USCCB Tells Us How To Love Our Neighbor
#1
https://twitter.com/USCCB/status/1288560686185033729

"One small way we can #LoveThyNeighbor is by observing local safety guidelines, wearing a mask, and practicing social distancing."

[An image of multi-colored and gendered people, all wearing masks, with the words superimposed among them: "Love thy Neighbor."]

All right, comrades, you heard 'em. Obedience!

Also, don't you dare try to receive Holy Communion kneeling and on the tongue, you wicked sinner who endangers your neighbors but can't end up in an otherwise empty hell (makes sense, don't ask questions): 



The FSSP tells us obedience is the key to this situation. The beautiful virtue of obedience, so beautiful, spoken of so highly by the doctors, mystics, and saints, will bring graces pouring into our souls, our world, and the souls in purgatory. [/Trumpian voice] The sacrifice of obedience and the spiritual death it entails are the greatest acts we can make.

I do not deny any of those principles intellectually, but honestly I have a hard time hearing it from FSSP priests and seminarians when they don't have to actually put up with this nonsense, nor do they have families to raise, children to educate and form, choices to make as to where to attend Mass and receive Sacraments. In other words, I'm being told to live a life of privations from people whose main worry in all of this is whether said bishop will turn against them (and in many cases, he won't because he understands the backlash may be too great to contain, so we can actually benefit from the bishop's softness!).

Can I please have some sense knocked into me here? -- Because I'm having a hard time staying cool headed while enduring it all, and I fear extremism creeping into my thinking just as it has swept over the world.
[-] The following 3 users Like piscis's post:
  • antiquarian, Eric F, Mourning Dove
Reply
#2
I just heard a sermon recently where the FSSP priest said aloud that he could care less what the State says, but he is maintaining social distancing and other local mandates out of obedience to the bishop who has requested them. Yes, that is what he said.

I have a difficult time with this rubber-stamp authority approach. Superficially, one may think, "Well, wearing a mask and such cause no harm, are morally indifferent, so the bishop may demand them of us." And yet, are these truly morally indifferent? Are the consequences of them morally indifferent? Can we believe that with any degree of reasonableness or certitude? Can anyone honestly say that the effects of these bishops' actions have been morally indifferent and inconsequential? At what point do we prudentially decide that these bishops' orders are in fact evil, promoting evil, or complicit in it?
[-] The following 2 users Like piscis's post:
  • antiquarian, Eric F
Reply
#3
(07-30-2020, 11:19 PM)piscis Wrote: At what point do we prudentially decide that these bishops' orders are in fact evil, promoting evil, or complicit in it?

What's the harm in staying six feet apart and wearing a mask at church? If you can point to something specific, and not just 'I don't like it', then you can ask that question.

And if there's nothing sinful about it, then the priest has a duty to obey his bishop, like he swore to do at his ordination.
[-] The following 1 user Likes Paul's post:
  • jovan66102
Reply
#4
(07-30-2020, 11:19 PM)piscis Wrote: I just heard a sermon recently where the FSSP priest said aloud that he could care less what the State says, but he is maintaining social distancing and other local mandates out of obedience to the bishop who has requested them. Yes, that is what he said.

I have a difficult time with this rubber-stamp authority approach. Superficially, one may think, "Well, wearing a mask and such cause no harm, are morally indifferent, so the bishop may demand them of us." And yet, are these truly morally indifferent? Are the consequences of them morally indifferent? Can we believe that with any degree of reasonableness or certitude? Can anyone honestly say that the effects of these bishops' actions have been morally indifferent and inconsequential? At what point do we prudentially decide that these bishops' orders are in fact evil, promoting evil, or complicit in it?

You know that priests are under the authority of their local bishops, right... And that bishops are under the authority of the Vatican who is under the Authority of the Pope. Its what has held the RCC together and prevented it from splitting off into tens of thousand other churches over disagreements over tiny pointless details.

Where i live the Churches have been shut down for almost 5 months and i am furious about it. I see the measures taken for covid as being a huge over reaction at the least and possibly nefarious at the worse. But I know its not the priests fault, it's probably not even the fault of our local bishop as im fairly sure they are all under the instruction of the Vatican
FAITH BEGINS AT THE EDGE OF UNDERSTANDING
[-] The following 1 user Likes Porkncheese's post:
  • antiquarian
Reply
#5
(07-31-2020, 12:42 AM)Paul Wrote:
(07-30-2020, 11:19 PM)piscis Wrote: At what point do we prudentially decide that these bishops' orders are in fact evil, promoting evil, or complicit in it?

What's the harm in staying six feet apart and wearing a mask at church? If you can point to something specific, and not just 'I don't like it', then you can ask that question.

And if there's nothing sinful about it, then the priest has a duty to obey his bishop, like he swore to do at his ordination.

Social distancing limits Mass attendance and therefore needlessly excludes people who otherwise would be able to go and receive Sacraments. Some parishes are able to compensate by having more Masses, but many cannot.

Further, it's not at all clear that a bishop's (or priest's) authority legitimately extends to matters like wearing a mask just because the government or "SCIENCE" say so. Can Father make someone wash his car too?

At what point do considerations of natural law, the limits of state authority, the fallacious appeals to a politicized arena of scientific talking-heads, or even problematic notions of scientific research, reporting, and fundamental epistemology come into play? On top of that, from the perspective of a priest obeying his bishop, where do considerations of a moral analysis come in? Certainly the answer to the above questions imply moral significance even if it is not immediately evident or articulated.

Asking "what's the harm with" an issue that while I concede prima facie seems harmless but is precisely the point of contention is question begging. This presumes already on all of the above issues--scientific rigor, reliability, reportability (i.e. the trustworthiness of any source purporting to report or share scientific "knowledge," even and especially a government source), epistemology, etc.

What is the morality of yielding to a mandate, the reliability and intentions of which are both fundamentally uncertain, without critical analysis of the above and more issues?
[-] The following 4 users Like piscis's post:
  • antiquarian, Eric F, HailGilbert, Mourning Dove
Reply
#6
(07-31-2020, 04:12 AM)Porkncheese Wrote:
(07-30-2020, 11:19 PM)piscis Wrote: I just heard a sermon recently where the FSSP priest said aloud that he could care less what the State says, but he is maintaining social distancing and other local mandates out of obedience to the bishop who has requested them. Yes, that is what he said.

I have a difficult time with this rubber-stamp authority approach. Superficially, one may think, "Well, wearing a mask and such cause no harm, are morally indifferent, so the bishop may demand them of us." And yet, are these truly morally indifferent? Are the consequences of them morally indifferent? Can we believe that with any degree of reasonableness or certitude? Can anyone honestly say that the effects of these bishops' actions have been morally indifferent and inconsequential? At what point do we prudentially decide that these bishops' orders are in fact evil, promoting evil, or complicit in it?

You know that priests are under the authority of their local bishops, right... And that bishops are under the authority of the Vatican who is under the Authority of the Pope. Its what has held the RCC together and prevented it from splitting off into tens of thousand other churches over disagreements over tiny pointless details.

Where i live the Churches have been shut down for almost 5 months and i am furious about it. I see the measures taken for covid as being a huge over reaction at the least and possibly nefarious at the worse. But I know its not the priests fault, it's probably not even the fault of our local bishop as im fairly sure they are all under the instruction of the Vatican

The spiritual authority has limits. A bishop can't order a priest to buy his groceries and wash his car.

And if you haven't noticed, the use and especially abuse of authority by Church hierarchy in the last few decades have had deleterious effects on the unity of the Church. Wake up.

At what point does obedience to state power become complicity in fundamental violations of natural and supernatural rights? You can't simply say that a bishop's rubber stamp of approval makes everything OK when the issues have not even been critically examined and answered. What is almost certainly clear is that the submission to state power has not been motivated out of a supernatural love of neighbor, but even if it were, since we are not in a position to judge, how are the actions of priests and bishops somehow morally neutral given the obviously chaotic and scandalous consequences of them? Certainly there was a violation of prudence somewhere in there.
[-] The following 2 users Like piscis's post:
  • antiquarian, HailGilbert
Reply
#7
(07-31-2020, 05:06 AM)piscis Wrote: Social distancing limits Mass attendance and therefore needlessly excludes people who otherwise would be able to go and receive Sacraments. Some parishes are able to compensate by having more Masses, but many cannot.


Receiving the Sacraments and Mass attendance are not the same thing. Anyone who desires to receive Communion can ask the priest to do so privately. In the traditional Mass, the Communion rite is found in the Ritual, not the Missal. Equating Mass attendance with reception of Communion is one of the main reasons why there are so many likely sacrilegous Communions these days.



(07-31-2020, 05:06 AM)piscis Wrote: Further, it's not at all clear that a bishop's (or priest's) authority legitimately extends to matters like wearing a mask just because the government or "SCIENCE" say so. Can Father make someone wash his car too?


There's a big difference between washing a car and what goes on in a parish church. What happens at Mass and in a church is very much under the authority of the bishop.


(07-31-2020, 05:06 AM)piscis Wrote: At what point do considerations of natural law, the limits of state authority, the fallacious appeals to a politicized arena of scientific talking-heads, or even problematic notions of scientific research, reporting, and fundamental epistemology come into play? On top of that, from the perspective of a priest obeying his bishop, where do considerations of a moral analysis come in? Certainly the answer to the above questions imply moral significance even if it is not immediately evident or articulated.


There's nothing immoral being commanded. It might be useless, and it might be disliked, but it's not sinful.


(07-31-2020, 05:06 AM)piscis Wrote: What is the morality of yielding to a mandate, the reliability and intentions of which are both fundamentally uncertain, without critical analysis of the above and more issues?


It's not a mandate from the state. It's a mandate from the bishop, who is the priest's superior, even if he's doing it on advice of the state.
[-] The following 1 user Likes Paul's post:
  • jovan66102
Reply
#8
Is this morally acceptable?

https://twitter.com/frajds/status/128964...56225?s=20


Quote:My friends in Christ,

I am sorry to report we could not meet your request to attend the Sacrament of Reconciliation this weekend. Our capacity is limited, so our priority is to serve the active, registered parishioners of the Cathedral who have not recently received absolution.

Active parishioners are registered parishioners who have a documented occurrence of volunteering and/or giving in the last year. If this pertains to you, you will be contacted by a staff member regarding your registration status.

If you have been to Confession recently, I ask for your patience, and that you please schedule your next Confession next month. This will allow all of those seeking absolution access to the sacrament, in a way that keeps you and your clergy as safe as possible.

Yours in Christ,
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)