Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Covid restrictions breech

13»

Comments

  • #102
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    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.


  • #103
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    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.


  • #104
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    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


  • #105
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,516 ✭✭✭✭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.

    Scrap the cap!



  • #106
    Cabaal
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 28,510 Mod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #107
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    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.


  • #108
    Effects
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,760 ✭✭✭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?


  • #109
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    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.


  • #110
    looksee
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,789 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #111
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • #112
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    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.


  • #113
    Mrs OBumble
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,084 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #114
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,778 Mod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #115
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    smacl wrote: »
    Of course, once they adhere to the law.
    Matthew 22:21 comes to mind.


  • #116
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    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.

    0_pc2.jpg

    TUFZMTIyMjUwODE0.jpg?crop=982:736,smart&width=990

    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


  • #117
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    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


  • #118
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,690 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #119
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    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.


  • #120
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,690 ✭✭✭✭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?


  • Advertisement
  • #121
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    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?


  • #122
    Graces7
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,634 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #123
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    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.


  • #124
    Graces7
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,634 ✭✭✭✭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


  • #125
    Graces7
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,634 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #126
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,690 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • #127
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    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.


  • #128
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,690 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #129
    Thinkingaboutit
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,212 ✭✭✭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).


  • #130
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,690 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #131
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,778 Mod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • #132
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    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!


  • #133
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,778 Mod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #134
    Thinkingaboutit
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,212 ✭✭✭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.


  • #135
    looksee
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,789 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #136
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    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.


  • #137
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    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


  • #138
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,778 Mod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #139
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    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 :)


  • #140
    looksee
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,789 ✭✭✭✭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.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement