Disagreeing with Canceling Holy Week

  • Thread starter Thread starter andre03051
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

andre03051

Guest
I wanted to see if I was the only one that’s a bit upset about not allowing the public to attend Holy Week services or maybe even just masses in general.

I particularly find it strange some of the bishops are barring the lay from attending services when it seems, to me at least, a better solution would be to just remove the requirement of attending mass and allow those that believe attending services exceeds the risk of going.

I’m open to hearing why it’s wrong to be upset, because I am. I’m really trying to understand especially since, in my limited circle, I appear to be the only one that is aggravated by the decisions.

In this particular situation, I think the appropriate response should have been to encourage those sick or afraid of becoming sick to stay home.
 
Last edited:
Aren’t we already though? Shouldn’t we be acting as though we have it even if we’re asymptomatic? I think that’s where I’m getting confused. If everyone in the church is accepting that risk, who’s being harmed?
 
I think a priest should make that call for themselves rather than being told they can’t.
 
At this point in many parts of the U.S., the bishops would be breaking the law if they held a Mass. ALL gatherings are banned in our area (Northern Illinois).
 
The Masses are being cancelled to the public because people that risk going are risking other people’s safety and lives.

Also, as a reminder, we are Catholics with an apostolic Church and our Pope & bishops have the power to do all kinds of awesome things, including rescheduling Easter on the liturgical calendar in these extraordinary times 🙂
 
Last edited:
andre03051 said:
If everyone in the church is accepting that risk, who’s being harmed?
Click to expand...
Potentially a great number of people everyone in the church comes into contact with. Other people and the risk to their health also needs to be considered.
 
andre03051 said:
Aren’t we already though? Shouldn’t we be acting as though we have it even if we’re asymptomatic? I think that’s where I’m getting confused. If everyone in the church is accepting that risk, who’s being harmed?
Click to expand...
Well, if you never left the church after Mass, that would be true. But, presumably, some of them come into contact with others. Or deliver mail, touch doorknobs, etc.
 
So, I am very bothered also by no public Masses but not because the bishops aren not allowing them but because the virus is keeping us from them.

As others have said, we need to think about others. You could go to Mass and someone is there with the virus contagous but very few symptoms, gives it to you and you later at some point then pass it to someone else who becomes very sick.

Many priests are doing what they can to give us sacraments as best they can right now; drive through confessions, online stations of the cross, online Masses, walking and doing drive around adoration…
andre03051 said:
I think a priest should make that call for themselves rather than being told they can’t.
Click to expand...
I do agree that there will be times when a priest will need to put himself at risk to bring someone what they need spiritually, such as giving a dying person Extreme unction, but holding a public Mass would be putting others at risk.
 
Last edited:
So I’m not questioning the rights of the bishops to demand the lay don’t go to mass. I’ve been told I can’t go so I don’t. What I’m asking is whether it’s wrong of me to think it’s the wrong decision and why.

For the risk factor again, if everyone on that mass accepts the risk, what’s the problem?
 
andre03051 said:
For the risk factor again, if everyone on that mass accepts the risk, what’s the problem?
Click to expand...
Because not everybody accepts the risks. It affects everybody, including everybody not at the Mass. That’s what the quarantines are for and it’s why the CC took similar actions in 1918.

Your private opinion is whatever you want it to be and nobody can change that but you. I don’t agree with it but I respect you as an individual.

Peace.
 
Last edited:
Is it ok with you that a firefighter be exposed to danger by having to run into a burning building? Every vocation comes with duties. Besides, I doubt that anyone is arguing that priests who feel that they shouldn’t, should be forced to congregate.
 
Last edited:
Maybe this is my real issue. Shouldn’t the risk decision be made only by those who are risking their health?
 
I would rather have a normal Holy Week but want even more for this all to be over. The more strident we are to accept the discipline of social distancing, the faster this is over. I live in Brooklyn and the thought of people gathering for any reason is upsetting to me. People are dying from coronavirus in NYC every 17 minutes.

Also, allowing gatherings creates the false illusion that things are ok. I work at the public library. Before we closed people were still coming in and making remarks like, the library is open, so I don’t have to worry? Many of these patrons are elderly, homeless, or have other vulnerabilities. Just providing the open space signals to many that there is no danger. The last thing the Church wants to do is be an institution that supported a false sense of security for people that are unable to comprehend the reality of the situation and act accordingly.

Some people in the world cannot have regular masses under normal circumstances, so I think we can all get over it and have faith that we will have Mass again.
 
Last edited:
But we’re already social distancing and should be treating each other as though everyone had it.
 
andre03051 said:
For the risk factor again, if everyone on that mass accepts the risk, what’s the problem?
Click to expand...
You could say the same about any public place where people gather in crowds. Sports events, for instance.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top