Covid restrictions breech

Graces7

Eden Silly Frame wrote: »

This is incorrect, theologically speaking.

The denial of the sacraments, particularly confession, but also receiving communion, is a serious issue which can have eternal consequences for those of us who are not living lives free of sin (i.e. everyone).




This is the attack on religion, and the faithful, I referred to earlier. Whether you explicitly mean it this way or not(I don't think you do), it is an insidious attack aimed at reducing the practice of religion to a mere hobby, or luxury (like going to the cinema). You may view it like this, but you, or anyone else, have no right to force others to act like this is the case. Millions of people, billions around the world, view religious worship as an essential part of their being, not something to be put aside or diminished, lightly. This is why it is a fundamental human right and nearly every country in the world has not taken the draconian step of banning worship.

Speaking as a lifelong ( nearly 80) and deeply faithful Catholic; you are in error.

There is no attack on religion. Or on faith. We are simply being asked as good and caring citizens ( which our faith urges us to be) to obey the current safeguards. yes worship is vital but is it any less when practised privately for a period? I hope not as I have been unable to attend Mass for a long while as my immune system is out. It would be very dangerous and wilfully sinful and I know that that is against all wisdom.

My faith and my trust are all the greater and yes an essential part of my being. Indeed yes! God feeds us wherever we are. In all circumstances. He is not limited. Trust me on that!

We are not setting our faith aside. We are living it very fully when we hold back for the love of others. Love of God and love of neighbour.

Living His utter love for us and for all people. Not even a sacrifice. A simple obedience and giving.

Jesus actually bids us obey secular laws.

Oh and google re other countries? Spain, France etc are doing the same as we are. There is a film of a policeman in France actually intervening at the altar during an ( illegal) Mass. Have a look?

And he is right to do that.

I feel shame for parts of the Church just now. That in these extraordinary circumstances with this enemy there should be any hesitation in obeying the law for this period of time. Jesus gave all for us as His Church holds back from this small act for a short period of time?

OK I am away! I have said all I need to say and I have tears flowing. My faith IS my life. Disobeying in this is a deliberate sin. I will not do that and I urge you to think carefully.

Oh there is one Catholic priest near death from covid through public mass.

It has taken all my limited strength to post this.

Graces7

Graces7 wrote: »

Speaking as a lifelong ( nearly 80) and deeply faithful Catholic; you are in error.

There is no attack on religion. Or on faith. We are simply being asked as good and caring citizens ( which our faith urges us to be) to obey the current safeguards. yes worship is vital but is it any less when practised privately for a period? I hope not as I have been unable to attend Mass for a long while as my immune system is out. It would be very dangerous and wilfully sinful and I know that that is against all wisdom.

My faith and my trust are all the greater and yes an essential part of my being. Indeed yes! God feeds us wherever we are. In all circumstances. He is not limited. Trust me on that!

We are not setting our faith aside. We are living it very fully when we hold back for the love of others. Love of God and love of neighbour.

Living His utter love for us and for all people. Not even a sacrifice. A simple obedience and giving.

Jesus actually bids us obey secular laws.

Oh and google re other countries? Spain, France etc are doing the same as we are. There is a film of a policeman in France actually intervening at the altar during an ( illegal) Mass. Have a look?

And he is right to do that.

I feel shame for parts of the Church just now. That in these extraordinary circumstances with this enemy there should be any hesitation in obeying the law for this period of time. Jesus gave all for us as His Church holds back from this small act for a short period of time?

OK I am away! I have said all I need to say and I have tears flowing. My faith IS my life. Disobeying in this is a deliberate sin. I will not do that and I urge you to think carefully.

Oh there is one Catholic priest near death from covid through public mass.

It has taken all my limited strength to post this.

Given your upset and how you concluded this piece I don't think it would be helpful to "get into it" - beyond saying that I do not agree with all that you have said - but I also don't want you to think I have ignored what you said. We might pray for each other.

Graces7

Eden Silly Frame wrote: »

Given your upset and how you concluded this piece I don't think it would be helpful to "get into it" - beyond saying that I do not agree with all that you have said - but I also don't want you to think I have ignored what you said. We might pray for each other.

Thank you,

But the term "righteous indignation" is more accurate than "upset". I have already said all this to my local priest of course.

"Love your neighbour as yourself", please. And it all makes Holy Mother Church sound like a cult

I am now seriously planning bailing out.

Blessings and peace

Graces7

Eden Silly Frame wrote: »

This might interest some here, a protestant pastor is to be prosecuted:


https://gript.ie/irish-pastor-given-prosecution-notice-for-easter-service-facing-6-months-in-jail/

Perhaps some protestant brothers or sisters here might elaborate on whether physical communal worship is theologically necessary in their denominations? (I know it is not in the same way as it is for Catholics, but I'm wondering if it is in other ways).[/QUOTE]

It is just the same and just as vital. I am chatting to them about this now.

Peregrinus

Eden Silly Frame wrote: »

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?

No. I'm saying that the regulation that I have read makes no distinction between meeting to discuss the superleague and meeting for a sacrament; under thate regulationi either both are illegal, or neither is.

You're saying that there is a regulation which makes meeting for a sacrament illegal in circumstances where meeting to discuss the superleague would not be. I'm inviting you to point me to that regulation. If you can't, I think it's possible that you are mistaken in your view of what the law permits and doesn't permit.

Peregrinus

Peregrinus wrote: »

No. I'm saying that the regulation that I have read makes no distinction between meeting to discuss the superleague and meeting for a sacrament; under thate regulationi either both are illegal, or neither is.

You're saying that there is a regulation which makes meeting for a sacrament illegal in circumstances where meeting to discuss the superleague would not be. I'm inviting you to point me to that regulation. If you can't, I think it's possible that you are mistaken in your view of what the law permits and doesn't permit.

Statutory instruments are to be read in conjunction with the main legislation (and indeed often other SIs).

In the news at 1 clip I posted earlier Professor Oran Doyle explains the legalities, and how in effect confessions are banned. Given the qualifications of Doyle, I don't think it is unreasonable to accept his explanation of the law in this regard.

The guidance on restrictions clearly lays out that you are allowed to arrange to meet someone in a social context:

In your home or garden

No visitors are permitted in private homes or gardens except for essential family reasons such as providing care to children, elderly or vulnerable people, or as part of a support bubble.

If 2 weeks have passed since you got your second dose of the vaccine, you can meet with other fully vaccinated people from 1 other household indoors without wearing masks or staying 2 metres apart. If you have received the second dose, you have to wait 2 weeks until you can meet other fully vaccinated people indoors.

Other settings outside your home or garden

You can meet people from 1 other household outdoors, but not in your garden or theirs. Any meetings outdoors should be safe, with continued practising of social distancing and other safe behaviours.

Masks should be worn in crowded outdoor spaces.

https://www.gov.ie/en/publication/2dc71-level-5/#social-and-family-gatherings

It is quite clear that people are now allowed to arrange to meet up, subject to the above. However, as Oran Doyle explained, meeting up for a confession is a religious event, and hence prohibited (despite the fact that, appearance wise at least, it has the same physical characteristics of just having a chat). I think the distinction that you are missing is that there is an exception for a "social" meeting, as outlined above, but because Confession is a religious sacrament, it is a religious event for which there is no exemption, so it is illegal. It is precisly the fact that the physical characteristics of both appear the same (meeting up for a socially distanced chat) that has people so exercised about one being illegal.

Have a listen to Doyle, I would be interested in your thoughts.

Peregrinus

Eden Silly Frame wrote: »

. . . Have a listen to Doyle, I would be interested in your thoughts.

I'll listen to the clip and get back to you. For timezone reasons this won't be for 12-18 hours.

Thinkingaboutit

Graces7 wrote: »

Speaking as a lifelong ( nearly 80) and deeply faithful Catholic; you are in error.

There is no attack on religion. Or on faith. We are simply being asked as good and caring citizens ( which our faith urges us to be) to obey the current safeguards. yes worship is vital but is it any less when practised privately for a period? I hope not as I have been unable to attend Mass for a long while as my immune system is out. It would be very dangerous and wilfully sinful and I know that that is against all wisdom.

My faith and my trust are all the greater and yes an essential part of my being. Indeed yes! God feeds us wherever we are. In all circumstances. He is not limited. Trust me on that!

We are not setting our faith aside. We are living it very fully when we hold back for the love of others. Love of God and love of neighbour.

Living His utter love for us and for all people. Not even a sacrifice. A simple obedience and giving.

Jesus actually bids us obey secular laws.

Oh and google re other countries? Spain, France etc are doing the same as we are. There is a film of a policeman in France actually intervening at the altar during an ( illegal) Mass. Have a look?

And he is right to do that.

I feel shame for parts of the Church just now. That in these extraordinary circumstances with this enemy there should be any hesitation in obeying the law for this period of time. Jesus gave all for us as His Church holds back from this small act for a short period of time?

OK I am away! I have said all I need to say and I have tears flowing. My faith IS my life. Disobeying in this is a deliberate sin. I will not do that and I urge you to think carefully.

Oh there is one Catholic priest near death from covid through public mass.

It has taken all my limited strength to post this.

A histrionic e-Pope who says this is error and that is sin. I will simply say that is rank nonsense. A suppression of public Mass, done nowhere else in Europe, when far more virally risky activities are permitted. The statement on Mass in France is just wrong, alongside most of your post. Leave aside that you see nothing wrong with a policeman disrupting a Mass (I actually that actually untrue), but France has limits on Mass numbers and masking. The efforts to ban Mass were stopped by its Courts, as doing so was wholly disportionate, who did their job unlike in this dump. Spain also has regulations on religious and no ban. You are wholly wrong there.

The part in bold is utter rank nonsense. The denial of public sacraments puts Catholics in peril of their souls. As the martyrs of Abitnae proclaimed to the governor: 'Sine Dominico non possumus.' They would not obey, took the consequence and won crowns of martyrdom, while those who obeyed and failed to properly repent, would have burned in hell. While the Conciliar bishops rolled over for nothing (the legally illiterate SI which gives carte blanche to the usually Garda bully, and related laws are flagrantly un-Constitutional but our judges are worthless) but barely concealed contempt, it is good to relate that a number of traditional priests offer the sacraments and the traditional Mass, although there are too a few diocesan duckers and divers too.

You are a good example who confuse abject submissiveness to civil authority with moral good. Anyone can see how this was a country which locked up so many on spurious pretexts ranging from moral suitability to mental health, and no protested. A Christian will disobey unjust laws, and accept the consequences. This is passive resistance, something utterly Christ-like. Abject submission and rage at those who do not grovel is not. Unresistingly obeying laws which attack the Christian faith can surely be seen as gravely sinful and the consequences can be work out (I am no e-Pope like Graces7 so won't state likely matter dogmatically).

Peregrinus

Eden Silly Frame wrote: »

Have a listen to Doyle, I would be interested in your thoughts.

So, I had a listen.

I was left a bit confused, to be honest. But I think I’ve got to the bottom of it now. The bottom line: (A) Doyle is arguably right in that attending a two-person open-air meeting for confession is banned, while attending a two-person open-air meeting to chat is not; but (B) it's not a very strong argument; and (C) if it is correct, this is almost certain a mistake; it wasn’t the intention.

Bear with me, because this is complicated.

1. The restrictions we are talking about are set out in the Health Act 1947 (Temporary Restrictions) (Covid-19) Regulations, which were amended last week.

2. Prior to the recent amendments, there was a restriction in regulation 10 on “relevant events”. “Relevant events” are defined as most kinds of events(“events held for social, recreational, exercise, cultural, entertainment or community reasons”) but events held for religious reasons aren’t mentioned. Religious events aren’t explicitly excluded; they just aren’t mentioned in the definition of “relevant event”. So they enjoy, if you like, an implicit exemption from the general restriction.

3. (You could argue against this and say that religion is a social phenomenon, and that most or all religious events are inherently social events or community events as well. And I think this argument would be pretty strong, certainly in relation to events like baptisms, eucharists and other communal celebrations, but arguably in relation to all religious events. But let’s put that argument aside for the moment, and assume that reg. 10 doesn’t apply to events held for religious purposes.)

4. The restriction in reg. 10 is that you mustn’t organise a relevant event, unless certain conditions are satisfied — the event must be outdoors; it must be attended only by people from your household, or only by people from another household, or only by people from your household and another household; etc.

5. The recent amendments insert a new regulation 10A, which provides that you mustn’t attend a “specified event”. “Specified events” are all events, other than wedding receptions, funerals, sporting events and training events. (Wedding receptions, etc, don’t get a free pass; there are other regulations dealing with them.) Again, there is no explicit mention of religious events, but the effect of this is to catch religious events — except funerals and wedding receptions (if you regard a wedding reception as a religious event).

6. Reg. 10A does not replace reg. 10; it supplements it. Both regulations are now in force. So reg. 10 still prohibits the organisation of certain kinds of events, while reg. 10 prohibits attending a wider class of events.

7. But there’s an exception in reg. 10A — it does not apply to an event that is organised in accordance with reg. 10.

8. So, I arrange to meet my priest for a chat about nothing in particular. This is a social meeting, and so a “relevant event”. But I arrange to meet outdoors, the only people there will be me and him, etc, etc — all the conditions are satisfied, so this meeting is organised in accordance with reg. 10, so it comes within the exception to reg. 10A; we can both attend the meeting without infringing reg. 10A.

9. Suppose I organise the exact same meeting, but for the purpose of making my confession. Is this meeting organised “in accordance with reg. 10”? If it is, I can attend; if not, attendance is a breach of reg. 10A.

10. If “in accordance with reg.10” means “in a way that satisfies all the conditions in reg. 10”, then we don’t have a problem; I can go ahead, meet my priest and make my confession.

11. But if meeting can only be organised “in accordance with reg.10” if it’s a meeting that reg. 10 applies to in the first place, and if reg. 10 doesn’t apply to religious meetings, then a religious meeting can’t be organised “in accordance with reg.10”, and so attendance is forbidden by reg. 10A. And I think this may be where Doyle is coming from (though the interview doesn’t really give enough detail to say if that’s so).

12. So, couple of thoughts about this:

13. I think the requirement that the meeting be “organised in accordance with reg.10” means that it has to be a meeting to which reg. 10 applies is a pretty strained one. It makes much more sense to think that this is just a handy way of importing the same “safe outdoor meeting” conditions into reg. 10A without having to set them out in full.

14. It’s a legal principle that, in interpreting penal legislation (i.e. legislation which imposes a penalty) you have to pick the interpretation which is most favourable to the citizen. So if there’s any ambiguity here, any doubt at all, then the courts will prefer the interpretation which allows attending a religious meeting so long as it complies with the reg. 10 conditions over the interpretation which penalises attending that meeting.

15. Alternatively, you can go back to the argument that a religious meeting is also a social meeting; therefore reg. 10 does apply to it; therefore it can be organised in accordance with reg. 10.

16. For all these reasons, if you do meet your priest outdoors for confession, I don’t think a conviction for an offence under reg. 10A is likely.

17. Finally, the point I came in with; if the meeting-for-confession is banned, this is certainly a mistake. It’s obvious that, however big or small the risk of transmission at an outdoor meeting between you and your priest is, it’s exactly the same risk whether you talk about football or fornication. There is no policy reason why the state would want to ban one of these meetings but not the other. So you might think, or Doyle might think, that the meeting for confession can’t be organised “in accordance with reg. 10”, but the government lawyer who drafted the regulations almost certainly thinks that it can.

18. Which matters. Because if the government didn’t intend to ban the meeting-for-confession, and doesn’t think it has banned the meeting-for-confession, it’s not going to prosecute anyone for attending the meeting-for-confession.

smacl

Thinkingaboutit wrote: »

A histrionic e-Pope who says this is error and that is sin.
;
;
(I am no e-Pope like Graces7 so won't state likely matter dogmatically).

Mod: Referring to another poster as an e-Pope (a derogatory term of your own) is both uncivil and in breach of the charter. Carded for being uncivil. Please do not engage in personal attacks in future. Any response to the feedback thread or via PM only. Thanks for your attention.

Peregrinus

Peregrinus wrote: »

So, I had a listen.

I was left a bit confused, to be honest. But I think I’ve got to the bottom of it now. The bottom line: (A) Doyle is arguably right in that attending a two-person open-air meeting for confession is banned, while attending a two-person open-air meeting to chat is not; but (B) it's not a very strong argument; and (C) if it is correct, this is almost certain a mistake; it wasn’t the intention.

Bear with me, because this is complicated.

1. The restrictions we are talking about are set out in the Health Act 1947 (Temporary Restrictions) (Covid-19) Regulations, which were amended last week.

2. Prior to the recent amendments, there was a restriction in regulation 10 on “relevant events”. “Relevant events” are defined as most kinds of events(“events held for social, recreational, exercise, cultural, entertainment or community reasons”) but events held for religious reasons aren’t mentioned. Religious events aren’t explicitly excluded; they just aren’t mentioned in the definition of “relevant event”. So they enjoy, if you like, an implicit exemption from the general restriction.

3. (You could argue against this and say that religion is a social phenomenon, and that most or all religious events are inherently social events or community events as well. And I think this argument would be pretty strong, certainly in relation to events like baptisms, eucharists and other communal celebrations, but arguably in relation to all religious events. But let’s put that argument aside for the moment, and assume that reg. 10 doesn’t apply to events held for religious purposes.)

4. The restriction in reg. 10 is that you mustn’t organise a relevant event, unless certain conditions are satisfied — the event must be outdoors; it must be attended only by people from your household, or only by people from another household, or only by people from your household and another household; etc.

5. The recent amendments insert a new regulation 10A, which provides that you mustn’t attend a “specified event”. “Specified events” are all events, other than wedding receptions, funerals, sporting events and training events. (Wedding receptions, etc, don’t get a free pass; there are other regulations dealing with them.) Again, there is no explicit mention of religious events, but the effect of this is to catch religious events — except funerals and wedding receptions (if you regard a wedding reception as a religious event).

6. Reg. 10A does not replace reg. 10; it supplements it. Both regulations are now in force. So reg. 10 still prohibits the organisation of certain kinds of events, while reg. 10 prohibits attending a wider class of events.

7. But there’s an exception in reg. 10A — it does not apply to an event that is organised in accordance with reg. 10.

8. So, I arrange to meet my priest for a chat about nothing in particular. This is a social meeting, and so a “relevant event”. But I arrange to meet outdoors, the only people there will be me and him, etc, etc — all the conditions are satisfied, so this meeting is organised in accordance with reg. 10, so it comes within the exception to reg. 10A; we can both attend the meeting without infringing reg. 10A.

9. Suppose I organise the exact same meeting, but for the purpose of making my confession. Is this meeting organised “in accordance with reg. 10”? If it is, I can attend; if not, attendance is a breach of reg. 10A.

10. If “in accordance with reg.10” means “in a way that satisfies all the conditions in reg. 10”, then we don’t have a problem; I can go ahead, meet my priest and make my confession.

11. But if meeting can only be organised “in accordance with reg.10” if it’s a meeting that reg. 10 applies to in the first place, and if reg. 10 doesn’t apply to religious meetings, then a religious meeting can’t be organised “in accordance with reg.10”, and so attendance is forbidden by reg. 10A. And I think this may be where Doyle is coming from (though the interview doesn’t really give enough detail to say if that’s so).

12. So, couple of thoughts about this:

13. I think the requirement that the meeting be “organised in accordance with reg.10” means that it has to be a meeting to which reg. 10 applies is a pretty strained one. It makes much more sense to think that this is just a handy way of importing the same “safe outdoor meeting” conditions into reg. 10A without having to set them out in full.

14. It’s a legal principle that, in interpreting penal legislation (i.e. legislation which imposes a penalty) you have to pick the interpretation which is most favourable to the citizen. So if there’s any ambiguity here, any doubt at all, then the courts will prefer the interpretation which allows attending a religious meeting so long as it complies with the reg. 10 conditions over the interpretation which penalises attending that meeting.

15. Alternatively, you can go back to the argument that a religious meeting is also a social meeting; therefore reg. 10 does apply to it; therefore it can be organised in accordance with reg. 10.

16. For all these reasons, if you do meet your priest outdoors for confession, I don’t think a conviction for an offence under reg. 10A is likely.

17. Finally, the point I came in with; if the meeting-for-confession is banned, this is certainly a mistake. It’s obvious that, however big or small the risk of transmission at an outdoor meeting between you and your priest is, it’s exactly the same risk whether you talk about football or fornication. There is no policy reason why the state would want to ban one of these meetings but not the other. So you might think, or Doyle might think, that the meeting for confession can’t be organised “in accordance with reg. 10”, but the government lawyer who drafted the regulations almost certainly thinks that it can.

18. Which matters. Because if the government didn’t intend to ban the meeting-for-confession, and doesn’t think it has banned the meeting-for-confession, it’s not going to prosecute anyone for attending the meeting-for-confession.

Thanks very much for your detailed thoughts. However I do not agree with the argument that confessions are not actually illegal, I think Doyle was quite clear on this point. Whether it was meant to make it illegal is a different question.

Considering the timing of the SI (in relation to Ganley's case and the fact that the state requested an adjournment to receive instructions on whether public worship was actually illegal - Doyle had pointed out that it was not - during which this SI was published) it would seem clear to me that the intention of this SI was for it to be a penal provision outlawing public worship, and that this was its specific goal and intent.

Regarding policy reasons, it seems clear to me that there is a decided policy that public religious worship should be banned during this never ending pandemic. Now, it is indeed the case that this does not make sense given that other "events" like a social chat which have the appearance of the same physical characteristics are permitted. But look at it this way, if a fully vaccinated priest and parishioner meet up in the parishioners house with the parishioners household for a chat and a meal, this is perfectly legal. But if the priest says Mass there (some people still do this lovely tradition) for the household, this is a crime.

It seems clear to me that the intent here is to ban "public" religious worship entirely, the fact that this becomes farcical when played out (such as our confession example) is a price they are willing to pay, because if they allow or make exemptions for some (such as confession) it would be the "thin end of the wedge" and other exemptions would have to be made... presumably there are other religious events in other religions that have the physical characteristics of a chat. This is the policy consideration.

Now, I think priests and parishioners will and are ignoring the law in this regard (confession) because it is so stupid. But any feeling that prosecutions are unlikely is cold comfort, the law is the law and political decisions on whether to prosecute or not should (and generally don't) occur. For example, someone was convicted of driving with no insurance for using an electric scooter, this is despite the government saying this should not be illegal and with legislation imminent. Or we have the priest in Cavan who was fined, even though it was not actually illegal at that stage (before the SI) to say Mass. (Incidentally, if he is so minded he could get a very nice cheque out of this)

If this effective ban of things like confession was a mistake (again I don't think it was, I think it was a price they were willing to pay to ban public worship entirely without getting into individual exceptions) then it should be immediately clarified and changed - but it has not been. Where small mistakes have been made with SIs it is very straightforward to rectify them, but there is no sign of this.

What I think will happen is that the ban on public worship will be lifted at the end of the month. The government know the game is up!

smacl

Eden Silly Frame wrote: »

Regarding policy reasons, it seems clear to me that there is a decided policy that public religious worship should be banned during this never ending pandemic.

With respect, I would not agree this is not a 'never ending pandemic'. Rather it is a prolonged pandemic that is close to ending, thanks largely to the population making necessary sacrifices to allow time for development and application of a vaccine. Had these sacrifices not been made, or should they be abandoned at this point in time where their benefits are just about to be felt, we'd be in a considerably worse position. I do not accept that religious practice has been singled out for more draconian treatment than other activities so much as it has been denied any special privilege in this regard. This is entirely reasonable as the virus does not accord special privilege to religious practise over any other activity either.

What I think will happen is that the ban on public worship will be lifted at the end of the month. The government know the game is up!

I would imagine many currently prohibited activities, including public worship, will be allowed with the next positive change in lockdown in early May. I think very few people consider this to be a game, least of all our elected government.

Thinkingaboutit

It is notable in France and Belgium, both places with a Napoleonic legal tradition, Scotland, which blends both Roman and Common Law traditions, where quite often the judges are of a quite radical French Masonic Rite, have utterly shamed our judiciary. Regulations banning worship have been variously struck down or massively modified (eg masks and spacing in France) Churches or chapels or halls are generally capacious areas and it has been easy to mark off and space them properly. A pokey off licence with a stench of weed from outside, is perfectly legal, while a cavernous church where people are mostly or always apart (it is more traditional that people do not Communicate at most Masses, for Catholics rebels in England in 1549 cited frequent Communion, both kinds as grievance no XV) is illegal. It should be noted that the The utter uselessness of our supposed pastors, who now seem to be ruminating on possibly, perhaps issuing an injunction. This should be an open goal, despite the unwillingness of judges to deal with the matter as in France or Belgium or Scotland.

Consider how in SI 171 of 202 there seems to be evident confusion on how weddings work. It appears to make the any religious element to a wedding ceremony illegal, and bizarrely implies that a priest offer Mass at the 'wedding reception.' This is quite usual in this country, and this legal looseness will likely be a boon for bully boy Guards, rather than an opening for judicial review, as it would be in other countries. I strongly suspect this government would be minded to only permit Mass last of all. And these passive bishops will do or say little. Thank God there are traditional priests who minister to the remnant, plus a few diocesan priests who really try.

looksee

Thinkingaboutit wrote: »

Consider how in SI 171 of 202 there seems to be evident confusion on how weddings work. It appears to make the any religious element to a wedding ceremony illegal, and bizarrely implies that a priest offer Mass at the 'wedding reception.' This is quite usual in this country, and this legal looseness will likely be a boon for bully boy Guards, rather than an opening for judicial review, as it would be in other countries. I strongly suspect this government would be minded to only permit Mass last of all. And these passive bishops will do or say little. Thank God there are traditional priests who minister to the remnant, plus a few diocesan priests who really try.

Mod: This kind of talk is bordering on conspiracy theory, there is a more suitable forum for your theories. And please maintain civility in your posts.

Do not respond in the thread.

smacl

smacl wrote: »

With respect, I would not agree this is a 'never ending pandemic'. Rather it is a prolonged pandemic that is close to ending, thanks largely to the population making necessary sacrifices to allow time for development and application of a vaccine. Had these sacrifices not been made, or should they be abandoned at this point in time where their benefits are just about to be felt, we'd be in a considerably worse position. I do not accept that religious practice has been singled out for more draconian treatment than other activities so much as it has been denied any special privilege in this regard. This is entirely reasonable as the virus does not accord special privilege to religious practise over any other activity either.

It's a phrase. It certainly feels never ending. As for it being close to ending, unfortunately you are wrong here, we have been told already that restrictions may continue for years to come, as will the need to subject ourselves to regular injections. In my own line of work we are not forecasting a full return to normality for at least two years, and are budgeting and investing accordingly. This isn't anyone's fault, but any presumption we will be back to normal in a few months is very much premature.

Religious worship, as a specifically stated human right, both in terms of the declaration of human rights and under our own constitution, is a "specially privileged" (if you want to use that phrase) activity. You may not like this, or agree with it, but it is the reality. This is why Ireland, in its disregard of this human right, is very much an outlier in terms of the rest of the world. We have seen again and again, most recently in Scotland, the importance of this human right defended, with the ban on it deemed out of proportion to the risk posed. There is no clear evidence that lockdowns would have been unsuccessful if restricted (i.e. masks, social distancing, sanitizing, limited numbers) public worship were allowed, rather than outright banned. In fact the evidence from other countries shows that such restricted (not banned) public worship has not led to increased mortality.

In your comment you appear to be conflating allowing restricted worship, with there being no lockdown, or restrictions at all. If you are claiming that an outright ban on religious worship is a proportionate and necessary response, rather than restrictions, it is for you to present your arguments and evidence in this regard. You are very much in a minority opinion, both in terms of world civil and political, as well as judicial, opinion, in believing that a ban on public worship is either proportionate, or warranted.

I would imagine many currently prohibited activities, including public worship, will be allowed with the next positive change in lockdown in early May. I think very few people consider this to be a game, least of all our elected government.

This is quite humorous. "The game is up" is a well known phrase, and does not refer to a literal game.

What is "up" and will not continue is the ban on religious worship. They will not want Declan Ganley's case, or that of the Catholic Bishops, or representatives of other religions, going to a full hearing.

Thinkingaboutit

Thinkingaboutit wrote: »

It is notable in France and Belgium, both places with a Napoleonic legal tradition, Scotland, which blends both Roman and Common Law traditions, where quite often the judges are of a quite radical French Masonic Rite, have utterly shamed our judiciary. Regulations banning worship have been variously struck down or massively modified (eg masks and spacing in France) Churches or chapels or halls are generally capacious areas and it has been easy to mark off and space them properly. A pokey off licence with a stench of weed from outside, is perfectly legal, while a cavernous church where people are mostly or always apart (it is more traditional that people do not Communicate at most Masses, for Catholics rebels in England in 1549 cited frequent Communion, both kinds as grievance no XV) is illegal. It should be noted that the The utter uselessness of our supposed pastors, who now seem to be ruminating on possibly, perhaps issuing an injunction. This should be an open goal, despite the unwillingness of judges to deal with the matter as in France or Belgium or Scotland.

Consider how in SI 171 of 202 there seems to be evident confusion on how weddings work. It appears to make the any religious element to a wedding ceremony illegal, and bizarrely implies that a priest offer Mass at the 'wedding reception.' This is quite usual in this country, and this legal looseness will likely be a boon for bully boy Guards, rather than an opening for judicial review, as it would be in other countries. I strongly suspect this government would be minded to only permit Mass last of all. And these passive bishops will do or say little. Thank God there are traditional priests who minister to the remnant, plus a few diocesan priests who really try.

In the face of the latest "draconian" restrictions, as his Grace put it, I have found that many priests who, until now, were fully in support (or at least tolerant) of these restrictions on our religious obligations, have changed their tune, and are very angry at these, literal, new penal laws. This is to be applauded.

Regarding the Gardaí, there are number of rather more serious legal terms than the one you used, that can be applied to those Gardaí who repeatedly "spoke with" Fr Hughes in Cavan. Ultimately they fined him for breaking the law - the problem being that he did not break any law, as there was no penal provision or law (at the time) against what he did.

But we mustn't worry, it may be illegal to meet your priest outside for confession, but rest assured the Gardaí have stepped into the breach and have created events where you can go meet them for a confession I mean chat, instead. Make sure to check the times of this organized event first though, you may need to queue. You could not make it up!

https://twitter.com/gardainfo/status/1384818860730331136

smacl

Eden Silly Frame wrote: »

It's a phrase. It certainly feels never ending. As for it being close to ending, unfortunately you are wrong here, we have been told already that restrictions may continue for years to come, as will the need to subject ourselves to regular injections. In my own line of work we are not forecasting a full return to normality for at least two years, and are budgeting and investing accordingly. This isn't anyone's fault, but any presumption we will be back to normal in a few months is very much premature.

While it looks unlikely that we will be returning to what we considered normal previously, at the same time the worst effects of the pandemic and associated lockdown are coming to close. 'New normal' is term commonly bandied around in this regard.

Religious worship, as a specifically stated human right, both in terms of the declaration of human rights and under our own constitution, is a "specially privileged" (if you want to use that phrase) activity. You may not like this, or agree with it, but it is the reality. This is why Ireland, in its disregard of this human right, is very much an outlier in terms of the rest of the world. We have seen again and again, most recently in Scotland, the importance of this human right defended, with the ban on it deemed out of proportion to the risk posed. There is no clear evidence that lockdowns would have been unsuccessful if restricted (i.e. masks, social distancing, sanitizing, limited numbers) public worship were allowed, rather than outright banned. In fact the evidence from other countries shows that such restricted (not banned) public worship has not led to increased mortality.

In your comment you appear to be conflating allowing restricted worship, with there being no lockdown, or restrictions at all. If you are claiming that an outright ban on religious worship is a proportionate and necessary response, rather than restrictions, it is for you to present your arguments and evidence in this regard. You are very much in a minority opinion, both in terms of world civil and political, as well as judicial, opinion, in believing that a ban on public worship is either proportionate, or warranted.

Freedom of religious expression is of course a personal human right, but this does not extend to placing other people's lives in danger without their consent. Lockdown restrictions have been put in place on the advice of our leading medical experts on the basis they are necessary for our collective safety. Breaching these restrictions is illegal as places the lives of others at risk by providing a vector to a disease that has proven to be lethal to many. Whether or not an individual may personally feel at risk, or feel the risks of breaking lockdown rules are minimal, is neither here nor there. This is matter of collective responsibility.

This is quite humorous. "The game is up" is a well known phrase, and does not refer to a literal game.

What is "up" and will not continue is the ban on religious worship. They will not want Declan Ganley's case, or that of the Catholic Bishops, or representatives of other religions, going to a full hearing.

You seem to be finding plenty of humour here. Having had one friend die of this disease and another facing long term lung damage as a result of it, you'll excuse me if I don't see the funny side. I consider those who would advocate for lifting restrictions contrary to best expert advice to be deeply selfish.

smacl

smacl wrote: »

While it looks unlikely that we will be returning to what we considered normal previously, at the same time the worst effects of the pandemic and associated lockdown are coming to close. 'New normal' is term commonly bandied around in this regard.

So it is "close to ending", but it will never end in that it will never go back to how it was before. Right.

Freedom of religious expression is of course a personal human right, but this does not extend to placing other people's lives in danger without their consent. Lockdown restrictions have been put in place on the advice of our leading medical experts on the basis they are necessary for our collective safety. Breaching these restrictions is illegal as places the lives of others at risk by providing a vector to a disease that has proven to be lethal to many. Whether or not an individual may personally feel at risk, or feel the risks of breaking lockdown rules are minimal, is neither here nor there. This is matter of collective responsibility.

This addresses none of the points raised. Especially when the majority of the world and our peers do not deem the specific aspect of the restrictions we are talking about, the ban on religious worship, necessary or proportionate. If I were saying that there should be no restrictions, or lockdowns or whatever, I would see your point. But I am not. Amazing how a couple of weeks ago cycling 10km would kill people, but now its grand. I didn't consent to you endangering me in such a manner, so lets all stay at home :rolleyes:

You seem to be finding plenty of humour here. Having had one friend die of this disease and another facing long term lung damage as a result of it, you'll excuse me if I don't see the funny side. I consider those who would advocate for lifting restrictions contrary to best expert advice to be deeply selfish.

Yeah, it has all been one big barrel of laughs. What a silly, provocative statement to make. You well know from lengthy discussions at this stage, how difficult this situation has been for me (and of course, everyone). This is a very low tactic from you here. You misinterpreted a well known phrase to imply I was saying this is all a game, and now are saying I think it's all a big laugh. Is this really necessary?

While I am sorry (truly) to hear about your friends, you have no monopoly on grief or bereavement. Using it as an emotional bludgeon to support the denial of other peoples human rights gets us no where - particularly when refusing to engage on the substantive points made. It is sad that you are now personalizing this to such a degree with your accusations of "selfishness". That judge in Scotland, he must be really selfish alright, what a you know what.

Not to mention the fact that I, or anyone else, could easily provide examples of human suffering as an argument in favor of easing restrictions. This sort of emotional blackmail gets us nowhere. I know, and know of, many incidences of where people have committed suicide, including one schoolboy, due to the restrictions and the isolation, desperation, loneliness and other suffering caused. I know of one woman, bed ridden, having given up, the final straw being unable to attend an anniversary Mass for her son. So many elderly people, their lives destroyed where every semblance of normality is gone - no visitors, no (normal) marts, no socializing and to cap it all, no sacraments and the grace they give. Old people in nursing homes, confused and feeling abandoned, priests having to fight tooth and nail to get in to give the sacraments, and being denied, people dying without spiritual consolation. Yeah, there are umpteen examples and stories I can give of sad stories brought about by restrictions, including restrictions that are arguably unnecessary. Do these sad stories mean that all restrictions should be abandoned wholesale? Of course not, it should mean that we endeavor to make it that any suffering is the minimal amount necessary to protect people in a manner which involves the least interference - and above all proportionate interference - with their human rights.

But is this a competition, where whoever gives the most tragic and tear-jerking example "wins" the debate? I hope not, I certainly have no desire to have that type of discussion, and it is a poor, reactive way to handle anything in life, never mind civil governance.

I will pray for your friends, I hope the one who is ill recovers, and the one who has died may find a merciful God and an everlasting home in the heavens. I know it is not your cup of tea, but many find great solace in the scriptures at times like this.

It is obvious at this stage that we will not agree on this point. You are in favour of the ban on public worship. I am not. You will forgive me, I'm sure, if I do not feel obliged in future to go over the same ground with you, again, if nothing new is raised - please do not feel that you have any obligation to reply to me, or that I have any expectation in that regard. A "cease-fire" may be beneficial

looksee

Right, this thread has gone round in circles for long enough. I am closing it until it can be discussed with the mod team to see should it stay open.