2008 sacred wafer scandal/John Pieret vs. Woozle

Introduction

This is an attempt to map out the territory covered in a long discussion between science blogger John Pieret and Issuepedia editorial despot Woozle in the comments section of the En Tequila Es Verdad blog, where blog author Dana Hunter fired the opening response to Pieret's opening shot (on his blog) in her post.

Ultimately, it should be adapted into a generalized breakdown of the issues surrounding the wafer scandal, but that should go on a separate page; this page is mainly to represent the JP-Woozle debate for reference purposes, though it may bring in points made elsewhere by either of them in order to clarify their positions.

The Debate

Agreement

These are points on which there was agreement:

• The issuance of death threats by supporters of the Catholic church is insane and anyone who made one is "a demented fuckwit and a criminal" (JP's words; Woozle prefers to stick to "guilty of a criminal offense", but wouldn't say no to "demented fuckwit" if pressed).
• The church has the right to dispose of its property with whatever conditions it chooses.

Disagreement

PZ's request is not ethically justifiable.

1 "The arational nature of the symbolism that Catholics attribute to the eucharist does not mean that others should be able to violate those symbols with impunity." In other words, PZ's request is a violation of the rules of larger society, not just religious rules.

1a Specifically, it is wrong with respect to secular law; it is receipt of stolen goods, which is technically theft.

1a1 Eucharists are personal property belonging to the church and it is the church's right to dispose of them with whatever conditions it chooses. The wafers are given out for the specific purpose of consumption in the Communion ceremony; using one in any other way after having been given it in this context is a violation of that agreement, and is therefore illegal.

1a1a Eucharists are personal property belonging to the church.

1a1a1 They are the church's personal property until they are given away, as happens in the Communion ceremony.

1a1a1a It is understood that each wafer is given out specifically with the intent that it be consumed immediately.

1a1b Agreed: The church has the right to dispose of its property with whatever conditions it chooses.

1a1c Agreed: The wafers are given out for the purpose of being eaten as part of the Communion ceremony.

1a1d Accepting a wafer as part of Communion and then doing something other than eating it is a violation of an implicit agreement and is therefore illegal.

1a1d1 Violation of an implicit agreement may be rude or immoral, but not illegal.

2 Catholic outrage regarding PZ's request is completely understandable (as long as it is strictly verbal and not threatening his safety).

2a Metaphor: Supporters of science and evolution* would feel comparably distraught if a well-known creationist issued a request to his followers to get hold of a copy of Darwin's original notebooks, by whatever means, so that the creationist could deface or destroy them. *we'll call them Darwinists for short, without intending the anti-scientific sentiment often implicit in that term.

2a1 Darwinists can show how this action would be hurtful and destructive; upset Catholics can't show how "wafer misuse" is hurtful or destructive, since the cracker was going to be destroyed anyway. Upsetness does not by itself demonstrate the unethicality of an action; there needs to be a reason for it.

2a1a Counter-metaphor: This metaphor is not a good analogy.

2A A much fairer comparison would be if creationists were to purchase a copy pose as scientists and somehow obtain mass-produced copies of the manuscripts being given out as a gift at some event.