Again, I marvel at the fact that, even though I agree that churches should not be open at this time, in this situation, people still must give me shit because I’m a Catholic.
Amazing.
Back at you…what are you defending? That the Supreme Court was right to keep places of worship open?
But I think this all misses the point.
Your right to worship does not include putting me in jeopardy. Not in this country (at least until this decision). The Supreme Court has now decreed that allowing YOU to go to church is fine even if it puts ME at risk. Because fuck me right? You need to take communion constantly and for some reason that trumps the safety of me and my family?
Freedom of religion also includes freedom from religion and I see no reason, whatsoever, that your need to go to church should put me at literal risk of illness and death.
You can worship at home. Period. Full stop. The church may want you in church. God will find you wherever you are as you already agreed.
If the government was trying to end religion I’d be standing with you all the way to stop them. But they aren’t. They are responding to a temporary but real and lethal danger and the church is fighting that. So I fight the church and its defenders.
Pick a side.
We had plans for that lumber.
I was born and raised Catholic as well, and there was absolutely singing at every Sunday Mass I can remember. And none at the more frequent weekday Masses I attended as a student in a Catholic school. Catholics don’t go to church to sing- they sing at some services but not other, and a Mass without singing is no less a Mass than one with singing.
One more time.
Please read through what I’ve said here.
I do not believe that churches should be open at this time. I have not said one word contrary to that in this entire thread. I have stated, repeatedly, that the churches shouldn’t be open and that I think Bishop DiMarzio was wrong to bring this action.
Show me, specifically, where I’ve said anything different. Please.
But that turns out to be false? And the majority decision used strawmen for their arguments. I think DiMarzio is a bad actor here.
This thread is about the Supreme Court decision.
What is your opinion on that?
(And note: I already answered you on the “greater restrictions” angle.)
That DiMarzio was wrong to bring the action.
SInce I haven’t read the Court’s decision, I haven’t defended it in this thread. Or attacked it, either.
But news accounts indicate that a majority of the court believed that it was wrong to impose restrictions on churches that weren’t imposed on secular institutions like supermarkets or liquor stores. Which seems right. I’ll have to, when time permits, read the whole decision to see if the reports I’ve read are accurate.
It also seems that it’s a moot point, since the restrictions have been relaxed (even before the decision came down).
I give up. How many times to I have to say that churches should be closed, that DiMarzio (and every other bishop) should not be fighting closings, and so on and so on?
I have picked a side. Not that it’s relevant to this discussion, but at some personal cost to me in my community. You apparently just either won’t believe that, or don’t want me on your side.
You are right about this. Kavanaugh (IIRC) said as much.
But of course, why should we treat a supermarket the same as a church? It’s a specious argument.
I am no longer clear on which side you are defending.
You say you think the churches should be closed but waffled on the point of the thread which is the Supreme Court decision. That decision is by FAR a bigger issue than what Di Marzio chose.
It feels like you are trying to have it both ways instead of staking out a clear position.
I’m not waffling. I’ve said I’d read the whole think when time permits.
You, of course, have read the whole thing? And the action of the Diocese of Brooklyn?
I’ve read the Supreme Court decision.
If you think that is lacking somehow let me know why.
We’re talking about Catholics here. You want the hard-core Baptist thread, which is somewhere over that-a-way.
You’re simply not having this discussion in good faith. You’re going to find something wrong in whatever I say. You won’t even let me agree with you. It’s transparently obvious what’s going on.
I give up. You win. I concede.
Which is the strawman I mentioned. For one thing, I searched NY “essential businesses” and liquor stores aren’t even in there. One wonders why that was mentioned (unless liquor stores are pretending to be grocery stores). Even if they were, they are not gatherings where large numbers of people are next to each other inside. All other gatherings and non-essential businesses are shut down in red zones with the EXCEPTION of churches. Churches and other places of worship get to remain open but at limited capacity. So places of worship are not only NOT being discriminated against. They are getting special treatment.
https://www1.nyc.gov/site/coronavirus/index.page
https://esd.ny.gov/guidance-executive-order-2026
I responded to your question in a forthright manner. Directly and with no comment beyond asking you if you think I should read more.
ISTM “good faith” to you means people agreeing with you.
This kind of antiCatholic, I mean, antiChristian bigotry shall not stand!
Here’s why certain establishments (including houses of worship) are treated differently.
Here’s another one with adjustments based on everyone wearing masks (Figure 3).
He’s not defending anything. I don’t think the Supreme Court was correct. Saintly Loser and I both wish DiMarzio hadn’t brought this action, we both wish he had kept the churches closed even after they were allowed to open. I don’t know why DiMarzio chose to get involved in this when the bishops of other areas that had the same restrictions didn’t and I don’t see why he supposedly believes that religious institutions were discriminated against.
But all of those things are entirely separate from the issue of whether people are correct when they make statements like :
The reason it is not required of shut-ins is that there is no requirement to attend Mass on a weekly basis.
or
As far as I know, no major denominations of Christianity require church attendance. The Bible just says not to forsake meeting one with another, but no one is forsaking it.
or
Further, Christian dogma has it that there is no need for church
Those statements are all incorrect regarding Catholics* - they are just not true. The Catholic Church does indeed require attendance at Mass unless there is sufficient reason not to attend. That serious reason may be that you are sick, that the bishop has granted a dispensation , that you are at a high risk for becoming sick at a large gathering ( even in the absence of a pandemic, say if your immune system is suppressed) or that the civil authorities have banned all gatherings including church services due to a pandemic. But to be excused from fulfilling an obligation doesn’t negate the fact that the obligation exists. And when people deny that the obligation exists at all, it almost seems like they are saying 1) I know what Catholicism requires better than you do and it doesn’t require Mass attendance on Sunday and 2) If it did require Mass attendance on Sunday my opinion would be different. Because after all, if the requirement or lack of it doesn’t factor into your opinion, why bring it up?
- I believe Orthodox Christians and some other denominations also require attendance