WISCONSIN: Churches Specifically Targeted With Restrictions as Other Buildings Open. ACTION ITEM!

  • Thread starter Thread starter yankeesouth
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
CoffeeFanatic said:
Your post is a prime example of the racism of low expectations in action. Your continued excuses to justify the restriction of religion is also telling.
Click to expand...
Yours are a prime example of not addressing the point. Do that instead of pulling the persecution or low hanging fruit card.
 
Based on the news update I posted in post 22, it appears that the information, including the information about “government watchers”, came from an e-mail sent out by the Vicar General of the Diocese of Madison.
I would say the Vicar General of the Diocese is a trustworthy source, especially if he’s sending out e-mail blasts to all priests with the information in it.

Seems likely that the local government may well have had plans to send out “church police”, the Diocese got wind of it, and now the local government is trying to dissemble and back away from it because of the backlash.

From the article I posted:
On Thursday, May 28, Dane County health officials notified the Diocese of Madison that it no longer classifies churches as essential operations under its emergency coronavirus pandemic rules. That decision limits Mass attendance to 50 people, regardless of the size of the church building.

Msgr. James Bartylla, vicar general of the Diocese of Madison, said individual churches could face a $1,000 fine for violating the rule. “It was made clear that government watchers would be present at parishes, in order to cite offending churches,” Bartylla wrote in an email to priests. “As such, the Diocese of Madison, under grave protest, now is forced to direct Catholic churches and oratories in Dane County to comply with the 50-person limit for religious services, solely for the reason to avoid citation and punitive enforcement.”
Click to expand...

I tend to give those priests who have shown themselves over time to be generally reliable the benefit of the doubt on matters such as these.
 
Last edited:
If churches have been singled out from other profit and non-profit organizations, that is a prima facia indication of a challenge to 1st Amendment rights. I am not interested in filing a lawsuit - for starters I am not a citizen of Wisconsin (though I have some distant relatives there).

If churches and other groups were singled out from the 25% capacity issue, then a case is less likely that a case could be sustained.

The information is limited as to exactly what has been done; the indication is that churches have been singled out. If 25% capacity for other gatherings is okay and not for churches, then it is not a health issue.

Your profile is hidden, so I have no idea what your faith background is, or if you have none. Even if you have none, it should be a big deal for you, as an attack on one right puts other rights at risk. One of your other rights is the right to free speech.

Right now, all telephone communication as well as internet communication is capable of being monitored by the NSA, if not by other agencies (and anyone paying attention should know there has been actions taken by YouTube, Facebook and Twitter to eliminate such speech, and in some circumstances to ban speakers, and there has been a growing demand that “hate speech” be controlled, prosecuted, forbidden, and that those engaging in “hate speech” should be punished. While FB, YT and Twitter take the position they are not “publishers”, it is growing more and more likely they may lose that exemption.

Never mind that “hate speech” has such a flexible definition that it is in essence attempting to “open Pandora’s box”.

And not to make too fine a point about attacks on 1st Amendment rights, the ACLU in the past has vigorously represented both the KKK and Nazis in their rights to free speech - a point totally lost on current “hate speech” deniers.

The history of the US includes government intrusion on the right to worship prior to the adoption of the Constitution and the amendments; they are there for a reason. Succeed in attacking one, and others become more likely targets of being attacked.

There may be more information; and if it indicates that churches are not being singled out, then no suit would likely be brought. However, there have been states which have appeared to be attacking the right to worship, and at least some have back peddled on their rules when challenged. That certainly lends credibility to the question that states have singled out churches for disparate treatment.
 
Last edited:
As I said, the Dane County phase 1 reopening plan says,
“Indoor gatherings at commercial facilities of 50 people or fewer are allowed, with physical distancing.”

So I’m not sure how the indications are that churches are being targeted. They appear to be being treated the same as other entities where large groups gather.
 
The church is not a “commercial facility”, for starters. It’s also questionable to call church “nonessential” when it is a very important part of the lives of many people.

In addition, changing the classification of the church from “essential” which would have allowed 25 percent capacity of hte building, to “nonessential” with a limit of 50 people regardless of building size, just days before the resumption of Masses and after the clergy have been planning for some time based on the 25 percent rule, looks pretty hinky.

I know that in many other counties, such as the ones in my area, the churches have been in discussions with local authorities prior to reopening in order to get percentage limitations based on the size of the church. Many if not most churches in this area can easily take about 150 people and still be at 25 or 30 percent capacity and have everyone distanced. There is one church in Madison area that has a 1000 person capacity and was planning to allow 250 people distanced at Mass and now can only have 50. It’s a reasonable request to base it on church size rather than say X number of people even if you have a really big place.
 
Last edited:
I guess I didn’t find anything outside Fr. Z that spoke to this. I did not see anywhere that it was being treated differently than other gathering spaces, such as theatres. But if they’re allowing theatres to open at 25% and restricting churches to 50, I’d have a problem that with that. I just haven’t seen the source documentation for it.
 
Again, a theater is a commercial business. Church is not. We also don’t need to see movies in a theater. We do at some point need to go back to in-person Mass; many non-Catholics don’t seem to grasp this fact.

I’ve posted a news article with the full details of this business on this thread, twice, that did not come from Fr Z or even from Fr Heilman.

I also looked at the website for St Maria Goretti parish in Dane County, mentioned in the article. It has a 1000-person capacity and was planning to open at 25 percent for Sunday Mass this coming Sunday, which would have allowed it to have 250 people, distanced, at each Mass. Now they have had to suddenly reduce that to 50 people per Mass in a 1000-person building. They will be rattling like peas in a pod. It’s simply not necessary.

The faithful who live in Dane County or attend church there (and ONLY those faithful) are being encouraged to bombard their government officials with complaints. Bishop Hying is not commenting for now but I would be very surprised if he hadn’t at least called the lawyers to discuss possible strategies, especially since this seems to be only Dane County doing this out of all the counties in the state.
 
Last edited:
My parish just announced that they will not be re-opening at all out of fear of unhealthy situations.

Other local parish told me they will LOCK the doors so that no one else can get inside after they reach the allowed number…

And its first come, first serve.

I honestly feel quite ill already as it is, and now I am told the doors will be locked to others who werent able to get there early enough.

A friend of mine is so very ill, that they told me that they will only be kept out over their dead body.
 
The powers that be have succeeded in scaring everyone into submission to the point bishops have put obedience to tyrants over God given natural rights and the bishops have fallen in line such that they feel okay abiding by unconstitutional nonsense enough to lock out their flock.
 
It’s a bit confusing—this article sounds a bit different:

www.nbc15.com

Dane Co. churches must maintain capacity of 50 people or face up to $1K fine

Religious entities holding mass gatherings in Dane County must maintain up to 25 percent of their capacity or have 50 people inside their building at a time, whichever is less, or face a penalty up to $1,000 plus court costs.
www.nbc15.com www.nbc15.com

At this point, I feel as if the information is unclear. I believe the churches should be treated the same as any space where large groups gather for a period of time. It sounds from one of the articles, and from what I read on the county website, that churches were not being singled out. I could be mistaken, but I’m not seeing it in the actual order.
 
Tis_Bearself said:
The church is not a “commercial facility”, for starters. It’s also questionable to call church “nonessential” when it is a very important part of the lives of many people.

In addition, changing the classification of the church from “essential” which would have allowed 25 percent capacity of hte building, to “nonessential” with a limit of 50 people regardless of building size, just days before the resumption of Masses and after the clergy have been planning for some time based on the 25 percent rule, looks pretty hinky.

I know that in many other counties, such as the ones in my area, the churches have been in discussions with local authorities prior to reopening in order to get percentage limitations based on the size of the church. Many if not most churches in this area can easily take about 150 people and still be at 25 or 30 percent capacity and have everyone distanced. There is one church in Madison area that has a 1000 person capacity and was planning to allow 250 people distanced at Mass and now can only have 50. It’s a reasonable request to base it on church size rather than say X number of people even if you have a really big place.
Click to expand...
Churches are an important part of the lives of many people, but so are all sorts of other places that have been deemed ‘non-essential’ and had the same restrictions imposed. Important is not the same as ‘absolutely must be kept open under all circumstances’

Some of them similarly large. Some cinemas for example also have huge capacity.
 
Last edited:
Respectfully, the two articles don’t sound any different. It seems quite clear that
  • previously the churches were put under the guidelines for essential businesses, which allowed them 25 percent capacity;
  • within the last few days that suddenly changed and churches were classified as “nonessential” which forced them to limit to 50 persons, at the last minute after they had made reopening plans;
  • this is the only county in the state that has suddenly imposed this;
  • the diocese perceives this as being a big issue regardless of how the Dane County government wishes to spin it.
I would note that in other states, including where I am, which has tons of Catholic churches that I would note have stayed open during the whole pandemic (no public Mass but we have had churches open for prayer, adoration, and Confession continuously) despite Philadelphia and most of its surrounding counties being hit fairly hard, the churches have generally either been classified as “essential” or have been exempted in some ways from orders pertaining to commercial businesses. Churches are not commercial businesses, and exempting them helps to prevent any sort of First Amendment issues.

As a lawyer, I do see some big legal issues with what Dane County is doing and I would again assume that perhaps the Bishop is trying to take care of this in some manner other than a lawsuit, perhaps by having private talks while the constituents exert pressure through peaceful protests and calling their legislators. As a Catholic lawyer, you can bet that if any of my counties pulled something like this, I would be down there marching (Socially distanced and peacefully and praying my rosary) and calling and writing every elected official I could find.

If you don’t think this is a big deal, fine, I guess you’re entitled to think that, but to me it is a big legal problem and one that the Church should not take lying down.

I would further note that it is my understanding from talking to people here in my state and reading articles that the Archdiocese met and talked with the elected officials in advance and was able to negotiate/ receive permission to open on a percentage basis (25 percent capacity or similar) rather than being forced to conform to a set number of people in the churches regardless of size. It only makes sense.
 
Last edited:
There are people who are dieing out there, and need the sacrements. I too have found the truly terrible problem of priests who do not answer any emails or phone calls, or staff who are not in the office.

Its truly dreadful however, that I have received multiple emails, and mass phone calls asking me for money for various parishes and also for my diocese.

I am supporting them fiancially to the very best of my ability.

I just cannot understand refusing to return emails or phone calls for months on end, when the staff are still working there daily.
 
Tis_Bearself said:
  • previously the churches were put under the guidelines for essential businesses, which allowed them 25 percent capacity;
  • within the last few days that suddenly changed and churches were classified as “nonessential”
Click to expand...
And therein lies the issue - it is called the First Amendment.

There are a number of ways to skin a cat. I respect the bishop in trying to peacefully resolve the issue.

On the other hand, announcing that the diocese intends to go forward with the agreed 25%, that they have no intention to pay any fines, and a request that the attorneys representing the local civil jurisdiction spell the Bishop’s name on the summons would probably garner far more support than just from parish members, and call the cards for what they are. To which should be added, “you may take the matter up in state court; but we will be addressing any negative responses in federal court.”

One needs to keep in mind that the matter is not simply the Catholic Church; it is all churches, synagogues and mosques. And the foe appears to be secularism running roughshod over everyone of faith.

It is not about physical safety, as at 25% capacity most churches will be able to practice safe distancing without any problem. Somebody needs to get a shovel and clean up behind the bovine.

There is a time to try to politely negotiate in good faith, and then there is a time to stand up to a bully.
 
Not at all surprised. Bishop Hying is not the type to sit back and let this go by.
It’s ridiculous anyway. One of the churches being restricted to 50 has a capacity of 1000, they could easily sit 250 people and have them all distanced from each other.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top