Re-Opening Mass Responsibly

[SMHW]

I don’t like the idea of the Church tracking people for the government either. I get that there’s already all kinds of lists that associate people with their parishes such as donation records. And in this case, there is a list of who is SUPPOSED to show up for Mass. And I would think parishes would want to know if the people who have reserved a spot on Sunday actually show up.

But I have a problem with keeping records for the express purpose of being able to report on attendance to the government.

 

[Usige]

And in this case, there is a list of who is SUPPOSED to show up for Mass. And I would think parishes would want to know if the people who have reserved a spot on Sunday actually show up.

I would say there is a big difference between a church collecting information as a way to manage attendance and tracking people as an extension of the government.

I have floated the idea with a couple friends who also work in IT about the ability to use something like a QR Code or anonymized string that would be used to register interest in attending mass and checking if a person/group is signed up for a given mass. Basically it would be a token that you would get when registering for a mass and then scanned by ushers at the door. The token wouldn’t be tied to a specific person, but would be a bearer item. So if I registered for 4 people to attend the 8:30 mass and found we couldn’t make it we could give/swap it to another group without having to withdraw the registration and have them try to get our spot.

In that way it would trace capacity demand and usage without requiring specific names be kept.

 

[PetraG]

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 have not heard our Governor ask any churches to gather names. I think the Archbishop considers keeping a record of who is present at large gatherings with a lot of singing to be a prudent measure that will allow pastors to protect parishioners who have been exposed to SARS-CoV-2.

Remember that big outbreak that infected 45 of 60 choir members when no one at a church choir practice had any symptoms. I am guessing the Archbishop understands how difficult it would have been if that church didn’t know how to contact the people at that gathering. Singing ought to reasonably considered a rather high-risk activity (because people draw very deep breaths and expel a lot of air while singing).

I don’t like the idea of the Church tracking people for the government either.

I understand the feeling. Still, the parish is not handing names over to the government except if someone at that gathering is SARS-CoV-2 positive and the people at the gathering need to be notified. In that case, the pastor would surely give the names of everyone he could remember, for their protection and for the protection of the people they might have had contact with.

Besides…it seems a bit chancy to be so careful not to be openly Catholic that if it became illegal no one would have enough evidence to convict me. It isn’t information that I keep private in order to protect myself from persecution. If there is any peace of information I should never hide, shouldn’t that be it?

Blessed are they who are persecuted for the sake of righteousness,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are you when they insult you and persecute you
and utter every kind of evil against you because of me.
Rejoice and be glad, for your reward will be great in heaven.
Thus they persecuted the prophets who were before you.
Matt. 5:10-12

 

[Emeraldlady]

But I have a problem with keeping records for the express purpose of being able to report on attendance to the government.

But why? How could that be possibly used against you?

 

[Usige]

Remember that big outbreak that infected 45 of 60 choir members when no one at a church choir practice had any symptoms. … Singing ought to reasonably considered a rather high-risk activity (because people draw very deep breaths and expel a lot of air while singing).

That is true. It’s likely why he encourages the use of cantors at least 30 feet from people. The Thomistic Institute was asked for guidelines by the USCCB and they specifically mention the risk that singing increases the spread of respiratory droplets.

I am not aware of what Washington state is mandating, but there have been a number of municipalities that have mandated it (thinking Kansas City) and there is a huge backlash because of it. If Archbishop Sample is doing it of his own volition then that is his right.

Given what I know of most of my friends that live in the Seattle area they would willingly give up that information, but a couple friends that live closer to Spokane would rather cut off their arms than provide it. In that case the Archbishop might have decided that it is acceptable to his charges, but perhaps Bishop Daly might not decide that it is an acceptable compromise.

It should be at the bishop’s (and ideally the pastor’s) discretion if it does more harm than good for the specific area. It should not be done via government fiat and bishops should be very careful if they collect the information and give it to government officials without disclosing to their parishioners that they may do so.

 

[Usige]

Besides…it seems a bit chancy to be so careful not to be openly Catholic that if it became illegal no one would have enough evidence to convict me. It isn’t information that I keep private in order to protect myself from persecution. If there is any peace of information I should never hide, shouldn’t that be it?

But why? How could that be possibly used against you?

It is not about if you would disclose it so much as it is a balance between individual and community rights. Forcing people to disclose information on where they were and for what time periods is a violation of their right to privacy. When we willingly give up those rights they have a bad tendency to be eroded. Most times it is very difficult to claw those rights back.

Maybe you don’t care if the government knows you are Catholic, but how about them tracking how many sodas you drink or how often you buy cheese. They could argue that it is in the public interest to know if people are at risk of diabetes or heart disease because of you and your neighbor’s dietary habits. How about tracking how often you go to the liquor store or a bar?

I get in an age where people feel the need to tweet what they ate and share minutia of their lives that some people don’t value their privacy, but that doesn’t mean that everyone thinks every aspect of our lives should be open to government interpretation. That essentially is willingly getting rid of the 4th amendment on lawful search and seizure.

 

[blackforest]

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.

Sorry - I can’t find this in the announcement. Or were you quoting something else (??)
https://myemail.constantcontact.com...-2020.html?soid=1102717541318&aid=X77JbNAWaVU

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.

Queue the next “Is-It-a-Sin?” thread.

Our parish is offering drive-up Eucharist with a mask requirement - (odd logistics, but I’m sure they’ve figured something out).

It pains me to say this, but I’m going to stay home as long as we’re dispensed.

 

[Usige]

HomeschoolDad:

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.

Sorry - I can’t find this in the announcement. Or were you quoting something else (??)
IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT: COVID-19 Update — May 4, 2020

The announcement says:

The faithful must sign-up for Mass through their parish. Those who simply show-up for Mass must be turned away. This is due largely to public health contact tracing requirements. First and Last name and contact number required for all attendees.

What is not clear is what public health contact tracing requirements they are referring too, but it is obvious that they are collecting data because of public health department requirements. The extent of which is not clear, but perhaps @HomeschoolDad is referencing something from a local or state health department.

ETA-
Opps, found his quote in the original letter from the Archdiocese to priests. It is paragraph 15 on page 3 under the heading for “Limited Reopening of Masses”

 

[OddBird]

Here in Switzerland, the Swiss Conference of Bishops also published a plan.

It involves tracking participants, disinfecting hands, booking a seat in advance, having volunteers managing doors so that nobody else touches them, limited singing, participation of altar boys/girls and lay readers limited to churches with a wide sanctuary, exiting the church in a predefined order and forbidding gatherings afterwards, having the pews disinfected after each service, and churches filled only to one third of their capacity.

The measure which probably will not satisfy everybody is how communion is supposed to proceed – in the hand, and with the dialogue “The Body of Christ – Amen” said only once, by the priest and the whole congregation, before distribution begins.

The Bishops also write that, should one be prevented to attend due to lack of space, one would be encouraged to attend a daily Mass instead of a Sunday Mass.

I had a chat yesterday with the pastor of my local parish and he said that, in his basilica, he estimated that respecting the rules would mean recruiting 13 to 18 volunteers for each Mass.

 

[Jeanne_S]

This looks like a similar protocol here in n D never metro area. My sister’s parish is opening this weekend as well.I still haven’t received a notification from my parish as yet. It is considerably larger as in 1200 registered families. With these guidelines it’s apparent that Mass attendance will be rare regardless.

 

[Jeanne_S]

Good point!As much as I miss my parish community,I’m considering continuing the live steamed parish Mass for the time being.I am able to attend my normal Adoration hour every a Monday,so that brings me comfort.
Strange times indeed!

 

[blackforest]

If that’s the case, and Mass is still not obligatory, then we have yet another reason to stay home. It sounds like the intent is simply for public health officials to contact parishioners for quarantine purposes if someone else tests positive. I don’t fault the Archdiocese for rendering unto Caesar - the Catholic Church must choose its battles really, really carefully - but this doesn’t sounds like an environment in which I’d want to attend Mass.

I am able to attend my normal Adoration hour every a Monday,so that brings me comfort.

Oh man! I wish my parish would at least re-open the Adoration chapel. There’s normally only 2-3 people there anyway, and everyone always physically distances even when there’s no outbreak.

 

[Jeanne_S]

Our chapel remains closed and the a Blessed Sacrament is exposed on the Alter in church sanctuary. I actually like it better because like you mention rarely more than six maybe in the entire church at any given time.Also the baptismal font which is quite large has a small reservoir that streams into the larger area it is so peaceful

 

[HomeschoolDad]

Good point!As much as I miss my parish community,I’m considering continuing the live steamed parish Mass for the time being.I am able to attend my normal Adoration hour every a Monday,so that brings me comfort.
Strange times indeed!

I think we should all be able to see, that all of these “hoops to jump through” clearly indicates that it is not yet the time to resume public Masses. Our dear bishops are not public health officials or statisticians.

I know we would all like to get back to Mass, but this might be the time to remind ourselves that we cannot always have what we want. We have livestreamed Masses (that very often can be downloaded on demand, if you are not able to “make it to Mass” at the exact time the Mass is live), spiritual communion, the act of perfect contrition (now would be a good time to get into that habit), and virtual Catholic community life such as Zoom meetings and forums like this one. If something such as this had to happen, should we not be thankful that we have technology that does not force us to be separated from the Mass and from one another?

 

[Jeanne_S]

I agree.We are so blessed to be able to stay connected to our priests via live stream Masses and other options they offer.Going to Adoration I am able to at least wave at my parish priests when I see them.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

I agree.We are so blessed to be able to stay connected to our priests via live stream Masses and other options they offer.Going to Adoration I am able to at least wave at my parish priests when I see them.

I would like to see anyone who wishes to complain over the present situation, and who dislikes the idea of this possibly going on several more months, to contemplate what it would be like without the Internet. Rumors spreading in every hamlet in the land, with no way to debunk them? One Mass broadcast on Sunday mornings on television? Mailing a bulletin to everyone once a week? Having to mail lesson packets to all grammar and high school students once every week or two, then having those mailed back?

Just be glad this happened in 2020 instead of 1980.

 

[PetraG]

Maybe you don’t care if the government knows you are Catholic, but how about them tracking how many sodas you drink or how often you buy cheese. They could argue that it is in the public interest to know if people are at risk of diabetes or heart disease because of you and your neighbor’s dietary habits. How about tracking how often you go to the liquor store or a bar?

I get in an age where people feel the need to tweet what they ate and share minutia of their lives that some people don’t value their privacy, but that doesn’t mean that everyone thinks every aspect of our lives should be open to government interpretation. That essentially is willingly getting rid of the 4th amendment on lawful search and seizure.

I have some news for you: your internet provider knows what web sites you’ve been to and how long you’ve spent on each page. Your phone carrier knows where your cell phone has been and how it got there. Costco knows every thing you’ve purchased and when you purchased it; so does every grocery store that requires you to use a “rewards” card to get discounts. The bank knows when you’ve made deposits and how you spend money and even how much cash you use. That store that you use to make cash purchases has cameras with time stamps.

I’m as much into privacy as the next person and probably much more so, but knowing that my parish has my name on a list of people who attended a particular Mass is the least of my worries. They already know this about the altar servers and the lectors and anybody else who volunteers in a substantial way. They already have my address and phone number. I’m not trying to be anonymous there, and I’m not worried that parish or archdiocesan records are going to fall “into the wrong hands.” If the government wants to know if you go to church and when, they’ll probably just subpoena your cell phone records and they’ll know.

The thing keeping us in the US from government domination is Providential watch over who is on the courts. Judging by the last 2,000 years or so, Providence doesn’t always see fit to keep some Pilate out of the judge’s seat. That is life in this vale of tears; it is the atmosphere into which the Church was born and it will be the atmosphere into which Our Lord returns again to judge.

There are things a bishop could do that would concern me in this overall context; this plan just isn’t one of those things.

 

[Usige]

I am well aware of how much data is tracked. With over 25 years in IT, I have no doubt that the government can get information if they want to. The difference is that the government can’t demand that your grocery store, phone company or bank turn over records without probable cause of a crime having been committed. Even then a warrant must be issued with specific parameters (who, what, when). Generally dragnet type requests are denied as being too broad. For instance if your sanctuary is 300 feet wide by 300 feet long and Covid Mary was sitting in the back left pew, John in the front right pew is not in the subset in contact and should not be included, but that is not what would happen with these systems.

What I am objecting to is churches being turned into a data collection arm of government in exchange for allowing them to resume worship. This same data could also be used to identify where illegal immigrants are so maybe people are okay with ICE waiting at the church for mass to end.

The point is that these things tend to be abused even when started with good intent. The CDC has already said that they intend to do contact tracing the same way they have for decades. It is only over zealous health departments that are seeing an opportunity to reduce their workload by holding hostage things that people strongly desire. How many times have you had to register with your grocery store when you’ve been there? If it is such a strong need of the community then it should be enforced everywhere you go.

 

[PetraG]

The CDC has already said that they intend to do contact tracing the same way they have for decades. It is only over zealous health departments that are seeing an opportunity to reduce their workload by holding hostage things that people strongly desire. How many times have you had to register with your grocery store when you’ve been there? If it is such a strong need of the community then it should be enforced everywhere you go.

The guidelines here do not say that the lists are going to be given to the state. The guideline says, “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.” All people have to give is contact information; they aren’t applying for bank loans.

I haven’t had to register to go to a grocery store, but what if I did? Again: Costco can tell me every purchase I have made there for the last two years! Am I worried that Costco is going to hand my information over to the health department? Well, if there is an outbreak tied to the morning I was there, yes, I hope Costco will cooperate by using what they know to contact me. I can tell you this much: they have a lot more information about me than my parish has!

The guidelines only say that people have to give information that the parish would need if the person needs to be contacted about a Mass attended by someone who tests positive. Why should the Archbishop not want to have parishes gather this information even if the Governor isn’t trying to force him to do it? He wants to have the information he needs to protect the health of his flock. I think it is totally appropriate that he would feel the need to do that.

Those who want to go, go at their own risk. He’s decided to try to lower the risk as much as possible for everyone who attends. If they’re exposed, they’ll be contacted so they can self-isolate. Anyone who is so adamant about keeping their public worship anonymous even from their parish that they don’t give permission to be identified in the case of a disease outbreak has a dispensation to keep staying home.

His conditions are entirely reasonable, and honestly, if pastors were not being asked to accept all who asked to come to Mass (because not all parishes will be able to offer Mass even under these restricted conditions), the contact information would be less than what every parish typically has about all of their parishioners.

 

[Emeraldlady]

It is not about if you would disclose it so much as it is a balance between individual and community rights. Forcing people to disclose information on where they were and for what time periods is a violation of their right to privacy. When we willingly give up those rights they have a bad tendency to be eroded. Most times it is very difficult to claw those rights back.

The balance needs always to be dictated by the common good should it not? Individual rights are meaningless outside of a humanitarian society.