Covid restrictions breech

smacl

Firstly, thanks for the detailed clarification.

Eden Silly Frame wrote: »

They support lockdowns where civil liberties are curtailed, but also support certain businesses remaining open. It is self evident that capitalist enterprise has been elevated above personal and civil liberties by all who support the current lockdowns. Now this is not wrong, we would probably all starve and die if it wasn't, but the extreme left, particularly the Marxist-leninists who seek to destroy the capitalist system, could usually be relied upon to adopt contrary positions (this is why I always enjoyed talking to them!) on things like this, after all, their ideology did not balk at the prospect of famines before if it furthered their political goals.

With respect to the above, I think it is important to distinguish between essential services and other forms of business. I don't think it is reasonable to expect any group to deny the necessity of keeping essential services open during a lockdown. Non-essential business operations are subject to the same lockdown rules as individuals, where most people have to work remotely and many have been furloughed or laid off. No doubt there are those in various people and groups across the political spectrum using the pandemic and lockdown for purposes of political opportunism, rallying easy support from those who are suffering or angry to create division and unrest. As I've said previously, I find these tactics morally reprehensible.

The respectable left, is that which does not seek to implement an extreme ideology that has resulted in the deaths of millions and millions of people.

Quite so, which is why I took your use of the term Stalinist to be a derogatory one rather than one that many of the far left are likely to identify with personally.

smacl

smacl wrote: »

Firstly, thanks for the detailed clarification.



With respect to the above, I think it is important to distinguish between essential services and other forms of business. I don't think it is reasonable to expect any group to deny the necessity of keeping essential services open during a lockdown. Non-essential business operations are subject to the same lockdown rules as individuals, where most people have to work remotely and many have been furloughed or laid off. No doubt there are those in various people and groups across the political spectrum using the pandemic and lockdown for purposes of political opportunism, rallying easy support from those who are suffering or angry to create division and unrest. As I've said previously, I find these tactics morally reprehensible.

I don't disagree, (but perhaps would differ on some specifics of what is essential) but it remains the case that these "essential services" and such are capitalist enterprises, and massive exemptions have been made to covid restrictions in order for them to operate. The extreme left have not, as I would have expected, advocated the state taking over and running essential services. Rather, they have advocated they remain allowed to operate, and for the shuttered businesses to receive massive state supports and subsidies. Again, I am not saying that this is wrong, just that it is not congruent with the political ideology of the extreme left (which as I said I don't agree with).

Quite so, which is why I took your use of the term Stalinist to be a derogatory one rather than one that many of the far left are likely to identify with personally.

Ah, I see, but as I have (hopefully) illustrated by this point I was specifically talking about Stalinists/Marxist Leninists, who do actually exist.

In fact, I think after this aside, dare I say it, we are in fact broadly in agreement !

Thinkingaboutit

This is the only country in Europe when public exercise of religion is (de facto) illegal. Unlike other countries, judges here essentially refuse to do anything (this includes their epic 'go slows' where they give the government two weeks to cook up a pretext).

We have to this bizarre mandatory hostel quarantine list which includes countries like Israel, which on the most conventional reading of things has done far, far better than Ireland (with Michéal Martin that's easy though).

The first is probably related to a contempt for the Christian faith (which frankly is shared by Ireland's largely useless, do-nothing Catholic bishops who care more about a CDF statement of Catholic teaching on homosexuality, which is revealing and not unexpected, than that nearly all Irish Catholics cannot go to Mass) and the second is frankly a sort of jealousy that other countries do things better than here.

It is sinful, demonic.

'sine dominico non possumus' roughly 'we cannot be without the day of the Lord' cried the 49 martyrs of Abitina(e) to the pro-consul Anullinus and his court in Carthage in 304 AD.

Brief update on Declan Ganley's case.

Thinkingaboutit

Eden Silly Frame wrote: »

Brief update on Declan Ganley's case.

Interesting as c. 1.50 Declan Ganley cites evidence of how Masses were studied in the wake of loosened restriction, and no outbreak was traced to them. The Irish government case is very much a 'project fear' sustained by assertions and the exercise of arbitrary power. This present time is certainly of interest to any prospective persecutor. Irish bishops will do nothing to uphold the rights of their flocks (going to some meetings and having cameras follow when one of them brings Communion to the sick, is itself a sort of sick joke). Maybe if they had to live off Mass stipends of their priests, if the flows of income ceased, they might become noisy.

I would have sympathy for the Bishops, the majority of them seem to still be shell-shocked at the sexual abuse crisis and the decline in the eyes of society of the Church from where it was when they joined. They seem to all be nice men, but perhaps not the type you would bring to a fight! (which is what the Church is in, even leaving Covid aside). They are also constantly hobbled by the ACP types.

Thinkingaboutit

Eden Silly Frame wrote: »

I would have sympathy for the Bishops, the majority of them seem to still be shell-shocked at the sexual abuse crisis and the decline in the eyes of society of the Church from where it was when they joined. They seem to all be nice men, but perhaps not the type you would bring to a fight! (which is what the Church is in, even leaving Covid aside). They are also constantly hobbled by the ACP types.

Many who don't want to do something become very attentive to dissenters they can usually ignore. The ACP look a bunch of physically unfit, aged, self important men who do not have the look of those who could shift for themselves without house or stipend, like what happened to priests who rejected the Novus Ordo in the seventies. Bishops would ignore this geriatric lobby, perhaps flash their teeth (implying these priests would shortly experience real Apostolic poverty shortly if they fail to show solidarity), if they genuinely disagreed with them. The ACP are the Establishment, despite their pose of dissidence. I do not doubt they are nice, but they are men who ignore the insights of Pope Benedict, that Conciliarism has to draw from the well of traditional. The ACP are an element who consider the failed 50 years after the Council as providing more insight than the past millennia.

These bishops could gain the allegiance of so many if they genuinely challenged a lockdown which is unique in Europe. Even Abp Farrell noted how a shop various people will cluster and circulate all over a shop while in a church they stay largely in one spot. Yet I strongly get the impression that they are comfortable in their corner, doing close to nothing.

Hotblack Desiato

Nice bit of ageism there.

What's the average age of a priest in Ireland today?

The bishops are certainly no spring chickens.

Anyway it devalues whatever point you were trying to make.

This is interesting:

https://twitter.com/oran_doyle/status/1383013767844306944

If people are interested in the historical context, as well as the theological importance of the Mass to Catholics, I thoroughly recommend the book below which has been reprinted (to be restocked soon). "Ireland's Loyalty to the Mass". It's a great read.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Irelands-Loyalty-Mass-Reprint/dp/B007T22R2Q/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1618419588&sr=8-1

Thinkingaboutit

Eden Silly Frame wrote: »

This is interesting:

https://twitter.com/oran_doyle/status/1383013767844306944

If people are interested in the historical context, as well as the theological importance of the Mass to Catholics, I thoroughly recommend the book below which has been reprinted (to be restocked soon). "Ireland's Loyalty to the Mass". It's a great read.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Irelands-Loyalty-Mass-Reprint/dp/B007T22R2Q/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1618419588&sr=8-1

It should seem constitutionally repugnant as COVID does not meet the emergency conditions comparable to Spanish 'Flu. Yet whether it is or isn't appears not to matter as judges, unlike in a few other places like Belgium or Scotland, either won't hear challenges or keep deferring them. They appear to be deferring it until perhaps public worship re-opens. God Himself only knows when that will be. Irish judges are the judicial equivalent of chocolate teapots.

In my professional life, I have had plenty of dealings with the Irish Courts, in particular the High Court. Up to a point, they are very 'obliging' to deferring proceedings upon request (by either side) mainly because their lists are so full. I actually think this subject is something which the Judges would enjoy hearing and ruling upon. But I think you are correct, it will be attempted to defer this until worship is allowed to try and dodge a ruling on this.

I think the pressure is building now, and if there is not a positive development in the next few weeks, regarding the restrictions, there will be greatly increased anger with, and ignoring of, the restrictions. If more clearly "non essential" things start reopening, with Mass still banned, people will act as they deem necessary.

Bishops are fast having enough of the treatment from Ceasar:

Ireland’s four Catholic archbishops have said they are taking legal advice after the health minister Stephen Donnelly “clandestinely” outlawed public Mass and other religious services in church last week.

The hierarchy’s senior members have called for the suspension of the “draconian” measure, which they describe as a breach of trust, and want an urgent meeting with the minister. “We shall be seeking legal counsel to advise on several questions concerning the extent of the statutory instrument,” the archbishops said. They are especially aggrieved that the ban on religious services with congregations, other than funerals and weddings, was not mentioned during a meeting last Thursday between the taoiseach and bishops, including Eamon Martin, the archbishop of Armagh and primate of all-Ireland.

Martin said he became aware such services had been made a criminal offence only when the statutory instrument was published in Iris Oifigiuil, the state’s official gazette, the next day. He said he immediately consulted his three fellow archbishops: Dermot Farrell of Dublin; Michael Neary of Tuam; and Kieran O’Reilly of Cashel and Emly.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/archbishops-attack-stephen-donnellys-clandestine-mass-ban-fkmwp22l3

One way or another I suspect we will all be back at Mass soon enough

As an aside, even if you think it is correct to ban religious worship, this is yet another mess up from the Govt. It certainly appears that they have been going around saying that something was illegal (when it was not) and fining people for something which was not illegal, and then at the last second actually made it illegal by rushing through an SI in response to a court case.

Here is an RTE link for those who have better things to spend their money on than the Times!

https://www.rte.ie/news/coronavirus/2021/0418/1210583-mass-coronavirus/?fbclid=IwAR0dZ1MGZiq8k2JqZTPLM5DczkUDm4gaDuB2Rr_iYSyWGePJrcI2i_qDIks

Hotblack Desiato

Thinkingaboutit wrote: »

It should seem constitutionally repugnant as COVID does not meet the emergency conditions comparable to Spanish 'Flu.

Why doesn't it?

For what its' worth, I think restrictions on worship should be lifted when we get to level 3, and an argument can be made for level 4, but bishops complaining when the whole country is still at level 5 is just whinging really.

Cabaal

Thinkingaboutit wrote: »

It should seem constitutionally repugnant as COVID does not meet the emergency conditions comparable to Spanish 'Flu.

Strange you'd use the 1918 pandemic as a comparison,

As we know it was massively played down throughout Europe including by the English government, given the time that it took place Ireland was still ruled by the UK so its not really a good comparison to use.

Even decades later we know the 1918 pandemic continued to be played down to the extend that it was mainly forgotten, so instead of memorials to a pandemic that killed more the WW1 & WW2 combined we stick up statue's and plaque's for each single war and we don't teach about the pandemic in our schools.

I also find it saddening you called it the Spanish flu, its called this because unlike the likes of the UK or USA the Spanish were willing to report about it. The UK/USA etc didn't want to lower moral by reporting it at the time.

It was first documented in the USA so perhaps a more fitting name would be the American Flu?

As for claiming 1918 is nothing like today, well thats debatable.
Back then hospital care was in no way comparable to what it is today, people's health was also not as good so it killed like crazy.

But now even with all the medical advancements it can still kill and does, the only reason why it hasn't killed more upto now has been due to lockdowns and messures put in place in various countrys. We've seen the outcome of no proper messures put in place....Brazil.

On the news today that even socially distanced outdoor confessions are illegal. This is an unacceptable restriction on religious freedoms, which I have doubt will be summarily ignored by the faithful.

Effects

Eden Silly Frame wrote: »

On the news today that even socially distanced outdoor confessions are illegal. This is an unacceptable restriction on religious freedoms, which I have doubt will be summarily ignored by the faithful.

Can't you just make a confession to god yourself, if you really need to?
Why the need for a middle man?

Or why haven't the church set up a confession phone line?

Effects

Effects wrote: »

Can't you just make a confession to god yourself, if you really need to?
Why the need for a middle man?

Or why haven't the church set up a confession phone line?

Sacraments have to be in person.

See here for more on the nature and importance of the sacrament: https://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c2a4.htm

This is the decided Catholic position, you will forgive me but I have no desire to get into a Catholic vs Protestant theology debate (in this thread) on this point.

looksee

Mod: Ex loco refugii, this is the Christianity forum, not the Catholicism forum. All churches are currently unable to have services. Other people are entitled to make points and discuss Covid restrictions on this thread. The previous poster may be coming to the discussion as a member of a church that has made alternative arrangements for the sacraments. Please do not attempt to dictate how the discussion may proceed; if you do not wish to discuss then do not post.

Please do not pursue this point on thread.

Sorry, I thought Catholic vs Protestant theological debates (nature of sacraments etc.) were supposed to be in the super-thread, hence why I said I wasn't interested in discussion on this point (i.e. why do you need a priest and such) on this thread.

If it's OK to discuss it here then I don't mind, I'd be more than happy to, just trying to abide by the rules.

Mod: Please abide by the rules by not arguing on thread, as instructed.

We now have the bizarre situation where I am "allowed" to talk to a priest outside (like I would anyone else) but if he hears my confession he is a criminal. It's just madness! I cannot see many priests obeying this aspect of the law.

Mrs OBumble

Effects wrote: »

Can't you just make a confession to god yourself, if you really need to?
Why the need for a middle man?

Or why haven't the church set up a confession phone line?

I don't think that anyone gets to dictate how other churches do sacraments.

smacl

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

I don't think that anyone gets to dictate how other churches do sacraments.

Of course, once they adhere to the law.

smacl

smacl wrote: »

Of course, once they adhere to the law.

Matthew 22:21 comes to mind.

It's worth having a look at what is now a crime in the Ireland of 2021. When the below takes place, both parties are criminals, not just the Priest.





Nothing criminal about it though, should they be talking about the proposed new soccer Super-league, rather than the sacrament of reconciliation. :rolleyes: This is farcical.

Fianna Fáil, going away and beyond what pretty much every other country in the world is doing by introducing and implementing new Penal Laws (this is, literally, what they are, in that the sacraments are punishable by jail and/or fines, in the words of the law they are "penal provisions") banning the sacraments, would not have guessed this would happen in 2021. Maybe this will be the final push for those older folks who have voted for FF for the last 60 years to give their vote to someone else.

News at 1 report: https://www.rte.ie/radio1/news-at-one/programmes/2021/0419/1210787-news-at-one-monday-19-april-2021/?clipid=103642390#103642390

Donnolly had a meeting with the Most Reverend Dr Eamonn Martin today. For those familiar with statements from his office, the below is very very terse and not a little annoyed!

Following contact from Minister Donnelly’s office today, Archbishop Eamon Martin had a meeting with the Minister this afternoon to discuss concerns that have arisen following the publication on Friday of SI 171/2021. Minister Donnelly was joined at the meeting by Dr Colette Bonner from the Office of the Chief Medical Officer.

Archbishop Eamon Martin explained the deep concerns already expressed with regard to the criminalising of leading, and gathering for, public worship at this time in Ireland despite the consistent support from the Churches for public health messaging since the beginning of the pandemic. He reiterated the Church’s support for the protection of health, life and for the Common Good and he emphasised the importance of respecting and sustaining people’s spiritual well-being alongside their physical and mental health. For people of faith, he added, this is deemed essential.

The Archbishop emphasised that the vital pastoral work of priests and other ministers on the ground should also be respected and deemed essential, rather than subject to penal sanction. Ministers of religion are often on the front line supporting the sick, the bereaved, the isolated and those who are struggling to cope. Pastoral ministry and spiritual support, which are so important for people during the time of pandemic, ought not to be confined to a small number of legally acceptable and “regulated activities”.

Archbishop Martin stressed the importance of regular and meaningful conversation and consultation between Church, State and public health advisers to ensure that there is mutual understanding and positive cooperation in supporting life and health during times like the Covid-19 crisis.

The Minister outlined that the Statutory Instrument was not intended to single out worship but was designed to regulate indoor and outdoor gatherings that might pose a risk. He said that religious worship and spiritual well-being were taken very seriously by government and consideration would be given to early re-opening of public worship in accordance with public health advice in the coming weeks.

The Archbishop said that he will meet with the other Archbishops to brief them on this exchange. Meanwhile the Church was seeking clarification and legal advice regarding the extent and implications of the Statutory Instrument.

ENDS

Archbishop Eamon Martin is Archbishop of Armagh and Primate of All Ireland.

https://www.catholicbishops.ie/2021/04/19/meeting-between-archbishop-eamon-martin-and-minister-stephen-donnelly/?fbclid=IwAR0dP5sGtMeJD91EKYsnTK7vRuymEs7vP4AVR4RBpIXSHTYLdPb06jvc1jI

Peregrinus

Eden Silly Frame wrote: »

It's worth having a look at what is now a crime in the Ireland of 2021. When the below takes place, both parties are criminals, not just the Priest.

Nothing criminal about it though, should they be talking about the proposed new soccer Super-league, rather than the sacrament of reconciliation. :rolleyes: This is farcical.

It would be farcical if it were true. But it's not true.

There is a general prohibition on "attending a specified event".

"Specified event" means any event, other than wedding receptions, sporting events, training events and funerals.

"Event" isn't defined; it has it's ordinary meaning. If I happen to meet you in the street or in the shop or wherever, that's not me "attending an event". But if I make an appointment to meet you, or if I advertise that I will be available at a stated time and place and you rock up, that would be attending an event.

Right. There's a long list of exemptions to the prohibition on attending a specified event. You can attend in the course of your work, or to fulfil a legal obligation, or to participate in education, or to care for vulnerable persons, etc, etc.

There's no exemption for attending to participate in the celebration of a sacrament (though there is an exemption for a priest or minister ministering to the sick). But, equally, there's no exemption for attending to discuss a proposed soccer league. Both are forbidden by the regulations.

I think the regulations are open to criticism. But I also think that, to have any traction, the criticism needs to be grounded in reality. Hyperbole and wild exaggerations are not what's needed here.

Peregrinus

Peregrinus wrote: »

It would be farcical if it were true. But it's not true.

There is a general prohibition on "attending a specified event".

"Specified event" means any event, other than wedding receptions, sporting events, training events and funerals.

"Event" isn't defined; it has it's ordinary meaning. If I happen to meet you in the street or in the shop or wherever, that's not me "attending an event". But if I make an appointment to meet you, or if I advertise that I will be available at a stated time and place and you rock up, that would be attending an event.

Right. There's a long list of exemptions to the prohibition on attending a specified event. You can attend in the course of your work, or to fulfil a legal obligation, or to participate in education, or to care for vulnerable persons, etc, etc.

There's no exemption for attending to participate in the celebration of a sacrament (though there is an exemption for a priest or minister ministering to the sick). But, equally, there's no exemption for attending to discuss a proposed soccer league. Both are forbidden by the regulations.

I think the regulations are open to criticism. But I also think that, to have any traction, the criticism needs to be grounded in reality. Hyperbole and wild exaggerations are not what's needed here.

You are incorrect here. There is an exemption within the rules which allows you and one other household to meet up. This is not an exemption which relies on you wandering around the local park in the hopes of accidentally bumping into your friend so you can have a chat. You can "make an appointment" to see someone and go have a walk or coffee or whatever.

It is not illegal, as you suggest, for me to ring up a friend (be they a priest or not) and arrange to meet for a chat about the superleague, it just can't be in my or his garden. If my friend is a priest, if I ring him up and ask to meet in the nearby park or a carpark to have a chat and for him to hear my confession, this is a crime, we are both criminals. If we just talk about the superleague, it is not illegal. This is the farcical reality.

It is worth remembering that the govt have been (incorrectly) telling us that religious events/public worship have been illegal, while in fact they have not. In response to Declan Ganley's court case, and the observations from the Human Rights Observatory in Trinity College and Professor Oran Doyle (who lays this out in the News at 1 interview) a SI was rushed though to make them illegal so the state could inform the High Court that it was so (after their counsel had requested an adjournment previously in order to take instruction on how to respond to the question "is this actually illegal).

Just to add to the farce, there is an exemption allowing fully vaccinated people to meet indoors. Again, this can be "arranged", it does not rely on someone accidentally bumping into their friend in their living room in order for it not to be illegal!

So, two fully vaccinated people can arrange to meet in their own home, without masks or social distancing, to actually watch a football match, but should one be a priest and confession be heard this is a prohibited event and both are criminals.

Now, happily, the actual effect of this ban on confessions will be negligible as it will be summarily ignored by 99% of priests if someone rings them up and asks to meet outside in order for them to hear their confession.

Peregrinus

Eden Silly Frame wrote: »

You are incorrect here. There is an exemption within the rules which allows you and one other household to meet up. This is not an exemption which relies on you wandering around the local park in the hopes of accidentally bumping into your friend so you can have a chat. You can "make an appointment" to see someone and go have a walk or coffee or whatever.

It is not illegal, as you suggest, for me to ring up a friend (be they a priest or not) and arrange to meet for a chat about the superleague, it just can't be in my or his garden. If my friend is a priest, if I ring him up and ask to meet in the nearby park or a carpark to have a chat and for him to hear my confession, this is a crime, we are both criminals. If we just talk about the superleague, it is not illegal. This is the farcical reality.

You need to point me to the regulation which allows you to to make an appointment to meet your priest friend.

Then you need to point me to the exception which says that you may not, when you meet him, make your confession.

I have read the recent regulation which is widely reported as banning the celebration of sacraments. It doesn't mention sacraments at all; as outlined above, it contains a general ban on meeting for "specified events", and does not distinguish between "events" involving the celebration of a sacrament and "events" involving a chat about football; it bans both of these, or neither.

You obviously have a different regulation in mind. Can you point me to it?

Peregrinus

Peregrinus wrote: »

You need to point me to the regulation which allows you to to make an appointment to meet your priest friend.

Then you need to point me to the exception which says that you may not, when you meet him, make your confession.

I have read the recent regulation which is widely reported as banning the celebration of sacraments. It doesn't mention sacraments at all; as outlined above, it contains a general ban on meeting for "specified events", and does not distinguish between "events" involving the celebration of a sacrament and "events" involving a chat about football; it bans both of these, or neither.

You obviously have a different regulation in mind. Can you point me to it?

So you are stating that if I ring my friend up and arrange to meet him for a coffee and a walk or whatever (lets say to have a chat about this superleague), this is illegal? And given that there is this blanket ban, I have no grounds to moan about not being allowed to meet up with a priest for reason x, given that I am completely banned from arranging to meet anyone? Do I understand you correctly?