Fake Canadian Lawyer Charged With "Witchcraft"

[Valmy]

Wiccans are only one facet of modern witchcraft. There are plenty of other types of pagan-style religions blossoming everywhere, and I would guess that all of them are a little tired of their religious practices being equated to fraud. Otherwise, the little "for entertainment purposes only" wouldn't be necessary.

Their practices are not equated to fraud.  Fraud using their religious practices as a cover is fraud.  If they are insulted by that...well then having silly superstitious beliefs is the least of their problems.

[crazy canuck]

And priests do charge money for "intentional" masses, at least in the catholic church.

Yes, they do in fact intentionally hold masses.  Which is exactly what the people who attend the mass expect them to do.

You have a very odd concept of fraud in Poland.

He's referring to a mass being said specifically for someone, i.e. a sick loved one, a family member who has died, etc. In many Catholic churches even today it's common to pay for such a request.

Yes and....  I still fail to see where the fraud is in any of that.

[Valmy]

He's referring to a mass being said specifically for someone, i.e. a sick loved one, a family member who has died, etc. In many Catholic churches even today it's common to pay for such a request.

And if some priest was using this as a way to swindle people out of their money, convincing them they needed to constantly have him say mass and pay him for it or they would go to hell, I am sure most Catholics would be in favor of prosecution.

Seriously it is not a witch hunt and charges for fraud on various practices are not a common thing...even when they probably should be like televangelists who tell suckers if they send him money God will reward them tenfold...and then guess what?  That check from God never seems to arrive.

[DontSayBanana]

He's referring to a mass being said specifically for someone, i.e. a sick loved one, a family member who has died, etc. In many Catholic churches even today it's common to pay for such a request.

In which case, you're paying for the service of the ritual.  The effect on the soul afterward is neither quantifiable nor qualifiable, so a court couldn't determine whether or not the seller's performance was satisfactory.

The lawyer is claiming he had a reasonable belief that he would prosper financially.  If she encouraged or even simply knew that he was laboring under that assumption without explaining that the tarot readings wouldn't make him money, she's liable.

[Malthus]

As for a slap in the fact to people who believe in witchcraft, I doubt any actual wiccans are in favor of fraud being committed in their names.

Wiccans are only one facet of modern witchcraft. There are plenty of other types of pagan-style religions blossoming everywhere, and I would guess that all of them are a little tired of their religious practices being equated to fraud. Otherwise, the little "for entertainment purposes only" wouldn't be necessary.

The problem is a historical association with various sorts of hucksterism in the not so distant past, before new age really had much popular cachet. That association is real, and evidently some fraud artists still use it as a cover for scams, so I don't see why laws based on it should be offensive.

I do see it as unnecessarily specific (a more general anti-fraud law not specifically mentioning witchcraft would do). But then, the law in this area is replete with very specific fraud type offenses - like faking your luggage to get a free drink, discussed above.

[merithyn]

I'm not agreeing with Marti's assumption, merely explaining it. Though I will say that this:

And if some priest was using this as a way to swindle people out of their money, convincing them they needed to constantly have him say mass and pay him for it or they would go to hell, I am sure most Catholics would be in favor of prosecution.

is exactly why people pay for those services. They are taught from the cradle that without those rituals and masses, the person's soul will go to hell. If the priest doesn't believe it, and does the masses simply for the money, is that fraud?

In which case, you're paying for the service of the ritual.  The effect on the soul afterward is neither quantifiable nor qualifiable, so a court couldn't determine whether or not the seller's performance was satisfactory.

This makes sense, but again, if the priest doesn't believe it and simply wants the money, is it fraud?

The lawyer is claiming he had a reasonable belief that he would prosper financially.  If she encouraged or even simply knew that he was laboring under that assumption without explaining that the tarot readings wouldn't make him money, she's liable.

*shrugs* She was a scam artist, no doubt, but his reasonable belief that he would prosper comes from his trusting her business enterprises were legit, not from the cards. It seems silly to tack on the other charge.

[merithyn]

The problem is a historical association with various sorts of hucksterism in the not so distant past, before new age really had much popular cachet. That association is real, and evidently some fraud artists still use it as a cover for scams, so I don't see why laws based on it should be offensive.

I do see it as unnecessarily specific (a more general anti-fraud law not specifically mentioning witchcraft would do). But then, the law in this area is replete with very specific fraud type offenses - like faking your luggage to get a free drink, discussed above.

I think the second part of your statement is most appropriate. Like Marti said, all religions are fraught with abuse and chicanery if you go back far enough, and to be honest, there are plenty of fraud cases regarding Christianity in the very recent history.

To make a law so specific is to risk not being allowed to apply it later. And in this case, it's pretty specific to a particular religion, making it a bit offensive to them.

[crazy canuck]

This makes sense, but again, if the priest doesn't believe it and simply wants the money, is it fraud?

I thought this was covered quite well by Grumbler already.  The answer is no.  If people do indeed pay for the Mass directly, as you say, then they are getting exactly what they are paying for.  They are paying for the ritual and that is exactly what they are getting whether or not the priest hates his job and thinks that Dawkins makes a good argument.

edit: Meri, the main flaw in Marti's argument is that christianity is based on a fraud.  That is what he believes but that does not make it so.

[merithyn]

I thought this was covered quite well by Grumbler already.  The answer is no.  If people do indeed pay for the Mass directly, as you say, then they are getting exactly what they are paying for.  They are paying for the ritual and that is exactly what they are getting whether or not the priest hates his job and thinks that Dawkins makes a good argument.

Then how is reading Tarot cards any different? The person is getting exactly what they paid for: a Tarot card reading.

[crazy canuck]

Then how is reading Tarot cards any different? The person is getting exactly what they paid for: a Tarot card reading.

Really, it was just the reading of the cards and nothing else.  I think you and I are reading a different fact pattern.  You really dont see the difference between a con artist using Tarot cards as part of her scam and someone going to a Church to hear a Mass being said?

[Valmy]

is exactly why people pay for those services. They are taught from the cradle that without those rituals and masses, the person's soul will go to hell. If the priest doesn't believe it, and does the masses simply for the money, is that fraud?

Maybe.  I mean I would have to know alot more about the situation.  Obviously to be a huckster you need to do more than simply accept payment for doing a service you do not believe in.

To make a law so specific is to risk not being allowed to apply it later. And in this case, it's pretty specific to a particular religion, making it a bit offensive to them.

See I would view it as protection to my religion not offensive...but maybe I wouldn't like fraud and conmen using my religion to their advantage.

[Martinus]

And priests do charge money for "intentional" masses, at least in the catholic church.

Yes, they do in fact intentionally hold masses.  Which is exactly what the people who attend the mass expect them to do.

You have a very odd concept of fraud in Poland.

By "intentional" masses I mean masses which are held in some specific intention. Like a mass for someone's recovery from an illness or a mass for some class/school year to pass the finals or for a troop of soldiers to come safe from a war.

[Valmy]

By "intentional" masses I mean masses which are held in some specific intention. Like a mass for someone's recovery from an illness or a mass for some class/school year to pass the finals or for a troop of soldiers to come safe from a war.

To what extent does the Catholic Church claim these services will actually do some good?  Could you then sue them if indeed what they say Mass for doesn't come to pass?  Surely they have a disclaimer of some sort protecting them similar to the 'for entertainment purposes only' thing.

[crazy canuck]

By "intentional" masses I mean masses which are held in some specific intention. Like a mass for someone's recovery from an illness or a mass for some class/school year to pass the finals or for a troop of soldiers to come safe from a war.

Yes, Priests do pray to God for all kinds of things on behalf of the people that attend their Church and yes people do have faith that those things will have some positive benefit.  Please identify where the fraud is in that if you can.

[crazy canuck]

To what extent does the Catholic Church claim these services will actually do some good?  Could you then sue them if indeed what they say Mass for doesn't come to pass?  Surely they have a disclaimer of some sort protecting them similar to the 'for entertainment purposes only' thing.

Of course they do.  Marti is just being either intentionally (or I suspect unintentionally) obtuse.