I see what you’re doing here. ;).
I would also point out that the lady who tried to take the wafer away from Cook was not the person or institutional entity who gave it to him, so it was none of her business at all. She was neither the giver nor the recipient.
I’m actually reminded of the “Dude, you have no Quran” guy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5qCK2c-ZvQ
I assume of course that Cook’s defenders are outraged at the praise that has been lavished on the skater dude who took the Quran away from the radical minister before he could burn it and are disgusted that the minister isn’t treated like the obvious victim he is.
I’m not “outraged” at either case, but as a matter of fact I did say that kid was wrong to do that. He did steal someone else’s property and interfere with their free speech rights. I am on record on this board as defending the right of that minister (or anyone else) to burn Qurans as long as those Qurans are not somebody else’s legal property.
I’m consistent. Are you? Do you think that minister was within his rights to burn Qurans unmolested?
The minister is the victim of theft so he has my sympathies.
Yes, people have the right to be douchebags and Cooke and the minister are both douchebags.
I assume you feel as well since you claim that Arab professors who defend Al Jazeera are “Islamophobic douchebags” and what Cooke and the minister did was far worse.
Not at all. The gift can be legally restricted because of actions taken by the recipient himself in soliciting the gift, or by terms made clear by the donor’s statements and actions. In other words, if I hand you $1000 and say, “This is for you to buy a car,” you cannot use it to buy a motorcycle, even if you say nothing at all as you accept the money.
Really? I didn’t know this, out of interest so I can look it up what law is this?
So who told Cook he had to consume the cracker on the church premises?
You mean your vast legal knowledge is somehow deficient in this area?
Sure. Restatement (Third) of Trusts § 29 (especially comments f through h).
Sure. You can Google “restricted gifts,” to get more detail, but the general concept is a basic property of the law relating to gifts.
That’s a fair question, and the answer will involve some speculation. It’s the usual practice at Catholic Mass to make available missals which show readings for each day, as well as provide the general order of Mass so that participants may follow along. These missals contain guidance, typcially at the front, for how non-Christians, Christians other than Roman Catholics, and Roman Catholics should handle the issue of Communion. So my short answer is: the miossal, and the overarching practicew of the Church, gave Cook notice that the gift of the bread was restricted in purpose.
In some states, engagement rings are considered conditional gifts and there doesn’t have to be a contract or agreement stating the conditionality of the ring. I’m sure part of the reason in these states is “everyone knows engagement ring are conditional.” I wouldn’t be so sure everyone knows a wafer (or whatever one wants to call it) has the condition that it must be eaten on the spot or you no longer own the wafer. Of course if such a condition did exist, I doubt it would be recognized by all courts, much like conditional engagement rings.
That’s not a bad example. I’m on the board of a non-profit, and we often get conditional gifts, or gifts restricted to particular purposes, so I’m more familiar with that area, but an engagement ring is a good example that everyone knows.
The question is not what everyone knows, but what the recipient of the gift knew or should have reasonably known.
I’m not Catholic. I googled for guidance on this issue, and I found directives that stated that if someone were aware of another parishioner who had an unconsumed host, they were to inform the priest in order to resolve the matter.
Is that what happened in this circumstance? Is there any reason that another parishioner would have the right to take back (or more accurately take themselves) the *conditional gift *of an unconsumed Eucharist?
Perhaps – the parishoner would have to have been already authorized to act as an agent for the Church… as might happen in the case of a lay Eucharistic minister, for instance, which is a layperson temporarily deputed to distribute the consecrated host. But a run-of-the-mill parishoner can’t really assert the rights of the church – or to put it more generally, if I give you $1000 to get a car, and you run down to the motorcycle store, Aunt Sally can’t grab the money out of your hand because you’re flouting the conditions of the gift.
The only point I’m trying to correct here, though, is the sense that the communicant owned the bread, free and clear, to do with as he pleased the moment it was handed to him. I’m not saying that the actions of the parishoners to take it back were lawful.
Well, when one decides what one should have reasonably know, it’s most likely going to rest on whether or not it’s something “everyone knows” or should know. Anyway, does that come into question regarding engagement rings? I’ve read a little bit about the subject regarding engagement rings, and I’ve never seen it mentioned that if the individual recipient claims she knows or doesn’t know that engagement rings are conditional it effects whether or not they are.
Some states have decided that engagement rings are conditional gifts, period (with some exceptions such as being given on Christmas, birthday, etc.). Regardless, I think a good case could be made that a missal’s guidance is merely guidance is not something that must be followed with the given wafer or it is to be given back, but just instructions on how to properly adhere to a religious ceremony.
Fair enough. From my googling, it would appear that in order to receive communion, one is supposed to have satisfied a number of conditions which to me make fairly clear that he should have known what he was supposed to do and not do. In fact, you are supposed to be a believer in transsubstantiation or you’re not supposed to receive the host at all. I find it kind of hard to believe that everyone participating in the activity is a firm believer, but then again, reading up on it makes clear how crazy the whole thing is anyway.
I think there are two different areas to look at to see if he knew it was a conditional gift. If he was raised Roman Catholic and they have a concept of informed communion, I would assume his church taught him what the church expects. Therefore, he would know it is conditional. The second is whether he should take communion at all. Every Roman Catholic service I attended told me nothing more about Catholic views on communion than that I was excluded from it. If the service he attended told him the church’s conditions to partake in communion, then heknew the gift was conditional. If the service did not explain the restrictions and he was not raised Roman Catholic, then the gift couldn’t be conditional.
Perhaps.
But the missal’s instructions are usually very clear – not on this specific point, but on the general point that unless you are a Roman Catholic, you may not even take communion.
If you are a Roman Catholic, then you’ve been instructed by other means that you may not take the host for any purpose other than immediate consumption.
I guess the question then becomes, “Is it reasonable for to be a Roman Catholic and not be aware of that rule?”
Well, I know a lot of Roman Catholics, so I’ll start asking. 
I’m meeting a few tonight at a brewery tour.
In my understanding, the gift would still be conditional. His culpability would be reduced–he probably couldn’t be charged with a crime for leaving with the stolen wafer, but it still wouldn’t be his property.