Stealing Hosts for anti-Catholic art? Not illegal, Spanish judge says

  • Thread starter Thread starter _Abyssinia
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

_Abyssinia

Guest
Madrid, Spain, Nov 16, 2016 / 03:04 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- Critics of a Spanish judge say he wrongly dismissed charges against an artist who stole consecrated Hosts for an exhibit that disrespected the Catholic faith.
Click to expand...
The Spanish Association of Christian Lawyers announced it would file an appeal and be prepared “to go to the highest court necessary in the face of what is becoming a campaign of serious offenses against the Christian faith and religious freedom.”
Click to expand...
Abel Azcona stole more than 240 consecrated hosts from Masses celebrated in the cities of Madrid and Pamplona. He later took nude photos of himself arranging them on a floor to spell the word ‘pederasty.’ In November 2015, he displayed the photos as part of an art display in a city-owned exhibition hall available for public use.
Click to expand...
catholicnewsagency.com/news/stealing-hosts-for-anti-catholic-art-not-illegal-spanish-judge-says-18013/
 
Deplorable behavior. Let’s pray the Church fights the good fight on these disgusting actions.
 
So religious implications aside, stealing isn’t illegal in Spain?
 
Vasallus said:
So religious implications aside, stealing isn’t illegal in Spain?
Click to expand...
Was it technically stealing from a legal perspective? I mean the RCC does hand out the host to all who present themselves for communion no questions asked.

I mean I understand the negative theological implications of a man who by right was not worthy to receive and had no business being in the communion line. Especially when his goal was desecration. And morally you could definitely argue he stole something he wasn’t entitled to, but that’s true of many who get in a communion line in an unworthy state as so many Catholics are prone to do. But that doesn’t mean it would be considered stealing legally.

As for why the judge threw the case out with regard to the charges that were brought regarding treating something sacred with due respect, no idea what the judge’s standard would be for what would be treating a host with disrespect. But you’d think posing nude with them would qualify according to most people’s thought process given that Catholics and others believe the hosts to be the body of Christ. But then given that he characterizes the hosts as little white objects and that he doesn’t see even removing the hosts from a church as “disrespectful, offensive or irreverent,” to the Catholic faith, it may be that the judge has little in the way of understanding of Catholicism.

Plus the judge did bring up one aspect that I figured would work against prosecution when I heard about this case, 240 hosts are a lot of hosts, and there’s not much identifying those 240 hosts as having actually been removed from a Catholic church, and proving such is very hard since by appearance a consecrated host from mass and an unconsecrated host you bought on say Amazon, don’t look any different. Just because he said they were all from a mass doesn’t mean they actually were and proving they were is very difficult.
 
How is it possible for someone to have access to that many consecrated Hosts? Things like this will eventually lead us back to receiving on the tongue only.
 
Yeah, if it had been any other faith besides Christian it would have been ruled illegal. :sad_yes:

Lord have mercy and please come soon before more souls wind up in such states! 😦
 
thank goodness the Spanish Association of Christian Lawyers are fighting back!
 
saellis said:
Maybe the judge could be charged as an accomplice. 🤷
Click to expand...
I doubt ignorance of Catholicism is a punishable offense.

Which frankly I’d have to think is the source of his ruling. Anyone with any real understanding of Catholicism understands that the host isn’t just a piece of bread once consecrated. Though to be fair I’ve met Catholics who don’t fully understand or even accept that notion either 🤷
 
RosyAnne said:
How is it possible for someone to have access to that many consecrated Hosts? Things like this will eventually lead us back to receiving on the tongue only.
Click to expand...
True good point.

Further, if the individual in receiving it at Mass(es), should not the Eucharistic Minister be making sure the individual consumes it right there? :confused:
 
777rak said:
True good point.

Further, if the individual in receiving it at Mass(es), should not the Eucharistic Minister be making sure the individual consumes it right there? :confused:
Click to expand...
Don’t know about Catholic Churches you visit, but most of those I see take communion consume the host as they’re walking away, not in front of the Eucharistic Minister or Priest.
 
Are we sure these were consecrated hosts from a Catholic Church? How would the thief have kept his saliva from dissolving the hosts?
 
LordHaveMercy said:
Are we sure these were consecrated hosts from a Catholic Church? How would the thief have kept his saliva from dissolving the hosts?
Click to expand...
Simple, he never put them in his mouth? If you take the host via the hand it’s not hard to palm it as you walk away from the priest or EM.

But you’re right, there was no proof any of the hosts were actually consecrated. And reading about the case I think that’s one thing that may have swayed the judge was lack of evidence they were consecrated.
 
Padres writes – "But you’re right, there was no proof any of the hosts were actually consecrated. And reading about the case I think that’s one thing that may have swayed the judge was lack of evidence they were consecrated"

The article indicates that the hosts WERE consecrated. Do you have another source?

It wouldn’t be too difficult to steal a ciborium filled with consecrated hosts if the tabernacle is not located behind the altar and that tabernacle was not locked. Nowadays, it seems that most Catholic churches in the USA have their tabernacles located in a side altar away from the Sanctuary, or in a separate room reserved for that purpose. That makes it easy access for a thief.

I feel that what this man did with the hosts was satanic, and what the judge did was show his sympathy for the devil. Civil law is poorly equipped to deal with the sacred. We should pray for the souls of these misguided creatures.
 
To state a politically incorrect truth known to everyone in Europe, the ubiquitous laws forbidding insulting religions really mean “insulting religions other than Christianity”, chiefly, of course, Islam.
 
Padres1969 said:
I doubt ignorance of Catholicism is a punishable offense.

Which frankly I’d have to think is the source of his ruling. Anyone with any real understanding of Catholicism understands that the host isn’t just a piece of bread once consecrated. Though to be fair I’ve met Catholics who don’t fully understand or even accept that notion either 🤷
Click to expand...
Well, I don’t think knowing what Catholics believe about a consecrated Host = believing it yourself and unless you believe how can you consider it desecration?

How did they know the hosts were consecrated? In places in Canada you can buy altar bread at the corner store.
 
Phemie said:
Well, I don’t think knowing what Catholics believe about a consecrated Host = believing it yourself and unless you believe how can you consider it desecration?

How did they know the hosts were consecrated? In places in Canada you can buy altar bread at the corner store.
Click to expand...
The article specifically mentioned consecrated Hosts.

It was used in anti-Catholic art. The individual was perfectly aware of the belief that the Consecration of Hosts and deliberately chose to mock it.

Question is how was he able to get a hold at a number of Hosts?
 
Those Hosts should be simply taken away from him. With or without permission. He does not have a right to possess them, no matter what the judge says.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top