Category: Religion

Reaction to proposed blasphemy law

Letters on the proposed blasphemy law in today’s Irish Times.

Madam,
Considering that every judge in the Irish judicial system has taken a religious oath asking God to “direct and sustain” them in their work, how can any atheist accused of blasphemy ever be offered a fair trial?

Yours, etc,

GAVIN TOBIN,
Celbridge,
Co Kildare.

Madam,

The Irish Government’s proposal to make blasphemy punishable by law seems curious to those British parliamentarians, like myself, who fought successfully to bury this relic of the Star Chamber.

The archaic common law offences of blasphemy and blasphemous libel were abolished in the UK just a year ago, in the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008.

With all-party support, we relied not only on the advice of the Law Commission, but on the wise judgment of the Irish Supreme Court in the Corway case.We had the support not only of English PEN and writers and artists, but also of the British clergy.

There was wide recognition of the chilling effect of these offences on the right to freedom of expression, and of the divisive nature and effects of retaining the offences in our modern plural society where one person’s religion is another person’s blasphemy, and where British Muslims were campaigning to extend blasphemy offences to protect Islam (a move rejected by our court in the Satanic Verses case in which I acted for the publisher of Salman Rushdie’s novel).

Parliament has also enacted a narrow offence in the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 of incitement to religious hatred. This applies only to threatening (as distinct from abusive or insulting) words or behaviour, and places the burden on the prosecution to prove specific criminal intent.

I drafted and Parliament approved section 29J (the so-called “English PEN clause”) which provides as follows: “Protection of freedom of expression:

“Nothing in this Part shall be read or given effect in a way which prohibits or restricts discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions or the beliefs or practices of their adherents, or of any other belief system or the beliefs or practices of its adherents, or proselytising or urging adherents of a different religion or belief system to cease practising their religion or belief system.”

To those of us who admire Ireland’s constitutional and legal system, it would be bizarre and perverse if the Irish Government and legislature were now to resurrect the Star Chamber offences and make them punishable by law.

It would also provide an unfortunate example to the rest of the free world at a time when many Arab and African states are pressing for a new international crime of religious defamation.

Yours, etc,

ANTHONY LESTER,
(Lord Lester of Herne Hill QC),
Liberal Democrat Peer,
Blackstone Chambers,
Temple,
London, England.

Going to EU on criminalisation of Mass card sellers

I received very little response to my email to the three Munster MEPs regarding the criminalisation of those who sell Mass cards without the permission of a Catholic bishop so I’ve sent the same email to all 13 Irish MEPs.

I’ve also submitted the following petition to the European Parliament.

To Whom It May Concern:

In February this year the Irish government enacted a law which makes it a criminal offence to sell a Mass card not authorised by a Catholic bishop (Charities Act 2009, Section 99).

I strongly object to this law for the following reasons.

1. Contained within the Act is a presumption of guilt until proved innocent. This runs contrary to Article 48 (1) of the European Union’s Charter of Fundamental Rights which states:

“Everyone who has been charged shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.”

2. Section 99 is an unjustified restriction on Article 44 of the Irish Constitution which guarantees the free profession and practice of religion (See newspaper article below).

3. The criminalisation of the sale of Mass cards is a disproportionate reaction to what is a very minor business activity (See newspaper article below).

4. This law confers an absolute monopoly to the Catholic Church for the sale of Mass Cards. I believe this to be contrary to EU law.

5. The requirement to obtain permission from a member of a religious organisation to engage in legitimate business is an infringement of the right of all EU citizens to engage in such activity.

I request that the EU take action to force the Irish government to repeal section 99 of the Charities Act, 2009 or, at a minimum, have that part which is offensive to the European Union’s Charter of Fundamental Rights regarding the principle of ‘innocent until proved guilty’ struck out.

Thank You
Anthony Sheridan

References:

Section 99. (Charities Act, 2009)

(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.

Irish Times article

Mass card section of Charities Bill could be unconstitutional

CAROL COULTER, Legal Affairs Editor

Thu, Feb 26, 2009

A SECTION of the Charities Bill may be unconstitutional because it makes it a criminal offence to sell a Mass card not authorised by a Catholic bishop, according to a former attorney general. The Bill went to President Mary McAleese for signing earlier this week.

The section in question was inserted into the Bill by the Seanad on February 11th last to deal with a problem of the sale of “bogus Mass cards”, which purport to be signed by a priest, but where the signature is not genuine and no Mass is actually said.

The Government amendment was put forward following the earlier proposal of a similar amendment by Senator Ronan Mullen.

Former attorney general John Rogers SC has provided an opinion on it to the solicitor for a man who sells genuine Mass cards, signed by a priest in the Philippines by arrangement with a bishop there. The money raised goes to build churches there. He fears shops may feel pressure on them not to sell if the Bill becomes law.

During the Seanad debate, Senator David Norris read from Mr. Rogers’s opinion, which stated that section 96 was “an unjustified restriction on the Article 44 guarantee of the free profession and practice of religion.”

The section provides that a person who sells a Mass card “other than pursuant to arrangement with a recognised person” is guilty of an offence. A “recognised person” who can authorise the sale of such Mass cards is defined as a bishop of the church, or the head of an order recognised by it.

The section defines a Mass card as a card that indicates that “the holy sacrifice of the Mass” will be offered for a person’s intentions.

In any proceedings it will be presumed, unless proved to the contrary, that an offence has been committed.

In his opinion Mr. Rogers says this goes further than is reasonably required to deal with the problem of the sale of a Mass card not properly signed by a priest, where no Mass is said, or where the purchaser thinks it is for a charitable purpose and it is not.

“The narrow categories of persons is arbitrary and unfair and represents a serious interference with the religious practice of some priests and others who are members of non-Catholic churches and religious communities in this State,” he states.

He also points out that it presumes an offence has been committed until the contrary is proven. “The criminalisation of the sale of Mass cards is another aspect of the disproportionate nature of this piece of legislation,” he says.

ENDS

Update on Mass card law

I received the following email from Aras an Uachtarain today in response to my email to the President regarding the Charities Act, 2009 which makes it a criminal offence to sell a Mass card without the permission of a Catholic bishop.

Dear Mr. Sheridan,

I refer to your e-mail to the President of 19th March, 2009.

As you are aware the Charities Act 2009 has become law. The President has therefore no further function in relation to this legislation. You may wish to bring your concerns regarding the provisions of this Act to the attention of the Government.

With kind regards,

Yours sincerely,

I also made a formal complaint regarding this Act to the EU through the three Munster MEPs, Kathy Sinnott (Independent), Brian Crowley (Fianna Fail) and Colm Burke (Fine Gael).

19th March 2009

Dear Ms. Sinnott,

I wish to lodge a formal complaint with you regarding the recent enactment of the Charities Act, 2009.

According to former Attorney General John Rodgers SC, Section 99 of the Act, which was recently signed into law by President Mary McAleese, may be unconstitutional because it makes it a criminal offence to sell a Mass card without the permission of a Catholic bishop.

Mr. Rodgers has stated:

The narrow categories of persons is arbitrary and unfair and represents a serious interference with the religious practice of some priests and others who are members of non-Catholic churches and religious communities in this State. (Irish Times, February 26th).

The most worrying aspect of the Act, however, concerns the reversal of the widely accepted legal principal of innocent until proven guilty. Part 7, Section 99 (2) of the Act states:

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.

Clearly, this section is in direct contradiction of Article 48 of the EUs Charter of Fundamental Rights which states: Everyone who has been charged shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.
The principle of innocent until proven guilty is, I believe, one of the fundamental legal pillars of most modern democratic states.

Mr. Rodgers believes that this section goes further than is reasonably required to deal with the problem. I believe that it is an unacceptable attack on the principle of innocent until proven guilty and therefore request that you investigate the matter with the aim of having the repugnant section struck out.
Yours sincerely

Anthony Sheridan

Kathy Sinnott replied.

Dear Anthony,

Thank you very much for alerting me to this. I will certainly do what I can and get back to you.

Kathy

I received no reply from Mr. Crowley or Mr. Burke. I have resubmitted my formal complaint to both MEPs today.

A law repugnant to democratic principles

The Charities Act 2009 was recently signed into law by President Mary McAleese.

Section 99 of this act makes it a criminal offence to sell a Mass card without the permission of a Catholic bishop.

This law is repugnant to the enlightened democratic principles of most modern states. I believe this law was introduced for one principal reason – to re-establish the lucrative Mass card monopoly to the Catholic Church.

I have written to Mary McAleese challenging her on this matter.

Dear Mrs. President,

You recently signed into law the Charities Act 2009 a section of which makes it a criminal offence to sell a Mass card without the permission of a Catholic bishop.

Part 7, Section 99 (2) of the Act states: “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.”

Clearly, this law is in direct contradiction of Article 48 of the EU’s Charter of Fundamental Rights which states: “Everyone who has been charged shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.” The principle of ‘innocent until proven guilty is, I believe, one of the fundamental legal pillars of most modern democratic states.

I would be grateful if you could answer the following questions.

Do you agree with the principle of ‘innocent until proven guilty’?

Do you agree with the ‘guilty until proven innocent’ section of the Charities Act 2009?

Yours sincerely
Anthony Sheridan

The relevant section.

Section 99. (Charities Act, 2009)

(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.

The Pope; worried about 'superstitious' religion

The Pope, apparently, is worried about the growing influence of superstitious forms of religion, what other forms of religions are there? (BBC News)

The very bedrock of Catholicism is based on superstition – demons, devils, miracle performing angels, the magical power of relics, praying to a supernatural entity to win the lotto etc, etc.

He’s also worried about the ‘opposition’, probably Pentecostalism; which is making huge headway all over the world, particularly in Africa.

Perhaps he should consider a crusade.

Time to act against the Catholic Church

Once again the superstitious, medieval mindset of the Catholic Church is endangering the lives of countless people in Africa (BBC News).

The solution to the problem of HIV/Aids lies in a “spiritual and human awakening” and “friendship for those who suffer” according to the Pope.

EU leaders do not agree. Dutch Development Minister Bert Koenders said it was

“extremely harmful and very serious” that the Pope was “forbidding people from protecting themselves”.

French foreign ministry spokesman Eric Chevallier said:

“While it is not up to us to pass judgment on Church doctrine, we consider that such comments are a threat to public health policies and the duty to protect human life.”

Personally, I think it’s time that world leaders acted instead of talking. The Pope and the Catholic Church should be hauled before the International Criminal Court and charged with crimes against humanity.

Fr. Good and the “Anti-Catholic Bigotry League”

From time to time I receive responses to letters published in various newspapers. Religious matters, in particular, seem to trigger strong responses.

I received the following letter from a Fr. James Good in response to my letter regarding a law that makes it a criminal offence to sell a Mass card without first getting the permission of a Catholic bishop.

I’ve reproduced my letter first and then an unedited copy of Fr. Good’s letter to me.

ARTICLE 48 of the EU’s Charter of Fundamental Rights says: “Everyone who has been charged shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.”

Part 7, Section 99 (2) of the Charities Bill 2009, recently signed into law here, makes it a criminal offence to sell a mass card without the permission of a Catholic bishop. The act states:

“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.

The clear contradiction begs the question: are we living in a liberal democratic republic or a theocracy?

Dear Mr. Sheridan,

I was delighted to see your letter in the Irish Examiner (14.03.09). Since I had not seen a contribution from you for quite some time, I was beginning to fear that you might have departed to meet your Maker. An interesting meeting, indeed.

On the minus side, of course, one could say many things: your little letter, filling a bit of empty space at the foot of a page (as usual), was as bitter and irrelevant as always.

What saddened me, however, was the sight of a supposedly “good” atheist writing to support a MEAN FRAUD. Recent investigations show that the vast majority of Mass Cards sold in shops are legally fraudulent. Could you not perhaps use your God-given gifts to stop THEFT and FRAUD rather than sneering at our government in its effort to eliminate them?

Re-reading my letter of 2nd February suggests that in the intervening three years you have learned nothing about either Mass stipends or a ban on discussion of clerical celibacy. The latter controversy is still ongoing, despite your belief that it is banned.

I notice that your address in the Cork Examiner has dropped the Rock of Eoin. Protection for the writer – from the editor or from the writer?

Yours sincerely
Fr. James Good

Just a few things:

Fr. Good didn’t address the central point of my letter which is that the widely accepted principle of innocent until proven guilty has been reversed by this religious law.

His comment on celibacy concerns a previous letter of mine regarding the ban on theologians from discussing the matter by Pope John Paul II

His comment about my address displays an ignorance of the editorial practice of editing for space.

Fr. Good is also convinced that The Irish Examiner and The Irish Times are supporters of what he calls the “Anti-Catholic Bigotry League” only printing letters from ‘anti-Catholic bigots’ and refusing to print replies. In previous correspondence to me he says:

“The Irish Examiner prints only the letters of anti-Catholic bigots, and refuses to print any reply to these bigots. And of course the newspaper which replaced the Irish Times at the top of the Anti-Catholic Bigotry League is delighted to get nasty little pieces from the Rock of Eoin to fill up small empty spaces in its hate-sheet: that’s why they frequently end up a the end of a page.”

I wonder why editors don’t publish letters from this priest?

Living in a theocracy

Letter in yesterday’s Irish Examiner.

Legal contradiction

ARTICLE 48 of the EU’s Charter of Fundamental Rights says: “Everyone who has been charged shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.”

Part 7, Section 99 (2) of the Charities Bill 2009, recently signed into law here, makes it a criminal offence to sell a mass card without the permission of a Catholic bishop. The act states:

“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.

The clear contradiction begs the question: are we living in a liberal democratic republic or a theocracy?

Anthony Sheridan
Cobh
Co Cork

Cowardly strategies continue to endanger children

For decades the Catholic Church has hidden behind the ‘legal advice’ strategy in order to avoid taking responsibility for widespread child abuse within its ranks.

Other strategies include failing to report abusers to the authorities and protecting abusers by moving them around with subsequent horrendous consequences for thousands of children. At a softer level we have the usual excuses of being on a ‘learning curve’ and the issuing of endless but useless apologies to victims.

Recently, the antics of the clergy have become even more bizarre. Despite almost universal calls for him to resign the Bishop of Cloyne has steadfastly remained in position preferring to defend himself with the usual inane excuses.

Just when it seemed his position was becoming untenable in steps Cardinal Brady with a strong defence, declaring, that in his opinion the bishop should stay. After all, said the Cardinal, didn’t the man apologise.

Within days, the befuddled cardinal was so overwhelmed by the negative reaction to his views that he issued an apology for defending the bishop’s apology.

But by far the most bizarre and outrageous defence of the indefensible came from the editor of the Irish Catholic. Utilising yet another cynical strategy, that of blaming someone else, in this case the Government, the editor makes the ludicrous suggestion that by not resigning Bishop Magee is actually protecting children.

“If Bishop Magee had resigned before Christmas, the Cloyne affair would have disappeared off the news agenda and life would have returned to normal. Except for the fact that little would have been resolved in the real terms of putting children first and sorting out this national issue of protecting children absolutely, once and for all.”

What next – pedophile priests be allowed free reign in order to keep the problem in the public consciousness?

Copy to:
Irish Catholic (Editor)

Funny religion

The following appeared in the Jan/Feb edition of Humanism Ireland.

Humanism lite

A Catholic elementary school test.

Kids were asked questions about the Old and New Testaments. The following statements about the Bible were written by children. They have not been retouched or corrected. Incorrect spelling has been left in.

In the first book of the Bible, Guinessis, God got tired of creating the world, so he took the Sabbath off.

Adam and Eve were created from an apple tree. Noah’s wife was Joan of Ark. Noah built and ark and the animals came on in pears.

Lot’s wife was a pillar of salt during the day, but a ball of fire during the night.

The Jews were a proud people and throughout history they had trouble with unsympathetic genitals.

Sampson slayed the philistines with axe of the apostles.

Moses led the Jews to the Red Sea where they made unleavened bread which is bread without any ingredients.

The Egyptians were all drowned in the dessert afterwards. Then Moses went up to mount cyanide to get the Ten Commandments.

The first Commandment was when Eve told Adam to eat the apple.

The 7th Commandment is thou shalt not admit adultery.

Moses died before he ever reached Canada. Then Joshua led the Hebrews in the Battle of Geritol.

The greatest miracle in the Bible is when Joshua told his son to stand still and he obeyed him.

David was a Hebrew king who was skilled at playing the liar. He fought the Finkelsteins, a race of people who lived in biblical times.

Solomon, one of David’s sons, had 300 wives and 700 procupines.

When Mary heard she was the mother of Jesus, she sang the Magna Carta.

When the three wise guys from the east side arrived, they found Jesus in the manager.

Jesus was born because Mary had an immaculate contraption.

St. John the blacksmith dumped water on his head.

Jesus enunciated the Golden Rule, which says to do unto others before they do one to you. He also explained a man doth not live by sweat alone.

It was a miracle when Jesus rose from the dead and managed to get the tombstone off the entrance.

The people who followed the lord were called the ten decibels.

The Epistels were the wives of the Apostles.

One of the Oppossums was St. Matthew who was also a taximan.

St. Paul cavorted to Christianity, he preached holy acrimony which is another name for marriage.

Christians have only one spouse. This is called monotony.