Covid restrictions breech

Effects

Should Fr Frank Garvey PP have gone ahead with holding a funeral mass with over 300 attendees?

There was something similar in Dublin recently and thankfully the priest had the right approach by refusing to say the mass, and leaving the church.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/pavee-point-says-it-is-not-acceptable-for-hundreds-to-attend-funeral-1.4508526

Thoie

I was under the impression that the cemetery (and afterwards) was where the 300 appeared, but that the mass itself was within guidelines.

Would you have been brave enough to say no? In any case, it is not clear if hundreds attended the Mass, from the IT:

The funeral Mass was celebrated on Thursday by Fr Frank Garvey PP with reduced numbers attending in St Mary’s Church.

There is also an argument, from informed academic sources, that saying/attending public Mass is not actually breaking the law.

Introduction

There have been further media reports of the gardaí threatening prosecution of those who organise or attend religious services. This is one of the principal rule of law issues identified in the recent report by the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission, which I co-authored with Conor Casey, David Kenny and Donna Lyons. In this blog post, I review the two grounds on which it could be argued that a criminal offence is committed in this context, rejecting each. I shall contrast the current law to the position that applied during the first lockdown, in which religious services were unlawful. I shall then review several official statements on this issue before concluding with some observations about the rule of law.

https://tcdlaw.blogspot.com/2021/03/religious-services-and-rule-of-law.html

smacl

Effects wrote: »

Should Fr Frank Garvey PP have gone ahead with holding a funeral mass with over 300 attendees?

There was something similar in Dublin recently and thankfully the priest had the right approach by refusing to say the mass, and leaving the church.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/pavee-point-says-it-is-not-acceptable-for-hundreds-to-attend-funeral-1.4508526

I think this is a real kick in the teeth for those poor individuals who have lost someone recently and made a big sacrifice for the greater good to stay within the legal guidelines. As such, in my opinion, those who organised and attended this funeral, beyond immediate family, put their own self interest in front of the broader communities. I think Martin Collins of Pavee point has taken the right stance on this.

growleaves

The Covid guidelines are scandalous in multiple ways.

In the attitude we're supposed to take towards ourselves and others, redefining human beings as potential biohazards. Pretending that everyone we meet "has the disease already" - something which any self-respecting person must refuse to do.

Look at the attitude Jesus Christ has towards lepers. He is not scrambling to avoid them. There is condemnation towards the Pharisees who treat the lepers as non-persons.

I think Christians have less of an excuse than others here. These restrictions are only possible because a demoralised, alienated and spiritually exhausted population are already so far gone in social atomisation and decades of 'safetyist' bureaucratic control over their lives.

Now I'm not advising anyone to break the law, that is not the point I'm making, but I am saying that we should not lend support in spirit to a demand to abandon our families, friends and communities for months or years at a time.

smacl

growleaves wrote: »

Now I'm not advising anyone to break the law, that is not the point I'm making, but I am saying that we should not lend support in spirit to a demand to abandon our families, friends and communities for months or years at a time.

I agree wholeheartedly that we not abandon our friends and family now or ever, but as per current guidelines, we should be creative in supporting them and the community in such a way as not to expose anyone to undue risk. I think it is all too easy in these harsh times to be taken in by divisive arguments, seeking to undermine the best efforts of those running the country, made to suit personal goals and political agendas rather than the greater good. Many people are without a doubt feeling isolated, angry and scared. Helping people overcome these problems is an entirely worthwhile goal. Many of the anti-lockdown arguments however are, in my opinion, seeking to manipulate such vulnerable people for other ends at a point in time where we need collective responsibility rather than division.

Like many, there are times when I have serious doubts about the competency of our government in handling this crisis. This does not suggest that their detractors are helping things in any way whatsoever, quite the opposite.

The government has messed it up spectacularly, and are messing up the vaccine rollout, to the surprise of no one. The caliber of politician is the absolute pits - they are cowardly. Clear as day to an informed observer that with the vaccines the decision to solely stick with EU supply was to give the government a shield (it hasn't worked) to avoid criticism for any issues. Didn't even investigate other additional options - this is an old trick, remember when Kenny wouldn't even ask for a write-down and tried to make this into a "being a good EU boy" virtue? This govt had to be shamed into contacting the manufacturers to give out!

People's human rights, not least their right to practice their religion, have been disregarded for an intolerably long time - due to to govt incompetence. It is good to see serious academic attention being paid to this, it seems many were shell-shocked for a while, or took the reasonable position that temporary restrictions were warranted - 12 months plus, with no end in sight, is not temporary. Restrictions are justified for a short amount of time, when they are coupled with a valid, clear, achievable plan. There is no plan. Remember the 5 levels plan? Didn't even last 24hours. Government just seemed to think the virus was gone and reopened, and seemed shocked at the predicted result - more lockdowns. Did they bother using the time they bought with the first lockdown productively, to boost hospital capacity, improve track and trace, to arrange for travel quarantine? Did they ****. They betrayed the people, who so willingly adopted the "in this together" wartime mentality, the people did their bit, the government quoted films in ego massaging speeches and did nothing else. Even at this stage it is not too late to come out with something practical and detailed, but the plan is literally "we will see in a few weeks" with little hints from Leo the Great that we might get a treat at some stage, followed by Martin having to shoot this down, an obvious political ploy from Leo to maintain "good guy" popularity. No other FF leader would have been so consistently undermined and outmaneuvered. Haughey was an out and out crook, but he would eat these guys for breakfast and would have some sort of plan (lining his pockets would have formed some part of it I'm sure - that said longstanding procurement rules were wholesale abandoned during Covid so watch this space) this is how bad the current crop are.

The attack on religion in Ireland, where the government have relegated it in their reckoning to being an optional luxury (contrary to freedom/practice of one's religion being a human right, an entirely different kettle of fish to having a haircut, something the Irish govt deem more important), is obscene. People, who would normally pridefully portray themselves as being defenders of human rights, have shamefully abandoned this facade, demonstrating their latent Stalinist authoritarian tendencies (ironically this is most prominent from the trotskyists!) with some delighting, in particular, at the restrictions on religious worship - fueled no doubt by their sad and misguided disdain for the Divine.

Ireland is an outlier in her approach to religious worship, it is one of only two countries in the EU where Mass is outright banned*, everywhere else having rightly decided that an outright ban is not a proportional imposition on an important human right, rather restrictions on numbers attending are deemed as being sufficient.

Even reasonable accommodations attempted at one parish, where communion was left for a two hour window after an online Mass, for parishioners to collect, was shut down with the priest threatened. Yet, there is no issue with going into the same church during the same two hour window to light a candle or the like. It makes no sense. There is also no issue with coffee shops doing a roaring trade, no issue with people congregating in the vicinity of these establishments, but they are not praying so it's grand.

It will be two Easters now where worship at the most important time of the year is banned - even the sub par "drive in" masses that were previously allowed are banned. Too dangerous it seems, for the Eucharist to be handed, by someone in full PPE, to someone in a car. (Perfectly safe to go into a coffee shop and be handed a coffee by someone with their nose sticking out over a mask though, or to go get a take away pint).

Mod: Restored text below

In the north worship will be allowed. How ironic! In the six counties, the orange state, founded on a basis of bigotry, the loather of "priest-craft" with the Pope being the DUP's "anti-christ", where the powers that be would not have a Catholic "about the place", where Catholics were denied the vote, housing, jobs, literally "the enemy within", beaten and even murdered by agents of the state because of their religious beliefs - it is this state, one hundred years or so since its foundation that respects and upholds the right to practice ones religion, and it is the 'free state' which seeks to make it illegal, outlawing the Mass and other sacraments to a degree not seen since the penal days.

Something has to give soon, people have had enough - because they cannot see the proportionality, many of the restrictions make no sense and because of this people are stopping paying attention to them wholesale - if restrictions were logical people would obey them. It is hard to argue for them in the face of such incompetence, illogicality, dis-proportionality - you can fly in from a Covid hotspot no questions asked, but you can't go 6km to the beach.

There is not much hope, it is clear as day that the return to school (look at Germany) will increase cases - look at the genius decision to send some pupils back and then two weeks (the timeframe after which the effect of the first cohort returning would begin to be seen) later send more in! How does this make sense? Just as it starts to be evident if it increases the cases, fire more in straight away? A stupid political decision. Restrictions will continue for an indeterminate amount of time because of the vaccine mess up, by the time people are vaccinated boosters to address variants will be needed, rinse and repeat as restrictions roll on. It is bizarre that even nursing home residents, all vaccinated, cannot attend Mass.

Even the Bishops, typically loath to rock the boat, are running very low on patience, their recent statement being the angriest I can recall.

Personally, I am waiting, with every expectation of being let down yet again, for the government to come out with something at the start of April. If they do not present a workable plan (they won't) I will not be following restrictions, simply because they are law, any further. I will instead act as I see fit - with a degree of precaution as my circumstances dictate (i.e. wearing masks, mostly staying at home, not meeting in large groups and such). I will attend Mass, even if I need to go north, although I am sure priests will not be found wanting - many will be willing to follow in the footsteps of their penal day predecessors and celebrate the Mass, be it illegal or not.

What I worry about is that I think many people will just abandon restrictions entirely - as the people did in the incident the OP referred to (thank you for reading all the above to see how my missive relates to the OP!) - and take no precautions at all, and just pretend everything is normal. The government will be to blame, as they had 12 plus months to get it right and failed every time.

*That said, the opinion of the TCD law professor linked previously that it is not actually illegal is quite persuasive.

smacl

Mod warning @ex loco refugii: I have removed a section of your post which I consider intentionally inflammatory and hence in breach of the charter.

Edit: Snipped section restored following discussion on feedback thread

ex loco refugii wrote: »

I will not be following restrictions, simply because they are law, any further.

Advocating or admitting to illegal activity on this site is against the terms of use of this site and will result in sanctions.

Boards terms of use wrote:

We expect you to act responsibly in posting Material on Boards.ie. You agree, through use of this service, NOT to use boards.ie to:
;
;
post Material that promotes or encourages illegal activity

Any responses via PM or to the feedback thread only. Thanks for your attention

uptherebels

Eden Silly Frame wrote: »

The attack on religion in Ireland, where the government have relegated it in their reckoning to being an optional luxury (contrary to freedom/practice of one's religion being a human right, an entirely different kettle of fish to having a haircut, something the Irish govt deem more important), is obscene. People, who would normally pridefully portray themselves as being defenders of human rights, have shamefully abandoned this facade, demonstrating their latent Stalinist authoritarian tendencies (ironically this is most prominent from the trotskyists!) with some delighting, in particular, at the restrictions on religious worship - fueled no doubt by their sad and misguided disdain for the Divine.

while the majority of that post was nonsense, i can only describe the above as an incredibly special piece of utter nonsense. For some reason some people of a religious leaning believe they are deserving of special treatment at the expense of others. You talk about human rights yet are happy to ignore a persons right to life. How many deaths would you accept to have public mass? considering the high risk age profile of priests and a significant portion of mass goers in this country? Do you consider being able to attend public mass as more important than somebody else right to life?

Eden Silly Frame wrote: »

What I worry about is that I think many people will just abandon restrictions entirely - as the people did in the incident the OP referred to (thank you for reading all the above to see how my missive relates to the OP!) - and take no precautions at all, and just pretend everything is normal. The government will be to blame, as they had 12 plus months to get it right and failed every time.

you have just said you are going to act as you see fit, even going to the north for mass, but are concerned that other people would act as they see fit. You don't see the issue with this? and is a prime example of the religious believing they are deserving of special treatment.

uptherebels

uptherebels wrote: »

while the majority of that post was nonsense, i can only describe the above as an incredibly special piece of utter nonsense. For some reason some people of a religious leaning believe they are deserving of special treatment at the expense of others. You talk about human rights yet are happy to ignore a persons right to life. How many deaths would you accept to have public mass? considering the high risk age profile of priests and a significant portion of mass goers in this country? Do you consider being able to attend public mass as more important than somebody else right to life?

How many deaths is getting a take away pint, or a coffee, worth? How many deaths is going 5km worth compared to going 4km? How many deaths is opening schools worth? Is this how you measure ever act of life, every restriction under Covid, or is it just the ones that involve prayer?

Why has the majority of the world deemed it not proportional to entirely ban public worship? Why is freedom of religion, and practice of religion, a specific fundamental human right? No one said anything about forcing people to go to Mass, people can make that decision themselves - particularly in circumstances where a not insignificant portion of the age group you refer to have or will be soon vaccinated.

you have just said you are going to act as you see fit, even going to the north for mass, but are concerned that other people would act as they see fit. You don't see the issue with this? and is a prime example of the religious believing they are deserving of special treatment.

I said I would do so if the govt did not emerge with a reasonable plan. I also said my concern would be that people would abandon precautions entirely, rather than, say, deciding that it is OK to go 6km from home and otherwise still being careful. I must stress, that as this is a future possibility, it is entirely hypothetical and I am not advocating anyone breaking any laws. Hopefully the government will come out with a good plan that restores public confidence, or revise restrictions to make them more proportionate.

uptherebels

Eden Silly Frame wrote: »

How many deaths is getting a take away pint, or a coffee, worth? How many deaths is going 5km worth compared to going 4km? How many deaths is opening schools worth? Is this how you measure ever act of life, every restriction under Covid, or is it just the ones that involve prayer?

Why has the majority of the world deemed it not proportional to entirely ban public worship? Why is freedom of religion, and practice of religion, a specific fundamental human right? No one said anything about forcing people to go to Mass, people can make that decision themselves - particularly in circumstances where a not insignificant portion of the age group you refer to have or will be soon vaccinated.

I said I would do so if the govt did not emerge with a reasonable plan. I also said my concern would be that people would abandon precautions entirely, rather than, say, deciding that it is OK to go 6km from home and otherwise still being careful. I must stress, that as this is a future possibility, it is entirely hypothetical and I am not advocating anyone breaking any laws. Hopefully the government will come out with a good plan that restores public confidence, or revise restrictions to make them more proportionate.

you went through the trouble of writing all that out but didn't actually bother answering any of the questions, why not?

You are the one claiming your right to attend public mass should be respected, at the expense of others basic fundamental human rights.
You need to tell us how you square that circle.

I didn.t say anything about forcing people to go to mass, its about those they could potentially spread Covid to that had no say in their public gathering. They will be vaccinated eventually, but we aren't there yet.

uptherebels

uptherebels wrote: »

you went through the trouble of writing all that out but didn't actually bother answering any of the questions, why not?

You are the one claiming your right to attend public mass should be respected, at the expense of others basic fundamental human rights.
You need to tell us how you square that circle.

I didn.t say anything about forcing people to go to mass, its about those they could potentially spread Covid to that had no say in their public gathering. They will be vaccinated eventually, but we aren't there yet.

You are making the claim that people attending Mass will result in deaths, please offer evidence to support this. If you can provide adequate evidence that Mass attendance will result in excess mortality, then we can compare this to other activities, and you can tell us why you think activities that may be just as "risky", or moreso, are more important, whereas Mass is so deadly it must be banned, when the majority of the world have not deemed this proportionate, and I can say why I think any "risk" of allowing worship, should it exist, is worth it.

If you are going to infringe on a fundamental right, which religious worship is, the onus is on you (or the govt) to provide evidence that it is a cause or significant contributor to spread, and that this risk cannot be mitigated by any other means (such as limiting numbers) than banning it entirely.

Or maybe you will conclude that leaving your house at all is a risky activity and we should never leave - but then agoraphobia reduces life expectancy also.

Are you in favour of allowing those who are vaccinated to attend Mass? That would be a start at least and give people some hope.

growleaves

The 'right to be in lockdown' is not a basic fundamental human right.

These containment methods are theoretical, unproven and have no provenance. We have shuttered everything on a hoof and a hope and most people have gone along with it because they don't want to second-guess the authorities. But there's no right to sit on businesses, chain the economy and ban religious attendance.

looksee

growleaves wrote: »

The 'right to be in lockdown' is not a basic fundamental human right.

This does not make any sense as a statement?

These containment methods are theoretical, unproven and have no provenance. We have shuttered everything on a hoof and a hope and most people have gone along with it because they don't want to second-guess the authorities. But there's no right to sit on businesses, chain the economy and ban religious attendance.

Well of course they are, up to a point, theoretical, unproven and have no provenance. We have not had a Covid pandemic before to practise on. It is worth pointing out though that historically the only way of dealing with epidemics was by confining people to their houses. And there is evidence from the 1918 flu epidemic that closing down society worked very well https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/article/how-cities-flattened-curve-1918-spanish-flu-pandemic-coronavirus

No-one is claiming every government got everything right about this pandemic - though New Zealand did pretty well and they were very quick to do the containment that you are criticising. However it is difficult to see how churches could be allowed open while closing cinemas and theatres. The physical environment is very similar - though in cinemas and theatres people are not talking and singing, and are far less likely to gather and gossip afterwards than when leaving a church.

While the necessity for the spiritual and community aspects of attending church are undeniable, in respect of the Catholic church for many centuries all that was considered necessary for the laity to fulfil their obligations was to witness the Elevation of the Host, and actually take Communion once a year. Participating in the Mass remotely would accomplish the first, and there have been sufficient opportunities in the last 12 months to attend Mass in person to achieve the second.

breezy1985

Eden Silly Frame wrote: »

Why has the majority of the world deemed it not proportional to entirely ban public worship? Why is freedom of religion, and practice of religion, a specific fundamental human right? No one said anything about forcing people to go to Mass, people can make that decision themselves - particularly in circumstances where a not insignificant portion of the age group you refer to have or will be soon vaccinated.

Yes people can make the decision to go to mass or not but if a mass becomes a spreader event and all those mass goers hop on a bus or go shopping do the people they now infect get a choice.

Right now essentials are open and mass is not one. Comparing it to getting takeaway is a joke. I get a takeaway coffee and drink it alone every day within regulations outdoors and that is very different to sitting inside in a group even if distancing.

Missing mass is allowed by god and church when necessary and people can still get mass by other means and if I am wrong on that then it's time to remove the angelus and Sunday mass from TV as they are redundant

uptherebels

Eden Silly Frame wrote: »

You are making the claim that people attending Mass will result in deaths, please offer evidence to support this. If you can provide adequate evidence that Mass attendance will result in excess mortality, then we can compare this to other activities, and you can tell us why you think activities that may be just as "risky", or moreso, are more important, whereas Mass is so deadly it must be banned, when the majority of the world have not deemed this proportionate, and I can say why I think any "risk" of allowing worship, should it exist, is worth it.

If you are going to infringe on a fundamental right, which religious worship is, the onus is on you (or the govt) to provide evidence that it is a cause or significant contributor to spread, and that this risk cannot be mitigated by any other means (such as limiting numbers) than banning it entirely.

Or maybe you will conclude that leaving your house at all is a risky activity and we should never leave - but then agoraphobia reduces life expectancy also.

Are you in favour of allowing those who are vaccinated to attend Mass? That would be a start at least and give people some hope.

I dont need to support it, public mass has already stopped, its hard to get stats from something that isnt happening you want mass back you need to show it is safe.

What other activities are just as risky? the cinema? closed... bars? closed
and that is before we even take into the high risk age profile of mass goers.

you do understand that even if vaccinated, you can still transmit the disease? when enough people have been vaccinated to open up the rest of society then churches can have public mass again. Mass wasn't banned because it was deadly, it was banned because in this country at least it is a congregation of people most susceptible to dying from covid

You seem to believe that during a pandemic of a disease that has a much higher fatality rate in older people would somehow not affect a high risk age profile mass goers? there is a reason why public mass was stopped :rolleyes:


again, I asked you how many deaths you would accept to have public mass.
This isnt something you can keep dodging. Either you believe your right to attend public mass is more important than someone else right to life, or you dont. So which is it?

uptherebels

growleaves wrote: »

The 'right to be in lockdown' is not a basic fundamental human right.

These containment methods are theoretical, unproven and have no provenance. We have shuttered everything on a hoof and a hope and most people have gone along with it because they don't want to second-guess the authorities. But there's no right to sit on businesses, chain the economy and ban religious attendance.

who said it was a fundamental human right?
the containment methods while not ideal, are not theoretical or unproven, you can see that from the numbers of cases when we are at various stages of lockdown.

growleaves

uptherebels wrote: »

who said it was a fundamental human right?
the containment methods while not ideal, are not theoretical or unproven, you can see that from the numbers of cases when we are at various stages of lockdown.

No you are wrong. The numbers are correlated with restrictions to some extent but seasonality and other factors may influence things like e.g. a winter surge.

What people are doing is starting with a set of assumptions and then using confirmation bias to interpret what has happened.

That is not scientific proof, which means being able to say for definite that x was caused by y.

looksee

looksee wrote: »

This does not make any sense as a statement?


Well of course they are, up to a point, theoretical, unproven and have no provenance. We have not had a Covid pandemic before to practise on. It is worth pointing out though that historically the only way of dealing with epidemics was by confining people to their houses. And there is evidence from the 1918 flu epidemic that closing down society worked very well https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/article/how-cities-flattened-curve-1918-spanish-flu-pandemic-coronavirus

No-one is claiming every government got everything right about this pandemic - though New Zealand did pretty well and they were very quick to do the containment that you are criticising. However it is difficult to see how churches could be allowed open while closing cinemas and theatres. The physical environment is very similar - though in cinemas and theatres people are not talking and singing, and are far less likely to gather and gossip afterwards than when leaving a church.

While the necessity for the spiritual and community aspects of attending church are undeniable, in respect of the Catholic church for many centuries all that was considered necessary for the laity to fulfil their obligations was to witness the Elevation of the Host, and actually take Communion once a year. Participating in the Mass remotely would accomplish the first, and there have been sufficient opportunities in the last 12 months to attend Mass in person to achieve the second.

This is incorrect, theologically speaking. Watching it on the TV is not participating in the sacrifice of the Mass, you need to physically be in attendance. Also, people do not and should not go to Mass merely to satisfy some sort of obligation, so what you say is not particularly helpful, or even true. I have to say I am somewhat sick of people with no religious belief purporting to tell the faithful what their beliefs are, or how they should, or need to (theologically speaking) worship.

For a country that supposedly still forces Catholic education on people it is illuminating how few people actually understand what happens at Mass.

The denial of the sacraments, particularly confession, but also receiving communion, is a serious issue which can have eternal consequences for those of us who are not living lives free of sin (i.e. everyone).

This is particularly aggravating when it has not been demonstrated that attendance at Mass, in limited numbers, wearing masks etc. is so risky that it should be banned, especially when the majority of the world have not banned religious worship, rather they have imposed restrictions.

Saying that Mass is the same as going to the cinema is nonsense, you don't have a specific fundamental human right to go watch a film. I know you are an atheist, but you should recognise that religious worship is different from going to the cinema. Even if you don't think this, you must acknowledge that millions of people do not share such a blindfolded perspective. Saying that similar restrictions should apply because the buildings and circumstances of attendance are similar is just a way of dressing this up: they aren't for a start, Churches tend to be far larger, with far more doors, no lobby areas, more spaced out, and Mass can be done in 20 mins or so with no singing. The law, as it stands, says that 30/40/50/60+ people can go sit in a church with no issue, but if a Priest stands on the altar and says Mass it becomes a crime, explain the logic there. Amazingly, the "problem" of people congregating outside shops in queues, even for non essentials like coffee or take away pints does not seem to be a major issue, add some prayer in though and reduce the frequency of that possibility (I'm not convinced mitigation can't be put in place to stop people congregating, nor has it been demonstrated that this was happening and contributing to spread in the first case) for an individual to once a week and it will be a massacre!

This is the attack on religion, and the faithful, I referred to earlier. Whether you explicitly mean it this way or not(I don't think you do), it is an insidious attack aimed at reducing the practice of religion to a mere hobby, or luxury (like going to the cinema). You may view it like this, but you, or anyone else, have no right to force others to act like this is the case. Millions of people, billions around the world, view religious worship as an essential part of their being, not something to be put aside or diminished, lightly. This is why it is a fundamental human right and nearly every country in the world has not taken the draconian step of banning worship.

uptherebels

uptherebels wrote: »

I dont need to support it, public mass has already stopped, its hard to get stats from something that isnt happening you want mass back you need to show it is safe.

What other activities are just as risky? the cinema? closed... bars? closed
and that is before we even take into the high risk age profile of mass goers.

you do understand that even if vaccinated, you can still transmit the disease? when enough people have been vaccinated to open up the rest of society then churches can have public mass again. Mass wasn't banned because it was deadly, it was banned because in this country at least it is a congregation of people most susceptible to dying from covid

You seem to believe that during a pandemic of a disease that has a much higher fatality rate in older people would somehow not affect a high risk age profile mass goers? there is a reason why public mass was stopped :rolleyes:


again, I asked you how many deaths you would accept to have public mass.
This isnt something you can keep dodging. Either you believe your right to attend public mass is more important than someone else right to life, or you dont. So which is it?

What a scary Stalinist (this isn't hyperbole, I say it deliberately) attitude and thought process this is:

1. Your default is to infringe on human rights
2. You do not have any evidence
3. You say you do not need to provide any
4. You say that it is impossible to get evidence anyway
5. To be able to exercise a human right you say you need evidence to demonstrate that it is safe, while saying it is impossible to provide evidence that it is dangerous. It is impossible to square this circle.

Very scary, no doubt you will say that the fact that the vast majority of the world have not banned Mass is irrelevant.

I have a feeling you will only apply this standard to worship (at first of course, tyranny always starts against someone you don't like), I have a feeling if the govt applied your standards to other areas of life you might object... I would hope that most people would take the reasonable position that human rights should only be infringed upon if there is evidence and proof that it is necessary.

But then you go on to say that Mass is not "deadly" but that it was banned because older people go to Mass. So are you saying that it is OK to have public worship if no medically vulnerable people attend?

breezy1985

Eden Silly Frame wrote: »

This is incorrect, theologically speaking. Watching it on the TV is not participating in the sacrifice of the Mass, you need to physically be in attendance. Also, people do not and should not go to Mass merely to satisfy some sort of obligation, so what you say is not particularly helpful, or even true. I have to say I am somewhat sick of people with no religious belief purporting to tell the faithful what their beliefs are, or how they should, or need to (theologically speaking) worship.

For a country that supposedly still forces Catholic education on people it is illuminating how few people actually understand what happens at Mass.

The denial of the sacraments, particularly confession, but also receiving communion, is a serious issue which can have eternal consequences for those of us who are not living lives free of sin (i.e. everyone).

This is particularly aggravating when it has not been demonstrated that attendance at Mass, in limited numbers, wearing masks etc. is so risky that it should be banned, especially when the majority of the world have not banned religious worship, rather they have imposed restrictions.

Saying that Mass is the same as going to the cinema is nonsense, you don't have a specific fundamental human right to go watch a film. I know you are an atheist, but you should recognise that religious worship is different from going to the cinema. Even if you don't think this, you must acknowledge that millions of people do not share such a blindfolded perspective. Saying that similar restrictions should apply because the buildings and circumstances of attendance are similar is just a way of dressing this up: they aren't for a start, Churches tend to be far larger, with far more doors, no lobby areas, more spaced out, and Mass can be done in 20 mins or so with no singing. The law, as it stands, says that 30/40/50/60+ people can go sit in a church with no issue, but if a Priest stands on the altar and says Mass it becomes a crime, explain the logic there. Amazingly, the "problem" of people congregating outside shops in queues, even for non essentials like coffee or take away pints does not seem to be a major issue, add some prayer in though and reduce the frequency of that possibility (I'm not convinced mitigation can't be put in place to stop people congregating, nor has it been demonstrated that this was happening and contributing to spread in the first case) for an individual to once a week and it will be a massacre!

This is the attack on religion, and the faithful, I referred to earlier. Whether you explicitly mean it this way or not(I don't think you do), it is an insidious attack aimed at reducing the practice of religion to a mere hobby, or luxury (like going to the cinema). You may view it like this, but you, or anyone else, have no right to force others to act like this is the case. Millions of people, billions around the world, view religious worship as an essential part of their being, not something to be put aside or diminished, lightly. This is why it is a fundamental human right and nearly every country in the world has not taken the draconian step of banning worship.

As far as this virus is concerned mass and cinema are the same thing.The virus cares not one bit for theory that you need to go to a building every week for your soul it will infect and kill the same as if you are in a cinema.

Saying other countries allow worship is pointless unless you can prove they are combating the virus better than us. Maybe we are doing it right and them wrong.

If you think government have shut down society and tanked the economy just to stop people going to mass then I would say the conspiracy theory forum would be the only place you would find agreement

one world order

Too many people are bowing down to Satan. The Catholic church has being corrupted by Satan and his demonic entities. All the people who are putting on masks every day and believing the lies of the corrupt dishonest mass produced media. We can't stop the mark of the beast and control of the world's population being handed over to Satan to rule from Jerusalem, but we can put our trust in God instead of the deception this world gives us. I never wore a mask throughout this programming and I have respect for anyone that doesn't bow down to Satan and his schemes.

breezy1985

breezy1985 wrote: »

As far as this virus is concerned mass and cinema are the same thing.The virus cares not one bit for theory that you need to go to a building every week for your soul it will infect and kill the same as if you are in a cinema.

Saying other countries allow worship is pointless unless you can prove they are combating the virus better than us. Maybe we are doing it right and them wrong.

If you think government have shut down society and tanked the economy just to stop people going to mass then I would say the conspiracy theory forum would be the only place you would find agreement

Of course it is not all about religion, just a nice bonus for some, whether intentional or not.

The concept some people have of human rights on this forum is quite scary, the default being that they are to be tossed out the window and only "allowed" if it can be demonstrated that it is "safe".

This is madness. The approach must be that if a human right is to be infringed, it can only be done if it is demonstrated, with overwhelming evidence, that it is absolutely necessary. Any other approach is monstrous and undermines the entire concept of human rights, who knows where this can lead? Please read The Gulag Archipelago.

breezy1985

one world order wrote: »

Too many people are bowing down to Satan. The Catholic church has being corrupted by Satan and his demonic entities. All the people who are putting on masks every day and believing the lies of the corrupt dishonest mass produced media. We can't stop the mark of the beast and control of the world's population being handed over to Satan to rule from Jerusalem, but we can put our trust in God instead of the deception this world gives us. I never wore a mask throughout this programming and I have respect for anyone that doesn't bow down to Satan and his schemes.

Prayer or rejection of satan haven't saved the lives of the people I have seen die from covid so ide probably start wearing a mask

one world order

breezy1985 wrote: »

Prayer or rejection of satan haven't saved the lives of the people I have seen die from covid so ide probably start wearing a mask

A mask that is totally useless. Good luck with that. We know the survival rate from this man made virus is over 99.9% and if someone dies that happen to have covid while in hospital, it is put down as a covid death. God didn't give us fear, that comes from trusting Satan and his lies.

breezy1985

one world order wrote: »

A mask that is totally useless. Good luck with that. We know the survival rate from this man made virus is over 99.9% and if someone dies that happen to have covid while in hospital, it is put down as a covid death. God didn't give us fear, that comes from trusting Satan and his lies.

All right keep believing that. I hope for your sake you survive regardless of your dangerous attitude

one world order

breezy1985 wrote: »

All right keep believing that. I hope for your sake you survive regardless of your dangerous attitude

What's more important, living in fear to protect the short time in this physical world and ending up in hell for eternity or putting your trust in God and ending up in heaven? Saving your soul is far more important than worrying about the fear being pushed by the media on the population.

breezy1985

one world order wrote: »

What's more important, living in fear to protect the short time in this physical world and ending up in hell for eternity or putting your trust in God and ending up in heaven? Saving your soul is far more important than worrying about the fear being pushed by the media on the population.

I'll take the fact based advice of lockdown to prolong my short life over the unproven possiblity of an afterlife and most people in this country seem to be happy to make the same choice as me

one world order

breezy1985 wrote: »

I'll take the fact based advice of lockdown to prolong my short life over the unproven possiblity of an afterlife and most people in this country seem to be happy to make the same choice as me

If most people end up in hell would you like to join them there as well?

breezy1985

one world order wrote: »

If most people end up in hell would you like to join them there as well?

If god exists Im sure he will see Im pretty decent despite my flaws and let me in. I doubt wearing a mask is gonna be the red line for my getting into heaven or wherever either way

smacl

breezy1985 wrote: »

If god exists Im sure he will see Im pretty decent despite my flaws and let me in. I doubt wearing a mask is gonna be the red line for my getting into Valhalla or wherever either way

Mod warning: While Valhalla is no doubt an interesting idea, can we stick to Heaven and Hell on this forum please and avoid comparisons to defunct mythologies that might be considered a slight on Christianity and its beliefs. Thanks for your attention.

uptherebels

Eden Silly Frame wrote: »

What a scary Stalinist (this isn't hyperbole, I say it deliberately) attitude and thought process this is:

more nonsense from you.

Eden Silly Frame wrote: »

1. Your default is to infringe on human rights
2. You do not have any evidence
3. You say you do not need to provide any
4. You say that it is impossible to get evidence anyway
5. To be able to exercise a human right you say you need evidence to demonstrate that it is safe, while saying it is impossible to provide evidence that it is dangerous. It is impossible to square this circle.

Very scary, no doubt you will say that the fact that the vast majority of the world have not banned Mass is irrelevant.

you really need to start reading what i write instead of immediately jumping to outrage.
1. My default is to put someones human right to life over your right to attend public mass or someone elses right to liberty during a pandemic.
That you seemingly want to do the opposite is very telling.
2-4, I said i dont need to provide evidence because the government has already stopped public mass, if you want it changed you need to show it is safe.
5. You want evidence from attending mass when attending mass is stopped
Do i really need to explain the issue with this to you?

Eden Silly Frame wrote: »

I have a feeling you will only apply this standard to worship (at first of course, tyranny always starts against someone you don't like), I have a feeling if the govt applied your standards to other areas of life you might object... I would hope that most people would take the reasonable position that human rights should only be infringed upon if there is evidence and proof that it is necessary.

what standard would that be? similar gatherings of people are also prohibited.
Again you are ignoring people basic human right of life. Why is that?
For the third time, is your right to mass more important than someone elses right to life? you need to be honest with yourself about this.

Eden Silly Frame wrote: »

But then you go on to say that Mass is not "deadly" but that it was banned because older people go to Mass. So are you saying that it is OK to have public worship if no medically vulnerable people attend?

again you need to actually read what I wrote. "mass" isnt the issue, it is the gathering of people a large % of which are high risk of death from covid. Thats why online mass is ok;)
No I said it is ok to have public worship again when enough of the population have been vaccinated.

uptherebels

growleaves wrote: »

No you are wrong. The numbers are correlated with restrictions to some extent but seasonality and other factors may influence things like e.g. a winter surge.

What people are doing is starting with a set of assumptions and then using confirmation bias to interpret what has happened.

That is not scientific proof, which means being able to say for definite that x was caused by y.

there is no scientific proof of what? that masks don't reduce the distance that droplets containing the virus travel when you exhale/cough/sneeze?
That restrictions on travel or congregations of people don't reduce numbers during a pandemic?
pull the other one lad.

breezy1985

uptherebels wrote: »

there is no scientific proof of what? that masks don't reduce the distance that droplets containing the virus travel when you exhale/cough/sneeze?
That restrictions on travel or congregations of people don't reduce numbers during a pandemic?
pull the other one lad.

Ide say he believes in science about as much as I do in god

smacl

one world order wrote: »

A mask that is totally useless. Good luck with that. We know the survival rate from this man made virus is over 99.9% and if someone dies that happen to have covid while in hospital, it is put down as a covid death. God didn't give us fear, that comes from trusting Satan and his lies.

Mod note: Please restrict any assertions that this pandemic is a man made virus to the conspiracy theories forum unless you can provide strong supporting evidence to the contrary.

smacl

breezy1985 wrote: »

Ide say he believes in science about as much as I do in god

Mod warning: Please restrict your comments to the topic in hand and play the ball, not the man. This is your second and final warning in this thread. Any responses via PM or to the feedback thread only.

looksee

Masses have not been banned, they are being said by the Priests, its allowing gatherings of people to be there that has been banned. The Dublin Archdiocese, for one, has specifically said that ceremonies will be online with just the absolutely essential people being there in person.

No-one is saying that Mass is only as significant as, say, going to the cinema or any other gathering. The point is not the reason for the gathering, it is the physical fact of the gathering. To insist on any more significance to the 'banning' of masses than this is heading into conspiracy territory. There is at least one well documented case that I know of where a large group of people gathered for a funeral, and this led to a local outbreak. There were horrendous numbers in Tramore in Co Waterford over Christmas that were a direct result of a lock-in in a pub. I can't remember the number of deaths, but there were some.

The virus will not respect the occasion, whether Mass or cinema or pub, people will die. Even if the Mass goers were willing to risk it, how many unwilling contacts might also be affected?

Jesus said 'The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath', meaning that if it was necessary to break the sanctity of the Sabbath to save a life then it was right to do so. How would this direct teaching not apply to attendance at Mass?

looksee

looksee wrote: »

Masses have not been banned, they are being said by the Priests, its allowing gatherings of people to be there that has been banned. The Dublin Archdiocese, for one, has specifically said that ceremonies will be online with just the absolutely essential people being there in person.

This is splitting hairs, "public" Mass is banned. It's a bit like saying to someone that pubs are not banned, you're just not allowed to go to one, but sure it's OK because the pub owner can go have a pint. It's a distinction without a difference for the faithful. It is good that private Masses are being held, and indeed public Masses are being held in almost every country in the world besides a handful like North Korea, but that does not alleviate the damage that denial of public worship does.

No-one is saying that Mass is only as significant as, say, going to the cinema or any other gathering. The point is not the reason for the gathering, it is the physical fact of the gathering. To insist on any more significance to the 'banning' of masses than this is heading into conspiracy territory. There is at least one well documented case that I know of where a large group of people gathered for a funeral, and this led to a local outbreak. There were horrendous numbers in Tramore in Co Waterford over Christmas that were a direct result of a lock-in in a pub. I can't remember the number of deaths, but there were some.

People are saying that, including on this thread. It is clear that the government regard it as such, in contrast to how other governments, even on our very island, have responded. What no one is saying is that there should be a free for all. The risks can be mitigated with sensible precautions, strict limits on numbers, social distancing, masks etc. If this is good enough for things like coffee shops, or hairdressers (allowed under lower levels were Mass is still banned) it should be good enough for public worship. The answer to this question is invariably some variation of Mass is not important, it's non essential, it's a luxury. Clearly the government think so, as it is banned at Level 3, when a load of other "non-essential" places remain open!

The virus will not respect the occasion, whether Mass or cinema or pub, people will die. Even if the Mass goers were willing to risk it, how many unwilling contacts might also be affected?

Do you apply this standard to every restriction? How many deaths is 5km worth vs 4km? Where is your evidence that public worship is more dangerous than various other things which are allowed open at the various levels? Remember, Mass is banned from level 3 up, not just at level 5!

Jesus said 'The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath', meaning that if it was necessary to break the sanctity of the Sabbath to save a life then it was right to do so. How would this direct teaching not apply to attendance at Mass?

I refer you to my point in my previous post, I would be more inclined to take spiritual and theological advice or argument from the Bishops, than from someone who doesn't believe in any of it - I mean this respectfully (you had a bite of this apple already, and were incorrect). I don't think it is fair of you to purport to enter into theological discussion on points that you don't believe yourself, for example, it would be unfair, and dishonest, of me to offer spiritual advice (in the context of their religion) to a Pagan or whatever about how to practice their religion when I believe it is false (or worse). Suffice it to say, I disagree with your point, and I hope you understand why I am disinclined (I hope this does not come across as nasty it's not intended to) to get into a scriptural back and forth with someone who doesn't believe any of it in the first instance, these things tend to end with some version of "sure it's not true anyway". On that note, lets look at what the Bishops have said:

“We strongly believe that people’s freedom to worship publicly should be restored as soon as the current Level 5 restrictions begin to be eased. (Note, they are saying AFTER Level 5). It is particularly painful for Christians to be deprived, for the second year running, of the public expression of our faith during the most sacred time of Holy Week and Easter. This is especially true given that it has been clearly demonstrated that church buildings are among the safest places for people to gather. We also re-emphasise that the ongoing severe restrictions on attendance at Funeral Masses (currently limited to ten) are causing untold grief to many families.

Throughout this time of pandemic the approach of the Church has been firmly grounded in the protection of health and life and in the promotion of the Common Good. We recognise that strong restrictions are necessary in times of grave threat to public health. However, such restrictions on personal freedom should be proportionate and for the shortest time possible. Consideration must also be given to people’s mental, spiritual and emotional wellbeing. For people of faith, gathering for worship is fundamental to their identity and to their spiritual lives.

• That the easing of restrictions from Level 5 should include the restoration of public worship, albeit in a safe and limited way. For people of faith not to be free to worship until regulations return to Level 2, whilst many other restrictions are eased, is seen as particularly distressing and unjust. (My note: I.e. Mass should be allowed at Levels 3, and 4, and not banned until Level 2)."

They are, in effect, saying that it is unfair to ban Mass at Levels 3 and 4 when plenty of other things are open. A ban at levels 3, 4 and 5 is effectively an indefinite ban. No one is predicting a return to Level 2.

looksee

Just because I no longer (maybe never did) believe does not mean I do not have a fairly solid background in religious matters. You are free to use that as an excuse for not engaging if you wish, I am free to make the arguments. In pointing out a specific statement by Jesus, that is recorded in the Bible, and offering the standard interpretation, not mine, but the one usually offered, I am not offering spiritual advice, I am just reminding readers what the Bible says and what theologians have offered as interpretation.

With regard to the Bishops' advice, please read further than that document dated February, and see the clarification dated 4th March
https://www.dublindiocese.ie/statement-of-the-irish-catholic-bishops-conference-on-the-publication-of-the-framework-document-for-a-return-to-the-public-celebration-of-mass-and-the-sacraments/

A partial paragraph from that document

Under current restrictions all religious services continue to take place online. In the interest of health and safety priests and parishes ought not to succumb to requests to distribute Holy Communion before or after Mass, in or outside churches. Drive-in Masses are not permitted as no gatherings of people outdoors or indoors are permitted.

The problem is that this is not just a religious matter. There are implications for everyone, whether church-goer or not. The risk is not only to the people who attend Mass - or go to any public gathering - it is to the people they have contact with. And the sooner people stop spreading it around the sooner lockdowns can end and we can go back to a normal life.

looksee

looksee wrote: »

Just because I no longer (maybe never did) believe does not mean I do not have a fairly solid background in religious matters. You are free to use that as an excuse for not engaging if you wish, I am free to make the arguments. In pointing out a specific statement by Jesus, that is recorded in the Bible, and offering the standard interpretation, not mine, but the one usually offered, I am not offering spiritual advice, I am just reminding readers what the Bible says and what theologians have offered as interpretation.

But it is not an honest engagement. You do not believe that Christ was the Son of God, so any argument that "Jesus said x" and should be followed, is problematic, for obvious reasons. Already in the thread you purported to tell the faithful what their religion requires, and were incorrect, and did not acknowledge and moved on to using the words of Christ to undermine the Mass. When I address this will you just pick something else? In any case, there are probably at least a half dozen ways to respond to this particular point, the most straightforward being that Christ refers to the Sabbath (which was Saturday), the Sabbath of course, was "replaced", or more correctly put fulfilled, by the Lord's day, Sunday. The concept of the "Sabbath" is worlds away from that of the Lord's Day. Aside from this, you also imply that Christ said it was OK to "break the sanctity" of the Sabbath, he did no such thing, he never said this, nor did he break the sanctity of the Sabbath. Rather his teaching was that to pick and eat corn was not harvesting as the Pharisees claimed. The entire point of this teaching of Christ was that the Sabbath was pushed way beyond, by the Pharisees, what it was supposed to be, a day of rest to relive one of his/her burdens had become a day of way more onerous burdens where to pluck an ear of corn when starving was considered a sin. He also healed a man on the Sabbath, this was not a violation of the sanctity of the Sabbath, rather again another illustration by Christ that the Sabbath had, under the yoke of the Pharisees, become twisted, onerous and away from what God had intended, it had become an imposition, rather than a day of relief. For this, they began plotting to kill him. This is the orthodox understanding of this teaching of Christ, it is not that Jesus violated the sanctity of the Sabbath (although the Pharisees sought to accuse him and the disciples of that). I could go on, but that should suffice.

Do you not see my point, if you were a Christian and thought what you said, through this conversation I could try and demonstrate where I think you were mistaken, and if successful, you may change your mind. However, as an atheist, I could come up with the best theological argument ever that Mass should not be banned and it would not make one jot of difference because you are not in favour of banning public Mass for theological reasons, and will not be persuaded by theological argument. We need to get to the root of the argument here, referring to theological imperatives (correct or otherwise) that you do not believe is only dressing.

With regard to the Bishops' advice, please read further than that document dated February, and see the clarification dated 4th March
https://www.dublindiocese.ie/statement-of-the-irish-catholic-bishops-conference-on-the-publication-of-the-framework-document-for-a-return-to-the-public-celebration-of-mass-and-the-sacraments/

A partial paragraph from that document

What is your point here, I'm afraid I don't quite follow.

The problem is that this is not just a religious matter. There are implications for everyone, whether church-goer or not. The risk is not only to the people who attend Mass - or go to any public gathering - it is to the people they have contact with. And the sooner people stop spreading it around the sooner lockdowns can end and we can go back to a normal life.

Again, you need to offer evidence that Mass is dangerous to a degree that it should be banned, and explain what is so different in Ireland compared to everywhere else (almost) in the world.

At level three, just to pick one example, people can sit in a beer garden having drinks and meals, but Mass is banned. How is this fair? I think most people would understand if the govt said that Mass will be banned at Level 5, but when the Levels reduce and you are allowed do things like get your hair cut or have a meal then masses can take place too. Why do you think (if you do) that Mass should be banned at Level 3 & 4 as well as 5?

looksee

This is incorrect, theologically speaking. Watching it on the TV is not participating in the sacrifice of the Mass, you need to physically be in attendance. Also, people do not and should not go to Mass merely to satisfy some sort of obligation, so what you say is not particularly helpful, or even true. I have to say I am somewhat sick of people with no religious belief purporting to tell the faithful what their beliefs are, or how they should, or need to (theologically speaking) worship.

Ex loco refugii, I am simply quoting the Bishops as to whether watching Mass on tv is sufficient, not offering my own opinion. They have said that this is the way things will be for the immediate future. I did not say that people go to mass merely to satisfy some sort of obligation, I was saying that the obligation is satisfied by so doing.

I am sorry you are sick of people with no religious belief telling the faithful what their beliefs are, but you do not have to believe to understand what those beliefs are. I spent over 40 years being educated on obligations and beliefs, I prepared three children for first communion and confirmation. I was up to date with all mass times, holy days, rules of fasting and papal pronouncements. And prior to that, for 10 years I attended Protestant services and bible classes and even took Religion as an O level GCE subject, so I am pretty familiar with the Bible too. Not that any of this has anything to do with whether I may contribute on this forum, so leave my qualifications out of it.

Maybe the National Catholic Reporter will be good enough as information, https://www.ncronline.org/news/coronavirus/316-coronavirus-tracker-pope-resurrects-idea-spiritual-communion the Pope has said that Easter liturgies will not be open to the public and he is promoting the idea of a spiritual communion. I am just the messenger here, passing on what the Pope has said.

We - all of us - have a pandemic to deal with and all the religious arguments in the world are not going to convince me that there is any excuse for risking transmission of the disease by gathering together for any reason at all.

breezy1985

Eden Silly Frame wrote: »

But it is not an honest engagement. You do not believe that Christ was the Son of God, so any argument that "Jesus said x" and should be followed, is problematic, for obvious reasons. Already in the thread you purported to tell the faithful what their religion requires, and were incorrect, and did not acknowledge and moved on to using the words of Christ to undermine the Mass. When I address this will you just pick something else? In any case, there are probably at least a half dozen ways to respond to this particular point, the most straightforward being that Christ refers to the Sabbath (which was Saturday), the Sabbath of course, was "replaced", or more correctly put fulfilled, by the Lord's day, Sunday. The concept of the "Sabbath" is worlds away from that of the Lord's Day. Aside from this, you also imply that Christ said it was OK to "break the sanctity" of the Sabbath, he did no such thing, he never said this, nor did he break the sanctity of the Sabbath. Rather his teaching was that to pick and eat corn was not harvesting as the Pharisees claimed. The entire point of this teaching of Christ was that the Sabbath was pushed way beyond, by the Pharisees, what it was supposed to be, a day of rest to relive one of his/her burdens had become a day of way more onerous burdens where to pluck an ear of corn when starving was considered a sin. He also healed a man on the Sabbath, this was not a violation of the sanctity of the Sabbath, rather again another illustration by Christ that the Sabbath had, under the yoke of the Pharisees, become twisted, onerous and away from what God had intended, it had become an imposition, rather than a day of relief. For this, they began plotting to kill him. This is the orthodox understanding of this teaching of Christ, it is not that Jesus violated the sanctity of the Sabbath (although the Pharisees sought to accuse him and the disciples of that). I could go on, but that should suffice.

Do you not see my point, if you were a Christian and thought what you said, through this conversation I could try and demonstrate where I think you were mistaken, and if successful, you may change your mind. However, as an atheist, I could come up with the best theological argument ever that Mass should not be banned and it would not make one jot of difference because you are not in favour of banning public Mass for theological reasons, and will not be persuaded by theological argument. We need to get to the root of the argument here, referring to theological imperatives (correct or otherwise) that you do not believe is only dressing.

What is your point here, I'm afraid I don't quite follow.
Again, you need to offer evidence that Mass is dangerous to a degree that it should be banned, and explain what is so different in Ireland compared to everywhere else (almost) in the world.

At level three, just to pick one example, people can sit in a beer garden having drinks and meals, but Mass is banned. How is this fair? I think most people would understand if the govt said that Mass will be banned at Level 5, but when the Levels reduce and you are allowed do things like get your hair cut or have a meal then masses can take place too. Why do you think (if you do) that Mass should be banned at Level 3 & 4 as well as 5?

How come atheists cant talk about god or jesus but catholics get free reign to talk about science they dont believe in

looksee

looksee wrote: »

Ex loco refugii, I am simply quoting the Bishops as to whether watching Mass on tv is sufficient, not offering my own opinion. They have said that this is the way things will be for the immediate future. I did not say that people go to mass merely to satisfy some sort of obligation, I was saying that the obligation is satisfied by so doing.

You are again either incorrect here, or muddling things inadvertently.

The Sunday obligation has been lifted, there may be some spiritual value by watching on TV, but - again - spiritually, and theologically, watching on TV vs participating in the sacrifice of the Mass in person, which can only be done in person are two fundamentally different things. The faithful cannot get confession, nor can they receive the Eucharist, nor, as I said, participate in the Mass which is, theologically speaking, the best way to worship God.

I am sorry you are sick of people with no religious belief telling the faithful what their beliefs are, but you do not have to believe to understand what those beliefs are. I spent over 40 years being educated on obligations and beliefs, I prepared three children for first communion and confirmation. I was up to date with all mass times, holy days, rules of fasting and papal pronouncements. And prior to that, for 10 years I attended Protestant services and bible classes and even took Religion as an O level GCE subject, so I am pretty familiar with the Bible too. Not that any of this has anything to do with whether I may contribute on this forum, so leave my qualifications out of it.

It is not a question of being qualified (although you have been wrong on two occasions on this thread regarding these matters), or whether you should contribute to the forum, of course you can and I welcome it. It is the fact that a person who feels, as you do, about something for non theological reasons offering theological reasons only obfuscates things because no theological answer will satisfy you. If the Pope said tomorrow that everyone should go to Mass, illegal or not, you would not turn around and say "that's grand so".

Maybe the National Catholic Reporter will be good enough as information, https://www.ncronline.org/news/coronavirus/316-coronavirus-tracker-pope-resurrects-idea-spiritual-communion the Pope has said that Easter liturgies will not be open to the public and he is promoting the idea of a spiritual communion. I am just the messenger here, passing on what the Pope has said.

There is a world of difference between Mass being banned, and Bishops voluntarily closing down for a short period of time. No one is saying that Churches should not be closed in any circumstances. It would seem very prudent to discourage thousands of people, as would be the norm, to congregate in the Vatican.

What has driven people mad is that in Ireland, unlike the vast majority of the world, Ireland has banned Mass, even in circumstances when non essentials like beer gardens and barbers are open.

In the north for example, Churches have been shut voluntarily. The Bishops have not said that watching on TV indefinitely is sufficient, it is better than nothing and the best they can do in the circumstances, unless they are prepared to risk breaking the law. You are again muddling things, implying that the Pope or the Bishops have said something akin to "don't worry lads, no big deal, just watch it on the telly" when they have not.

We - all of us - have a pandemic to deal with and all the religious arguments in the world are not going to convince me that there is any excuse for risking transmission of the disease by gathering together for any reason at all.

This is my point exactly! If no religious arguments will convince you that Mass should not be banned, then why are you making religious arguments that it should be banned?

Again I ask, why is Ireland so different from the majority of the world in banning public Mass at all, and why should it remain banned at lower levels 3 and 4 when things like beer gardens and barbers are open?

Or, tell me this, in what circumstances would you "allow" public Mass to take place? What would it take?

breezy1985

breezy1985 wrote: »

How come atheists cant talk about god or jesus but catholics get free reign to talk about science they dont believe in

Of course everyone can talk about whatever they want. If I say I need to go to Mass for all the reasons I've been through, and an atheist turns around and says something amounting to "no you don't, cause none of that's true" then that is fair enough, and a transparent engagement and we can talk about the central issue in a productive way. However, if you come out with some theological snippet to further a position that you hold for completely unrelated reasons - and you think your theological point is nonsense anyway - and argue with it as if it were true, all that is, is a waste of everyone's time. Should it be "solved" satisfactorily it achieves nothing, either you throw up something else, or we move on the root of the issue and start to discuss the topic honestly by putting forward the argument that you actually believe.

breezy1985

Eden Silly Frame wrote: »

Of course everyone can talk about whatever they want. If I say I need to go to Mass for all the reasons I've been through, and an atheist turns around and says something amounting to "no you don't, cause none of that's true" then that is fair enough, and a transparent engagement and we can talk about the central issue in a productive way. However, if you come out with some theological snippet to further a position that you hold for completely unrelated reasons - and you think your theological point is nonsense anyway - and argue with it as if it were true, all that is, is a waste of everyone's time. Should it be "solved" satisfactorily it achieves nothing, either you throw up something else, or we move on the root of the issue and start to discuss the topic honestly by putting forward the argument that you actually believe.

But to engage in this forum you have to throw up snippets from the bible. I have tried to argue from an atheist viewpoint in the past and gotten warnings. The ruses of the forum dictate that you must approach from a theological angle

Hotblack Desiato

Eden Silly Frame wrote: »

In the north worship will be allowed. How ironic! In the six counties, the orange state, founded on a basis of bigotry, the loather of "priest-craft" with the Pope being the DUP's "anti-christ", where the powers that be would not have a Catholic "about the place", where Catholics were denied the vote, housing, jobs, literally "the enemy within", beaten and even murdered by agents of the state because of their religious beliefs - it is this state, one hundred years or so since its foundation that respects and upholds the right to practice ones religion, and it is the 'free state' which seeks to make it illegal, outlawing the Mass and other sacraments to a degree not seen since the penal days.

But we had a "Catholic state for a Catholic people" "down here".

Perhaps we should all reflect upon how uncomfortable both of these states were, and in some respects still are, for non-Christians?

Hotblack Desiato

This is rather odd - We Are Church Ireland is not Church of Ireland or ecumenical but an organisation for Catholics.

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/church-and-covid-there-is-a-whole-ecclesiastical-world-which-is-disappearing-1.4510970

This is the background to the next step we took in March 2020 when not only church buildings closed, but we also had to close our homes to any outsiders. Physically isolated, we decided to move our Eucharistic celebrations online. Zoom enabled these gatherings.

...

The issue of the offertory and consecration of the bread and wine of course had to be dealt with. From a practical point of view, each person or couple has some bread and wine (or water when wine is not possible to procure) on a table in front of them before their screen.

These gifts are offered and consecrated through a communal prayer and then we receive Communion - the body and blood of Christ.

The extended hands over the elements are those of the people of God, separated by often huge physical distances, sometimes across continents. And yet the belief which sustains us and gives us the necessary daring is our belief in the reality of the presence of the Holy Spirit, so that there is truly an epiclesis at the heart of our celebrations.

We are gathered as the body of Christ and we receive the body of Christ. Though many and scattered across the face of the earth, we are one. We believe that the action of the Holy Spirit transcends space.

...

There is a whole ecclesiastical world which is increasingly disappearing. While this pandemic will, in time, be over, it will have contributed to some lasting changes which were already under way. It seems to me that for some Christians the experience of these Eucharistic celebrations will have effected a breakthrough and empowered them as a priestly people.

Participating in a Zoom Eucharist is a bit like walking on water. We have left the solid ground of our long-established theological frameworks, with its sense of safety, and find ourselves at large, sustained by the one who calls us to cross over to another shore.

Soline Humbert is a spiritual director and a member of We Are Church Ireland.

Surely according to Catholic doctrine only a validly ordained priest can consecrate the Host? What of those who participate in such a ritual? I thought WACI was, although not exactly aligned with the Catholic Church hierarchy's views, still a part of that church. What is being described there seems very odd indeed - heretical or even sacreligious.

Peregrinus

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

This is rather odd - We Are Church Ireland is not Church of Ireland or ecumenical but an organisation for Catholics.

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/church-and-covid-there-is-a-whole-ecclesiastical-world-which-is-disappearing-1.4510970

Surely according to Catholic doctrine only a validly ordained priest can consecrate the Host? What of those who participate in such a ritual? I thought WACI was, although not exactly aligned with the Catholic Church hierarchy's views, still a part of that church. What is being described there seems very odd indeed - heretical or even sacreligious.

Not sacriligious. Possibly heretical. Possibly misleading.

I say "possibly" because I think you could take this in two ways.

You could say/believe that what is being described here has the same spiritual/sacramental signficance and effect as a conventionally-celebrated eucharist. That would be (in the RCC view) heretical.

Or you could not say that, and instead say that it's an authentic response to the commandment to gather and to "take . . . eat . . . do this in memory of me", limited and constrained by the conditions caused by the pandemic.

There's an analogy with the eucharistic services held in Catholic churches in remoate areas where a priest is not regularly available. The congregation gathers and celebrates a liturgy in which they take communion previously consecrated by a priest. That;s not a mass, but it's a legitimate, official Catholic liturgy, celebrated with approval in many parts of the world. On the other hand, some bishops discourage its celebration on the grounds that the simple faithful might be misled by into thinking that it is a mass, and so misunderstand the nature of the sacrament.

This is a couple of steps further away again. The congregation can't physically gather, and they can't actually share bread and wine. All they can do is communicate, and (virtually) share the consumption by each of them of their own bread and wine. Again, you can say it's all that can be done, and its good to do it, or you can say that this will mislead, cause confusion, etc. I'm thinking that a lot more bishops will be of the "this is misleading" view, somehow.

The connection with "We are Church" won't reassure many bishops. It's a movement within Catholicism, but definitely at odds with the Church authorities on a number of points. It seeks to renew the Catholic church through the promotion of, it's fair to say, a highly progressive reading of the teachings of the Second Vatican Council.

Heresy and sacrilege are definable things, regardless of whether it meets those criteria, it is most definitely wrong.

Only a priest can say Mass and preform the consecration, and it must be done in person. "We Are Church" are a local constituent of a group with German roots, the founders of which have been excommunicated for exactly this type of thing, purporting to consecrate the host or say some weird form of mass. They also have a whole load of other views which do not conform with essential and fundamental aspects of Catholicism.

Sadly this is another group who think that Vatican 2 gave permission to "do whatever you want", underlining again how few have read the council documents. None of what they stand for is in line with Vatican 2. I do not understand why anyone who completely disagrees, on a theological basis, with central, fundamental teachings of the Catholic faith to the extent that they set up their own "mass", dispensing with priests, against the laws of the Church, don't just go set up their own protestant sect.

Anyone Catholic who attends these "services" should cease doing so and confess this the next time they are at Confession.

Hotblack Desiato

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

But we had a "Catholic state for a Catholic people" "down here".

Perhaps we should all reflect upon how uncomfortable both of these states were, and in some respects still are, for non-Christians?

You will not have to try hard to convince me that the people of Ireland grievously suffered (and continue to) through partition, as it facilitated the emergence of two conservative states. Had Ireland not been partitioned, and the republicans not lost the counter revolution which was the civil war, I think everyone would have been much better off living in an overtly republican country where the religious sensibilities of its citizens would had to have been "balanced" through the arms of the state being decidedly secular. In this way, contrasted to the secularization drive today, the churches and the faithful would have been in a position, and welcome to, inform and contribute to policy making, rather than dominating it.

looksee

Ex loco refugii, I am going to withdraw from this conversation. Obviously we are not going to agree, more especially since you do not accept any argument I might make as being even remotely valid.

The bottom line is that I do not agree that your personal need to attend Mass overrides care or concern for other people, and public safety generally. We urgently need everyone to pull together in these times and making these personal demands does not contribute to this. I am sure you will disagree on this and I do not see any point in arguing further.

I sincerely hope that you will soon be able to attend Mass again, and indeed, that everyone who needs to get back to work, open businesses, get special needs care for relatives and all the other things we are missing at the moment will also be able to fulfil their needs.