Mass & S.26 Intoxicating Liquor Act, 1962

Carawaystick

The roman catholic church sometimes gives a sup of wine to people at mass.

S26 of the act opens
In this section “unlicensed drinking premises” means premises to which an on-licence is not attached, which are not the premises of a club registered under the Registration of Clubs Acts and which are used or made available for the consumption of intoxicating liquor therein by persons resorting to them other than the bona fide occupier of the premises, a member of the family of the occupier, a person residing or working in the premises (who are referred to in this section as excepted persons) or a bona fide private guest of any of those persons

So
is this section still in force?
Is wine "Intoxicating liquor" ?
Does giving people a sup of wine mean making available for the consumption of intoxicaing liquor?

Is there a get out clause or did the Oireachtas believe it was actual human blood in the chalice, which was graaand to give out willy nilly?

Ken.

There not selling the stuff to punters. Technically the priest is giving it away.

Carawaystick

Giving it away seems to be making available for consumption

Manach

Given the minor amount, it would seem one of those cases were the law does not really get involved in coin tosses. Or else any wine flavoured sauces would similarly be restricted. Even the most ardent of statists would regard it as an overreach.

Carawaystick

I haven't found a definition in Irish law of Intoxicating liquor
the brits say

“intoxicating liquor” means spirits, wine, beer, cider, and any other fermented, distilled or spirituous liquor but does not include—
(a)any liquor which is of a strength not exceeding 0.5 per cent at the time of the sale or other conduct in question;]
(b)perfumes;
(c)flavouring essences recognised by the Commissioners as not being intended for consumption as or with dutiable alcoholic liquor:
(d)spirits, wine or made-wine so medicated as to be, in the opinion of the Commissioners, intended for use as a medicine and not as a beverage;
and expressions used in paragraphs (a) and (d) above shall have the same meaning as in the M2Alcoholic Liquor Duties Act 1979.
"


I'd say (c) excludes sauces and angostura bitters etc.

I know the law doesn't concern itself with trifles, but sher that's a food, and often has no sherry in it at all...

nuac

My theology is rusty, but due to the doctrine of transubstantiaton isn't the priest distributing part of the body of Christ?

If I am wrong there can fall back on "de minimis non curat lex". ( the law does not concern itself with trifles"

Mr. Incognito

Catholics believe in transubstantiation.

In English the bread and wine LITERALY become the body and blood of Christ.

As such the constitutional right of religious freedom and expression would trump the intoxicating liquor act.

Its never been tested obviously. I believe a priest tried to raise it as a defence for drink driving once but dont recall the outcome.

I believe he lost as his religious freedom was not confined to him when he was endangering other road users lives

Robbo

nuac wrote: »

My theology is rusty, but due to the doctrine of transubstantiaton isn't the priest distributing part of the body of Christ?

If I am wrong there can fall back on "de minimis non curat lex". ( the law does not concern itself with trifles"

Depends on how much sherry is in the trifle thought.

A couple of years ago there were priests who'd say multiple masses in the one day in different locations who took to the press to convey how worried they were that they'd be pinged under a lower drink driving limit. Apparently low or non-alcoholic wine was out of the question as you need that full hit to refresh the parts that other gods can't.

Dublinensis

Robbo wrote: »

Depends on how much sherry is in the trifle thought.

A couple of years ago there were priests who'd say multiple masses in the one day in different locations who took to the press to convey how worried they were that they'd be pinged under a lower drink driving limit. Apparently low or non-alcoholic wine was out of the question as you need that full hit to refresh the parts that other gods can't.

You can't have a Mass without wine, and so the question "what is wine?" is bound to arise at some point or another. In questions of interpretation, the Church tends to favour the "natural and ordinary meaning" approach over the purposive approach, and so low-alcohol wine actually does count* as wine (but may not be used without special permission) while non-alcoholic wine does not. If the alcohol content exceeds 18%**, the drink is considered a spirit and not wine. Being made from grapes is, of course, essential.

It would seem, therefore, that (rather unlike, for instance, the question "what is law?") the question "what is wine?" has been resolved to general satisfaction, within the Catholic world at least. But perhaps some bored academic may someday decide to challenge the prevailing orthodoxy.

*See wiki article on "must".
**Google "catholic encyclopedia altar wine".

gozunda

Dublinensis wrote: »

You can't have a Mass without wine, and so the question "what is wine?" is bound to arise at some point or another. In questions of interpretation, the Church tends to favour the "natural and ordinary meaning" approach over the purposive approach, and so low-alcohol wine actually does count* as wine (but may not be used without special permission) while non-alcoholic wine does not. If the alcohol content exceeds 18%**, the drink is considered a spirit and not wine. Being made from grapes is, of course, essential.

It would seem, therefore, that (rather unlike, for instance, the question "what is law?") the question "what is wine?" has been resolved to general satisfaction, within the Catholic world at least. But perhaps some bored academic may someday decide to challenge the prevailing orthodoxy.

*See wiki article on "must".
**Google "catholic encyclopedia altar wine".

Had occasion to visit a COI church where service was no longer celebrated. Anyway the vestry cupboard on being opened revealed a very large stash of empty Port bottles. One got the impression that more than a sip was regularly consumed during Eucharist . But then the COI wouldn't be able to avail of the whole transubstantiaton argument.

Peregrinus

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

Catholics believe in transubstantiation.

In English the bread and wine LITERALY become the body and blood of Christ.

As such the constitutional right of religious freedom and expression would trump the intoxicating liquor act.

Actually, in Ireland Catholic churches generally don't distribute wine to the congregation. I won't say they never do, but it's not common.

Whereas it is usual at most Protestant eucharists.

Some Protestant churches use non-alcoholic wine or grape juice. They obviously don't have a problem.

But there would be a few who use alcoholic wine, and who routinely distribute it to congregants as part of the eucharistic service. I'm looking at you, Anglicans!

Transsubstantiation/real presence has nothing to do with it. It's wrong to say that the Catholic church teaches that the wine "literally" becomes the blood of Christ. This isn't really the forum for theology but the Catholic teaching is that consecrated wine is "really", "spiritually" or "substantially" the body of Christ. It is not "literally" or "physically" the body of Christ, and its physical properties - including alcohol content - are unchanged. Even the most devoutly traditionalist Catholic will agree that this is the case.

The same goes for the Anglicans. They would accept that what they distribute in their eucharistic services is indeed an alcoholic product.

But Mr Icognito has it. The courts are going to interpret the Intoxicated Liquor Act 1962 harmoniously with the Constitution, and its protection of religious freedom.

Note that this isn't a uniquely Irish thing. English licensing laws are similar, and SFAIK have no explicit exemption for churches, but anyone seeking to prosecute a church for employing wine in communion services would be laughed out of court.

cheves

you do know that the wine is the blood of christ


The blood of Christ is the basis of the New Covenant. On the night before He went to the cross, Jesus offered the cup of wine to His disciples and said, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you” (Luke 22:20). The pouring of the wine in the cup symbolized the blood of Christ which would be poured out for all who would ever believe in Him.

Peregrinus

cheves wrote: »

you do know that the wine is the blood of christ . . .

That's as may be, but it is also an alcoholic beverage, and SFAIK there is no significant Christian denomination with churches in Ireland which believes ar teaches otherwise. And it's the alcoholic content which bring the Intoxicating Liquor Act into play.

johnnyskeleton

nuac wrote: »

My theology is rusty, but due to the doctrine of transubstantiaton isn't the priest distributing part of the body of Christ?

If I am wrong there can fall back on "de minimis non curat lex". ( the law does not concern itself with trifles"

Then there is the more serious offence of concealing or destroying human remains and/or consumption of a deity.

Dublinensis

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Then there is the more serious offence of concealing or destroying human remains and/or consumption of a deity.

Fortunately, the consecrated species are not in any sense "part of" the body of Christ.

Your bit about consumption of a deity reminds me of the Bourbon Restoration in France, under which, if memory serves correctly, desecration of the Eucharist was made a capital offence. I don't think there were ever any prosecutions under the legislation, but to my mind at least it was a wonderful symbolic "**** you" to the secularists.

The Bourbon Restoration did not last, but there have been more lasting expressions of triumphalism: the sight of the sturdy 19th-century Catholic St Audoen's on High Street in Dublin towering over the crumbling medieval CoI St Audoen's always brings a smile to my face. I think the Church should do more of that kind of thing: it's good for morale (well, my morale at least).

Carawaystick

I wonder how long a rastafarian with cannabis or an american with peyote would have to fight for their religious freedoms?

Mr. Incognito

Carawaystick wrote: »

I wonder how long a rastafarian with cannabis or an american with peyote would have to fight for their religious freedoms?

Possession of illegal drugs is not an expression of either of those religions.

Peregrinus

"American" is a religion now?

G W Bush has a lot to answer for!

Carawaystick

Peregrinus wrote: »

"American" is a religion now?

I meant an indigenous american.