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

Leroy42 wrote: »

And this priests expertise is in what exactly? How much of the data has he analysed? How he taken into account the increased infection rates of the new variants?

Or he is simply complaining that he feels badly effected and that despite loads of people having to give up far more than delaying a Sacrement (that can be done just in a different manner than usual) he feels religion should be given special treatment?

He is putting his own feelings, and what he sees as the needs of the church, ahead of what society needs.

He is quite entitled to put forward his arguments, I am sure the church are looking to get as much open as possible, but simply coming out and saying he will ignore the directions of the elected government of this country is not a good look, IMO.

Some things clearly are being given "special" treatment, surely all are entitled to argue in favour of their own sector? Religion of course, is something which is specially protected, with specific human rights attached. So yes, it is "special", at least in that regard. But I don't see him saying that religion should be elevated above anything, or other things should close to allow Sacraments to go ahead. His argument that latest restrictions are wrong, is not an argument that any sector should be treated "specially" in any case.

"Not a good look"? To whom? Why should he or anyone else care how something "looks" to some ill-defined group of people? Where is the expertise that demonstrates that confirmations or baptisms are more dangerous than say, thousands attending a GAA double header? Or hundreds a regular sporting event? The same kids can meet up for GAA matches and training with parents watching and there is no issue, but if a sacrament is involved it's deadly? How does this make sense?

If it is not the law it should be roundly ignored, if it is made law it should be challenged in court and priests should act in accordance with their conscience.

myfreespirit wrote: »

Perhaps Fr. Toomey might consider the advice contained
in First Letter of St. Paul to the Corinthians 13:4-8

Perhaps you might engage with, and respond to, the points made. I could pull any number of quotes highlighting the primacy of worship. However, it is interesting that you would go down this route. Are you arguing that scripture and religious beliefs should 'trump' a state's positive law? I presume not, based on your previous points. Because if you think it should not, then any debate about scripture is pointless because if it were clearly demonstrated that scripture opposed a state's positive law you would still maintain that the state's law takes primacy. Thus, from that perspective, any selection of scripture to support or debate this "guidance" is a waste of time, because you would not accept any quotes against this guidance as convincing evidence against it. So lets focus on why you really support these restrictions on worship, because it is not rooted on your Christian beliefs (if you are a Christian, I don't know), I presume it is based on other concerns about the virus, and not what St. Paul has to say.

Happily, I know of a number of parishes that are ignoring the latest diktat "guidance" - not law - regarding baptisms.

Confirmations and Communions seem to be all delayed until the autumn. But who knows if they will go ahead then? Lots of people vaccinated, yet restrictions are worse now than last summer. If a vaccine pass is not workable (it won't be, and despite alleged 'guidance' from AG it is most likely illegal, not to mention completely unworkable from the perspective of the businesses expected to enforce and monitor it) NPHET will recommend indoor dining and other current restrictions would continue into Autumn.

Leroy42 wrote: »

Just to be clear. Is the advice that no Sacrements can be held at all or that a sacrement shouldn't be held in the traditional way. Ie communion could be given in small groups, outdoors etc?

The advice is that first communions, baptism or confirmations cannot be held at all.

So an idea that some have proposed, to do the confirmation outdoors at the local GAA pitch or something, is not allowed.

Useful interview with Archbishop Martin today, you can read the RTE report here and you can listen to the clip from News at One:

Primate of All Ireland and Archbishop of Armagh Eamon Martin described the Government's stance on First Holy Communions and confirmations as a "complete reversal" of an earlier decision made on the issue.

Dr Martin also criticised the way that the communication of this new position was handled by the Government and said that it was "very disrespectful how this was done".

While such ceremonies are not prohibited under the guidelines, the official advice is that they "should not take place at this time".

The advice says: "It is advised that religious ceremonies such as Baptisms, First Holy Communions and Confirmations should not take place at this time. Further advice will follow on resumption of these ceremonies when it is safe to do so...

...This evening at a NPHET briefing Deputy Chief Medical Officer Dr Ronan Glynn said while it "wasn't a direct piece of NPHET guidance produced on Monday" to cancel religious ceremonies, such as baptisms, communions and confirmations, it "reflects the views of public colleagues across the country.""

Speaking on RTÉ's News at One, Archbishop Martin said: "There is indeed a lot of confusion here and a lot of frustration and deep disappointment and indeed anger.

https://www.rte.ie/news/coronavirus/2021/0701/1232517-covid-restrictions/

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

We are all prevented from doing things we would ilke to be doing.

It's particularly disingenuous to compare indoor ceremonies with widely spaced low attendace matches, etc.

Also the government have to consider what happens after these ceremonies - intergenerational gatherings at houses. Many 60-somethings don't yet have good protection against the delta variant.

There is the possibility of up to 2000 needless and preventable deaths between now and the autumn due to the delta variant. Can you not look at the bigger picture?

Government have said that the actual ceremony itself (which could be done outdoors) is not the concern. If you think it is, please provide evidence.

If "social gatherings" are the issue and will lead to 2000 deaths, then why are restaurants and pubs open for 'outdoor' dining, which is just people put into beer gardens and such, often in close proximity. So why are these "social gatherings" allowed? So the family can go to Mass, or a match, and go for a meal together afterwards with no issue, but if a first communion or confirmation is in the mix, it's deadly? So has a decision been made that social gatherings at pubs and restaurants is an acceptable price to pay? What will the death toll be from that? Why are weddings allowed? That's 50 people at a "social gathering".

Matches can and are being held all over the country, somehow these don't lead to gatherings afterwards? Amazing how millions didn't die in the north from the safely and successfully held communions and confirmations isn't it?

No, this is just, as the Archbishop said, picking on a soft target in a grossly disrespectful manner that makes no logical sense. It was an afterthought from Leo, followed by a scramble to put it in writing. NPHET didn't even make a recommendation about it.

Anyway, government eventually crumbled on banning the Mass, I have a feeling they will crumble on this too, especially as they have now sought to ban Baptisms too (but the dioceses have said they will ignore the latter ban in 'exceptional' circumstances). On the ground, baptisms are almost universally going ahead as planned, in my experience.

As for thinking about the bigger picture - the sacraments are all about the bigger picture.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Distanced, limited period of time, limited number of people, contact tracing. It's not the same thing at all.

Have a read of the restrictions please, you are incorrect here. There is no time limit on outdoor dining etc. (except that it must close at 11:30pm) I note you ignored the other examples I gave, such as weddings.

Is going to a match going to lead to a massive party with relatives young and old from all over the place invited?

It is possible, obviously people are being trusted not to do this.

We'll see what happens, in relation to delta. Until very recently NI was very far ahead in terms of vaccinations and they are still ahead of us. Also a very large chunk of the population in NI is not Catholic.

:pac::pac: This is amusing. Are you seriously arguing that it was safe for them to go ahead in NI because not everyone is a Catholic? Meanwhile live music is to resume in NI in a few days, and they have had less restrictions for a long while now.

The Irish RCC hierarchy have an amazing persecution complex. No longer being able to call the shots for all of society, or being de facto above the law, is not persecution.

It is not Catholics with the persecution complex, rather it is modern atheists projecting into the past that somehow the previous generations were dictated and persecuted by having a government which was freely elected and acted as they were elected to do. One may think that they were grossly mistaken and wrong, but getting what you vote for is not being persecuted. It is a myth that previous leaders of Ireland universally followed what the church said, they were happy enough to disobey their religion to the extent of getting excommunicated when they fancied it.

Also, a significant proportion of the population today are Catholic, with a sizable minority actively practicing. These people deserve to be treated with respect. The Bishops are leaders and representatives of this community. It is a great source of amazement to me that the DUP and Stormont have handled this much more respectfully.

That's because it wasn't a change. He was asked was it changing and he said no.

It was a change. The government, at the highest level, directly communicated with the Bishops telling them, and approving, moves to hold these ceremonies from the start of July. To go from this to a roll back, not with a letter, but rather a senior member of government going "ah yeah, they're off" is grossly disrespectful. Even the govt spokesperson has acknowledged this by saying communication could have been better.

I hope you don't condemn teens having parties etc. because they also feel that restrictions on them are unfair. None of this is fair. 5000 people dying of a novel disease with the possibility of many more to come certainly is not fair. Restrictions are not fair but they must not be ignored either.

This whole thing has been an interesting insight into the mentality of some. The mere fact that something is a "restriction" means that it must be obeyed - no matter how unfair or unjust. Do you apply this universally? Or are you only saying that "restrictions must not be ignored" because you happen to agree with them? What is your point of principle here?

Confirmations, with limited numbers, socially distanced etc. could be held safely. The government themselves and NPHET have said as much. There are other restrictions in place that make certain social gatherings afterwards illegal (it is currently perfectly legal and permissible for an extended family of up to 15 to dine indefinitely outdoors in a restaurant btw, but the perfidious Catholics can't be trusted to limit themselves to this?). If you are arguing that because the former sacraments, may lead to the latter mad parties, then you may as well reintroduce the 2km limit as if people go further they may break the law, or better yet, just lock people into their homes. If the logic is to ban safe events, that may indirectly 'lead' to people separately breaking other restrictions afterwards then you should ban everything.

You moan about Catholics and the widely supported ethos of the past, yet now you advocate policy and laws firmly rooted in paternalistic contempt for the population, as you fear they may break the law and need to be preemptively protected from themselves because they cannot be trusted :rolleyes:

Of course, even my own writings have been a victim of the insidious nature of this because I have referred to the law and "bans" on a number of occasions, despite the fact that there is only mere "guidance" and "recommendations" not to hold baptisms etc, these have no basis in law.