And as far as the US goes, I think the language of the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ..." is pretty straightforward. [Italics added]
A governor shutting the churches down isn't Congress making a law.
@mousethief that particular pilpul wouldn't work here, and I'd be surprised if it does in the US. To UK jurisprudence , if Congress expressly can't make a law doing X, then nobody else has any derivative authority to do such a thing.
The thing is, the 1st Amendment DOES specify only "congress", and for quite some time this omission was interpreted as allowing, for example, states to have established churches, which a number of them did into the C19.
The idea that states and localities are similarly restricted only came to ascension relatively recently, I believe in the 1920s or so, as a result of the courts deciding that the post-CW Amendments covered all levels of government.
I gather that most of the Americans who are protesting places of worship being shut down are probably at the fund/evo end of the Christian spectrum. (Though I read the pope is upset that Italy won't let churches reopen.)
I think here in Britain the churches have generally not pit up much of a fuss or raised questions about religious freedom - but I guess the whole Christianity/Government relationship is very different to the US one.
What I certainly have come across is reaction among some traditional Anglicans to the edicts of their Archbishops who have gone further than the Government rules and said that clergy must not enter their church buildings even if it's to broadcast a service. I think that the High Church folk, for whom the "accidents" of worship may be more important than the Evangelicals, are the most annoyed by this. The Evangelicals, I guess, are more relaxed about worship being streamed from the Vicar's study.
As it happens my own denomination has strongly discouraged worship broadcast from the church building, but constitutionally they aren't in a position to ban it absolutely.
And as far as the US goes, I think the language of the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ..." is pretty straightforward. [Italics added]
A governor shutting the churches down isn't Congress making a law.
@mousethief that particular pilpul wouldn't work here, and I'd be surprised if it does in the US. To UK jurisprudence , if Congress expressly can't make a law doing X, then nobody else has any derivative authority to do such a thing.
The thing is, the 1st Amendment DOES specify only "congress", and for quite some time this omission was interpreted as allowing, for example, states to have established churches, which a number of them did into the C19.
The idea that states and localities are similarly restricted only came to ascension relatively recently, I believe in the 1920s or so, as a result of the courts deciding that the post-CW Amendments covered all levels of government.
It's the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Its language explicitly refer to the States, and courts have subsequently held that it incorporates most of the rest of the Bill of Rights as enforceable against state governments:
I gather that most of the Americans who are protesting places of worship being shut down are probably at the fund/evo end of the Christian spectrum. (Though I read the pope is upset that Italy won't let churches reopen.)
I think here in Britain the churches have generally not pit up much of a fuss or raised questions about religious freedom - but I guess the whole Christianity/Government relationship is very different to the US one.
What I certainly have come across is reaction among some traditional Anglicans to the edicts of their Archbishops who have gone further than the Government rules and said that clergy must not enter their church buildings even if it's to broadcast a service. I think that the High Church folk, for whom the "accidents" of worship may be more important than the Evangelicals, are the most annoyed by this. The Evangelicals, I guess, are more relaxed about worship being streamed from the Vicar's study.
As it happens my own denomination has strongly discouraged worship broadcast from the church building, but constitutionally they aren't in a position to ban it absolutely.
Some of the High Church C of E clergy are being quite inventive as to the setting-up of 'Mission Chapels' in their homes, or gardens!
Many - of all shades of churchmanship - are entering their churches from time to time (with permission), in order to check the security of the building, and I know that some will take the opportunity, whilst in the church, to say their Office, and to light a candle or several...
I await with interest any relaxation of lockdown which might permit a return to the building for public prayer. Our Place is more than big enough to accommodate a small group, maintaining social distancing, whether it's individuals praying privately, or a more formal act of worship led by the priest.
Either way, I think the sensible precautions we began to get accustomed to, before the closure, will continue as part of 'the new normal'. Larger congregations than ours (30 on an average Sunday) may find it a bit more challenging...
And as far as the US goes, I think the language of the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ..." is pretty straightforward. [Italics added]
A governor shutting the churches down isn't Congress making a law.
@mousethief that particular pilpul wouldn't work here, and I'd be surprised if it does in the US. To UK jurisprudence , if Congress expressly can't make a law doing X, then nobody else has any derivative authority to do such a thing.
The thing is, the 1st Amendment DOES specify only "congress", and for quite some time this omission was interpreted as allowing, for example, states to have established churches, which a number of them did into the C19.
The idea that states and localities are similarly restricted only came to ascension relatively recently, I believe in the 1920s or so, as a result of the courts deciding that the post-CW Amendments covered all levels of government.
It's the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Its language explicitly refer to the States, and courts have subsequently held that it incorporates most of the rest of the Bill of Rights as enforceable against state governments:
And as far as the US goes, I think the language of the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ..." is pretty straightforward. [Italics added]
A governor shutting the churches down isn't Congress making a law.
14th Amendment says that doesn't matter. Governors can't shut down churches. Any Governor issuing a targeted order against churches would lose in short order.
But no Governor is issuing a targeted order against churches. Governors are issuing orders
about assemblies of people in the context of a public health emergency. It seems to me that these should generally pass constitutional muster - the first amendment does not, for example, permit a church to meet in an unsafe building that the city has condemned, and I think this is the same.
Those clamouring most for a return to public religious gatherings will also be the fit n healthy.
Some of us who pick up every bug and virus going have had practice in this strange new way of doing church........
Sorry, that sounds tetchy and is not meant to be.....
Tetchy is actually appropriate. Those who are fit and healthy are not showing much Christian concern for those who are not. They have to deal with mild inconvenience, you might die.
And as far as the US goes, I think the language of the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ..." is pretty straightforward. [Italics added]
A governor shutting the churches down isn't Congress making a law.
14th Amendment says that doesn't matter. Governors can't shut down churches. Any Governor issuing a targeted order against churches would lose in short order.
But no Governor is issuing a targeted order against churches. Governors are issuing orders
about assemblies of people in the context of a public health emergency. It seems to me that these should generally pass constitutional muster - the first amendment does not, for example, permit a church to meet in an unsafe building that the city has condemned, and I think this is the same.
As I recall, the First Amendment doesn't provide any protection against adverse effects of facially neutral laws. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act does (though one of the leading cases on the RFRA is Hobby Lobby which apparently isn't everyone's favourite case).
With the RFRA American law is essentially similiar to Canadian law on this issue - adverse effects under facially neutral laws are permissible as long as they're justified under a proportionality test. Right now I don't think any sensible person is going to question the proportionality of what governments are doing. This may become a messier issue once some of the restrictions start to loosen though.
I read that the woman who's the head of the GOP (Republican party) in Arizona has suggested that the anti-shutdown protestors should dress in scrubs, so they don't stand out around med folk!
Gee, there's no way *that* could go wrong...
Is she related to the clueless mayor of Las Vegas?
And as far as the US goes, I think the language of the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ..." is pretty straightforward. [Italics added]
A governor shutting the churches down isn't Congress making a law.
@mousethief that particular pilpul wouldn't work here, and I'd be surprised if it does in the US. To UK jurisprudence , if Congress expressly can't make a law doing X, then nobody else has any derivative authority to do such a thing.
Our lockdown (if we are good) is set to be partially relaxed on May 11. Religious services are not set to resume before June 2. The Catholic Conference of Bishops has immediately started protesting loudly, saying things like "perhaps you have to be a believer to understand how impatient we are to be able to start worshipping properly again".
Possibly. My point is that this is an institutional church - not a marginal sect - complaining, essentially, that its basic religious freedoms are being unduly infringed on.
It also serves to fuel my conviction that the French Catholic church sees the secular state as an aberration that, having only been around since 1905, will pass if only it keeps its eyes shut long enough.
Our lockdown (if we are good) is set to be partially relaxed on May 11. Religious services are not set to resume before June 2. The Catholic Conference of Bishops has immediately started protesting loudly, saying things like "perhaps you have to be a believer to understand how impatient we are to be able to start worshipping properly again".
I suppose how I feel about this depends on which activities will be allowed on May 11. If you start allowing activities that look to me to have a similar risk profile as going to church, but tell me I can't go to church, then I'm going to be upset with you. If what you're allowing is limited to much less personal contact than what can reasonably be achieved in church, then it sounds more reasonable.
I don't have an exhaustive list, but cafés and restaurants, for instance, will not be open before June 2 AIUI. But apparently only believers are allowed to be frustrated.
And as far as the US goes, I think the language of the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ..." is pretty straightforward. [Italics added]
A governor shutting the churches down isn't Congress making a law.
@mousethief that particular pilpul wouldn't work here, and I'd be surprised if it does in the US. To UK jurisprudence , if Congress expressly can't make a law doing X, then nobody else has any derivative authority to do such a thing.
If Congress really does derive its authority from the states, wouldn't it have to follow that states can secede? Or that if they can't, that could only be enforced by the other states and not by the union?
This event seems to have put the cat among the pigeons (apologies if this isn't the best source to quote, the "New York Times" is behind a paywall): https://tinyurl.com/ya9est6t
If Congress really does derive its authority from the states, wouldn't it have to follow that states can secede? Or that if they can't, that could only be enforced by the other states and not by the union?
Probably they can here, but there's no provision for it in the Constitution. I can't speak for the US position.
If Congress really does derive its authority from the states, wouldn't it have to follow that states can secede? Or that if they can't, that could only be enforced by the other states and not by the union?
Probably they can here, but there's no provision for it in the Constitution. I can't speak for the US position.
The last time somebody tried, didn't they have a war about it?
I don't have an exhaustive list, but cafés and restaurants, for instance, will not be open before June 2 AIUI. But apparently only believers are allowed to be frustrated.
I think the more analagous thing is theatres. Which are very much still closed.
This event seems to have put the cat among the pigeons (apologies if this isn't the best source to quote, the "New York Times" is behind a paywall): https://tinyurl.com/ya9est6t
Jewish community activist Isaac Abraham said the mayoral criticism rang hollow after large crowds congregated across the city earlier on Tuesday to watch the Blue Angels and Thunderbirds fly overhead.
“The crowd for the fighter jets today were around longer than the funeral,” Abraham said.
I think this offers an interesting dividing line: those religious groups who see being models of responsible citizenship as part of their testimony, and those engaging in special pleading (cf the above comments on "having to be a believer to understand the frustration") on grounds of being... special.
I think this offers an interesting dividing line: those religious groups who see being models of responsible citizenship as part of their testimony, and those engaging in special pleading (cf the above comments on "having to be a believer to understand the frustration") on grounds of being... special.
My Jesus,
I believe that you are present in this Holy Sacrament of the altar.
I love you above all things
and I passionately desire to receive you into my soul.
Since I cannot now receive you sacramentally,
come spiritually into my soul
so that I may unite myself wholly to you now and forever.
Amen
Anyway, it was a reminder to me that it is always possible to express faith and obey social restrictions intended for the benefit of all. Love does not insist on its own way.
If Congress really does derive its authority from the states, wouldn't it have to follow that states can secede? Or that if they can't, that could only be enforced by the other states and not by the union?
Probably they can here, but there's no provision for it in the Constitution. I can't speak for the US position.
The last time somebody tried, didn't they have a war about it?
Though it should be noted that the slavers fired the first shot in that instance.
In the local church here we could all spread out, open the windows , have a service and (in all probability) emerge unscathed and not annoy the neighbours.
Not that I am advocating this!
Not so my alternative church in nearby town.
There is not enough room to space out there. Opening the windows would annoy the heck out of neighbours.
It's precisely because you can't address particular cases that a blanket rule is imposed.
If your usual church were to do as you imagine, the message that would come across to the neighbours would be that the church thought itself to be above the rules and no amount of explaining would dispel that impression.
The Catholics here have tiny attendances in huge buildings, but their whining is making them look like entitled brats.
My Jesus,
I believe that you are present in this Holy Sacrament of the altar.
I love you above all things
and I passionately desire to receive you into my soul.
Since I cannot now receive you sacramentally,
come spiritually into my soul
so that I may unite myself wholly to you now and forever.
Amen
Anyway, it was a reminder to me that it is always possible to express faith and obey social restrictions intended for the benefit of all. Love does not insist on its own way.
In any of the Scottish Episcopal Church services I've viewed so far, this prayer is what is replacing the distribution and reception part of the Eucharist for streamed or recorded services. The elements are consecrated and then there's a cut, someone says this prayer, and we return to the post communion part of the service. I don't know what happens to the consecrated elements, but nothing is consumed on camera.
This letter might be helpful in encouraging continuing patience from SEC congregations.
If Congress really does derive its authority from the states, wouldn't it have to follow that states can secede? Or that if they can't, that could only be enforced by the other states and not by the union?
Probably they can here, but there's no provision for it in the Constitution. I can't speak for the US position.
The last time somebody tried, didn't they have a war about it?
With victory to those who said that you could not - I wouldn't count that as much of a precedent,
In the local church here we could all spread out, open the windows , have a service and (in all probability) emerge unscathed and not annoy the neighbours.
Having the windows open might annoy the neighbours ...
My Jesus,
I believe that you are present in this Holy Sacrament of the altar.
I love you above all things
and I passionately desire to receive you into my soul.
Since I cannot now receive you sacramentally,
come spiritually into my soul
so that I may unite myself wholly to you now and forever.
Amen
Anyway, it was a reminder to me that it is always possible to express faith and obey social restrictions intended for the benefit of all. Love does not insist on its own way.
That prayer has been used in on-line Anglican services here.
In the local church here we could all spread out, open the windows , have a service and (in all probability) emerge unscathed and not annoy the neighbours.
Having the windows open might annoy the neighbours ...
If it's anything like my local church the neighbours are far enough away that they wouldn't hear a thing even with all the doors and windows open and the organ cranked up the maximum.
My church would be all right too (and we haven't got an organ). I've checked round outside on noisy Youth Club evenings and you can hardly hear a thing. However there's a church near my house which (a) has very poor soundproofing, (b) hosts lots of parties and discos, and (c) gets very hot in warm weather so the windows get opened. During the summer things are most annoying, and the church folk I've talked to don't seem to care much although the neighbours have made a lot of negative comments!
If Congress really does derive its authority from the states, wouldn't it have to follow that states can secede? Or that if they can't, that could only be enforced by the other states and not by the union?
There were those who thought that followed. It has been noted how that position fared.
The structure in the US is that via the Constitution, which was drafted by representatives of the states and which was ratified by each state, certain powers that otherwise would rest with the states have been delegated by the states (or the people of the states, if you will) to the federal government to exercise, in some cases exclusively, for the benefit of the states/the people of the states collectively. This is reflected in the Tenth Amendment, the last of the ten amendments comprising the Bill of Rights:
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.“
I am sorry Eutychus but I have heard on TV news programmes in France restaurateurs expressing their frustration at not being able to open. No idea whether these were Catholic restaurateurs or not. Of course you are quite right, as indeed is also the Conference of Bishops correct, in saying that one would have to be a believer to understand the desire that some Christians would have, not only to receive Holy Communion but also to be able to worship together. The Church is more than a collection of individual Christians who each have their own ideas - it is one Body, the Body of Christ.
Could it not simply be your interpretation of the bishops' remarks that Catholics (in France and no doubt elsewhere) are whining brats claiming special entitlement ?.
@Forthview The clear implication of my local bishop's remarks is that the church deserves to receive preferential treatment to restaurant, theatre, and cinema owners in terms of when they can reopen, based on an allegedly superior ability to comply properly with restrictions and the intrinsic superior importance of corporate worship.
All of this may be true, but to my mind it is a really dumb thing to make the focus of your public communication in the secular press. The message that comes across is that the Church is more interested in maintaining its own programme than in public health considerations and national solidarity.
I would have thought that, in a properly secular society, it was perfectly in order for the Church or any other sector of society to put forward its case - but not to engage in special pleading or assert a position of privilege.
Of course it could well be that some countries have misunderstood "secular" as meaning "anti-religion"; in this situation religious groups do have real trouble in making their positions known.
Of course it could well be that some countries have misunderstood "secular" as meaning "anti-religion"; in this situation religious groups do have real trouble in making their positions known.
In France the two understandings of 'secular' are battling it out. And my conviction is that the official line of the Catholic church fuels the anti-religion side. They clearly see the state as the Enemy™, and that is clearly linked to their territorial understanding of the Church. They just can't see that it is totally and utterly outmoded, much to the frustration of many grassroots Catholics.
I have far more sympathy with restaurateurs who want to reopen than with churches. Many owners of small restaurants are staring bankruptcy in the face if they can't get back into business quickly. I don't think that's the case for the Chuch of Rome.
Can't speak for France - but there are many small self-supporting churches in the UK, especially in poorer areas, that have seen their income collapse because (a) most of the attenders' giving comes in cash on Sunday mornings, they're not having services and don't want to put pressure on members who may well have lost their income too; (b) they can't put on fund-raising events; (c) they can no longer hire out their hall to community groups, keep-fit classes or children's parties.
In France the two understandings of 'secular' are battling it out. And my conviction is that the official line of the Catholic church fuels the anti-religion side. They clearly see the state as the Enemy™, and that is clearly linked to their territorial understanding of the Church. They just can't see that it is totally and utterly outmoded, much to the frustration of many grassroots Catholics.
The whole discourse around the Notre Dame fire was interesting in that respect: to what extent is the cathedral perceived as "Catholic" and to what extent "State" or "Nation"? (I'm not thinking of its legal status). Mind you, one might ask the same question of Westminster Abbey though less so in the case of St. Paul's.
I also ,la vie en rouge, have sympathy and probably more sympathy for restaurateurs than for the opening of churches. Indeed the Catholic church and many other religious communities are well cushioned in France since they do not have financial responsibility for most religious buildings built before the separation of Church and State.
I don't think that the 'Church of Rome' as you call it would be thinking of money, but just possibly rather of the spiritual welfare of its followers. Irrespective of the serious problems facing many small businesses of all sorts ( and larger ones also) I think that Eutychus was suggesting that it was only the Catholic Church which was complaining about not being able to open.
May I suggest that it is silly to mention the Church of Rome in the way that you did. Surely in the same breath one might ask 'why doesn't the French State sell off the Palace of Versailles to the highest bidder and add to that the various chateaux de la Loire ? ' Undoubtedly that would solve a few financial problems for those facing bankruptcy.
According to the press which I have read , which,of course may be biased,the Prime minister consulted the Catholic bishops and those responsible for other religious communities about the way forward which they might suggest when France comes out of lockdown.
The Catholic bishops said that their followers had been 'exemplary citizens' during the lockdown but indicated to the Minister that 'nothing replaces our churches and the possibilities of receiving the sacraments' They suggested that religious services might begin in stages with no more than 100 people, presumably in these 'big empty churches' which Eutychus mentions. They mentioned the 11th May as that is the time, if all goes well, that schools and much of the social and economic life will restart.
Comments
The thing is, the 1st Amendment DOES specify only "congress", and for quite some time this omission was interpreted as allowing, for example, states to have established churches, which a number of them did into the C19.
The idea that states and localities are similarly restricted only came to ascension relatively recently, I believe in the 1920s or so, as a result of the courts deciding that the post-CW Amendments covered all levels of government.
What I certainly have come across is reaction among some traditional Anglicans to the edicts of their Archbishops who have gone further than the Government rules and said that clergy must not enter their church buildings even if it's to broadcast a service. I think that the High Church folk, for whom the "accidents" of worship may be more important than the Evangelicals, are the most annoyed by this. The Evangelicals, I guess, are more relaxed about worship being streamed from the Vicar's study.
As it happens my own denomination has strongly discouraged worship broadcast from the church building, but constitutionally they aren't in a position to ban it absolutely.
It's the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Its language explicitly refer to the States, and courts have subsequently held that it incorporates most of the rest of the Bill of Rights as enforceable against state governments:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights
Some of us who pick up every bug and virus going have had practice in this strange new way of doing church........
Sorry, that sounds tetchy and is not meant to be.....
Some of the High Church C of E clergy are being quite inventive as to the setting-up of 'Mission Chapels' in their homes, or gardens!
Many - of all shades of churchmanship - are entering their churches from time to time (with permission), in order to check the security of the building, and I know that some will take the opportunity, whilst in the church, to say their Office, and to light a candle or several...
I await with interest any relaxation of lockdown which might permit a return to the building for public prayer. Our Place is more than big enough to accommodate a small group, maintaining social distancing, whether it's individuals praying privately, or a more formal act of worship led by the priest.
Either way, I think the sensible precautions we began to get accustomed to, before the closure, will continue as part of 'the new normal'. Larger congregations than ours (30 on an average Sunday) may find it a bit more challenging...
Thanks. I knew it was one of the amendments in the early-to-mid teens, but I can never remember which one.
14th Amendment says that doesn't matter. Governors can't shut down churches. Any Governor issuing a targeted order against churches would lose in short order.
But no Governor is issuing a targeted order against churches. Governors are issuing orders
about assemblies of people in the context of a public health emergency. It seems to me that these should generally pass constitutional muster - the first amendment does not, for example, permit a church to meet in an unsafe building that the city has condemned, and I think this is the same.
As I recall, the First Amendment doesn't provide any protection against adverse effects of facially neutral laws. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act does (though one of the leading cases on the RFRA is Hobby Lobby which apparently isn't everyone's favourite case).
With the RFRA American law is essentially similiar to Canadian law on this issue - adverse effects under facially neutral laws are permissible as long as they're justified under a proportionality test. Right now I don't think any sensible person is going to question the proportionality of what governments are doing. This may become a messier issue once some of the restrictions start to loosen though.
Gee, there's no way *that* could go wrong...
Is she related to the clueless mayor of Las Vegas?
And the people protesting by and large aren't well noted for their understanding or giving-a-fuck-about evidence and science and shit like that.
Congress derives its authority from the states via the Constitution ratified by the states, not the other way around.
That's only an extra 3 weeks (although is it going to be possible to open churches for private prayer during that time?)
It also serves to fuel my conviction that the French Catholic church sees the secular state as an aberration that, having only been around since 1905, will pass if only it keeps its eyes shut long enough.
I suppose how I feel about this depends on which activities will be allowed on May 11. If you start allowing activities that look to me to have a similar risk profile as going to church, but tell me I can't go to church, then I'm going to be upset with you. If what you're allowing is limited to much less personal contact than what can reasonably be achieved in church, then it sounds more reasonable.
Nicely put, save that instead of saying states, I'd say the people organised in their states.
Probably they can here, but there's no provision for it in the Constitution. I can't speak for the US position.
I think the more analagous thing is theatres. Which are very much still closed.
I found this link.
And I thought this prayer was good.
Anyway, it was a reminder to me that it is always possible to express faith and obey social restrictions intended for the benefit of all. Love does not insist on its own way.
Though it should be noted that the slavers fired the first shot in that instance.
"Secession in the United States" (Wikipedia).
The "See also" section links to articles about attempts to partition states.
In the local church here we could all spread out, open the windows , have a service and (in all probability) emerge unscathed and not annoy the neighbours.
Not that I am advocating this!
Not so my alternative church in nearby town.
There is not enough room to space out there. Opening the windows would annoy the heck out of neighbours.
So having one rule For Churches, makes no sense
......at least makes no sense to me anyway.
If your usual church were to do as you imagine, the message that would come across to the neighbours would be that the church thought itself to be above the rules and no amount of explaining would dispel that impression.
The Catholics here have tiny attendances in huge buildings, but their whining is making them look like entitled brats.
In any of the Scottish Episcopal Church services I've viewed so far, this prayer is what is replacing the distribution and reception part of the Eucharist for streamed or recorded services. The elements are consecrated and then there's a cut, someone says this prayer, and we return to the post communion part of the service. I don't know what happens to the consecrated elements, but nothing is consumed on camera.
This letter might be helpful in encouraging continuing patience from SEC congregations.
With victory to those who said that you could not - I wouldn't count that as much of a precedent,
That prayer has been used in on-line Anglican services here.
If it's anything like my local church the neighbours are far enough away that they wouldn't hear a thing even with all the doors and windows open and the organ cranked up the maximum.
The structure in the US is that via the Constitution, which was drafted by representatives of the states and which was ratified by each state, certain powers that otherwise would rest with the states have been delegated by the states (or the people of the states, if you will) to the federal government to exercise, in some cases exclusively, for the benefit of the states/the people of the states collectively. This is reflected in the Tenth Amendment, the last of the ten amendments comprising the Bill of Rights:
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.“
Could it not simply be your interpretation of the bishops' remarks that Catholics (in France and no doubt elsewhere) are whining brats claiming special entitlement ?.
All of this may be true, but to my mind it is a really dumb thing to make the focus of your public communication in the secular press. The message that comes across is that the Church is more interested in maintaining its own programme than in public health considerations and national solidarity.
Of course it could well be that some countries have misunderstood "secular" as meaning "anti-religion"; in this situation religious groups do have real trouble in making their positions known.
In France the two understandings of 'secular' are battling it out. And my conviction is that the official line of the Catholic church fuels the anti-religion side. They clearly see the state as the Enemy™, and that is clearly linked to their territorial understanding of the Church. They just can't see that it is totally and utterly outmoded, much to the frustration of many grassroots Catholics.
I don't think that the 'Church of Rome' as you call it would be thinking of money, but just possibly rather of the spiritual welfare of its followers. Irrespective of the serious problems facing many small businesses of all sorts ( and larger ones also) I think that Eutychus was suggesting that it was only the Catholic Church which was complaining about not being able to open.
May I suggest that it is silly to mention the Church of Rome in the way that you did. Surely in the same breath one might ask 'why doesn't the French State sell off the Palace of Versailles to the highest bidder and add to that the various chateaux de la Loire ? ' Undoubtedly that would solve a few financial problems for those facing bankruptcy.
The Catholic bishops said that their followers had been 'exemplary citizens' during the lockdown but indicated to the Minister that 'nothing replaces our churches and the possibilities of receiving the sacraments' They suggested that religious services might begin in stages with no more than 100 people, presumably in these 'big empty churches' which Eutychus mentions. They mentioned the 11th May as that is the time, if all goes well, that schools and much of the social and economic life will restart.