Now this is a bishop:
On May 11, 2007, I was appointed bishop of Montauban, and since my ordination on September 2, 2007, I have endeavored to fulfill my mission with dedication and concern for the common good. This mission is coming to an end as the canonical age of retirement draws near. The weeks that we have just experienced have been an ordeal that for some will have led to death and for others to the struggle with illness. Many have suffered because of measures of protection so rigorous that their mental health has been more severely affected than their physical health. I think of all the elderly who were not affected by this virus. Of course, they had to be protected from it, but was it necessary to cut them off from their natural ties to the point where grandparents were forbidden to see their grandchildren? If consistent preventive measures had been taken and if the necessary tools (such as masks) had been given from the outset, family tragedies would have been avoided. We are also well aware that some of these people allowed themselves to die. Among younger people, suicides were caused by accumulated tension. An honest assessment of these realities will have to be made.
But these facts do not detract from the work done by the caretakers, lives given in the service of others, efforts made by many anonymous people in their determination to fight COVID-19. The Catholic Church has not failed to be present on the most exposed fronts and in its permanent service of charity, especially with populations in difficulty such as migrants. She has also accepted the draconian measures which have not allowed us to live the great moments of our Christian faith, from Palm Sunday to Easter Sunday, Holy Week, the heart and foundation of faith in Christ who died and rose again. We have accepted this despite the immense sense of loss that our faithful have surely experienced. Their suffering has been somewhat mitigated by broadcasts and all the audio-visual techniques. The fact remains that our faith is not nourished by these means; the Catholic faith is nourished by the real presence of Jesus Christ. The Church is realized unceasingly through the sacrifice of the Mass, where Christ’s unique sacrifice on the cross is made present. The Mass introduces us to him, makes him present and makes us participate in what is the “banquet of the Lord”: we truly take our place at his table. It is not a time of prayer or even a simple listening to the Word of God, still less a fraternal gathering. We can do without all this, but we cannot do without the Eucharist, just as we need the other sacraments. Mass is the life of the Catholic Church. Even though we are united to Christ in many ways, we live by him through the Eucharist.
At a time when a very large number of activities are resuming, when we can find ourselves next to each other on an airplane, in supermarkets, or in outdoor activities such as at the racetracks, a part of the citizenry who have the freedom to practice their religion by participating in Mass is prevented from doing so under the pretext of a pandemic whose numbers are declining. The numbers speak for themselves. Moreover, most of our churches are very large, and we have all the means to comply with health measures. Our freedom is at stake, and it is being seriously undermined. I have heard from many people who are suffering, and I am speaking on their behalf.
I am a bishop in a place where, one day in August 1942, Bishop Pierre-Marie Theas dared almost alone to condemn the attacks on the freedom and dignity of French citizens. We have not reached this point of ignominy. But I denounce the violation of the rights of the Catholic faithful to participate freely in Mass; I denounce the denial of this right. Civil law, whose binding nature in this matter remains to be proven, cannot be imposed on my conscience as a pastor when it prevents me from fulfilling my duty. I am a priest and bishop in order to give Christ to the faithful in need. This is my mission, and I want to tell them so. The Catholic Church has always recalled the right of the human person to practice his religion. Preventing the exercise of this right is an infringement of fundamental human rights that could lead to other abuses. This letter is an appeal to the conscience of the Catholics of the Diocese of Montauban, which is dear to me and of which I have been the pastor for thirteen years. Knowing that you can live your faith freely will be a strong pastoral joy for me because, even in times of great epidemics, the Church, albeit with precautions, has always offered to the People of God the presence of the Savior through public worship.
I entrust to the Blessed Virgin Mary, honored in the Cathedral of Montauban under the name of Our Lady of the Assumption, the diocese and all its inhabitants. May she watch over us and keep us under her protection.
Go here to read the rest. The Mass is never nonessential.
But Don, this bishop can’t be right can he? He opens his comments by making positive comments for using masks during the pandemic…doesn’t that, by TAC definition, make the validity of his comments suspect? Again, one can’t stand on the statement that masks should be wore by “those who are sick” if, by what we know now (and we are learning more every day), that people can spread the disease without having any idea that they are sick, without having any symptoms. I fully support all the bishop said. His main message is freedom for the people (in this case, in France) to worship freely and, as he said, “…albeit with precautions”. May that freedom – always exercised with responsibility for our actions – return to America! God bless and guide the TAC family…
But Don, this bishop can’t be right can he? He opens his comments by making positive comments for using masks during the pandemic…doesn’t that, by TAC definition, make the validity of his comments suspect?
Only if he forces me, or others, to wear mouth rags Bob! In most things in this life I am fairly tolerant about what others wish to do. Where people get on my fighting side is when they try to force me, or others, to do things they do not wish to do. After 38 years at the law I like to think I have a pretty good idea of the limited area that law from the State should play in our lives. Live and let live is usually an excellent policy.
I am with you, Don. I am against mandatory wearing of masks. I want to go to Mass. My main concern is making a properly informed decision given the limits of what we know about the virus at this time. I have a responsibility for my actions and how they might impact others. I urge people to be open to evidence – and there is evidence masks for the general public (I am NOT discussing medical professionals in a medical setting here – this is about Mass) in certain circumstances makes great sense for everyone to keep gatherings reasonably safe given the unknowns we face. I am against the mandatory wearing of masks. I am strongly for the voluntary wearing of masks in times when I’m mingling with the public as I don’t know if I recently picked up the virus and am unconsciously spreading it or if they have the virus. To dismiss the wearing of masks as something without merit seems counter to the bishop’s reasonable urging to regain our access to the Sacraments “albeit with precautions”.
“if, by what we know now (and we are learning more every day), that people can spread the disease without having any idea that they are sick, without having any symptoms.”
Based on this “reasoning” we will NEVER be mask free due to ALL of the OTHER communicable diseases out there. How many communicable diseases fit this very definition where people don’t feel sick in any way but could be labeled as asymptomatic and a “possible danger” to someone, somewhere, in the possible future.
Just because you are willing to give up your freedom, it doesn’t give you or anyone else the Right to take or even to RECOMMEND taking other peoples freedoms. Forcing or even recommending to me that I should wear a mask, when I can pull plenty of medical recommendations, medical studies and official governmental policy / recommendations (until about 45 days ago) saying that it’s not’s necessary, futile, or even dangerous is fascist and, I say, unAmerican.
I’ve always felt that laws, passed for our own good were wrong. I don’t like seat belt laws, helmet laws, etc. I also wouldn’t want a law requiring me to brush my teeth or required daily exercise, etc. I do wear the seat belt because I want to, NOT because the State tells me to wear one.
The whole mask fiasco is the latest example of the busy-buddy do-gooder run amuck. If we can save just one life…. please. The road to tyranny is paved with “good intentions.”
Hi JFK: To make sure I understand you, are you saying I can’t even make a recommendation for others to consider? And that making such suggestions makes me unAmerican? I’m not sure how you got to that point. I clearly stated I’m against the government mandating the use of masks. I also stated using one should be based on the evidence. And, clearly, there is evidence both for and against using masks – it is not, as you implied, a one-side closed debate. However, you are right in one sense – the idea to wear masks seems too broad as I stated it. Trying to be brief can eliminate nuance and I got sloppy. Thus, this is, as I understand it, a novel (new) virus for which we as humanity do not have “herd immunity” and we need to follow certain extra steps to protect ourselves until that level of immunity is reached. Other viruses have been circulating long enough that we’ve developed societal immunity and masks aren’t needed. You are right to point out my imprecise language. I am open to changing my mind – I look for data and follow where it leads. Array the evidence on various sides and see which withstands scrutiny. But stop debate and belittle another because someone doesn’t like a different position? Isn’t that dogmatic mental rigidity which leads to stagnation and bad decision making? I’m not trying to “win an argument”. I don’t have the answers; I’m passing on things I find which I think might be helpful. Let’s find the truth together, not shut each other up.
I think we need to translate “asymptomatic” from “I feel fine/well” to “I’m not well/don’t feel fine, but I’m not sick” Or “I don’t feel sick enough to do anything about it.”
My guess is most symptoms in asymptomatic cases are so mild that they can’t be distinguished from, slight cold, allergies, sinusitis, etc.
Bob,
If your recommendation is to violate our rights and freedoms, then yes it IS wrong. There are plenty of people out there right now who are doing so and some of them are Governors who are wielding the full force of their Office to enforce their opinions in unconstitutional ways.
Ernst,
I had to look this up recently. So according to Wikipedia, (for what it’s worth), “In medicine, a disease is considered asymptomatic if a patient is a carrier for a disease or infection but experiences no symptoms.”
No symptoms, feels perfectly fine.
JFK: “If your recommendation is to violate our rights and freedoms…”? How did you get that out of what I wrote? Please don’t lump me in with people you are angry with; deal with me. So, let me try this again (for the third time): I am AGAINST mandating the use of face masks. I am FOR people in the general public making up their own minds (VOLUNTARILY and FREELY) about using face masks. I don’t discuss medical personnel because they have their own professional standards under which to operate. I think masks are useful for the general public in certain circumstances and to dismiss them is short sighted. I recognize there are pros and cons to using masks. Like Don, I find them uncomfortable to wear. However, my main point is that their use needs to be discussed and considered and not dismissed out of hand. I present things I find in my searching for the TAC family to consider. If you misrepresent what I’m trying to say, then I’ll challenge that as being counter to discovering the truth. Take the info or leave it – clearly your call. But it helps if you engage with the issue at hand and not extrapolate into areas where they don’t belong (like the actions of looney governors). If I misstated something in here, I apologize. It is late on this side of the planet (early morning actually); I’m a long way from the US and heading to bed. God bless the TAC family.
At the risk of universalizing personal experience, unless I was taking my temperature, I doubt very much I could tell the difference between early stage Red flu and allergies. That would have been especially true two weeks ago when the maple trees around here started to bud.
I didn’t feel perfectly fine. What I felt was normal (for me).
Bob,
If I’ve read more into your statements than you intended, I apologize. I did state that “IF your recommendation is….” If not, then it is not.
I am concerned with your statement, “However, my main point is that their use needs to be discussed and considered and not dismissed out of hand.” Discuss wearing of masks all you wish. (Make sure the need of wearing them is also supported by peer reviewed medical studies.) The problem is that the “discussion” has turned into a free-for-all tossing of our God given rights and the US Constitution which is supposed to safe guard those rights. Any “discussion” can not include the possibility of depriving the rights and freedoms of others. That is NOT subject for debate, yet that is what is happening all over the US and not doubt other parts.
JFK: Sorry for the delay; we just got spanked by a typhoon over here in the Philippines. I likewise apologize for any sloppy thinking and writing on my part. I try to follow what is happening in the US but I’m not there. I am aware that ridiculous and un-Constitutional dictates by looney state and local “managers” (they aren’t true leaders) are happening all over the US and properly causing all sorts of concern and rising levels of civil disobedience and court challenges. I share that angst. But , my focus for the mask discussion was here, on the TAC site, with this group. Why? I sensed a pretty broad dismissal of the usefulness of masks for reasons I felt were emotional (uncomfortable, a play to infringe on personal rights, etc.) which, while are valid concerns, seemed a bit disconnected from medical evidence about the basic use of a mask. Yes, there are pros and cons from “experts” which makes it hard to find the truth. I offered two videos from Dr. Martenson showing his perspective (one a condensed version of the longer one which cited more studies but which still had limited sources due to time). His tone and delivery is often too strident for me but I found his logic solid. Three reasons to wear a mask: reduce the spread of the infectious particles; provide a physical barrier to touching two of the three normal entry points of the virus (nose and mouth) as we tend to unconsciously touch those areas regularly; and, lastly, to reduce the inoculum (or viral load) we might pick up in public and thereby help our immune system fight off an infection. Doing these three things will go far to reducing the spread of the disease especially to the most vulnerable amongst us. He presented video evidence, info from an MIT study, and the findings of several doctors. Here is a recent separate study about masks from a medical expert in the UK: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ycf6bAMKgjg. My goal is that folks here on TAC will blend in what I admittedly hope is reliable info into their personal decision making process to arrive at the best possible outcome for themselves, their family and their friends / neighbors as we continue to learn about this virus. Thanks for your patience.
Sorry for the delay; we just got spanked by a typhoon over here in the Philippines.
Take care Bob!
Thanks Don. We are ok and blessed to have a tough, hardy group around us – Filipinos are amazing people!
Bob, may God protect you and your family.
JFK: Thank you – we got an early start to the normal typhoon season!