Shutting down Catholic churches

[Polak]

https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/...ch-buildings-in-response-to-coronavirus-99740

Catholic churches and cathedrals have closed in the UK.

The bishops of the United Kingdom have ordered the closure of all Catholic churches, even though they were exempted from shuttering by the countrywide stay-at-home order

The lockdown in the UK didn’t include the closure of churches, in which services would not be able to take place, but people would still be able to enter for private prayer, respecting social distancing rules while doing so. Catholic bishops have however gone ahead and closed them anyway, in order to, as the say, be on the safe side.

What do you make of this? Correct decision given the current situation, or too much?

 

[Mtatum1958]

What do I make of it? The Bishop made the best decision he could based on his knowledge and (name removed by moderator)ut from others on the ability and willingness of those in his care to follow best practices; the risk to those who would be coming and going; the severity and intensity of the outbreak. Nothing more.

 

[Minks]

A quarantine works to the degree that all spreading activity is totally stopped. Economic repercussions are going to negatively affect everyone, worldwide. It’s unconscionable that selfish people risk others and worsen the economic recovery by venturing out unless absolutely necessary—make do or do without. Or spend a long time thinking about the enormity of your actions in the slammer.

 

[Weserthy]

This is also now the case in my Archdiocese (Washington DC). Churches are totally closed now which means everything, including confessions, are canceled until further notice, whereas it was just masses and other community activities before.

I have mixed feelings about this. On one hand, many people are idiots and will not take safety precautions seriously even if you hold a gun to their head, and something as drastic as this might be necessary to make your point. On the other hand, it is a bit disheartening to see bishops agree so readily with civil governments that churches and the sacraments are “non-essential”, to use the reason why they are closed in my area. I fear this sets a dangerous precedent if civil authorities decided to close churches in the future for not so chivalrous reasons.

 

[Polak]

On the other hand, it is a bit disheartening to see bishops agree so readily with civil governments that churches and the sacraments are “non-essential”, to use the reason why they are closed in my area. I fear this sets a dangerous precedent if civil authorities decided to close churches in the future for not so chivalrous reasons.

Indeed. I also see the reasoning, to some extent, about people being tempted to travel there is they remain open. On the other hand, there is actually no government law to say that churches must be completely closed, only service are banned for the time being, so they have taken it upon themselves to close them.

In contrast, as the article points out, Ephraim Mirvis, the chief rabbi of United Hebrew Congregations of the Commonwealth, posted on Twitter that he was thankful for the religious exemptions in the order, which included that Jewish religious practices would be allowed despite the lockdown.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

I am okay with leaving this decision to the judgment of the Bishops. There are some dioceses in USA, such as in NYC, where all the churches were closed because the Bishop decided it was necessary to protect people. Presumably the UK bishops reached the same conclusion.

 

[puer.dei]

On the other hand, it is a bit disheartening to see bishops agree so readily with civil governments that churches and the sacraments are “non-essential”, to use the reason why they are closed in my area.

Most of the dioceses in my area took action before local governments started restrictions based on “essential” and “non-essential.”

They did it to save lives. I’m certainly not going to criticize that.