Shocking Desecration

In Spain, a deeply troubled “artist” designed a blasphemous “work of art” using 242 consecrated hosts that he pilfered by attending Masses over a period of time and receiving Holy Communion in the hand. (One news source here.)

With those consecrated hosts, he spelled the word “pederastia” (English: pederasty).

What is also shocking is that the Bishop of the place, though issuing a strongly-worded condemnation (in Spanish), has only indicated one solitary Mass of reparation in the face of such a grave scandal! No word in his public statement about the issue of communion in the hand, either!

I’m genuinely surprised that he didn’t order a series of Masses of reparation in every parish in the diocese – or that there even be Eucharistic processions in reparation for such a grave offense. He might also have instructed all the parishes to have ushers to keep an eye on those receiving in the hand, to ensure they consumed the host (so that things like this could not happen again). He might have issued a catechesis on why it is better to receive on the tongue in the first place and why communion in the hand is generally ill-advised practice, even setting grave abuses like this aside.

Now I know that I’m not there in Spain and that more might be happening on the local level. But in today’s day and age, news of such scandals travel the globe at break-neck speed. There needs to be a vigorous public response. This is not just an offense against the Faith; it’s a grave assault against our Lord, Jesus Christ, who is really and truly present in the Most Blessed Sacrament!

Let us pray! Join me in making some acts of reparation?


About Gertrude

Sáncte Míchael Archángele, defénde nos in proélio, cóntra nequítiam et insídias diáboli ésto præsídium.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

23 Responses to Shocking Desecration

  1. toad says:

    The “artist” presumably attended Mass 242 times to get the material to make his absurdly glib and fatuous “statement.” He might just as well have used unconsecrated hosts bought wholesale, and saved himself a vast amount of time and unnecessary effort.
    It’s not as if anyone could tell.
    If he really did what he said, he clearly thinks there’s “something in it all.” Very Spanish, we must agree.
    Or, maybe he did what I suggest, and is simply lying to shock the gullible and get some publicity which we seem to be advocating by way of protests and prayer sessions..
    No way of knowing. But I think it’s fishy.


  2. toad says:

    “Shocking” is always a good selling word in a headline, isn’t it? Don’t we all just love to be shocked!
    If we all stop screaming that only bats can hear – and try thinking for a bit, we might come to the conclusion that we only “know” the hosts were consecrated because some publicity-seeking half-wit tells us they were.
    I might be wrong here, but I think he has another motive – fractionally less unsubtle than his original statement, and it's this – he's making a point about what we see, and what we believe, and what we accept as "gospel," just because some clown like him tells us it is so.
    He may soon point this out.
    On the other hand, it might all be true what he says.
    I'm too sceptical to buy it, though.


  3. toad says:

    No much response to this “shocker” so far. Why not, I wonder?

    “As of Monday evening, November 23, more than 75,000 individuals had signed a petition asking the Pamplona city council to immediately and totally remove the exhibit.”

    And CP&S has also gleefully swallowed the hook. What if the “artist” had said, “Why all the fuss – the wafers weren’t consecrated, anyway?” Would he still have had 75,000 people and a bishop screaming blue murder? I think not.
    Toad has already called the guy “half-witted” and a “clown” Toad was wrong. The “artist” has ‘created’ a cunning parody on religion and credulity – and performed a sort of secular miracle – by transmuting a non-event into a successful and highly satisfying major scandal – merely by pronouncing a few words over it; the words in question being, “This bread is consecrated.” Something only he can know.
    ….Or so I suggest. I might be wrong about all this. But I don’t think so.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. kathleen says:

    “Acts of reparation” for this horrendous sacrilege against the Most Holy Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Blessed Lord are most definitely in need here, and should be made all over the world in reparation for this and so many unreported offences against the Most Blessed Sacrament.

    There is little doubt that the hosts used in this diabolical ‘exhibition’ were truly consecrated hosts, for the perpetrator, Abel Azcona, has been caught numerous times on film going up to receive Holy Communion in the hand, pretending to consume the Sacred host, and then concealing it. This does indeed reveal, as Toad points out, that he knew very well that “there’s something in it”, and that his exhibition would only scandalise, shock and offend if the hosts were truly consecrated ones!!

    The city council of Pamplona is governed by an extreme-leftist Basque (separatist) coalition called Bildu, which might explain their compliance in allowing this blasphemous exhibition.
    Abel Azcona, on the other hand, is a mentally unstable criminal who should be locked up!

    ‘Vultus Christi’ have also written a moving article about the issue where they regret the lack of a vigorous response from the clergy to such a planned and despicable blasphemy against Our Lord in the Holy Eucharist. At the end of their article they state:

    “The lack of a reaction to sins perpetrated against the Body of Christ comes, I fear, first of all, from a clergy that, for fear of accusations of clericalism, has become, in some very crucial matters, disempowered and ineffectual. Saint Thomas’s clear teaching on the duty of the priest to care, first of all, for the “true Body of Christ”, needs to be reiterated and affirmed:

    A priest exercises a twofold action: the one, which is principal, over the true body of Christ; the other, which is secondary, over the mystical body of Christ. The second act depends on the first, but not conversely. (Suppl. q. 36, a.1)

    The hour has come for priests to reclaim their rightful guardianship over the most fragile, vulnerable, and silent of mysteries, the true and adorable Body of Christ. On this one thing depends the exercise of every priest’s ministry to the members of the Mystical Body. Nothing done at the altar or from the altar is without significance. It [is] time to critically re-evaluate those liturgical practices and malpractices that leave the Body of Christ exposed to profanation and that have opened the door to sacrileges like the one so recently in the news.”


  5. Robert says:

    Couldn’t care a less what the Press think what artistry thinks.
    They have handed Our Lord over to the pagans to be brutalised and Crucified anew.
    The Eucharist is the Body , Blood, Soul and Divinity. The priests oblation at the altar and consecrated hands are so that He can celebrate the Holy sacrifice of the Mass and hold the Blood, Body of Christ.
    In the Apostles time postulants were not permitted to attend the Holy sacrifice of the Mass.
    God’s judgement here is from top down and it started in 1960’s. That Curia and those Prelates who preferred the opinion of the world and sought its acclaim before Christ.
    Will Heaven be silent? Beware the silence of Christ.


  6. Michael says:

    Thank you Kathleen for linking to that ‘canonlaw182’ article, which fills in some of the gaps regarding the validity of the claims made by the ‘artist’. After reading this though, I followed the Patheos link at the top of Gertrude’s article here, and that alone (c.f.; some of his past performances/installations) gives a very strong impression that Azcona is someone principally concerned with shock tactics – hence the need for genuinely consecrated hosts.

    He is clearly an extremely damaged and unbalanced individual, and it is a terrible shame that he doesn’t seem to feel there is any other way of letting out the pain and rage that stem from his terrible childhood than doing things like this (touching perhaps on other topics discussed here recently – i.e.; the inability of our culture to provide any adequate means for dealing with grief or reconciling ourselves to the sin and suffering in the world).

    Having said that though, it is perfectly possible for the clergy in Pamplona to assert the fact that this young man is clearly damaged and in need of help (without playing the usual victim card and absolving him of any responsibility for what he has done – such is an affront to justice and would not help the individual himself in the long run), as well as making a clear statement regarding the profound sacrilege that has taken place and the need for both acts of reparation amongst the faithful and swift acts by the local government to remove the ‘exhibit’.

    No doubt some clergy will be embarrassed by the message Azora’s desecration was trying to make, and perhaps think their making any strong statement will draw more attention to it – but this is not the time for cowardice; again, it is possible to clearly assert the Church’s shame over the sex abuse scandal as well as making firm declarations of the existence of other evils – this being as clear an example of such as one could get.


  7. Michael says:

    P.S. Re the excerpt from Vultus Christi about the clergy’s lack of reaction to sins against the Body of Christ being due to their having becoming ineffectual, I certainly agree; but would also add that in many cases their silence is down to the fact that they’ve stopped believing in Our Lord’s presence in the Sacrament as well. At which point, when a priest stops believing in the efficacy of the words of institution – the principal thing that he is ordained to do – you have to ask, what is the point of his still being in office?


  8. Robert says:

    Cain and Abel! Both sacrificed One was acceptable the other wasn’t! Today the Cain’s and Abel’s exist on the altars.
    What hasn’t sunk in is that the Church is the mystical Body of Christ. The Eucharist is Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity. What is done to the Eucharist is being done to the mystical Body of Christ. As you treat the Eucharist is how you treat the Church.
    The Eucharist is Divinity , that’s, God The Father, God the Son and God The Holy Ghost.


  9. toad says:

    “Abel Azcona, on the other hand, is a mentally unstable criminal who should be locked up!”
    Indeed he is, Kathleen, and yet you seem hell-bent on believing every word he says. I do not. But, more significantly, the dupes of Pamplona (and CP&S) also seem bent on furthering his “career” as much as possible.
    When he says, “I want you all – on the count of three- to clap your hands to the sides of your heads, and start moaning, ‘Ooh! Ooh! Desecration! Ooh! Shocking! Ooh! Ooh!’ – Ready? Three!” – that is precisely what they do, 75,000 of them, it says.
    What the Bishop and everyone should have said was, ” Poor boy. Off his head. God loves him and forgives him. So do we.” ( and quietly try to get him locked up.)


  10. kathleen says:

    Michael @ 11:46 yesterday

    Yes Michael, I agree, but in your last paragraph where you mention “the sex abuse scandal” – this did not affect this troubled individual (Abel Azcona) in any way at all. His early history is horrific and shocking – dragged up by a prostitute mother who ill-treated him, abused and neglected, etc. – but it had nothing to do with that other scandal within the Church. His “shock tactics”, as you rightly call them, is his way at hitting out at the world as a whole. The ‘poor’ man is indeed deeply damaged, but “playing the victim card” as he does, in no way lessens the fact that he wanted to hurt others (innocent Catholics here) and that his blasphemous display is a terrible affront to the Sacred Body of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

    Toad @ 7:03

    What’s your beef, Toadie?
    After all, you are a proclaimed agnostic aren’t you, so it’s no wonder this “shocking desecration” of Our Blessed Lord in the Holy Eucharist does not penetrate that thick green skin of yours even a milimetre… You therefore pompously mock and gloat away at the rest of us to whom it has caused suffering.


  11. Michael says:

    Kathleen @ 11:00:

    I agree – there doesn’t seem to be any suggestion or evidence that Azcona himself was affected by this scandal. What I meant is that many of the clergy perhaps will, despite it being their clear duty to do so, be put off drawing attention to this case by calling out its seriousness and the fact that such a sacreligious act has been allowed to stand by the civil authorities (so far), precisely because Azcona’s ‘work’ is directed towards the sex abuse scandal and they don’t want any more attention drawn to that.

    Actually, I presume that part of Azcona’s intention in this was to perform an act of extreme desecration in such a way that would make the Church feel awkward about making too strong a statement about it (because of the subject matter). Like many others in our post-Christian age, I also presume that, despite being in great need of her means of grace and restoration, he sees the Church (precisely because it offers those things, and because it stands alone for truth and light and life in the world) as something to lash out and spend his anger against. As you wrote above, I too have a strong suspicion that he, one some level, thinks ‘there’s something in it’, and that this is why he chooses to drag it down in a way he knows would hinder a clear response from the clergy.

    This of course makes it all the more important that they do make a clear response. However, perhaps what Azcora hadn’t factored in is the indifference and, to be frank, unbelief, amongst an unfortunate number of the hierarchy. In a strange way, his act of desecration shows a greater understanding of the true nature of the Blessed Sacrament than the way in which members of the clergy talk about and handle the elements themselves!


  12. kathleen says:

    Oh yes, dear Michael, I know. I was only wanting to make that point (that the clerical ‘sex abuse scandal’ had not touched Azcona personally) doubly clear.

    As to members of the clergy not wanting to “draw attention” to this shameful history of (only) a very small percentage of treacherous priests, that caused such terrible harm, I quite agree. In fact I feel quite sorry for the vast majority of faithful clergy who all sense somehow that they are ‘tarred with the same brush’ of this grave and filthy sin of the sex abuse of minors.
    Strangely, it is probably in Ireland where such a ‘feeling’ of linked culpability is greatest and where bitterness against the hierarchical Church is most notable (as the great Fr Benedict Groeschell once admitted), and this could explain the Irish clergy’s weak and spineless defence of true Marriage in the build up to the Marriage Referendum last June. Not that such a cowering defence of the Catholic Church’s true teaching can ever be justifiable, mind you!

    It is the liberal members of the clergy who mince their words and seek compromises in their preaching. True Catholic priests (what we know as traditionalists, but who in reality are only real Catholics) stick firmly to the Church’s teaching at all times.

    May God bless, protect and guide all priests and bishops to be true Alter Christus and not fear the abuse and verbal attacks of the secular world that does not want to hear the Truth being spoken publicly. Why? Because this ‘Truth’ challenges their self-indulgent, (ahem) ‘tolerant’, libertine outlook where, quite simply, anything goes except a virtuously-led life. No tolerance for “real Catholics”, neither priests nor laity!


  13. Michael says:

    Kathleen @ 13:09:

    I thought so, but it gave me a good excuse to waffle some more anyway! 🙂

    I too feel sorry for the vast majority, who have had their work compromised by the horrendous sins of the few in virtually every way – it must be that much harder to get their message across to people outside the Church and to work closely with people within because of it. As you say, this does seem to have had a particularly noticeable effect in Ireland, and certainly does go some way to explaining their lack of defence of Marriage (though, I think we have to add to this the fact that, like with the desecration issue being discussed here, many of them just don’t believe what the Church teaches anymore).

    As you say, it is the liberal members of the clergy who compromise and mince their words, a.) because they fear the judgement of the world over the judgement of God, and b.) because they have stopped believing the Faith in its entirety. It is not a surprise in fact that the great majority of sex abuse cases took place during the period (post-Vatican II, pre John Paul II) where liberalism had exerted its greatest influence within the Church – relativism not only corrupts belief but corrodes bulwarks against moral evil (in individuals and the Body as a whole) as well.

    Regarding your last paragraph, all I can say is amen!


  14. toad says:

    “…relativism not only corrupts belief but corrodes bulwarks against moral evil (in individuals and the Body as a whole) as well.”
    All depends on what we mean by “relativism.” Best to give examples. In my opinion, the Catholic Church today is relatively benign when it comes to heretics. At one time they burned them. That’s relativism. Also,if you like, the way South Sea Islanders regarded sex 300 years ago was relatively different from the Puritans in New England.
    If we mean there is some unarguable, universal, truth, that is not relative, I would like to agree,
    except I’d also like to know what that truth is. “Thou shalt not kill”? No, that won’t do at all – will it?

    [A moderator says: While comments are sought and very welcome CP&S may finally decide to admit or reject, without explanation or apology, any comment or comments they deem to be in accordance with the aims upon which the blog was set up some five years ago or otherwise. Of course, commenters may react to this by continuing to comment or not on CP&S, as they choose.]


  15. toad says:

    And this is an opportune opportunity(!) to say how much I appreciate the remarkable amount of rein CP&S allows me very often.
    I hope that my comments are, occasionally at least – stimulating and good for readership. (thought-provoking would be nice too, but that’s asking an awful lot. I know how hard thinking is for me )
    However, my feeble, scatterbrain, notions might provide others with a target to take a well-considered kick.
    (Oh, shut up, Toad. pompous bore.)


  16. Robert says:

    Free Will is the equitable measure that Heaven uses to judge Souls. Snow Flakes are totally unique, no two are the same, same with Souls.
    Built into creatures are Laws common to the creature. With Man this includes a belief in God, Father and Mother, Theft, Murder etc.. These Laws are found historically wherever Man has existed. Another common finding is sacrifice to God.
    With Our Lord we have higher knowledge and gifts given through the sacraments.
    Ignorance is a defence of the Free Will with God. Acting against this knowledge, Sin, is therefor commonly understood by Man.
    Man today through Abortion, Divorce and perverse sexuality has by His own Free Will sinned against God. What is more within the Church the unthinkable is being tolerated, a blind eye to sin.
    A pagan, without knowledge might ill treat the Eucharist. But consider a Catholic, with knowledge and intent desecrating the Eucharist.
    Toad has ignored the Sanctuary that the Church used to protect those seeking shelter under her protection. It was the State that burned and punished transgressors


  17. Tom Fisher says:

    It was the State that burned and punished transgressors

    Quite so Robert. Strictly speaking.


  18. toad says:

    “Toad has ignored the Sanctuary that the Church used to protect those seeking shelter under her protection. It was the State that burned and punished transgressors..”
    Oh, no Toad hasn’t. And the State burned people when the Church told them to. We all know that. (Well, nearly all)


  19. toad says:

    Roger, one of your several bizarre laments is that Church and State are now separated – in the UK, for one.
    Unlike, say, in Saudi Arabia, where :”Church “and State are indivisible. Which indivisibility is what you would seem to advocate for the UK and Western Europe.
    Will you still be demanding the same unbreakable fusion between Church and State when Sharia Law is the democratically elected, majority choice, in England?
    Or do we have some sort of Christian dictatorship in mind?


  20. kathleen says:

    @ Toad

    And the State burned people when the Church told them to. We all know that.

    Looks like you’ve got things the wrong way round again, Toad. I assume you are thinking especially of the Spanish Inquisition, right? In this case it was the State (Spanish king and his court) that begged the Church to get involved in helping them extricate the many heretics and false ‘conversos’ who were committing grievous desecrations against the Blessed Sacrament and spreading errors among the population. Most of the men of the Inquisition were upright, honest men who only wanted to uphold Catholic teaching… but like in all human endeavours, you will always get a few rotten apples.

    Thomas Madden has written a very well-researched and objective article on the Spanish Inquisition:

    As we all know… “well, nearly all” ;-), as a matter of fact the Church did not go around burning heretics; the Gospel was preached everywhere through witnessing to its message from The Word of God, Our Lord Jesus Christ, thus with love (and quite unlike the false religion of Islam that was spread by the sword).
    Though there certainly is evidence that over the centuries, some overly zealous Catholics, usually when in retaliation for the great persecution they themselves had suffered, e.g. in the reign of Mary Tudor of England, and when failing to persuade the ‘heretics’ to recant, ended up burning them at the stake. Just over 200 I believe, compared to the thousands of Catholic martyrs of England, Wales and (very especially) Ireland!

    The Catholic Church has had the humility and honesty to plead forgiveness for these crimes. (But one could also well ask, in the case of other Christian persecutors, “where is the apology from all the Protestant churches, including Anglicans, for the far, far greater number of Catholics that were put to cruel and violent deaths in the past at their hands?”) Fortunately Christians have moved on from fighting each other; we all have far greater and more brutal enemies to defend ourselves from nowadays.

    By the way, did you know that atheistic Communism has murdered more Christians (countless millions in fact) than all other pseudo religions in the world, including Islam?

    Yet, as Roger/Robert has pointed out, it is those who can destroy the soul whom we should fear the most. And these ‘murderers’ are all around us; they live among us, poisoning the minds of the young, the weak, the ignorant, the gullible… and those who have turned their back on the One True Church.


  21. GC says:

    Toad, do try to keep up:


  22. toad says:

    In fact, Kathleen, I was (as you note) thinking of what happened in Tudor times in England. When both Protestants and Catholics were burning one another in turn.But it was a relatively long time ago and it doesn’t happen now.
    Saying yes, it was bad, but Communists were worse – is a sort of argument. Not one worth making in my opinion, but there you are.

    GC, nice, sensible, link. Of course Catholics can, and should, involve themselves in politics and the workings of The State. Perhaps you should advise Roger to watch it. What I believe is wrong is where one religion imposes its practices on everyone in the state,including citizens who don’t follow the state religion. These are largely Muslim states, these days. It was the case in Puritan New England as well, and in France in Voltaire’s time, for example. And we don’t want anything like that again. I imagine we all agree?


  23. Robert says:

    Eternity has only good and evil (Heaven and Hell) this is the knowledge acquired with the Fall.
    The Church? I presume Toad is confused over the Church Militant not that in Glory(Heaven) nor the suffering Church (Purgatory).
    Well if the Church is the mystical Body of Christ what on Earth does STATE mean?
    Do you mean naturalism/modernism/realism all of which derive from a perceived Natural world that jogs along but DOESN’T require God?
    State and Church separation? This is just another way of attempting to negate the Life and Passion of Our Lord and turn Man back to Fallen State? The Church is reduced to the status of myth and fantasy.
    Christ is restoring All things but in Gods time not man’s.


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s