Re-Opening Mass Responsibly

  • Thread starter Thread starter PetraG
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

PetraG

Guest
This seems like a good plan to me
Here is the announcement notice:
https://myemail.constantcontact.com...-2020.html?soid=1102717541318&aid=X77JbNAWaVU

Here is the plan


Note especially that no one is allowed to attend without providing their names and contact information in advance, in order to facilitate tracing contacts if anyone present is later tied to an outbreak.

Key Points for the Faithful
  • A general dispensation from the Sunday Mass obligation will remain in place. Mass attendance is not required.
  • Those who attend Mass do so at their own risk. Vulnerable, at-risk and otherwise concerned persons should remain home.
  • Anyone with the slightest symptoms or feelings of sickness must remain home.
  • Livestreaming of Masses will continue to be encouraged.
  • Must Sign-up. Can’t Show-up. The faithful must sign-up for Mass at their parish in order to attend. They are asked to sign-up at only one parish. No one who simply shows-up for a Mass can be allowed entrance. NO Exceptions.
  • The faithful are asked to be charitable and understanding if their pastor is unable to reopen Masses.
  • Charity and understanding are counseled to the faithful if they are unable to attend Mass on the weekend (for those who want to go specifically on Sundays) due to space limitations.
PLEASE READ BOTH DOCUMENTS BEFORE COMMENTING in order to prevent raising concerns that are actually addressed in the plan.
 
Last edited:
This seems like a well thought out plan and I hope nothing goes awry. I like how the bishop’s office considered individual parishes and their limitations, allowing the final decision to rest with the pastor. Thus, this doesn’t force anything on a parish that cannot manage which would risk the health and safety of the attendees. I appreciate the fairness of not allowing a first come first serve basis.
 
This plan from the Archdiocese of Portland, Oregon looks to be well thought out.

The three hardest things to implement in this plan I think would be 1) a sign-up process that’s fair and equitable, 2) finding volunteers to sanitize the pews and restrooms after each Mass, and 3) turning away people at the door who are not signed up to attend the Mass.
 
These are a lot of hoops to jump through. Quite frankly, it all feels a little Orwellian, but these days, there are many things that feel that way.

If public Masses are going to be reinstated, I suppose this is the way to go, but this paragraph gave me pause:

A record of the list of those who signed-up and attended each Mass must be maintained. In the event of a COVID positive case, the parish must assist public officials with tracing and contacting everyone who may have been exposed.

The mere fact that they have to make such a statement, indicates to me that we are not ready to start public Masses yet.

I do not live in that diocese, nowhere near it, but I have made the difficult decision to stay home from Mass until things have improved far beyond what they are now. They are already predicting a second wave, possibly worse than the first. I care for elderly high-risk parents and I wear an N95 plastic filtered ventilator anytime I have to go to an enclosed indoor space. I only do absolutely necessary retail (grocery, lawn and garden, pharmacy, etc.), and take advantage of curb service when possible.
 
Last edited:
I have a huge problem with my attendance, name and contact information being recorded and stored.
It sounds all so innocent, but that is also what many in 1930’s Germany thought.
 
CilladeRoma said:
I have a huge problem with my attendance, name and contact information being recorded and stored.
It sounds all so innocent, but that is also what many in 1930’s Germany thought.
Click to expand...
I know a ton of people balking at suggestions along these lines. Some people find it reasonable to give up private information where many others find it a huge invasion of privacy. Many people are just going to give fake names and addresses so unless you are cross checking id’s to what is recorded its value is not going to be as high as people think.
 
It appears that the diocese is intent on complying with the Governor’s policies.

Tracking people is abhorrent. Requiring a parish to do so is unthinkable and an unnecessary burden on their staff. Retail establishments do not have this burden.

Limiting to 25 as a one all, catch all is nonsensical. We know all buildings are not the same. Not all communities are impacted by this virus.

The dispensations are in place. Were it me as a parish priest, I think I would keep on doing whatever it is I’m doing while trying to figure out how to make the sacraments more accessible given the current restrictions.
 
Usige said:
Many people are just going to give fake names and addresses so unless you are cross checking id’s to what is recorded its value is not going to be as high as people think.
Click to expand...
That wouldn’t work at our little country church. I can hear it now – “Rodney, what do you think you’re doing, telling the nice lady your name is Smith? I’m calling your mama!”
 
puer.dei said:
That wouldn’t work at our little country church. I can hear it now – “Rodney, what do you think you’re doing, telling the nice lady your name is Smith? I’m calling your mama!”
Click to expand...
That’s certainly the case even for some people in large parishes. 😉

I live in a fairly libertarian area surrounded by a couple progressive cities, so I’m almost positive that people would look the other way when 300 people record that they live at the governor’s mansion and have a phone number of 800-547-7633. There is no way that governors are going to get away with requiring parishes to validate the accuracy of what they record.
 
SJstl said:
Limiting to 25 as a one all, catch all is nonsensical. We know all buildings are not the same. Not all communities are impacted by this virus.
Click to expand...
This boundary is due to the Archbishop’s obedience to civil authority. We are loosening up, but currently the Governor does not allow gatherings of more than 25 people.
SJstl said:
Tracking people is abhorrent. Requiring a parish to do so is unthinkable and an unnecessary burden on their staff. Retail establishments do not have this burden.
Click to expand...
Retail establishments in Oregon are required to maintain physical distancing. Even essential businesses such as grocery stores tend to have a limit based on their square footage and the barriers in the store.

As for churches, one of the most serious outbreaks in the Pacific Northwest came from 60 asymptomatic people who attended a church choir practice in Mount Vernon, WA. They had 45 of 60 attendees later test positive…luckily, with a choir practice, you know who was there and you have contact information for everyone attending. When you’re going to allow people to sing in the same space over the course of an hour, you need to be able to trace them if there is an outbreak.
SJstl said:
Not all communities are impacted by this virus.
Click to expand...
The Governor has said that some areas (read: rural counties) may be allowed to open more generally as soon as May 15. (Those counties tend to be in the Diocese of Baker, east of the Cascades, rather than the Archdiocese of Portland.)

Our state has been very fortunate so far. In contrast to the national average of 226 deaths per million, Oregon has had 28 per million. (California has had 63 and Washington state has had 163.)
SJstl said:
The dispensations are in place. Were it me as a parish priest, I think I would keep on doing whatever it is I’m doing while trying to figure out how to make the sacraments more accessible given the current restrictions.
Click to expand...
I think this is why the Archbishop has made it clear that he expects the faithful to be charitable about whatever their pastor decides to do.
Usige said:
I live in a fairly libertarian area surrounded by a couple progressive cities, so I’m almost positive that people would look the other way when 300 people record that they live at the governor’s mansion and have a phone number of 800-547-7633.
Click to expand...
Tell me one pastor who wants to tell his bishop how it was that his staff was falsifying records the Archbishop wanted him to keep in order to limit an epidemic. I would think bishops who find the faithful are “libertarian” about rules intended to safeguard lives would be likely to put off re-opening.

Also, it would be nice to know as soon as possible if anyone at Mass with you tests positive. The parish can’t contact you if they don’t know you were there.
 
Last edited:
So, 25 people get to attend mass. Gee, that doesn’t sound like that will cause any problems. 😏
 
HomeschoolDad said:
That crossed my mind too.
Click to expand...
OK, well, limiting gatherings to 25 people is problematic unless there is a compelling reason.

If you go to Mass and someone who knows you and was there with you later tests positive, they are going to tell the Health Department you were there.
 
Irishmom2 said:
So, 25 people get to attend mass. Gee, that doesn’t sound like that will cause any problems. 😏
Click to expand...
That’s my thinking. Still, 25 is better than no one. If you’re keeping track of who has had the opportunity to go, all the parishioners will get their chance before the list comes around again. (I don’t think anyone who doesn’t live in the parish geographic boundaries or hasn’t established domicile in some other way is going to be allowed on the list.)
 
Last edited:
CilladeRoma said:
I have a huge problem with my attendance, name and contact information being recorded and stored.
It sounds all so innocent, but that is also what many in 1930’s Germany thought.
Click to expand...
One shouldn’t be so paranoid. That’s not how God wants us to live.
 
One shouldn’t forget history either.
God also wants us to learn from our mistakes so we dont make them again.
 
Usige said:
40.png
CilladeRoma:
I have a huge problem with my attendance, name and contact information being recorded and stored.
It sounds all so innocent, but that is also what many in 1930’s Germany thought.
Click to expand...
I know a ton of people balking at suggestions along these lines. Some people find it reasonable to give up private information where many others find it a huge invasion of privacy. Many people are just going to give fake names and addresses so unless you are cross checking id’s to what is recorded its value is not going to be as high as people think.
Click to expand...
At my parish it would be hard to use a fake name because we’re a small enough parish (as are our neighboring parishes) that those who regularly attend Mass (the ones that one would assume would make the greatest effort to attend a Mass under these condtions) are known by their actual names to many other members of our parish community including the parish staff and clergy. Our parish community makes an effort to get to know each other.

Also, it would be appalling to think that one would commit a serious sin of bearing false witness by lying about their name and contact information to skirt the rules of attending a Mass during this time of the COVID-19 pandemic.

It would be better for them to stay at home (which they can do since the obligation to attend a Sunday Mass is suspended) than try to attend a Mass under false pretenses. One might be able to fool the pastor and parish staff, but one won’t be able to fool God.
 
CilladeRoma said:
One shouldn’t forget history either.
God also wants us to learn from our mistakes so we dont make them again.
Click to expand...
I’m in favor of NOT forgetting history too so we don’t repeat the same mistakes.

That said, one shouldn’t be so paranoid to think what happened in Germany in the 1930s would happened now (at least in the U.S) just because your local Catholic church would know who and who didn’t attend a particular Mass. That’s being paranoid, IMHO.
 
Last edited:
PetraG said:
Tell me one pastor who wants to tell his bishop how it was that his staff was falsifying records the Archbishop wanted him to keep in order to limit an epidemic. I would think bishops who find the faithful are “libertarian” about rules intended to safeguard lives would be likely to put off re-opening.

Also, it would be nice to know as soon as possible if anyone at Mass with you tests positive. The parish can’t contact you if they don’t know you were there.
Click to expand...
I suspect that people will be asked to record their own information so people at the parish wouldn’t be falsifying records, but rather individuals who are unreasonably compelled to provide this sensitive information. I also don’t know of any bishops that “want” to keep records so much as doing so to comply with government over reach as the lesser of two evils. Some may not care, but I doubt large percentages are chomping at the bit to do so for any reason beyond jumping through hoops to be able to open mass to their parishioners.

I strongly suspect we will see a number of constitutional challenges to mandatory recording of people attending churches brought under the 1st and 4th amendments. There are already a number of questions being raised in the US with the constitutionality of mandatory contact tracing through things like apps on phones that use anonymous data so I can’t see how they will not be raised if people are forced to give non-anonymized data. Most contact tracing apps will require one to opt into the tracing by which you consent to give up your right to privacy.

Forced reporting of your location runs afoul of the 4th amendment on searches without probable cause of a crime being committed as well as a reasonable assumption of privacy of your person. Others can report that they saw you, but generally you cannot be required to report where you have been. If you require it of places of worship while not also requiring it of say grocery stores then challenges can also be brought under the 1st amendment about placing preconditions on people’s ability to worship. In times of emergency there is often more leeway on what is allowed, but emergencies do not suspend the rights enumerated in the constitution.

When it comes to things like this the government has to show that they are using the least burdensome methods available (burdensome to the individual’s rights, not to those managing the emergency). In this case they would be better off asking people to voluntarily provide the contact information and setting up websites that allow people to check if they have been in an area where they may have been exposed based on what infected individuals report. It speeds up the contact tracing of the 60-80% who are okay with volunteering the information without unduly limiting those who do not want to provide the information.
 
Last edited:
PeterT said:
Also, it would be appalling to think that one would commit a serious sin of bearing false witness by lying about their name and contact information to skirt the rules of attending a Mass during this time of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Click to expand...
Have you ever used an anonymizer on websites so that they don’t use it to track you for marketing purposes? They basically work by giving you a new “name” every time you visit a website. Are you lying by opting to not have every click on the internet be followed?

I strongly suggest that this falls more under the realm of ensuring freedom of movement than bearing false witness. Many early Christians accepted those who denied their faith to the authorities to protect their life as a reasonable measure to protect themselves. Maybe your privacy is not something you value, but no one should be compelled to provide this level of information without probable cause.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top