….For the first time since the Spanish Flu of 1918, our local and state governments have restricted worship services. And while the Word can be livestreamed, the Eucharist cannot.
I am well aware that this spiritual crisis has intensified the concern that faithful Catholics have about their leaders. When I launched an ultimately successful campaign to “free the Mass” in San Francisco, Philip Lawler wrote, “Why ask city officials to ‘free’ the Mass? There is only one man who has the rightful authority to restrict and regulate the liturgy of the Catholic Church in San Francisco, and his name is Cordileone.”
The best way to answer Lawler’s question is to tell the story of how I started the movement to Free the Mass. Like most bishops, my first response to a novel virus whose fatality rates were then unknown was to cooperate with public authorities to “flatten the curve.” The stated rationale was to prevent hospitals from being overwhelmed. Given what was happening in New York City and Italy, this appeared rational.
I did not accept the state’s authority to shut down worship services. I made these decisions. I am responsible for them. Priests continued to celebrate Mass, though the lay faithful were no longer permitted to attend. I encouraged pastors to livestream and reach out in other creative ways if they could (and many have). This was a twenty-first-century version of what St. Charles Borromeo did during the plague of 1576; when the churches of Milan were closed, he set up outdoor altars so people could see that the Mass was still taking place.
Confession, baptism, and other sacraments remained available. And I refused to close the churches to private prayer, which became a bone of contention with City Hall at different times during the lockdown.
We developed protocols to safely celebrate the Mass (social distancing, masks, ventilation, and sanitation) and sent them to city health officials for review. In a pandemic, civil authorities have the responsibility to create reasonable health guidelines informing people of faith how they can worship safely. But government cannot arbitrarily ban worship. Moreover, Catholics have shown we can celebrate the Mass safely. Our protocols work.
As the lockdown dragged on, I began to get unhappy messages from faithful friends asking why I didn’t just defy the health rules. “Storm the Cathedral and take it back!” one particularly passionate member of my flock told me. What was I, their archbishop, doing?
Mostly, I was pleading with public officials behind the scenes. San Francisco is a secular city. The city health orders were inflicting spiritual and psychological suffering on my people, but I couldn’t rely on city officials to intuitively understand this….
The city promised to open up religious worship by mid-June. And then the disappointing actual order came down: only outdoor worship, and with a limit of 12 people….
I date the start of the campaign to Free the Mass to a seemingly unrelated incident: the June toppling of St. Junípero Serra’s statue in Golden Gate Park. Watching the video was very hard for me. I saw people chuckle with glee as they desecrated the image of a great and holy man. I felt it as a deep wound in my soul.
…. I went to the site to conduct a minor exorcism. “An act of sacrilege occurred here,” I told the more than 100 San Francisco Catholics who gathered to join me. “That is an act of the Evil One.” It touched a nerve; almost 50,000 people have now viewed the video of the rite.
Meanwhile, San Francisco health officials visited parishes. They said they were responding to complaints that our churches were open for private prayer, or were violating the ban on indoor worship. Sometimes it was true, other times it was not or at least not completely accurate as reported. It was clear, though, that our parishes were being observed.
Next I decided to launch a public witness, pushing the edge of the city’s rules without breaking them. On the Solemnity of the Assumption of Mary, I invited the faithful to come to multiple outdoor Masses on the large Plaza of the Cathedral of St. Mary of the Assumption, a practice we repeated for successive Sundays with hundreds attending.
Meanwhile, I kept pushing city officials to answer the question, “Why?” Why, as one of my parishioners put it, can she spend three hours in a Nordstrom’s shopping for shoes but can’t go to Mass? I received no answers.
On August 31, I went public, calling on Mayor London Breed and San Francisco health officials to lift the unfair restrictions on the Mass: “Ours and others’ faith is being treated as less important than a trip to the hardware store, or a nice dinner out on the patio….”
Father Moises Agudo, the patriarch of San Francisco’s Latino Catholic community, seconded my call to “Queremos La Misa”: “Coronavirus has taken much from [my parishioners]. The consolation of the Mass should not be one of these things.”
In early September, City Hall once again announced that it would issue new, more liberal guidelines for public gatherings. So under the banner “We are Essential! Free the Mass” I announced a new large event for September 20: Three processions emanating from four parishes would wind through the streets of San Francisco, meeting together at the plaza facing City Hall before heading up the hill to the Cathedral for 19 simultaneous outdoor Masses of 50 people each in various languages. We would socially distance. We would wear masks. But we would pray and take Communion together.
My intention was to stay technically within the confines of the existing health order. But then on September 14, instead of simply liberalizing worship rules, the city actually snuck in two new restrictions: a prohibition on multiple gatherings in the same general vicinity, and only one person at a time allowed in church for private prayer. The city issued these new restrictions on the same day that nail and hair salons and tattoo and massage parlors got the green light to re-open. It pushed us into civil disobedience.
The two new rules clearly targeted Catholics. The best religious liberty lawyers advised me that suing in the 9th Circuit would probably not be the best strategy. Even if we sued, it would be months or years before a Supreme Court decision might provide any relief.
….On September 20, on the Cathedral Plaza, I gave more than 1000 assembled Catholics a call to action: “to City Hall, you don’t matter. One person at a time in this great Cathedral to pray? What an insult. This is a mockery. They are mocking you, and even worse, they are mocking God.”
New and surprising voices emerged supporting my call to Free the Mass. Angela Alioto, a Democrat, trial discrimination lawyer, and former president of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, wrote an op-ed for the San Francisco Chronicle: “It shouldn’t take a court decision to correct this injustice,” she wrote. “But if the archbishop wants a lawyer, I’m available….”
We continued to press the case of unequal treatment to Catholics in the media: EWTN, Laura Ingraham, Fox News. But the key pivot point was likely my Washington Post op-ed published on September 16, under the headline “Americans’ right to worship is being denied by governments. I won’t be silent anymore.”
The Justice Department took notice. On September 25, DOJ sent a letter to Mayor Breed, warning her that the current unconstitutional rules should be revised “promptly….”
Public witness on the city streets. A big media push. Thousands of petition signers generating hundreds of calls. It worked. The city raised the limit on public worship indoors to 100 people—the maximum allowed by the state of California. True, the state rules still do not treat religious worship entirely fairly. But at least San Francisco is no longer adding additional restrictions to the Mass. The doors to our churches were open for worship again. Thus our October 3 prayer rally on the Vigil of St. Francis was transformed into a great thanksgiving from the heart of San Francisco Catholics. …
The above comes from a Nov. 22 story by Archbishop Cordileone in First Things.
San Francisco is likely to return to the purple classification, meaning indoor worship will again be halted. What will the Archbishop do then? Will he back up his tough talk with any action? Maybe he can consecrate the diocese to Mary again and see what that does. At least purple is the color of Advent.
Enough jumping through hoops, your Excellency. Open every church for public Mass and lead us to heaven, jail, or court. Trust your flock.
He is the leader of the flock who I supposed to discern the Will of God. 2 Peter 2:12-17
Clearly Archbishop Cordileone you lack the backbone and supernatural grace to do your job. Listen to your people not the authorities. See what the Vietnamese martyrs (‘today’ ) went through. Your actions are just stalling tactics hoping to buy time before you finally must do the right thing. So we laity have to wait around for you to lead and not procrastinate.
I am not happy with you – and not for the first time.
As St John Vianney said:
“ It is not to love God by being faithful in part of our duties and neglect the rest.”
You are neglecting US. Even as bishop you were never given authority by God to prevent the normal ( daily ) celebration of Christ’s sacrifice on Calvary.
“Padre Pio has advice for you.
“ This world could no more exist without the mass than it can without the sun.”
I believe that; why can’t you?
The celebration continues. I know of no where that it hasn’t. Where has Mass stopped?
So what will His Excellency do when an order to close public worship is issued again? While the march was nice and felt empowering, the City already had the probable reopening scheduled before the DOJ made its statement.
Pride precedeth the fall, Archbishop.
The archbishop is not prideful but he is too accomodating. That’s not sinful just misdirected. Praying for him.
An antagonist government is not our friend. Reopening fully is a better strategy against them.
I am so grateful for Archbishop Cordileone fighting for our rights to worship. Unfortunately, he is not my bishop; Bishop Barber is my bishop of Oakland. He is doing absolutely nothing for the Catholics in his diocese. My parish is completely locked up with only drive-up Communion offered on Wednesdays, weather permitting. A neighboring parish was offering Mass in the school gym with 60 people allowed per Mass (three Masses per weekend). Now that has been shut down. May God have mercy on us all!
Drive thru Communion at Saint In-N-Out?
Another Catholic hierarchy TL;DR “stern” letter…. “see how hard I’m trying”.
Open ALL the Churches. The shepherd should listen and act on the cries of the flock.
Hireling or Shepherd? You decide.
Reading your comments above, to me you all sound like a herd of ungrateful, petulant sheeple. Even after having read the extent to which this particular shepherd worked to gather hundreds of his people to demand that local, official despots free the Mass, all you can muster is to complain and point to defects in what he did rather than being grateful. Disgraceful.
People, if your “strategy” (if you had had your way) is to “pick up the sword” and “fight” so to speak, it would have gained you nothing. Nothing. This is because prudence and discretion seem to be lacking in how you people are approaching all of this. We can read it from your comments. As for me I am grateful that this man is the Archbishop and not any one of you lot.
Access to Mass is not a privilege granted by a secular government, it is our right as Catholics. Lower case jon, we understand that you lack the muster to fight, though no doubt enjoy the benefits of those who have picked up the sword on your behalf. Sit back with the women and children and leave this battle to the men. We’ll let you know when it’s safe.
Dear Mr. Cena: You’re wrong. The way folks like you seem to fight is akin to “shadow boxing”: no prudence, no preparation, no strategy, no knowledge of the contender or how powerful he is, no planning on how to proceed. No nothing. It’s like “fighting” with a blindfold. Whereas to anyone reading this article can see how methodical and well-thought out the Archbishop handled the battle. How he watches and observes the “other side.” Folks like Mr. Cena with their “open up the Churches no matter what” way of “fighting” would have made a mess of things. It’s not that folks like me or the Archbishop do not want to join the “fight.” Rather, folks like us, unlike you, would prefer to fight prepared, faithfully, and smartly–as I in “putting on the armor of light”–for we fight no mere mortals but “principalities and powers.” Your strategy of “fighting” Mr. Cena would have resulted in a great loss. A great loss.
You don’t know that jon since it was never tried. We have seen what dialogue gets, a big fat disrespectful slice of shut up and do what we politicians say. Mr. Cena’s way has not been tried, now is the time for a new strategy.
Let’s see now. Psalm’s comment begs the question: whose “way” should the Catholic faithful trust? Either the Archbishop’s, whose “way” was just proven to have worked? OR arm-chair anonymous commentators on a blog with nothing to commend them least of all their attitude of irreverence and ingratitude towards the Church’s ministers? I don’t know about you, but I’d choose the former, not the latter. But don’t get me wrong: the local Church may very well eventually have to openly defy the local officials, but I would rather listen to the Archbishop to tell me when that time has come, not a commentator on a blog.
jon, you seem willing to follow anyone with a cassock, mitre, or crozier. Be discerning because as we have seen, there are many Church wolves in sheep’s clothing and even those who intend to do good can be misguided.
Psalm’s comment there is the typical anti-Catholic clergy post that is sadly often here. Honestly, I sometimes think that some of those who comment here are not Catholics at all, but are folks who want to divide the sheep from the shepherds. If Psalm is saying that Cordileone is a “wolf in sheep’s clothing,” then he/she doesn’t know who the Archbishop is, and doesn’t know what Catholicism is all about.
Jon it was just a friendly reminder from one of your Catholic brethren to be prudent. If you bothered to read my related posts, you would have seen Archbishop Cordileone described as misguided per the situation at hand, which is miles from being a wolf in sheep’s clothing.
You throw out lots of spurious charges but understand that we faithful Catholics are certainly not anti-clergy. That would be akin to cutting off our nose in spite of our face, which is completely nonsensical. Give up your anger Jon, it must be such a heavy burden for you.
.
For the record, my charge of anti-Catholic-clergy posts here isn’t spurious, but right on the dot. Your words above are on record: “you seem willing to follow anyone with a cassock, mitre, or crozier. Be discerning….” This is blatantly anti-clerical. Our Catholic faith obliges the faithful to revere and follow the judgements of the Church’s anointed shepherds, especially on faith and morals. Prudence, Psalm, is for the faithful to take their cue from their local bishops, not second-guessing them, much less to mock and belittle their efforts.
Jon, wondering if you are also happy to follow the likes of Theodore McCarrick, Cardinal Blaise Cupich, Bishop Robert McElroy, Archbishop Emeritus Roger Mahony, Fr. James Martin or Fr. Bryan Massingale. Cardinals, bishops, priests, all seriously at odds with the Church’s moral teachings.
Anti-Catholic would be to embrace those who damage and discredit the Church. That would be those listed here, not me.
So, Psalm, you are merely proving my point at every post of yours. To you, clergy like Cordileone is “misguided” and those like Cupich “damaging”. And yet you dispute my claim that many comments here including yours are anti-clergy?? Laughable. This is the attitude of an imprudent petulant child. I believe Our Lord lamented this kind of attitude when He said, “We played the flute for you, but you did not dance, we sang a dirge but you did not mourn.”
Jon, so strange that you refuse to see that not all in the Church hierarchy are always right or even good willed.
Clerics are human, they make mistakes and they sin, just like the rest of us.
Now Psalm is engaging in what we call the fallacy of “ignoratio elenchi,” or red-herring. Who said that the clergy aren’t human and do not sin? I didn’t. Red-herring. Psalm, let me put this to you more plainly: when bishops and popes speak on matters of faith and morals, Catholic dogma requires that the rest of the Church adhere to them, for their teachings are protected from error by the Holy Spirit. Now, in matters like governance, which is in the temporal order (this includes closing churches to public services in response to a pandemic or an order from civil officials), though the bishops may err, their decisions are still to be respected prudentially.
Jon doesn’t understand when infallibility is in force and when it isn’t. Not every teaching by a bishop nor even by the pope about faith and morals is protected from error by the Holy Spirit. Amateur-grade error, right there.
I am so sorry for Kevin T. for revealing to the rest of us his lack of knowledge concerning the basics, BASICS, of Catholic dogma. People, according to Lumen Gentium, the Dogmatic Constitution of the Church: “In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra…” (25).
And even before that, Pope Pius IX condemned the thinking that the Magisterium has erred on matters of faith and morals in his Syllabus of Modern Errors (#23). And this dogma goes all the way back even further, such as in the Councils of Constantinople II and of Nicea, and even further back, to the words of Our Lord Himself who said to Peter and the rest of the Apostles, “the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to you” (John 14:26).
Peoples: do not fall into the same heresy as Kevin T. by saying that “Not every teaching by a bishop nor even by the pope about faith and morals is protected from error by the Holy Spirit.” Educate yourselves in the faith, lest you are dissuaded from the truth by the ignorant.
The doctrinal truth and theological fact remains: not every teaching by a bishop nor the pope about faith and morals is protected from error by the Holy Spirit. jon is not making the proper distinctions in levels of authoritative teachings nor in the exercise of magisterial authority. Only acts of the universal ordinary magisterium or of the universal or papal extraordinary magisterium enjoy such protection from error. Furthermore, only solemn definitions of dogma in propositional form may be the proper objects of such magisterial acts. The protection from error applies strictly to what is defined to be a truth revealed by God, and not to anything else in the document or decree containing the solemn definition. Since the set of all teachings by bishops and popes is much, much larger than the set of solemnly defined propositions declared by the universal ordinary or extraordinary magisterium as revealed by God to be true, not all teachings enjoy the protection from error by the Holy Spirit. Q.E.D.
Theologically educated people know I’m right.
Kevin T., please, all teachings of the Church concerning faith and morals are all defined solemnly and communicated to the rest of the Church using the appropriate instrument, whether in an encyclical, a canon in a council, or a dogmatic constitution, or any other appropriate ecclesiastical document. Get that? All teachings of the Church on faith and morals are binding, because they are inerrant, because the Holy Spirit protects the Church when she teaches on faith and morals. Check again that quote from the Second Vatican Council I gave earlier. What Kevin T. has succeeded in doing is merely telling us his opinion, unsupported by any document. He has not Q.E.D.’d anything. Sorry.
Jon has tenacity but is flat out wrong. Others have pointed out why so I’ll just going on the record to repudiate jon’s false interpretation.
Sorry, but George Page is doubly wrong for defending Kevin T.’s heresy. People, to say that the Magisterium of the Church (for you protestants out there, that’s the Pope and the bishops) has erred in matters of faith and morals is heretical. To say that the Holy Spirit does not guard the Church when she teaches on matters of faith and morals is heretical. Sorry if that sounded “harsh” to some snowflakes out there, but serious things like heresy must be called out. This is not my interpretation, but the plain teaching of the Church. Read it for yourselves folks: “Jesus Christ from whom derives the task proper to the pastors of teaching the Gospel to all his people and to the entire human family, wished to endow the pastors’ Magisterium with a fitting charism of infallibility in matters regarding faith and morals”. (“Mysterium ecclesia”, June 1973).
Didn’t defend Kevin T, just said YOU are wrong jon. Just because you post like mad doesn’t give your – follow every shepherd no matter what they say or do- attitude and credibility. That’s all.
Folks, if anyone is still reading this comment thread, read what Ludwig Ott states in his Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma: “With regard to the doctrinal teaching of the Church, it must be noted well that not all the assertions of the Magisterium of the Church on questions of faith and morals are infallible and consequently irrevocable. Only those assertions are infallible which emanate from General Councils representing the whole Episcopate, and the Papal decisions ex cathedra. The ordinary and usual form of Papal teaching is not infallible. Furthermore, the decisions of the Roman Congregations are not infallible. Nevertheless, they are normally to be accepted with an inner assent which is based on the high supernatural authority of the Holy See.” (8.6, p.11 in Baronius Press edition)
To put a convincing final nail in the coffin of jon’s thesis that (his words) “when bishops and popes speak on matters of faith and morals, Catholic dogma requires that the rest of the Church adhere to them, for their teachings are protected from error by the Holy Spirit,” I cite the example of Bishop Nestorius, who taught the heresy that the human being named Jesus, born of Mary, was not a divine person; I also cite the well-known historical record that, even subsequent to the Council of Nicea, bishops taught the Arian heresy. If jon’s statement was correct, what Nestorius and the Arian bishops taught was protected from error by the Holy Spirit. Yet the Church has taught the contrary at the Councils of Nicea and Ephesus.
Final nail, meet coffin. Q.E.D.
Sorry to say, but, George Page’s post is one of the reasons why I suspected that many in the commentariat of this blog are either non-Catholic, or anti-Catholic, or Catholic-in-name only, or misguided Catholics. These folks have the spirituality of protestants, to be honest. People, the goal of God for the Church is unity: unity of all the faithful behind their shepherds, and the unity of the Church with Christ, her Bridegroom. The Devil’s goal is to divide the Church, to separate the sheep from the shepherds. For the Evil One, if he can achieve that division in the temporal realm (by your disagreeing with bishops on matters of governance), that’s good; however, if division is achieved by your dissenting on matters of faith and morals, that’s even better. The former can devolve to the latter, as it has happened to some people, sadly.
As I wrote earlier, in matters like governance, which is in the temporal order (this includes closing churches to public services in response to a pandemic or an order from civil officials), though the bishops may err, their decisions are still to be respected prudentially. But have no doubts about it, dissenting from the teachings of the popes and bishops on matters of faith and morals is dissent, and dissent is NOT a right in the Catholic Church. It is not. If you don’t like that, you may leave; In fact, “if you don’t love it, leave it (thank you Donald Trump!).
Jon, you are not always right, neither are popes and bishops, don’t you know that? Disagreement with them or you does not put me out of the Church, much as you wish it. Thankfully you are not the final adjudicator on all things Catholic and will now be ignored.
Sorry to say but Kevin T. is most definitely wrong. As much as we respect theologians like Ludwig Ott, the Catholic faithful should rely instead on people like Pope Benedict XVI (who is much clearer on this issue, plus is a member of the Magisterium and a theologian to boot) who as Cardinal Ratzinger wrote “Donum Veritatis.” This document plainly states that “Jesus Christ promised the assistance of the Holy Spirit to the Church’s Pastors so that they could fulfill their assigned task of teaching the Gospel and authentically interpreting Revelation. In particular, He bestowed on them the charism of infallibility in matters of faith and morals.” (15) Get that: “infallibility in matters of faith and morals.” Whenever the Magisterium intends to definitively teach on matters of faith and morals, they enjoy divine assistance from the Holy Spirit and are protected from error. The Church has always been clear on that!
Moreover Ratzinger writes that even when the Magisterium does not intend to act definitively, their teachings still enjoy divine assistance and those teachings must be adhered to by the rest of the Church with religious submission of mind and will (23).
Kevin T.’s examples of Nestorius and the Arian heretics are laughable and moot (are these the most recent examples he can think of?). Though some of these heretics were ordained, they were not in union with the Magisterium in the first place. Union with the pope and the rest of the Magisterium is a prerequisite to divine assistance and a guarantee from error. People, if you want more recent examples of rogue bishops not in union with Rome whose teachings have no assurance divine assistance and therefore may even be schismatic if not heretical, try the bishops of the beloved SSPX. I’m serious.
The truth is that every teaching of the Church concerning faith and morals enjoy divine assistance from the Holy Spirit, and to those teachings the Church does indeed require from the rest of the faithful a religious submission of mind and will.
Sorry, but Kevin T. has not Q.E.D.’d that Catholics are free to dissent. The coffin that has been nailed shut here is the one that belongs to the argument that we can feel free, without sin, to dissent and disagree from the teachings and decisions of the Church especially with respect to faith and morals. That argument is dead.
Psalm 144, could you please cite examples of where Cardinal McCarrick, Cardinal Cupich, Cardinal Mahoney, Bishop McElroy, or any other bishop taught contrary to the Church’s teaching on Faith or Morals?
I remembered one bishop in Toowoomba who was dismissed by Benedict XVI. I looked it up and it was for teaching that women could be ordained.
You citing fallacious reasoning ?! jon your posts are replete with fallacies , ad hominum being significant, your posts are the best examples of fallacious reasoning , your pompous tone indicates personal issues that you should deal with . Your assertion as to the Catholicity of your fellow posters is strange because Pope f , “the anointed Shepard ” has called for fraternity between faiths, that God wills a diversity of religions , since you defend him why don’t you fallow his example ? .
Give me a break, Jon. Mass has been open in other dioceses since June with no problems.
Hey jon what do you make of strip clubs being allowed to have indoor gatherings but not churches? oh, the church should just be prudent and show restraint in the face of utterly ridiculous and unjust discrimination like that. face it, you’re wrong. churches need to stay open or be opened. Period.
As usual Ronnie and Anonymous have missed my point. It’s typical. It is the attitude of irreverence and ingratitude towards what the Archbishop has done that I am calling out. It’s disgraceful and unseemly for lay Catholics. If Ronnie and Anonymous are both serious and want to blame someone, why don’t they complain to and about San Diego Superior Court Judge Joel R. Wohlfeil who laughingly ruled to open strip clubs? Anonymous is plain wrong: prudence and restraint–as the Archbishop has demonstrated–worked! Not your impatient and imprudent impetuousness (note the alliteration there, folks). Seriously, if these two (Ronnie and Anonymous) were placed in charge of the local Church, it would have sunk by now.
jon, where are you going to Mass? Is confession available, can you receive Communion? I need a church.
If you really really wanted to attend Mass, if it was really that important to you, you would have moved somewhere that they are having Mass. But no….
Really? Is this what passes for logical solutions these days?
Even IF this was a practical solution for most of us, tell me, Anon, what will you do when those locations get shutdown? Move again? and again and again?
I won’t both quoting Canon law on the rigth of the Faithful to attend Mass AND in person.
Any reports on whether any supposed demons were cast out by the exorcism? That’s the problem: nobody will ever know because you can’t tell.
Would you like them to be cast out?
yes i understand how important being in church and taking the sacraments is, but i also see a tremendous amount of selfish people unconcerned about the well being of people. this is a life or death matter with this virus. the church will endure. god does not dwell in a building. the church is community. your faith should be strong enough to endure these restrictions. otherwise, i hear you selfishly condemning other people by deliberately defying health and safety orders just to suit yourself. i see thoughtlessness and careless behavior , twisting temporary health mandates into some kind of personal religious insult. they are not. grow up. be safe. isolate so this virus can die out. the virus does not care if one is catholic or jewish or protestant or nothing. you go to groups and you risk the health of your family and yourself. larger cities are most at risk. thanks for caring. or do you?
God is indeed in those buildings. He’s in the Tabernacle sitting up on the altar in the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, Jesus Christ, Our Lord and Our God.
Anon, I will lay my cards on the table I don’t care. I will not controlled by people like you who will see freedom as being selfish. I have had it with the controllers, the planners and, the overseers, I defy and I reject and I don’t care. I cant wait until I see signs that read “masks prohibited.”
I care about the bigger picture – freedom. Fearful masses surrendering it to an over reaching government is dangerous! What freedoms you don’t surrender will be taken from you, all in the name of protecting you. The government doesn’t care for me and my family more than I do.
Freedom is not the bigger picture or the higher value. The rejection of the good is justified on the basis of its infringement on individual freedoms . Forget the natural law; we want freedom to marry who we love. Forget the value of human life; we want full reproductive freedom. Forget self-respect; we want the freedom to show our nude bodies. Forget chastity; we want the freedom to love whomever and however we want. Forget common sense, we want the freedom to do whatever we want.
The moral issues you list are not in the same category as the completely random and secular pronouncements of government officials, which have no basis in natural law. Don’t try to hang approval of immoral practices on those of us desiring the freedom to live, work, gather and not cover our faces. Your self righteous overreach has made you look silly.
I have nothing against the good Archbishop I’m just stating the facts of other dioceses which have opened successfully. How do your explain that? In Brooklyn, Bishop DiMarzio lawsuit before the Supremes is going forward against outrageous restrictions and limits.