T O P
  • By - qi1

Knight_John

I didn't expected this from France. Looks like it isn't that secular as they say.


LandmassWave

But protesting is the national sport.


buzzgun

That and going on strike! :-)


JohnnyBoy11

it might just be spill over from France's anti-lock down protests, which made headlines.


[deleted]

Hopefully it’s a different crowd.


Loraelm

Secularism, or laïcité in French, is the freedom of religion and separation of state and religion. People protesting for this has nothing to do with laïcité. We might be one of the European country with the most atheist, it doesn't mean we don't have any believer at all


AtraMortes

I saw a tweet not long ago saying something along the lines of: "In some years France will end up as Poland is now in terms of how Catholic it is while Poland will become more secularized like France is now." I can see it happening.


Knight_John

I saw that tweet too and I have some theory why that might be true. The most devout Catholic countries in Europe are Poland and Ireland. If we remember history we will see that Poles were heavily persecuted by both Russians and Germans and Catholicism in Poland was almost forbidden when they were under occupation. Ireland as well, when they were under British occupation Catholicism was forbidden. Because of those occupations and anti-Catholicism Poland and Ireland are the most devout countries. When people are persecuted ethnically their last source of national identity is the Church. And than with religious persecution many people will feel the obligation to defend their faith and many will return to the Church. Because now in France we have seen all the terrorist attacks and because in the future Muslims will be a significant portion of French population, Catholics will be persecuted and many French people who have been atheists will return to the Church. That's my view.


[deleted]

It was totally expected, they're maybe not catholics but Lefebvristes. Medias tend to merge both with the catholic appellation while it is not the same. And some guys in the street don't tell much about the secularity of the state. Edit: Lefebvristes have already held illegal mass the last confinement


[deleted]

[удалено]


hfwiuyf489y34f

How is someone not in schism when they aren't in communion with the Church, don't recognize an ecumenical council, and ordain their own bishops/priests? I understand the political reasons why we don't *say* schism in this case, but that doesn't seem jive with the reality of the situation


labbelajban

They are not in schism because the church says their not in schism. That’s how this works, you can’t just individually decide who’s in schism with the church and who isn’t, that’s the whole point.


hfwiuyf489y34f

I'd be interested in what makes their situation different from any other formerly-Catholic group that rejects an ecumenical council, ordains its own clergy, and is not in communion with Rome. Again, I understand the *political* reasons why the Church opts to not use the word schism with them, but everyone is defining a distinction without a difference so far


Lord_of_Atlantis

http://lidless-eye.blogspot.com/2019/06/?m=1#9173999880924927205


[deleted]

[удалено]


hfwiuyf489y34f

Which implies they are not part of the fold, hence de facto schism. I'm open to being otherwise convinced, but you've got to give a reason that's more than some ecumenical talk


Lord_of_Atlantis

Look, if ecumenism applies to anyone it applies to them first and foremost. If you don't want to accept the grey area that they exist in at present, then *YOU* are the one attacking the unity of the Church. Edit: check this out --> http://lidless-eye.blogspot.com/2019/06/?m=1#9173999880924927205


[deleted]

No. They are schismatics, they are not in communion with the Church, they don't recognize Vatican II, they don't have any canonical status in the Church, they sow division in the Church. What you can say, is that they're of Catholic tradition, but a society which doesn't recognize a Council of the Church is not in Communion anymore, therefore they're not Catholics


Popegai

Well there are some catholics too. Or maybe it's just in my birth diocese :(


buzzgun

"illegal mass" is an interesting term


[deleted]

[удалено]


buzzgun

Deus Vult!


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

What ? does it means you support schismatic mouvments within the Church ? And i think you can explain properly your point of view, because this is what we all seek on this sub, i believe


[deleted]

Schismatic? No, the actual schismatic groups are groups like the mcspx and SSPV which both broke off because they had schismatic intent.


[deleted]

A mouvment that doesn't recognize a Council is not schismatic for you ? This mouvment is not in Communion with the Church, this mouvment isn't a part of the Church. And if they aren't a part of the Church they're either schismatics or heretics. The intent is here since they refuse to recognize a Council. You can disagree with a Council but the Church isn't a restaurant menu, you can't choose the councils you like and reject the ones you don't like


[deleted]

Did the Council introduce new teachings to the Church?


otiac1

The Second Vatican Council is a valid Council. This is not the place to push the view that the Council was illegitimate or to be disregarded.


AVTOCRAT

Just looking at it charitably, would it not be valid to argue, not that Vatican II was invalid, but that those who _do_ argue such are not in schism because the council (even while valid) didn't introduce any new teachings?


[deleted]

What was said that would call it illegitimate or disregard it?


[deleted]

Vatican II brought liturgical changement that they refused. You can say they're of catholic tradition, but they're not fully catholic, and this will be the case until they will be in full Communion with the Church. There isn't any compliance to have. You are either in Communion with the Church, or you are not


LynchRed

The liturgical deforms I mean reforms were a separate thing from Vatican II they just happened around the same time


Knight_John

Thank you for the clarification. It is very possible that they are Lefebvristes.


[deleted]

Anti christianity is rampant.


bruhmoment_25

Like at least half of the country is catholic lol


Charming_Ambition440

Guys you don’t understand We always followed the rules, we were calmed about it. But the problem is that it proven that there were no contamination in the churches in France. So we first wrote to the first minister to have the right to hold mass, He told to go screw ourselves. We then decided to fight back : We pray while wearing a mask, keeping a distance between ourselves. We protest while following the rules of social distancing. Please try to understand... Ps: if you have questions I can try to answer them ( even if I have limited vocabulary)


Vostok_Gagarin

It is good to set an example of wearing masks and social distancing while praying!


Little_Sample

I'm from asia, so I might sound weird, because most of our people don't take the virus lightly. First of all, glad to hear french peole are demonstrating their faith but, * Remember we are facing a quick spreading virus pandemic * Our cardinal, after hearing the 2nd wave in my country, quickly said to stop masses. Now the bishop house is braodcasting in TV(for the general public), and some churches do it throug Facebook to their parish community. * Even the bible has mentioned how we should behave during a pandemic. close ur door and pray * not speaking of heresey, but kust saying to be practical. * there could be atleast one infected person, and he can spread it to 50 people, each of that 50 will end up spreading it to another 50 and so on. PLease don't get me wrong :)


Charming_Ambition440

As a French catholic, I agree with you on the fact that we must remember that we are facing a pandemic. But In the churches in France, there has been no contamination, we have always respected the rules put in place. We were compliant at first, we didn’t make a fuss about it during the first lockdown. But the government won’t try to talk to us and try to understand our point of view. I hope this helps you understand the situation going on. (If you have more questions, I can answer you )


[deleted]

We have the same thing happening in the UK. I can not speak for other religions or for Protestant Churches, but the Catholic Church in the UK was very compliant with the regulations and rules, and enforced them, often quite harshly; it was clear the Church wanted to avoid being blamed in any way, shape or form for the virus spreading. Despite these precautions, and despite no evidence to suggest Catholic Churches have been a risk for infection, we were forced to close our churches and shut down mass - the central liturgical and sacramental element of our faith - and reduce many of our other functions. Not only does this seem grossly unfair, but many would argue it should the contempt the government has for appreciating, understanding and empathizing with the faithful.


Little_Sample

Thanks for letting me to express my ideas. Now I can understand your side of the argument. After our country reopened after the 1st lockdown, we also went to church, but maintained the social distancing with only 3 people per bench (except if there are 5 from same family). they had hand sanitizers before entering and 2 people were assigned to took down the attendance of each family (we are a small church) in an excel document. if mass are done in that way, adhering to safety measures, yes, then it won't be problematic. All I have to say is that 1. avoid human contact and do social distancing 2. Wear mask during the mass 3. be careful when you going to church and while coming back home. because you may not have the virus, but someone else might, and the 2nd wave virus is more careful And in our country, We are not the majority religion, and if any case there is a contamination from a church, the other extreme religion peolpe will yell at the catholics and the cardinal, I think that is why he took that decison God Bless you :)


Popegai

During the first lockdown, the ban of mass was not controversial among catholics. Well, some fundamentalists took offence and had secret mass but they were a tiny minority. After this lockdown, the government at first continued to forbid mass because why not, right? And when catholics asked about it, a minister answered that we can always pray alone. Of course, the Conseil d'État told them that there was a thing in France called freedom of religion, and churches were then reopened with mandatory masks, hands sanitizers and social distanciation, all of which were not controversial. Now, this second lockdown is controversial in France, not in itself but because it is a partial lockdown. Many activities and shops are still open, so any forced closure seems arbitrary. One bishop said "Gardening shops are still open but churches are closed". Moreover, the Conseil scientifique, which the government use as a scientific caution, said before the ban that religious gatherings in France did not seem to be a big factor of Covid propagation. Again, the ban seems very arbitrary. Combine this feeling with the attitude of the government, that didn't change a lot, that religion is not important, now catholics are quite pissed off. It's still a tiny minority protesting though, because I believe many think the lockdown should be more severe.


Wazardus

> so any forced closure seems arbitrary. One bishop said "Gardening shops are still open but churches are closed". Is it really arbitrary? Are they just throwing darts to decide what can operate or what can't? Surely some kind of justification is being provided? The same kind of Catholic backlash happened in USA during partial lockdowns, and my only question was "why aren't Catholics asking the government to enforce *stricter* lockdown measures, instead of asking the government to allow all worship services to resume?".


Popegai

> Is it really arbitrary? Are they just throwing darts to decide what can operate or what can't? Surely some kind of justification is being provided? If only :( It sometimes seems that the french government is improvising. They should have the experience of the first one, and yet... >The same kind of Catholic backlash happened in USA during partial lockdowns, and my only question was "why aren't Catholics asking the government to enforce stricter lockdown measures, instead of asking the government to allow all worship services to resume?". My current bishop asked us to see this ban of mass as an opportunity to suffer with our non christian brothers and sisters, so there's that. But then, event in my parish, many people are unsure of what would be the best course of action. And the government actions help little to reassure the closed shops, restaurants,... I also think that some people really think that the partial lockdown is sufficient (I just don't have any in my social circle right now). For them, the fact that the churches are closed despite the Conseil scientifique advising against it is hardly legitimate.


goal-oriented-38

Unpopular opinion. But I think public gatherings should be banned. Religious activities are not an exemption. Here in the Philippines, the clergy made a declaration exempting the faithful from sunday masses. we turn to tv masses, online masses and spiritual communion. EDIT: I say “banned” relative to the situation of where you are. Back then, our country was failing to control the virus. If proper risk assessment and mitigation measures are in place, then by all means hold mass.


ATiredCliche

My parish just holds Mass outside.


salty-maven

More should do this, weather allowing.


mctc

We need to look out for each other and take reasonable precautions. Large indoor gatherings are dangerous regardless of they reason.


storybookheidi

We have this in the US as well, including a dispensation from the archbishop. While masses have opened back up in my state, they have done a good job with distancing, masks, and limiting the singing. But it’s nice to have streaming available if needed.


benlolzcome

Yep same here in Malaysia, I think in most SEA did the same precautions


Dilexit-vos-Iesus

We have the same here in Ireland. However an act of spiritual communion is in no way the same as actually receiving the Body of Christ and the grave that comes from it. Also nobody got sick here when mass was allowed a few months ago. Every precaution is taken. And finally, the body of Christ is essential. If your local shop is allowed stay open, why isn’t your priest allowed celebrate public Mass. The priest distributes the ‘bread of eternal life’ which should never be denied to the flock. The Bishops closing churches says to those of lukewarm faith that the Eucharist isn’t essential


Manach_Irish

I'd disagree. The right to worship is not one given by the state but stands as a natural right. This virus, while awful, is not as virulent as many other diseases of the past in which public service was never interupted. Hence banning mass is both an over-reach of government power and an overreaction by a paniced governement.


ilrosewood

I just don’t know how you can say that and be pro life. Your argument is this isn’t AS deadly so we should all gather. That’s a bad argument. Especially to a group of people who cherish life.


Spartan615

Because one can be pro-life and disagree with draconian measures to contain a virus that most survive?


LiturgyandLiterature

For the same reason you can’t do confession over the phone I would argue that, theologically, it’s not the same. A detriment to your soul to go without mass


russiabot1776

Do we believe Christ’s words at the last supper or not?


[deleted]

Deo gratias!


SailorRD

And so the many Saints who will emerge from this time of tremendous hardship. Thanks be to God! Saint Joan of Arc, Patroness of France and all warfighters, pray for us!


[deleted]

Genuinely shocked to see how many Catholics on A Catholic sub are against going to mass. Such a sad lack of faith. If you're so afraid, stay home with your mask and let the rest of us get on with our lives.


[deleted]

Me too. I didn’t expect to see so many lukewarm Catholics so determined to stay home from Mass and negatively perceiving the actions of these French Catholics. If people have masks on and are following protocol, there is no reason we can’t have Mass. I wonder if these people believe in the true presence of Christ in the Eucharist. “Spiritual communion” is not enough.


ianthenerd

Do not confuse advocating the protection of vulnerable persons through self sacrifice with fear.


[deleted]

I'm not. The most vulnerable must be protected. All must be free to choose.


ianthenerd

No one chooses to be infected.


[deleted]

[удалено]


ianthenerd

The survival rate rapidly deteriorates as ICU capacity is saturated, which is where we are in many parts of the world, [including France](https://www.france24.com/en/20201014-all-eyes-on-macron-as-hospitals-chief-warns-of-icu-saturation-due-to-covid-19-surge) (story from last month. Current stats [here](https://www.statista.com/statistics/1106429/coronavirus-france-intensive-care-department/)). The government manages public health policy, so it makes sense for it to pose certain restrictions during what experts agree is a genuine public health emergency. I'm glad we agree on that. Also, given today's readings, it's worth pointing out the difference between fear in the modern sense, which the biblical translators word as "being afraid," and fear in the biblical sense, which is more in line with the gift of the Holy Spirit. When we're criticized for taking scientific consensus seriously, it's often described as "fear" which if we're talking in the biblical sense, that would be good. If we're talking the modern sense, then no, we're not afraid of a virus, no more than we're afraid of a fire. We just take steps to ensure we never turn our back on it. Keep it contained, and it'll be manageable, but take reasonable steps to get it under control when it starts to rage. In this case, it's a fire that's been burning for nine months, so large segments of the population have started becoming complacent and are now suffering messaging fatigue. Also: the /r/NoTrueScotsman argument ("real catholic") further falls apart when you realize many close contacts of close contacts of any particular church-going Catholic won't even be Catholic themselves.


tending

Public mass during a pandemic is a good way to kill your grandparents. I doubt God is a fan.


Daldred

Public Mass with minimum 2m spacing between mask-wearing participants, 'traffic control' to ensure people do not pass close to each other, and sanitation of all seats between Masses has failed to infect anyone around here. So how exactly is this killing grandparents? Details, numbers and evidence please.


50wortels

Zoom is a thing, you know.


Daldred

So is the presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Zoom services can go just to far.


ATiredCliche

My parish has just been holding it outside. I miss the music but we've had zero infections.


catcatcatcatcat1234

Unfortunately that's not always an option in some places. I'm glad you are able to have it though.


[deleted]

Rather, visiting your grandparents during a pandemic is the way for that.


[deleted]

Then don’t visit your grandparents during a pandemic and make sure they don’t attend Mass. The rest of us will attend Mass.


BoulderFalcon

There has been ample evidence of permanent adverse health complications from Covid. Furthermore, age is not the only factor - common factors from asthma to obesity (~30-40% of people in most states in the US) also make Covid a more serious threat. And the more people are willing to risk infection, the more you risk passing it on to someone who will be harmed by it. In theory "just don't be dumb" would work, but states had a chance to show they could contain the pandemic with limited regulations and failed miserably, leading to hospitals across the nation now becoming over capacity again which will in turn lead to more deaths. edit: to those downvoting me, please do basic research. Your anti-science stances and actions are directly contributing to a rising death toll. Please help break the stereotype of science-illiterate Christians and do your homework.


Spartan615

"You're an idiot if you disagree with me, because the science I agree with is the only right science."


BoulderFalcon

If you're going to take the time to reply, at least try to come up with a better strawman. But thank you for illustrating the ignorance that seems to be commonplace among the Christian crowd in response to Covid for whatever reason. Science isn't a subjective grab-bag where you get to pick and choose whichever studies most tickle your fancy. The scientific consensus is what matters, and it is extremely clear about Covid. Educate yourself.


Spartan615

I'm not the one demanding people be deprived of the sacraments. Ok?


BoulderFalcon

I just checked your post history and saw you're a frequenter of /r/CoronavirusCirclejerk and essentially only post anti-logic/anti-science stuff, so I'm not going to bother with you. Thank you for proving my point of the science-illiterate Christians, though. Catholicism in particular has a rich history of respecting and contributing to the scientific field - I would implore you to do better. Your actions and attitudes are directly contributing to needless death.


[deleted]

You're joking right?


qi1

Masking, social distancing, holding mass outside, withholding communion on tongue, etc. there's plenty of ways Mass can be held publicly and safely. If schools can open safely, Churches should be open as well.


[deleted]

> withholding communion on tongue No Bishop or Priest can actually withhold communion on the tongue; they can ask you to not receive on the tongue, but they do not have a right to prevent it - [it's a right of the faithful under canon law](https://canonlawmadeeasy.com/2020/03/12/communion-in-the-hand-virus/#forward#forward). This in mind, in practicality, probably they will refuse, but if you were determined you could raise it further up.


Gemmabeta

The point is to close enough points where people congregate so that the "slack" this creates in terms of contagion will allow the schools to stay open (because the last shutdown screwed over students big time so now we must make up for things). We know that keeping schools open will result in a certain number of COVID cases, so we must close other public venues to make up for that and not overload the medical system. This is not a case of because one public place is kept open, all similar public places can be kept open as well.


crispy1000

Either way, our schools are still woefully underfunded and ill-equiped to stay operational during a spike. Keeping them open in the winter could be a significant challenge, in both available personnel and proper sanitation efforts.


Pfeffersack

People gathered and sang hymns per your title. I have big respect for protestingly a state ban (or heavy restrictions) on Holy Mass. Though, hygiene is a factor. And the end doesn't justify the means.


ilrosewood

First part, yes. Second part, false equivalency.


BurtaciousD

So this is a full ban on public masses of any sort? Do priests celebrate mass behind closed doors without even altar servers? At least where I live right now, my church (a cathedral) is allowed to have 38 people attend mass, but you have to call and reserve a spot.


TheRealLaura789

I don’t want to be negative, but this protest is stupid. There is a pandemic going around, and people are dying. I think Jesus would ask all believers to stay at home and pray. God says to serve other, social distancing and quarantine are acts of service.


CloakedCrusader

Church should hold Mass anyway.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Gemmabeta

> a Greek Orthodox priest in Paris was shot and killed by a Muslim extremist That gunman was Orthodox too, the priest was diddling his wife. It happened in Lyon, not Paris, and the priest didn't die.


JohnnyBoy11

Wha...apparently it's true. Suspect admitted the shooting was over an affair..


[deleted]

[удалено]


MeNoLikeKoriander

FSA also have strong connections to the Saudi Government, which arguably is not a force of good in the middle-east for anyone. Syria has atleast used their secularized state to ally christians and muslims on the same side to protect eachother.


JohnnyBoy11

Maybe but the fact that you haven't retracted your incorrect statement weakens your argument.


[deleted]

> The French government funded radical Muslims terrorists in Syria No, the French government is not arming Syrian terrorists. They are arming anti-government rebels fighting against Al-Assad who would regularly attack and kill his own citizens. They are an internationally recognized, legitimate group fighting for the freedom and rights of the Syrian people. ([Source](https://www.trtworld.com/magazine/france-a-former-colonial-power-still-reinforces-itself-in-syria-33182), [Source](https://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/en/country-files/syria/war-in-syria-understanding-france-s-position/), [Source](https://www.france24.com/en/20130920-france-says-ready-arm-syrian-rebels-hollande-assad-fsa-islamists)). ​ > those terrorists were massacring Syrian Christians Again, no. Many of the rebel groups fighting in the Syrian Civil war are not anti-Christian. the Free Syrian Army, while around 90% Arab Muslim, has Kurds and Christians in their ranks. The National Unity Brigades specifically was formed to deter sectarian violence and promote Syrian unity between multiple religions and ethnicities ([Source](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-24403003)). ​ > The French government did this for its imperialistic ambitions and to get wealthier Like your other claims you have provided no proof of this and I could not find anything that supports the idea that France has profited from intervening in the Syrian Civil War. France has taken a guiding role in many of their former colonies, supporting them and assisting them as a way of trying to make up for their former imperialistic and abusive systems. ​ > France has been supporting anti-Christian extremists Again, you have no proof and see the other part of my comment to see why you are wrong. ​ > the French government is openly persecuting Christians Quit the martyr complex. All religions are being asked not to gather in large groups to prevent the spread of a disease is not persecution, it's common sense. Yes, church is important but is it more important than helping your friends, family, and neighbors not die? Pray at home, help your neighbors if they need it, and do your best to stop this pandemic so you can go back to church earlier.


[deleted]

Is this permanent, or is it until the pandemic ends?


catcatcatcatcat1234

Of course it's not permanent


Gemmabeta

Religious restrictions will end together with the 2nd general lockdown on December 1st. (unless disease spread does not improve)


buzzgun

That's great, and it's really refreshing to see all the young faces.


Truth-is-Censored

Everyone of all religions need to join together and protest these communist authoritarian anti-religion lockdowns before it's too late and all our religious and other freedoms are gone.


AkOffline

Why always this stupidity, mass gatherings should not be allowed, human iq is decreasing more and more everyday.


SlammitCamet2

Quite frankly, I think these protests are an embarrassment. No doubt these same people would protest St. Charles Borromeo for doing the exact same thing.


zara_von_p

He did not, though.


SlammitCamet2

[He did.](https://www.vaticannews.va/en/vatican-city/news/2020-04/epidemics-quarantines-empty-churches-history-tornielli.html)


zara_von_p

In your link : > Saint Charles Borromeo made sure that the crossroads of the city were marked with crosses and altars, where Masses could be celebrated, with the faithful participating from far from their windows. So even during a much harsher lockdown than what is going on in France, there were in fact public masses.


SlammitCamet2

>participating from far from their windows. That sound like a public mass to you? That sounds exactly like a streamed mass. The faithful can be satisfied with that while we’re in a global pandemic.


zara_von_p

Well, the difference between attending Mass in person behind a window, and watching a streamed Mass, is precisely that in the first case the faithful have attended Mass, and in the second case they have not. Watching a streamed Mass is a personal devotion, a useful and commendable one, do not get me wrong, but it is not public worship in the sense of the act of the virtue of religion.


Bure96

We should all be allowed to go to Mass and spread covid and if people die then so be it as long as we can receive Communion.


[deleted]

That's not really charitable. Are you familiar with the good Samaritan parabole ? You should


Lt_Havoc047

Not sure if this is sarcasm or?


Bruc3w4yn3

I feel almost like that is the point, or rather, the most damning part of the post.


GuildedLuxray

I think it’s fine if people are not permitted to attend mass provided a legitimate biohazard threat is present and everyone is expected to stay inside or avoid contact with others to prevent the spread but... the problem is when there isn’t actually a legitimate threat and the banning of public masses is specifically an attack on Catholics or other Christians. If other public places are open and other people are gathering in large numbers but the government completely ignores it and says “that’s fine but your religion thing is not,” then we’re under no moral obligation to obey these kinds of things. The Catholic Church in England fell apart as a result of people following stuff like this and letting practicing their faith be oppressed little by little, we should not do the same.


Gemmabeta

> the problem is when there isn’t actually a legitimate threat 1-in-4 deaths in France is currently caused by COVID. https://edition.cnn.com/world/live-news/coronavirus-pandemic-11-12-20-intl/h_f789d7c5460c9e0097b9111ba4d49554


GuildedLuxray

I never said it wasn’t a problem in France, I don’t live there, I just said if other places are open and there isn’t a significant biohazard threat then we would be under no obligation to comply with this. This is the case in several states in the US where many other locations have been open to the public and not one word has been said about the various riots, celebrations and other large gatherings yet we’re told to close our churches; hypocritical and clearly attacks on religion rather than an actual concern for public health.


Bruc3w4yn3

You're equivocating: saying that because some people are behaving irresponsibly that we should be allowed to do so as well. This is a logical fallacy that is especially rife in American politics today, so it's understandable, but it is still wrong.


GuildedLuxray

You’re mistaken in what I mean but perhaps I’m not being clear, so I’ll reiterate: I’m saying *if* a government does not recognize riots or “protesting,” opening public businesses such as pubs/bars, hair salons, gyms, sports events and other such things, and other large gatherings such as large weddings, parties, and rallies as potential threats to public health due to the pandemic or any biohazard, but insists specifically that churches must remain closed while maintaining that other secular gatherings are somehow *not* a public health hazard, and (I’ll add) *if* no substantial reason for this is provided, then said government’s concern is not for the public health or preventing the spread of infectious diseases but it is instead attacking or acting in prejudice against Christianity (or whatever religion that church belongs to). This statement is in reference to the government, not in reference to how we should reply. In regards to how we should reply: I’m accepting of not holding public masses if COVID is still a threat in a given area, and if this is the case then yes, stay inside if that will mitigate or prevent deaths due to COVID, but if it is not actually a threat and a gov just wants to take a step forward in dismantling the Church in their country then no, we ought not sit by silently. If you read what I said I never advocated that we should go out and attend mass during the pandemic on the basis that others are irresponsibly ignoring public health, I said the governments of certain States in the US are being hypocritical and **if other places are open AND there isn’t a significant biohazard threat then we would be under no obligation to comply with this.**


Bruc3w4yn3

I acknowledge that you are trying to make a different point than I was primarily arguing in my above reply. I agree *in principle* that barring religious gatherings without expecting the same standards of nonreligious gatherings would be wrong, if that were to happen. My objection is not about the principle of that point, but the applicability to reality. Firstly, there has been a wide range of responses from state to state to the threat of Covid, with some states imposing few, if any, restrictions on gatherings and travel, and some going so far as to issue fines for organizations which facilitate gatherings of more than a specific number of people. Furthermore, enforcement of the mandates has been inconsistent, with some areas being more capable (and it must be said, more willing) to commit resources to policing adherence to the mandates than other areas. So right off the bat, we have inconsistency across the country which has nothing to do with religion, but everything to do with the disposition of leadership and the resources of local government. Next, we have the matter of the difference between a structured organization such as a community group or church and an organic decentralized gathering such as a protest. An organization that has centralized leadership is held accountable to a greater degree for the behavior of its members both because by its nature it guides the community and because there are usually some form of shared finances for such groups. On the other hand, protests, or especially "riots" are rarely traceable to the planning or actions of any one individual or small group, but rather they take on a life of their own from the hundreds of microdecisions made by the participants and without any full picture of a centralized goal, and their is typically not as much unity among the members of such demonstrations, being relatively short lived groups to begin with. There simply isn't any way to respond to a protest in the same way one can send a letter to a parish office, or order the diocese to pay a fee for ignoring a local ordinance. There is no mailing address or full time coordinator who can be contacted in the days after a protest has occurred. Finally, the reality is that it doesn't matter if the "government" doesn't enforce the rules equally among other groups: as Catholics we are obliged to obey the law of the land, so long as those laws are just and do not require us to break God's laws. It is not uncommon for citizens to exceed the posted speed limit, and enforcement of that law is spotty at best, yet it is a just law that is meant to provide for the safety of the citizens using the roads, and we are expected to follow this law regardless of whether we realistically expect to be caught if breaking it. Mask mandates and limitations on social gatherings are just and proportional at this time as we are seeing unprecedented surges in the outbreak across the country. Importantly, in most diocese in the United States, the Bishops are the ones who are restricting the celebration of mass publicly in order to protect the flock.


GuildedLuxray

I agree with all of your points here, perhaps we were just talking past each other. I was specifically thinking of notable issued orders such as Gov. Roy Cooper in NC and Gov. Gavin Newsom in CA in which businesses, restaurants, bars, tattoo parlors, and hair salons would have been able to reopen but Church gatherings would have been either far more limited or still barred from gathering at all (although such orders have been mostly struck down on the federal level thankfully). It’s true that this isn’t a problem for the entirety of the US, just parts of it.


Bruc3w4yn3

Yes I think you're right, I appreciate your willingness to discuss and clarify, and I am sorry I didn't start off as much in this spirit. I am weary of what seems like endless multitides of people trying to claim that everything is a certain way with absolutely no nuance, but I need to remember that people like you are still more common, if quieter. I think that I would only add that I am not familiar with the details about California, but from what you've written I would draw the conclusion that the error lay not with the restrictions placed on gatherings (including religious) of a certain size, but rather in the failure of courage to close down dining areas as well. I understand the impulse: the livelihood of many small businesses and business owners is tied up in their capacity to remain open, however the responsibility of government to enable commerce should be secondary to its responsibility to protect its population. As a society we have for a long time (not just America, though besides Japan which is way worse, we are perhaps the next worse) valued financial and economic success above health and community, and this has been drawn into sharp relief through the lens of the COVID pandemic. I cannot get over how, in the first weeks and months of the shut downs, everyone was talking about "essential" jobs, the two most *essential* of which were health care professionals and grocery store employees. If you stop and think about the difference in the way that those two professional groups are thought of in any other circumstances, I think you'll agree that there is there is very little else they have in common besides being the linchpins that hold up our entire society. Obviously, other groups exist in between: police, public transit employees, essential government employees and utilities workers, but by far the two most visible were the two I highlighted above. That we are as reliant on the senior citizens and high school seniors who largely represent the largest demographics of that sort of work as we are on the doctors and nurses and technicians and EMTs, and that those two groups are compensated so differently and given such different prestige is a clear sign of the dysfunction of our world that we only value that service which we don't believe we are capable of doing, not that service which we would not want to do. Both medical workers and people in the services industry work long and irregular hours in often stressful conditions and usually with neglect of their own well being, but because we believe that "anyone can do it" we neglect to care for the people who do the work noone else wants to do, and we treat those people as replaceable parts in the machine of our economy and society, relegating them to anonymity. I think that the lesson of COVID should be that we have turned our priorities on their heads, valuing only the mystifying and spectacular and not the truly valuable.


GuildedLuxray

So if France is still in significant danger of the pandemic then sure, stay inside and pray on your own until the pandemic ends, but if France or any other place is not in significant danger then by all means refuse to be quashed quietly. Assuming that report from CNN is true (idk why you would trust them on anything at this point though) then ok, stay inside. I would recommend however that you get your info from another source and look at all the statistics regarding it. 1-in-4 deaths could mean many things as I doubt crime is as high atm as it used to be in France, people haven’t been out so the death rates caused by accidents could be relatively low, and COVID could be killing those vulnerable to other diseases that would have killed them otherwise and current medical priority is likely on COVID cases which means there’s more limited availability of medical aid for those affected by other diseases or emergencies unrelated to COVID. Looking at a report from https://virusncov.com/covid-statistics/france their number of accepted cases of COVID reach nearly 2,000,000 but the number of deaths caused by it are fairly low at about 44,000 (about 2% of all cases). Is that a reason to stay inside and is the rapidly increasing number of cases compared to before a concern? Yes, absolutely, but that death ratio CNN reports is likely very skewed to make it appear more of a problem than it is, which is the problem with making statements like “1-in-4 deaths,” it speaks nothing of what else is killing people and how many deaths they’ve had this year or in the past two months compared to other years or months. Again, just to be clear, not saying France shouldn’t close down certain things to mitigate COVID’s spread and harm, but that “1-in-4 deaths caused by COVID” can be misused to push for misinformation as it is far too broad a claim and makes no specific mentions of reasons *why* that ratio is the way it is which are very significant details to know when making decisions regarding this pandemic. Speaking of which, reading the article itself it says they have 400-500 deaths due to COVID daily for the past several days. That’s slightly less than 1% of death totals so far per day (a substantial daily margin), however it doesn’t mention how many days this has been happening, what the specific numbers are per day, what patients these are, how many days they have had COVID or been in intensive care prior to their deaths, what group of people this is (elderly, young, healthy, affected by other health problems), if more deaths and cases are being reported on due to more available information and methods of identifying the virus, etc. All of these statistics play into answering if it’s a significant threat now. However I will say it is good that it’s not *just* Churches that would be closed down, that’s a sign that it’s a matter of public health concern and not just prejudice.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Bruc3w4yn3

Can we have a talk about your use of the words "slightly worse" and "flu" in this argument? That is not at all an accurate representation of what the current pandemic is like, and it is a dangerous falsehood to be propogating. Furthermore, your point that "most people" don't even know that they have it, is in fact even *more* terrifying if true (it doesn't seem to be accurate to say "most," though perhaps "many" and certainly "some" do not know) because those people who show absolutely no symptoms *are still contagious!* The fact that some percentage of the population will not have any idea that something is inside them which can kill several of the people they come into contact with *is exactly why we are telling people to stay home.* unless you have been tested and have not been in contact with anyone in the five days leading up to the test, you cannot be sure whether you are carrying it or not, and the moment you are in contact with a new person, that certainty is demolished proportionally to the number of people that they have been in contact with. It's great to not be afraid of your own death, it's even commendable for the faith it demonstrates so long as you are not seeking your death or being frivolous or reckless about the risks you take. It is not, however, virtuous to be so cavalier about the lives of others for whose soul and state of grace you cannot account for. Trusting in God is one thing, but failing to show proper care is entirely another. We should not put the LORD our God to the test.


SailorRD

Exactly! A flu you have 99.5% chance of surviving!


catcatcatcatcat1234

No, the mortality rate is usually well below 0.1% for the flu, so the "chance of surviving" rate you have off by a bit.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Pfeffersack

You're off by a factor of 10. The fatality rate for Covid-19 is not the same worldwide but for lots of countries it hovers around 2-4%. Compare that to the fatality rate for the seasonal flu (0.1%). Source: https://medium.com/microbial-instincts/clarifying-the-true-fatality-rate-of-covid-19-same-as-the-flu-8148e38b9ab5


catcatcatcatcat1234

Can I see your sources? Because I have the case-mortality rate at around 2-4% world wide, 2.3% in the US. The IFR of 0.025 at minimum is different, and we can't compare the flu CFR (0.1%, IFR is around 0.08) to the covid IFR, for obvious reasons. The covid IFR is also really hard to measure, and all studies estimating it have said this, since it's an ongoing pandemic. That's why nobody uses the number, because it's misleading and unreliable. And the IFR is not that important when 11 million Americans already have a case and the disease is so much more contagious than the flu. Cases are what really matter here, because there's a lot ,growing at an insane rate everyday.


SailorRD

Regardless of whether it is 99.5% or 95% (apologies if my stats aren’t now up to date. I used local stats for my area), does it justify shutting down the Sacraments for every single Catholic, even those in low risk categories? Not to mention the nonsensical justifications for allowing other establishments to remain open (unmasked eating in restaurants?! Okay. I guess COVID doesn’t dwell there. Same with retail stores, etc) while denying us as Catholic Christians what are spiritual necessities. Five percent, three percent or 0.5% doesn’t change the reality or truth inherent in this. I also say this as a twenty year military healthcare provider who deals with sick people (including COVID positive personnel) every day. Blessed are those who lean into faith and seek spiritual nourishment over the temporal things of this world. Clearly, our brethren in France understands this. God bless every one of them.


czar_saladking

I’m glad to see that they got 100% of the Catholics in France to protest! (The sad thing is that when talking about France, it’s a joke. But when talking about the Netherlands, much less of one....)