CNN medical analyst wants to ‘cancel’ Christmas over COVID fears

[Cathoholic]

Having trouble finding any “claim” in what you said.

Well think about it Paul.

Right now . . . You don’t want them attending Mass “because they might not know”.

The context is the guy next to you potentially having corona virus. Right?

Well HOW can we “know” five or ten years from now too?

Well the guy could run around with a colored Government-issued arm band signifying he is OK. He has had the corona vaccine. A proverbial “Vaccination Certificate”!

That’ll do it! Right? Wrong. Why? . . .

Because what then?

We know vaccines are not 100%.

Far from it.

And even if the guy has immunity from his vaccine . . .

And we ALSO KNOW, vaccines don’t necessarily protect the innoculated from being an asymptomatic CARRIER.

Now what?

You are right back to . . .

“because they might not know”.

. . . about the healthy feeling and healthy looking guy next to you at Mass . . . Ten YEARS FROM NOW.

You have the same problem.

And I am saying this “because they might not know” paradigm is, IN PRINCIPLE, a formula to PREMANENTLY do away with Mass.

Nothing in principle, could possibly change ten years from now.

The only thing is the chances will lessen (but not go away).

So if mere chances are what is acceptable to you then,
how can you in principle,
criticize someone today
who has that same risk-willingness now,
only with a different degree of chance?

So with your paradigm,
it always comes down to someone making a decision FOR YOU, about risk acceptance.
It is just someone else deciding for you.

Because “risk” never goes away.

(We had “risk” last year too. With influenza.)

Your paradigm is essentially a cry out for more Government
to make your risk-acceptance decisions for you.
Cookie-cutter “Central Planning” Government-ran risk acceptance.

But nothing in principle changes though.

You just have Government nannying you with your paradigm, instead of making your own decisions on risk-acceptance.

Your “because they might not know” paradigm, is
a template for PERMANENT shutdown of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
At least if you follow your own principles.

 

[qui_est_ce]

If you read the thread, COVID deaths are up, and the deaths from the number one killer - heart disease - are down.

 

[qui_est_ce]

She ends up in line with Bob, and he infects her.

Except that in the grocery stores they have to mask up and socially distance. It’s enforced.

 

[qui_est_ce]

That was directed at Sleepysam.

 

[vz71]

I know you are not saying it, but it still stands.

You know that is not my position, but you accuse me of it anyway.
I had previously thought you better then that.

 

[vz71]

Corn husking at its finest.

Still waiting for clarification.

I have heard this used in an argument only once before, and at the time they were using it as the most ugly insult they could muster.

You have the opportunity to clear the air here.
You should.

 

[qui_est_ce]

How about this: people should be aware of others when they make mask or attendence decisions. If they engage in risky behavior they should limit their exposure to other people.

I agree with this to a certain extent. First of all though, you’ll have to define risky behavior. Attending mass masked and distant is not risky.

Second of all, I think people who are at risk or compromised should limit their exposure to other people.

You can’t stop the world.

 

[vz71]

Look, there is no way you can defend the basis of the excuse for euthanasia.

No one is discussing euthanasia but you.
You distorted my words (by your own admission) and are trying to change the subject.
It is both a little disappointing and disgusting.

 

[PaulinVA]

I agree with this to a certain extent. First of all though, you’ll have to define risky behavior. Attending mass masked and distant is not risky.

In the middle of a pandemic when cases are exploding, and you are dispensed by your Bishop, yes, it’s risky behavior. To a certain extent, right now all indoor activities in public places are risky.

Second of all, I think people who are at risk or compromised should limit their exposure to other people.

Absolutely true, because there are people who apparently have no regard for said people at risk.

 

[vz71]

Those are your words exactly

That is not true.
By your own admission, you distorted my position. Implying I am in support of something that I did not even make mention of.
And now you are claiming I said things I did not.

I have reported this.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

And now you are claiming I said things I did not.

Here is a link to your posting:

The words I quoted (“Because hastening a death is not the same thing as causing a death.”) are right there in your posting.

 

[Annie]

So are you suggesting that no one attend Mass until the virus is completely eradicated, despite social distancing and masking?

 

[PaulinVA]

So are you suggesting that no one attend Mass until the virus is completely eradicated, despite social distancing and masking?

If you’ve been dispensed by your diocese, then yes.

If you feel you must engage is this risky behavior, then take that into account as you go out into your community. Consider having groceries delivered. Limit your number of trips to other stores or public places.

Think of other people.

 

[Annie]

It seems to me that if it were the Catholic thing to not attend Mass for fear of potentially infecting one’s neighbor, that there would be no public Masses anywhere in the world.

Are the bishops are tempting us to sin by having Mass at all?

 

[Annie]

Consider having groceries delivered

Said by someone who did not lose his job in all this.

 

[PaulinVA]

It seems to me that if it were the Catholic thing to not attend Mass for fear of potentially infecting one’s neighbor, that there would be no public Masses anywhere in the world.

I said if you go, limit other exposure.

I think the Church is in a bad place. It can’t shut down totally, but I assume they don’t want people to become infected, either. It is a quandary.

Said by someone who did not lose his job in all this.

Very, very aware of this. That’s why I also said limit trips to stores.

 

[Annie]

I think the Church is in a bad place. It can’t shut down totally, but I assume they don’t want people to become infected, either. It is a quandary.

According to you, it is practically if not actually sinful to attend Mass, despite maintaining masking and social distancing

It seems to me that if this were the case, simply opening the churches would be leading us into sin.

Would the bishops do that?

 

[vz71]

If you feel you must engage is this risky behavior,

I think it is best to carefully reconsider what exactly is your goal if your position suddenly is placing reception of the sacraments as “risky behavior”.

 

[PaulinVA]

According to you, it is practically if not actually sinful to attend Mass, despite maintaining masking and social distancing

I’m not opining at all about sinfulness. I’m saying that it’s risky behavior to attend a gathering for an hour indoors with a group of people, potentially singing and loudly talking/reciting prayers.

I think it is best to carefully reconsider what exactly is your goal if your position suddenly is placing reception of the sacraments as “risky behavior”.

Gathering in groups indoors for a prolonged period of time is risky. It doesn’t matter whether it’s Mass or something else.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Except that in the grocery stores they have to mask up and socially distance. It’s enforced.

Do under-nosers count as masked people?