What should be the Churches response to Covid19 See Mod Warning in post 1

antiskeptic

eviltwin wrote: »

People will thank science because ultimately it will be science that solves this.

So long as it doesn't turn out that science caused the problem in the first place. Jury is out on that one.

It's not as if science isn't working away like billy-oh to create wonderous weapons and dreaming up ever more creative ways to inflict suffering on mankind anyway.

If the world goes up in a puff of nuclear smoke we'll have the scientists to thank. Forgive me if I'm not rushing to the altar to receive my Body of Science ..Awe-men

growleaves

https://orthodoxethos.com/post/the-coronavirus-crisis-letter-from-the-holy-mountain

Ever since the Lord performed the Mystical Supper and handed down the most holy mystery of the Divine Eucharist, the world-saving Divine Liturgy has not ceased to be celebrated to this day.

Neither Diocletian, nor the Turks, nor the Communists in Russia, nor the Germans during the years of the occupation managed to stop the Divine Liturgy and the faithful from approaching Holy Communion. And now, with the fear of the virus, the churches have closed down and the faithful are deprived of the saving grace of the mysteries, of which they have so great a need.

On the contrary, while everyone here [in Greece] remains fearfully silent, in the Orthodox Churches of Serbia, Bulgaria, and Georgia divine worship continues unhindered, the churches are open, Divine Liturgy is celebrated, and the faithful are not afraid of being affected by the virus.

The protective measures employed by the present government are unconstitutional, unbearable, extreme, and unfair to the Greek Orthodox, while they have also created an atmosphere of terrorism, which the media aggravate.

Yes, the virus exists and we must protect our health and the health of those around us. Fear, however, must vanish, because when man is in a state of fear he cannot think and act rationally and discreetly.

Gerry T

Scientist's do what they do and uncover mysteries of the universe. Its man's horrid nature that twists these discoveries to inflict pain and suffering on other people. That's not science, it's mans god given nature, well it is for some people. Man discovers nuclear fusion, some use that to generate heat and light. Others use that to kill. The solution is not to go back to living in a cave, but to get people working together.
The church should give what it can to help and if the last post is an example of what not to do then churches need to keep their doors closed for now.
The question is why did god give man such a violent aggressive possessive nature.

Bubbaclaus

OP seems to have a low opinion of their own god. Why would you even worship such an evil concept? Surely such a vindictive god doesnt deserve worship.

Manach

There is a lack of historical context that might be a wider issue in society. The Church provides a spiritual sanctuary in dire times in eras of plague and pestilence. Then and now the Church provides a means to maintain a community and empatise with those affected.

Hotblack Desiato

growleaves wrote: »

and the faithful are not afraid of being affected by the virus.

Well they ought to be. Religious gatherings have been prime spreaders of the virus in many countries.

Manach

Church pays tribute with 'Wall of Crosses' for Covid-19 dead:
https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2020/0519/1139231-wall-of-crosses/

smacl

I see Diarmuid Martin is urging churches to continue to adhere to social distancing guide lines having previously asked churches in Dublin to suspend the celebration of mass in public. Good to see a bit of common sense on this, more here;

https://www.rte.ie/news/coronavirus/2020/0528/1143150-church-mass-attendance/

Hotblack Desiato

Interesting bit of "shoot the messenger" there at the end. The media is not responsible for the lockdown restrictions. Such a selfish attitude. "What I want is more important than anything else."

dublinman1990

I was honestly surprised when I heard about this today. I am a parishioner at this church & never attended mass there during the pandemic.

Who would do this type of activity during these times of a pandemic? It sounds like very harmful behaviour to do to yourself & other people.

People here have options on TV & radio to get daily mass at home if they want to get it for the day. Daily mass is provided on RTÉ News Now at 10am every morning. The Sunday Mass should be on in the mornings on RTÉ One. EWTN have it on every day at 1pm & at night times too if I recall. My own mother actually watches it at home. She gets great comfort out of it. Radio Maria Ireland on the radio or on Saorview should have mass everyday but I don't know the times for it.

John Hutton

dublinman1990 wrote: »

I was honestly surprised when I heard about this today. I am a parishioner at this church & never attended mass there during the pandemic.

Who would do this type of activity during these times of a pandemic? It sounds like very harmful behaviour to do to yourself & other people.

People here have options on TV & radio to get daily mass at home if they want to get it for the day. Daily mass is provided on RTÉ News Now at 10am every morning. The Sunday Mass should be on in the mornings on RTÉ One. EWTN have it on every day at 1pm & at night times too if I recall. My own mother actually watches it at home. She gets great comfort out of it. Radio Maria Ireland on the radio or on Saorview should have mass everyday but I don't know the times for it.

Watching mass on TV is not properly taking part in mass. There are technical canon and theological words I can't recall but basically mass on TV is not the same, it's not the same or as good as going to mass even if you don't receive Eucharist at the mass

I can understand why people go, why is thirty people socially distancing with masks etc in massive church banned but we can go into supermarkets, shops and hardware stores. Or for that matter, on busses or trains? It's either safe or not

whisky_galore

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Interesting bit of "shoot the messenger" there at the end. The media is not responsible for the lockdown restrictions. Such a selfish attitude. "What I want is more important than anything else."

People know it's against the by now well-known regulations and get prickly when they're caught out, looking for someone else to blame of course.

Peregrinus

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Interesting bit of "shoot the messenger" there at the end. The media is not responsible for the lockdown restrictions. Such a selfish attitude. "What I want is more important than anything else."

Interesting, but unsurprising. People who break the rules - any rules - are naturally inclined to justify their own breaches of the rules, and to rationalise that any bad outcome is someone else's fault.

Thinkingaboutit

I find it odd that a limited number widely spaced people in a church or chapel is an unacceptable risk while newsagents (usually in pokey premises) a a-ok. I honestly think this will be the last country with available Masses. Bishops must want their Microsoft CCP social credit points.

Bubbaclaus

Thinkingaboutit wrote: »

I find it odd that a limited number widely spaced people in a church or chapel is an unacceptable risk while newsagents (usually in pokey premises) a a-ok. I honestly think this will be the last country with available Masses. Bishops must want their Microsoft CCP social credit points.

What do you find odd about it? Shops are essential for food. Whether you like it or not, sitting for an hour saying prayers with others is not essential. It is about reducing risk in the community, whilst allowing essential services to continue. It isnt difficult.

theological

Thinkingaboutit wrote: »

I find it odd that a limited number widely spaced people in a church or chapel is an unacceptable risk while newsagents (usually in pokey premises) a a-ok. I honestly think this will be the last country with available Masses. Bishops must want their Microsoft CCP social credit points.

Something that could potentially be explored is outdoor services at a social distance.

I think we've achieved a lot by moving lots online. It is sad and the fellowship of church is lost, but we've got more people watching our church services week on week since moving it onto YouTube. I wonder whether we can engage those guests who are watching to come to church when this is over, or if we should maintain an online presence going forward.

What do others think about this?

SouthWesterly

theological wrote: »

Something that could potentially be explored is outdoor services at a social distance.

I think we've achieved a lot by moving lots online. It is sad and the fellowship of church is lost, but we've got more people watching our church services week on week since moving it onto YouTube. I wonder whether we can engage those guests who are watching to come to church when this is over, or if we should maintain an online presence going forward.

What do others think about this?

Online is well and good but it's not a replacement for the body gathering together.
Of course if you're not part of the Body and just have a name tag which says church I don't suppose it matters to much.

There's a synergy as the members meet together thats missing on YouTube.

theological

SouthWesterly wrote: »

Online is well and good but it's not a replacement for the body gathering together.
Of course if you're not part of the Body and just have a name tag which says church I don't suppose it matters to much.

There's a synergy as the members meet together thats missing on YouTube.

I agree, but if indoor services were unsafe to the point of risking the lives of our congegations I think that is the point when we have to hold back for the time being.

We've also done prayer meetings on Zoom which means the church can talk to one another at least.

It isn't the same, we hope for to be back soon, but only when it is safe.

Peregrinus

Thinkingaboutit wrote: »

I find it odd that a limited number widely spaced people in a church or chapel is an unacceptable risk while newsagents (usually in pokey premises) a a-ok. I honestly think this will be the last country with available Masses. Bishops must want their Microsoft CCP social credit points.

It's not just a question of how close together you are, but also how long you are together. People attending a church service together will be in proximity to one another for much longer than people who are doing their shopping at the same time. Quite a number of clusters have been traced to church gatherings, so this isn't just a theoretical issue.

It's also the case that regular churchgoers tend to be older than the population at large, so on average there's a higher concentration of potentially vulnerable people in a church congregation than in, say, the crowd that goes to a dance or a football game or a cinema. That factor alone points to church gatherings being restricted for longer than some other gatherings.

I think it's the Jewish tradition that holds that you not only can but should break almost any commandment to save a life. I'm the last to deny the central importance of gathering together for the authentic practice of Christianity, but even that has to defer to the higher imperative of loving people in the most real way by not imperilling their lives.

Cabaal

antiskeptic wrote: »

So long as it doesn't turn out that science caused the problem in the first place. Jury is out on that one.

Not really...unless you subscribe to conspriacy theories

It's not as if science isn't working away like billy-oh to create wonderous weapons and dreaming up ever more creative ways to inflict suffering on mankind anyway.

Or as if scuieence hasn't worked away to improve food productivity and improve people's health causing them to live longer healhier lives with less needless deaths and lower infant mortality rates.

If the world goes up in a puff of nuclear smoke we'll have the scientists to thank. Forgive me if I'm not rushing to the altar to receive my Body of Science ..Awe-men

Just not bother other then :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Hotblack Desiato

I think you'll find it's engineers who create weapons, not scientists

theological

It would be really great to see what people think about how churches should continue having an online presence after this crisis is over. Believe you me, I want more than anyone else to be back at my church tomorrow. It is true that a lot more people are watching our services online than would have ever darkened our doors. What does this mean? Does this mean we should continue sharing our services online? Or how do you think we can encourage those who have been watching at home to come and be with us in church?

I think this is a genuinely interesting challenge.

Lantus

Religious groups should follow all scientific advise as per any normal country. Countries that acted fast and applied resources and effort have seen good outcomes compared to those who didn't. So new Zealand and South Korea for example. And Ireland of course.

Disease transmission is a physical and explainable real thing and can be tackled by technology and appropriate responses.

Mancomb Seepgood

theological wrote: »

It would be really great to see what people think about how churches should continue having an online presence after this crisis is over. Believe you me, I want more than anyone else to be back at my church tomorrow. It is true that a lot more people are watching our services online than would have ever darkened our doors. What does this mean? Does this mean we should continue sharing our services online? Or how do you think we can encourage those who have been watching at home to come and be with us in church?

I think this is a genuinely interesting challenge.

It's fascinating to see how this will work out over time.


I'm a member of a Quaker meeting and have been hosting worship on Zoom since March. Quakerism is particularly adaptable for online worship and ti's worked quite well. We are a small group but we have members who are now living in different parts of the country or world with no local meeting nearby who are able to attend regularly for the first time in years. I hope that we can continue to meet in this way, even if it's less regularly, once physical distance requirements are no longer in effect.


The New York Times did a story here.


I do feel for those in more liturgical traditions who can't partake in the Eucharist, or engage in congregational singing. I believe many churches were already live-streaming services before the pandemic began. It seems to have led to an increase in podcasts, and in sermons being made available in online platforms which can only be a good thing for oddballs like myself who find this sort of thing interesting.

Peregrinus

theological wrote: »

. . . It is true that a lot more people are watching our services online than would have ever darkened our doors . . .

Does this surprise you? Because I have to say that it surprises me. It is not what I would have expected.

It raised the obvious question, who are these people who will livestream a church service but (so far) not attend one? This isn't a matter of idle curiousity; if the question is how we can reach these people and build stronger connections with them, then knowing who they are and understanding they are drawn to streaming when they weren't previously drawn to attending is going to help a lot.

What I would have expected is:

- Not all of those who normally attended church would livestream it instead. For some of them, the fellowship, the solidarity, the shared experience and communal activity, will have been a large part of what drives them to participate and, without that, they might not be motivated just to watch. Obviously, based on your experience, that expectation is wrong.

- Over time, the number livestreaming will tend to fall. There'll be a curiosity factor at first, because this is a novelty, but once that wears off some people will find that the livestreaming experience is not really engaging, and they'll drift away. (They may substitute other forms of spirituality/practice, e.g. private or family prayer or scripture reading, but you won't necessarily know about that.) Again, this expectation could be wrong. You don't say, though, whether there has been any fall-off as the weeks go on. Have you any information on this, one way or the other?

- There'll be some who actually prefer livestreaming - the ill, the infirm, those who are physically distant and cannot easily attend in person. But my expectation - which, again, could be wrong - is that this group wouldn't outweight the combination of factors just mentioned.

Finally, one other factor occurs to me. What exactly are we measuring here? The numbers of connections livestreaming an event which is webcast as it happens? Or the numbers of people downloading a podcast which is available for download at any time? Or the numbers of people actually listening to or watching a podcast? If you're podcasting your services there may be a "good intentions" factor here in which people save the podcast but, um, don't listen to it with quite the degree of participation that would match attendance at church. Or don't listen to it at all. Whereas if you're just livestreaming an event you gotta assume that most people who take the livestream are watching it.

None of this is to distract from the real question, which is "how can we reach out to this group and connect more with them?" But they are questions which, if answered, might enable us to adress that real question to greater effect.

theological

Peregrinus wrote: »

Does this surprise you? Because I have to say that it surprises me. It is not what I would have expected.

It raised the obvious question, who are these people who will livestream a church service but (so far) not attend one? This isn't a matter of idle curiousity; if the question is how we can reach these people and build stronger connections with them, then knowing who they are and understanding they are drawn to streaming when they weren't previously drawn to attending is going to help a lot.

What I would have expected is:

- Not all of those who normally attended church would livestream it instead. For some of them, the fellowship, the solidarity, the shared experience and communal activity, will have been a large part of what drives them to participate and, without that, they might not be motivated just to watch. Obviously, based on your experience, that expectation is wrong.

- Over time, the number livestreaming will tend to fall. There'll be a curiosity factor at first, because this is a novelty, but once that wears off some people will find that the livestreaming experience is not really engaging, and they'll drift away. (They may substitute other forms of spirituality/practice, e.g. private or family prayer or scripture reading, but you won't necessarily know about that.) Again, this expectation could be wrong. You don't say, though, whether there has been any fall-off as the weeks go on. Have you any information on this, one way or the other?

- There'll be some who actually prefer livestreaming - the ill, the infirm, those who are physically distant and cannot easily attend in person. But my expectation - which, again, could be wrong - is that this group wouldn't outweight the combination of factors just mentioned.

Finally, one other factor occurs to me. What exactly are we measuring here? The numbers of connections livestreaming an event which is webcast as it happens? Or the numbers of people downloading a podcast which is available for download at any time? Or the numbers of people actually listening to or watching a podcast? If you're podcasting your services there may be a "good intentions" factor here in which people save the podcast but, um, don't listen to it with quite the degree of participation that would match attendance at church. Or don't listen to it at all. Whereas if you're just livestreaming an event you gotta assume that most people who take the livestream are watching it.

None of this is to distract from the real question, which is "how can we reach out to this group and connect more with them?" But they are questions which, if answered, might enable us to adress that real question to greater effect.

I think what we're judging that on is that the YouTube video is only up for a few hours on Sunday morning (it gets taken down every week to make sure the YouTube channel isn't full of content), and it probably is based on the connection count. In many cases more than 1 person will be watching in a household also. It would be interesting to know who exactly is watching beyond our normal congregation. I suspect a fair few could be in the local area loosely attached to church, there could of course be people who have moved away who want to engage at this time. I'd love to know.

What's also interesting is that the number of people attending our prayer meetings on Zoom is also up on what would be the case physically. This is probably more a point about congregation engagement because people will receive this link by e-mail and it isn't publicly circulated. Physically about 30 people would have attended the prayer meeting every month. On Zoom we had 80 connections with many cases of 2 or more people on those connections.

I'd love to know some of the reasons behind this.

In some very good and welcome news, the taoiseach has announced that worship is to be 'allowed' once again from the start of May. It seems that lobbying of TDs and such have played a vital role in this change of classification of religious worship, whichwas formally only permitted at level 2

CHURCHES and other places of worship will reopen to the public from next month, the Taoiseach has told faith leaders in a letter sent this evening.

Micheál Martin told the Fianna Fáil parliamentary party he had send the reassurance after being tackled about the issue by backbenchers.

They were echoing an impassioned plea from a former minister earlier in the Dáil.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/churches-and-other-places-of-worship-to-reopen-to-the-public-from-next-month-taoiseach-tells-faith-leaders-in-letter-40340880.html

Going forward there is an obligation now to make sure that worship occurs in as safe a way as possible, with limits, sanitation etc.

In a broader sense there is a need for the Bishops and religious leaders to decide on a response should civil authorities attempt again to infringe in such a "draconian" way (for whatever the reason).

But good news, for now at least, and a welcome relief. From a catholic perspective, there is the issue of the Sunday obligation, and whether it should remain lifted. Will people used to watching online come back? Does anyone think there will be permanent changes brought about by this long absence of public worship?

Interesting comments from Declan Ganley today, after his case was delayed again: https://gript.ie/as-his-case-is-delayed-again-ganley-calls-on-bishops-to-deny-lockdown/

Thinkingaboutit

Yahir Gray Bazooka wrote: »

In some very good and welcome news, the taoiseach has announced that worship is to be 'allowed' once again from the start of May. It seems that lobbying of TDs and such have played a vital role in this change of classification of religious worship, whichwas formally only permitted at level 2


https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/churches-and-other-places-of-worship-to-reopen-to-the-public-from-next-month-taoiseach-tells-faith-leaders-in-letter-40340880.html

Going forward there is an obligation now to make sure that worship occurs in as safe a way as possible, with limits, sanitation etc.

In a broader sense there is a need for the Bishops and religious leaders to decide on a response should civil authorities attempt again to infringe in such a "draconian" way (for whatever the reason).

But good news, for now at least, and a welcome relief. From a catholic perspective, there is the issue of the Sunday obligation, and whether it should remain lifted. Will people used to watching online come back? Does anyone think there will be permanent changes brought about by this long absence of public worship?

Interesting comments from Declan Ganley today, after his case was delayed again: https://gript.ie/as-his-case-is-delayed-again-ganley-calls-on-bishops-to-deny-lockdown/

I suppose it'll be a return to how it was a few months ago with three Low Masses to keep within the numbers, although I cannot think that three is near enough.

Thinkingaboutit

Thinkingaboutit wrote: »

I suppose it'll be a return to how it was a few months ago with three Low Masses to keep within the numbers, although I cannot think that three is near enough.

Seems to be fifty allowed (officially). Its a step in the right direction. Wont be enough for a Sunday for sure, but at least its something

Jellybaby_1

I know of a couple of people who have refused to be vaccinated. I doubt I'll be rushing back if they will be there, after all even if I have all my vaccines I can still pick it up from others and pass it on.