HTTPS://i0.wp.com/isoladipatmos.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/padre-Aiel-piccola.jpg?fit=150,150&ssl=1 150 150 father ariel HTTPS://isoladipatmos.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/logo724c.png father ariel2023-01-08 19:03:152023-01-09 20:01:21The civil juridical aspects of Communion on the hands in the face of the absurd legal actions undertaken by priests and bishops who deserve to be flogged in blood
The civil juridical aspects of Communion on the hands in the face of the absurd legal actions undertaken by priests and bishops who deserve to be flogged in blood
Latest posts by father ariel (see all)
- The Rainbow Trojan Horse of Perfect Catholics, Sora Maria closed for homophobia due to the grattachecca and the foeniculum at the fruit and vegetable market instead of the outlawed fennel - 20 May 2023
- «Bergoglio, heretic and apostate, blaspheme the Madonna". Word of a solar heretic with the obsession of Mary co-redemptrix who would ask for the proclamation of the fifth Marian dogma - 11 May 2023
- When the Italian school does not claim its secularism: porn-actor in a high school in Turin - 26 April 2023
But I remain perplexed: if one vilifies the Eucharist, he commits some crime, even civil. E’ It is true that we are not in France in the 1820s, where a law was approved which sentenced to death whoever stole the sacred chalices (while in today's France blasphemers are cheerfully absolved). But equally there must be some protection.
if we want to make a discourse of a legal and legislative nature, in this case it is necessary to abandon any form of emotion a priori and reason in purely rational terms, certainly not throwing it on the sacred mysteries of faith, which as such concern the deposit of credit, not positive law.
1. No legislator and no civil law of any secular and non-denominational country of this world can establish by law that the Sacred Host is really and substantially in vivo Body of Christ, by law it is a piece of unleavened bread. The law can take into account what the Eucharist “it means” e “symbolizes” for believers, stopping only at the concept of “symbol”, without going any further.
2. I'm afraid you missed my explanation, which I believed and hoped was clear and precise: if a priest gives a piece of unleavened bread to a person who comes before him, placing it in his hand and then handing it to him, if that goes away, he explains to me what kind of crime the person would incur and in what capacity the law should prosecute him?
The fault does not lie with the legislators of the world, the fault lies with us priests who, in the utmost and often total carelessness, persist in placing the Eucharist on people's hands without exercising, often, if not sometimes even of practice, any kind of careful and prudent control.
When then what happens happens, the protection of the law cannot be invoked, because if I give you something in your hand and you walk away, only an utter idiot can speak of “theft” o di “profanation”. I'm the one who gave it to you.
I thought my explanation was clear, simple and understandable.