Oklahoma archbishop brings suit to stop Black Mass [CWN]

  • Thread starter Thread starter CWN_News
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
This may sound like a little thing, but between now and the date this is scheduled, what if people were to sprinkle Holy Water around that building and grounds? Can’t hurt, might help. I know Holy Water isn’t magic, but still. Wouldn’t it be amazing if somehow the perpetrators of this atrocity got there and found that they just couldn’t enter the area, and couldn’t figure out why?
 
The man holding the black mass already said he received the consecrated host in the mail from another person. No one can have a consecrated host. It must be consumed on the spot when receiving it. It is stolen property and the black mass should not go on with stolen property in it’s possession.

The police have the right to take stolen property back from those who steal it. Arrest the person who has it on the spot.
 
The man holding the black mass already said he received the consecrated host in the mail from another person. No one can have a consecrated host. It must be consumed on the spot when receiving it. It is stolen property and the black mass should not go on with stolen property in it’s possession.

The police have the right to take stolen property back from those who steal it. Arrest the person who has it on the spot.
Problem is, the police dont see it that way, they only see it as a tiny piece of bread…and they are not going to file charges, investigate, etc over something like that.
 
I think it’s also important to note that the black mass has been held at this venue every year for four years. What caused the outcry this time is that tickets were sold online.
do you have a link to this? I have never heard about it and I have been living in OKC for 20 years
 
I wonder how hard it would be to run up and consume the host. Considering how much groups like Femen get away with, I would be very surprised if there were legal repercussions. I can’t imagine there would be a particularly large crowd. If one person made a distraction and the other, quickly consumed the host, wouldn’t solve a lot problems?

I guess it’s easy for me to say that while I’m in no position to actually do that. I’m just surprised no one seems to be planning to do it.
They have sold 40 tix allegedly. And from looking at their facebook page, there are some folks that are needing some serious help in their lives. I have started sending kind messages to them. Most don’t reply. SOme do and are civil. Some do and are hateful.
 
I hope the Eucharist is returned to the safety of the Church.

But what is the rationale/philosophy/canon law for the Eucharist being the Church’s property? Not doubting that the Church is the custodian of the Body of Christ and the only proper place for it, but in a civil and legal sphere…property?
 
I think the Archdiocese will have serious standing problems with this suit. My understanding is that the Satanists claim that the Eucharist they have was consecrated by a renegade priest in another country and mailed to them so they could use it for this purpose. If that is true, it creates at least two serious problems for the suit.

First, the Eucharist would not be the property of the Archdiocese, even if it may be the property of the diocese in which it was consecrated. The Church has fought very hard to establish that the Church is not a monolithic legal entity (mostly to avoid sharing liability in abuse suits). The Church will not want to (and probably cannot) undo all of that legal work in this suit.

Second, if the host was consecrated by a renegade priest for this purpose, I think that would seriously undermine their property law theory (even setting aside the standing issue).

As a religious matter, if they are telling the truth about the renegade priest, doesn’t that call into question whether the consecration was valid - in other words, whether it is really the Eucharist?
 
UPDATE 21 Aug afternoon:

I received an email that the consecrated Host has been delivered up to Archbp. Coakley.

I hope there was only one and that this event is being shut down by prayers and public sensibility.

_______ ORIGINALAug 21, 2014 @ 9:37_____

I read at the National Catholic Register that His Excellency Most Reverend Paul Coakley, Archbishop of Oklahoma City has brough a suit against the people who would perpetrate a public Satanic event, a black mass.

OKLAHOMA CITY — Attorneys for the Archdiocese of Oklahoma City filed a lawsuit at noon today [20 Aug] to stop the satanic black mass that organizers are planning to stage next month in the Oklahoma City Civic Center Music Hall.

The lawsuit asks the Oklahoma County Sheriff‘s Office to retrieve the consecrated host that the event‘s organizers claim to have, and return it to Oklahoma City Archbishop Paul Coakley. The lawsuit also argues that the consecrated host was obtained under fraudulent circumstances, and thus it must be returned to the archdiocese.

“Our contention is that they are in possession of stolen property,” Archbishop Coakley told the Register. “They cannot complete their satanic ritual without a consecrated host, and they have no means of acquiring one except through theft. We are asking the court to order them to return it immediately to me.”

Archbishop Coakley added that the archdiocese, in consulting with the attorneys who filed the lawsuit, formulated a sound argument rooted in canon and civil law.

“We are trusting the court will recognize that and act accordingly,” the archbishop said. “We hope this is a way that we can** prevent the desecration of the Eucharist** from taking place by removing from their possession what they have obtained illegally, that is the consecrated host.”

Michael Caspino, **** one of two attorneys who filed the lawsuit on behalf of the archdiocese in Oklahoma District Court said the legal argument for the case is simple: “A consecrated Eucharist belongs to the Church.”

Caspino, the CEO and partner at the Busch & Caspino law firm in Irvine, Calif., told the Register that the Church has exercised “dominion and control” over the Eucharist for more than 2,000 years. The lawsuit provides information on Church processes set up to safeguard the consecrated host.

The Satanists procured the consecrated host by illicit means, theft or fraud,” Caspino said. “We are simply asking the court to return the stolen property to its rightful owner, the Roman Catholic Church.”

Named as defendants are Adam Daniels, an Oklahoma County resident, and Dakhma of Angra Mainyu, a group that has rented the Oklahoma City Civic Center’s 88-seat City Theater*to stage the black masson Sept. 21. Daniels, a member of Dakhma of Angra Mainyu,has told various media outlets*that a friend mailed him the consecrated host, and that it will be desecrated, “stomped on” and destroyed during the satanic ritual.

Daniels, who has been involved in organizing public Satanist events in Oklahoma City since 2010, is a*registered sex offender.

Contacted by the Register, Daniels struck a defiant tone. He called the lawsuit “frivolous” and said it was meant to intimidate him from holding the black mass. He said the archdiocese’s efforts will backfire.

“It will not work. We are not cancelling. We are moving forward,” said Daniels, who also threatened to “sue everybody I can sue” for defamation of character. He added that the courthas14 days to serve him with the lawsuit.

“They have two weeks to serve me, if they can find me,” Daniels said.

…]

The Legal Argument

The legal argument in today’s lawsuit partly frames the consecrated host issue as a matter of** property rights**. It essentially argues that the Catholic Church, through its sacramental theology and code of canon law, sets the conditions for how the Eucharist is consecrated, distributed to the faithful and reposed. Anyone who deliberately obtains a consecrated host under illicit circumstances, either through sneaking it through the communion line or outright stealing it, violates the Church’s legal right to regulate its internal life.

“The Church is asking for the protection of its most basic right, namely not to have its sacraments used inappropriately. In civil law, Archbishop Coakley is acting as a responsible steward of the Eucharist. The Church enjoys the same protection of civil law that any other entity would enjoy,” said J.D. Flynn, a canon lawyer based in Lincoln, Neb.

Flynn told the Register that canon law spells out what is appropriate and inappropriate reception of the Eucharist. Anyone who discards a consecrated host, or retains it for a sacrilegious purpose, incurs an automatic excommunication that can only be redressed by the Holy See.

“If anyone obtains the host for sacrilegious purpose, they are violating the tenets by which the Eucharist is governed in the context of our Church,” Flynn said. “And the right of free exercise of religion allows us to administer the Eucharist in the context of the governing documents of our Church.”

The five-page lawsuit, as well as an accompanying declaration written by Dominican Father Joseph Fox, an expert in canon law, explain the theology behind the Eucharist and the various disciplines the Church has developed over its 2,000-year history to ensure the integrity and protection of consecrated hosts.

For example, the documents say that only a validly ordained priest can consecrate the Eucharist, and that ministers of Holy Communion need permission to take consecrated hosts outside a church building for specific pastoral purposes.

Father Fox writes that the Catholic Church “maintains ownership of all consecrated hosts throughout the world,” and that to Catholics, the consecrated host, making the person of Jesus Christ himself physically present, “is the most sacred, respected and revered thing in the world.”

The defendants, the lawsuit adds, “do not have consent or authorization” from Archbishop Coakley — who is tasked to safeguard the Church‘s property — to possess a consecrated host outside the church. The lawsuit is seeking a court order that the defendants not consume, damage or profane the consecrated host, if they indeed possess one.

…]

Read the rest there.

I hope that this lawsuit produces some positive results.

The legal approach, the argument that the Church is the owner of the Eucharist, which is property, is interesting. *You might recall that a while back I commented favorably about something written by *Fishwrap’s**Phyllis Zagano (HERE), who had said that what these loons were planning was “vandalism of religious property“. *At the time I expressed reservation about that approach. *This lawsuit in OK turns on it.

Finally, from the NCReg article

Archbishop Coakley has previously asked that the Prayer to St. Michael the Archangel be said at the end of every Mass, beginning on the Feast of the Transfiguration of the Lord on Aug. 6 and continuing through the Feast of the Archangels on Sept. 29. ****** The archbishop has also requested that individual Catholics and parishes make Eucharistic holy hours “to avert this sacrilege and publicly manifest our faith in the Lord and our loving gratitude for the gift of the Holy Eucharist, the source and summit of our lives.”

wdtprs.com/blog/wp-content/plugins/add-to-any/icons/facebook.png%between%wdtprs.com/blog/wp-content/plugins/add-to-any/icons/email.pngwdtprs.com/blog/wp-content/plugins/add-to-any/icons/pinterest.png%between%wdtprs.com/blog/wp-content/plugins/add-to-any/icons/gmail.pngShare/Bookmark

Full entry…**
 
Wait…so a consecrated Host is going to be at that dreadful event?

I know the disciples were chastised for asking Jesus to call down a rain of fire…but Lord have mercy, may every obstacle be placed on their way so that this blasphemy may never come to pass.
God willing it does stop this needs to stop
 
Praise God it was returned. Although one of the organizers hinted that she desiccated it before it was given back.

I’m glad this black mass isn’t happening. At least I think you have to have a consecrated host to have a real black mass
 
Thanks be to God that the Host has been returned; whether or not they will still stage something without a consecrated Host isn’t clear.

We need to pray for the conversion of the people involved in this, and also for those who refused to stop it, who have fallen victim to a false interpretation of religious freedom.

Let’s also remember that Our Lord also falls victim to many sacrilegious communions each week by Catholics who are receiving without confession or who are holding obstinately to their own false doctrines against the Church’s teaching.
 
They now claim they will use black forrest bread that will be consecrated by a priest. lol
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top