1. Not here. Some local pastors are getting out ahead of the forced vaccination question by saying they will not force vaccination, but it's clear that there is a mighty problem of social pressure to get vaccinated coming as the number of willing vaccine recipients begins to run out well short of herd immunity numbers. Those who jumped at the vaccine and those who dogmatically isolated for a year are getting ragey at the thought that their sacrifice will be in vain as Covid will never be defeated due to those conservative Christian anti-vaxxers, etc.

3. To play devil's advocate, imposing a draconian Covid protocol allows Scared Sally and Timorous Tim to come back to Mass without first curing their mental illness/imprudential judgment. Thus, "access" to the Sacraments is increased by removing a stumbling block from the weak. OTOH, Politician Patricia might not be in a state of mortal sin, due to invincible ignorance, and excommunicating her might put a stumbling block before the weak (rank-and-file Democrat Dan).

(Language intentionally made spicy to address the audience for the underlying article.)

In the first place, bishops are not generally medical people and they are somewhat ignorant of medicine. You can't always know who is giving them advice. It also means you can't always trust their judgements. So...

1. Seems to work like that in a number of places, but not all.

2. Don't know since I haven't attended a mass since the end of July 2020. The local diocese may or may not be representative of what is going on elsewhere.

3. Let me know when you understand Catholic clergy. I sure as H... don't.

Is this really the "freest country in the world?"

No, not any more... it has been stripped from us.

"Russia would “spread her errors throughout the world, causing wars and persecutions of the Church. The good will be martyred, the Holy Father will have much to suffer, various nations will be annihilated.” Our Lady of Fatima

Our annihilation was on January 6. One day, in one hour, the scale tipped, but many years, sins, blasphemies and errors leading up to the final toll, the tipping of the balance at that moment, occurred. Repentance is always a way back, but I don't see it yet... ...and WE haven't seen anything yet... just the preludes... (nice, quiet, instrumental music that is hardly noticed before Mass) and then we shall all experience the eventum corporis prior to the final postlude.

I read the St. Vincent requirements and couldn't believe what I was reading.

[Thread originators request: please try to stay on topic]

Gamba,

Postponing the sacraments in a general way, without a really good reason, doesn't make any sense to me.

About half of what I've read could have been justified in March of last year, but not any longer.

I can imagine a situation in which a bishop might say "the reception of Holy Communion by the faithful is hereby suspended".... so that certain people couldn't be discovered when they didn't go to receive. It would be a stipulation which everyone understood to be rightly decided, if lamentably necessary.

Singing with masks on makes us breathe more of our own Carbon Dioxide, thus making us more likely to pass out. How is that good?

I’m sorry, but there is nothing ‘ethical’ about requiring people to get vaccinated against a sickness that has a 99% survival rate for almost all age brackets with vaccines developed at least in part off of aborted fœtal cell lines. There’s also nothing ethical about depriving the faithful from the sacraments at any time, let alone when you believe they need them most due to a supposèd threat of death. It’s an odious larp of genuine ethics.

I’m sorry, but there is nothing ‘ethical’ about requiring people to get vaccinated [...] with vaccines developed at least in part off of aborted fœtal cell lines.

This may be disputed, at least pope Francis and our bishops don't agree with your statement.
(I will not judge whether this more relevant than your assessment, however, and also will refrain from challenging your 99% argument).
I do agree with what you say about the sacraments.

And à propos, the ethical question about vaccines that have been developed using, or tested on, fœtal cell lines has indeed been treated quite extensively by our bishops, including references to experts of catholic ethics (as I recall).

Two, bishops who are not in agreement to the right for lack of a better term are going to get shut out by the progressives; coronavirus measures just happen to fit with ideological preferences of the liberals, who don't mind the enforcement needed, whereas anyone remotely concerned with prayer and sacraments is going to have problems with removing holy water, banning communion on the tongue, and so on, and they will have at least some discomfort with masks in the liturgy.

I'm sorry, but this is a blatant strawman. I don't see how political views, whether secular or liturgical, have the slightest relevance to agreement with COVID prevention measures.

Elmar,

I focused on musicians singing and carbon dioxide because this is the Church Music Association of America.

Having found myself unexpectedly hyperventilating the other day, while wearing my mask in a place I was not supposed to remove it, and I wasn't singing either, I must reiterate that singing behind a mask for any length of time is hazardous to the health of the singer.

Matthew,

Indeed, a "conservative" pastor might do such a thing, but he would have to have more than a usual dose of fortitude. A wonderful priest in this neck of the woods, back in March of last year, insisted that he wouldn't abandon Communion on the tongue because (and I think this is a quote) "you don't open the door with your tongue". More priests are receiving the gift of fortitude, but (it appears) very few bishops are.

Serviam,

I completely agree that vaccines can't be an ethical imperative with that kind of survivability rate. Neither developing them, nor injecting them, it seems to me, is justified.


Can anyone come up with a solidly Catholic understanding of the present situation which requires the abandoning of the sacraments, traditional practice and liturgical control for the sake of a nuisance disease?

Elmar,

Because the questions you raise, if I answer them here, will drag the thread from its purpose, I will answer you in a PM.

Schoenbergian,

It is true that the plural of anecdote is not data, and this was only my personal experience. I had been praying my Office during a Holy Hour. That's also anecdotal, not more than a data point.

Nevertheless, when I exhale (being a member of the human species) it is Carbon Dioxide which I exhale, and (when a significant portion) gets trapped, and re-enters my lungs, this isn't good.

I'll sing a Marian antiphon when the opportunity arises, and I might even wear a mask to do that (or, say, some part of the Mass Ordinary) but the Propers clearly require more breath and concentration, and therefore more oxygen, which this Bishop's rule precludes.

It's an interesting point which Chaswjd raises: choir lofts should make the singing easier. If we had Catholic-sized families (some of you do) who are musically capable (again, some of you do) we could sing motets and Propers and still ignore the vaccination requirement and the mask requirement, since we're all from the same household. How many parishes have (and use) choir lofts anymore?

I'm sorry, but this is a blatant strawman. I don't see how political views, whether secular or liturgical, have the slightest relevance to agreement with COVID prevention measures.

It's not a blatant strawman (and spare me; you're not sorry). They just do; American bishops, with the weird exception of Knoxville (Bishop Stika goes with the wind, unfortunately), have lined up to a man along political lines when it comes to banning communion on the tongue, and in France, the division is more or less soixante-huiitard or their successors. Now, some bishops have said one thing and quietly done another, mostly to prevent trads from getting more upset, but that would be in spite of the fact that banning communion on the tongue lines up neatly with their ideological preferences. It's also a spectrum, and more clearly so than in the US. where Archbishop Hebda isn't a trad, but he's not going to screw around either. In contrast, you have combinations such as "no holy water, no communion on the tongue," "no holy water, communion on the tongue only for trads," "no holy water, communion on the tongue for everyone who asks," "both for trads," "both for everyone" (in theory… I haven't been anywhere where normies had holy water again).

So, yeah. What you said is pretty empty as a response. Also, at this point, we should have found a way to provide holy water, instead of replacing it with a secular ritual. But no, over a year later, we haven't, so it's like the Triduum never ends, and if that doesn't line up with the way that liberal Christians think about the devil, I'm not sure what to say.

One of our bishops is also a medical doctor, wonder if they can afford any other medical advisor on covid-19...

So is Mgr Aupetit, which was a problem last year, because with all due respect, he somewhat inadvertently set the tone for the libs to go hard; the CEF is 100%, to a man, stuffed with liberals whose time is up but who refuse to acknowledge it.

This may be disputed, at least pope Francis and our bishops don't agree with your statement.

This same pope looked on as these same bishops literally processed a demonic idol on their shoulders up to the baldacchino in St. Peter's, so, with all due respect (and I DO pray for them), I'm going to reserve the right to take their assessment of the situation with a grain of salt, since apparently they are literally too blinded or flat out stupid to know idol worship when they see it. If something so simple and obvious can confuse them, I highly doubt their ability to make informed judgements about the finer points of epidemiology, let alone the health of my soul.

The demon idol worship thingy truly does make many of us question just about anything that comes from the Vatican.

yet the faithful were never deprived of the sacraments.

Indeed, but even if it weren't true, and the people were deprived of last rites and confession indefinitely, shouldn't we be embarrassed that we have to do this in 2020 and now 2021 given that we actually know a thing or two about diseases and their transmission?

Hmmm... Judas bishops... I must admit I have never thought about that before. Does that mean one out of every 12? Unfortunately I think it’s one out of every 12 that is NOT a Judas bishop.

wow, Matthew... that is some deep parsing, I will grant you, more than I would have thought through... I just give them over to Our Lady and St. Michael and ask them to deal with them as they will with a simple prayer of the rosary... (It's not worth bending your mind, or suffering any anxiety or even depression over the errors of bishops per say). But Kudos, as you have thought through many of the "options" or possibilities?

my impression is that some bishops assume that choir members are all high-priority for the vaccines, which is not the case at all.

I think more accurately the term is high-risk (not high-priority) and CYBA.. if you know what I mean.

That is, most bishops, and many American bishops, do not understand the common good (they need to reread St Thomas and Charles de Koninck on the primacy of the common good). They are unwittingly or otherwise thoroughly liberal at the core, and they haven't expressed clearly enough that the church alone regulates divine worship

you can say THAT again... and again, and again...

I'm not so sure about eliminating EMHCs entirely. My dad was the first Eucharistic Minister for the Diocese of Beaumont. In a large parish without deacons, they serve a useful role at Mass. They also serve a very useful role in visiting the home-bound, those in the hospital, etc. I think that some (maybe even most) priests abuse the use of EMHCs.

In our former pastor's later days, he could only say mass sitting on a stool behind the altar. His mobility was seriously impaired. He had to have ministers distributing communion. They were usually deacons, but not always. Sometimes, they really are needed.

In our former pastor's later days, he could only say mass sitting on a stool behind the altar. His mobility was seriously impaired. He had to have ministers distributing communion. They were usually deacons, but not always. Sometimes, they really are needed.

Here we have a classic, genuine, "extraordinary" circumstance. I can see it in this case. And it's also interesting that you note the preference to have deacons do it (which is a good call). Obviously, if a priest cannot stand, there's an argument to be made. But that is not the standard at the average parish in any country. "Extraordinary" has simply been relegated to "ordinary" (which, funnily enough, is a technical term in the church).

IMHO, there's a big difference between visiting the homebound (assuming the priest cannot visit everyone from his parish) and giving communion at Mass. A few, select, particularly holy souls to visit the sick is one thing.

The problem is that only priests can anoint, confess, and, for about 90% of things, bless, and they were the only ordinary minister of the sacrament of the eucharist until 1983; it's a little odd that deacons are despite being unable to confect it. That said, and numbers aside, your average diocesan priest either has never known older priests that did sick calls themselves other than to anoint and all too often race the clock for last rites, or they have absorbed the myth that they cannot do all the visits.

That may be true, but we also need to think long and hard about frequent communion. Without wanting to shut the elderly and the sick — rather the opposite — there is no need to commune every week. You have a Mass obligation that is excused, not a communion obligation, and this is only going to get worse as the generation for whom this concept was introduced continues to age. Worse, the part of the generation that grew up with this confusion and then spread it themselves as younger adults is now reaching the point where they are getting sick and more severely so.

This also goes for places where the priest has severe mobility issues; communion is required at Eastertide (incidentally the particular law of the US, unless something abrogated it includes at least Lent if not the 'gesima period). It is good to receive frequently when well-prepared (not an impossibility!), but people tend to commune far more than they confess, which should probably be twelve, if not twenty-four to thirty or indeed fifty-two times a year. (I do not confess like I'd like, but I like going weekly myself; it helps keep me accountable with the little things.) Obviously one should go when one must regardless of a schedule. I'd particularly encourage making good confessions for holy days and other feasts, as well as Sundays; the following is a list of the holy days prior to 1911, at least notionally. Various indults and concordats had drastically reduced the number.

1. Nativity of our Lord
2. Circumcision of our Lord
3. Epiphany of the Lord
4. Monday within the Octave of the Resurrection
5. Tuesday within the Octave of the Resurrection
6. Ascension
7. Monday within the Octave of Pentecost
8. Tuesday within the Octave of Pentecost
9. Most Holy Trinity (always a Sunday)
10. Corpus Christi
11. Invention of the Holy Cross
12. Purification of the Blessed Virgin Mary
13. Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary
14. Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary
15. Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary
16. Dedication of St. Michael
17. Nativity of St. John Baptist
18. Ss. Peter and Paul
19. St. Andrew
20. St. James
21. St. John (the December feastday)
22. St. Thomas
23. Ss. Philip and James
24. St. Bartholomew
25. St. Matthew
26. Ss. Simon and Jude
27. St. Matthias
28. St. Stephen (the December feastday)
29. The Holy Innocents
30. St. Lawrence
31. St. Sylvester
32. St. Joseph
33. St. Anne
34. All Saints Day
35. The Principle Patrons of One’s Country, City, etc.
36. Immaculate Conception (listed here because it was not on the list in 1642.)

Holy Week and the rest of the Easter octave were already eliminated in the early modern period. Corpus Christi, St Joseph, St Anne, the patron, and Holy Cross are later additions, particularly St Joseph, though this isn't the whole story; they eventually came up with a division between Mass obligations and refraining from servile labor to reduce the number, and in any case, feasts not on here, like Exaltation of the Holy Cross in September were also quite important. So was the anniversary of the consecration of the church, which had an octave. Trinity is also a bit strange, because it's on a Sunday, always included obviously in Gregory's list.

This gets you to ninety-six days where one could commune, as Good Friday traditionally doesn't have a general communion.

Keep in mind too that all of Lent was a fast (Sundays excluded) but that abstinence held, even on holy days. Only Christmas released from abstinence on Fridays, except for professed religious, at least in Gregory IX's Decretals, and until the eighteenth century, the vigils of Christmas, apostles and other saints (Assumption, All Saints, Immaculate Conception…) were also such; even after the obligations were gradually lifted, many continued as if they still were fast days, and on top of this, you also have the Ember Days. We'd be in a much healthier place if we restored just abstinence for these days, never mind fasting.

But it is not required to have EMHCs or even deacons distribute at every Mass. I do not object to distributing at every Mass, but while one may present themselves for the sacraments at appropriate times and places, not using an EMHC because of mobility issues is a reason to not distribute at every Mass.

I agree with Jared's assessment, and I'd add that while we have historically just accepted the flu, some are starting to question that; I think that ultimately this is a non-starter, because if masks alone sufficed, things would have "returned to normal" a long time ago. Yes, I realize that a novel coronavirus is not the flu, but the government never got into gear over swine flu like it probably should have, and in any case, the logic holds such that if we treat flu more like corona, we're going to be in for some tough winters. On the other hand, people have always complained in winter about hospital burdens; the disconnect seems to emerge from this. It's the Boy who Cried Wolf, in other words; every time before wound up being okay, but this time was finally different.

But do we have a duty to protect innocent life from natural death through extraordinary means? I do not believe so

There is also the question of "How much increased risk to life?" Survival rate is 99.8% and is settling at almost the same % as that of the ordinary flu (IFR), as predicted by Ioannidis of Stanford. The logic flowing from that statistic would dictate that we take the same precautions as we do for Flu-A.

The people who SHOULD be taking precautions are those in the higher-risk categories: the overweight, the 70+ crowd, those with high blood pressure, serious heart conditions, and perhaps diabetes.

So another logical way to look at it is this: THEY have the obligation to remain isolated or to wear double-masks, keep "social distance", etc. The other 90%? Not so much.

Ioannidis of Stanford

has a nice mediaeval ring to it; he seems to be best known for a paper titled Why Most Published Research Findings Are False. In April 2020 he predicted 10,000 Covid deaths in the US, using data from Santa Clara and the assumption that the overall infection rate was one or two orders of magnitude higher than the official count. His math is discussed here; 0.2% seems consistent with estimates of 10% US infection rate and the half a million deaths observed. This puts Covid only slightly behind heart disease and cancer, compared to 22,000 flu deaths in pre- social distanced 2019.

Keep in mind we're seeing these infection and death rates during the largest stay-at-home campaign in history and with all preventative measures deployed, vs. no change from business as usual during the regular flu season. They aren't directly comparable.