An archbishop recently filed a successful lawsuit, to stop a satanic black mass from happening using a consecrated host. But what I found interesting, is that the lawsuit was on the basis that the consecrated host was Church property, and so must have been stolen.
The consecrated host is the body and blood, soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and so if anything, the Church is the property of the stolen host. Really, it wasn’t a case of theft, but kidnapping.
But, would this case work legally? Would the real presence have to be proven? Would Jesus be asked to testify?
This reminds me of the plot of a film (I’ve only seen the end) starring Billy Connolly, where after an accident deemed by the insurance company as an “act of God”, the main character decides to sue God Himself.
It is clear, whether or not there is the real presence, that there was a crime, but the Archbishop, theologically, can’t claim it was theft, and, legally, would have great difficulty proving it’s kidnapping. But he did call it theft, and won the return of the Sacred Host.
What do you think? Should the Archbishop have claimed the Eucharist as property to win its return? Could he have won, without calling Jesus property? Is it the Church’s property?
God bless you.