I agree completely. I think my meaning was lost. All I meant to say was that these policies, while probably good, are bad politically. If they have data that leads them to believe that these policies will save lives, then taking the political hit is the right thing to do.
But it is a political hit, and if there was a way to word the regulations so as to not mention religious services at all that would have been a wiser approach, IMO.
I think that the Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn may have pissed the Pope off here.
While some Catholic priests claimed coronavirus lockdowns that shuttered churches infringed on religious liberties, Pope Francis has adhered to Italy’s strict lockdown…He halted all public Masses at the Vatican, livestreamed his morning liturgies during the peak of Italy’s outbreak, and at one point even admonished priests who balked at the measures for their “adolescent resistance.”
…
Francis had urged the Catholic faithful to obey anti-COVID measures, saying government authorities were responsible for public health. He was seen this week wearing a face mask for the first time, and has been using hand sanitizer.
I thought we weren’t supposed to personalize arguments in this forum. 
The Pope has told Catholics to obey government restrictions on attending masses during the pandemic.
I know.
He also said, in an op-ed in todays New York Times:
Yet some groups protested, refusing to keep their distance, marching against travel restrictions — as if measures that governments must impose for the good of their people constitute some kind of political assault on autonomy or personal freedom! Looking to the common good is much more than the sum of what is good for individuals. It means having a regard for all citizens and seeking to respond effectively to the needs of the least fortunate.
It is all too easy for some to take an idea — in this case, for example, personal freedom — and turn it into an ideology, creating a prism through which they judge everything.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/26/opinion/pope-francis-covid.html
And the bishop of the diocese, the one who filed the lawsuit in question, has suspended the Sunday obligation. And at no point did Bishop DiMarzio even suggest that Catholics should disobey any government laws or regulations.
The Church has really not been a bad actor in this situation.
Bishop DiMarzio? Enjoy your ride on under the bus.
Bishop DiMarzio will be just fine. He’s been the bishop of the Brooklyn diocense for more than fifteen years (can’t remember exactly how long). He’s at retirement age already. He’s not being thrown under any buses. Why would you think he was?
Oh, I don’t know . . . maybe the wording of this?
But the real question I have is why is Bishop DiMarzio in court in the first place if Catholics should obey government laws and/or regulations?
Well, read the action he brought, if you really want to know. Looks to me like DiMarzio thought the church in his diocese was being subjected to greater restrictions than secular entities. He thought that should be challenged. The Supreme Court apparently agreed with him.
That’s not at all inconsistent with thinking that Catholics should obey government laws and/or regulations.
Funny, I can’t find an
‘Appeal to the SCotUS when you think the authorities, established by God, got it wrong!’
exception in Romans 13.
Hmmm? Do you think Andrew Cuomo’s executive orders are “established by God”? Do you think the Catholic Church thinks so?
If you think DiMarzio and the Church are or were encouraging Catholics to disobey the local COVID restrictions, show us.
Otherwise, well, what’s your problem? I mean, I wish DiMarzio hadn’t brought this action, but he did. It was moot anyway – the restrictions had been relaxed by the time the Supreme Court got the case .
But it seems to me that you misunderstand what the action was about.
Yeah, I keep forgetting, Paul only speaks for Jesus when it’s convenient.
Is this all about trying to score some “gotcha”?
Sorry, I thought you were actually trying to engage on the subject.
Never mind. I was wrong.
This joy you are clearly getting from needling an individual church goer isn’t a very good look.
Oh no, I’m ‘needling’ the whole fucking Catholic church and its inability to consistently follow the fucking ‘’‘Word of God’’’.
Bravo. I had no idea the Pope was a member here.
So you’re the authority on what the “word of God” is? Please. Be serious. You haven’t scored some kind of point here.
There’s a vast body of Catholic thinking on the relationship between Church and civil authority. A lot of people, smarter people than you or me, have been thinking about this very subject for a very long time.
There’s an actual discussion to be had here about what restrictions should apply to religious practice during the pandemic, and how public health measures can be reconciled with First Amendment issues, and so on and so forth. It might even be interesting and informative.
And if that’s what you were interested in, I’d love to have that discussion.
Clearly, that’s not why you’re in this thread, however. This is just your version of some Trumpist “owning the libs.”
And just about as intelligent.
Francis had urged the Catholic faithful to obey anti-COVID measures, saying government authorities were responsible for public health.
I’m on team Pope! There’s nothing to actually discuss.
Yeah…it’s not hard at all.
Absolutely NO constitutional right is without restriction. None. Not one. Today and right now per loads of case law absolutely none are without restrictions.
Free speech has limits. Owning weapons has limits. You name it.
All done with an eye to being rational about it.
No one is trying to end religious places of worship. They are trying to stop a very real, very deadly, pandemic. A real and present danger.
There is absolutely nothing forcing the Supreme Court to say that keeping churches open is special and uniquely important during a pandemic (hell, Christian dogma says god is everywhere so you can pray at home with all the same force and effect as you can pray in church). They have every reason to protect the public good. Hell, even Scalia in the 2nd Amendment Heller decision carved out exceptions to the 2nd Amendment because a literal reading, or even an originalist reading, leads to really bad results.
The Supreme Court could have easily done the same here. Especially since this was no sneak attack on religion.
This was the first flex of a conservative court. Expect it to get a lot worse.