Stealing the Eucharist

[Just_Lurking]

Do you really believe that he would be charged with theft if he hadn’t returned the host?

It’s not theft, because he was given the host. However, he was not given the host unconditionally, to use for any purpose whatsoever. When he tried to use it for something other than the intended purpose, he thereby forfeited his claim to the host.

He then proceeded to forcefully retain the host after he had violated the conditions under which it was given, so it was he who resorted to force first, not the ushers.

 

[Layman]

I’m surprised we’re even discussing this. You can be removed from some secular clubs for not wearing a tie.

That someone attempting to restrain a man from desecrating a sacred object in a Catholic church is seen as an infringement of liberties shows how addled ideas of civil liberty have become.

Notions of civil property or contract law do not apply here.

I wonder if it ever crosses people’s mind the possibility, however small, that they might, just might, called to account for abuse of sacred objects, images or persons at the moment of their death.

e.g. “You abused my Person in the Eucharist, and died unrepentant of it, now, what do you expect from Me?”

 

[childofmary1143]

It’s not theft, because he was given the host. However, he was not given the host unconditionally, to use for any purpose whatsoever. When he tried to use it for something other than the intended purpose, he thereby forfeited his claim to the host.

He then proceeded to forcefully retain the host after he had violated the conditions under which it was given, so it was he who resorted to force first, not the ushers.

I mentioned this before, but I like to repeat it again. You go to an all you can eat buffet. No contract is signed but there is an implied contract. After you have finished eating all you can eat there, you realize that there is still food on your plate. You are not permitted to take it home.

 

[onetimeposter]

I mentioned this before, but I like to repeat it again. You go to an all you can eat buffet. No contract is signed but there is an implied contract. After you have finished eating all you can eat there, you realize that there is still food on your plate. You are not permitted to take it home.

You’ve paid for the meal. The payment is to obtain and consume the food on premise.

If you took a piece of bread, put it into your mouth, then spat the bread out of your mouth and into your hand.

The bread is yours to keep, to take and to remove from the property.

If the waiter stopped you, grabbed your hand and tried to pry the piece of bread out of your hand he is…

What’s the test for the waiter to determine if he has the right to stop you?

It’s called the ’ reasonable person test’. A reasonable person would deem that the waiter would not stop a patron for that reason and a reasonable person would determine that the waiter if far beyond his lawful authority by physically trying to remove the bread from the patrons hand.

Assaulting you…force applied, directly or indirectly, with intent and without consent of the party to do so.

Very straight forward stuff.

 

[onetimeposter]

He then proceeded to forcefully retain the host after he had violated the conditions under which it was given, so it was he who resorted to force first, not the ushers.

He did not use force to retain the host, he took it out of his mouth and held the bread in his hand.

Obviously, an overzealous usher felt it was his right to try and pry the host out of his hand.

Not sure how you can define using force as holding a host in your hand.

 

[childofmary1143]

You’ve paid for the meal. The payment is to obtain and consume the food on premise.

If you took a piece of bread, put it into your mouth, then spat the bread out of your mouth and into your hand.

The bread is yours to keep, to take and to remove from the property.

If the waiter stopped you, grabbed your hand and tried to pry the piece of bread out of your hand he is…

What’s the test for the waiter to determine if he has the right to stop you?

It’s called the ’ reasonable person test’. A reasonable person would deem that the waiter would not stop a patron for that reason and a reasonable person would determine that the waiter if far beyond his lawful authority by physically trying to remove the bread from the patrons hand.

Assaulting you…force applied, directly or indirectly, with intent and without consent of the party to do so.

Very straight forward stuff.

Oops :bigyikes: I am posting on the wrong subject. I thought it was about the Professor who wants to desecrate the Eucharist rather than the student in Florida.

 

[Layman]

Onetimeposter, I think you’re just ‘stirring’. I shall not be replying any more.

 

[FrCorey]

I’m surprised we’re even discussing this. You can be removed from some secular clubs for not wearing a tie.

That someone attempting to restrain a man from desecrating a sacred object in a Catholic church is seen as an infringement of liberties shows how addled ideas of civil liberty have become.

Notions of civil property or contract law do not apply here.

I wonder if it ever crosses people’s mind the possibility, however small, that they might, just might, called to account for abuse of sacred objects, images or persons at the moment of their death.

e.g. “You abused my Person in the Eucharist, and died unrepentant of it, now, what do you expect from Me?”

very true. in other countrys, you desercrate a holy object and you could die. of course Jesus is love above all.
but, he is the king of the world too, and must be repected as such.

 

[Just_Lurking]

You’ve paid for the meal. The payment is to obtain and consume the food on premise.

Just as those in church are to obtain and consume the host on the premises.

I’m sure the courts will work out the situation with their usual efficiency. Lawyers are good at arguing both sides of the issue.

In any event, people have given their lives in order to protect the Eucharist in the past, so any punishment that the ushers have to endure will be rewarded in heaven.

 

[Aramis]

You’ve paid for the meal. The payment is to obtain and consume the food on premise.

If you took a piece of bread, put it into your mouth, then spat the bread out of your mouth and into your hand.

The bread is yours to keep, to take and to remove from the property.

You’d be wrong in most places. It’s not yours until you have left with it consumed as intended.

The implicit contract is that you are paying to eat food there, which also implies getting it into your stomach.

In Alaska, they can toss you from a buffet for vomiting, for taking food out (whether it’s been in your mouth or not), and for trying to conceal food in your pocket, purse, etc. They even have, in some cases, had such arrested for theft.

Likewise, as an employer, just because I provide you paper and markers doesn’t mean you may take them home to make comic books with them.

Also, I know of a case (many years ago) where similar happened. One of the ushers was a police officer, and the chap trying to steal the Eucharist was arrested and plead guilty to theft.

 

[Lee_M]

What contract did he sign that stipulates that ushers may grab him and forceably remove the host from his hands?

Do you really believe that he would be charged with theft if he hadn’t returned the host?

If your answer is yes…

If your answer is no, as it should be, you will now understand that he had every right to keep that host in his hand or do anything he wanted with it…it was given to him…it is now his.

Some things are worth fighting for. It may well have broken civil laws trying to forceably remove the Blessed Sacrament from this guy’s hands but trying to stop someone from desecrating the Body of Christ is something that I will respect that Usher for doing. Many early Christians and even Christians in today’s time faced persecution for worshipping our Lord. Just because they were breaking the laws of their countries in doing so definately does not make them wrong in what they do.

When we receive the Blessed Sacrament we are under obligations to follow the Church’s law. By trying to take the Blessed Sacrament out of the church for who knows what, he was breaking the Church’s laws.

 

[Linda_Marie]

UCF student who took off with sacred communion wafer impeached by student Senate colleagues

The University of Central Florida’s student Senate voted to impeach one of its own late Thursday night – the student who sparked a firestorm of controvery after taking off from a Catholic Mass on campus with a sacred Communion wafer in his pocket.

All but two of the 35 senators present voted to impeach Webster Cook, but the action did not result in his automatic removal from office.

Instead, the vote sets in motion an investigation that could lead to Cook’s eventual removal from his Senate post if he is found to have violated Senate ethics rules.

Of course, these proceedings have the benefit of having other witnesses to the event besides Cook himself. The media seems to be very one-sided and biased in its reporting of what occurred.

 

[onetimeposter]

One of the ushers was a police officer, and the chap trying to steal the Eucharist was arrested and plead guilty to theft.

Then it’s on the public record. You’ll provide the name of the City, the Police Service and the name of the accused for me to believe this.

 

[sndguy444]

Webster Cook is a member of SGA and held office at UCF. He has since been impeached and the process is underway to remove him from his office within SGA itself. He was infact raised catholic but through what ever means got a very bad taste for the religion growing up and hates everything about us. He is very open about not having faith in a higher being, which is part of the reason I feel he was noticed to not have taken the host internally.
I in no way, shape, or form excuse or even tollerate his actions, I wish I would have been there to see how far his jaw could have been relocated. But Mr. Cook is a different kind of kid. He has a extreme detachement from his emotions and I feel it clouds his reason and judgement. Everything is factual and black and white, it’s extremely difficult to have an arguement with him and him to understand or waver even slightly towards a middle ground.
I will try to remember to log back on and keep everyone up to date on this situation. But from the sound of things on campus he should be quickly removed from SGA, there is talk of him losing every group and organizational attachment within the college, and possible his enrollment all together.
~your brother in christ!

 

[Roger_Wissinger]

It appears that this Webster Cook came from the same mold as the goof from the University of Florida. Remember, “don’t taze me bro”. It sounds to me he’s a trouble maker. This is why I think communion should be tongue only.

 

[Lee_M]

It appears that this Webster Cook came from the same mold as the goof from the University of Florida. Remember, “don’t taze me bro”. It sounds to me he’s a trouble maker. This is why I think communion should be tongue only.

Have you read the entire thread? He took the Blessed Sacrament out of his mouth and proceeded to put it in a baggie. This incident is not a reason to support communion only on the tongue. Placing the Blessed Sacrament on the tongue would have not made a difference. If you wish to receive communion on the tongue, that is fine, but I don’t know why people keep wanting to force this practice on to everyone else. I’ve received both ways and I feel that I am just as reverent receiving in the hand as I am on the tongue. I know there will be several people on here stating that this is the way the church did it in the past but it gets old beating a dead horse.

 

[afitz211]

This just seems odd because normally this is the behavior of someone who is in a satanist cult. (the only problem with that theory is that he brought the Eucharistic species back to the Church.) Something does seem kind of fishy to me though?

 

[Aramis]

Then it’s on the public record. You’ll provide the name of the City, the Police Service and the name of the accused for me to believe this.

It was in Anchorage, and the suspect was a minor. Good luck. Some time around 1985. It did not go to trial, being plead out, and so the public record is sealed as he was a minor. It didn’t make the papers, either.

 

[Roger_Wissinger]

Have you read the entire thread? He took the Blessed Sacrament out of his mouth and proceeded to put it in a baggie. This incident is not a reason to support communion only on the tongue. Placing the Blessed Sacrament on the tongue would have not made a difference. If you wish to receive communion on the tongue, that is fine, but I don’t know why people keep wanting to force this practice on to everyone else. I’ve received both ways and I feel that I am just as reverent receiving in the hand as I am on the tongue. I know there will be several people on here stating that this is the way the church did it in the past but it gets old beating a dead horse.

No, I didn’t read the whole thread. I said this is what I think and I believe that the Vatican is looking on reversing the decision on receiving communion in the hand. There’s a book coming out soon about this subject. Oh, and for the communion rails to come back also.

 

[Lee_M]

No, I didn’t read the whole thread. I said this is what I think and I believe that the Vatican is looking on reversing the decision on receiving communion in the hand. There’s a book coming out soon about this subject. Oh, and for the communion rails to come back also.

Why do you think this incident is a reason for communion on the tongue only? How does this instance support your cause? Where is documentation to back you up that the Vatican is thinking about lifting the indult? I know the Pope prefers communion on the tongue but where has he said that he will make communion on tongue mandatory for the conferences who have the indult?