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

John Hutton · 29-05-2020 12:24am

dublinman1990 wrote: »

I was honestly surprised when I heard about this today. I am a parishioner at this church & never attended mass there during the pandemic.

Who would do this type of activity during these times of a pandemic? It sounds like very harmful behaviour to do to yourself & other people.

People here have options on TV & radio to get daily mass at home if they want to get it for the day. Daily mass is provided on RTÉ News Now at 10am every morning. The Sunday Mass should be on in the mornings on RTÉ One. EWTN have it on every day at 1pm & at night times too if I recall. My own mother actually watches it at home. She gets great comfort out of it. Radio Maria Ireland on the radio or on Saorview should have mass everyday but I don't know the times for it.

Watching mass on TV is not properly taking part in mass. There are technical canon and theological words I can't recall but basically mass on TV is not the same, it's not the same or as good as going to mass even if you don't receive Eucharist at the mass

I can understand why people go, why is thirty people socially distancing with masks etc in massive church banned but we can go into supermarkets, shops and hardware stores. Or for that matter, on busses or trains? It's either safe or not

whisky_galore · 29-05-2020 12:31am

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Interesting bit of "shoot the messenger" there at the end. The media is not responsible for the lockdown restrictions. Such a selfish attitude. "What I want is more important than anything else."

People know it's against the by now well-known regulations and get prickly when they're caught out, looking for someone else to blame of course.

Peregrinus · 29-05-2020 1:18am

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Interesting bit of "shoot the messenger" there at the end. The media is not responsible for the lockdown restrictions. Such a selfish attitude. "What I want is more important than anything else."

Interesting, but unsurprising. People who break the rules - any rules - are naturally inclined to justify their own breaches of the rules, and to rationalise that any bad outcome is someone else's fault.

Thinkingaboutit · 31-05-2020 10:36am

I find it odd that a limited number widely spaced people in a church or chapel is an unacceptable risk while newsagents (usually in pokey premises) a a-ok. I honestly think this will be the last country with available Masses. Bishops must want their Microsoft CCP social credit points.

Bubbaclaus · 31-05-2020 4:07pm

Thinkingaboutit wrote: »

I find it odd that a limited number widely spaced people in a church or chapel is an unacceptable risk while newsagents (usually in pokey premises) a a-ok. I honestly think this will be the last country with available Masses. Bishops must want their Microsoft CCP social credit points.

What do you find odd about it? Shops are essential for food. Whether you like it or not, sitting for an hour saying prayers with others is not essential. It is about reducing risk in the community, whilst allowing essential services to continue. It isnt difficult.

theological · 31-05-2020 4:13pm

Thinkingaboutit wrote: »

I find it odd that a limited number widely spaced people in a church or chapel is an unacceptable risk while newsagents (usually in pokey premises) a a-ok. I honestly think this will be the last country with available Masses. Bishops must want their Microsoft CCP social credit points.

Something that could potentially be explored is outdoor services at a social distance.

I think we've achieved a lot by moving lots online. It is sad and the fellowship of church is lost, but we've got more people watching our church services week on week since moving it onto YouTube. I wonder whether we can engage those guests who are watching to come to church when this is over, or if we should maintain an online presence going forward.

What do others think about this?

SouthWesterly · 31-05-2020 8:58pm

theological wrote: »

Something that could potentially be explored is outdoor services at a social distance.

I think we've achieved a lot by moving lots online. It is sad and the fellowship of church is lost, but we've got more people watching our church services week on week since moving it onto YouTube. I wonder whether we can engage those guests who are watching to come to church when this is over, or if we should maintain an online presence going forward.

What do others think about this?

Online is well and good but it's not a replacement for the body gathering together.
Of course if you're not part of the Body and just have a name tag which says church I don't suppose it matters to much.

There's a synergy as the members meet together thats missing on YouTube.

theological · 31-05-2020 9:01pm

SouthWesterly wrote: »

Online is well and good but it's not a replacement for the body gathering together.
Of course if you're not part of the Body and just have a name tag which says church I don't suppose it matters to much.

There's a synergy as the members meet together thats missing on YouTube.

I agree, but if indoor services were unsafe to the point of risking the lives of our congegations I think that is the point when we have to hold back for the time being.

We've also done prayer meetings on Zoom which means the church can talk to one another at least.

It isn't the same, we hope for to be back soon, but only when it is safe.

Peregrinus · 01-06-2020 4:30am

Thinkingaboutit wrote: »

I find it odd that a limited number widely spaced people in a church or chapel is an unacceptable risk while newsagents (usually in pokey premises) a a-ok. I honestly think this will be the last country with available Masses. Bishops must want their Microsoft CCP social credit points.

It's not just a question of how close together you are, but also how long you are together. People attending a church service together will be in proximity to one another for much longer than people who are doing their shopping at the same time. Quite a number of clusters have been traced to church gatherings, so this isn't just a theoretical issue.

It's also the case that regular churchgoers tend to be older than the population at large, so on average there's a higher concentration of potentially vulnerable people in a church congregation than in, say, the crowd that goes to a dance or a football game or a cinema. That factor alone points to church gatherings being restricted for longer than some other gatherings.

I think it's the Jewish tradition that holds that you not only can but should break almost any commandment to save a life. I'm the last to deny the central importance of gathering together for the authentic practice of Christianity, but even that has to defer to the higher imperative of loving people in the most real way by not imperilling their lives.

Cabaal · 01-06-2020 2:07pm

antiskeptic wrote: »

So long as it doesn't turn out that science caused the problem in the first place. Jury is out on that one.

Not really...unless you subscribe to conspriacy theories

It's not as if science isn't working away like billy-oh to create wonderous weapons and dreaming up ever more creative ways to inflict suffering on mankind anyway.

Or as if scuieence hasn't worked away to improve food productivity and improve people's health causing them to live longer healhier lives with less needless deaths and lower infant mortality rates.

If the world goes up in a puff of nuclear smoke we'll have the scientists to thank. Forgive me if I'm not rushing to the altar to receive my Body of Science ..Awe-men

Just not bother other then :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Hotblack Desiato · 01-06-2020 11:49pm

I think you'll find it's engineers who create weapons, not scientists

theological · 02-06-2020 8:54am

It would be really great to see what people think about how churches should continue having an online presence after this crisis is over. Believe you me, I want more than anyone else to be back at my church tomorrow. It is true that a lot more people are watching our services online than would have ever darkened our doors. What does this mean? Does this mean we should continue sharing our services online? Or how do you think we can encourage those who have been watching at home to come and be with us in church?

I think this is a genuinely interesting challenge.

Lantus · 02-06-2020 11:27am

Religious groups should follow all scientific advise as per any normal country. Countries that acted fast and applied resources and effort have seen good outcomes compared to those who didn't. So new Zealand and South Korea for example. And Ireland of course.

Disease transmission is a physical and explainable real thing and can be tackled by technology and appropriate responses.

Mancomb Seepgood · 02-06-2020 3:03pm

theological wrote: »

It would be really great to see what people think about how churches should continue having an online presence after this crisis is over. Believe you me, I want more than anyone else to be back at my church tomorrow. It is true that a lot more people are watching our services online than would have ever darkened our doors. What does this mean? Does this mean we should continue sharing our services online? Or how do you think we can encourage those who have been watching at home to come and be with us in church?

I think this is a genuinely interesting challenge.

It's fascinating to see how this will work out over time.

I'm a member of a Quaker meeting and have been hosting worship on Zoom since March. Quakerism is particularly adaptable for online worship and ti's worked quite well. We are a small group but we have members who are now living in different parts of the country or world with no local meeting nearby who are able to attend regularly for the first time in years. I hope that we can continue to meet in this way, even if it's less regularly, once physical distance requirements are no longer in effect.

The New York Times did a story here.

I do feel for those in more liturgical traditions who can't partake in the Eucharist, or engage in congregational singing. I believe many churches were already live-streaming services before the pandemic began. It seems to have led to an increase in podcasts, and in sermons being made available in online platforms which can only be a good thing for oddballs like myself who find this sort of thing interesting.

Peregrinus · 03-06-2020 6:33am

theological wrote: »

. . . It is true that a lot more people are watching our services online than would have ever darkened our doors . . .

Does this surprise you? Because I have to say that it surprises me. It is not what I would have expected.

It raised the obvious question, who are these people who will livestream a church service but (so far) not attend one? This isn't a matter of idle curiousity; if the question is how we can reach these people and build stronger connections with them, then knowing who they are and understanding they are drawn to streaming when they weren't previously drawn to attending is going to help a lot.

What I would have expected is:

- Not all of those who normally attended church would livestream it instead. For some of them, the fellowship, the solidarity, the shared experience and communal activity, will have been a large part of what drives them to participate and, without that, they might not be motivated just to watch. Obviously, based on your experience, that expectation is wrong.

- Over time, the number livestreaming will tend to fall. There'll be a curiosity factor at first, because this is a novelty, but once that wears off some people will find that the livestreaming experience is not really engaging, and they'll drift away. (They may substitute other forms of spirituality/practice, e.g. private or family prayer or scripture reading, but you won't necessarily know about that.) Again, this expectation could be wrong. You don't say, though, whether there has been any fall-off as the weeks go on. Have you any information on this, one way or the other?

- There'll be some who actually prefer livestreaming - the ill, the infirm, those who are physically distant and cannot easily attend in person. But my expectation - which, again, could be wrong - is that this group wouldn't outweight the combination of factors just mentioned.

Finally, one other factor occurs to me. What exactly are we measuring here? The numbers of connections livestreaming an event which is webcast as it happens? Or the numbers of people downloading a podcast which is available for download at any time? Or the numbers of people actually listening to or watching a podcast? If you're podcasting your services there may be a "good intentions" factor here in which people save the podcast but, um, don't listen to it with quite the degree of participation that would match attendance at church. Or don't listen to it at all. Whereas if you're just livestreaming an event you gotta assume that most people who take the livestream are watching it.

None of this is to distract from the real question, which is "how can we reach out to this group and connect more with them?" But they are questions which, if answered, might enable us to adress that real question to greater effect.

theological · 03-06-2020 9:35am

Peregrinus wrote: »

Does this surprise you? Because I have to say that it surprises me. It is not what I would have expected.

It raised the obvious question, who are these people who will livestream a church service but (so far) not attend one? This isn't a matter of idle curiousity; if the question is how we can reach these people and build stronger connections with them, then knowing who they are and understanding they are drawn to streaming when they weren't previously drawn to attending is going to help a lot.

What I would have expected is:

- Not all of those who normally attended church would livestream it instead. For some of them, the fellowship, the solidarity, the shared experience and communal activity, will have been a large part of what drives them to participate and, without that, they might not be motivated just to watch. Obviously, based on your experience, that expectation is wrong.

- Over time, the number livestreaming will tend to fall. There'll be a curiosity factor at first, because this is a novelty, but once that wears off some people will find that the livestreaming experience is not really engaging, and they'll drift away. (They may substitute other forms of spirituality/practice, e.g. private or family prayer or scripture reading, but you won't necessarily know about that.) Again, this expectation could be wrong. You don't say, though, whether there has been any fall-off as the weeks go on. Have you any information on this, one way or the other?

- There'll be some who actually prefer livestreaming - the ill, the infirm, those who are physically distant and cannot easily attend in person. But my expectation - which, again, could be wrong - is that this group wouldn't outweight the combination of factors just mentioned.

Finally, one other factor occurs to me. What exactly are we measuring here? The numbers of connections livestreaming an event which is webcast as it happens? Or the numbers of people downloading a podcast which is available for download at any time? Or the numbers of people actually listening to or watching a podcast? If you're podcasting your services there may be a "good intentions" factor here in which people save the podcast but, um, don't listen to it with quite the degree of participation that would match attendance at church. Or don't listen to it at all. Whereas if you're just livestreaming an event you gotta assume that most people who take the livestream are watching it.

None of this is to distract from the real question, which is "how can we reach out to this group and connect more with them?" But they are questions which, if answered, might enable us to adress that real question to greater effect.

I think what we're judging that on is that the YouTube video is only up for a few hours on Sunday morning (it gets taken down every week to make sure the YouTube channel isn't full of content), and it probably is based on the connection count. In many cases more than 1 person will be watching in a household also. It would be interesting to know who exactly is watching beyond our normal congregation. I suspect a fair few could be in the local area loosely attached to church, there could of course be people who have moved away who want to engage at this time. I'd love to know.

What's also interesting is that the number of people attending our prayer meetings on Zoom is also up on what would be the case physically. This is probably more a point about congregation engagement because people will receive this link by e-mail and it isn't publicly circulated. Physically about 30 people would have attended the prayer meeting every month. On Zoom we had 80 connections with many cases of 2 or more people on those connections.

I'd love to know some of the reasons behind this.

27-04-2021 3:36pm

In some very good and welcome news, the taoiseach has announced that worship is to be 'allowed' once again from the start of May. It seems that lobbying of TDs and such have played a vital role in this change of classification of religious worship, whichwas formally only permitted at level 2

CHURCHES and other places of worship will reopen to the public from next month, the Taoiseach has told faith leaders in a letter sent this evening.

Micheál Martin told the Fianna Fáil parliamentary party he had send the reassurance after being tackled about the issue by backbenchers.

They were echoing an impassioned plea from a former minister earlier in the Dáil.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/churches-and-other-places-of-worship-to-reopen-to-the-public-from-next-month-taoiseach-tells-faith-leaders-in-letter-40340880.html

Going forward there is an obligation now to make sure that worship occurs in as safe a way as possible, with limits, sanitation etc.

In a broader sense there is a need for the Bishops and religious leaders to decide on a response should civil authorities attempt again to infringe in such a "draconian" way (for whatever the reason).

But good news, for now at least, and a welcome relief. From a catholic perspective, there is the issue of the Sunday obligation, and whether it should remain lifted. Will people used to watching online come back? Does anyone think there will be permanent changes brought about by this long absence of public worship?

Interesting comments from Declan Ganley today, after his case was delayed again: https://gript.ie/as-his-case-is-delayed-again-ganley-calls-on-bishops-to-deny-lockdown/

Thinkingaboutit · 29-04-2021 8:50pm

Yahir Gray Bazooka wrote: »

In some very good and welcome news, the taoiseach has announced that worship is to be 'allowed' once again from the start of May. It seems that lobbying of TDs and such have played a vital role in this change of classification of religious worship, whichwas formally only permitted at level 2

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/churches-and-other-places-of-worship-to-reopen-to-the-public-from-next-month-taoiseach-tells-faith-leaders-in-letter-40340880.html

Going forward there is an obligation now to make sure that worship occurs in as safe a way as possible, with limits, sanitation etc.

In a broader sense there is a need for the Bishops and religious leaders to decide on a response should civil authorities attempt again to infringe in such a "draconian" way (for whatever the reason).

But good news, for now at least, and a welcome relief. From a catholic perspective, there is the issue of the Sunday obligation, and whether it should remain lifted. Will people used to watching online come back? Does anyone think there will be permanent changes brought about by this long absence of public worship?

Interesting comments from Declan Ganley today, after his case was delayed again: https://gript.ie/as-his-case-is-delayed-again-ganley-calls-on-bishops-to-deny-lockdown/

I suppose it'll be a return to how it was a few months ago with three Low Masses to keep within the numbers, although I cannot think that three is near enough.

29-04-2021 9:05pm

Thinkingaboutit wrote: »

I suppose it'll be a return to how it was a few months ago with three Low Masses to keep within the numbers, although I cannot think that three is near enough.

Seems to be fifty allowed (officially). Its a step in the right direction. Wont be enough for a Sunday for sure, but at least its something

Jellybaby_1 · 30-04-2021 8:48pm

I know of a couple of people who have refused to be vaccinated. I doubt I'll be rushing back if they will be there, after all even if I have all my vaccines I can still pick it up from others and pass it on.

30-04-2021 9:29pm

Jellybaby_1 wrote: »

I know of a couple of people who have refused to be vaccinated. I doubt I'll be rushing back if they will be there, after all even if I have all my vaccines I can still pick it up from others and pass it on.

That can happen anywhere, there are a few people in my office who are like that, nothing can be done. I think once you have your vaccine the responsible things is to go back to normal as much as possible by going out etc, business and the economy need the help.

30-04-2021 10:02pm

Some sensible cop on it seems from the govt! Great news!

https://twitter.com/MichaelKellyIC/status/1388233839697403907

Thinkingaboutit · 01-05-2021 8:24pm

Yahir Gray Bazooka wrote: »

Some sensible cop on it seems from the govt! Great news!

https://twitter.com/MichaelKellyIC/status/1388233839697403907

That is more sensible. Churches range from places that can hold thousands to little chapels holding maybe fifty. St Kevin's church would otherwise have needed eight Low Masses.

Thinkingaboutit · 03-05-2021 9:57pm

The two children of Pat Sweeney are still held by TUSLA at location unknown. The point of this post is that Pat filmed the Gardaí in Athlone Corpus Christi chapel, and this was a point the Gardaí made no effort to hide, that his use of the phone to film them was noticed, and this was what to happen. Pat was initially detained until the Mental Health Act on a very old complaint, released after an assessment by a doctor, children still held in God knows where.

03-05-2021 10:41pm

Thinkingaboutit wrote: »

The two children of Pat Sweeney are still held by TUSLA at location unknown. The point of this post is that Pat filmed the Gardaí in Athlone Corpus Christi chapel, and this was a point the Gardaí made no effort to hide, that his use of the phone to film them was noticed, and this was what to happen. Pat was initially detained until the Mental Health Act on a very old complaint, released after an assessment by a doctor, children still held in God knows where.

Can you link to where it's been announced that he has been accessed etc, because I wouldn't believe a word coming from the national party

onform · 04-05-2021 7:08pm

DubInMeath wrote: »

Can you link to where it's been announced that he has been accessed etc, because I wouldn't believe a word coming from the national party

More context on the story here, which the NP thought fit not to share because it didn't suit their own agenda:
https://www.thejournal.ie/high-court-fathers-loses-challenge-sons-face-mask-france-5384574-Mar2021/?amp=1&__twitter_impression=true

04-05-2021 11:49pm

onform wrote: »

More context on the story here, which the NP thought fit not to share because it didn't suit their own agenda:
https://www.thejournal.ie/high-court-fathers-loses-challenge-sons-face-mask-france-5384574-Mar2021/?amp=1&__twitter_impression=true

I'm sure that the person who I asked will confirm if this is the same person as the one they named, and where they read that he was accessed and found mentally competent.

As for the national party and their supporters breaking the 8th seems to be a common trait, same goes for the conspiracy theory peddlers and those believe them and repeat their guff.

05-05-2021 10:33am

I don't know about this stuff, the video from the house certainly looks bad, but there may be a lot more to the story.

There has undoubtedly been Garda malpractice over this whole Covid thing (not least fining Fr Hughes in Cavan for breaking a non-existent law and the hassle he got around that) but I can't offer any informed opinion on this incident.

Anyway, not long until Monday now, local churches here are flat out getting ready and signing up ushers and that. Great community spirit.

smacl · 05-05-2021 10:45am

Thinkingaboutit wrote: »

The two children of Pat Sweeney are still held by TUSLA at location unknown. The point of this post is that Pat filmed the Gardaí in Athlone Corpus Christi chapel, and this was a point the Gardaí made no effort to hide, that his use of the phone to film them was noticed, and this was what to happen. Pat was initially detained until the Mental Health Act on a very old complaint, released after an assessment by a doctor, children still held in God knows where.

DubInMeath wrote: »

I'm sure that the person who I asked will confirm if this is the same person as the one they named, and where they read that he was accessed and found mentally competent.

As for the national party and their supporters breaking the 8th seems to be a common trait, same goes for the conspiracy theory peddlers and those believe them and repeat their guff.

More on this in the broadsheet here where Pat Sweeney is named.

05-05-2021 10:57am

Very odd case, taking the children at 3am and detaining him under the mental health act would seem unnecessary under the circumstances of which we know - I suspect (and hope) there is more to the story, otherwise it is very disturbing.

05-05-2021 11:47pm

Yahir Gray Bazooka wrote: »

Very odd case, taking the children at 3am and detaining him under the mental health act would seem unnecessary under the circumstances of which we know - I suspect (and hope) there is more to the story, otherwise it is very disturbing.

Personally I haven't met a sane person who believes in conspiracy theories.

Peregrinus · 06-05-2021 3:23am

Yahir Gray Bazooka wrote: »

Very odd case, taking the children at 3am and detaining him under the mental health act would seem unnecessary under the circumstances of which we know - I suspect (and hope) there is more to the story, otherwise it is very disturbing.

There's nearly always more than you are told in cases that are dealt with under the mental health legislation. For obvious reasons, if somebody's mental health is in issue, it's generally not in their best interests to lay out their story in detail in the media for the titillation of the public, so the medical and legal authorities are extremely tight-lipped in what they will say. The person concerned is generally free to say anything they like but they, too, may have solid reasons for not wishing to expose themselves in this way. So they may say nothing, or they may be highly selective in what they say.

Thinkingaboutit · 08-05-2021 7:39pm

His mental assessment gave him the all clear. It seems reasonably clear that this was a response to making the bullies look foolish. Ideally he should have kept his peace, for the SSPX do not like talking in their chapel, and he might not have come to notice of the Gardaí who brought up the filming along with chasing the two boys. Now thankfully, they are with the mother who has part custody, rather than being left with TUSLA, which no child deserves.

09-05-2021 12:21pm

Thinkingaboutit wrote: »

His mental assessment gave him the all clear. It seems reasonably clear that this was a response to making the bullies look foolish. Ideally he should have kept his peace, for the SSPX do not like talking in their chapel, and he might not have come to notice of the Gardaí who brought up the filming along with chasing the two boys. Now thankfully, they are with the mother who has part custody, rather than being left with TUSLA, which no child deserves.

Can you provide a link regarding his mental assessment?

looksee · 09-05-2021 12:48pm

Mod: can we get back on topic please. Speculation about one individual for whom we have little reliable information of their personal or family affairs, is hardly relevant to the overall OP topic.

Thinkingaboutit · 16-05-2021 1:19am

DubInMeath wrote: »

Can you provide a link regarding his mental assessment?

I think the mods wish to keep it as Church and COVID only and to not dwell specifically on Pat Sweeney.

You can look that up, if you want. The simple fact he was released, well never detained, and the children passed to the mother who has part custody, and was due to have them at that point, should suffice. The matter is private. Anyhow.

It seems a reversion to the prior COVID precautioned public liturgy at present. It is bizarre given how any Church liturgy, be it Mass or Office, involves people who are static, and with rows roped off, spaced, meaning so little risk of passing any virus compared to other things. Perhaps the Irish Catholic Bishops' Conference (ICBC) lobbied quietly, but it seems the exercise public religion simply happened along with the loosening of other regulations. Ireland has an extraordinary excess of bishops. They do preserve many mediaeval ecclesiastical territories, and a greater number of bishops is seen as a way of making Church leadership more accessible, but to me, they seem like passengers or dead weight. It won't happen though, given the outcry. It would seem like punishing rural Ireland which still has healthy Novus Ordo attendances. Yet consolidate territories might allow localised formation and training of priests. It might provide the resources for a more lively response to COVID and the great number of other challenges. The ICBC seem as now to be a tepid crew.

The bizarre actions of Cllr Eliza O'Donovan (another SD washout) and her crew, are a response to a grassroots efforts to say the Rosary at churches until now closed. The people were spaced, but you had Eliza and a typical aged Antifa activist aggressively filming the people, including children, and her friends play some very sordid music. I'm sure some will defend her, but the point was a bigger stir was made by a lay effort. Anyhow, bishops did almost nothing, or if they did, they kept it quiet. A very timid meetings with government, don't cut it.

16-05-2021 1:27am

Thinkingaboutit wrote: »

I think the mods wish to keep it as Church and COVID only and to not dwell specifically on Pat Sweeney.
You can look that up, if you want. The simple fact he was released, well never detained, and the children passed to the mother who has part custody, and was due to have them at that point, should suffice. The matter is private. Anyhow.

It seems a reversion to the prior COVID precautioned public liturgy at present. It is bizarre given how any Church liturgy, be it Mass or Office, involves people who are static, and with rows roped off, spaced, meaning so little risk of passing any virus compared to other things. Perhaps the Irish Catholic Bishops' Conference (ICBC) lobbied quietly, but it seems the exercise public religion simply happened along with the loosening of other regulations. Ireland has an extraordinary excess of bishops. They do preserve many mediaeval ecclesiastical territories, and a greater number of bishops is seen as a way of making Church leadership more accessible, but to me, they seem like passengers or dead weight. It won't happen though, given the outcry. It would seem like punishing rural Ireland which still has healthy Novus Ordo attendances. Yet consolidate territories might allow localised formation and training of priests. It might provide the resources for a more lively response to COVID and the great number of other challenges. The ICBC seem as now to be a tepid crew.

The bizarre actions of Cllr Eliza O'Donovan (another SD washout) and her crew, are a response to a grassroots efforts to say the Rosary at churches until now closed. The people were spaced, but you had Eliza and a typical aged Antifa activist aggressively filming the people, including children, and her friends play some very sordid music. I'm sure some will defend her, but the point was a bigger stir was made by a lay effort. Anyhow, bishops did almost nothing, or if they did, they kept it quiet. A very timid meetings with government, don't cut it.

To be honest, I would expect that people posting in a forum like this to be 100% honest and provide actual factual evidence to backup a statement that they make.

The rest reads like a national party rant especially the antifa part

Cabaal · 16-05-2021 8:08am

DubInMeath wrote: »

To be honest, I would expect that people posting in a forum like this to be 100% honest and provide actual factual evidence to backup a statement that they make.

The rest reads like a national party rant especially the antifa part

I'd say you're not far off the mark on that,
The channel that created the above video has a playlist featuring https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01ColnIbPtk&list=PLz2mpx_LnfpfWZqFSIwVYHJkltHpf06V8

breezy1985 · 16-05-2021 8:18am

Thinkingaboutit wrote: »

That is more sensible. Churches range from places that can hold thousands to little chapels holding maybe fifty. St Kevin's church would otherwise have needed eight Low Masses.

Not really fair though is it. Think of all the groups of 50 Croke Park could hold for a match and same goes for stadia round the country but they are not allowed.

Plenty of musicians going without work for a year now too.

16-05-2021 10:22am

breezy1985 wrote: »

Not really fair though is it. Think of all the groups of 50 Croke Park could hold for a match and same goes for stadia round the country but they are not allowed.

Plenty of musicians going without work for a year now too.

Yes, I agree that we should now allow people to go to matches.

16-05-2021 10:24am

Thinkingaboutit wrote: »

I think the mods wish to keep it as Church and COVID only and to not dwell specifically on Pat Sweeney.
You can look that up, if you want. The simple fact he was released, well never detained, and the children passed to the mother who has part custody, and was due to have them at that point, should suffice. The matter is private. Anyhow.

It seems a reversion to the prior COVID precautioned public liturgy at present. It is bizarre given how any Church liturgy, be it Mass or Office, involves people who are static, and with rows roped off, spaced, meaning so little risk of passing any virus compared to other things. Perhaps the Irish Catholic Bishops' Conference (ICBC) lobbied quietly, but it seems the exercise public religion simply happened along with the loosening of other regulations. Ireland has an extraordinary excess of bishops. They do preserve many mediaeval ecclesiastical territories, and a greater number of bishops is seen as a way of making Church leadership more accessible, but to me, they seem like passengers or dead weight. It won't happen though, given the outcry. It would seem like punishing rural Ireland which still has healthy Novus Ordo attendances. Yet consolidate territories might allow localised formation and training of priests. It might provide the resources for a more lively response to COVID and the great number of other challenges. The ICBC seem as now to be a tepid crew.

The bizarre actions of Cllr Eliza O'Donovan (another SD washout) and her crew, are a response to a grassroots efforts to say the Rosary at churches until now closed. The people were spaced, but you had Eliza and a typical aged Antifa activist aggressively filming the people, including children, and her friends play some very sordid music. I'm sure some will defend her, but the point was a bigger stir was made by a lay effort. Anyhow, bishops did almost nothing, or if they did, they kept it quiet. A very timid meetings with government, don't cut it.

True, it was the laity that led from the front on this.

But it is worth noting, that when the Bishops finally had enough and got angry (considering how angry public statements were I am sure much was said privately) things changed quickly. Not quite back to normal yet, but we are well on the way.

breezy1985 · 16-05-2021 11:46am

Yahir Gray Bazooka wrote: »

Yes, I agree that we should now allow people to go to matches.

I agree too. But church should have to follow the same rules as there other social gatherings

30-06-2021 10:52am

Here we go again, Varadkar, with an off hand comment, appears to "ban" communions and confirmations. One priest says he will ignore it and go ahead, unless his Bishop says otherwise.

In a personal statement tonight, Fr Toomey said he would also continue to celebrate baptisms and other sacraments if families want him to and in consultation with schools, “until such time as my bishop advises otherwise”.

Bishop Phonsie Cullinan leads the diocese of Waterford and Lismore.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/priest-says-he-will-defyleo-varadkarsoff-the-cuff-postponement-ofcommunions-and-confirmations-40596291.html

It will be interesting to see what His Grace, Bishop Cullinan, will say.

Interview on Morning Ireland: https://www.rte.ie/radio/radioplayer/html5/#/radio1/21975480

myfreespirit · 30-06-2021 10:57am

Yahir Gray Bazooka wrote: »

Here we go again, Varadkar, with an off hand comment, appears to "ban" communions and confirmations. One priest says he will ignore it and go ahead, unless his Bishop says otherwise.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/priest-says-he-will-defyleo-varadkarsoff-the-cuff-postponement-ofcommunions-and-confirmations-40596291.html

It will be interesting to see what His Grace, Bishop Cullinan, will say.

Interview on Morning Ireland: https://www.rte.ie/radio/radioplayer/html5/#/radio1/21975480

Hopefully, An Garda Siochana will have taken note of Fr.Toomey's plan to breach public health guidelines, and will move to deal with the situation.
No one, including Catholic priests, has any right to ignore public health guidelines.

30-06-2021 11:26am

myfreespirit wrote: »

Hopefully, An Garda Siochana will have taken note of Fr.Toomey's plan to breach public health guidelines, and will move to deal with the situation.
No one, including Catholic priests, has any right to ignore public health guidelines.

"Guidelines" are law now? A point the priest noted in his interview...

Leroy42 · 30-06-2021 12:11pm

Yahir Gray Bazooka wrote: »

"Guidelines" are law now? A point the priest noted in his interview...

No, but the CC is supposed to be looking after its members.

If he is so determined to get it done, then zoom. Or do it outside? Or limit it to just the children, parents can watch on Camera.

Instead he is creating an issue where none exists which will lead to others asking why they should bother.

If we take it that illness, and pandemic, are challenges sent by god to test our love and faith in him, then I would argue that this priests is failing in that he is putting himself and the church ahead of the love of others.

Swindled · 30-06-2021 12:18pm

Not withstanding the usual anti-Catholicism / Christianity,
Don't think they should be going ahead, it's the right call, the house gatherings afterwards, and the pressure to attend them, are the big risk, until more people are vaccinated, another month or two will make a big difference.

30-06-2021 1:51pm

Sacraments cannot be done "virtually" on Zoom, telephone or whatever. It has been "two weeks to flatten the curve" for well over a year now.

I think the priest is right - lots of people are vaccinated now, and many respected people are calling the doomsday projections of hospitalizations and deaths nonsense. Even the Zero-Covid folks are saying reopening should go ahead. Meanwhile 500 people can now go to a match, 8000 to Croke park, occasions where it is well established that no one mixes after, rather they go calmly home maintaining a 2m social distance the entire time. Mass has successfully been ongoing for some time now. Weddings with 50 people are now allowed also. But now it seems that baptisms - for the first time - are being included on the no-no list which makes no sense whatsoever.

There is no reason why confirmations cannot be held with sufficient precautions, outdoors if needs be. They should offer two ceremonies, one now, and one later in the year for those who don't feel comfortable now or want to wait for pubs etc to be open to 'enjoy' it as a social occasion. If anything, it makes more sense to have the ceremonies when people cannot book function rooms, pack into restaurants etc.

The church had to up the pressure to defend the Mass earlier in the year and successfully got that over the line. They have to do the same here.

Important to note however that the alleged prohibition on confirmation, communions and (for the first time) baptisms are merely guidelines with no basis in law for the time being. Any "breach" of these, or support of same is not a breach or support of the breaking of any law. The Gardaí exceeded their authority previously in enforcing a non-existent ban on the Mass and harassed and intimidated that priest in Cavan, so people won't fall for that tactic twice, nor is it fair to put Gardai in that position by telling them something is a law when it isn't.

Of course, should these "guidelines" be made law, that does make a material difference.

30-06-2021 2:19pm

As an aside, it is often a useful (and entertaining) exercise to have a look at the "most thanked" posts on this website each day. They are a fair barometer of the attitudes of people on this website. It has been interesting to observe this throughout the course of the pandemic. There are not many heavily thanked posts now supporting the government's latest actions, many who did up to now have changed their tune (which of course does not mean that they now retrospectively think that the govt were wrong all along, merely that they are wrong now).

I do feel sorry for NPHET though. They are civil servants, with a specific brief to make recommendations based on certain criteria. By its very nature it will be a conservative recommendation. Civil servants make recommendations to ministers every day of the week, sometimes the same ones for years on end, but these are roundly dismissed or ignored, on a routine basis, for a whole myriad of reasons. Which is how things should be. This is the job of politicians, to make policy decisions on the basis of their political philosophy and objectives, a task which an informed electorate selected them for. Most politicians now do not seem to have a political philosophy or objective, beyond getting elected again, and hopefully not messing up too much along the way. So faced with the most difficult decisions in a long time they have hidden behind civil servants which is unfair. This is nothing new, Charles Haughey is the last politician who demonstrated any actual decisive leadership (note this is a neutral comment, does not mean he was good!)

Am I right in saying that the restrictions are more severe in some ways than they were last summer?

Leroy42 · 30-06-2021 3:30pm

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.

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

Comments