Ideologues on the court threaten the nation's health
This is a decision on who gets to decide about the Church opening it's doors wider. It is in line with the principles of Hosana-Tabor. In for a penny, in for a pound.
Had the decision been about whether the doors were open and Mass attendance were mandated, I would go the other way. This decision allows the diocese and the faithful to decide the issue for themselves. Civil authorities were treating Churches as more dangerous than other gathering. There was no rational basis for doing so.
COVID fear should not give government power over institutions where spread is unlikely. It does not mandate allowing someone with symptoms to go to Mass, no matter what. That would be taking liberty too far.
Asymptomatic spread, in reality, happens after someone has already been sick with nasal symptoms. No one is going to die because of this ruling. They are dying because the CDC got the spread model wrong. That would not be in the competence of the Court to decide. Individuals should still be able to. Mandating fear over science is also a bridge too far.
How this case affects a future Title VII case is unclear. The Civil Rights Act has language about religious accommodations. Expanding those to allow the Church to continue firing teachers is a grant of religious power. That would be unacceptable, as would a decision to allow the Church to dismiss an employee from using contraception.
In the long-term, President Biden will likely be replacing Justice Thomas in this term. Ideological balance forever is not an issue.
Dignitatis Humanae does not bind the Court or its Catholic members. It binds the bishop. If this bishop makes the wrong call on COVID, it is up to the Pope, the Nuncio and the Cardinal-Adviser to bring him in line. Ultimately, it is up to the faithful themselves. The Church belongs to us, not the other way around.
ReplyDelete