Irish Archbishops call for Catholics to be allowed to attend Mass

foxyladyxx · 29-11-2020 11:57pm

Graces7 wrote: »

Th e fact that you can write this in apparent ignorance of the fact we are in a pandemic with a highly infectious virus shows how totally necessary it is to lose gatherings down.

constitutional laws have to bow to emergency situations. period. Why else are the rules we are bade follow being issued? The Churches have no exemption nor should they even consider seeking any.

Jesus was asked about obeying the laws; He bade folk; obey the laws.

And love others enough not to endanger them, please.

And as for worship? You do not need to be in a large building among others to worship! You really don't. Just go outside a while!

Jesus says that too... When you pray go into your room and pray in private .. not in public

OK I am off. Advent starts tomorrow and it is a Retreat time here as much as is possible. Praying deeply in solitude here. Try it? See you at Christmas. The Feast of the Nativity.

I WAS very critically ill in July of this year and only managed to get to mass for three days before the lockdown was imposed in September. I have the faith to believe that My God will protect me from this virus though I think I may have had it in February.

Once I had recovered following major surgery I continued to help out in a homeless shelter in town sans mask or protective clothing. Just myself and my faith in my God.

Incidently I received Holy Eucharist and had my confession heard by the shelter's chaplain. One of the happiest days of my life!!

No doubt I will be slated for my post but I do care not.

Different strokes different folks.

foxyladyxx · 30-11-2020 12:00am

feargale wrote: »

Rrrrrr2 seems to have left us, so unfortunately it doesn't look as if I will get an answer to the question I put to him as follows:

Do you see this as an issue of religious freedom?

Would anyone else like to take it up?

The lockdown is in breach of the Constitution.

So I guess the answer to that is ''yes''.

CinemaGuy45 · 30-11-2020 12:01am

foxyladyxx wrote: »

I WAS very critically ill in July of this year and only managed to get to mass for three days before the lockdown was imposed in September. I have the faith to believe that My God will protect me from this virus though I think I may have had it in February.

Once I had recovered following major surgery I continued to help out in a homeless shelter in town sans mask or protective clothing. Just myself and my faith in my God.

Incidently I received Holy Eucharist and had my confession heard by the shelter's chaplain. One of the happiest days of my life!!

No doubt I will be slated for my post but I do care not.

Different strokes different folks.

Believing in God and helping the homeless people like you will not be tolerated here.:eek:

feargale · 30-11-2020 1:55am

foxyladyxx wrote: »

I WAS very critically ill in July of this year and only managed to get to mass for three days before the lockdown was imposed in September. I have the faith to believe that My God will protect me from this virus though I think I may have had it in February.

Once I had recovered following major surgery I continued to help out in a homeless shelter in town sans mask or protective clothing. Just myself and my faith in my God

(1)Firstly I hope you are now fully recovered after your surgery. It's very selfless of you to help out in a shelter, but can I ask why you didn't wear a mask? I know that earlier in the year the powers were not recommending masks. Is that the reason why or was there another reason?

foxyladyxx wrote: »

The lockdown is in breach of the Constitution.

So I guess the answer to that is ''yes''.

(2)The following is from the Irish Times of 31st January last:

"A teenage girl who urgently requires surgery can, if necessary, be administered blood or blood products against the wishes of herself and her parents, all members of the Jehovah’s Witness faith, the president of the High Court has ordered.

Mr Justice Peter Kelly said he was satisfied, notwithstanding the views of the girl and her parents, the orders are necessary for preserving the girl’s life and not to permit them would be 'hazardous'."

Would you say the court in that case infinged against freedom of religion?

And finally,

(3)When Ireland had a foot and mouth crisis in 2001 Archbishop Brady cancelled the mass in parts of his archdiocese. To the best of my recollection he did so without prompting or pressure from any government. There was no outcry. Are cattle more important than people?

I would like to engage here with religious people who are strongly arguing for opening of churches. Unfortunately it seems almost impossible to do that in boards without cheapshot trolling by juvenile gob****es whose repertoire is confined to a single subject. But let's try.

John Hutton · 30-11-2020 12:39pm

feargale wrote: »

(2)The following is from the Irish Times of 31st January last:

"A teenage girl who urgently requires surgery can, if necessary, be administered blood or blood products against the wishes of herself and her parents, all members of the Jehovah’s Witness faith, the president of the High Court has ordered.

Mr Justice Peter Kelly said he was satisfied, notwithstanding the views of the girl and her parents, the orders are necessary for preserving the girl’s life and not to permit them would be 'hazardous'."

Would you say the court in that case infinged against freedom of religion?

Do you believe that people should be permitted to refuse medical treatment that they have ethical and moral objections to? I think so. Should such objections only be permitted when it doesn't really matter, i.e. non life threatening situations? I think this would be unfair. Should such refusal only be allowed when you agree with or share the patients moral and ethical objections? I don't think that's fair either.

Should parents be allowed to make these decisions on behalf of their children? That is the real question in the scenario you pose and my answer would be "it depends on the scenario".

But your scenario is not really comparable to a ban on practicing ones religion.

(3)When Ireland had a foot and mouth crisis in 2001 Archbishop Brady cancelled the mass in parts of his archdiocese. To the best of my recollection he did so without prompting or pressure from any government. There was no outcry. Are cattle more important than people?

How long did he cancel Mass for? Was it an open ended ban for months on end? Would his priests have been fined or jailed for having Mass? You can say that it would be unwise to go ahead with Mass without also thinking that it should be banned. The root of the objection for nearly all Catholics I know was that Mass was banned from level three, at a stage where people can still get hair cuts etc. Another issue with this is that the governments plan was and is that we would bounce between level three and level five with intermittent lockdowns, meaning that Mass would effectively be banned for an indeterminate period of time until the Covid crisis was over, presumably when the majority of the population are vaccinated. So maybe a year or more in total of Mass being banned. This is not proportionate.

I personally would have less of an objection if the government said that Mass will be stopped at the lockdown level only for a specified period of time only.

It seems now that level 3 has been modified to allow for Mass, so the government have changed their mind on this point which is welcome, and if it is the case, as it seems, that Mass will only be banned at the lockdown level, which would be a short period of time, I think that is a great improvement.

However, I think that the ban is unconstitutional and we would be better served by the government speaking with the Bishops and reaching an agreement where the Bishops would order that Mass not be celebrated in public for the duration of any lockdown. No ban would be necessary.

I would like to engage here with religious people who are strongly arguing for opening of churches. Unfortunately it seems almost impossible to do that in boards without cheapshop trolling by juvenile gob****es whose repertoire is confined to a single subject. But let's try.

Personally I think that a considerable proportion of the objection to Mass being allowed is based on anti-Catholic and anti religious prejudice. People who think it is perfectly safe, fine and unobjectionable to go get your hair done, stand in a big queue outside a shop for click and collect or to be handed a cake and a coffee in a coffee shop, but that it is somehow extremely hazardous to go to a well ventilated, massive, stewarded building, with everyone socially distancing and wearing masks for 30 minutes where you, in your seat, get handed communion from a Priest decked out in PPE in an interaction taking less than 5 seconds.

Not everyone is prejudiced of course, but as you have observed, a proportion of the commentary around it is.

foxyladyxx · 30-11-2020 3:26pm

feargale wrote: »

(1)Firstly I hope you are now fully recovered after your surgery. It's very selfless of you to help out in a shelter, but can I ask why you didn't wear a mask? I know that earlier in the year the powers were not recommending masks. Is that the reason why or was there another reason?

(2)The following is from the Irish Times of 31st January last:

"A teenage girl who urgently requires surgery can, if necessary, be administered blood or blood products against the wishes of herself and her parents, all members of the Jehovah’s Witness faith, the president of the High
Court has ordered.

Mr Justice Peter Kelly said he was satisfied, notwithstanding the views of the girl and her parents, the orders are necessary for preserving the girl’s life and not to permit them would be 'hazardous'."

Would you say the court in that case infinged against freedom of religion?

And finally,

(3)When Ireland had a foot and mouth crisis in 2001 Archbishop Brady cancelled the mass in parts of his archdiocese. To the best of my recollection he did so without prompting or pressure from any government. There was no outcry. Are cattle more important than people?

I would like to engage here with religious people who are strongly arguing for opening of churches. Unfortunately it seems almost impossible to do that in boards without cheapshot trolling by juvenile gob****es whose repertoire is confined to a single subject. But let's try.

Thank you for your response feargale. As regards (1) above I find masks very uncomfortable to wear but I also stand on the word of God. Mark 11:23

(2) the judge had to intervene to save the girl's life. It is an ethical dilemna for the legal profession. I assume that in a matter of life and death the judge will invariably over rule the parents.

(3). I have no idea why the Archbishop banned mass. Perhaps the livelihood of farmers was at stake? Or perhaps the Archbishop lacked faith himself in Jesus Christ and the power of His precious blood in protecting his flock from the illness?

All very strange I am sure to an unbeliever.

ETA I do know of many priests who celebrated the Holy Mass in public to their parishioners during the latest restrictions. Exposition of the Holy Eucharist ids exposed 24/7 in a monastery close to me.

Beasty · 30-11-2020 8:57pm

My question for those who believe is do they think their beliefs are more important than the views of others. Do they believe they should act for the greater good of everyone, or perhaps ignore certain restrictions (or indeed be given leeway not offered to to others in similar situations) because of their beliefs?

Jim_Hodge · 30-11-2020 10:05pm

Beasty wrote: »

My question for those who believe is do they think their beliefs are more important than the views of others. Do they believe they should act for the greater good of everyone, or perhaps ignore certain restrictions (or indeed be given leeway not offered to to others in similar situations) because of their beliefs?

I'll answer for myself. I'm a devout Catholic and involved locally in our church's efforts to facilitate masses - keeping numbers to the allowed level, stewarding, ensuring distancing, face covering, hand sanitising etc.

In no way do any of our beliefs or desires to celebrate mass come before the greater good and we accept when it's felt the church should close to public worship. I'd have no issues with restrictions being the same for church as any other indoor gathering.

talulon · 01-12-2020 11:15am

I don't go to church so my comment might strike as un-educated but, isn't this ritual the one where everyone goes and takes the communion from the same priest, same hand? So even if there's a limited amount of people in the building, most probably all of them will be using the priest as a virus hub?

If God is everywhere, what's the problem of not going to his "house" for a few weeks?

It might not seem like the same example to some people here but I love football, and I even love more going to the stadium, but if I can make everyone safer by watching it from TV I think we are all on the same page. I'm sure you all have a bible at home.

John Hutton · 01-12-2020 11:54am

talulon wrote: »

I don't go to church so my comment might strike as un-educated but, isn't this ritual the one where everyone goes and takes the communion from the same priest, same hand? So even if there's a limited amount of people in the building, most probably all of them will be using the priest as a virus hub?

If God is everywhere, what's the problem of not going to his "house" for a few weeks?

It might not seem like the same example to some people here but I love football, and I even love more going to the stadium, but if I can make everyone safer by watching it from TV I think we are all on the same page. I'm sure you all have a bible at home.

The priest sanitizes and puts on PPE and hands out the Communion, and re sanitizes if needs be. Less dangerous than being handed your change, your lotto ticket, box of cigarettes, coffee or whatever in a shop.

Again, for the umpteenth time, the ban on Mass was not just for a few weeks, it was indefinite as the government said we wont be going to a level lower than level 3. So before the government backed down and amended level 3 it was looking like Mass would be banned until vaccine is distributed, which will be the summer at the earliest. So not just a "few weeks".

Again, watching Mass on the TV is not the same and not only because you can't receive the Eucharist, although this is a big reason. Assisting at the Sacrifice of the Mass is the central and most important expression of faith and worship of God. Christians are also called to gather and worship as a community (even if it is socially distanced

). So reading your bible at home alone, or watching Mass on TV instead of attending Mass, while a good thing, is not the same, certainly not for an indefinite extended period of months on end.

That said, the Sunday obligation has been lifted (and does not apply to sick people who can't go anyway) for everyone so its allowed for any vulnerable or wary people to stay at home.

Football, theater etc, is not the same as practicing your religion. No matter how much you enjoy sport you don't think it is a necessity which has wider implications for your soul and eternity. You might think its nonsense, but that doesn't change the fact that billions of people think this way - which was recognized by governments all over the world who only introduced a ban on Mass at the highest level of restrictions, if they banned it at all.

Anyway, the government have listened to the people for once and allowed Mass now at Level 3 from today

kenmc · 01-12-2020 2:38pm

John Hutton wrote: »

Football, theater etc, is not the same as practicing your religion. No matter how much you enjoy sport you don't think it is a necessity which has wider implications for your soul and eternity.

Says who? Why is your pastime a necessity, but mine and others not? I really and truly believe in rugby, but I can't go to the RDS to watch my chosen team play. It's on TV, but no that's not the same, the banter in the stands isn't there, the ref can't hear us shouting at him to check for a knock on etc etc.

At the end of the day everyone has some hobby or activity which they think is important to them, vital even, and some of these folk are blinded to the fact that others see differently.

John Hutton · 26-12-2020 8:14pm

Mass banned again. Seems a bit mad that non essential retail remains open, yet religious worship, a constitutionally protected right, is banned again. I don't understand how it is supposedly unsafe to go into a massive church for Mass where everyone is socially distant etc, but it is safe to go into Grafton street today around all the shops for the sales. I don't necessarily want non essential shops shut but if its safe to traipse around buying perfume it is safe to go to Mass (far safer, and more controlled, I would argue).

As I've said a few times in this thread I didn't object to the idea of worship being banned for a short period of level 5, i.e. a full lockdown. But the levels don't seem to mean anything any more, I thought level 5 meant everything closed, which is fair enough, but now its changed there seems to be very little consistency or logic.

Vaccines don't start for 4 days even though we have some delivered, it's not as if there's a rush is it? Plenty of time for Donnelly the Trampoline to get a photo op in.

Dunfyy · 26-12-2020 8:27pm

The collection plates are getting low

The can have mass on zoom
As mass is mostly attended by high risk elderly to stop spread
You can't have masses

Bubbaclaus · 26-12-2020 8:40pm

The demographic that attends mass makes it as high risk as a nursing home.

Graces7 · 27-12-2020 12:52am

lawrencesummers wrote: »

The irony of somebody getting Covid while attending mass and praying to god that the sick are helped would be somewhat comical.

No it wouldn't. Nor would it be irony.

feargale · 27-12-2020 2:21am

Graces7 wrote: »

No it wouldn't. Nor would it be irony.

Firstly, Grace you must understand that boards.ie has its fair share of yobs who like to indulge themselves with no real regard for the genuine concerns of human beings, who are gung ho about sacrificing charity to what passes them for wit. Remember the flooding at Lourdes a few years ago that resulted in the drowning of an old lady? I saw gloating on boards about that. One of the more decent ones (an agnostic) posted recently that Christians are more fun. I speak as a non- religious person.
On the question of opening churches, the government have imposed no restrictions that were not recommended by NPHET. As for closing non-essential shops, NPHET recommended that too, but the government have resisted it. By all means argue for the closure of non-essential shops, but their being opened is not an argument for opening churches at this worrying time.
I don't know why the government is waiting until Monday to start vaccinating, but again it is not an argument for opening churches.

Jim2007 · 27-12-2020 3:32am

Dunfyy wrote: »

The collection plates are getting low

It’s been many a day since a good collection was taken up. Guess you are living in the past then, if you think that.

Mrs OBumble · 27-12-2020 11:37am

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

The demographic that attends mass makes it as high risk as a nursing home.

You obviously have no idea who actually attends any more.

uptherebels · 27-12-2020 11:39am

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

You obviously have no idea who actually attends any more.

Why don't you tell us about the age profile of mass goers in this country.

Manach · 27-12-2020 11:49am

Dunfyy wrote: »

The can have mass on zoom
As mass is mostly attended by high risk elderly to stop spread
You can't have masses

You will find that almost every other country's church authorities manages to provide a safe evironment for masses. Given the core legal right to worship is embedded in European law, you will need a stronger arguement than hypoteticals and if-onlys.

feargale · 29-01-2021 2:25pm

Well, are you all happy now with the latitude afforded to worshippers over Christmas?

John Hutton · 29-01-2021 2:34pm

feargale wrote: »

Well, are you all happy now with the latitude afforded to worshippers over Christmas?

Small amounts of people going to mass didn't cause the massive rise, it was people piling into pubs, restaurants and visiting people. Or to be more precise, govt incompetence.

To pick out one, small, aspect of the reopening over Christmas and pin all the blame on that is hardly fair.

I note that in the North no ban on worship has been needed as the Bishops have voluntarily stopped public worship.

Mrs OBumble · 29-01-2021 2:36pm

feargale wrote: »

Well, are you all happy now with the latitude afforded to worshippers over Christmas?

Are you aware of any church-based clusters?

feargale · 30-01-2021 7:02pm

John Hutton wrote: »

Small amounts of people going to mass didn't cause the massive rise, it was people piling into pubs, restaurants and visiting people. Or to be more precise, govt incompetence.

To pick out one, small, aspect of the reopening over Christmas and pin all the blame on that is hardly fair.

I note that in the North no ban on worship has been needed as the Bishops have voluntarily stopped public worship.

I never said that the the bulk of the problem wasn't caused by revellers etc. I omitted them from my question because I didn't want to be accused of equating them with worshippers and thus having the question derailed. Wouldn't the epidemic be better addressed if there was less whataboutery and more of all of us doing our bit?

feargale · 30-01-2021 7:07pm

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Are you aware of any church-based clusters?

None whatsoever. I cannot prove a single case of church-based transmission. Is that a good reason to have no restrictions? It doesn't follow that it didn't happen. Are you aware that it didn't? People who have been scrupulously cautious have contracted covid, having no idea where it came from.

John Hutton wrote: »

Where is the evidence that Mass attendance is putting thousands of lives at risk?

Even now, twelve months later, there is alot that is not known about this virus. Nothing and nobody is entitled to the benefit of the doubt. As to what should or should not be done, I will defer to medical opinion, not to any Taoiseach or bishop.

Danno · 31-01-2021 2:01am

feargale wrote: »

I will defer to medical opinion, not to any Taoiseach or bishop.

Medical opinion, for what it is "is an opinion" and will usually be biased by whether that person is holds a Taoiseach or a Bishop in high regard.

FWIW I'd hold neither.