Well you're the one who started it with the comparison of restaurants and churches. My point is that it's not a very good one.
I've heard the poor restaurateurs in tears because they're on the verge of losing their business and having to lay off all their staff, and the situation is not really comparable to that of the bishops.
@Forthview so far as I can tell the Catholic church in France is the only major denomination loudly complaining that collective worship is not being allowed as of May 11, in defiance of government recommendations, and as so often, it is claiming to speak on behalf of everybody else.
If you can point to another religious group in France making the same demands in the national media, go right ahead. The burden is on you to disprove my claim.
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.
I have every sympathy, and all the more so for those whose livelihood depends on these things. But none of this would induce me to demand that these activities be restored ahead of anybody else's that are comparable. And my church has a building that's stood empty since March 15. We don't intend opening it for public worship before the state decrees it safe to do so.
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"?
Specifically, we were treated to the surreal spectacle of the rabidly secularist Interior Minister standing in front of the burning building saying, René Magritte-like, "this is not a cathedral, it is a public good"; and my bishop going into the media saying "Our Lady [clever ambiguity about just who or what he is referring to there: Notre Dame, Mary, the Catholic church??] is the mother of us all". I'm not sure who annoyed me the most, but on balance, the latter. It's like the culture wars in the US. He is playing into the secularists' agenda to my mind.
The verb 'demander' in French does not mean as in English 'demand' but rather 'ask'.
I'm not referring to which verb they used. I'm referring to the sentiment they expressed. Can you find any other religious group in France expressing the same palpable frustration and sense of unfairness, in their press releases? Stop deflecting.
Being sacramental creates particular dilemmas. I don't know how big the Orthodox church is in France these days, now that all of the exiles of a century ago have died, but absent them, the Roman Catholic Church is in a unique dilemma in this respect. It is what it does together, because of seeing itself as defined by what happens at the altar. In that sense, the church doesn't exist without the ability to gather, and the current situation is a constant existential crisis. That is not true for churches with a different ecclesiology.
@Forthview so far as I can tell the Catholic church in France is the only major denomination loudly complaining that collective worship is not being allowed as of May 11, in defiance of government recommendations, and as so often, it is claiming to speak on behalf of everybody else.
If you can point to another religious group in France making the same demands in the national media, go right ahead. The burden is on you to disprove my claim.
@Eutychus to what extent in France do any of the other denominations have a sufficiently public presence that if they were to say anything, it would get reported or listened to by the public at large?
There is no burden of proof which I have to show. In a secular and, as you say non-Catholic country, you suggested that only the Catholic church didn't like not to be able to open in May. I said that some restaurateurs felt frustrated also. Then you tell me you just mean religious denominations. That is a difficult one to answer. Statistics are difficult ,but over 60% of French people would say that they have something to do with Christianity.
Taking only the Christian religious denominations ,over 84% claim to be Catholic,2% claim to be Protestant (not your lot, I think) and 4% unaffiliated Christians who may form a multiplicity of denominations. What other 'major' Christian denomination is there in France ? 1% Jewish, Orthodox not mentioned and of course up to 10% Muslim, who are,,not Christian.
For most people in France,even those who are not believers,tne word 'Church' would be seen as well 'l'Eglise'. I'll leave it at that.
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.
Whether I have sympathy for restauranteurs, or for churchgoers, doesn't really have an effect on the risk of virus transmission that their activity poses. (Note that restaurants are screwed anyway - you could legally open all the restaurants tomorrow, and the chance that I'll go and eat in one is zero. I'll continue to order food from my favourite places for take-out, but the chance of me sitting down in a shared public space with other people and eating right now is zero.)
Churches and restaurants seem to me to present a largely similar risk profile. Perhaps restaurants are a bit worse (because people are doing all that eating and drinking, so there's a bigger cross-section for airborne droplets to land on something they put in their mouths.)
Theatres are likely to be more like churches (people don't eat in theatres) - so I could see opening both theatres and churches a bit before restaurants. That's likely to have poor optics, though, so doing them all at once might be better.
@Forthview so far as I can tell the Catholic church in France is the only major denomination loudly complaining that collective worship is not being allowed as of May 11, in defiance of government recommendations, and as so often, it is claiming to speak on behalf of everybody else.
If you can point to another religious group in France making the same demands in the national media, go right ahead. The burden is on you to disprove my claim.
@Eutychus to what extent in France do any of the other denominations have a sufficiently public presence that if they were to say anything, it would get reported or listened to by the public at large?
If the muslims said something, it would be all over the press. They probably have as many pairs of knees on carpets on Fridays as the Catholics have bums on pews on Sundays.
@Forthview there are plenty of religious organisations that could say something, and I follow such news closely. I haven't seen anything remotely similar to what the Catholic church has been saying in this country, and to my mind it's symptomatic of the institutional attitude of the Church. Which as I say is a source of great frustration to many of its faithful.
I am quite sure that there are viewpoints amongst the Catholic community, both supporting the requests of the bishops as well as those who do not agree with them .I have just been reading these viewpoints pro and contra on French Catholic sites. I am equally sure that the attitude of the bishops not just on this point but on many others is a source of great frustration to some of the faithful as well as to those 'qui ne sont pas dans le bain' ( who are not part of the household of faith'.)
Remember that for those who are part of the household of faith of the Church, a church building is not just a building. It is the House of God and the Gate of Heaven. I may be wrong but I think that for you a church is principally a meeting place. .While you may not agree with Catholics it would be good at least to try to understand. These 'huge empty buildings' may be seen by some as tourist attractions. They may or may not be places which tell you about the history of a country or indeed they may be seen as symbols of a haughty and disdainful power grabbing society which is past its sellby date ,but even in secular and non Catholic France there are people who value the religious rites celebrated within them and who long for the time when they can meet within them in a very special way the Lord.
Personally I have no view one way or another. I am privileged to follow the Mass each day from the grotto of Massabielle.
I am talking about what the French Conference of Bishops, which is the representative body of the Catholic church, is saying in its press releases.
Press releases in a crisis should not be about educating the heathen about why church buildings are important and Catholics should be given priority treatment as though they were a superior class of citizen, virus immune in terms of both suffering themselves and propagating the virus, and able to disregard government instructions.
Nobody outside the household of faith cares about what the meaning of the buildings is. I think their stance is a terrible counter-testimony and worse still, they don't realise it.
Granted that few people outside of the household of faith care about the meanings of buildings. However the Catholic bishops of France are not outside of the household of faith. They are the guardians of a faith which has played an important part in the history of France and which still plays an important part at crucial moments in the lives of many French citizens. There is surely an argument that if children are invited to go back to school and if people are invited to go back to work that those for whom a visit to a church is important could be allowed to do so, particularly if, as you remind us, there will be very few people in these enormous buildings. Have the bishops actually said that they will disregard
government instructions ?
There is a (disputed) economic argument for schools reopening. Moreover schools are more controlled environments and judging by the teachers' unions, much less keen on the idea than the Church. They are also not full of old people. Churches do not have a legal responsibility for their attendees the way employers and schools do, so they are going to be more careless. Especially if they think they benefit from divine privilege.
Moreover schools are more controlled environments and judging by the teachers' unions, much less keen on the idea than the Church. They are also not full of old people.
I think the thing that matters for schools (and churches) is community interaction spreading the disease, rather than direct infection of vulnerable people. If a particular person is in a high risk category and wants to risk their own life to go to church, that's not a public health issue. If a church, or a school, becomes a covid-19 hotspot, then it is a public health issue, and the age of the people there doesn't make a difference (except insofar as children are really bad at keeping their hands to themselves...)
@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 do not know about other denominations or parts of the country, but the Sydney Anglican and the Broken Bay Catholic dioceses (both covering where we live) both closed churches and public worship before any government requirements came out.
Mayor de Blasio came under a lot of fire for ordering the police to disperse a large Hasidic funeral procession in New YorkCity last night. He had warned them not to disobey the social distancing and quarantine ordinances and they defied him. Story here, But this is not the only place where authorities have clashed with Hasidic Jews not following quarantine laws. The Times of Israel also had a similar report. And the Hasidic Jews of Montreal are also complaining of discrimination.
The deal of it is when law enforcement has to interject itself in the Hasidic community, they are accused of Nazi tactics.
Mayor de Blasio came under a lot of fire for ordering the police to disperse a large Hasidic funeral procession in New YorkCity last night. He had warned them not to disobey the social distancing and quarantine ordinances and they defied him. Story here, But this is not the only place where authorities have clashed with Hasidic Jews not following quarantine laws. The Times of Israel also had a similar report. And the Hasidic Jews of Montreal are also complaining of discrimination.
The deal of it is when law enforcement has to interject itself in the Hasidic community, they are accused of Nazi tactics.
If they're part of the "Ultra-Orthodox", then news stories over the years have suggested that they are very strict about their own rules (which is to be expected), and sometimes refuse to follow Israeli gov't directives. AIUI, this causes much frustration among the gov't and non-Ultra Orthodox.
---
In the meantime, I was looking up non-"People Of The Book" faiths to see how they felt about being shutdown (if they were). I was specifically looking up Pagans, and ran into hit after hit about a major conflict (in 2019, AIUI) when Pope Francis placed a figure of Pachamama on the altar. (An Earth goddess of indigenous peoples of Latin America.) I haven't dug into it; but some people think Francis helped cause Italy's COVID-19 epidemic by doing it. {Major eyeroll.} I'm guessing he used the figure partly to honor the earth, to make a point about climate change, and partly to show respect for indigenous people of Latin America.
I don't think I heard about this at the time it happened. I'm not in a rush to discuss it, but ISTM that discussion of anything but the "caused the plague" aspect should probably wind up on its own thread.
Just so I'm understaning this Francis And The False Idol thing, Francis placed the idol on the altar, and then, some time AFTER that, the idol was stolen and tossed into the river? That's the order of events?
And the assumption is that the thief did that to protest F's alleged idolatry, and/or reverse the viral curse that it had caused?
Like I said, I hadn't looked into it much, because I found it not long before I posted, while I was looking up something else.
But, mostly from skimming the result pages, Francis put the figure on an altar. (That might have been at the Amazon Synod, rather than in St. Peter's.) He later repeated that on other altars. Somewhere in there, someone stole the figure and chucked it in the river. I'm not sure whether the particular thief was correcting what they believed to be a grave sin, or was trying to stop the "plague". But there are sites that suggest Francis's actions helped cause the plague.
I think I searched on "Pope Francis Pachamama", after seeing a hint of the situation in my search for how Pagan communities are responding to COVID.
Thanks Golden Key. Looking at that statement from Francis, it appears to date from October of 2019, and mentions the theft. So I guess the theft had nothing to do with the virus.
... If a particular person is in a high risk category and wants to risk their own life to go to church, that's not a public health issue. ...
I disagree.
1. If they contract Covid 19, they're just as likely to spread it to other people as anyone else. If they mainly mix with other people in high risk categories, or are married to such a person, that increases the danger. And
2. You could say, that as their more likely to contract it fatally, that just affects them. But, as a high risk person, if they contract Covid 19 they are much more likely to impose a higher burden on the health care services, occupy a bed for longer, require ventilation, potentially deprive someone else of care etc. Or are you perhaps taking the line that in a country where there's no health service, that's a commercial decision they should be entitled to take?
Thanks Golden Key. Looking at that statement from Francis, it appears to date from October of 2019, and mentions the theft. So I guess the theft had nothing to do with the virus.
Not directly, no. But the whole thing did spur some people to blame the pandemic on Francis--at least the Italian part of the pandemic.
To borrow from Fr. Andrew Greeley's novel "Angel Fire", when an Irish-American, Catholic scientist was asked about such things, "I think God would have better aim".
Having read now the statement of the Bishops' Conference of France I see that it states that the bishops note that the Prime Minister has announced that religious worship may resume on 2nd June.
The bishops regret this date and state that they are of the opinion that attendance at Mass does not contribute to spread of virus any more than other activities which will be allowed before 2nd June (At other times they have talked about limits of numbers and social distancing)
The bishops are convinced (as I suppose one might not find surprising) that a spiritual and religious dimension of life contributes to peace of mind, strength and fortitude at difficult moments, and a feeling of social cohesion
They state that liberty of cult is a part of democratic life.
This is why the bishops would like to be able to prepare for an effective start of public religious worship.
They further state that CATHOLICS HAVE RESPECTED AND WILL CONTINUE TO RESPECT THE INSTRUCTIONS OF THE GOVERNMENT.
The bishops would hope that the Feast of Pentecost (31st May) should mark the end of strict lockdown as far as liturgical and sacramental life is concerned.
The bishops invite Catholic faithful to live through the month of May as in the Upper Room(Last Supper) asking for the gift of the Holy Spirit and remembering that May is (in Catholic tradition) the month of Mary.
I don't see any whining in this statement. It was indeed the word 'whining' which I objected to in earlier remarks. The statement was signed by ten bishops under the presidency of Mgr Eric de Moulins-Beaufort, Archbishop of Rheims.
The list of signatories includes Mgr Matthieu Rougé, bishop of Nanterre.
If there was indeed any 'whining' it might be found in the statement of this bishop separately and not in the communiqué of the bishops,that he felt there was some anti Catholicism in the government. (This could well be true,just as there will be some anti freemasonry and some anticommunism. Organisations, including the Catholic church have to accept that not everyone will see things their way.
The bishop also said that some parlamentarians would have no idea of the importance of the spiritual life. (I think that that also is quite true,but do not see that the bishop can insist that everyone in a democratic society should agree with him on the importance of the spiritual life)
The bishop also said that some parlamentarians would have no idea of the importance of the spiritual life. (I think that that also is quite true,but do not see that the bishop can insist that everyone in a democratic society should agree with him on the importance of the spiritual life)
I think it's reasonable for everyone to agree that a particular group of people find their spiritual life important. That's data.
It is also reasonable to believe that this group of people are wrong-thinking and mistaken about the importance they place in the spiritual life. That's opinion.
The bishops would hope that the Feast of Pentecost (31st May) should mark the end of strict lockdown as far as liturgical and sacramental life is concerned.
What is this I don't even.
Well, I do even. It just demonstrates their total and utter self-absorbtion. I rest my case.
Oh and @Forthview, since you apparently can't be bothered to look for any other statements, here's a communiqué from the French national council of evangelicals received recently. I disagree with them about a lot of things, but I agree 100% with them here:
Whilst it is true that gathering for worship is an essential part of evangelical christians' life and witness, we encourage all to be patient and demonstrate an exemplary attitude in the eyes of the public authorities. As of the end of lockdown, the Prime Minsiter has restored the principle of freedoms, with some exceptional prohibitions. However, he has solemnly called on all of us to act responsibly. It is this responsibility that all those in charge of non-profit activities must shoulder. The national evangelical protestant witness is at stake here.
In this at least they have a clue, and the Catholics apparently have none.
Well, I do even. It just demonstrates their total and utter self-absorbtion. I rest my case.
May 31 and June 2 are very nearly the same date.
June 2 was obviously chosen because it marks the start of a working week (June 1 is Whit Monday, which I gather is a holiday in France) rather than because there's anything particularly magic about June 2 vs June 1 or June 3.
Asking to go back to church on this rather important festival that's right before this semi-arbitrary date isn't unreasonable.
It may be, of course, that the French government picked June 2 specifically because they wanted to keep things shut down for the holiday weekend, and that starting out the un-lockdown with a big festival crowd of people might be a bad idea.
We have regular scheduling meetings. It is common when someone says "we're planning this activity for these days" for someone else to immediately get up and say "can you move it a day or two later, because I already have these other plans." Often, the answer is yes - the particular date was a bit arbitrary, and moving it later or earlier by a day or two is OK. Sometimes, the answer is no. But it's always reasonable to ask.
It may be, of course, that the French government picked June 2 specifically because they wanted to keep things shut down for the holiday weekend, and that starting out the un-lockdown with a big festival crowd of people might be a bad idea.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if this was the case. Certainly it looks to me like the previous date was chosen to keep everyone at home over the public holidays.
Furthermore the Prime Minister made it clear in his speech that we're all expected to behave like responsible citizens on our best behaviour. Just because the lockdown has been lifted (slightly) doesn't mean we shouldn't all carry on trying to stay at home and avoiding large gatherings as much as possible. And if we don't behave and the epidemic starts kicking off again the headmaster reserves the right to put us all back in detention.
I am indeed grateful to Eutychus for letting me and others have sight of the statement from the French National Council of Evangelicals. He has, however, no reason to think that I simply could not be bothered to search on-line. I readily accepted Eutychus' earlier word on the matter , having absolutely no reason to suppose that he was a liar.
My disagreement was and is about his interpretation of the statement of the French Catholic bishops following the meeting with the government where the bishops were asked to state their views on the best way forward after lockdown, specifically with regard to public religious worship.
The bishop[s regret that while educational and economic life may to some extent restart on May 11th communal spiritual life may not. They point to the fact that people need community to thrive and that isolation does not contribute to the general well being of society.
They would (piously ?) hope that communal liturgical and sacramental life might be able to be restored in time for the Feast of Pentecost on 31st May - two days before the government's date for further lifting of restrictions.
The also state that they have no intention of encouraging the faithful to disobey government instructions.
I fail to see why this should be classified angrily by Eutychus as the whinings of those who consider themselves superior entitled brats.
Looking back up thread I see that Eutychus said on 31st March, inter alia, the following :
'religious gatherings are more than leisure activities, they are of existential significance'
'historically they have been targets of government surveillance'
'the corporeal component is the essence of the thing'
'all reasons (for stopping services) are legitimate but they ignore the role chaplains play'
'you can see the reason why religious organisations might be wary of actions taken in the name of public health'
On April 1st Eutychus said,
'one has to imagine the eventuality of there being a point where state law bends church practice to breaking point' and on the same day,
'scoff all you like but this (covert or overt) surveillance has been a fact of life in France since 1905'
I am not sure why Eutychus chose 1905 since that is the date that the Catholic Church was officially wiped out in France 'per omnia saecula saeculorum', playing no role since then in the institutional life of the state.
Eutychus does not in these quotes mention any particular religious grouping but why does he now, when a Catholic clergyman makes some reference to some government possibly being anti religious, does he denigrate the bishop for making much the same remarks as he himself made earlier.
What is this I don't even.
Well I do even. I rest my case.
'regret' or 'regretter' is a word which both English and French share. Its origin is somewhat obscure but the 'gret' part of the word is linked to one of the Scottish uses of the verb 'to greet' which means' to cry' or even possibly 'to whine'
So ,yes,the French bishops in 'regretting' what the government had to say were perhaps 'whining'
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.
I have every sympathy, and all the more so for those whose livelihood depends on these things. But none of this would induce me to demand that these activities be restored ahead of anybody else's that are comparable. And my church has a building that's stood empty since March 15. We don't intend opening it for public worship before the state decrees it safe to do so.
Indeed. Whilst the BU is offering grants to churches in that situation, the grants are only available once the church has run out of money - including designated funds. Which is a bit of bummer if you've spent the last few years raising money for building work. (Although completely understandable as it stops churches from working the system by designating all funds then going for a grant).
Rev T told the congregation before we went into lockdown we'd be closing if the government said so OR after a member of the congregation got the virus. (Baptist ministers don't usually tell congregations stuff like that btw).
We pop in each week to pray for the congregation and to check the building's okay. (Fear not, it's next door. It also means we can set up for the Food Bank).
The bishop[s regret that while educational and economic life may to some extent restart on May 11th communal spiritual life may not. They point to the fact that people need community to thrive and that isolation does not contribute to the general well being of society.
Going to work and going to church are not comparable activities in this context. If small business owners, in particular, can't reopen soon, they risk losing their livelihoods. The consequences are much, much more serious. Also it should be noted that not everyone is heading back to the office any time soon. The government has been clear that people should continue working from home if it's possible for them to do so. In my company (financial sector) I would be surprised if more than 20% of the workforce go back before June. Reopening schools is contentious but AFAICT (my husband is a teacher) most teachers are opposed. They are mainly opening so people can go to work.
People need community, true, but churches, Catholic or otherwise, aren't the only places that provide it. Why can't bridge clubs open? Wine-tasting classes? Language exchanges? Or are you arguing that there is something different about churches?
They would (piously ?) hope that communal liturgical and sacramental life might be able to be restored in time for the Feast of Pentecost on 31st May - two days before the government's date for further lifting of restrictions.
This just doesn't come into the government's planning, except in the sense that it might increase the number of large gatherings, in which case it's an argument against. Eid falls only a few days before the end of lockdown but I don't hear any Muslim leaders asking for a rethink. (If they had been, I'm fairly we would have heard about it.)
I am not sure why Eutychus chose 1905 since that is the date that the Catholic Church was officially wiped out in France 'per omnia saecula saeculorum', playing no role since then in the institutional life of the state.
Oh please. The laic French State didn't wipe out the Catholic church. It institutionalised the fact that the Catholic church isn't the only game in town and French people are of all religions and none. This rather histrionic statement is also somewhat at odds with your own oft-repeated claim that over a century after said law was passed, Catholicism is still France's majority religion. Which one is it? Did the French secular state wipe out Catholicism or are we all Catholic really?
@Forthview I don't withdraw anything I said about the potential for infringements on religious liberties, and I am perfectly entitled to muse about the intersection of public health concerns and traditional religious practice.
None of that is inconsistent with my claim that the institutional Catholic church is being dumber than a dumb thing when it invokes religious exceptionalism as acceptable grounds in a secular state for being granted special indulgence from health restrictions, as though its adherents were somehow immune from catching or propagating the virus. The statement is notable in that it totally ignores these aspects and the role that religious gatherings around the world have demonstrably played in propagating the virus and it killing participants.
By the way, I learned a few minutes ago that the president of the French Protestant Federation was invited by the Catholics to join them in clamouring for this exceptionalist treatment, and (quite sensibly in my view) declined.
They would (piously ?) hope that communal liturgical and sacramental life might be able to be restored in time for the Feast of Pentecost on 31st May - two days before the government's date for further lifting of restrictions.
And this is the whole point. It is a pious hope, in every sense of the term, and as such has no place in public discourse of this nature.
Just as capitalising "Feast of Pentecost" is not going to make it any more eligible as due grounds in a secular state.
La République ne reconnaît... aucun culte: "The republic knows no religious confession", Article 2 of our Constitution. Not in the sense that it ignores them, but in the sense that religious concepts are by definition not compelling. The Catholics know that's in the constitution and choose to ignore it in their communication.
Comments
I've heard the poor restaurateurs in tears because they're on the verge of losing their business and having to lay off all their staff, and the situation is not really comparable to that of the bishops.
If you can point to another religious group in France making the same demands in the national media, go right ahead. The burden is on you to disprove my claim.
I have every sympathy, and all the more so for those whose livelihood depends on these things. But none of this would induce me to demand that these activities be restored ahead of anybody else's that are comparable. And my church has a building that's stood empty since March 15. We don't intend opening it for public worship before the state decrees it safe to do so.
Specifically, we were treated to the surreal spectacle of the rabidly secularist Interior Minister standing in front of the burning building saying, René Magritte-like, "this is not a cathedral, it is a public good"; and my bishop going into the media saying "Our Lady [clever ambiguity about just who or what he is referring to there: Notre Dame, Mary, the Catholic church??] is the mother of us all". I'm not sure who annoyed me the most, but on balance, the latter. It's like the culture wars in the US. He is playing into the secularists' agenda to my mind.
I'm not referring to which verb they used. I'm referring to the sentiment they expressed. Can you find any other religious group in France expressing the same palpable frustration and sense of unfairness, in their press releases? Stop deflecting.
Of course not, but......??
Taking only the Christian religious denominations ,over 84% claim to be Catholic,2% claim to be Protestant (not your lot, I think) and 4% unaffiliated Christians who may form a multiplicity of denominations. What other 'major' Christian denomination is there in France ? 1% Jewish, Orthodox not mentioned and of course up to 10% Muslim, who are,,not Christian.
For most people in France,even those who are not believers,tne word 'Church' would be seen as well 'l'Eglise'. I'll leave it at that.
Whether I have sympathy for restauranteurs, or for churchgoers, doesn't really have an effect on the risk of virus transmission that their activity poses. (Note that restaurants are screwed anyway - you could legally open all the restaurants tomorrow, and the chance that I'll go and eat in one is zero. I'll continue to order food from my favourite places for take-out, but the chance of me sitting down in a shared public space with other people and eating right now is zero.)
Churches and restaurants seem to me to present a largely similar risk profile. Perhaps restaurants are a bit worse (because people are doing all that eating and drinking, so there's a bigger cross-section for airborne droplets to land on something they put in their mouths.)
Theatres are likely to be more like churches (people don't eat in theatres) - so I could see opening both theatres and churches a bit before restaurants. That's likely to have poor optics, though, so doing them all at once might be better.
If the muslims said something, it would be all over the press. They probably have as many pairs of knees on carpets on Fridays as the Catholics have bums on pews on Sundays.
Remember that for those who are part of the household of faith of the Church, a church building is not just a building. It is the House of God and the Gate of Heaven. I may be wrong but I think that for you a church is principally a meeting place. .While you may not agree with Catholics it would be good at least to try to understand. These 'huge empty buildings' may be seen by some as tourist attractions. They may or may not be places which tell you about the history of a country or indeed they may be seen as symbols of a haughty and disdainful power grabbing society which is past its sellby date ,but even in secular and non Catholic France there are people who value the religious rites celebrated within them and who long for the time when they can meet within them in a very special way the Lord.
Personally I have no view one way or another. I am privileged to follow the Mass each day from the grotto of Massabielle.
Press releases in a crisis should not be about educating the heathen about why church buildings are important and Catholics should be given priority treatment as though they were a superior class of citizen, virus immune in terms of both suffering themselves and propagating the virus, and able to disregard government instructions.
Nobody outside the household of faith cares about what the meaning of the buildings is. I think their stance is a terrible counter-testimony and worse still, they don't realise it.
government instructions ?
I think the thing that matters for schools (and churches) is community interaction spreading the disease, rather than direct infection of vulnerable people. If a particular person is in a high risk category and wants to risk their own life to go to church, that's not a public health issue. If a church, or a school, becomes a covid-19 hotspot, then it is a public health issue, and the age of the people there doesn't make a difference (except insofar as children are really bad at keeping their hands to themselves...)
What sort of peep is it you're not hearing?
I do not know about other denominations or parts of the country, but the Sydney Anglican and the Broken Bay Catholic dioceses (both covering where we live) both closed churches and public worship before any government requirements came out.
The deal of it is when law enforcement has to interject itself in the Hasidic community, they are accused of Nazi tactics.
Fixed two broken links. BroJames Purgatory Host
Above the law, are they?
I assume he meant that he hasn't heard the Orthodox complaining about churches being closed?
If they're part of the "Ultra-Orthodox", then news stories over the years have suggested that they are very strict about their own rules (which is to be expected), and sometimes refuse to follow Israeli gov't directives. AIUI, this causes much frustration among the gov't and non-Ultra Orthodox.
---
In the meantime, I was looking up non-"People Of The Book" faiths to see how they felt about being shutdown (if they were). I was specifically looking up Pagans, and ran into hit after hit about a major conflict (in 2019, AIUI) when Pope Francis placed a figure of Pachamama on the altar. (An Earth goddess of indigenous peoples of Latin America.) I haven't dug into it; but some people think Francis helped cause Italy's COVID-19 epidemic by doing it. {Major eyeroll.} I'm guessing he used the figure partly to honor the earth, to make a point about climate change, and partly to show respect for indigenous people of Latin America.
I don't think I heard about this at the time it happened. I'm not in a rush to discuss it, but ISTM that discussion of anything but the "caused the plague" aspect should probably wind up on its own thread.
NOTE: There are lots of freaking-out conspiracy posts about this. But Francis acknowledged at least part of it. (Vatican).
Yes.
And the assumption is that the thief did that to protest F's alleged idolatry, and/or reverse the viral curse that it had caused?
Like I said, I hadn't looked into it much, because I found it not long before I posted, while I was looking up something else.
But, mostly from skimming the result pages, Francis put the figure on an altar. (That might have been at the Amazon Synod, rather than in St. Peter's.) He later repeated that on other altars. Somewhere in there, someone stole the figure and chucked it in the river. I'm not sure whether the particular thief was correcting what they believed to be a grave sin, or was trying to stop the "plague". But there are sites that suggest Francis's actions helped cause the plague.
I think I searched on "Pope Francis Pachamama", after seeing a hint of the situation in my search for how Pagan communities are responding to COVID.
1. If they contract Covid 19, they're just as likely to spread it to other people as anyone else. If they mainly mix with other people in high risk categories, or are married to such a person, that increases the danger. And
2. You could say, that as their more likely to contract it fatally, that just affects them. But, as a high risk person, if they contract Covid 19 they are much more likely to impose a higher burden on the health care services, occupy a bed for longer, require ventilation, potentially deprive someone else of care etc. Or are you perhaps taking the line that in a country where there's no health service, that's a commercial decision they should be entitled to take?
Not directly, no. But the whole thing did spur some people to blame the pandemic on Francis--at least the Italian part of the pandemic.
To borrow from Fr. Andrew Greeley's novel "Angel Fire", when an Irish-American, Catholic scientist was asked about such things, "I think God would have better aim".
I came across John Beckett's column over at Patheos. He's a Pagan priest who grew up Baptist. I think this is the first time I've come across his work. He writes very well, and makes good points. Here are his columns on COVID-19 at "Under The Ancient Oaks" on Patheos.
I've skimmed some of them, and particularly recommend:
"Churches that Defy Public Health Orders: Pride, Not Devotion"
(Link is currently at the bottom of the page.)
"Letter to my Fellow Pagan Priests in this Time of Isolation and Uncertainty"
(Link currently near the top of the page.)
"Why I Pray For an End to the Coronavirus"
(Link currently in the middle of the page.)
Worth reading.
The bishops regret this date and state that they are of the opinion that attendance at Mass does not contribute to spread of virus any more than other activities which will be allowed before 2nd June (At other times they have talked about limits of numbers and social distancing)
The bishops are convinced (as I suppose one might not find surprising) that a spiritual and religious dimension of life contributes to peace of mind, strength and fortitude at difficult moments, and a feeling of social cohesion
They state that liberty of cult is a part of democratic life.
This is why the bishops would like to be able to prepare for an effective start of public religious worship.
They further state that CATHOLICS HAVE RESPECTED AND WILL CONTINUE TO RESPECT THE INSTRUCTIONS OF THE GOVERNMENT.
The bishops would hope that the Feast of Pentecost (31st May) should mark the end of strict lockdown as far as liturgical and sacramental life is concerned.
The bishops invite Catholic faithful to live through the month of May as in the Upper Room(Last Supper) asking for the gift of the Holy Spirit and remembering that May is (in Catholic tradition) the month of Mary.
I don't see any whining in this statement. It was indeed the word 'whining' which I objected to in earlier remarks. The statement was signed by ten bishops under the presidency of Mgr Eric de Moulins-Beaufort, Archbishop of Rheims.
The list of signatories includes Mgr Matthieu Rougé, bishop of Nanterre.
If there was indeed any 'whining' it might be found in the statement of this bishop separately and not in the communiqué of the bishops,that he felt there was some anti Catholicism in the government. (This could well be true,just as there will be some anti freemasonry and some anticommunism. Organisations, including the Catholic church have to accept that not everyone will see things their way.
The bishop also said that some parlamentarians would have no idea of the importance of the spiritual life. (I think that that also is quite true,but do not see that the bishop can insist that everyone in a democratic society should agree with him on the importance of the spiritual life)
I think it's reasonable for everyone to agree that a particular group of people find their spiritual life important. That's data.
It is also reasonable to believe that this group of people are wrong-thinking and mistaken about the importance they place in the spiritual life. That's opinion.
What is this I don't even.
Well, I do even. It just demonstrates their total and utter self-absorbtion. I rest my case.
In this at least they have a clue, and the Catholics apparently have none.
May 31 and June 2 are very nearly the same date.
June 2 was obviously chosen because it marks the start of a working week (June 1 is Whit Monday, which I gather is a holiday in France) rather than because there's anything particularly magic about June 2 vs June 1 or June 3.
Asking to go back to church on this rather important festival that's right before this semi-arbitrary date isn't unreasonable.
It may be, of course, that the French government picked June 2 specifically because they wanted to keep things shut down for the holiday weekend, and that starting out the un-lockdown with a big festival crowd of people might be a bad idea.
We have regular scheduling meetings. It is common when someone says "we're planning this activity for these days" for someone else to immediately get up and say "can you move it a day or two later, because I already have these other plans." Often, the answer is yes - the particular date was a bit arbitrary, and moving it later or earlier by a day or two is OK. Sometimes, the answer is no. But it's always reasonable to ask.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if this was the case. Certainly it looks to me like the previous date was chosen to keep everyone at home over the public holidays.
Furthermore the Prime Minister made it clear in his speech that we're all expected to behave like responsible citizens on our best behaviour. Just because the lockdown has been lifted (slightly) doesn't mean we shouldn't all carry on trying to stay at home and avoiding large gatherings as much as possible. And if we don't behave and the epidemic starts kicking off again the headmaster reserves the right to put us all back in detention.
My disagreement was and is about his interpretation of the statement of the French Catholic bishops following the meeting with the government where the bishops were asked to state their views on the best way forward after lockdown, specifically with regard to public religious worship.
The bishop[s regret that while educational and economic life may to some extent restart on May 11th communal spiritual life may not. They point to the fact that people need community to thrive and that isolation does not contribute to the general well being of society.
They would (piously ?) hope that communal liturgical and sacramental life might be able to be restored in time for the Feast of Pentecost on 31st May - two days before the government's date for further lifting of restrictions.
The also state that they have no intention of encouraging the faithful to disobey government instructions.
I fail to see why this should be classified angrily by Eutychus as the whinings of those who consider themselves superior entitled brats.
Looking back up thread I see that Eutychus said on 31st March, inter alia, the following :
'religious gatherings are more than leisure activities, they are of existential significance'
'historically they have been targets of government surveillance'
'the corporeal component is the essence of the thing'
'all reasons (for stopping services) are legitimate but they ignore the role chaplains play'
'you can see the reason why religious organisations might be wary of actions taken in the name of public health'
On April 1st Eutychus said,
'one has to imagine the eventuality of there being a point where state law bends church practice to breaking point' and on the same day,
'scoff all you like but this (covert or overt) surveillance has been a fact of life in France since 1905'
I am not sure why Eutychus chose 1905 since that is the date that the Catholic Church was officially wiped out in France 'per omnia saecula saeculorum', playing no role since then in the institutional life of the state.
Eutychus does not in these quotes mention any particular religious grouping but why does he now, when a Catholic clergyman makes some reference to some government possibly being anti religious, does he denigrate the bishop for making much the same remarks as he himself made earlier.
What is this I don't even.
Well I do even. I rest my case.
'regret' or 'regretter' is a word which both English and French share. Its origin is somewhat obscure but the 'gret' part of the word is linked to one of the Scottish uses of the verb 'to greet' which means' to cry' or even possibly 'to whine'
So ,yes,the French bishops in 'regretting' what the government had to say were perhaps 'whining'
Indeed. Whilst the BU is offering grants to churches in that situation, the grants are only available once the church has run out of money - including designated funds. Which is a bit of bummer if you've spent the last few years raising money for building work. (Although completely understandable as it stops churches from working the system by designating all funds then going for a grant).
Rev T told the congregation before we went into lockdown we'd be closing if the government said so OR after a member of the congregation got the virus. (Baptist ministers don't usually tell congregations stuff like that btw).
We pop in each week to pray for the congregation and to check the building's okay. (Fear not, it's next door. It also means we can set up for the Food Bank).
Going to work and going to church are not comparable activities in this context. If small business owners, in particular, can't reopen soon, they risk losing their livelihoods. The consequences are much, much more serious. Also it should be noted that not everyone is heading back to the office any time soon. The government has been clear that people should continue working from home if it's possible for them to do so. In my company (financial sector) I would be surprised if more than 20% of the workforce go back before June. Reopening schools is contentious but AFAICT (my husband is a teacher) most teachers are opposed. They are mainly opening so people can go to work.
People need community, true, but churches, Catholic or otherwise, aren't the only places that provide it. Why can't bridge clubs open? Wine-tasting classes? Language exchanges? Or are you arguing that there is something different about churches?
This just doesn't come into the government's planning, except in the sense that it might increase the number of large gatherings, in which case it's an argument against. Eid falls only a few days before the end of lockdown but I don't hear any Muslim leaders asking for a rethink. (If they had been, I'm fairly we would have heard about it.)
Oh please. The laic French State didn't wipe out the Catholic church. It institutionalised the fact that the Catholic church isn't the only game in town and French people are of all religions and none. This rather histrionic statement is also somewhat at odds with your own oft-repeated claim that over a century after said law was passed, Catholicism is still France's majority religion. Which one is it? Did the French secular state wipe out Catholicism or are we all Catholic really?
None of that is inconsistent with my claim that the institutional Catholic church is being dumber than a dumb thing when it invokes religious exceptionalism as acceptable grounds in a secular state for being granted special indulgence from health restrictions, as though its adherents were somehow immune from catching or propagating the virus. The statement is notable in that it totally ignores these aspects and the role that religious gatherings around the world have demonstrably played in propagating the virus and it killing participants.
By the way, I learned a few minutes ago that the president of the French Protestant Federation was invited by the Catholics to join them in clamouring for this exceptionalist treatment, and (quite sensibly in my view) declined.
Just as capitalising "Feast of Pentecost" is not going to make it any more eligible as due grounds in a secular state.
La République ne reconnaît... aucun culte: "The republic knows no religious confession", Article 2 of our Constitution. Not in the sense that it ignores them, but in the sense that religious concepts are by definition not compelling. The Catholics know that's in the constitution and choose to ignore it in their communication.