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

[Phemie]

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?

My point is that they only have the artist’s word that they are consecrated Hosts. There is no way to tell a consecrated from an unconsecrated Host. That’s why my brother was able to pretend to give my home-bound father Communion when in fact he was giving him altar bread he’d purchased at the corner store.

 

[Catholic_farmer]

I hope there is an appeal. His actions were intentionally disrespectful towards sacred objects. That should have been immediately recognized, regardless of what religion was represented.

A true artist doesn’t need to pull stunts to do their art. In general, this brand of shock art may require a certain amount of physical effort (stealing hosts at so many masses) but little actual artistic talent. Removing one’s clothes for photos has been done before. The point was to get attention to a rather mediocre artist.

 

[Padres1969]

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.

That might be hard. First, part of the problem the court appears to have had is determining if they were even consecrated hosts. If they weren’t then he has every right to own them as anyone can obtain unconsecrated hosts quite easily and quite uncontroversially.

And if they were consecrated hosts, it is still not an easy matter to take them away. The Church does freely give them out to anyone who stands in a communion line. For example I could walk into my neighborhood Catholic Church and obtain a host, no questions asked, despite the fact I’m not Catholic and should not be receiving. The Church makes no effort to deny anyone communion leaving it to the individual to decide. Which is probably why they didn’t add stealing as a charge against him.

 

[Convert_in_99]

Any more news updates on this?

 

[Igypop83]

That might be hard. First, part of the problem the court appears to have had is determining if they were even consecrated hosts. If they weren’t then he has every right to own them as anyone can obtain unconsecrated hosts quite easily and quite uncontroversially.

And if they were consecrated hosts, it is still not an easy matter to take them away. The Church does freely give them out to anyone who stands in a communion line. For example I could walk into my neighborhood Catholic Church and obtain a host, no questions asked, despite the fact I’m not Catholic and should not be receiving. The Church makes no effort to deny anyone communion leaving it to the individual to decide. Which is probably why they didn’t add stealing as a charge against him.

Doesn’t matter. You don’t need a court to do what is right (to take the hosts away from him).

 

[Padres1969]

Doesn’t matter. You don’t need a court to do what is right (to take the hosts away from him).

Actually you do. They are in his possession and unless it can be determined he has no right to them, or has used them for a criminal purpose (which the court did not find in their dismissal), there is no way to get them away from him. And attempting to do what you’re terming as “right” would in fact be itself a crime.