|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Mar 12, 2020 11:11:52 GMT
Obviously, our thoughts and prayers are with the victims and we pray for the containment of the epidemic. But I have a question. Is there any historic precedent for cancelling Masses, for example during the post First World War Spanish Flu epidemic?
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Mar 12, 2020 20:34:24 GMT
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Mar 16, 2020 21:46:39 GMT
The article linked below (which comes from a politically conservative US site, to allow for bias) makes the point that 1950s epidemics did not involve precautions on the same scale because at that time the world was still being run by people who grew up in the pre-antibiotic age and saw epidemics as something to be expected. We don't know how lucky we are www.city-journal.org/1957-asian-flu-pandemic
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Mar 16, 2020 21:58:47 GMT
I did see one mediaevalist stating somewhere on a blog that there are in fact precedents for closing churches in time of plague, though specific references were not given. I would say that taking precautions is an act of charity. Not helpful IMHO are the following responses I have come across online. (1) Evangelical/Pentecostal: "Faith will preserve you from the virus". Nuff said. (2) Eastern Orthodox - "Those who think it possible to be infected by the Elements at Communion are heretics who don't believe in the Real Presence!" This may be linked to their interpretation of the Real Presence, which is slightly different from our concept of transubstantiation, in which the "accidents" which remain when the substance is changed presumably include the ability to transmit infection. I wonder how this view copes with the more or less well-authenticated cases of people being poisoned through the Elements by particularly disgusting and sacrilegious enemies in the mediaeval and renaissance era? (3) Trad Catholic "St Charles Borromeo didn't take precautions against plague beyond prayer and fasting". St Charles was a saint, and what is sanctity in him might be presumption in us. Besides, medicine in his era was often more dangerous than the disease. (4) (Mentally) Adolescent Nones - "HEy - let's all head off to the nearest pub/nightclub, get drunk, hot and sweaty and post selfies of ourselves in a big crowd!" As seen in Temple Bar a few days ago, and in various places in the US. Words are not sufficient to describe this idiocy.
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Mar 17, 2020 9:15:21 GMT
I did see one mediaevalist stating somewhere on a blog that there are in fact precedents for closing churches in time of plague, though specific references were not given. I would say that taking precautions is an act of charity. Not helpful IMHO are the following responses I have come across online. (1) Evangelical/Pentecostal: "Faith will preserve you from the virus". Nuff said. (2) Eastern Orthodox - "Those who think it possible to be infected by the Elements at Communion are heretics who don't believe in the Real Presence!" This may be linked to their interpretation of the Real Presence, which is slightly different from our concept of transubstantiation, in which the "accidents" which remain when the substance is changed presumably include the ability to transmit infection. I wonder how this view copes with the more or less well-authenticated cases of people being poisoned through the Elements by particularly disgusting and sacrilegious enemies in the mediaeval and renaissance era? (3) Trad Catholic "St Charles Borromeo didn't take precautions against plague beyond prayer and fasting". St Charles was a saint, and what is sanctity in him might be presumption in us. Besides, medicine in his era was often more dangerous than the disease. (4) (Mentally) Adolescent Nones - "HEy - let's all head off to the nearest pub/nightclub, get drunk, hot and sweaty and post selfies of ourselves in a big crowd!" As seen in Temple Bar a few days ago, and in various places in the US. Words are not sufficient to describe this idiocy. In relation to the "Trad Catholic" objection above - St. Charles actually DID take precautions - he closed the churches in Milan and held masses outside their doors so that the townspeople could watch from their balconies. I've also heard some traditionalists make the EO objection in relation to Communion in the hand. As regards the broader issue of Covid-19, I completely agree that we all need to take precautions to curb its spread, though I am concerned that some countries, including potentially our own, seem to be taking the Chinese approach of forced collective quarantine rather than the South Korean approach of mass testing and targeted quarantines of people who actually have the virus, which is better suited to a democracy: www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/03/italy-south-korea-differ-tackling-coronavirus-outbreak-200313062505781.htmlThere is also the problem of how long these measures are sustainable. Long-term lockdowns will take their toll on supply chains and we could see the introduction of rationing as a result. This is bearable though compared to a possible sharp rise in depression and suicide as people without social contact turn in on themselves, or potential civil disorder as people lose patience with their lives essentially being taken away (the Gardaí seem to anticipate the latter with the creation of a dedicated Public Order Unit). I really hope and pray that the Government know what they are doing and that this will all pass soon.
|
|
|
Post by Account Deleted on Mar 20, 2020 12:00:44 GMT
The thing that causes me most dismay about this pandemic is the ease with which Irish Catholic clergy abandon dispensing the Eucharist to those who wish to receive it.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Mar 21, 2020 18:16:56 GMT
To be fair, this reflects a certain legalism that has always existed in our Church. I should add that dispensation does not mean FORBIDDING people to receive, only removing the obligation. This is an interesting post by a canon lawyer on the subject. Two details which are of interest: (1) The Italian bishop who ordered all his priests to self-quarantine, even when this means denying the sacraments to those in danger of death. now THAT is outrageous - a priest is supposed to be specially set aside and to be like the Good Shepherd who lays down his life for the sheep. I might add that one defence of clerical celibacy which was often advanced in the past was the greater readiness of celibate clergy to risk their lives in ministering to the sick during epidemics since they had no families to endanger. (I recall reading JA Froude's life of the Victorian commentator Thomas Carlyle. Carlyle was thoroughly anti-Catholic, but he recorded that he was tremendously impressed when an epidemic broke out in the Galashiels workhouse and although some local clerics were willing to stand outside and preach to the inmates, the Catholic priest was the only one to go in and minister to the sick, even though this led to his own death.) (2) The description of how St Damien of Molokai was on poor terms with his bishop and other clerics because they resented how his self-sacrifice for the lepers made them look bad. I'd never heard that before but it's all too believable. canonlawmadeeasy.com/2020/03/20/bishops-authority-cancel-masses/
|
|
|
Post by Account Deleted on Mar 24, 2020 18:46:29 GMT
To be fair, this reflects a certain legalism that has always existed in our Church. I should add that dispensation does not mean FORBIDDING people to receive, only removing the obligation. At this stage, so many have removed opportunities for receiving (by cancelling or holding "private" masses) that the effect is little different than if they had forbidden receiving. The lack of willingness to make a little effort to safely dispense the Eucharist - possible even within the State protocols - has been quite revealing. Some churches are truly fulfilling their mission of bringing Christ to the people in a time of most need by providing ticketed masses, dispensing hosts on tissues, having communion after masses, etc. There are safe solutions, for those inclined to look for them. My local priests seemed in a hurry to cancel all masses (even the thinly attended weekday ones) and distance themselves from their people and the Eucharist. And it seems most priests and the Bishops were of the same inclination. How would Christ look upon their withdrawing of His Presence at the first sign of difficultly I wonder? Matthew 26:35
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Mar 24, 2020 22:10:54 GMT
To be fair, I presume they cancelled PUBLIC Masses but continued to say Mass in private. I suspect the new government regulations will have the effect of making public Masses even rarer. Dispensing hosts on tissues and having communion after Masses would, I think raise their own problems - the loss of particles in the first, crowding in the second.
|
|
|
Post by Account Deleted on Mar 25, 2020 14:40:27 GMT
To be fair, I presume they cancelled PUBLIC Masses but continued to say Mass in private. I suspect the new government regulations will have the effect of making public Masses even rarer. Dispensing hosts on tissues and having communion after Masses would, I think raise their own problems - the loss of particles in the first, crowding in the second. Disposable plastic film then, if you prefer - particulate loss would be no greater than what's already permitted in receiving in the hand. The crowding objection could also be solved, by ticketed time slots - also an option to avoid close-queueing for confession. Most devout people I saw - wishing to attend weekday masses - were very Christian in spacing far apart in the church and at communion, better than many we see in the street who selfishly won't practice "social distancing" correctly. However, these minor hurdles are not the main problem here. Your objections display exactly the problem I was referring to hibernicus - a disinclination to look for solutions to continue to bring the sacraments to the people, in preference to raising objections about it. I have no doubt the new guidelines will affect masses more, as it seems the Archbishop himself has been asking for remaining public masses to be closed, for fear the church authorities are open to accusation of not being in compliance with State (HSE-driven) guidelines. When all this is over, people will at their leisure ask whether the response from many authorities and organisations was apt and proportionate. As part of that, the faithful will be rightly questioning the eagerness to render unto Caesar, even at the expensive of rendering unto God, by withdrawing sacraments from the faithful at this hour of want and expediency. One wonders what the priests who brought mass onto the battlefields of WWI/WWII would think of these men. "We are not now that strength which in old days moved earth .. and heaven"
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Mar 26, 2020 23:26:09 GMT
The Archbishop has asked for public Masses to cease, so I now won't be able to get to Mass next Sunday as I have been continuing to do since the obligation was removed. (The church I attended observed the security precautions - 3 to a pew, 6ft apart, half the pews roped off, no more than 100 at each Mass - more Masses to try to cater for more people. I don't know whether fear of the HSE is one of the Archbishop's motives. I prefer to think he is guided by the desire not to spread infection and overwhelm the health services, especially given that many churchgoers are elderly and at risk of dying from the virus. Personally, if I were in the Archbishop's shoes I wouldn't have total closure of the churches, but then I'm not the Archbishop and he has the authority to make the decision. (Bear in mind, as Newman points out in his LETTER TO THE DUKE OF NORFOLK on conscience, that when criticising a superior the assumption of truth lies with him until proved otherwise.) The Gospels have quite a bit to say about the sabbath being made for man, not man for the sabbath and this certainly applies when it comes to the risk of spreading a highly infectious disease which will kill many of those who contract it. The denial of last rites to the dying strikes me as absolutely outrageous and indefensible, however (I don't know if this is the case in Dublin, but certain dioceses around the world have clearly adopted it) - quite frankly I think priests ought to be willing to die for it if necessary, albeit observing whatever regulations are possible to protect general public health (for example, going to large hospitals and staying there till the crisis is over, a la Fr Damien). One of the subsidiary rationales for clerical celibacy is that it involves less risk of infecting dependents and greater ability to risk oneself. Similarly, I regret that the SVP have suspended home visits at this time. The point of the SVP is that the poor are our friends and brothers in Jesus, and personally as a member with no dependents I would be willing to take the risk to help them, though I can't do anything about this on my own. The battlefields of the World Wars did require certain adaptations, such as the use of general absolution (cf the famous painting of a priest on horseback administering absolution to the Munster Fusiliers before they go into action) and Fr Willie Doyle in his letters expresses regret that he is not allowed to say Mass at or near the frontline (because of the danger of the Elements being upset or the congregation being hit by shells). The quote from Tennyson's Ulysses poem is unfortunate because Tennyson's Ulysses is Dante's Ulysses, who is recruiting a crew for a voyage inspired by reckless pride which will bring him to Hell. Presumption and pride are always dangers to be guarded against. Rod Dreher has an interesting column replying to Rusty Reno's claim that the quarantine precautions amount to surrender to death's dominion by treating bodily life as the highest good. Even allowing that Dreher is Orthodox and may have a slightly different view of the Sacraments than Catholics (I don't know if this is the case) I think he puts it very well. Life is sacred and shouldn't be thrown away unnecessarily. www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/pro-life-coronavirus-crisis-reno-cuomo/
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Apr 2, 2020 1:05:30 GMT
When looking up information about St Aloysius Gonzaga for unconnected reasons, I found that he died as a result of ministering to plague victims, so he may be a good Saint to invoke at this time: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aloysius_Gonzaga
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Apr 17, 2020 20:20:27 GMT
An English Catholic blogger points out that there has been a rush to get elderly patients to commit to end-of-life schemes of the do not resuscitate variety during the epidemic, and that this is another example of pro-lifers as Cassandra (she could foretell what would happen but nobody would believe her). Libertarianism and market utilitarianism have embraced: mulier-fortis.blogspot.com/2020/04/slippery-slopes.html
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Apr 21, 2020 23:08:36 GMT
An elderly relative of mine has noted that both RTE and the BBC have displayed a notable uptick in pro-euthanasia items during the epidemic, and that in some of these the emphasis has shifted from "The old shouldn't have to suffer" to "The families shouldn't have to suffer".
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Apr 22, 2020 14:02:47 GMT
I believe that this is a running theme, among other themes about this crisis I don't like. But, yes, the forces of euthanasia are on the march.
|
|