I mentioned earlier that I see the 'alternative' media as simply the flipside of the 'liberal' media.
This caught my eye today:
Ezra Levant: A heavily-armed SWAT team just took down a Christian pastor heading home from church. Police say he’s charged with “inciting” people to go to church. This is the second pastor jailed this year.
So, being critically minded I wondered what had happened beforehand ... after all it is important to know the context.
Here's what the Calgary Herald reported:
"... Calgary police said they proactively served the church organizers with the order to ensure citizens attending service on Saturday were abiding by public health orders. In a release, police said the Pawlowskis "acknowledged the injunction, but chose to ignore requirements for social distancing, mask wearing and reduced capacity limits for attendees" and went ahead with the event. ..."
So, the minister was warned that it would violate the law and he proceeded anyway.
So surprise, they arrested him afterwards and decided to avoid a confrontation with the attendee's by arresting him later on. Listening to the exchange and watching the video it turns out that it wasn't the 'SWAT' team (nice try Ezra). It was the RCMP. No guns were drawn etc. During the arrest Pawlowski demonstrated contempt to the police officers by calling them various names etc.
Yep, good example of religion.
So - why is this worthy of a Tradicat post?
Because, hard as it may be, obeying laws is a default point for Catholics. Even posted speed limits. If we choose to disobey said laws and get caught by lawful authority, then as Catholics, we have an obligation to either pay the fine etc or follow the legal system.
Pawlowski isn't a hero, he's simply another misguided fool who gives the real enemies the ammunition to push their narrative.
The right way is to band together with other like minded religious leaders and take it to the courts. This way the laws can be amended for the next pandemic.
I see that some are rationally following that course of action.
P^3
I want to again preface my comment by saying I appreciate your takes on this, as I too think that the conservative news can go off the rails at times and I think your takes serve as a good counterweight to more mainstream conservative takes.
ReplyDeleteWith that being said, I think that reductio ad absurdum arguments really do serve as the nail in the coffin for many of your positions regarding application of Catholic principles in cases like these. And I'll provide a few examples to show why I think this is the case. Now, this instance in Canada makes things kind of unclear because of course heretics don't actually have the right to false worship, so we really need hypotheticals.
Preface: This is an example I've given to you before, and I have your answer on it which is the case of "In a time where a disease is spreading, and the government made a law enforcing that everyone wore a hazmat suit, and then provided everyone a suit, must a Catholic obey?" Your answer in (How many must die for the throne) was "Yes."
1. Now, I would then ask you: If there was no widespread pandemic, but there were still contagious diseases like the flu which we could completely eliminate the spread of by using hazmat suits, must a Catholic still obey this order?
-I struggle to see how you could possibly say "no" with the application of principles you take? If you said "yes" I think this is obviously absurd, because you would never not wear a hazmat suit. Therefore there is obviously something wrong with the application of principles. My conclusion? I think you can either conclude that forcing the use of hazmat suits are either outside of the state's sphere of authority, or that in order to enforce their use there must be a grave situation where there is a significant and knowable danger to the person or someone they are coming in contact with. It would have to target specific groups of the population like the elderly, the immuno-compromized, etc. Otherwise, it isn't reasonable and doesn't bind. The parallel to masks is obvious.
2. If the state mandated that all Catholic masses always and at all times enforce the participants to wear masks, socially distance and limit the mass to a group of 10 people because the state deems this a good method to stop the spread of diseases that can be dangerous to vulnerable groups (The flu, the cold, etc), should Catholics always obey?
- If yes, this is absurd as this is saying that since the time of Christ, all Catholics everywhere have really been at the State's mercy regarding these limitations and that at anytime the State could basically put us under a form of interdict. Therefore, there is a problem with the application of principles. My solution? Regulations on these things in mass is ether completely outside of the State's authority or, like the hazmat suits, this must be targeted towards a specific group of population that is in seriously and danger and which can be known with a high degree of certainty in danger in order to bind Catholics. Otherwise, it isn't reasonable and therefore doesn't bind.
I hope my arguments here are clearly made, and I wish I could make one of your great diagrams to demonstrate my argument! I am curious to see if you answer "No" to either of these questions, how you manage to do so without compromising your position? I certainly haven't seen anything put out by Holy Church to make me think my positions on both questions are unorthodox. I think the behavior of the Church in the pre-Christian Roman times and in other hostile nations where the Church disobeyed laws that unreasonably persecuted Holy Church actually vindicate my position. But maybe you have something in particular that you think binds me to believe otherwise.
God bless you Tradical!
PS:
DeleteIt should be noted that whenever I go to your blog in particular, I get blocked by "Google Safe Browsing" saying your blog has been reported to be a "deceptive site" running a phishing scam. Very odd
Hi Murrax,
DeleteBecause of other priorities, I'll be pulling your comment into a 'part ii' post and post my thoughts in a week of so.
P^3
This comment has been removed by the author.
Delete