Were masses cancelled because of the Spanish Flu (or other epidemics)?

  • Thread starter Thread starter JSRG
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Suppose that bishops had allowed private Masses in an optional basis, perhaps in areas apparently not yet hard hit.

Then suppose those apparently safe areas suddenly reported having a lot of cases now that must have been already transmitted in recent weeks, by people who didn’t know they had it.

The sentence I bolded is not hypothetical, it is literally true in my area.

Then suppose that the bishops hastily, but tardy, stop public Mass.

Is there any doubt that the bishops would be trashed for their delay , for putting Catholics at risk, by OnePeterFive, Church Militant, Remnant, Taylor Marshall, etc?

I can picture the headlines, " Bishops keep talking collections while the laity die".
 
Last edited:
Only time will tell if we overreacted or not.

In the meantime we do what we can with what information we have available.

If the bishops say that suspending the mass will save lives then I am with them. The elderly are more likely to attend mass and will be more vulnerable. I can see why the bishops did what they did.

As for faith, well should be balanced with reason. Without reason, faith can turn into fanaticism as Pope Benedict VI once said.
 
The first amendment talks about the government having no official religion.

It says nothing about people having the right to a mass.
 
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Click to expand...
Emphasis mine.
 
MikeInVA said:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Click to expand...
True, but whereas the ban is not directed at Catholic masses or any religious services, but at ALL GATHERINGS of more than X# of people (# depending on state), it is very very very unlikely that it would be seen as a violation of the First Amendment by any court… especially when in connection to local, state, and national “State of Emergency” declarations. Everyone with internet access still has access to live-streams and can worship privately…or even in community via skype, zoom, or some other teleconference type technology.

Unfortunately even some religious communities are not holding communal mass for their members right now. I know one in which an elderly member currently has COVID-19, and the community can no-longer worship together for fear of others, some of whom are elderly, will get the virus. But…mass has still not ceased, and it never will. Those who are priests continue to celebrate daily, in private. As I’ve mentioned in the past, these are certainly trying times for everyone, but if anything, our prayer lives should be growing even stronger right now.
Click to expand...
 
Historically Catholics had a better understanding of the value of private Masses than we do. The Masses are offered for us.

In the Reformation Protestants criticized any Mass or church service without a congregation. Trent reaffirmed the blue of private Masses, but after V2 they were deemphasized.

People nowadays, especially in the West, have a consumerist attitude towards liturgy. We measure the value of a service by “how much I get out of it”.

It never occurs to anyone that there might be times when I should not go up for Communion. If I am going to show up here, I gotta right. So if the bishop cancels Mass for health reasons, I gotta grievance.

So I see all over the internet posts disparaging private Masses that are livestteamed, apparently the Mass isn’t worth much without ME present.
 
PapyrusDouay said:
it is very very very unlikely that it would be seen as a violation of the First Amendment by any court…
Click to expand...
In my state the governor restricted gatherings of over 100 people, except in places of work, restaurants and bars. I think that a court would see that as a violation of the First Amendment.
But the question I answered was where it says in the Constitution that we have a right to Mass. The government could arguably restrict all gatherings of a certain size, it could not restrict Mass specifically. As far as I know, no government agency has shut down any Mass in the U.S.; the bishops elected to cancel Masses on their own.
 
MikeInVA said:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Click to expand...
In this case it is the bishops who have shut down all public masses not just in this country but in others as well, like Italy.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
SueinsoCal said:
What we have today is basically a flu variant with a slightly elevated death rate than the normal flu.
Click to expand...
No. It’s a death rate an order of magnitude higher than the seasonal flu (0.1 vs 3%), which also sends 5% of those infected to the ICU, which given just a 10% infection rate, would completely overwhelm most Western countries’ ICUs, meaning you’d have to leave many people, including heart attack and car crash victims to name a couple, to die.

See what happened in Italy: if you are over 60 in most places, triage leaves you to die (of suffocation as your lungs fill with fluid).

In my country there’s an average of 11.2 ICU beds per 100,000 population. Infect 10% of that population, and you have 500 people needing an ICU, but only 11 beds available.

Do not underestimate the seriousness of the virus. In Italy the death rate is 3 times the world average because they have a large elderly population an de their health system was overwhelmed.

Look up “exponential growth”.
 
Last edited:
Oh yes. Some traditionalists, and on the other side of the spectrum, some progressives, seem to thrive on trashing the vicars of Christ, the successors of the apostles, our bishops, at every turn. It’s truly disgusting. On a traditionalist blog, one poster was snakily commenting how eager the “Novus Ordo bishops” were to cancel the “communal meal”. The contempt for bishops is terrifying… and far far from authentic Catholic tradition.
 
Last edited:
MikeInVA said:
In my state the governor restricted gatherings of over 100 people, except in places of work, restaurants and bars. I think that a court would see that as a violation of the First Amendment.
Click to expand...
The government has always had the authority to restrict public gatherings, religious or otherwise. A priest can say private Mass anywhere, anytime.

But once other people are involved, you get into fire codes, a whole host of public safety regulations, some of which have always been there.

A building may have a capacity of 200 (under ideal conditions). Saying Mass in that building or calling it a basilica does not change that. Under emergency conditions the government can reduce that building’s capacity to 10. In NY State they are telling non essential businesses with a one person office to close. Many private outdoor gathering places for recreation are also being closed by the State.

Some new emergency regulations in effect now in NY State are far, far more invasive and restrictive than anything you describe in your state.

There is no religious exemption for gatherings as such.
 
Last edited:
commenter said:
There is no religious exemption for gatherings as such.
Click to expand...
The issue I have with my state is that there are exemptions for bars and restaurants, but not places of worship. Since the bishops have canceled public Masses it’s a moot point.
 
SueinsoCal said:
The highest death rates are among the elderly and those with other underlying health issues.
Click to expand...
I find it shocking how many people make this point to make it seem as if the reaction to this pandemic is overblown. So, those who are elderly or have underlying health issues somehow do not not deserve having measures taken to save their lives? If younger people were more likely to die, then would the measures be appropriate?
 
Last edited:
Regarding the government, yes. However, I get the impression that some almost apply the secular constitution to the Church.

As to the Corona situation, I see it simply: Prudence and obedience - all stemming from love.
 
That is because that is it’s most common name to distinguish it as the Forma ordinaria (the official name). The “traditional” Mass is formally known as the Forma extraordinaria. Both are valid forms of the Mass. I’ve attended both, but 99% of the time I’m at the Forma ordinaria .
Does anyone know how to get unlisted, unsubscribed, removed, whatever, from Catholic Answers forums? I want more than just stopping notifications. I made a mistake registering for this site. This is a bad match for a math and science person. I’ve contacted the moderators but have not received a response. Any help is appreciated. Thank you.
 
Last edited:
I have a masters in math. I’m very familiar with exponential growth, statistics, and data analysis. The updated statistics on death rates are much lower than the ones you’ve cited. I would post citations but I am not allowed to yet.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top