The possible context to which I referred was a context of experiences that might lead those in France to read the statement in a different light than those outside France might, such that, when read in the context of other statements and actions, the statement illustrates a sense of entitlement that isn't apparent just from the four corners of the statement itself.
I think the sense of entitlement derives from the fact that the bishops feel qualified to challenge a public health ruling on religious grounds.
But what I'm saying is that I don't read the statement as "challenging a public health ruling on religious grounds." I read it as @Leorning Cniht seems to: "you're planning to end lockdown on day X, but we have this important thing for our religious group on day X-1 (or X-2, or X-3) - can we be a little flexible on X." That doesn't read like a challenge to me, it reads like a request, especially when coupled with the assurance that instructions of the government will be followed.
If the answer is "no, we can't be flexible about it," then that's that. But it's sounding like maybe the answer is "yes, maybe we can be a little flexible."
“When lockdown ends”, isn’t really a thing though is it?
From what I have been hearing, it ll be nothing like letting the cows out after winter. Non of that jolly leaping and prancing about.
More that a series of dribs and drabs .
Mrs X can go to church and her mother can and two of the children.
But Mr X can’t (severe asthma), the grandfather can’t (age) and Mrs X’s smallest is undiagnosed with Covid19 complications that no one really understands yet.
Heavens. It could be another year before that extended family get to worship altogether in the same building.
I think it's true both that we're not going straight back to "normal" when we are able to have physical church again, and that we're not all going back at the same time (partly because some people will have health reasons not to, partly because some people will have a different appetite for risk).
It's clear we won't have holy water in the stoups, or share the common cup, in the near future. I'm expecting that when the Bishop allows us to hold physical services, we'll continue zoom Morning Prayer for those who don't (for whatever reason) want to come to church. We'll see how happy people are with it being lay-led (as the priest will be in church!)
But "when lockdown ends" has a real meaning - it is the point where the civil authority stops saying "you may not gather" and starts saying "you may gather with caution and suitable precautions."
'Unlock Sunday' ain't going to happen, or if it does, it will be a damp and discouraging squib. There won't be a sudden 'everything's back to how it was before' moment. If there is, it will demonstrate that Johnson and his claque-clique are more stupid than even I think they are (though listening to Ian Duncan Smith and Steve Baker, suggests they might be).
When restrictions get lifted, it will be gradual, a lot of people will still be subject to them, and many of those that strictly aren't won't be confident about emerging into any sort of sociable life.
It still contains two contradictions. One is the claim that "this is advice, not instruction or law" when it very clearly is instruction. The other is that the CofE has gone further than the Government which has explicitly permitted the broadcast of the services from empty religious buildings by lone clergy (etc). Mind you my own denomination has strongly advised against this although ultimately they cannot "tell" local churches what to do.
As another resident of France, and a pretty ordinary Catholic, I sympathise, nay agree, with Eutychus' interpretation of the French bishops' statements he's been talking about.
I can't tell you how happy I was to read in an article in Le Monde (for Sunday/Monday 3-4 May, don't think I can link to it, I have the actual newspaper) statements made apparently last Thursday by the archbishop of Reims - who happens to be the Head of the Bishops' conference (my own translation) :
“Some statements, not by bishops but by others, tend to present matters as a situation of persecution, and I am of the opinion that this is not very respectful of people who truly are persecuted. We do not yet have a goulag in France and we are not at risk of prison or torture.”
After saying that the vast majority of churchgoers would follow the measures laid down by the government, he is then quoted as saying,
“As ever, you have the people who talk very loud, the ones we hear a lot, and then there’s the mass of people we don”t hear and who, I think, are waiting until the government says it is time. (...) Respecting the rules, even ones we may think are exaggerated, but are there to fight an epidemic, that relates to the common good for which politics in this case has responsibility. We Catholics, in a country as fractured as ours, we have the duty to serve this unity.”
The bit I've highlighted in bold is what I'm increasingly feeling: sometimes I think that just as you never hear about/from middle of the road Muslims (they must all be terrorists), increasingly the only Catholics you hear about in France are the extreme end. So people think we're all like that.
In my own parish, before churches were actually shut for services etc they were beginning to organise having Sunday 3 masses instead of one. I was pleasantly surprised by this given the style of our two priests...
It still contains two contradictions. One is the claim that "this is advice, not instruction or law" when it very clearly is instruction. The other is that the CofE has gone further than the Government which has explicitly permitted the broadcast of the services from empty religious buildings by lone clergy (etc). Mind you my own denomination has strongly advised against this although ultimately they cannot "tell" local churches what to do.
Yes, I noticed that, too.
As before, the Bishops, when advised by the government to jump, instruct their clergy to LEAP EVEN HIGHER...
As another resident of France, and a pretty ordinary Catholic, I sympathise, nay agree, with Eutychus' interpretation of the French bishops' statements he's been talking about.
I can't tell you how happy I was to read in an article in Le Monde (for Sunday/Monday 3-4 May, don't think I can link to it, I have the actual newspaper) statements made apparently last Thursday by the archbishop of Reims - who happens to be the Head of the Bishops' conference (my own translation) :
“Some statements, not by bishops but by others, tend to present matters as a situation of persecution, and I am of the opinion that this is not very respectful of people who truly are persecuted. We do not yet have a goulag in France and we are not at risk of prison or torture.”
After saying that the vast majority of churchgoers would follow the measures laid down by the government, he is then quoted as saying,
“As ever, you have the people who talk very loud, the ones we hear a lot, and then there’s the mass of people we don”t hear and who, I think, are waiting until the government says it is time. (...) Respecting the rules, even ones we may think are exaggerated, but are there to fight an epidemic, that relates to the common good for which politics in this case has responsibility. We Catholics, in a country as fractured as ours, we have the duty to serve this unity.”
The bit I've highlighted in bold is what I'm increasingly feeling: sometimes I think that just as you never hear about/from middle of the road Muslims (they must all be terrorists), increasingly the only Catholics you hear about in France are the extreme end. So people think we're all like that.
In my own parish, before churches were actually shut for services etc they were beginning to organise having Sunday 3 masses instead of one. I was pleasantly surprised by this given the style of our two priests...
Some good points. Empty vessels make the most noise!
Thanks, @Black Cat. Your post seems to confirm my suspicion that those living in France see the original statement through the lens of a broader context than might be readily apparent to those not living in France.
As before, the Bishops, when advised by the government to jump, instruct their clergy to LEAP EVEN HIGHER...
But wouldn't they get tangled up in their robes, or get tripped by their croziers?
(Naughty thought: the CofE is an Established Church, with Bishops sitting in the Lords. Does this mean that they are naturally inclined to over-support Government edicts? We hardly seem to be seeing the radicalism of Faith in the City, or even of ++Runcie daring to publicly remember all the dead after the Falklands war).
As before, the Bishops, when advised by the government to jump, instruct their clergy to LEAP EVEN HIGHER...
But wouldn't they get tangled up in their robes, or get tripped by their croziers?
(Naughty thought: the CofE is an Established Church, with Bishops sitting in the Lords. Does this mean that they are naturally inclined to over-support Government edicts? We hardly seem to be seeing the radicalism of Faith in the City, or even of ++Runcie daring to publicly remember all the dead after the Falklands war).
Possibly the current crop of Bishops are reluctant to cause too much of a fuss lest the church be afflicted with a repeat of Thatcher's Revenge (or George Carey as he is otherwise known).
I did rather wonder if the Bees and Archbees (that's what FatherInCharge calls them...) are indeed scared of offending what passes for 'government'.
The LEAPING clergy might get tangled up in their cassocks, but only the Jumping Bees and Archbees have croziers...
(BTW, the Primus of the Scottish Episcopal Church has a 'proper' shepherd's crook, on which he can lean, and blether - his word - in approved shepherding style!).
Possibly the current crop of Bishops are reluctant to cause too much of a fuss lest the church be afflicted with a repeat of Thatcher's Revenge (or George Carey as he is otherwise known).
The point you're missing is that however meddlesome, priests have a constitutional voice in the UK in a way they absolutely don't in France.
Possibly the current crop of Bishops are reluctant to cause too much of a fuss lest the church be afflicted with a repeat of Thatcher's Revenge (or George Carey as he is otherwise known).
The point you're missing is that however meddlesome, priests have a constitutional voice in the UK in a way they absolutely don't in France.
I didn't miss it, I just didn't see anything that needed to be said about it.
Possibly the current crop of Bishops are reluctant to cause too much of a fuss lest the church be afflicted with a repeat of Thatcher's Revenge (or George Carey as he is otherwise known).
The point you're missing is that however meddlesome, priests have a constitutional voice in the UK in a way they absolutely don't in France.
Fair comment - the situations are indeed different.
Possibly the current crop of Bishops are reluctant to cause too much of a fuss lest the church be afflicted with a repeat of Thatcher's Revenge (or George Carey as he is otherwise known).
The point you're missing is that however meddlesome, priests have a constitutional voice in the UK in a way they absolutely don't in France.
Fair comment - the situations are indeed different.
Although Nonconformists - not to mention other significant religious groups - aren't always happy with the British situation. Some (not all by any means) would say that the Bishops should have no right to sit in Parliament; more would say that Parliament shouldn't have any jurisdiction over purely Church decisions.
The point you're missing is that however meddlesome, priests have a constitutional voice in the UK in a way they absolutely don't in France.
True Eutychus, although they still have a social role.
However, my feeling about recent trends (over a few years) in media noise about the Catholic church in France is that the more reactionary elements are getting, or are best at getting, most of the attention. Personally I'm seeing a shift in clergy styles and attitudes that make me think "this is what anti-Vatican II people must have felt like 50 years ago"! A lot of it even reminds me of certain not very welcoming evangelical attitudes I came across at university in the UK a long time ago.... And the effects in my own parish are clear in a massive focus on the liturgy and sacraments (with the unspoken reproach that we were doing it all wrong) that has rather diminished the social aspects of parish life. But this is getting off topic.
Suffice to say, I have the impression that "we Catholics are being repressed" is gaining ground in France in certain circles along with the myths that France is somehow special among Catholic countries and that Muslims can do whatever they like. These circles are often in the well-off ends of society. I suspect most parishioners, especially the worried elderly, are not in such a hurry to rush back to a big mass if it's not sensible. I wish they'd show more concern for helping out confined lonely people right now.
Yes, absolutely. My local bishop is definitely typical of the mindset you describe and l detect a definite cooling on ecumenism at many levels. Sadly the current crisis seems to have exacerbated that, which l was not expecting.
Possibly the current crop of Bishops are reluctant to cause too much of a fuss lest the church be afflicted with a repeat of Thatcher's Revenge (or George Carey as he is otherwise known).
The point you're missing is that however meddlesome, priests have a constitutional voice in the UK in a way they absolutely don't in France.
Fair comment - the situations are indeed different.
Although Nonconformists - not to mention other significant religious groups - aren't always happy with the British situation. Some (not all by any means) would say that the Bishops should have no right to sit in Parliament; more would say that Parliament shouldn't have any jurisdiction over purely Church decisions.
Understood - and not all Anglicans are necessarily happy with being The State Church™.
Part of me thinks that the C of E would be better off disestablished (shock! horror!), and left to sink or swim with everyone else. The other part thinks that our privileged position gives us certain opportunities...which I couldn't offhand list, but which others may come up with!
Bit of a tangent here - but perhaps stuff for another thread in due course.
I think that one of the things which really infuriates Christians of Other Denominations is the tacit assumption, by the CofE in England and - presumably - by the RCC in France, that they are "The Church" when they are only part of it. The CinW would like to do the same but they are numerically small, disestablished and have never figured in Welsh identity as have the chapels. I can't speak for the CofS which of course is a very different animal.
I'm in favour of disestablishment, but many theoretically dissenting/nonconformist/new churches in the UK wouldn't know what had hit them. You can stop all that meeting in school premises for starters.
Suffice to say, I have the impression that "we Catholics are being repressed" is gaining ground in France in certain circles along with the myths that France is somehow special ... and that Muslims can do whatever they like.
Quite a few British Evangelicals are saying much the same.
I'm in favour of disestablishment, but many theoretically dissenting/nonconformist/new churches in the UK wouldn't know what had hit them. You can stop all that meeting in school premises for starters.
Not quite sure what you mean by that - would you care to unpack it a bit, if it's not too much of a tangent?
I'm in favour of disestablishment, but many theoretically dissenting/nonconformist/new churches in the UK wouldn't know what had hit them. You can stop all that meeting in school premises for starters.
Disestablishment =/= France's aggressive paranoid secularism. Why should disestablishment prevent a church from using a room or hall at a school the same as any other community group?
Because, if it worked as it does in France, the state school is supposed to remain strictly areligious. But things can work differently in different cultural settings with different histories.
For example, you don't get evening classes happening in French schools either.
Because, if it worked as it does in France, the state school is supposed to remain strictly areligious. Things could conceivably work differently in a different cultural setting.
Churches use public school space in the U.S. all the time. Schools can allow their premises to be used by religious groups; they just can’t favor one religious group over another.
Because, if it worked as it does in France, the state school is supposed to remain strictly areligious. Things could conceivably work differently in a different cultural setting.
Wales, for example. Or Northern Ireland. The Anglican churches in both have been disestablished. We don't have to look to France to see what disestablishment looks like. Heck, even the Church of Scotland is not established, as such, and the Scottish Episcopal Church was disestablished in 1689 (and only relieved of the last the restrictive laws on it in the 70s).
ISTM the French secular/religious tension is at least as complicated as the US version. Sort of inside-out, reverse of each other. But both have deep roots, thickets of idea-plants, assorted prickly things--and none of it getting resolved anytime soon.
Possibly the current crop of Bishops are reluctant to cause too much of a fuss lest the church be afflicted with a repeat of Thatcher's Revenge (or George Carey as he is otherwise known).
The point you're missing is that however meddlesome, priests have a constitutional voice in the UK in a way they absolutely don't in France.
Fair comment - the situations are indeed different.
Although Nonconformists - not to mention other significant religious groups - aren't always happy with the British situation. Some (not all by any means) would say that the Bishops should have no right to sit in Parliament; more would say that Parliament shouldn't have any jurisdiction over purely Church decisions.
Understood - and not all Anglicans are necessarily happy with being The State Church™.
Part of me thinks that the C of E would be better off disestablished (shock! horror!), and left to sink or swim with everyone else. The other part thinks that our privileged position gives us certain opportunities...which I couldn't offhand list, but which others may come up with!
Bit of a tangent here - but perhaps stuff for another thread in due course.
Yes the CofE has opportunities that no other church or denomination has. I would question whether it uses, or even whether it has ever used, such privileges in any other way apart from attempts to benefit itself.
The French Council of State, the highest civil court of appeal in France, has ordered the government to relax the total ban on relgious gatherings on the grounds that
l’interdiction générale et absolue présente un caractère disproportionné au regard de l’objectif de préservation de la santé publique et constitue ainsi, eu égard au caractère essentiel de cette composante de la liberté de culte, une atteinte grave et manifestement illégale à cette dernière.
The total and blanket ban is disproportionate in view of the aim of protecting the health of the public and thus, given that this component of freedom of religion [gathering for worship] is an essential one, constitutes serious and manifestly unlawful prejudice to this freedom
Those are quite strong words in the ruling that certainly put down a marker as to the limits of the state's right to interfere with religious practice.
While the limits of the state's right are thus firmly set, opinions vary on how much good sense is involved here. The case was brought by individuals and charities who, while unnamed, are clearly mostly if not all Catholic, and the Conference of Bishops has welcomed the move without actually making the challenge itself. All other major religions have expressed reservations in how this ruling might be applied in view of the health concerns. The Muslims have pointed out that relaxing the restrictions proportionately might, at present, mean gatherings of up to 10 or 15 people are allowed, and no more. We await a decree of application some time next week.
The French Council of State, the highest civil court of appeal in France, has ordered the government to relax the total ban on relgious gatherings on the grounds that
l’interdiction générale et absolue présente un caractère disproportionné au regard de l’objectif de préservation de la santé publique et constitue ainsi, eu égard au caractère essentiel de cette composante de la liberté de culte, une atteinte grave et manifestement illégale à cette dernière.
The total and blanket ban is disproportionate in view of the aim of protecting the health of the public and thus, given that this component of freedom of religion [gathering for worship] is an essential one, constitutes serious and manifestly unlawful prejudice to this freedom
Those are quite strong words in the ruling that certainly put down a marker as to the limits of the state's right to interfere with religious practice.
While the limits of the state's right are thus firmly set, opinions vary on how much good sense is involved here. The case was brought by individuals and charities who, while unnamed, are clearly mostly if not all Catholic, and the Conference of Bishops has welcomed the move without actually making the challenge itself. All other major religions have expressed reservations in how this ruling might be applied in view of the health concerns. The Muslims have pointed out that relaxing the restrictions proportionately might, at present, mean gatherings of up to 10 or 15 people are allowed, and no more. We await a decree of application some time next week.
This is welcome to the Catholics of France, for sure, and perhaps to others as well, but, of course, EVERYONE is free to exercise their right NOT to attend church if they feel it is still not safe to do so.
It will be interesting (and perhaps salutary) to see how many do return, both in France and, eventually, the UK.
This is welcome to the Catholics of France, for sure, and perhaps to others as well, but, of course, EVERYONE is free to exercise their right NOT to attend church if they feel it is still not safe to do so.
"All those exercising their right not to participate in the war, please feel free to ignore the bullets wizzin' about yer 'ead."
This is welcome to the Catholics of France, for sure, and perhaps to others as well, but, of course, EVERYONE is free to exercise their right NOT to attend church if they feel it is still not safe to do so.
Until the "Sundays and holy days" obligation is reasserted -- in which case, a lot of people who really shouldn't go out will be passive-aggressively shamed into doing so, out of fear that they'll go to Hell.
In a surprise development overnight, the French Interior Ministry is allowing acts of worship - as of tomorrow.
Full details are yet to be published, but basically it will involve distancing, gel, and masks for all.
The timing is significant. The Catholic Episcopate had been lobbying hard (and publicly, at least, in complete isolation) for services to be authorised as of May 31, for Pentecost. Tomorrow, however, is Eid al-Fitr.
There is undoubtedly a pragmatic aspect to this decision - the authorities probably figure better health measures will be implemented by allowing the Eid to happen in mosques than clandestinely - but I think there's also a political aspect: the State is in effect sending a message to the Catholics they are not the only religion in France that counts.
And I, for one, am glad that our Muslim brothers and sisters, can celebrate Eid amongst other ways, with public prayers, whilst, of course ,respecting distances etc.
As article 1 of the code of separation of Religion and State says ' the Republic assures liberty of conscience and guarantees the free exercise of religious rites , the only restrictions being those which affect public order.'
It was most heartening to see that a number of people had turned up this morning to take part in the Mass at the grotto in Lourdes, braving driving rain to do so.
Eid Mubarak !
It was most heartening to see that a number of people had turned up this morning to take part in the Mass at the grotto in Lourdes, braving driving rain to do so.
I'm willing to be corrected on this, but so far as I can see they are as yet breaking the law. A the time of writing, the relevant decree with all the details does not appear to have been published, and the measure applies only once it has been.
Comments
If the answer is "no, we can't be flexible about it," then that's that. But it's sounding like maybe the answer is "yes, maybe we can be a little flexible."
From what I have been hearing, it ll be nothing like letting the cows out after winter. Non of that jolly leaping and prancing about.
More that a series of dribs and drabs .
Mrs X can go to church and her mother can and two of the children.
But Mr X can’t (severe asthma), the grandfather can’t (age) and Mrs X’s smallest is undiagnosed with Covid19 complications that no one really understands yet.
Heavens. It could be another year before that extended family get to worship altogether in the same building.
Tell me I m being pessimistic??
Realistic, yes. Possibly (hopefully) things will not be quite so bad, but it's as well to be aware that they might be so.
(Showing my age
And upbringing
Apologies....)
Another way of looking at it , is that this is and always has been reality for loads of people.
Heck it wasn’t so long ago that folk who relied on wheelchairs couldn’t get Into a church building.
Religious freedom seems to be an elastic phrase
It's clear we won't have holy water in the stoups, or share the common cup, in the near future. I'm expecting that when the Bishop allows us to hold physical services, we'll continue zoom Morning Prayer for those who don't (for whatever reason) want to come to church. We'll see how happy people are with it being lay-led (as the priest will be in church!)
But "when lockdown ends" has a real meaning - it is the point where the civil authority stops saying "you may not gather" and starts saying "you may gather with caution and suitable precautions."
When restrictions get lifted, it will be gradual, a lot of people will still be subject to them, and many of those that strictly aren't won't be confident about emerging into any sort of sociable life.
https://churchofengland.org/more/media-centre/news/house-bishops-backs-phased-approach-revising-access-church-buildings
I can't tell you how happy I was to read in an article in Le Monde (for Sunday/Monday 3-4 May, don't think I can link to it, I have the actual newspaper) statements made apparently last Thursday by the archbishop of Reims - who happens to be the Head of the Bishops' conference (my own translation) :
“Some statements, not by bishops but by others, tend to present matters as a situation of persecution, and I am of the opinion that this is not very respectful of people who truly are persecuted. We do not yet have a goulag in France and we are not at risk of prison or torture.”
After saying that the vast majority of churchgoers would follow the measures laid down by the government, he is then quoted as saying,
“As ever, you have the people who talk very loud, the ones we hear a lot, and then there’s the mass of people we don”t hear and who, I think, are waiting until the government says it is time. (...) Respecting the rules, even ones we may think are exaggerated, but are there to fight an epidemic, that relates to the common good for which politics in this case has responsibility. We Catholics, in a country as fractured as ours, we have the duty to serve this unity.”
The bit I've highlighted in bold is what I'm increasingly feeling: sometimes I think that just as you never hear about/from middle of the road Muslims (they must all be terrorists), increasingly the only Catholics you hear about in France are the extreme end. So people think we're all like that.
In my own parish, before churches were actually shut for services etc they were beginning to organise having Sunday 3 masses instead of one. I was pleasantly surprised by this given the style of our two priests...
Yes, I noticed that, too.
As before, the Bishops, when advised by the government to jump, instruct their clergy to LEAP EVEN HIGHER...
Some good points. Empty vessels make the most noise!
(Naughty thought: the CofE is an Established Church, with Bishops sitting in the Lords. Does this mean that they are naturally inclined to over-support Government edicts? We hardly seem to be seeing the radicalism of Faith in the City, or even of ++Runcie daring to publicly remember all the dead after the Falklands war).
Possibly the current crop of Bishops are reluctant to cause too much of a fuss lest the church be afflicted with a repeat of Thatcher's Revenge (or George Carey as he is otherwise known).
The LEAPING clergy might get tangled up in their cassocks, but only the Jumping Bees and Archbees have croziers...
(BTW, the Primus of the Scottish Episcopal Church has a 'proper' shepherd's crook, on which he can lean, and blether - his word - in approved shepherding style!).
A Vengeful Thatcher would presumably use a Twister, Drill Driver, Set Pin, Leggett and Spar Hook, among other tools. The handbag is optional.
I didn't miss it, I just didn't see anything that needed to be said about it.
Fair comment - the situations are indeed different.
True Eutychus, although they still have a social role.
However, my feeling about recent trends (over a few years) in media noise about the Catholic church in France is that the more reactionary elements are getting, or are best at getting, most of the attention. Personally I'm seeing a shift in clergy styles and attitudes that make me think "this is what anti-Vatican II people must have felt like 50 years ago"! A lot of it even reminds me of certain not very welcoming evangelical attitudes I came across at university in the UK a long time ago.... And the effects in my own parish are clear in a massive focus on the liturgy and sacraments (with the unspoken reproach that we were doing it all wrong) that has rather diminished the social aspects of parish life. But this is getting off topic.
Suffice to say, I have the impression that "we Catholics are being repressed" is gaining ground in France in certain circles along with the myths that France is somehow special among Catholic countries and that Muslims can do whatever they like. These circles are often in the well-off ends of society. I suspect most parishioners, especially the worried elderly, are not in such a hurry to rush back to a big mass if it's not sensible. I wish they'd show more concern for helping out confined lonely people right now.
Understood - and not all Anglicans are necessarily happy with being The State Church™.
Part of me thinks that the C of E would be better off disestablished (shock! horror!), and left to sink or swim with everyone else. The other part thinks that our privileged position gives us certain opportunities...which I couldn't offhand list, but which others may come up with!
Bit of a tangent here - but perhaps stuff for another thread in due course.
Not quite sure what you mean by that - would you care to unpack it a bit, if it's not too much of a tangent?
Disestablishment =/= France's aggressive paranoid secularism. Why should disestablishment prevent a church from using a room or hall at a school the same as any other community group?
For example, you don't get evening classes happening in French schools either.
Wales, for example. Or Northern Ireland. The Anglican churches in both have been disestablished. We don't have to look to France to see what disestablishment looks like. Heck, even the Church of Scotland is not established, as such, and the Scottish Episcopal Church was disestablished in 1689 (and only relieved of the last the restrictive laws on it in the 70s).
Yes the CofE has opportunities that no other church or denomination has. I would question whether it uses, or even whether it has ever used, such privileges in any other way apart from attempts to benefit itself.
While the limits of the state's right are thus firmly set, opinions vary on how much good sense is involved here. The case was brought by individuals and charities who, while unnamed, are clearly mostly if not all Catholic, and the Conference of Bishops has welcomed the move without actually making the challenge itself. All other major religions have expressed reservations in how this ruling might be applied in view of the health concerns. The Muslims have pointed out that relaxing the restrictions proportionately might, at present, mean gatherings of up to 10 or 15 people are allowed, and no more. We await a decree of application some time next week.
Thanks @Eutychus.
This is welcome to the Catholics of France, for sure, and perhaps to others as well, but, of course, EVERYONE is free to exercise their right NOT to attend church if they feel it is still not safe to do so.
It will be interesting (and perhaps salutary) to see how many do return, both in France and, eventually, the UK.
Until the "Sundays and holy days" obligation is reasserted -- in which case, a lot of people who really shouldn't go out will be passive-aggressively shamed into doing so, out of fear that they'll go to Hell.
Well, yes -- I certainly know a lot of traditionalist Catholics -- and Orthodox -- who believe exactly that.
I rather thought it was God who decided our Final Destination, not rules made by mankind...
Full details are yet to be published, but basically it will involve distancing, gel, and masks for all.
The timing is significant. The Catholic Episcopate had been lobbying hard (and publicly, at least, in complete isolation) for services to be authorised as of May 31, for Pentecost. Tomorrow, however, is Eid al-Fitr.
There is undoubtedly a pragmatic aspect to this decision - the authorities probably figure better health measures will be implemented by allowing the Eid to happen in mosques than clandestinely - but I think there's also a political aspect: the State is in effect sending a message to the Catholics they are not the only religion in France that counts.
As article 1 of the code of separation of Religion and State says ' the Republic assures liberty of conscience and guarantees the free exercise of religious rites , the only restrictions being those which affect public order.'
It was most heartening to see that a number of people had turned up this morning to take part in the Mass at the grotto in Lourdes, braving driving rain to do so.
Eid Mubarak !
I'm willing to be corrected on this, but so far as I can see they are as yet breaking the law. A the time of writing, the relevant decree with all the details does not appear to have been published, and the measure applies only once it has been.