No virus restrictions at Mass

  • Thread starter Thread starter Sunbreak
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
If an old Church building is condemned but the Priest decides the civil authorities can’t tell him what to do so he opens it up for Masses, in your opinion is the Priest free to do that without interference from the civil authorities?
 
Last edited:
I read one of your sources again.
Temporal happiness and eternal happiness.
Now in this case, authorities aren’t messing with the Sacraments but with the gatherings.
And both their shared concern isn t happiness but life. Life.
When there is flu, the Cup is withheld …
When during a hurricane, the Churches are closed…
So if a priest decides to expose his flock during a hurricane there may be something he misunderstood…
 
They have restricted gatherings for life purposes. And have opened the possibility when fitting.
It is like one cannot take it personal if you know what I mean.
Hurricane season: everyone stay safe sort of thing.

( I understand there may be specific cases and complaints but I also understand you are dealing with this in general)
 
We ask for permission, we don’t push and force when for example we take Communion to a Hospital.
We don’t just show our “ stripes” and say the doctor has no say because we are bringing Communion…
That is just kind of basic .
Those who are tending to the life of a patient, of course we do respect and listen to…
 
They most certainly have authority over all men and women in their jurisdiction.

Yep, including the issuing of public health orders to stay at home, to not congregate, etc
 
This has been done. It’s the law in some places. Priests acknowledge it is proper that they be prosecuted should they not comply. This does not entail accepting the law is good. But it is reality and the state has a right to pass it and enforce it.

The state is secular and owes the Catholic Church nothing beyond just governance.
 
He has the authority to anoint. Not to break just laws which obligated him to maintain social distance, keep to the speed limit, not trespass and so on. A desire to administer a sacrament does not give a free pass to do what one likes regardless of consequences and risks to others.
 
Do you make no distinction between just and unjust laws? I am glad the pope and the bishops make no suggestion they hold your views. :roll_eyes:
 
There is no question in any sane person’s mind that issuing public health orders are within the state’s purview and that churchmen shall comply too.
 
If the Church collapsed on the congregation and killed some people the Priest would legitimately be liable for those deaths and answerable to God.

That’s why disobeying a state law is both a crime and a sin.
 
Last edited:
I didn’t really get this. Determining who is sinning and who isn’t , well I prefer not, we are speaking in general I understood.
I was more thinking What is the loving thing to do?
And so then Jesus healing and tending to the downtrodden, rejected, infirm wherever He went…
 
Recommend going to the pastor, preferably with someone else who is concerned. Explain your concerns, not as a factor of “we must obey government”, but only as health issue.

Perhaps there are compromise amelioration measures. Keep in mind this may involve volunteer time, so be prepared to say you have a few people willing to commit to sanitize (and maybe buy it).

If the pastor chooses not to change anything, then drop it. Do not snitch to the government.

My own parish chose to stay open with underground Masses, till someone snitched to the chancery. Even now that Masses are resumed at half capacity, i attended a couple and nobody but me wore a mask!

So I go to Mass elsewhere. Snitching to the government is like bringing rattlesnakes permanently into your home to deal with a temporary mouse problem. The solution will be worse than the problem. Dangerous precedent.
 
Last edited:
Rau said:
Do you make no distinction between just and unjust laws?
Click to expand...
That is kind of begging the question. If a bishop were to decide that the state’s requirements were unjust, then he could rightly disobey that law, as has been done in the past where Catholicism has not been allowed. So back to the original question, which is what we would do, report or not. I would not go against the opinion of a bishop if he said a law was unjust, and would only report to him if I knew a priest that was saying Mass when he had ruled we must comply with the law.

Civil disobedience is permitted, and these types of laws surely walk the line between free exercise of religion and public safety. As long as one knows they must accept punishment, then one can disobey laws they believe in their conscience to be unjust. Darned if I would be the one to report them though.

I think it needs to be noted, speaking of what is legal, there is zero legal obligation to report this sort of behavior.
 
Last edited:
I would not report to secular authorities, keeping 1 Corinthians 6 in mind.
 
Last edited:
pnewton said:
I would not go against the opinion of a bishop if he said a law was unjust,
Click to expand...
Would you go against a bishop who chose not to report allegations of sexual abuse to the police? I guess that example is enough to satisfy us that bishops are not above the law.

I am perplexed that otherwise wise people believe it is ok to disobey a properly motivated, properly informed legal directive of state authorities seeking to protect public health. It is instructive, and entirely as expected, to note widespread submission by bishops to the State on this matter.

I for one would not as a first step report a wayward priest breaching public health orders to the civil authorities. There would be a couple of steps to pursue before that would be an appropriate step.
pnewton said:
That is kind of begging the question. If a bishop were to decide that the state’s requirements were unjust…
Click to expand...
Yes, I realize that. I see a difference between a law directed at preventing practice of religion, and one directed at public health but with unintended and unavoidable side-effect impacts on religious practices such as attending Mass. I’m quite sure Priests and Bishops by and large see the same clear distinction.
 
Last edited:
Rau said:
Would you go against a bishop who chose not to report allegations of sexual abuse to the police?

I am perplexed that otherwise wise people believe it is ok to disobey a … legal directive of state authorities seeking to protect public health.
Click to expand...
Of course not, and that is an irrelevant comparison. Would you be satisfied if Catholicism was completely illegal and we never had Mass again? Neither this question nor yours is relevant.

Here are the two major differences that make your comparison completely and totally irrelevant.

First, reporting sexual abuse is required by law. It is a law I agree with very much, as do most Americans. There has never been any suggestion, by anyone, of mandatory reporting needed for most laws, including these temporary orders. There is no legal directive to report violators of these orders. We haven’t gone to that level of totalitarianism.

Second, there is not constitutional right to have sex with children.
 
Last edited:
pnewton said:
First, reporting sexual abuse is required by law.
Click to expand...
We agree.

Public health orders are a legitimate exercise of civil authority and everyone is subject to them notwithstanding their unintended adverse impact on religious practice.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top