics from going about their merry way or even receiving communion themselves.