The Struggle Against the Black Mass, From Oklahoma Archbishop's Perspective

Aleteia ^ | September 19, 2014 | JOHN BURGER

[NYer]

Archdiocese of Boston

Ever since he first learned of a local satanic group's plans to use a public theater to perform a "black mass," Archbishop Paul S. Coakley of Oklahoma City has been urging public officials to cancel the event and asking Catholics to pray for that intention.

He has been unsuccessful, and this Sunday, the Dakhma of Angra Mainyu will take to the stage in an 88-seat theater within the Oklahoma City Civic Center Music Hall to reenact a ritual that is an inversion of the Catholic Mass. Though they were forced to hand over what they claimed was a consecrated Host, which they planned to desecrate during the ritual, the sect still plans to perform their own version of a "consecration" over a substitute "host," as well as a "Satanic Exorcism."

Outside, groups opposed to the use of public space for this event will be praying and protesting. Archbishop Coakley will be leading a prayer vigil several hours earlier at an Oklahoma City church. 

Aleteia spoke with Archbishop Coakley today about his attempts to keep the black mass out of Oklahoma City and to strengthen his flock through prayer.  


This year, we’ve seen attempts to perform the black mass for the public in two places—at Harvard University and in Oklahoma City. We see a group called the Satanic Temple attempting to install a statue at the Oklahoma State capitol and the same organization announcing that it will open 15 chapters nationwide. In your view, is there a rise in Satanic activity? If so, what accounts for it?


There certainly seems to be a new boldness among satanic groups in that they’re coming out of the shadows, which is where they’ve been very comfortable dwelling up until now, and displaying a much more public face. I’d never heard of a public black mass before the event that was scheduled at Harvard, only to be followed by the one here in Oklahoma City.

So there certaily seems to be an increase in public satanic activity; whether that indicates that there is more satanic activity, I don’t know. it could well be with the rise of secularism and the growing fashionable nature of atheism these days. It kind of leaves the door open to this kind of interest or curiosity and influence.


Going back to this summer, as this story was developing, can you tell me about your negotiations with city officials when you were trying to convince them to cancel this event? What was each side’s basic position, and why did they not seem to get it that this sort of thing is deeply offensive to Catholics?

In my conversation with our city officials, they indicated that they found the event deeply offensive as well. Though none of them around the table were Catholic, they found that this was offensive to all Christians.

But as their justification for doing nothing to stop it, they indicated that they were bound by the Constitution, bound by their own by-laws, the fact that the city had to remain neutral about the kinds of programming that would take place in a public facility.

The bottom line was that they were afraid of a lawsuit, and that they were not willing to risk a lawsuit and the costs to taxpayers to defend a lawsuit, which they felt was unwinnable.


As they appeal to the First Amendment, so might also the Dakhma of Angra Mainyu, so might also the Satanic Temple, which wants to install a statue of Baphomet at the state capitol. Is it a challenge for you, to come up with an argument that trumps an appeal to the Constitution, to religious liberty?

For one thing, I think there are other regulations restricting what can be placed on the steps of the state capitol. There are all kinds of codes, and I think anybody who wants to can’t come along and place the monument of their choice there. I think they permitted the Ten Commandments to be placed there because the capitol is the place where lawmakers make laws, and the Ten Commandments are a set of laws, so it had a certain fittingness, whereas there’s nothing fitting or appropriate between a statue of Satan and what takes place within the capitol.

So personally, I don’t think that’s going to ever go anywhere.

But we’re not responding to the black mass performance in terms of religious liberty. They will be doing their satanic rituals in the future as they have in the past—and I suppose they have a right to do that—but the nature of this black mass, in my view, is that it is not authentic religion; it’s really more akin to hate speech. It’s a direct attack upon the Christian faith and the Catholic Mass and the Eucharist. It’s deliberately intended to inflame and incite, so I don’t think it’s necessarily a form of speech that  is appropriate for a public venue. Not all speech is protected speech. If, for example, a group had desired to come and rent this same facility for the purpose of burning the Quran or lighting a cross in a racist, Ku Klux Klan sort of demonstration, or somehow committing anti-Semitic acts, I think the city likely would have found a reason to prevent that. Not all speech is protected speech.

But there seems to be perhaps a double standard being applied here that we don’t recognize—that the black mass is equally offensive to Catholics and to Christians. That’s a great cause of concern. That was an argument we tried to make to our city leaders.


With this "Dakhma of Angra Mainyu" present in town, and with its leader, Adam Daniels’ claim to have had a consecrated Host, have you been worried about possible theft of the Eucharist from any of your churches, and have you asked priests to take extra care that someone, say, receiving Communion by hand might walk off with the Host? Have any extra steps been taken to safeguard the Eucharist?

Yes, of course, I have asked our priests to work with their deacons and any extraordinary ministers of holy Communion, and to ensure that they were exercising special vigilance in light of the fact that a satanic group had somehow acquired, illicitly, a consecrated Host, to ensure that there were special safeguards that assure us that those who receive Communion in whatever way, on the hand in particular, are in fact consuming the Host.


What became of the Host that Daniels was forced to return?

Very often with what might happen with a Host that is dropped or if somebody gets sick after having received Communion, there are procedures in place for reverent and proper ways to dispose of the Host, through the use of the sacrarium at the church. So that’s what I did with the consecrated Host that we had received. I treated it with reverence and respect and honor and placed it in the sacrarium, so that it was taken care of in a proper manner.


Could you discuss what effects this whole episode has had on the faithful in your archdiocese? What are some of the things people are saying about a deepening understanding of the reality of sin and evil, perhaps, or the importance of living a prayerful, sacramental life?

I think there have been good fruits. It’s kind of galvanized our Catholic community and our ecumenical relations here in Oklahoma. We Catholics are a very small minority of the population, and it’s certainly brought particular attention to our Catholic faith, particularly our faith in the Eucharist and how important that is to us, the mystery of the Real Presence. It’s given us an opportunity to talk about that and to preach and to teach about that. We’ve been conducting holy hours in all of our parishes. So it’s certainly given us an opportunity to have a bit more of a public witness in our community. Our Catholic people have certainly learned the Prayer to St. Michael if they had not learned it previously, because that’s been prayed at all of our Masses over the last couple of months.

So it has been an opportunity to be a little more up front about our Catholic faith. I’ve heard anecdotally about people who have read about our Catholic beliefs, particularly in the Real Presence, who have expressed an interest in learning more about that. The very lawsuit that was filed to regain possession of the illicitly-acquired Host talked about transubstantiation in the legal briefs. So we’ve had opportunities to talk about our faith that we might not otherwise have had.

So I think ultimately there’s been plenty of good fruit. People have been praying; people have been spending time before the Blessed Sacrament. We trust that God will bring good out of this.


Could you share with us some of your thoughts and feelings about this satanic sect in your city, particularly its leader, Adam Daniels?

I’ve not met Mr. Daniels. Perhaps I’ll have an occasion to do that in the future, but I’ve been praying for him, for his conversion. I don’t think it’s a large sect, but they’ve certainly let their presence be known. I think they have  sought attention and they have received attention from this. For the future I’m not sure if we’re going to hear more from them or not but will certainly be prepared to respond appropriately if this sort of event presents itself again. I think we’ll certainly be more vigilant and more intentional in the future.

[Mrs. Don-o]

No, AMPU, you didn't read carefully enough. Some of these are doctrines, some dogmas; some creeds, some customs; some prayer practices, some handed-on habits of Christian piety.

You objected to "4 man umbrella - added. Goofy outfits that look religious and worldy? added."

It's just as "added" to have a cross, as to have an umbrella. It's just as "added" to have academic robes at your Christian college graduation, as to have Franciscan religious habits. It's just as "added" to have pews OR folding chairs, since the first meeting-houses had neither.

You can't get away from it, AMPU. Open up your Bible. "Matthew," "Mark, "Luke" and "John" ascribed to Gospels which were written anonymously. Not attributed to any human evangelist in the text itself.

Do you object to that? It's added on.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

“It’s just as “added” to have a cross, as to have an umbrella. It’s just as “added” to have academic robes at your Christian college graduation, as to have Franciscan religious habits. It’s just as “added” to have pews OR folding chairs, since the first meeting-houses had neither.”

I disagree with you.

Christ’s sacrifice on the cross is the central point of our faith and of history. The pagan 4 man umbrella (pictured) has nothing to do with Christianity, yet is placed at the forefront of a supposedly Christian act of worship.

Academic robes are not an act of worship. They are a tradition in the academic community.
Franciscans are a whole added topic without foundation in NT Christianity. Forget the costumes.
How people sit or stand while they worship is not central to Christian worship. Since the first churches were home churches, I can imagine there were chairs, but chairs or no chairs are not the center of worship or doctrine. If they are, there is something very wrong with the church that makes it so.

A better question to examine is why would a purportedly Christian church want to enshroud themselves in pagan religiosity? What do they gain by this other than diluting truth to appear as good as false religions?

[aMorePerfectUnion]

“•The words “Incarnation” and Trinity.” Added on.”

Descriptive words like those above are used to account for the totality of what Holy Scripture teaches about a specific topic. It is a shorthand way of expressing the truth. It is not added on as a separate truth. It expresses what was revealed already.

[narses]

[aMorePerfectUnion]

“You can’t get away from it, AMPU. Open up your Bible. “Matthew,” “Mark, “Luke” and “John” ascribed to Gospels which were written anonymously. Not attributed to any human evangelist in the text itself. Do you object to that? It’s added on.”

Chapter numbers, page numbers, verse numbers, even many book names are added on later as matters of convenience.

They do not add to the truth of the book. They do not change the God’s Word.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

Narses, old friend!

I have a question I’d like you to answer, if you can do so...

If I believe the same thing that hundreds of millions of other Christians believe, how is that my “own personal interpretation?”

Other than that, the premise of your post is false. We are supposed to study the Scripture to see what it says. We are commanded and encouraged to do that individually.

I look forward to hearing your insightful answer.

[narses]

Snort.

Can you point to an online “credo” that agrees with your views?

[aMorePerfectUnion]

“Snort.”

Bless you!

“Can you point to an online “credo” that agrees with your views?”

Can you not answer my question?

You are assuming I am alone in my beliefs, which is not true. Given that, please answer the question, if you are able. I suspect there is no legitimate answer.

[TradicalRC]

We are supposed to study the Scripture to see what it says. We are commanded and encouraged to do that individually.

And when others read Scripture and come to different conclusions? By what authority do you claim that your interpretation is the correct one?

[aMorePerfectUnion]

“And when others read Scripture and come to different conclusions? By what authority do you claim that your interpretation is the correct one?”

There are some answers to your question I will share:

1. Which interpretation are you referring to? Which Scripture?
2. I don’t claim authority. I claim educated discipline to handle the Scriptures as a teacher, a spiritual gift and for personal maturity and feeding. The teaching occurs under the authority of my local church.
3. Presumably, you delegate the commanded task of studying the Scriptures to someone else. God commands each of us to “Love God with all our mind.” Why would you outsource your mind?
4. Someone will always come up with a different conclusion. It is the history of the church. Unless you know the Scriptures, all you can do is shrug your shoulders.

[HoosierDammit]

Funny how a thread about the (mostly) pan-Christian outrage against a black mass becomes yet another platform for your ongoing crusade against His Holy Church.

You are of course free to post on the thread, but I’m not going to lie - when I saw your comment I thought to myself, why would a self described Christian, in the face of such evil, choose to continue to sow seeds of bitter derision? When you’re picking fights with fellow Christians while they’re battling Lucifer you may want to reassess where you stand.

Seriously, man, this is THE DEVIL we’re talking about. SATAN. And he’s directing this at us. ALL OF US, this time through the Church. Do you think that because it’s not your particular little sect they’re mocking that you’re insulated from the threat?

This fight is bigger than you and me and the Bishop and the idiots who are supporting it - this is the eternal battle that the Church has been fighting since Her beginning. We’ll fight it now, just like we always have and always will. In the meantime, for your own sake I’d drop the polemics on this one and either step up and help, or sit quietly and let us do what we do. Anything else only plays to the dark side and furthers its wicked ends.

[delchiante]

1 John 2:18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.
1 John 2:19 THEY WENT OUT FROM US, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.

That scripture says an Antichrist can come from within...

And considering anti can mean ‘in place of’ and ‘instead of’ it is clear one would have to be pretty close to the real deal to deceive as scripture warns us.

The enemy without is easy to spot..

But strategos and antistrategos need not be on different sides in the Greek..
Antistrategos can also mean second in command under the commanding general..

The enemy within is the dangerous one because it is the counterfeit/ pseudo in the greek(false),

[aMorePerfectUnion]

No, we are not talking about the devil. There is no “black mass”.

The kingdom of God will not stumble or fail because of this silliness any more than signs by atheists on buses.

Your very efforts are giving it the attention it craves.

[Mrs. Don-o]

“You can’t get away from it, AMPU. Open up your Bible. “Matthew,” “Mark, “Luke” and “John” ascribed to Gospels which were written anonymously. Not attributed to any human evangelist in the text itself. Do you object to that? It’s added on.”

---

Chapter numbers, page numbers, verse numbers, even many book names are added on later as matters of convenience. They do not add to the truth of the book. They do not change the God’s Word.

That's a very mistaken assertion. The attribution of the Gospels to two of the Twelve Apostles (Matthew and John) stems from a tradition of the Church that the Gospels came from authentic, eye-witness sources who accompanied Jesus for the 2 1/2 years of His pulic ministry, and especially, from those who witnessed his post-Resurrection glory: t from the very Apostles to whom Christ gave such glorious privileges sand promises. It has an impact on whether we think they are genuine or spurious; whether we think the Apostolic tradition is authoritative, or it is not. It was, after all, only a couple of centuries after that that the 27 books of the New Testament were collected from hither and thither, and recognized as a unified Canon of sacred writings.

And two Gospels are attributed -- again, not by stated authorship in the text, but by Church tradition --- to two of the Apostles' disciples. Mark is secretary-disciple for Peter; and as for Luke, it's only according to a Church tradition dating from the 2nd century that the Luke named as a companion of Paul in three of the letters attributed to Paul himself, was the same man who was the author of Luke-Acts.

The impact of this on belief cannot be overstated. If the early Church hadn't believed that these books came from eyewitnesses and their first-generation disciples, the books would not have been accepted into the Canon.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

“The impact of this on belief cannot be overstated. If the early Church hadn’t believed that these books came from eyewitnesses and their first-generation disciples, the books would not have been accepted into the Canon.”

In studying the decision-making process of the canon - originally and subsequently through many iterations - ascribed authorship that was believable counted for a lot. It was not everything Mrs. Don-o. There are books without certainty of authorship - Hebrews comes to mind. There are things Apostles wrote that were not inspired and not included.

I commend to you the study of the canon process. As with much of our history, it is messy. God worked through it. Some errors crept in anyway and were corrected later.

For those reasons, when you read one of the four gospels today, you do not have to believe the authorship. Nor is it necessary to believe it for the words to be true.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Seriously, it surpasses good sense to think the Church canonized non-inspired books. If it had, even her reliability in canonizing the correct ones would have been fatally undermined. The whole thing would have been debatable and up for grabs: hurricane hits a double-wide.

[HoosierDammit]

“No, we are not talking about the devil. There is no “black mass”.”

How obtuse can you possibly be? There are people actively invoking the devil in the ceremony. Does he not hear? Does it not bring him satisfaction that people are willfully inviting evil into the world?

“The kingdom of God will not stumble or fail because of this silliness any more than signs by atheists on buses.”

Of course the Kingdom will survive and not fail. It can’t. That’s not the point. People can, and people will. Because of this. It is the efforts of the faithful that will prevent more from being unwittingly drawn in. Evil is an infection, and like an infection it must be treated quickly and with overwhelming force lest it gain a foothold. Sticking your fingers in your ears and pretending like it isn’t there will only let it fester and grow.

“Your very efforts are giving it the attention it craves.”

There are two sides - the side of the Faithful, and the side of evil. Ridicule the efforts of the Faithful, and you support the other side by default. There is no neutrality here. Where do you want to stand? If I didn’t know better, I’d begin to wonder.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

“Seriously, it surpasses good sense to think the Church canonized non-inspired books.”

No. it was a process, starting with a list of books recognized by early church leaders. They early lists were not perfect.

“If it had, even her reliability in canonizing the correct ones would have been fatally undermined. The whole thing would have been debatable and up for grabs: hurricane hits a double-wide.”

But of course this reflects the underlying presuppositions of a faithful catholic. In history, nothing stops God’s work or will. He remains sovereign.

[Mrs. Don-o]

"But of course this reflects the underlying presuppositions of a faithful catholic. In history, nothing stops God’s work or will. He remains sovereign.'

Your thinking here is circular. It was evidently His sovereign will to build His Church, which undeniably functioned in history as transmitter of the Scriptures, definer and guardian of the Canon. Because He guaranteed that His Church, built on "this Rock," would prevail: "The gates of Hell will not overcome it."

[aMorePerfectUnion]

“How obtuse can you possibly be? There are people actively invoking the devil in the ceremony. Does he not hear? Does it not bring him satisfaction that people are willfully inviting evil into the world?”

Oh, he is probably quite pleased at the publicity your side is generating!

“Of course the Kingdom will survive and not fail. It can’t. That’s not the point. People can, and people will. Because of this. It is the efforts of the faithful that will prevent more from being unwittingly drawn in. Evil is an infection, and like an infection it must be treated quickly and with overwhelming force lest it gain a foothold. Sticking your fingers in your ears and pretending like it isn’t there will only let it fester and grow.”

I will disagree with you here. It is a very small group that gets involved and then, only for a short time. This goes back to Anton Lavay (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anton_LaVey). Little came of that. He died in a Catholic hospital.

“There are two sides - the side of the Faithful, and the side of evil.”

I would phrase it as God’s side vs. Evil. It would be more accurate and carry the full sense of history.

“Ridicule the efforts of the Faithful, and you support the other side by default.”

Actually, sometimes Christians act like idiots. They do not further the cause of Christ when they do so. Not limited to Catholics by the way. Protestants sometimes do the same. Just read Church history. Sometimes both should be opposed and at times rightly ridiculed.

In the meantime, everyone should care more about the purity of their faith and oppose creeping paganism and worldliness.

“There is no neutrality here. Where do you want to stand? If I didn’t know better, I’d begin to wonder.”

Neutrality is the wrong issue. It is not evil. It is the appearance of evil, meant to tweak you as a Catholic. Only you can give that power to the organizers by reacting.

Your actions are giving life and energy to the very thing you claim to oppose by amplifying it in the public eye. Let it go. God can handle it.