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. [Partial rephrase of JP1:] Our feeling of loss if this were to happen would not be due solely to the material or rational worth the notebooks might have; it would be due in large part to the feeling of emotional and intellectual connection through those notebooks.

2a1 These two acts (wafer misuse and Darwin-notebook-theft-and-destruction) are morally equivalent, and everyone agrees that the latter would be heinous, therefore the wafer misuse is similarly heinous.

2a1a The act of destroying or defacing Darwin's original notebooks is actually harmful; misusing a Communion wafer is neither hurtful nor destructive.

2a1a1 Defacing or destroying Darwin's original notebooks would be hurtful and destructive.

2a1a1a Darwin's original notebooks are irreplaceable.

2a1a2 Catholics cannot show how "wafer misuse" is hurtful or destructive.

2a1a2a Individual Communion wafers have no notable worth to anyone.

2a1a2b "Proper" use of a Communion wafer involves destroying it completely by eating it; any other use falls short of destroying it, and is therefore certainly no more destructive or hurtful.

2a1a2c Communion wafers are easily and cheaply replaceable.

2a1b This metaphor is not a good analogy; it compares the abuse of a hand-written, historically-significant artifact with the misuse of a mass-produced artifact, of only circumstantial significance, which is given out for the purpose of being eaten.

2a2 Our feeling of loss if this were to happen would not be due solely to the material or rational worth the notebooks might have; it would be due in large part to the feeling of emotional and intellectual connection through the notebooks.

2a2a Upsetness does not by itself demonstrate the unethicality of an action; if that were the only explanation offered for being upset at the destruction of Darwin's notebooks, then there really wouldn't be sufficient cause to accuse the creationist of anything more than inconsideration or rudeness. As it is, though, there are rational reasons for being upset should this scenario occur.

2a2b The specific emotional feeling described with relation to the notebooks -- a feeling of connectedness -- goes some way towards explaining the upset. No explanation has been offered for why Communion wafers -- mass-produced as they are, and given away for eating as they are -- evoke a similar feeling.

2b Counter-metaphor: 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. Although this scenario still differs in that the copies were not intended to be eaten or destroyed, it certainly would be no crime if someone threw one away after being given one. It would be inconsiderate and possibly wasteful, but no worse than that.

2c Another metaphor: PZ's request for people to obtain blessed communion wafers is just as bad as if he requested someone to "do what it takes" to get a copy of your personal diary or family photographs so he could destroy or deface them.

2c1 This metaphor doesn't work either, because I didn't give anyone those items to eat.

2c1a Giving someone food does not always mean surrendering all right to it. When the waiter brings the check at the end of the meal, you still have an obligation to pay for the meal.

2c1a1 The meal has value, and payment is expected. No payment was expected for the cracker, and its value has not been specified.

2ca1a1a If payment is "expected", and this can be enforced, then surely consumption of the wafer can be "expected" too.

Yes, it can -- but the seriousness of the "crime" is proportional to the value lost. $10 for a meal is worth making a fuss over, especially since it's how the restaurant pays its bills; what is the loss in the case of the wafer?

2d [Partial rephrase of JP1]: We need to be able to feel that things which are solely of emotional significance to us are safe from arbitrary abuse by others. PZ's actions threaten that safety.

2d1 Secular law and interpersonal ethics already protect our personal possessions from arbitrary abuse.

Relevant Quotes

I've had to rephrase some of what JP said in order to clarify it and fit it into the framework. For reference, here are some of the relevant bits I may have misinterpreted. --Woozle 17:06, 20 July 2008 (EDT)

• JP1: ...when I saw some of Darwin's notebooks at the American Museum of Natural History a few years back, I nonetheless felt a deep emotional and intellectual connection to the man and his work that was not diminished by the fact that I was fully aware the feeling was arational. Think of all the things we value in our lives far beyond any rational worth they have -- a wedding ring, a deceased parent's picture, an old book. We are a symbol-creating species and, if we have any such thing called "rights," we have as much entitlement to be reasonably secure in our symbols as we have to be secure in our other metaphorical "possessions," such as our "dignity" and our "honor."