Governments Role

  • Thread starter Thread starter Senf2233
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Senf2233

Guest
I want to apologize in advance if this is in the wrong forum. I choose the one I felt best fit my question. That being said is there any teachings of the church about the local governments ability to regulate and restrict religious practices?
 
I’m not sure. However, here in the United States it’s mostly religious leaders that are the ones doing that.
 
I’m in North Carolina. Our governor has passed an executive order that has indirectly closed all the churches(to the best of my knowledge). My problem is that even though it is indirect it does infringe on our rights of religious worship to say that the churches must be closed if over 50 people gather.
 
I post with the following hope: that the recent closures of many public Catholic masses were undertaken voluntarily by the Church for the health and well being of her children, and not through force or coercion by government officials. I hope that we can undertake this trying period in solidarity with those brothers and sisters who do not have the freedoms that we do in the west regarding public worship 🙏 and that we will return to normalcy with a greater fervor.

Now, on to Dignitatis Humanae!

http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_...t-ii_decl_19651207_dignitatis-humanae_en.html
Religious freedom… which men demand as necessary to fulfill their duty to worship God, has to do with immunity from coercion in civil society…
Click to expand...
Government therefore ought indeed to take account of the religious life of the citizenry and show it favor, since the function of government is to make provision for the common welfare. However, it would clearly transgress the limits set to its power, were it to presume to command or inhibit acts that are religious.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Senf2233 said:
My problem is that even though it is indirect it does infringe on our rights of religious worship to say that the churches must be closed if over 50 people gather.
Click to expand...
Given that the bishops of NC have said “in the interest of public health, we’ll comply”, there’s no “infringement”, right?
 
The reason why I believe that it is an infringement is because of the threat of action against the bishop or priests who do not comply. Mainly fines and or possible jail time.
 
Senf2233 said:
The reason why I believe that it is an infringement is because of the threat of action against the bishop or priests who do not comply. Mainly fines and or possible jail time.
Click to expand...
Can you provide a source for that threat to churches? Most states are passing these kinds of restrictions and the churches are complying voluntarily, with no need for any threats.
 
Trying to clear up any confusion I’m not saying there are direct threats to the church but they are an unfortunate progression of this order
 
So, think about what’s being said. They’re not punishing the celebration of Mass; they’re asserting that they can punish a gathering of people above a certain unsafe number.

Important distinction. And, I’d assert, one that means that there isn’t a First Amendment violation here.
 
Last edited:
OK, so no actual threat. They don’t even specifically mention churches in the list of types of businesses. I think if a church challenged this, they’d be successful.

But what would it say about that church that they were more concerned with their ‘rights’ than with the safety of their members? I’d be ashamed to belong to a church like that.
 
I understand my point. My point of view is a dispensation is ok. A complete denial of the Mass is a different story. Christian’s have been hunted down and have had to worship in sewers. How is COVID-19 different. As I see it is this may be a tribulation but if God is with us why are we fearful of anything. In fact I believe Mass is more important now than ever. With all that said I do believ a dispensation was appropriate but not the closing of the churches.
 
Senf2233 said:
With all that said I do believ a dispensation was appropriate but not the closing of the churches.
Click to expand...
If everyone would actually take the dispensation, I’d agree with you. Unfortunately, closing the churches often seems to be the only way to ensure that people stay home.

Luckily, many dioceses agreed and have voluntarily suspended the public celebration of the Mass. Blessings on their bishops!
 
Senf2233 said:
My problem is that even though it is indirect it does infringe on our rights of religious worship to say that the churches must be closed if over 50 people gather.
Click to expand...
There is no infringement of your rights under all the tests used for fundamental rights under the Constitution. It is neutral and generally applicable. Plus, no one is stopping a priest from saying a mass privately, so the most important part continues. During the Spanish Flu, churches were closed. This flu is serious for those at risk, so it is good to stay at home as much as possible.

I did just go to a funeral mass today for a friend’s mom who passed last week. It was not respiratory related. There were under 50 people. I was talking with my friend’s husband and he thinks that funerals will probably stop soon too. She is my best friend from law school, so I wanted to go if I could. This was in Pittsburgh where the diocese dispensed with the Sunday obligation.
 
Last edited:
Senf2233 said:
My problem is that even though it is indirect it does infringe on our rights of religious worship to say that the churches must be closed if over 50 people gather.
Click to expand...
In my part of the world, bishops pointed out that Christians have a duty of obeying temporal authorities, and that suspending public Masses during a limited time is not at all equivalent with making the Christian faith illegal, outlawing its message, and putting serious and durable obstacles in the way of the salvation of souls. They pointed out, too, that if people perish because if the Church’s carelessness and insubordination, they will have to answer for it before God.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top