Fake Canadian Lawyer Charged With "Witchcraft"

[Martinus]

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.

How is a priest who does not believe in the effectiveness of his ritual but takes money to perform a mass to help someone's recovery from an illness at all different from a Navajo chanter doing the same. I sincerely doubt either of them would be stupid enough to claim a 100% effectiveness - either would say that if it doesn't work, it's surely because God does not want it/the spirits are angry/mumbo jumbo like that.

The fact that one of them would be working for a benefit of an organisation he is being paid by, and the other is working for himself, is irrelevant.

[Valmy]

How is a priest who does not believe in the effectiveness of his ritual but takes money to perform a mass to help someone's recovery from an illness at all different from a Navajo chanter doing the same.

This is not a distinction as they are both religious dudes.  I guess I could see you asking how that is different from somebody practicing witchcraft or sorcery...or did I miss something?  How did the Navajo religion get wrapped up in this?  Of course over here we have actual Navajo so I never thought them as having a different status legally than Catholics.

[Martinus]

How is a priest who does not believe in the effectiveness of his ritual but takes money to perform a mass to help someone's recovery from an illness at all different from a Navajo chanter doing the same.

This is not a distinction as they are both religious dudes.  I guess I could see you asking how that is different from somebody practicing witchcraft or sorcery...or did I miss something?  How did the Navajo religion get wrapped up in this?  Of course over here we have actual Navajo so I never thought them as having a different status legally than Catholics.

Oh I thought they were being used as an example of mumbo-jumbo. Ok substitute a "witch casting a spell" for that.

[crazy canuck]

How is a priest who does not believe in the effectiveness of his ritual but takes money to perform a mass to help someone's recovery from an illness at all different from a Navajo chanter doing the same.

This is not a distinction as they are both religious dudes.  I guess I could see you asking how that is different from somebody practicing witchcraft or sorcery...or did I miss something?  How did the Navajo religion get wrapped up in this?  Of course over here we have actual Navajo so I never thought them as having a different status legally than Catholics.

You are both missing the point.  Where is the fraud in either situation.  It matters not one bit whether the two of you can agree that a certain belief is somehow legitimate or not.  What matters is whether the representantion of a particular belief is used to carry out a fraud.

[Martinus]

I thought you said fraud is about an intent. If I take someone's money to perform a ritual I believe is useless, why is it not fraud exactly? Care to explain?

[Valmy]

[Oh I thought they were being used as an example of mumbo-jumbo. Ok substitute a "witch casting a spell" for that.

All things being equal?  Nothing.  As I suggested it is likely the specificness of that law was probably a reaction to a specific incident of a fraud or several frauds using magic as a cover.  Reactionary legislating is what our societies here in North America are built on.

Well at least how we get our strangest laws.

[Valmy]

I thought you said fraud is about an intent. If I take someone's money to perform a ritual I believe is useless, why is it not fraud exactly? Care to explain?

As I queried earlier does the Catholic Church not protect itself my saying somewhere their masses and rites are not magical and should not be relied on in the place of, say, professional medical assistance?  Because they most certainly could be sued otherwise.

[BuddhaRhubarb]

Highly entertaining thread sorcery in this thread. I won't sue. :p kutgw

[crazy canuck]

I thought you said fraud is about an intent. If I take someone's money to perform a ritual I believe is useless, why is it not fraud exactly? Care to explain?

Again are you are obtuse.

[Malthus]

I thought you said fraud is about an intent. If I take someone's money to perform a ritual I believe is useless, why is it not fraud exactly? Care to explain?

The problem here is that proof of the "dishonesty" of a Catholic Priest is going to be difficult to come by.

The leading case on fraud as a criminal offense in Canada is R. v. Théroux, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 5, in which the headnotes summarize the majority position as follows:

The actus reus of fraud is established by proof of a prohibited act, be it an act of deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means, and by proof of deprivation caused by the prohibited act (which may consist in actual loss or the placing of the victim's pecuniary interests at risk).  Just as what constitutes a falsehood or a deceitful act for the purpose of the actus reus is judged on the objective facts, the actus reus of fraud by "other fraudulent means" is determined objectively, by reference to what a reasonable person would consider to be a dishonest act.  Correspondingly, the mens rea of fraud is established by proof of subjective knowledge of the prohibited act, and by proof of subjective knowledge that the performance of the prohibited act could have as a consequence the deprivation of another (which deprivation may consist in knowledge that the victim's pecuniary interests are put at risk).  In certain cases, the subjective knowledge of the risk of deprivation may be inferred from the act itself, barring some explanation casting doubt on such inference.  Where the conduct and knowledge required by these definitions are established, the accused is guilty whether he actually intended the deprivation or was reckless as to whether it would occur.  The accused's belief that the conduct is not wrong or that no one will in the end be hurt affords no defence to a charge of fraud.  While the scope of the offence may encompass a broad range of dishonest commercial dealings, the proposed definition of mens rea will not catch conduct which does not warrant criminalization.  Only the deliberately practised fraudulent acts which, in the knowledge of the accused, actually put the property of others at risk will constitute fraud.  The requirement of intentional fraudulent action excludes mere negligent misrepresentation, or sharp business practice.

To my mind, this creates a difficulty in the context of religion, as your hypothetical reasonable person would be unlikely to agree that a Catholic priest, actually operating within the doctrines of the Church, was behaving with the sort of intentional, deliberate dishonesty as required by the Court here. Merely lacking faith in God is not, I would assert, sufficient to remove such a case from the ambit of what the Court described as  "... conduct which does not warrant criminalization".   

[dps]

I thought you said fraud is about an intent. If I take someone's money to perform a ritual I believe is useless, why is it not fraud exactly? Care to explain?

Because your belief that the ritual is useless doesn't make it so, and more importantly even if you are correct doesn't mean that the person performing the ritual believes it to be useless.  It seems likely to me that most Catholic priests and Navajo medicine men do believe in the faith that they purport to represent.  Your non-belief doesn't mean that their belief is a fraud.  Again, logically, even if you are correct in your non-belief, that merely makes them mistaken in their belief;  it doesn't demonstrate that they are claiming something that they know to be untrue.

[crazy canuck]

dps, Marti would have you believe that if a Priest who has lost his faith performs the Mass then the Mass somehow becomes fraudulent.  He says this because he readily identifies with the said Priest.  He however completely forgets about the hundreds of millions of people who do have faith and particularly faith in the efficacy of attending a Mass who really could care less whether a particular Priest lost his faith or not.  All they really care about is whether the Mass is properly performed.


As an aside, one of the most moving moments I have had is attending a Mass in Assissi.   I can readily understand why a Catholic person would have their faith strengthened by such an experience.

Of course, by Marti's logic I have simpy been taken in by a fraud if the priest in attendance at that Mass did not fully believe in what he was doing at that particular time.

[merithyn]

To my mind, this creates a difficulty in the context of religion, as your hypothetical reasonable person would be unlikely to agree that a Catholic priest, actually operating within the doctrines of the Church, was behaving with the sort of intentional, deliberate dishonesty as required by the Court here. Merely lacking faith in God is not, I would assert, sufficient to remove such a case from the ambit of what the Court described as  "... conduct which does not warrant criminalization".

I agree completely, and this highlights my concern about that law. The assumption seems to be that someone participating in sorcery and witchcraft is trying to perpetuate fraud by default. At least, that's how it seems to me based on that law. That may not be what is intended, but that is the feel of the law.

Because your belief that the ritual is useless doesn't make it so, and more importantly even if you are correct doesn't mean that the person performing the ritual believes it to be useless.  It seems likely to me that most Catholic priests and Navajo medicine men do believe in the faith that they purport to represent.  Your non-belief doesn't mean that their belief is a fraud.  Again, logically, even if you are correct in your non-belief, that merely makes them mistaken in their belief;  it doesn't demonstrate that they are claiming something that they know to be untrue.

Does this then translate to Tarot readings, etc.?

I agree with all of you that what matters is how the participant in the ritual feels much more so than what the person doing the ritual thinks or feels. In which case, if the person having their cards or palm or crystal ball read to them believes in such things, how can it be fraud?

[grumbler]

dps, Marti would have you believe that if a Priest who has lost his faith performs the Mass then the Mass somehow becomes fraudulent.

This is the doctrine of Donatism, as I pointed out earlier; the idea that only saintly priests could successfully serve because the efficacy of the sacrament depended on the purity and  religious fervor of the priest.  Hasn't really been an issue since about 600CE, although Luther toyed with it for a while in the 1600s CE.  Bringing it up now seems a bit... old-fashioned.

[crazy canuck]

dps, Marti would have you believe that if a Priest who has lost his faith performs the Mass then the Mass somehow becomes fraudulent.

This is the doctrine of Donatism, as I pointed out earlier; the idea that only saintly priests could successfully serve because the efficacy of the sacrament depended on the purity and  religious fervor of the priest.  Hasn't really been an issue since about 600CE, although Luther toyed with it for a while in the 1600s CE.  Bringing it up now seems a bit... old-fashioned.

Yes, I do recall you saying that.  I had forgotten and it is well worth repeating.

It is also odd that a lawyer, such as Marti (giving him the benefit of the doubt) would confuse Donatism with the legal concept of Fraud.