Don’t get me wrong – I think that in-person worship is, in most cases, a really bad idea right now. I was trying to explain why it’s so important to people of faith, and why suggestions like “just watch some evangelist on TV if you need church” are really poor substitutes.
Yeah, this thread has some people talking about how meeting in person is really important to some people and “virtual church” isn’t the same at all, and other people talking about how in-person worship is a really bad, irresponsible idea right now, and they’re both right.
Really it is not for you, or me, or anyone else, to speak to what is or is not of spiritual or community significance to someone else. Dismissing their lived experiences as “silly” is offensive.
Like much else about the response to this pandemic there may be compromises that can be made, ways to decrease risks to a point in which those for whom in person services are a vital part their quality of life can participate safely enough. Fewer in the building at a time more spread out with prerecorded music instead of a live choir and no singing, quiet spoken voices encouraged, masks required … might need shifts and/or streaming for those whose turn for live service it is not. Not sure if Italy is the model to follow but masses now “are a go” there.
The Pope disagrees. He thinks it is more important to stay alive.
Isn’t it nice when a religious leader is also a man of science?
The policy of the Catholic Church that he still endorses opposing condom use has killed so many people that I think characterizing him as a “man of science” who thinks it is “important to stay alive” is laughable.
In multiple instances in this thread, the same person is saying both of these things. (Tips hat to raspberry hunter and kenobi 65. :))
Wow, thanks - I obviously had not seen that. Okay, my apologies to Pope Francis. A lot of damage already done, of course, but the past cannot be changed, so all I can do is thank him for having the wisdom and compassion to do the right thing.
I’m confused though, that Telegraph article is behind a paywall, and there’s nothing at all about any change in policy on Wikipedia here, which I had actually checked before making my first comment.
Nor can I now find anything at all on a policy change by googling.
Here’s a brief quote from the Telegraph article (which is dated 2010, and it was actually Pope Benedict who announced the policy change):
raspberry hunter: You’ve checked our church’s web site about returning to church meetings? If you scroll down, you’ll see some photos exemplifying the right way to go about congregating in person. Here in Beijing, the church is beginning the process as the local police station has outlined it so we can meet, but it’s going to be a long process to get permission.
So, they were all masked and maintaining distance yet 40 individuals contracted the virus?
What about whoever these 40 people infected?
QFT.
There have been comparisons in this thread to activities like going to a gym, pointing out that “sure exercising at home doesn’t give the full experience, just as worshiping from home doesn’t give the full experience, but we all need to suck it up for the greater good.”
That’s true but I’m not sure that it gets to the heart of what some people in this thread, who feel a deep connection to in-person church-going, are saying. Religious people, correct me if I’m wrong, but aren’t you suggesting that there is something transcendent about the experience of worshiping together - a spiritual fulfillment that goes beyond the “mere” personal satisfaction that a gym enthusiast might get from the sights, sounds, and physical sensations of a gym visit?
Because if that’s the case, it’s still no reason for church worship to be exempt from the rules that other citizens are held to. My SO is an artist and likes to say, “art is my church.” He’s not being hyperbolic. For him, the opportunity to be in the physical presence of extraordinary art is life-affirming and joyful. Looking at on-line pictures of art wouldn’t begin to duplicate that experience.
He and his artist friends are not claiming that the ability to visit art museums is “essential” and that museums should be open because there is some special, ineffable quality to congregating in the presence of art - even though there is.
So I would submit that the OP is right in attributing “arrogance” to any church group that feels they must congregate in person because their religious impulse is somehow special and above the needs of us lowly non-religious types. I’m fine with people seeking meaning in life through religion (as long as it doesn’t spill over into marginalizing others, but that’s a different subject). But I’m not fine with the assumption that someone is a better person, deserving of more privileges even when those privileges have the capacity to harm others, because they find fulfillment in religion.
Environmental activism, or art, or feeding the homeless, or playing in an orchestra, or other activities that give meaning to the lives of people who participate, surely deserve to be treated the same as religious activities. Hell, if I were making government policy I’d allow groups to congregate to feed the homeless long before I’d allow groups to gather for worship or playing music.
The article doesn’t say exactly what the “official guidelines aimed at containing the spread of the virus” are, that they were supposedly following. I wondered what measures they had been taking, and tried to search, but couldn’t find an answer.
That line reminds me of the email message that HR recently sent out on my job, alerting us to the fact that an employee tested positive. He’s a coworker of mine, but I didn’t know that when I read the email since HR didn’t disclose the name. HR assured us that we were all safe because the employee had been wearing a mask while in the building and hadn’t been in contact with anyone while in the building. Since I didn’t know who the guy was, I believed the email. But later it came out who it was and I realized we’d been majorly lied too. Because I had seen him repeatedly the day before he got his positive test result and I never saw him wearing a mask. I saw him repeatedly because he’s the type of person who walks for exercise. He passed by my cubicle at least three times, startling me each time. I remember thinking to myself at the time that it would be messed-up if he was infected and spreading his infection to the few people unfortunate enough to have to be in the office.
But I’m not pissed at him. I’m pissed at HR for spreading bullshit lies. Maybe they were merely taking his word that he followed all the best practices, but they shouldn’t have done that. They could have at least reached out to the people who were on the same floor as him and recommended that we self-isolate. It would have been really nice for them to offer to test us as well.
It is possible the congregants got infected despite doing following all the best practices. But I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that the church is claiming it followed all the best practices when really it didn’t.
Do you work in the sort of place where you could bring your concerns to HR? Like, maybe if you pointed out to them that they should offer testing, they would?
Or are you gasping with laughter at the naive supposition that your HR might do the right thing?
I don’t think it’s that uncommon to be a part of a community like that. I have, and I’m not a church goer - and I know a lot of people that have that place that serves the function you describe.
The yoga studio where I took classes 4-5 times a week had that same function. I knew the other people that went there, I socialized with them, we chatted in the hallways before and after class, sometimes we went out after for coffee. If I went to a gym everyday instead I’d probably develop the same type of community within my gym.
I have friends that have weekly contra dances and they serve the same type of community function as church does for regular churchgoers. Basically, anyone that had any regular participation in any regular group activity based on common interests is going through the same thing.
AA meetings served the same function for my friends in AA - and the absence of regular in-person AA meetings has been hard for many of them.
I just don’t think that in the practical sense the community function of church is that special. But, that said - I’m a liberal but one with a libertarian streak - I’m not comfortable with legally requiring churches to close because religion. They should be strongly encouraged to close voluntarily and those that attend should be watched closely for COVID. But I have mixed feelings about the legal mandate.
I also feel that if we had an appropriate government response we could achieve close to 100% voluntary cooperation, but this is a QZ thread so I’m not going to elaborate.
Where this digression seems to have started was with monstro’s suggested ways to get a good ole churching-up in the absence of being physically present at church services, and my objection that they were basically irrelevant to the essential attribute of church - participation in a faith community - and as such weren’t good or bad replacements for church, but not replacements in the least.
This was not intended as an argument that church services should continue: just a few posts earlier, I’d posted that:
By the same logic as in my reply to monstro, I wouldn’t expect you or your friends to react kindly to suggestions that you watch videos of yoga classes or contra-dancing events, or the notion that doing that would even partly fill the void of not being able to do such things oneself. But such reactions wouldn’t in any way constitute an argument that contra-dancing and yoga classes should be exempt from limits on gatherings during the present health emergency.
Sure, though I don’t see people storming their governors’ offices for the “right” to go to Pilates class. Most people I know are doing video or internet-based exercise classes now. It’s not the same thing, but it’s satisfactory.