Archbishop Coakley: Satanists have Returned Consecrated Host

bishop-formal.pngArchbishop Paul Coakley announced today that the consecrated host at the center of the Archdiocese’ lawsuit against a satanic group has been returned.

This happened as a result of a court order issued in response to a lawsuit brought by the Archbishop against the group. The Archbishop filed suit after leaders of the group made a number of comments claiming that they had obtained a consecrated host and planned to defile and desecrate it in a satanic ritual.

Archbishop Coakley expressed continued concern about the “dark powers that satanic worship invites into our community and the spiritual danger that this poses to all involved in it, directly or indirectly.” 

For that reason, he will lead a Eucharistic Holy Hour at 3 pm, September 21 at St Francis of Assisi Church, 1901 NW 18 in Oklahoma City at the same time as the black mass is scheduled to occur. 

Here is Archbishop Coakley’s press release:

OKLAHOMA CITY (Aug. 21, 2014) – Archbishop Coakley announced Thursday that the consecrated Host at the center of a lawsuit filed in Oklahoma County District Court has been returned.

An attorney representing the head of the satanic group presented the Host to a Catholic priest Thursday afternoon. The lawsuit sought return of the Host following multiple public statements by the head of the local satanic group that they planned to defile and desecrate the consecrated Host during a satanic ‘black mass’ scheduled next month in Oklahoma City.

With the return of the Host and an accompanying signed statement from the satanic group leader that the group no longer possesses a consecrated Host, nor will they use a consecrated Host in their rituals, the archbishop agreed to dismiss the lawsuit with prejudice.

“I am relieved that we have been able to secure the return of the sacred Host, and that we have prevented its desecration as part of a planned satanic ritual,” said Archbishop Paul Coakley of the Archdiocese of Oklahoma City. “I remain concerned about the dark powers that this satanic worship invites into our community and the spiritual danger that this poses to all who are involved in it, directly or indirectly.”

Archbishop Coakley has made repeated requests for the city’s leaders to cancel the satanic ritual in a publicly funded facility.

“I have raised my concerns … and pointed out how deeply offensive this proposed sacrilegious act is to Christians and especially to the more than 250,000 Catholics who live in Oklahoma.”

On Sept. 21, the day the satanic ritual has been scheduled, the archbishop invites the Catholic community as well as all Christians and people of good will to join him in prayer for a Eucharistic Holy Hour at 3 p.m. at St. Francis of Assisi Church, 1901 NW 18, followed by an outdoor Procession and Benediction.

“For more than 1 billion Catholics worldwide, the Mass is the most sacred of religious rituals,” the archbishop said. “It is the center of Catholic worship and celebrates Jesus Christ’s redemption of the world by his death and resurrection. We are grateful for the gift of the Eucharist and pray that this threatened sacrilege will heighten our appreciation and deepen our faith in the Lord’s Eucharistic presence among us.”

Watching Football with My Four-Year-Old
Watching Football with My Four-Year-Old
RIP Leonard Nimoy
The Cliche-Ridden Reaction to the Unmasking of Jihadi John
  • Apollo 8

    Great news.

  • Christian LeBlanc

    Wow, that was tidy.

  • oregon nurse

    I’m glad the Host was returned. I am appalled however at the rationale used in the lawsuit which equates it with being the property of the Church. Can anyone own a Person, let alone Jesus? Is a fetus the property of it’s mother because ever since Eve a mother has ‘dominion and control’ for 9 months?

    This will come back to haunt us. I’m appalled. Jesus doesn’t need our protection however much we owe him our worship.

    • Jas

      Hi. I don’t understand some of what you’re saying but you’re right, Jesus in His fullness, LORD Eternal doesn’t need our protection. But He does when we see Him, especially in the “least”, and choose to act. Great care is required in handling Him in the Most Holy Sacrament of the Altar. He is always “Substantially Present” under the appearance. For a better explanation please see

      God bless!

      • oregon nurse

        We are required to treat the Host with reverence at all times and to take precautions against theft and abuse very seriously. Once the Host is out of the Church’s control I don’t believe we are obligated to file lawsuits which distort the truth in an attempt to protect our Lord.

    • David M Paggi

      It is a good reflection on your faith that you immediately think of the Host as the Person it is!

      While I can identify with your concerns, I believe that taking this step was necessary and proper. To start with your last point, I believe that in giving us Himself in the Eucharist, Jesus has placed His Body under our custody. We recognize this with objects such as the tabernacle and its light as well as gestures including kneeling when the Blessed Sacrament is exposed and genuflecting to the tabernacle otherwise. Consequently it is our duty to do whatever we can to maintain the Sacred Species in reverence and safety.

      Since the Host was recovered under property law, for legal purposes it was treated as a thing, not a Person. I believe this was much more likely to succeed than if its recovery were to be sought as a Person, in which case I suppose the Host would be considered abducted and the perpetrator could be charged with kidnapping. I’m not a lawyer, so I don’t know if a Consecrated Host has ever been treated legally as a Person before (particularly in the United States), but it seems highly unlikely. Without such a precedent, I believe it likely that an action to return the missing Person, besides inciting a torrent of ridicule, would have been rapidly dismissed. Therefore the satanic ritual would have proceeded unhindered, and a far worse precedent would have become not just a possibility but an historical event which undoubtedly would be duplicated.

      On the other hand, I believe that that it would be very difficult to use this case as a precedent for treating a preborn baby as a thing the mother can dispose of at will, and in any event this would be a remote, rather than present risk. Therefore it seems reasonable to me to use this means to secure possession of the Sacred Host and by doing so prevent the satanic event from occurring. Just the potential for the curious to wander in and get sucked into that evil is a menace we do well to avoid; souls are at risk here.

      A few years ago there was a controversy when a Host consecrated by Pope St John Paul II was put up for auction on eBay. Marcellino D’Ambrosio raised this issue on Catholic Answers and in response I wrote an email to their president. In it I pointed out that under the rules and rubrics of the Catholic Church, the sole and final authority on this point, the Host is to be consumed immediately upon reception. Since the pertinent rule was violated, there was no legal way the seller could have good title to the goods he was offering, with the result that her company would thereby be complicit in receiving and disposing of stolen property, to say nothing of offending 60 million American Catholics.

      Whether or not my feeble attempt at reason played any part I’ll never know, but in the event the Host was secured and properly disposed of. Here I was not appealing to property law per se, but rather to the indisputable fact that no one may rightfully possess a Consecrated Host other than as permitted by the Church in fulfillment of her ministry.

      I do not know whether this point was raised in the present case, but I think under this analysis using property law to recover a Sacred Host does not entail making the blasphemous statement that it is just a thing, and not the Person it truly is. Therefore since it is demonstrably effective, it can be safely and properly used in this context.

      God Bless!

    • TheLeast

      Whoever calls themselves the disciples of Our Lord Jesus Christ should consider themselves duty-bound to defend the Name of Jesus and His honor.
      No, Jesus doesn’t NEED anything from us. It is WE who need to draw close to Him, to spread His holy word to others who need him as we do, and to speak in defense of His holiness and goodness, even though it cost us everything we have in this world. Hence, the calendar of the saints who wear the eternally glorious crown of martyrdom, bestowed to those who have bled and died to defend the honor of Our Lord. Surely you don’t mean to suggest that they gave all they had for nothing, do you?

  • Bill Alexy

    How can we know that it was the host they returned, and not a mere wafer?

    • Linda_LaScola

      there’s no way of telling. There was no proof that they had obtained a consecrated host; no proof that they handed in the host they said they had and there’s no lab test that can discern a concentrated host from a non-consecrated host.

      It’s all a matter of faith, like transubstantiation itself.

      • oregon nurse

        Why is an atheist so interested in posting about satanism on a Catholic blog? What’s your agenda?

      • margaret1910

        I would hope that most atheists would find this sort of display offensive. I have good friends who are atheists, and we can debate the existence/non-existense of God without being jerks.

        • hamiltonr

          Margaret, this was once entirely true. But leaders in the so-called new atheism have and continue to actively encourage their followers to be jerks. Their followers — who no matter their age, seem to be characterized by an adolescent mentality — appear to be all-too-willing to follow suit.

          I said in another comment that I personally knew atheists who did not insult Christians. But the full truth is that these same people have become increasingly aggressive and hateful, even in personal relationships of many decades where faith has never been an issue before.

          I’ve also had the experience — not in Oklahoma, but in California — of standing in a check-out line in a store, talking to a friend and having an atheist we didn’t know who was standing behind us in line butt into our conversation in order to unload his opinion about Christians. Since I spend very little time in California, I am guessing that I was either terribly unlucky or this is the climate in that community.

          I’ve seen that same paradigm acted out on this blog, almost from the day I launched it. Atheist boors buzz bomb it constantly, dropping off non sequitur insults and repetitive arguments. They then demand that I allow their nonsense on here. I’ve even had other bloggers demand that I allow atheists to essentially take over the blog.

          I didn’t start this blog to be a forum for atheism. That is not its purpose. Fortunately, I can deep-six that tripe and keep the blog focused in the direction it was meant to go. I allow a certain amount of conversation and debate from atheists. But the buzz-bombing take-overs aren’t going to happen. After 18 years in political office, I’m inured to bullies, boors and jerks.

          Leadership means everything, and the new atheism has a sicko leadership which is bent on creating uncivil relations between atheism and the rest of the world as a means of recruiting the weak-minded to their column. It’s working for them, just as demagoguery always works. They are making a lot of money and they’ve got a growing troupe of cult-like followers. But the cost to community, civility, tolerance and true freedom is enormous.

          If atheists want to be taken for something other than boors, they need to abandon their aggressive behavior toward other people. The should probably begin with finding better leaders.

          • margaret1910

            God bless you, Rebecca. I am going to hold out hope for love. I know that you are experiencing the hatred and aggressive behavior. I have experienced it myself, and I generally refuse to engage with people who use these tactics. Best of luck with your wonderful blog.

            • hamiltonr

              Thank you Margaret.

      • Jim Dailey

        The interesting thing about you “Science is God” types is that you constantly devalue your god by noting their “is no scientific evidence therefore X, Y or Z” cannot possibly be true”.
        That is, about 150 years ago, there was no “scientific proof” that bacteria existed. Instead, your “god” would have us all sticking a leech on some kid who was suffering from strep throat, because, after all, some nitwit had submitted some proof, and a bunch of other nitwits had accepted the proof, that bleeding people cured them of their “ague” or some other nearly medieval “scientific” mumbo-jumbo.

        Even given centuries of historical examples of this truly hilarious nonsense, your particular brand of zealotry continues to sell to the extremely stupid mass media, and slightly less stupid “Social study” types currently infecting academia.
        At least have the good manners to acknowledge the limits of your particular religion (since the limits of your particular religion are well documented) by having the courtesy of saying “Science can not prove X, Y, or Z…. yet”, rather than condemning your outlook to future farcical historical footnotes.

        Tell you what Science-zealot – I have conducted a clinical study that scientifically proves that, if you are an atheist attaching leeches to your neck makes you smarter, and there is a dose response – that is – the more you attach, the smarter you get. So the next time you feel like writing on a Catholic blog, kindly attach several leeches to your neck and wait a few hours. We will all be better off for your experience.

        • hamiltonr

          Jim, I don’t allow name-calling on this blog. There is no reason to insult Ms LaScola personally. Just focus on the issues.

          • Linda_LaScola

            Seems to me that Jim’s comment is the type that would not make it though your moderation process if it were from an atheist. I appreciate it as an example of unacceptable name-calling and would appreciate it even more if you don’t publish this kind of thing the next time it happens.

            • hamiltonr

              I often let things through that are unacceptable when the person is new here. I also let atheists do all sorts of di-dohs.

              There are limits, but I set the limits. My blog. My rules.

              BTW, I have never come onto your blog or that of any atheist — or anyone else, for that matter — and admonished them on how to run it. Maybe you guys should take a lesson from that.

              • Linda_LaScola

                It was not an admonishment, it was a request. I understand that it’s your blog, your rules and I also request that you publish my response to “Oregon nurse.” She asked me a question and I respectfully answered it.

                • hamiltonr

                  Linda, I’ve been pretty busy. I had to get my mother ready for adult day care, which meant (1) giving her a bath, (2) helping her dress, (3) getting her breakfast (4) making sure she had her cane/purse/keys, (5) and getting her out the door.

                  I also wrote a blog post.

                  I did all that between when I wrote that comment and now. I haven’t had time to look at whatever comment you are respectfully referring to.

                  After I go through these comments, I have one or two other things — including cleaning up the breakfast dishes and working on my other writing — I need to do before my mother gets home from adult day care.

                  I’ll look at your comment when I get to it.

  • CT Catholic Corner

    I hope it was the consecrated host that was returned and not simply a host they purchased from a store and swapped out for the consecrated one.

    • NjShore

      The archbishop’s good actions are not degraded by the ill intent or acts of this group. I am sure God is well capable of following through on the archbishop’s intent to keep the host undefiled.

  • vox borealis

    This outcome is to be expected. The Satanists don’t want to get dragged into a lawcourt over this. Plus, I doubt they really had a consecrated host, but they *claimed* to have one, which added to the spectacle and the shock value of their stunt. But they couldn’t admit they had an unconsecrated host after saying they did, so they agreed to hand over the host. Now the Church will have to back down, or at least there will be pressure to back off. Meanwhile, the Satanists got some publicity and more or less maintained their credibility. I doubt the people who attend the Black MAss, should it actually go off as planned, will care much about the use of an unconsecrated host.

    • Qari

      It makes all the difference to them.

    • Rob B.

      “Meanwhile, the Satanists got some publicity and more or less maintained their credibility.” How exactly does their backing down “maintain their credibility?” After all, if they are really serious about their beliefs, they would have stood up to the Church. In the end, all this proves is that they lack conviction.

      • vox borealis

        They never had conviction to begin with…it’s all agitprop, shock-performance. But for fans, they lap tis stuff up. It’s win-win for them no matter what. They claim to use a consecrated host (I doubt it was really consecrated, but that matters not). They announce the fact to stir up the water. If the event goes off as planned, they win because they’ve shocked and committed sacrilege. Instead, a serious legal challenge was made, so instead of going to court, they hand back the “consecrated” host and go on with the event in any case.

        Thus, they have not “backed down”–the black mass is still going to happen. It’s still going to be offensive and sacrilegious, even if less so without a “consecrated” host. Moreover, the focus of objections to the event shifted to the legal status of the host—this is the position the Church took. By giving back the “consecrated” host, the group has removed the (current) main objection to the event. In fact, it can be argued that the Satanists now look “good” inasmuch as they compromised. And they get some publicity. So, the black mass goes on, and they win (albeit not as resounding a win).

        You make the mistake, I think, in assuming the group has real *beliefs* that they have compromised. No, they simply want to mock and shock and offend Christians (especially Catholics) and entertain their audience (probably a bunch of angry, smarmy athiests with some goofy neo-pagans thrown in), and to push the boundaries as far as the law will allow. This they will have done.

        • vox borealis

          Plus, I will add, whether they gave back the host or not, they still claim to have obtained a consecrated host…a claim that many observers, including the local bishop, accpeted at face value. This in itself is disturbing.

        • TheLeast

          Well, we wouldn’t be having this discussion, and the Satanists would therefore have to engage in some other shenanigans in order to get free press, if the sacrilegious heteropraxy of receiving Holy Communion in the hand were to finally be banned, and a universal return to reception on the tongue were reestablished as the ONLY method of reception.

          • FW Ken

            Excuse, but when you have “pope” in front of your name, or, for that matter “saint”, you can talk about “sacrilegious heteropraxy”. In the meantime, I can only note that you make a fool of yourself being more Catholic than the pope – several popes, actually.

            You are also making an idol of one licit means of receiving the Lord’s Body and Blood. One which I use, by the way.

  • pagansister

    I would expect no one can tell if the host is consecrated or not by looking at it, so if the group said it was—then who can dispute it? It was “returned”.

  • Teresa Ann Elizabeth “Teri”

    Thank you, Rep. Hamilton for sharing this with all of us. I live in Virginia, but I still wanted to know the true outcome. I fear one can only trust true Catholics to give us the story without all of the other “opinions, speculations, etc.” PAX Teri

    • hamiltonr

      Thank you Teri.

  • Mike Blackadder

    ““I have raised my concerns … and pointed out how deeply offensive this proposed sacrilegious act is to Christians and especially to the more than 250,000 Catholics who live in Oklahoma.”” … and to our Lord.

  • Mariadevotee

    seems like receiving stolen goods through the mail would be a federal offense. like using the postal service for illegal use. Another angle

  • Florian

    I hope and pray it really is the sacred Host that was returned…but how can it be known for sure. On the surface, one Host looks like another…

  • hamiltonr

    The atheists blogs only have one editorial focus and that is dissing and attacking Christianity. Their readership is the kind of people who enjoy that one subject. Treat them the way you would a fly buzzing around your head, just brush them away. Focus on Christ, not them.

    • Jim Dailey

      Appreciate it…. would the following be more acceptable?

      The desecration of the consecrated host for Catholics is tantamount to an attack on the flesh and blood of any of our loved ones, and requires a commensurate response. Would we allow our brother, our sister, our children to be dragged into a Black Mass and be subjected to whatever heinous rituals these people require to satisfy the evil in their soul? No we would not. We would respond with force. Loud, angry, physical force. And we would do it in such a way and with enough intensity to convince these people i is in their best interest to never even look at, much less touch, our beloved family members ever again.

      The truly bizarre and truly disgusting part of this is the professed belief of the Satanic Mass people in the miracle of transubstantiation. That is, a “prop” host will not do. They essentially believe, just as Catholics do, that the bread has become the Body. It gives further urgency to our very physical, and very forceful defense of our Lord. He was abandoned once. Surely the good Catholics of the United States will not abandon Him again?
      Thomas Aquinas writes of the Just War. The fact that these people seek to physically debase ou Lord, in public, on public property, and with public funds, leaves us only with the conclusion that we Catholics have been abandoned by our government.
      Catholics must rally and defend our Faith. Certainly no one else is going to do it for us.

      Too much? I don’t blame you if you don’t post it, but I would appreciate any comments back?

      • Lark62

        As an atheist, I agree with one of your points. I will fight hard against any disparagement of your religion on public property, with government funds, or by any use of government authority.

        However, I expect (and demand) the same courtesy toward my religious belief.

        Individuals, acting as individuals, are free to promote their beliefs and even to offend others. However, anyone acting with the authority of the government or using government property or resources MUST remain neutral toward religion. Our nation was founded on this principle and it works.

        Schools cannot promote protestant christianity and require catholic children to participate in protestant rituals, including clearly protestant prayers. Likewise, schools cannot promote christianity in general and require non-christian children to participate in christian rituals, including prayer.

        My first choice is no religious monuments or displays on government property. However, if a state government, perhaps Oklahoma, chooses to allow a monument telling people they must worship a specific god, the government must allow those with other beliefs about religion to erect monuments with alternative viewpoints.

        The government cannot select certain religious viewpoints approval and promotion. Nor can it select certain religious viewpoints for disapproval and second-class treatment.

        • hamiltonr

          Lark, as an atheist, you have no religious beliefs.

          • Lark62

            Really? I have no beliefs about religion? I have not read the bible and considered its words? My decisions about how to live a moral life are unworthy of any acknowledgment or respect?

            I write a post where I defend equal treatment of all religious viewpoints. I said “I expect (and demand) the same courtesy toward my religious belief.” Your response was that I have no religious belief, communicating that I an not entitled even to courtesy.

            You complain frequently about disrespectful atheists. Yet I reply politely even to rudeness.

            I will continue to support freedom of all people to exercise their religious beliefs, even though I do not receive that respect from those who claim religious superiority. But the exercise of one person’s belief ends where the next person’s begins.

            • hamiltonr

              Opinions about religion and “moral beliefs” are not religion. You say you are an atheist. If that is true, then you have no religious beliefs.

              • Lark62

                We may be talking past each other.

                I have beliefs about religion, which are protected by the Constitution of the United States just as your religious beliefs are protected. This was the context of my reply to Mr. Dailey. I hope we agree that the First Amendment protects all of us.

                I absolutely agree with you that my beliefs are not a religion. I do not see any evidence to support a belief in the supernatural. On this point I’m confident we disagree :-)

      • FW Ken

        Jim, too much. And the wrong direction to go. Our Lord allowed Himself to be led away and crucified. Should we emulate his meekness, remembering that the meek will inherit the earth? Should we remember the actual outcome of the Lord’s meekness?

        As a friend used to say: it may be Friday, but Sunday’s coming.

  • pagansister

    Violence in the name of religion begets more violence, as is currently happening in many countries right now. Knocking their teeth down their throats wouldn’t solve anything nor would it stop what they want to do. That too is being proven right now in many counties. IMO this mass will be over with soon and forgotten. Who knows, maybe no one will show up as happened previously.

  • Jane Eyre San Miguel

    How can they prove that it’s a truly Consecrated Host that was returned to them? How can they believe that these satanists are telling the truth? This event might be a farce – then later these satanists can do what they like with the real Consecrated Host. Satan is the Father of All Liars. Therefore, these satanists ARE LYING!!!

  • FW Ken

    The question is whether we understand the complexity of our humanity when it comes to what we believe. You believed in some God at one point and now you believe there is no god? I believe the Catholic Faith, but who’s to say I won’t apostacize tomorrow? The head and the heart ate two sides of a coin.

  • FW Ken

    I call that the atheist corollary to Godwin’s Law: the longer the discussion, the more certain it is that the atheist will declare the other a bad Christian, or, as in this case, imply it.

  • FW Ken

    I read it and had a response of my own. Perhaps you read it. Or perhaps not. You still did what atheists do: accuse us of being bad Christians.

    • EmpiricalPierce

      A question, Ken. Please consider this quote: “I really think we have to start finding these people and knocking their
      teeth down their throats. Force is the only thing they respect.”

      Is this the sort of statement a good Christian makes? Or do threats of violence in response to being offended reflect badly on Christians?

      If you think that quote reflects badly on Christians, then isn’t calling the speaker a bad Christian justified, at least in this situation?

      • hamiltonr

        We’re not going there. I don’t allow commenters to be labeled or picked at here. I don’t agree with the way the commenter expressed himself in this one comment, and I tried to shift it aside.

        But I will not allow ganging up on him, either.

        If you want to talk about the overall question of violence or whatever, that’s fine.

        • EmpiricalPierce

          Fair enough. Though I’ve already expressed my concerns with inciting violence over this matter in a different comment.

      • FW Ken

        I’ve already answered the first question. As to the second question: who are to you judge?

        I notice how ready atheists are to hate on Christians. Usually, these same people give a pass to the murderous atheists of the 20th century with the excuse that murdering 100 million or more people had nothing to do with Atheism. But one Christian acting badly “reflects badly on Christians.”

        Atheism is a socially cancerous ideology.

  • FW Ken

    By the way, this ditty is based on a Jesus’ words that they would know we are His followers by the love we have for one another. The verse you wanted is “love your enemies, and pray for those who hate you”. That had not, to my knowledge, been set to music, but it’s more or less what I wad saying to Jim.

    • pagansister

      Yes, FWKen there is a song based on that verse. Right now I can’t remember all the words or the melody, but when I was teaching in the Catholic school, that song was taught to the kids.

  • NjShore

    It is more likely these ‘devil worshipers’ did not have a real one to begin with… consecrated hosts are handled in specific ways. Plus, they are supposed to be consumed in the presence of a priest or eucharistic minister.
    However, this group’s leader has now made a legal binding agreement with the archbishop. He cannot either use a consecrated host nor make claims of using one without legal repercussions. I am sure the authorities are watching this little cult already… Their ideology is openly based upon worship of evil.
    The way the archbishop handled this is in marked contrast to the violent way other religions have reacted to threatened desecration. A very classy guy, in my opinion.