Pentecost is an important day for many Christians, not just Catholics.
Perhaps (thought he, naughtily) the French Bishops should think of postponing Pentecost until June 7th, forgetting about Trinity Sunday, and all the awkward attempts to explain the incomprehensible...
And they'd avoid the possible problems associated with what would usually be a busy holiday weekend.
la vie en rose - I think indeed that we both know exactly what the role of the Catholic Church in France is,- I from the inside and you from the outside. Of course the Catholic Church is not the only game in town. It has done its share of persecuting others and it has also had its share of being persecuted. You are right to say that the 1905 events did not wipe out the Catholic Church even although that was the avowed aim of some of those who were in charge of the state.
I actually think that the Catholic Church and other religious confessions have done quite well out of the confiscation of church buildings. They have relieved those religious bodies of the expense of maintaining them and on the whole I think that the state does its work well in this regard.
The' wipe out' phrase which I used and I am prepared to admit it was somewhat histrionic refers to the undoubted fact, as we are often reminded, that the Church has no official role in French society, apart, of course, from any role which its followers as private citizens may care to give it. I leave aside the parts of modern France which were not part of 1905 France where different rules and understandings and obligations apply.
The roughly 50% of French citizens who claim in some way to be Catholic must have the same democratic rights to express their point of view that other citizens have and have as much right as any other citizen to expect to be listened to, even if not necessarily agreed with.
The state,as such, does not recognise any confession, but the state recognises that the Catholic church exists, as indeed it will be or should be equally aware of other religious confessions. The state, itself, asked the religious communities to express their views on coming out of confinement.
The state itself recognises a number of traditional 'holy days' of the Catholic Church and traditionally grants work free days both for Ascension Thursday (21st May this year) and for the Feast of Pentecost including also the Monday of Pentecost. So it is not as if the French state is unaware of the significance ,at least for Catholics but for many other Christians also, as an important day.
The state,as such, does not recognise any confession, but the state recognises that the Catholic church exists, as indeed it will be or should be equally aware of other religious confessions. The state, itself, asked the religious communities to express their views on coming out of confinement.
It asked their representatives for their views in at least one consultation I am aware of; I personally know at least one person who took part - before the latest measures were announced.
That is not at all the same as inviting them to complain afterwards about what was decided. Which is their right, but in my view makes the Conference of Bishops look totally out of touch.
The state itself recognises a number of traditional 'holy days' of the Catholic Church and traditionally grants work free days both for Ascension Thursday (21st May this year) and for the Feast of Pentecost including also the Monday of Pentecost. So it is not as if the French state is unaware of the significance ,at least for Catholics but for many other Christians also, as an important day.
The State does not officially recognise any traditional 'holy day' as such. Article 2 of the Constitution. And it doesn't want to mark the end of restrictions with anybody having a big knees-up, religious or otherwise. The way back is a gradual getting used to a different world.
And that 'gradual getting used to a different world' will start from 11th May.
I can see that the State can grant a public holiday annually on 15th August,1st November and 25th December without thinking too much about it.
I cannot understand how the French State this year can grant public holidays this year on 21st May and also on 13th April and 1st June without being aware and recognising that these are dates of significant importance to the Christian community. It seems to me more than just blind chance that they land on these dates, especially since these dates are the dates of movable feasts which change each year and the French state always seems to be able to plump for a public holiday on these 'holy days'.
I know that all Sundays, possibly coming from a 'Christian ' heritage, are days of rest in France, but why was Sunday 12th April this year accorded the special rank of 'jour de fete' ?
I disagree strongly. Most of us don't give a rip about the religious significance of those days. We care about getting a day off work.
I'm fairly sure that if the ascension, say, was replaced by a public holiday on another date in honour of something else, most of us wouldn't really care. In fact there's a real dearth of days off between January and April and personally I'd be more than happy if they came up with some excuse for moving one to late winter / early Spring.
Take August 15th, the Assumption of the Virgin. This is a doctrine which this Prot regards as arrant nonsense. Nonetheless I thank Mary once a year for getting me a day off.
We're French. Any excuse for not going to work is a good one. And the government has more sense than to go taking our precious public holidays off us.
Of course ,la vie en rouge, you are fully entitled to your opinions and of course I am more than aware that few people in France are aware of the significance of these holidays. Nevertheless that was not the point of what I wrote. It was rather why the secular government, until now anyway, has written these dates into the national calendar of holidays. You are equally fully entitled to consider the Assumption of the Virgin as arrant nonsense, but if you feel so strongly about it, should you not make sure that you are working on that day and certainly not thanking the Blessed Virgin for giving you a holiday ? You might instead want to thank the late Napoleon Bonaparte who was born on that date which is one of the reasons as to why the 15th August was kept as a public holiday.
Thank you, good Bishop's Finger, for lightening the mood. I always feel sad when one group of Christians dismiss the views of others as arrant nonsense. They should realise that the vast majority of the population will dismiss all the doctrines and teachings of Christianity as illogical and stupid.
The Virgin Mary and Napoleon Bonaparte conspired to give the French a holiday? Wow! It was also the day when "The Wizard of Oz" was first screened, but in Los Angeles.
The Virgin Mary and Napoleon Bonaparte conspired to give the French a holiday?
I believe it was Napoleon who made up the list of acceptable names for parents to hang on their kids, and deliberately included a lot of saints names. So he wasn't averse to kowtowing to to Catholic sensibilities.
I also read somewhere that he made his brother the head of the masonic lodges. Pretty ecumenical.
The history of Christianity is indeed a history of slanging matches, outright warfare and brutal torture. It doesn't mean, however, that today's Christians should not try to do better.
The history of Christianity is indeed a history of slanging matches, outright warfare and brutal torture. It doesn't mean, however, that today's Christians should not try to do better.
I know, I know. Your phrasing just prompted a sardonic comeback on my part, given the extent to which internal conflict has been part of Christianity from the get-go.
Napoleon had an priest uncle on his mother's side, son of a Swiss Protestant and a Corsican Catholic. When Napoleon decided that the way to get France back on a more even keel was to restore the Christian calendar and the public exercise of Christianity he made his uncle Primat des Gaules, aka Archbishop of Lyon and got the pope to make him a cardinal.
Cardinal Joseph Fesch was able to preside at Napoleon's religious marriage to Josephine de Beauharnais and also to declare it later to be null and void. Remember that the 'marriage' took place at midnight on the day that Josephine was to be presented to the pope. The pope refused to meet her unless they had a religious marriage.
In later life on St Helena Napoleon specifically asked for the company of a Catholic priest and two were sent to him. At his own request he asked for and received the Last Rites of the Church.
Assuming his priest uncle was the brother of his mom, that means Napoleon's mom was the daughter of a Swiss protestant?
One reason I'm curious is because I've read of right-wing Catholic propaganda calling Napoleon a protestant or at least protestant-sympathizer, and I wonder if there might have been a biographical basis for that.
@Forthview as so often we are getting to a discussion of who the French really are. Among other things, we are people who work to live more than we live to work. I mean I could go to work on the feast of the Assumption because I don't believe in the doctrine, but it wouldn't be very French of me. The reason the government has no appetite for changing those dates is not because they're Catholic feasts. It's because there's nothing we French people like better than not going to work.
You may know your French history, but your ideas about France in the year 2020 simply do not describe my experience of the country I live in.
Christianity has long been known to appropriate pagan holidays and make them Chrisitan (ie, the Twelve Days of Christmas). Stands to reason a secular government may want to appropriate Christian holy days and make them, well, non-religious. The Soviets were known to this.
Thank you, good Bishop's Finger, for lightening the mood. I always feel sad when one group of Christians dismiss the views of others as arrant nonsense. They should realise that the vast majority of the population will dismiss all the doctrines and teachings of Christianity as illogical and stupid.
What I am criticising is the French Catholic church's particular public take on how lockdown should affect them, not as nonsense, but as arrogant, entitled, tone-deaf, and irrelevant to most of the population. I haven't said anything about their doctrines. I work, pray, and celebrate locally and internationally in close and friendly collabroation with Catholics. Carry on in your current passive-aggressive vein and you are heading for Hell.
Notably it was the Christian English Puritans who banned the celebration of Easter, Christmas, and other holy days in the 1640s (other than Sunday). They did institute "Days of Recreation" (the second Tuesday of every month) so apprentices, servants, and scholars wouldn't lose out on the number of days off. https://www.british-history.ac.uk/no-series/acts-ordinances-interregnum/p954
As far as I'm concerned it's nothing to do with a protestant dislike of religious holidays.
It's to do with the constitutional reality in France that the Republic is not going to make an exception to public health considerations in a crisis on religious grounds.
I'm pissed with anybody of any confession who believes they're entitled to such an exception and says as much in print, all the more so when they are claiming to speak for all religions, and all the more so when it's the national representatives of that organisation doing so.
I am sorry, Eutychus,if you thought that I was describing your attitudes to the French Catholic church as nonsense. I most certainly did not say this and I have great respect for you. Let me make this absolutely clear. In arguing with you I would never describe your statements as nonsense. You are certainly right that much of what the church says is totally irrelevant to the majority of the French population.
That does not mean that the Church has nothing to say to the population, nor that it should give up on what it believes to be its mission, no more than I think that you should give up on your mission , as I am sure that you believe equally that you have a message of value to those around you. The bishops are right to highlight to the government the desire of the faithful to receive in difficult times what are called the consolations of religion. Their request was a request and they have said that they do not wish to call the faithful to act against the law. Of course the Church does not speak for the majority of the population but it is often seen in France as the general representative of religion, mainly by those who have only a nodding acquaintance with religion. That, I think, has something to do with the history of the country and perhaps little to do with France, as it is today. But we are, to a certain extent, what we were, whether we know that or not.
My remarks about 'arrant nonsense' were directed towards another poster who used these words.
I am pleased to say that the Prime Minister of the government of the French Republic has announced that, after hearing from many religious groups as to how they might align their religious meetings with the necessity for social distancing and after understanding the sorrow of many religious people that they are not allowed to meet together, he is minded to open up the possibility of communal religious worship from the date of 29th May instead of 2nd June.
He recognises that the weekend of these dates are important moments in the religious calendars of a number of religious groups.
Friday 29th May will be the first day for Friday prayers after Ramadan
Friday 29th May and Saturday 30th May are very important days in the Jewish calendar for the Feast of Pentecost
Saturday 30th May and Sunday 31st May are very important days in the Christian calendar for those who follow the calendar established by pope Gregory XIII
Obviously all this depends upon the whether the health situation would allow communal public worship.
The government is also obviously not telling those who rarely ,if ever, think of God to go to a mosque, a synagogue or a church, but it is recognising that religious communities exist.
I won't say anymore.
Obviously all this depends upon the whether the health situation would allow communal public worship.
And nobody here has ever said anything different. My complaint has been about the suggestion that communal public worship should be held despite the government appraisal of the health situation because it's public worship, which is what the Catholic Conference of Bishops was insinuating.
Note also that this is not as yet a firm decision.
Obviously all this depends upon the whether the health situation would allow communal public worship.
And nobody here has ever said anything different. My complaint has been about the suggestion that communal public worship should be held despite the government appraisal of the health situation because it's public worship, which is what the Catholic Conference of Bishops was insinuating.
I have to say I think the insinuation was yours, not theirs. Really, if a couple of days were enough to make easing the lockdown safe or unsafe it's too damn soon anyway.
The conference of bishops... regretfully notes the date imposed on Catholics and all other religions in the country [...] we do not see how the ordinary celebration of Mass could encourage the spread of the virus or impede the distancing measures any more than other activities that will soon be starting up again [...] unless the epidemic begins to worsen again, the feast of Pentecost should mark the end of strict lockdown in terms of liturgical and sacramental life
Despite the implicit claim to speak for all religions, which they emphatically don't on this matter, the concluding argument is that the end of lockdown should be brought forward to a date in the Catholic liturgical calendar on the sole grounds of Catholic belief, liturgy, and sacraments.
There is certainly an argument for the defence of religious freedoms, and it's one I've been making since the start of this thread, but as far as I'm concerned this is pure self-interest and opportunism from the Catholics. Apart from anything else, it ignores the reality that the worst hotspot in France by some way was a religious gathering, and that the situation in the immediate vicinity of that church building is still about the worst in France (today's news) though being a protestant one, of course it doesn't count.
The conference of bishops... regretfully notes the date imposed on Catholics and all other religions in the country [...] we do not see how the ordinary celebration of Mass could encourage the spread of the virus or impede the distancing measures any more than other activities that will soon be starting up again [...] unless the epidemic begins to worsen again, the feast of Pentecost should mark the end of strict lockdown in terms of liturgical and sacramental life
Despite the implicit claim to speak for all religions, which they emphatically don't on this matter, the concluding argument is that the end of lockdown should be brought forward to a date in the Catholic liturgical calendar on the sole grounds of Catholic belief, liturgy, and sacraments.
There is certainly an argument for the defence of religious freedoms, and it's one I've been making since the start of this thread, but as far as I'm concerned this is pure self-interest and opportunism from the Catholics. Apart from anything else, it ignores the reality that the worst hotspot in France by some way was a religious gathering, and that the situation in the immediate vicinity of that church building is still about the worst in France (today's news) though being a protestant one, of course it doesn't count.
To me that reads as them asking for public worship to be treated the same as other activities carrying a similar risk level. Which is, y'know, common sense.
I have to say that I don’t read it the way @Eutychus and, I think, @la vie en rouge do, either. I wonder if there’s something going on where for those living in France, it reads differently in the context of other experiences.
I can't see how asking for a liturgical event (the feast of Pentecost) to mark the end of a public health measure (lockdown) can be seen as anything other than special pleading on religious grounds. There are no comparable activities being authorised at the same date that I'm aware of.
The context is, as reported multiple times, that a religious gathering in Mulhouse became an unintended hotspot out of all proportion to any other hotspot in France. It's a fact that religious gatherings represent a particular hazard for several reasons.
For one thing, this is making a lot of us extremely sensitive about recommencing worship before we're sure the risk can be properly mitigated. For another, in view of the Mulhouse event, which has already attracted death threats despite it being no fault of the church, if a church gathering becomes the epicentre of another outbreak the backlash will be immeasurably bigger. I deem this all the more likely if the decision-makers appear to believe they are above contagion.
And for another thing, I don't believe the Catholic hierarchy is really considering the feelings of its faithful. My assessment is that not a few believers of all stripes are with @Ethne Alba. I don't deem the institution's thinking to be sufficiently informed by pastoral concerns, rather by a desire to "get back to normal" when "normal" is what we should not be trying to get back to.
Finally, I believe this marks a dividing line between those who believe their testimony is about being responsible citizens and those who believe their testimony should focuses on religious exceptionalism, and I know which side of that debate I'm on.
I suppose a desire to get back to 'normal' (that is, pre-Covid-19) is only natural, but I agree that it is (a) probably unattainable, and (b) not necessarily desirable.
This applies, of course, to many aspects of life, not just religious observance.
The Church of England is already looking forward to a new festival - 'Unlock Sunday' (date as yet unknown), when all the Faithful will flock back to their churches, accompanied by the hordes of those converted by online services.
*sigh*
That sounds like exactly the same problem. The decision-makers are out of touch with the realities on the ground. In the present case, the Catholic hierarchy is trying to opportunistically reassert themselves as the moral guardians of a nation that has been secular since 1905. I can't speak for @la vie en rouge, but to me this is one particularly egregious example of something protestants put up with in France, especially so because it is likely to have a direct impact on our own congregations and potentially on public health as a whole.
That sounds like exactly the same problem. The decision-makers are out of touch with the realities on the ground. In the present case, the Catholic hierarchy is trying to opportunistically reassert themselves as the moral guardians of a nation that has been secular since 1905. I can't speak for @la vie en rouge, but to me this is one particularly egregious example of something protestants put up with in France, especially so because it is likely to have a direct impact on our own congregations and potentially on public health as a whole.
I'm sorry, Eutychus, but it really does seem like your antipathy toward the Roman Catholic hierarchy is colouring your perception here. You may be right, but it's not evidence from their public pronouncements as you've relayed them here.
@Arethosemyfeet However I feel about it, they want the date to be brought forward on specifically religious grounds. That much is in black and white in their press release, and nobody here has disputed that since I quoted it.
Similarly, there are no other comparable events being authorised at that time that I know of. We might argue about what is comparable, but for now there is, for instance, no question of reopening cinemas or theatres.
There are other things I'm aware of that undoubtedly feed into my perception. In addition to those I've already mentioned and some that I won't be,an inside understanding of how secularity plays out in this country is one of them, and yes it is hard to understand without a good grasp of what that's actually like.
The Church of England is already looking forward to a new festival - 'Unlock Sunday' (date as yet unknown), when all the Faithful will flock back to their churches, accompanied by the hordes of those converted by online services.
A member of my congregation has suggested putting on a community meal for "Unlock Sunday" but I've discussed it with my lay leaders and we agree that doing so isn't going to reflect reality. I haven't yet told the person who has made the suggestion ...)
Where I think I agree with @Eutychus is that other religious groups wouldn't even ask the question.
I'm trying to imagine French imams asking if the end of lockdown could be brought forward a little so they can celebrate Eid in the proper fashion. Except they wouldn't. Because they'd be harangued by the National Front for not being proper French people and they know what the backlash would be if an Eid party became the centre of a Covid cluster. Indeed the article linked by Euty notes the same thing: in the middle of Ramadan, the mosque is closed.
The festival of Shavuot also falls just before the end of the confinement period but I haven't heard of the rabbis asking for an exemption. We've already seen the backlash for Evangelical Protestants after what happened to la Porte Ouverte, which I think is one reason why we are very wary about reopening our churches.
It depends which region you live in, but in a red zone like the Ile de France, many of us think even 11 May is too soon to be lifting the lockdown. Asking for it to be moved forward for a reason which has nothing to do with public health is a bit of a dumb PR move, at the very least.
I'm not entirely agin it, but (as I said) my inbuilt cynicism might be getting the better of me...
Thank you. I’m glad to have seen this. The information from the Centre for Digital Theology at Durham University does use the phrase ‘Unlock Sunday’ but they are clearly not looking for some massive jamboree celebration.
Rather they are saying that having been forced to go online, churches are likely to have a continuing need to be online even when the lockdown ends, and that there are some people coming to online church for whom that, rather than physical gathering may (need to) be their main way of connecting with church.
The context is, as reported multiple times, that a religious gathering in Mulhouse became an unintended hotspot out of all proportion to any other hotspot in France. It's a fact that religious gatherings represent a particular hazard for several reasons.
That's not really what I meant by context. I get that completely.
What doesn't seem obvious to me and, it seems, to many others is that the statement by the Catholic bishops is an example of a persistent sense of entitlement. While I see possible ignorance and disregard of public health in the statement, I don't see a sense of entitlement in it. 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.
@Eutychus can answer for himself, but I think what he perceives as entitlement comes from the fact that no other religious group would dare to do the same.
Compare and contrast: Muslims have just gone through the whole month of Ramadan without ever being able to set foot in a mosque. They have not made any kind of fuss about it because it would not result in anything good happening for them.
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. That might be par for the course in the US, I don't know, but in France it exemplifies something I have observed multiple times, which is that at the end of the day the Catholic church in France doesn't really recognise the legitimacy of the secular state: it thinks 1905 was an aberration that will pass if only they keep on banging the same drum long enough.
@Eutychus can answer for himself, but I think what he perceives as entitlement comes from the fact that no other religious group would dare to do the same.
Compare and contrast: Muslims have just gone through the whole month of Ramadan without ever being able to set foot in a mosque. They have not made any kind of fuss about it because it would not result in anything good happening for them.
That's more an indication of the fact that France has an even worse Islamophobia problem than the UK (and the UK's Islamophobia problem is really bad). Imams ought to be able to ask, politely, and, equally politely, receive either a positive or negative response without raising a hew and cry.
Imams ought to be able to ask, politely, and, equally politely, receive either a positive or negative response without raising a hew and cry.
Yes, they should. And "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" is a reasonable ask, whether it's Muslims, Catholics, or anyone else doing the asking.
The answer might still be "no - there's a good reason for day X".
I think that's probably the missing piece here for many.
Article 2 of the French constitution says: the Republic does not recognise any religious practice. That means that asking for exceptions to laws for a particular religious festival is like talking to a brick wall. It's adding to a dialogue of the deaf. It's an oxymoron. It's a non-sequitur. I don't know how else to get this across. And I have to go and have an interfaith meeting now.
Comments
Perhaps (thought he, naughtily) the French Bishops should think of postponing Pentecost until June 7th, forgetting about Trinity Sunday, and all the awkward attempts to explain the incomprehensible...
And they'd avoid the possible problems associated with what would usually be a busy holiday weekend.
I actually think that the Catholic Church and other religious confessions have done quite well out of the confiscation of church buildings. They have relieved those religious bodies of the expense of maintaining them and on the whole I think that the state does its work well in this regard.
The' wipe out' phrase which I used and I am prepared to admit it was somewhat histrionic refers to the undoubted fact, as we are often reminded, that the Church has no official role in French society, apart, of course, from any role which its followers as private citizens may care to give it. I leave aside the parts of modern France which were not part of 1905 France where different rules and understandings and obligations apply.
The roughly 50% of French citizens who claim in some way to be Catholic must have the same democratic rights to express their point of view that other citizens have and have as much right as any other citizen to expect to be listened to, even if not necessarily agreed with.
The state,as such, does not recognise any confession, but the state recognises that the Catholic church exists, as indeed it will be or should be equally aware of other religious confessions. The state, itself, asked the religious communities to express their views on coming out of confinement.
The state itself recognises a number of traditional 'holy days' of the Catholic Church and traditionally grants work free days both for Ascension Thursday (21st May this year) and for the Feast of Pentecost including also the Monday of Pentecost. So it is not as if the French state is unaware of the significance ,at least for Catholics but for many other Christians also, as an important day.
That is not at all the same as inviting them to complain afterwards about what was decided. Which is their right, but in my view makes the Conference of Bishops look totally out of touch.
The State does not officially recognise any traditional 'holy day' as such. Article 2 of the Constitution. And it doesn't want to mark the end of restrictions with anybody having a big knees-up, religious or otherwise. The way back is a gradual getting used to a different world.
I can see that the State can grant a public holiday annually on 15th August,1st November and 25th December without thinking too much about it.
I cannot understand how the French State this year can grant public holidays this year on 21st May and also on 13th April and 1st June without being aware and recognising that these are dates of significant importance to the Christian community. It seems to me more than just blind chance that they land on these dates, especially since these dates are the dates of movable feasts which change each year and the French state always seems to be able to plump for a public holiday on these 'holy days'.
I know that all Sundays, possibly coming from a 'Christian ' heritage, are days of rest in France, but why was Sunday 12th April this year accorded the special rank of 'jour de fete' ?
I'm fairly sure that if the ascension, say, was replaced by a public holiday on another date in honour of something else, most of us wouldn't really care. In fact there's a real dearth of days off between January and April and personally I'd be more than happy if they came up with some excuse for moving one to late winter / early Spring.
Take August 15th, the Assumption of the Virgin. This is a doctrine which this Prot regards as arrant nonsense. Nonetheless I thank Mary once a year for getting me a day off.
We're French. Any excuse for not going to work is a good one. And the government has more sense than to go taking our precious public holidays off us.
I'll get me chapeau..
I believe it was Napoleon who made up the list of acceptable names for parents to hang on their kids, and deliberately included a lot of saints names. So he wasn't averse to kowtowing to to Catholic sensibilities.
I also read somewhere that he made his brother the head of the masonic lodges. Pretty ecumenical.
No accounting for tastes...
A strange, but strangely appealing, man. IMHO. YMMV.
aka The History of Christianity.
I know, I know. Your phrasing just prompted a sardonic comeback on my part, given the extent to which internal conflict has been part of Christianity from the get-go.
Cardinal Joseph Fesch was able to preside at Napoleon's religious marriage to Josephine de Beauharnais and also to declare it later to be null and void. Remember that the 'marriage' took place at midnight on the day that Josephine was to be presented to the pope. The pope refused to meet her unless they had a religious marriage.
In later life on St Helena Napoleon specifically asked for the company of a Catholic priest and two were sent to him. At his own request he asked for and received the Last Rites of the Church.
One question...
Assuming his priest uncle was the brother of his mom, that means Napoleon's mom was the daughter of a Swiss protestant?
One reason I'm curious is because I've read of right-wing Catholic propaganda calling Napoleon a protestant or at least protestant-sympathizer, and I wonder if there might have been a biographical basis for that.
You may know your French history, but your ideas about France in the year 2020 simply do not describe my experience of the country I live in.
It's to do with the constitutional reality in France that the Republic is not going to make an exception to public health considerations in a crisis on religious grounds.
I'm pissed with anybody of any confession who believes they're entitled to such an exception and says as much in print, all the more so when they are claiming to speak for all religions, and all the more so when it's the national representatives of that organisation doing so.
That does not mean that the Church has nothing to say to the population, nor that it should give up on what it believes to be its mission, no more than I think that you should give up on your mission , as I am sure that you believe equally that you have a message of value to those around you. The bishops are right to highlight to the government the desire of the faithful to receive in difficult times what are called the consolations of religion. Their request was a request and they have said that they do not wish to call the faithful to act against the law. Of course the Church does not speak for the majority of the population but it is often seen in France as the general representative of religion, mainly by those who have only a nodding acquaintance with religion. That, I think, has something to do with the history of the country and perhaps little to do with France, as it is today. But we are, to a certain extent, what we were, whether we know that or not.
My remarks about 'arrant nonsense' were directed towards another poster who used these words.
He recognises that the weekend of these dates are important moments in the religious calendars of a number of religious groups.
Friday 29th May will be the first day for Friday prayers after Ramadan
Friday 29th May and Saturday 30th May are very important days in the Jewish calendar for the Feast of Pentecost
Saturday 30th May and Sunday 31st May are very important days in the Christian calendar for those who follow the calendar established by pope Gregory XIII
Obviously all this depends upon the whether the health situation would allow communal public worship.
The government is also obviously not telling those who rarely ,if ever, think of God to go to a mosque, a synagogue or a church, but it is recognising that religious communities exist.
I won't say anymore.
And nobody here has ever said anything different. My complaint has been about the suggestion that communal public worship should be held despite the government appraisal of the health situation because it's public worship, which is what the Catholic Conference of Bishops was insinuating.
Note also that this is not as yet a firm decision.
I have to say I think the insinuation was yours, not theirs. Really, if a couple of days were enough to make easing the lockdown safe or unsafe it's too damn soon anyway.
Despite the implicit claim to speak for all religions, which they emphatically don't on this matter, the concluding argument is that the end of lockdown should be brought forward to a date in the Catholic liturgical calendar on the sole grounds of Catholic belief, liturgy, and sacraments.
There is certainly an argument for the defence of religious freedoms, and it's one I've been making since the start of this thread, but as far as I'm concerned this is pure self-interest and opportunism from the Catholics. Apart from anything else, it ignores the reality that the worst hotspot in France by some way was a religious gathering, and that the situation in the immediate vicinity of that church building is still about the worst in France (today's news) though being a protestant one, of course it doesn't count.
(Then again, have not been inside a supermarket for..... forever)
Religious freedom.
Maybe I ll be among the last to claim mine
To me that reads as them asking for public worship to be treated the same as other activities carrying a similar risk level. Which is, y'know, common sense.
The context is, as reported multiple times, that a religious gathering in Mulhouse became an unintended hotspot out of all proportion to any other hotspot in France. It's a fact that religious gatherings represent a particular hazard for several reasons.
For one thing, this is making a lot of us extremely sensitive about recommencing worship before we're sure the risk can be properly mitigated. For another, in view of the Mulhouse event, which has already attracted death threats despite it being no fault of the church, if a church gathering becomes the epicentre of another outbreak the backlash will be immeasurably bigger. I deem this all the more likely if the decision-makers appear to believe they are above contagion.
And for another thing, I don't believe the Catholic hierarchy is really considering the feelings of its faithful. My assessment is that not a few believers of all stripes are with @Ethne Alba. I don't deem the institution's thinking to be sufficiently informed by pastoral concerns, rather by a desire to "get back to normal" when "normal" is what we should not be trying to get back to.
Finally, I believe this marks a dividing line between those who believe their testimony is about being responsible citizens and those who believe their testimony should focuses on religious exceptionalism, and I know which side of that debate I'm on.
This applies, of course, to many aspects of life, not just religious observance.
The Church of England is already looking forward to a new festival - 'Unlock Sunday' (date as yet unknown), when all the Faithful will flock back to their churches, accompanied by the hordes of those converted by online services.
*sigh*
I'm sorry, Eutychus, but it really does seem like your antipathy toward the Roman Catholic hierarchy is colouring your perception here. You may be right, but it's not evidence from their public pronouncements as you've relayed them here.
That is also the case with the C of E, I'm afraid (although I admit that this might be just my world-weary cynicism showing itself).
Many individual ministers, including those of other denominations, are taking a more pragmatic, and realistic, view.
Similarly, there are no other comparable events being authorised at that time that I know of. We might argue about what is comparable, but for now there is, for instance, no question of reopening cinemas or theatres.
There are other things I'm aware of that undoubtedly feed into my perception. In addition to those I've already mentioned and some that I won't be,an inside understanding of how secularity plays out in this country is one of them, and yes it is hard to understand without a good grasp of what that's actually like.
What’s your source for this?
The 'Unlock Sunday' thing comes from our weekly Diocesan mailing, but I think the term originated with the Diocese of Durham:
https://mailchi.mp/73f2456ef9cf/the-digest-monday-4-may-2020?e=127ff8edd8
I'm not entirely agin it, but (as I said) my inbuilt cynicism might be getting the better of me...
I'm trying to imagine French imams asking if the end of lockdown could be brought forward a little so they can celebrate Eid in the proper fashion. Except they wouldn't. Because they'd be harangued by the National Front for not being proper French people and they know what the backlash would be if an Eid party became the centre of a Covid cluster. Indeed the article linked by Euty notes the same thing: in the middle of Ramadan, the mosque is closed.
The festival of Shavuot also falls just before the end of the confinement period but I haven't heard of the rabbis asking for an exemption. We've already seen the backlash for Evangelical Protestants after what happened to la Porte Ouverte, which I think is one reason why we are very wary about reopening our churches.
It depends which region you live in, but in a red zone like the Ile de France, many of us think even 11 May is too soon to be lifting the lockdown. Asking for it to be moved forward for a reason which has nothing to do with public health is a bit of a dumb PR move, at the very least.
Rather they are saying that having been forced to go online, churches are likely to have a continuing need to be online even when the lockdown ends, and that there are some people coming to online church for whom that, rather than physical gathering may (need to) be their main way of connecting with church.
We may well be able to continue some sort of internet presence, of course.
What doesn't seem obvious to me and, it seems, to many others is that the statement by the Catholic bishops is an example of a persistent sense of entitlement. While I see possible ignorance and disregard of public health in the statement, I don't see a sense of entitlement in it. 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.
Compare and contrast: Muslims have just gone through the whole month of Ramadan without ever being able to set foot in a mosque. They have not made any kind of fuss about it because it would not result in anything good happening for them.
That's more an indication of the fact that France has an even worse Islamophobia problem than the UK (and the UK's Islamophobia problem is really bad). Imams ought to be able to ask, politely, and, equally politely, receive either a positive or negative response without raising a hew and cry.
Yes, they should. And "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" is a reasonable ask, whether it's Muslims, Catholics, or anyone else doing the asking.
The answer might still be "no - there's a good reason for day X".
But I don't really understand French secularity.
Article 2 of the French constitution says: the Republic does not recognise any religious practice. That means that asking for exceptions to laws for a particular religious festival is like talking to a brick wall. It's adding to a dialogue of the deaf. It's an oxymoron. It's a non-sequitur. I don't know how else to get this across. And I have to go and have an interfaith meeting now.