Harvard To Host Satanic Mass

[4588686]

UPDATE: I just spoke to Priya Dua, PR director for The Satanic Temple and she has confirmed that yes, they have obtained and will use a Consecrated Host during this “re-enactment”. She is hopefully putting me in touch with someone who will answer my questions about how the Host was obtained, what they think they’re doing by using a Consecrated, as opposed to unconsecrated Host, and more.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/theanchoress/2014/05/07/no-comment-from-venue-re-harvard-black-mass/

 

"Earlier this morning, I contacted Priya Dua, a spokesperson for The Satanic Temple, and she confirmed for me that the organization’s May 12 “Re-enactment of a Satanic Black Mass” would involve the use of a Consecrated Host.

Shortly after our conversation, I was put in touch with the perfectly pleasant-soundingLucien Greaves, who appears to be a lead spokesperson for the group. I had meant to ask him how the Host had been obtained, and why such an effort had been made. He seemed unsure that one had been obtained, at all.

During our exchange, Greaves remarked that his group “had never brought up the idea of using a consecrated host” in their public material, and seemed puzzled to be asked about it. “It wouldn’t make a difference. We don’t believe in any supernatural power. Consecrated or unconsecrated, it’s just a cracker.” He and his group are, he said, “Satanist/Atheists” who have never hosted a Black Mass before.

I asked if that were the case, why go out of the way to obtain a Consecrated Host, which — because they are not exactly sold via Amazon — would involve someone presenting falsely at Communion during a Holy Mass. Given the group’s insistence that they are engaging in an intellectual and educational exercise meant, as Greaves put it, “as an expression of personal independence from overwhelming cultural influences”, I asked if obtaining a Consecrated Host through stealth — and using it for an “intellectual” exercise that would constitute grave abuse to believing Catholics — would pose an ethical dilemma for them which could affect their credibility. Greaves wondered whether anyone connected with the group “would waste time going to all that trouble. The odds are almost zero.”

Almost zero.

Not long after our conversation ended, Priya Dua called me again saying that there has been a “miscommunication” between members of the organization and that “there will not be a Consecrated Host used at the Black Mass.” She had no further information for me on how the miscommunication had occurred, and could not tell me what sort of unconsecrated bread would be used, or from where it would be obtained. Speaking anonymously, a spokesman added, “please understand, there is in fact, respect for the beliefs of others, and our intention was not to be in anyone’s face. We did not mean to mislead.”"

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/theanchoress/2014/05/07/satanic-temple-corrects-we-wont-use-consecrated-host/

[4588686]

This is deeply, deeply offensive, and I sincerely hope the university understands this. 

 

 

Why?  

[chrysostom]

Because the Mass is the holiest thing on earth for us and a black mass is a deliberate defilement of it.

[PhuturePriest]

Why?  

 

Would it be offensive if the University found the Ark of the Covenant and held a ritual that smashed it to pieces? It is ten times more offensive to take a religion's God and desecrate it.

Edited May 9, 2014 by FuturePriest387

[4588686]

Would it be offensive if the University found the Ark of the Covenant and held a ritual that smashed it to pieces? It is ten times more offensive to take a religion's God and desecrate it.

 

 

They're not using a consecrated host.  

[Basilisa Marie]

Why?  

 

Because they're celebrating an activity that has the sole purpose of making a mockery of my religion, at worst intentionally committing blasphemy and sacrilege. Would the university allow them to hold a Qu'ran burning as long as they used English copies (since only the Arabic is the "authentic" literal divine word)? Or a mock slave auction, as long as US legal tender never really changed hands? I take first amendment rights seriously, and a university of all places should be the safest for freedom of expression. But that doesn't mean I'm not allowed to be offended. And I hope the university understand how seriously offensive something like this is. 

[KnightofChrist]

"Earlier this morning, I contacted Priya Dua, a spokesperson for The Satanic Temple, and she confirmed for me that the organization’s May 12 “Re-enactment of a Satanic Black Mass” would involve the use of a Consecrated Host.
Shortly after our conversation, I was put in touch with the perfectly pleasant-soundingLucien Greaves, who appears to be a lead spokesperson for the group. I had meant to ask him how the Host had been obtained, and why such an effort had been made. He seemed unsure that one had been obtained, at all.
During our exchange, Greaves remarked that his group “had never brought up the idea of using a consecrated host” in their public material, and seemed puzzled to be asked about it. “It wouldn’t make a difference. We don’t believe in any supernatural power. Consecrated or unconsecrated, it’s just a cracker.” He and his group are, he said, “Satanist/Atheists” who have never hosted a Black Mass before.
I asked if that were the case, why go out of the way to obtain a Consecrated Host, which — because they are not exactly sold via Amazon — would involve someone presenting falsely at Communion during a Holy Mass. Given the group’s insistence that they are engaging in an intellectual and educational exercise meant, as Greaves put it, “as an expression of personal independence from overwhelming cultural influences”, I asked if obtaining a Consecrated Host through stealth — and using it for an “intellectual” exercise that would constitute grave abuse to believing Catholics — would pose an ethical dilemma for them which could affect their credibility. Greaves wondered whether anyone connected with the group “would waste time going to all that trouble. The odds are almost zero.”
Almost zero.
Not long after our conversation ended, Priya Dua called me again saying that there has been a “miscommunication” between members of the organization and that “there will not be a Consecrated Host used at the Black Mass.” She had no further information for me on how the miscommunication had occurred, and could not tell me what sort of unconsecrated bread would be used, or from where it would be obtained. Speaking anonymously, a spokesman added, “please understand, there is in fact, respect for the beliefs of others, and our intention was not to be in anyone’s face. We did not mean to mislead.”"
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/theanchoress/2014/05/07/satanic-temple-corrects-we-wont-use-consecrated-host/

Yes it all sounds rather fishy, I don't know if they lied or are lying now but I do not trust them on this issue.

[4588686]

Because the Mass is the holiest thing on earth for us and a black mass is a deliberate defilement of it.

 

 

Ok.  I find the content of the Mass fairly offensive.  However non-believers make up a tiny percentage of the population so those feelings doesn't have the privileged place in our society that your offense does.  

[4588686]

Yes it all sounds rather fishy, I don't know if they lied or are lying now but I do not trust them on this issue.

 

 

Or maybe there just was actually a miscommunication. 'Consecrated Host' isn't a term that gets thrown around a lot outside of Catholic circles.  

[Basilisa Marie]

They're not using a consecrated host.  

 

The only ones who know that for sure are the ones who obtained the unconsecrated host and are storing it until the Black Mass. How do I know that they aren't just covering themselves? They only way they can convince everyone they aren't using a consecrated host is to not use a host in the first place. Use something else. 

Edited May 9, 2014 by Basilisa Marie

[KnightofChrist]

They're not using a consecrated host.

So they say since they've got their stories straight.

[Basilisa Marie]

Ok.  I find the content of the Mass fairly offensive.  However non-believers make up a tiny percentage of the population so those feelings doesn't have the privileged place in our society that your offense does.  

 

That's nice.  Talk to me when people come up with an elaborate mockery meant to defile your most sacred beliefs.  

 

I'm not sure if there's any equivalent comparison I could make for a non-believer. 

[4588686]

The only ones who know that for sure are the ones who obtained the unconsecrated host and are storing it until the Black Mass. How do I know that they aren't just covering their asses? They only way they can convince everyone they aren't using a consecrated host is to not use a host in the first place. Use something else. 

 

 

Why do they have to convince you?  They don't have to 'cover their asses.'  Using an actual consecrated host would not be illegal.  They said they aren't using one, very definitively.  Why do you get to dictate their expression?  

[Basilisa Marie]

Why do they have to convince you?  They don't have to 'cover their asses.'  Using an actual consecrated host would not be illegal.  They said they aren't using one, very definitively.  Why do you get to dictate their expression?  

 

I'm not dictating their expression.  I'm saying that if they were actually serious about not being disrespectful to anyone's beliefs, they would avoid any doubt by substituting something other than a host, so there would be no confusion on that particular point.  They've got every legal right to perform a black mass.  Just like I've got a legal right to be wildly offended by it. 

[KnightofChrist]

Or maybe there just was actually a miscommunication. 'Consecrated Host' isn't a term that gets thrown around a lot outside of Catholic circles.

Perhaps, perhaps not. Blaming the changing of stories on a miscommunication seems fishy enough for me to doubt them. I suppose you do trust their current word.