Black Mass News: Satanist Offers Twisted Tales About How He Got the Consecrated Host, and Catholic Bashers Bash On

Black Mass News: Satanist Offers Twisted Tales About How He Got the Consecrated Host, and Catholic Bashers Bash On August 25, 2014


Kate O’Hare did an interesting interview with the attorney who handled the consecrated Host case for the Archdiocese of Oklahoma City.

My favorite part:

Daniels has claimed various things about how he obtained the Consecrated Host, which is kept under lock and key until distributed to a Catholic for communion by a priest, deacon, or authorized lay person.

At first, Daniels said he got it from a “friend” in the mail.

In a phone interview with Catholic Website Aleteia on Aug. 20, Daniels said, “One of my priests in a foreign country is also a Catholic priest, and he is the one who consecrated it himself and mailed it to me, and I’m not going to reveal what country he’s from.”

But an Aug. 21 post at The Wall Street Journal‘s Law Blog quotes Daniels–an Oklahoma City area resident and a registered sex offender–as saying the wafer came from a “Catholic priest working as a satanist in Turkey.”

Also on Aug. 21, an article at The Oklahoman newspaper’s website,, said, “Daniels said he got the consecrated wafer in the last four or five weeks. He said it was sent to him by a woman who served as the ‘flesh altar’ for a Catholic priest in Turkey who secretly worshiped Satan and who recently was killed by Muslims for his satanic beliefs.”

Said Caspino, “And if he kept going with this story, martians would get involved with it, and Disney characters, and everything else. It’s just some crazy story he came up with. I lend zero credence to the claim. Zero.”

I’ve tried to emphasize this several times, but the point keeps getting lost. You can’t believe a sex-offender/satanist with a bad case of media-hype fever. So stop giving him an audience.

Meanwhile, in other black mass news, I’ve been getting more than a spate of outraged comments from the unbeliever peanut gallery. Most of them roll around the rather charming idea that if the Catholic Church fights to defend that which is sacred to it from deliberate theft and desecration, why then, the Catholic Church — and not the thief/bully/slimeballs who engage in Catholic baiting — is the aggressor.

Just for the record, the Catholic Church didn’t go into someone else’s house and steal their property in order to mock them and desecrate what they hold dear. This is not a case of, say, the Catholic Church going to this satanist’s house and swiping his parole papers so they could dip them in urine and lay them on top a naked woman or some other idiotic whatnot.

The Catholic Church has not called anyone names. The Catholic Church even dismissed the lawsuit against this guy as soon as he gave their property back.

But somehow, when you’re Catholic, you do not have the right to defend yourself. You also do not have the right to speak out against brazen acts of public mockery and attacks on your dearly held beliefs.

The Archbishop has voiced continued concerns about opening the doorway to evil with satanic practices, specifically a black mass ceremony. So, we’re going to have a ceremony of our own, including maybe a procession or two.

Now, how does that make this, as several commenters said, the actions of the “Catholic Taliban?” Are we talking about the same Taliban that reduced women to the level of sub-humans, blew up buildings, killed 3,000 innocent Americans, and brought war onto a whole region of the world?

Is that the Taliban we’re talking about?

Because if it is, I don’t see the symmetry in that comment or the dozens of other comments like it. What I do see is the usual Catholic bashing and demands from the usual bullies that Catholics not defend themselves, even in the most peaceful and honorable of ways.

When people who spend what must be a good bit of their time dropping anti-Catholic insults in com boxes get all riled up at any response from the Catholics themselves, it does make one wonder.

In the words of every drill sergeant in every boot camp movie of the past few decades: What is your major malfunction?

"I didn't state that very well, sorry. Nothing wrong with the link, I just couldn't ..."

The Fallout: How to Help Women ..."
"You don't remember Lyndon Johnson doing any such thing because he didn't do any such ..."

Dr Christine Ford in Hiding Because ..."
"I haven't had the opportunity to read the FBI investigation. I'm not in the habit ..."

The Fallout: How to Help Women ..."
"Was there something wrong with the link?"

The Fallout: How to Help Women ..."

Browse Our Archives

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment

31 responses to “Black Mass News: Satanist Offers Twisted Tales About How He Got the Consecrated Host, and Catholic Bashers Bash On”

  1. As one who left a Christian faith many, many, many years ago, I don’t understand why anyone who has done so thinks they should put down Christianity (or for that matter any faith) just because they no longer follow/belong to that faith. Though I do not consider myself a Christian, I have great respect for those that are. All but a few in my family are devote Christians.

    • Ah, but you are a civilized person. We have had some pretty fierce clashes, but I never felt that you were out to put anyone down – only to defend viewpoints I thought mistaken. But if you look at the content of this, it is personal hate. There probably is some individual revolt, justified or not, against a father, a mother, a teacher, a society. These people do not argue so much as rage, as if they had something to make others pay for. And to be fair, some of them do. Some Catholic and Evangelical environments are pretty stifling; I once knew an Irishwoman who literally shivered if you mentioned the Church without warning. That is something we Christians should be thinking about.

      • Fabio, thanks for the compliment. I attempt to be civilized but sometimes it can be difficult when the other person is as educated and intelligent as you are. (yes, I’m serious). I tend to agree with you that there may be some personal hate involved with this. And I also agree with you that some Catholic and Evangelical environments can be stifling. (however that wasn’t the reason I left Christianity).

  2. The problem I had with this situation is the one thing you didn’t mention. The archbishop asked the city to prevent the ritual. This person, nutcase though he may be, has a right to his religious beliefs and rituals as long as no one is harmed and no laws are broken.

    Catholics have every right to pray about this, to march, to protest, to hold as many counter rituals as they want, and to give him as much or as little publicity as they choose. The only thing catholics cannot do is try to use government authority to stop it.

    This matters because the First Amendment to the Constitution matters.

    • Lark, the right to petition the government — even for causes you disagree with — is guaranteed in the First Amendment. There are not qualifiers stating that this right does not apply to Catholics.

      The Archbishop is an American citizen, and he was well within his Constitutional rights as a free American to do what he did.

      It is your privilege to disagree with him. But stop pretending that you are doing so based on a higher call to defend the Constitution.

      • If someone petitioned the government asking that a local city park not rent the amphitheatre to catholics, because that person didn’t like catholics, would you praise that person for exercising his constitutional rights? Seriously? I would find that action appalling. The facilities of city parks should be equally available

        I never, ever, said any right does not apply to catholics. I personally don’t believe that the right to petition includes asking the government to deny rights to others. I could be wrong.

        I am absolutely consistent in my belief that it is wrong for one group to attempt to deny civil rights to another group. I am consistent in my belief that government authority must not be used to advance one religious viewpoint over others, or to provide benefits to one denied to others.

      • I think the nuance is that there’s two senses to the word “right” being used. You have the right to petition the government for anything; as a result, some of what is being petitioned for might, if granted, be a violation of someone else’s rights.

        Clearly, Catholics can try to use government authority to stop it; and they lawfully may, even. However, in this sense the Satanist can and lawfully may petition Oklahoma to throw the archbishop
        in jail without trial for preaching in church on Sundays; but for the
        state to grant such a request would be a gross violation of the
        Archbishop’s constitutionally recognized rights, and for the Archbishop to use the right of petition so is itself an attack on the principles of the Constitution. Thus, it appears inequitable if not hypocritical to use right of Petition to request abrogation of religious exercise rights of another.

    • The problem is that he really doesn’t have religious beliefs of his own. He believes, at least to some extent, what Catholicism believes and redirects it towards Satan instead of God. In effect, he gives God the middle finger.

      If God did not create all things and if God did not reveal Himself and send His Son, Jesus Christ, then Satanism would not exist. They would be nothing to acknowledge and then reject out of pride.

      In fact, Satanists do not use ordinary bread for their rituals. They only use consecrated Hosts because otherwise they’d only be peeing on bread and not desecrating the Body of the Lord. They never mock other religious rituals, only the Mass.

  3. Great piece, expept the Afghan Taliban were not directly involved in the 9/11 attacks. Their crime was they gave sanctuary to Osama bin Laden. There is NO WAY he was going to trust his magnum opus to some barely educated Pashtun clerics. AQ and the Taliban are two different groups, with different goals. It *helps* the US to know and understand who our enemies are. But apart from that, this is spot-on.

  4. And yet still no evidence of any theft.

    I am going to go to my local Catholic Church on Sunday. I am going to take the wafer. I will pocket that wafer and I will make it available to anyone who wants it.

    What law will I be breaking?

    • I think you make a good Devil’s Advocate.

      I would like this question to be examined by attorneys and answered appropriately. That is, while the numbskull in Nebraska returned the Host at the threat of a lawsuit, there are obviously well-funded atheists who will not back down at the threat of a lawsuit. Therefore, I think we would do well to establish that it is a criminal act to take a Consecrated Host from a Church with the intent of doing anything except consuming it.

      I would also like attorneys to examine the question of holding Black Masses on public property. With all the bellyaching that goes on regarding putting up a creche in the town square, I would think that using public property to hold a Black Mass would get the ACLU up in arms. Apparently not, so I would hope that the more rational attorneys at Thomas More are taking a look at this.

      As to Catholics defending themselves, I think the bullies had better appreciate that Catholics are using the court system to address these insults. However, I must ironically agree with these people that using the court system is inappropriate, and very much wish that we were using alternate methods to impress anti-Catholic bigots that we will actively defend our beliefs.

    • The Catholic church only gives the communion host away if certain conditions are met. The Church has never said that anyone in the world may come and get a free host to do what they want with it; it is well known that one may receive the host only under certain conditions.

      The first condition is that you must be Catholic.
      The second is that you must consume the host immediately, on site.
      The third is that you have done the necessary things to make your soul ready for taking the Eucharist, that is, you have not committed any grave sins.

      If you fail to meet any of these conditions, you are not eligible to receive the host. By presenting yourself for communion, you are attesting that you have met all the conditions necessary to receive the host and will abide by all the rules the church puts around reception of the host.

      If you do not meet all of these conditions, the church has every right to demand its property back, which you have fraudulently obtained. You will notice that the Satanist in question immediately returned the host as soon as the church filed a lawsuit. That’s because his lawyers knew he had no legal right to that host.

      It is extremely unlikely that any judge or jury would believe the Satanist’s story about how he got the host,(from a priest in another country) because he changed his story, is a convicted sex offender, etc. It is much more likely that he stole it from a Catholic church, and most people would think his fake Satanist priest in another country story was made up.

      Even if his story about the priest in another country were somehow true, the Satanist has no legal title to the consecrated host because the supposed “Priest in another country” had absolutely no power to transfer good title to a consecrated host to someone else. As an agent of the church, the priest’s powers over the host are limited to those the church gives him. The church gives him zero power to consecrate hosts and then mail them to whoever he wants. A person can only transfer title to goods if he himself holds good title. Since the priest had no power to transfer title in that manner, then no title was passed, and the Satanist has zero property rights in the consecrated host, and must give it up to the rightful owner, the Catholic church.

      If you were to fraudulently present yourself as a Catholic, in order to obtain property of the church – that they would not have given to you had they been given the true facts of your situation – it is likely that you could be criminally prosecuted under “Theft by Fraud” statutes that most states have.

      In Oklahoma, the relevant law may be this one:

      §21 1701. Larceny defined.

      Larceny is the taking of personal property accomplished by fraud or stealth, and with intent to deprive another thereof.”

      By presenting yourself as a Catholic ready and eligible to receive communion, you are perpetrating a fraud. By presenting yourself in that communion line, you are attesting that you will consume the host immediately.

      Furthermore, anyone who receives fraudulently obtained property is in trouble as well:

      §21-1713. Receiving stolen property – Presumption.

      A. Every person who buys or receives, in any manner, upon any consideration, any personal property of any value whatsoever that has been stolen, embezzled, obtained by false pretense or robbery, knowing or having reasonable cause to believe the same to have been stolen, embezzled, obtained by false pretense, or robbery, or who conceals, withholds, or aids in concealing or withholding such property from the owner, shall be guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment in the State Penitentiary not to exceed five (5) years, or in the county jail not to exceed one (1) year, or by a fine not to exceed Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00) or by both such fine and imprisonment.

      Almost every state has virtually identical laws.

  5. You do a great job! On this article besides saying that you are absolutely right , I just have one other thing to say in response-no, in reaction, to a sentence in your article. “But somehow, when you’re Catholic, you do not have the right to defend yourself. You also do not have the right to speak out against brazen acts of public mockery and attacks on your dearly held beliefs.” True,but if you were muslim, you would have that right!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.