Anti-fortune-telling statute

[ceo_esq]

In the current Commentary, Randi seems genuinely not to understand why the language of New York's statute against fraudulent fortune-telling and spirit-exorcism doesn't apply to, say, Catholic exorcism rites.

Is he just overlooking the fact that the law refers to services done for a fee or compensation (albeit that he quotes the statutory language twice)? Or does he think that the Vatican earns a commission on demon-expulsions?

[ImaginalDisc]

In the current Commentary, Randi seems genuinely not to understand why the language of New York's statute against fraudulent fortune-telling and spirit-exorcism doesn't apply to, say, Catholic exorcism rites.

Is he just overlooking the fact that the law refers to services done for a fee or compensation (albeit that he quotes the statutory language twice)? Or does he think that the Vatican earns a commission on demon-expulsions?

Numerous fraudsters and charlatans, like the Catholic Chruch, survive on "donations." If a card reader passes a hat before a seance, how is that different from a priest passing around the collection plate? Both people are providing nonsense and accepting cash.

[Gr8wight]

In the current Commentary, Randi seems genuinely not to understand why the language of New York's statute against fraudulent fortune-telling and spirit-exorcism doesn't apply to, say, Catholic exorcism rites.

Is he just overlooking the fact that the law refers to services done for a fee or compensation (albeit that he quotes the statutory language twice)? Or does he think that the Vatican earns a commission on demon-expulsions?

I think he is expecting us to understand that when money changes hands in return for a service, that is a fee, even if the church insists on calling it an "honorarium."

[ceo_esq]

Numerous fraudsters and charlatans, like the Catholic Chruch, survive on "donations." If a card reader passes a hat before a seance, how is that different from a priest passing around the collection plate? Both people are providing nonsense and accepting cash.

The priest, one presumes, does not pass around the collection plate before an exorcism. The proceeds of the collection plate, and generally speaking their donors, are too remote from the services covered by the statute for those proceeds to be considered requital for such services.


I think he is expecting us to understand that when money changes hands in return for a service, that is a fee, even if the church insists on calling it an "honorarium."

Some donations to the Church are undoubtedly honoraria; most are not. I understand that individual clergy are often given honoraria after weddings, but I rather doubt this is the case with exorcisms. At any rate, I assure you that, barring facts unknown to me, in no legally cognizable sense does the Catholic Church charge a fee for exorcisms.

[ImaginalDisc]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exorcism
The Catholic Church revised and renewed the Rite of Exorcism in January 2000. The act of exorcism is considered to be an incredibly dangerous spiritual task; the ritual assumes that possessed persons retain their free will, though the demon may hold control over their body, and involves prayers, blessings, and invocations with the use of the document Of Exorcisms and Certain Supplications. Other formulas may have been used in the past, such as the Benedictine Vade retro satana.

Popular interest in exorcism boomed after release of the horror movie The Exorcist in 1973. The Catholic diocese of Chicago was inundated with so many requests for exorcism that it had to add exorcists to its existing staff. The importance of the rite was reaffirmed by Pope John Paul II (who is reputed to have performed three exorcisms himself during his pontificate). As a result, a number of dioceses have officially designated an Exorcist priest. In September 2005, Pope Benedict XVI spoke at the convention of Italian exorcists and encouraged them to "carry on their important work." [1] [2]


Let's see. The Catholic Church views exorcism as a crucial part of its role as the Big Awesome Houde of Dog. The Catholic Church agressively encourages "donations" to pursue its "Holy" work. Therefore, they collect money so that they can make with the juju and frighten ignorant people into donating more.

[drkitten]

Let's see. The Catholic Church views exorcism as a crucial part of its role as the Big Awesome Houde of Dog. The Catholic Church agressively encourages "donations" to pursue its "Holy" work. Therefore, they collect money so that they can make with the juju and frighten ignorant people into donating more.

Err,.... not quite.

As you may or may not know, I teach at the university level. A crucial part of my role as an instructor is to look out for the long-term best interests of my students -- for example, I keep an eye open for job opportunities that might be of interest to them, I give them advice on which graduate schools might be appropriate, I write them letters of recommendation as appropriate, and so forth.

I do not, however, accept money (or "compensation") for any of those. I would, in fact, be deeply offended if someone tried to bribe me into writing a letter of recommendation. The university as a whole collects tuition money from the students, and pays me my luxurious salary (I recommend the "oriental" flavour ramen); writing letters is part of my job, but done at my discretion.

[ImaginalDisc]

Err,.... not quite.

As you may or may not know, I teach at the university level. A crucial part of my role as an instructor is to look out for the long-term best interests of my students -- for example, I keep an eye open for job opportunities that might be of interest to them, I give them advice on which graduate schools might be appropriate, I write them letters of recommendation as appropriate, and so forth.

I do not, however, accept money (or "compensation") for any of those. I would, in fact, be deeply offended if someone tried to bribe me into writing a letter of recommendation. The university as a whole collects tuition money from the students, and pays me my luxurious salary (I recommend the "oriental" flavour ramen); writing letters is part of my job, but done at my discretion.

I'm afriad your comparison does not quite work, as the current potato, I mean Papa, has stated that exorcism is a crucial function of the Catholic Chruch. It's not something the chruch does in its free time between railing against abortions and scaring people with boogeymen.

[drkitten]

I'm afriad your comparison does not quite work, as the current potato, I mean Papa, has stated that exorcism is a crucial function of the Catholic Chruch.

Job placement is something that my current university president has stated is a crucial function of the university -- furthermore, it's one of the main recruiting tools that we use as an advertising method.

[BillyJoe]

More relevantly, the statute does not apply when the person performing the service really believes it can be delivered. The statute applies only to con artists who knowingly take advantage of people's gullibility for profit.

[arthwollipot]

Hey, but if it were taken to court, then the would-be exorcist or medium would have to prove that it was not for "entertainment purposes" - that they were providing a genuine service.

How would that be then?

[sackett]

I think Randi has a particular grudge against Catholickism when it targets dumb peasants. His description of the fandangos that go on around the Lady of Guadaloupe site, with thousands of hard-up Mexicans and others being gulled by that preposterous fraud, makes painful reading – and I’m right with him.

My 25 cents’ worth of opinion is that Randi wasn’t born crusty, he was made that way by a long life tussling with cycical huxters. If he wishes aloud that the New York statute could be used to shut down at least one of the Church’s operations, I’m right with him again.

It would be delicious if some prosecutors and judges (they’d have to be Protestants) went after a few priests for performing extortions. When the word reached Rome, his helpers would have to scrape old Eggs off the ceiling.

Exorcisms, excuse me.

[valis]

It would be delicious if some prosecutors and judges (they’d have to be Protestants) went after a few priests for performing extortions. When the word reached Rome, his helpers would have to scrape old Eggs off the ceiling.


Goodness me, why stop at exorcisms? I suppose the idea is that any time a represenative of a church prays or performs some sort of ritual or ceremony to cause an outcome they are commiting fraud if at any time they have ever accepted donations. It should be possible to just shut down all churches under that reasoning.

[sackett]

Goodness me, why stop at exorcisms? I suppose the idea is that any time a represenative of a church prays or performs some sort of ritual or ceremony to cause an outcome they are commiting fraud if at any time they have ever accepted donations. It should be possible to just shut down all churches under that reasoning.

An intriguing idea, although I’m pretty sure* it wouldn’t fly legally. (We need to ask a lawyer. I wonder where we can find one?) Even if it did work, the believers, like other addicts, would just go on doing their thing by stealth, and in this case would gain strength from being persecuted.

*Make that very good & goddamned sure, although I realize I risk having CF Larsen charge in here bellowing, “EVIDENCE?”

[ceo_esq]

More relevantly, the statute does not apply when the person performing the service really believes it can be delivered. The statute applies only to con artists who knowingly take advantage of people's gullibility for profit.

Actually, as drafted, the statute proscribes the conduct in question even when the "claim" to tell fortunes or to use occult powers is made without fraudulent intent. This distinguishes it from typical criminal and civil fraud statutes, where conscious deceit is a necessary element.


Hey, but if it were taken to court, then the would-be exorcist or medium would have to prove that it was not for "entertainment purposes" - that they were providing a genuine service.

That the conduct not be solely for entertainment purposes is an element of the offense, rather than an affirmative defense. Accordingly, I expect the prosecutor must prove it as part of the prima facie case. That is how I read the statute, at any rate.


Goodness me, why stop at exorcisms? I suppose the idea is that any time a represenative of a church prays or performs some sort of ritual or ceremony to cause an outcome they are commiting fraud if at any time they have ever accepted donations. It should be possible to just shut down all churches under that reasoning.
An intriguing idea, although I’m pretty sure* it wouldn't fly legally. (We need to ask a lawyer. I wonder where we can find one?) Even if it did work, the believers, like other addicts, would just go on doing their thing by stealth, and in this case would gain strength from being persecuted.

*Make that very good & goddamned sure, although I realize I risk having CF Larsen charge in here bellowing, "EVIDENCE?"

My opinion is that this would not "fly" for manifold reasons.

First, as I already explained, most donations to a church would not be deemed to constitute even honoraria, much less a fee within the meaning of the statute. Second, even though this particular statute does not require fraudulent intent, I daresay many or most religious rituals and ceremonies do not purport to tell fortunes or directly influence evil spirits – and obviously it was not the legislature's intent to proscribe religious practices generally. Third, there is a real Establishment Clause problem with that approach.

On the subject of the Establishment Clause, however, I would make a few additional remarks. The predecessor statute* to Penal Law §165.35 included an explicit carve-out for activities of established ecclesiastical entities; for reasons unknown, that exemption was not carried over into the current statute. As you might expect, defendants have argued that §165.35 proscribes constitutionally protected religious conduct. However, the courts have held that at least some conduct may be punishable under the statute even if the religious expression is bona fide and sincere. That said, I still think that Randi's implied suggestion that this statute could or ought in any way be used to punish, say, Catholic priests for performing exorcisms (much less other rituals) is a foolish one.


*Useless trivia: the predecessor statute in New York characterized fortune-telling as a form of disorderly conduct, of all things.

[Reno]

most donations to a church would not be deemed to constitute even honoraria, much less a fee within the meaning of the statute.

Poll the donaters and see where they think their pennies are going. I'll bet they don't think that they are paying for a meal on board a plane taking a priest to another country to send Beelzebub back to his fire.

[jjramsey]

Poll the donaters and see where they think their pennies are going. I'll bet they don't think that they are paying for a meal on board a plane taking a priest to another country to send Beelzebub back to his fire.

No, they likely see it as contributing to the general fund of the Church, which goes toward upkeep and towards providing for services for which there is no direct charge. It's sort of like taxation (and in Medieval times, that is pretty much what it was). Obviously, your taxes go to fund various governments services and infrastructure, but they aren't fees for those things.