Both these and the kosher laws address a species of fraud. But the fraud must
be defined in a way that does not require a) government resolution of a
religious question, or b) government designation of a preferred authority to
resolve the religious question or act for the religion. The fact that is
mispresented must be a secular fact, verifiable as true or false in this world.
Quoting Eric Rassbach <erassb...@becketfund.org>:
>
> What if the law specified that the "Holy Sacrifice of the Mass" was
> purported to be a "Mass" intended to be celebrated in the "Church"?
> Would not then the offence simply be a species of fraud, i.e. the
> shop claimed to be selling the right to have a "Mass" offered in the
> "Church" but it was instead not to be offered in the "Church"? And
> would Irish law already ban such fraudulent activity, thereby
> rendering the law superfluous?
>
> None of this would affect Art's separate point about the
> unconstitutionality of the apparent presumption of guilt.
>
> I must say that there seems to be a bit of trend in Ireland right now
> with legislation that purports to protect religious freedom but
> actually harms it (cf. the recent blasphemy law, which surely
> violates the ECHR).
>
> Eric
>
> PS Máiréad -- as you can see, the members of this list will opine on
> this sort of thing "for fun" -- and for free -- with very little
> provocation!
>
>
>
> ________________________________________
> From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
> [religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Douglas Laycock
> [layco...@umich.edu]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 2009 8:48 PM
> To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
> Subject: Re: Ireland Charities Act 2009: Regulating the Sale of
> Catholic 'Mass Cards'
>
> Unconstitutional. There is an analogous line of US cases on the sale
> of food labeled as kosher but not kosher in accordance with
> government standards. All struck down. If there's a fraud problem,
> the government can require the label to say who certified the food as
> kosher. That is a question that can be answered in this world. But
> government can't decide for itself what counts as kosher, or
> designate a particular rabbi or association as the only approved
> certifying agent.
>
> The sale of Mass cards sounds like the same problem. The state could
> require disclosure of who authorized the Mass card. Or a disclosure
> of whether and how the priest who signed the Mass card will be
> informed of the sale and of who purchased the card. Those are
> verifiable facts. But the state can't decide that only a bishop or a
> head of an order can authorize the sale of Mass cards. That's a
> matter of internal church governance.
>
> Quoting Mairead Enright <maireadenri...@gmail.com>:
>
>> Dear All,
>> A colleague and I hoping to write a short article on s. 99 of the Irish
>> Charities Act, 2009 (
>> http://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/bills28/acts/2009/a0609.pdf[1]). The
>> section regulates the sale of Catholic Mass cards. A Mass card is a greeting
>> card given to someone to let them know that they, or a deceased loved-one,
>> will be remembered and prayed for by a priest during a Catholic Mass. The
>> person who purchases the card makes a donation to the church in exchange for
>> the Mass and Mass cards are a significant source of revenue to Irish
>> churches. Ordinarily, the card is signed by the priest who will say the
>> Mass, at the time that the Mass is requested. However, in recent years,
>> controversy has arisen regarding the sale of pre-signed Mass cards in
>> ordinary shops (
>> http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/weekend/2009/0307/1224242428583.html[2]).
>>
>> Section 99 of the new Charities Act provides that a person who sells a Mass
>> card ?other than pursuant to arrangement with a recognised person? is guilty
>> of a criminal offence. A ?recognised person? is defined as a bishop of the
>> church, or the head of an order recognised by it. In any proceedings it will
>> be presumed, unless proved to the contrary, that an offence has been
>> committed.
>>
>> We were wondering whether one of the subscribers to this list might be
>> willing - for fun - to venture an opinion on what the position of this
>> section might be under U.S. constitutional law. Information on analogous
>> U.S. cases would also be useful. A former Irish Attorney General has
>> suggested that the legislation falls foul of the Irish constitution because
>> (1) it is disproportionate to the aim sought to be achieved and (2) it
>> represents
>> a serious interference with the religious practice of some priests and
>> others who are members of non-Catholic churches.
>>
>> The relevant section reads:
>>
>> 99.?(1) A person who sells a Mass card other than pursuant to an
>> arrangement with a recognised person shall be guilty of an offence
>>
>> (2) In proceedings for an offence under this section it shall be
>> presumed, until the contrary is proved on the balance of probabilities,
>> that the sale of the Mass card to which the alleged offence relates
>> was not done pursuant to an arrangement with a recognised person.
>>
>> (3) In this section?
>> ?Church? means the Holy Catholic Apostolic and Roman Church;
>> ?Mass card? means a card or other printed material that indicates, or
>> purports to indicate, that the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass (howsoever
>> described) will be offered for?
>> (a) the intentions specified therein, or
>> (b) such intentions as will include the intentions specified
>> therein;
>> ?priest? means a priest ordained according to the rites of the Church;
>> ?recognised person? means?
>>
>> (a) a bishop of the Church, or
>> (b) a provincial of an order of priests established under the
>> authority of, and recognised by, the Church;
>> ?sell? includes, in relation to a Mass card, offer or expose the card
>> for sale or invite the making by a person of an offer to purchase
>> the card.
>>
>>
>> Many thanks,
>>
>> Mairead Enright.
>>
>> --
>> Máiréad Enright
>> IRCHSS Scholar in Gender and the Law 2007-2010
>> NUI EJ Phelan Fellow in International Law 2008-2010
>> c/o School of Law, University College Cork, Ireland
>> http://ucc.academia.edu/MaireadEnright[3]
>>
>
>
>
> Douglas Laycock
> Yale Kamisar Collegiate Professor of Law
> University of Michigan Law School
> 625 S. State St.
> Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1215
> 734-647-9713
>
> _______________________________________________
> To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
> http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw[4]
>
> Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as
> private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are
> posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can
> (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
>
>
>
Douglas Laycock
Yale Kamisar Collegiate Professor of Law
University of Michigan Law School
625 S. State St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1215
734-647-9713
Links:
------
[1] http://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/bills28/acts/2009/a0609.pdf
[2] http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/weekend/2009/0307/1224242428583.html
[3] http://ucc.academia.edu/MaireadEnright
[4] http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the
messages to others.