Bishop sues Satanists for return of Jesus

[cannon_fodder]

In my mind, this is great entertainment.  I have no belief on either side of this fight.  I think the Bishop is being over zealous and I think the Satanist is a fool seeking attention. But, I also think it is an interesting legal situation.  I'm sure plenty of people will be offended, so if you are offended by religious banter - for God's sake don't read this.

Satanists have leased space in the Oklahoma City Convention Center to hold a "black mass."  Governor Fallen and others want them stopped.  But the Archbishop of Oklahoma has been the most vocal about shutting them down.  Including pleas to ignore the Constitution of Oklahoma and the US Constitution and just not allow them to do the mass.

Initially he asked all Christians to pray to St. Michael the Archangel to stop the mass.  Apparently losing faith in that avenue, he has now filed suit.  The suit is for replevin (return of property).

You see, the leader of the Satanists has claimed to have a consecrated Eucharist.  As I understand it, at said black mass the Defendant intends to desecrate said Eucharist for the express purpose of belittling the Catholic church.  Enter the lawsuit.

The theory is as follows:

1) The Bishop is ordained by God and entrusted by the Pope to oversee and protect all Catholic property.
2) The communal wafer is unleavened wheat bread and is church property.
3) Once consecrated by a Catholic priest at a Catholic Mass, the wafer undergoes "transubstantiation" and literally becomes the physical body of Jesus. (not really relevant to an action for replevin, but there's a lot of that)
4) Under the "Code of Canon Law" the Catholic Church must "protect and preserve its ownership of a Consecrated Host." 
5) The Host can only be distributed by certain people to certain other people.
6) If people don't do what they are supposed to do with a Host they are "automatically excommunicated from the Catholic Church."
7) Only certain people doing certain things with special tools can even clean surfaces that have once touched a Host.  (lots of other items that are irrelevant to an action for replevin)
THEREFORE, if someone has a host they procured it by theft, fraud, wrongful taking or other misappropriation. (this is called a logical fallacy)
9) The Church maintains ownership of all consecrated hosts throughout the world.
10) The Defendants website says they do not like the Catholic church and plan on using the Host in very mean ways to make fun of the Church.
11) The Defendants website says the Black Mass can include some messed up crap.  (again, not sure how this is relevant to an action for replevin)
12) We want our Host back now, plus money for suing them.

The petition is here:
http://archokc.org/office-of-the-archbishop/documents/doc_download/939-archbishop-file-stamped-petition

Citation:  The Most Reverend Paul S. Coakley, As Roman Catholic Bishop of Oklahoma City v. Adam Daniels and Dakma of Angra Mainyu Syndicate.  Oklahoma County: CJ-2014-4687
found here:
http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/GetCaseInformation.asp?number=CJ-2014-4687&db=Oklahoma&submitted=true

- - -

In a long list of recent fun cases (defamation against Ewing, Contract against Ewing, the Title 9 litigation against TU), this is going to be the best.  Let's start with the trivial:

The Bishop is regaled in his full title.  The same courtesy is not given to Defendant Daniels.  Who, as I understand it, is properly titled "His Dark Overlord" or "Dastur."  Which, I agree, is ridiculous.  But, as a matter of courtesy if one person intends on using their full religious title common courtesy would expect reciprocity towards the religious title of another.

But who cares?  On to the legal matters:

The basic contention of the PLaintiff is as follows

1) Jurisdiction

- An action for replevin is generally taken in the jurisdiction in which the property is located.  There is no allegation that the property in question in located in Oklahoma County.

- A Court is of competent jurisdiction to hear cases in which the value of the property is valued in excess of $10,000.  IN the present matter the property in question is a quarter sized wafer of unleavened bread.  The added value is based on personal beliefs of the Plaintiff.  While in an action for Replevin a verified complaint generally serves as per se valuation of the property --- it is also true that emotional value is ot generally considered in actions for replevin and/or breach of contract.  If you kill my dog, you only owe me the cost of a new dog - NOT my emotional evaluation of said dog, because in the eyes of the law my dog is merely livestock.  In the eyes of the law, the communion wafer remains an unleavened piece of wheat bread, not the Holy Body of the Risen Jesus Christ.

But generally, I think jurisdictional challenged fail.

2) Ownership

- In an action for replevin the person suing FOR replevin must prove that they have an ownership right to the exact item they are suing to be returned.

Here the suit fails.  You can NOT enter a "face of the matter" ownership statement and demand your stuff back.  "I own all all nachos that I have sneezed on, Defendant says that he has Nachos that I sneezed on. Therefore those are my Nachos and I want them back."  It simply doesn't work that way.  The Defendant is perfectly within his right to say "prove that this wafer is yours..." and he wins.  The Defendant has NO BURDEN to prove that he has legitimate ownership of the item in question lets people go around trying to seek replevin on any random item or claim that they want and forcing everyone to "prove" they own something.  The burden is on the Plaintiff - who CAN NOT show that the particular item in question is owned by the particular Plaintiff in question.

3) Standing

- The Archbishop is NOT suing on behalf of the Catholic Church.  Please note the heading - he is suing in his individual capacity.

He can't sue for The Church.  The Holy See is a sovereign nation and can sue in Federal Court in its own right, just like Argentina or France can.  Each Catholic Diocese in the United States is an independent fiefdom of the Bishop.  All Catholic property in the diocese is His.  Sometimes this is done through an umbrella controlled by the Bishop, but usually it is simply personally deeded to the Bishop (that is why it was so important to implicate the Bishop in sex abuse scandals and why some diocese transferred ownership to subsets [individual parishes, etc.]).  The Bishop IS the Diocese, and his ring symbolizes the union.

Ergo, Archbishop Coakley personally owns most of the property of the church in Oklahoma City.  The Churches, the pews, and the hosts (there are some subset Catholic non-profits with possessions) are his.

He can rightfully assert replevin over HIS assets.  BUT... even in his "it speaks for itself" interpretation - that is to say, even if all hosts belong to Mother Church, he cannot prove that the particular host he is trying to claim actually belongs to HIM.   Even under his theory, he proves that said Host belongs to some Bishop somewhere.  But that does not win a replevin action, you have to prove it is YOURS (if only persons named Cannon_fodder owned all nachos, and JohnQ had Nachos, not ANY Cannon_fodder could sue for Replevin.  Only the Cannon_fodder who actually owned THOSE particular nachos).  He can't do that.  Ergo, he lacks standing.

4) Ownership is lost

Ownership of an item is lost when it is given away.  Consecrated Eucharistic Hosts are given away. They are supposed to be given away to Catholics for immediate consumption (and it used to be that the priest would only put it on your tongue), BUT, here's how it works:

Person goes into a Catholic Church.  At the appropriate time person walks up to a line and waits.  A Eucharistic Minister places a Consecrated Eucharist into the persons hand and the person steps aside. At which point the person is expected to reverently face the alter and consume said host. 

However, it was not a conditional gift.  It was not given with an express condition attached to it.  And even if it was, such a conditional gift may not be enforceable anyway.

Now, I grant you, between two Catholics there is an understand that the gift is given with the expectation that the same will be consumed in a reverent manner.  But in more than a decade of Catholic schools I can attest that people palm hosts for whatever reason (I can honestly say I never did and generally these were kids [to show off to other kids I guess]).  But simply because the gift is not utilized in the manner in which the giver thought, or even preferred that it would be - it was still a GIFT.  If Lance Armstrong gave me a yellow bike, I tore it apart and used the frame to form a giant needles... he cannot take it back.

If John Q Satanist walked into a Catholic Church and presented himself, he would be given a Host.  There would be no disclaimer, no condition, there would be nothing of the sort.  He would merely present himself and be given a Host.  Even if he did so with the INTENTION of being mean and disrespectful, it does not change the fact that the Church surrendered ownership of that item.

Once ownership is surrendered, a replevin action is not appropriate. 


5) Church Dogma, doctrine, and belief are irrelevant

An action for replevin is going to the Court and saying "John has my crap, I want it back."  It does not matter if I believe John is a warlock, or if I believe the crap John took is holy.  It does not matter if under my groups rules that John is being mean and is making fun of me.  It simply does not matter.  Likewise, the Satanists cannot claim that they turned the Host into the body of Satan so its their now.  They cannot claim that a replevin action for the return of the body of God is inappropriate because it is clearly kidnapping.  No, an action for replevin is for the return of property.  Coakley must show that he personally owns THE host the Satanists possess, that it was not given away, and that he is entitled to possession.  Barring that, he fails.



The decent thing to do would be for the Satanists to give the Eucharist back to the Church because their belief is causing them true devastation over this situation.  The cost-benefit between whatever joy the Satanists will get and the harm to Catholics just doesn't balance in my world view.   BUT - I suspect that's the entire point of the Black Mass.  It is an endeavor in attention whoring, and thanks to our governor and to our Archbishop it is highly successful. 

The Satanists seemed to have lucked into their current spotlight.  If they are smart, they should win this easily.  BUT, if they readily admit to steeling it from a Church in order to appease Satan, or some such nonsense, they could easily shoot themselves in the hoof (see what I did there?).  I can't wait to see the Answer - rest assured, I will be happy to make fun of it as may be appropriate.

The State of Oklahoma absolutely should not stop them.  Oklahoma City should not discourage people from renting their facilities for any lawful purpose.  I understand the Bishop's thinking, but he is lending unimaginable credibility to this group.  Just like the Satan monument at the capital, the zeal to profess your own faith often opens the door to less popular viewpoints to gain an audience.


Get the popcorn ready folks, this should be interesting.  Judge Dixon is generally a well reasoned guy - but throwing out this suit would be RADICALLY unpopular for an elected judge.  Hell (pun intended), it will be interesting to see if the Satanists can even find an attorney willing to face the "compassion" that would come from the public.

[guido911]

And, its over?

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/publiccatholic/2014/08/archbishop-coakley-satanists-have-returned-consecrated-host/

http://archokc.org/top-news/3638-archbishop-coakleys-statement-on-return-of-stolen-host-to-the-catholic-church

[cannon_fodder]

Yep.  Its over.  My popcorn wasn't even done yet.

The Stanist actually took the high road (or, more likely could afford to fight a lawsuit).

Or... Since they are Satanists its entirely possible they hand over *a* host.

[Conan71]

Not to get too personal, but he's one ugly ginger:

http://204.62.19.17/svor/f?p=102:216:3189722562107028::NO:RP,216:O,P216_REG_ID:AFD4D31E04BBD22F9EBCAB20343FC90E,1

[Townsend]

Not to get too personal, but he's one ugly ginger:

http://204.62.19.17/svor/f?p=102:216:3189722562107028::NO:RP,216:O,P216_REG_ID:AFD4D31E04BBD22F9EBCAB20343FC90E,1

Pretty:

[Conan71]

Nice set of moobs too.

[guido911]

Yep.  Its over.  My popcorn wasn't even done yet.

The Stanist actually took the high road (or, more likely could afford to fight a lawsuit).

Or... Since they are Satanists its entirely possible they hand over *a* host.

Your "analysis" probably to took longer to articulate than the capitulation. Very happy.

[cannon_fodder]

Someday I look forward to reading your brilliant "analysis" into some legal issue.  You're like the kid on the sideline yelling at the players that they are too slow.  Yet, for some reason you won't take off your shirt and play the game.

[guido911]

Someday I look forward to reading your brilliant "analysis" into some legal issue.  You're like the kid on the sideline yelling at the players that they are too slow.  Yet, for some reason you won't take off your shirt and play the game.

I am not an idiot that spouts off on a subject for which I am not adept, or that I do not really care about. I imagine this makes me, um, smart, measured, and not some sort of know-it-all? I also prefer to not look like you just did.

[DolfanBob]

Come on now. What kind of Tattoo Artist doesn't blend in the stretch marks as part of the whole body of work? 

[guido911]

Come on now. What kind of Tattoo Artist doesn't blend in the stretch marks as part of the whole body of work? 

Here's the line. Here's Bob just pole vaulting over it. Well done.

[BKDotCom]

Nice set of moobs too.

do butt moobs = boobs ?

[Conan71]

do butt moobs = boobs ?

Good one...except women already trademarked those. 

[heironymouspasparagus]

do butt moobs = boobs ?

Moobs....man boobs.  At least that's what the grandkids tell me.....

[carltonplace]

That was a big commotion over a cracker.