In "The Face and the Mask" (8 Oct. 2020), Agamben rightly contends that "the face is the site of politics... A country that decides to renounce its face, to cover with masks the faces of its citizens everywhere is, then, a country that has purged itself of any political dimension. Inhabiting this empty space, which is at every moment subjected to a control which knows no limits, individuals now live in isolation from one another. They have lost the immediate and sensible foundation of their community, and they can only exchange messages directed towards a name that no longer possesses a face. A faceless name."
I have been asked about the nature of the disobedience in question. In reply, I wish to be clear that I am not recommending the disruption of religious services. I am not advocating—indeed, I repudiate—any attempt to fight lawlessness with lawlessness, whether in the Church or in the State, or in some combination of the two that amounts to a civil religion or a State church. I am however contesting what passes for lawfulness. I am advocating refusal to behave lawlessly oneself by rendering to Caesar what Caesar, through lawless law, lawlessly demands. The particular prudential judgments belonging to that refusal always require careful thought and prayer. But the basic principle here is not difficult to grasp. Caesar has no right to determine who does or doesn't approach the altar of God, and the bishops here in Quebec have made a fundamental mistake in conceding such a right, and then trying to work round it by some sort of "accommodation" of those the State has excluded. That, quite frankly, is a fool's game, even on the political level, to say nothing of the scientific or medical level, on which it is perfectly clear that the attempt to separate the vaccinated and the unvaccinated has exactly zero value. But it is the theological level that matters most, per the articulus stantis provided above. More will have to be said about all of this, but for the moment I simply refer enquirers to my previous comment.
In it he remarks: "Our fight is a fight against the pandemic. It is a fight for health. It is not a fight against anyone." This, I'm sorry to say, could hardly be more mistaken. What he ought to have said is what St Paul says in Ephesians 6:10–20. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=ephesians+6&version=RSVCE
"This is not the time for division", says Cardinal Lacroix, while affirming that we should entirely support the state's orders to divide the flock.
As a resident of Michigan, watching the Canadian response has been particularly remarkable because if you could cross the border into Michigan... entirely normal life. Entirely normal church services. Not everywhere, of course, but legally it is permitted and it is what you will find many places. That recent Atlantic piece about "where I live people live as if COVID doesn't exist" was written by someone in lower Michigan. But if you cross the border into Ontario, suddenly all kinds of rules become "necessary" for "safety". Obviously they really aren't. Obviously. And leaders know that. So what's really going on?
Have appreciated your writing for a year now, thank you.
In "The Face and the Mask" (8 Oct. 2020), Agamben rightly contends that "the face is the site of politics... A country that decides to renounce its face, to cover with masks the faces of its citizens everywhere is, then, a country that has purged itself of any political dimension. Inhabiting this empty space, which is at every moment subjected to a control which knows no limits, individuals now live in isolation from one another. They have lost the immediate and sensible foundation of their community, and they can only exchange messages directed towards a name that no longer possesses a face. A faceless name."
I have been asked about the nature of the disobedience in question. In reply, I wish to be clear that I am not recommending the disruption of religious services. I am not advocating—indeed, I repudiate—any attempt to fight lawlessness with lawlessness, whether in the Church or in the State, or in some combination of the two that amounts to a civil religion or a State church. I am however contesting what passes for lawfulness. I am advocating refusal to behave lawlessly oneself by rendering to Caesar what Caesar, through lawless law, lawlessly demands. The particular prudential judgments belonging to that refusal always require careful thought and prayer. But the basic principle here is not difficult to grasp. Caesar has no right to determine who does or doesn't approach the altar of God, and the bishops here in Quebec have made a fundamental mistake in conceding such a right, and then trying to work round it by some sort of "accommodation" of those the State has excluded. That, quite frankly, is a fool's game, even on the political level, to say nothing of the scientific or medical level, on which it is perfectly clear that the attempt to separate the vaccinated and the unvaccinated has exactly zero value. But it is the theological level that matters most, per the articulus stantis provided above. More will have to be said about all of this, but for the moment I simply refer enquirers to my previous comment.
The Archbishop of Montreal has released his own pastoral letter, which can be found here: https://www.diocesemontreal.org/en/news-and-info/latest-news/door-manger-always-open.
In it he remarks: "Our fight is a fight against the pandemic. It is a fight for health. It is not a fight against anyone." This, I'm sorry to say, could hardly be more mistaken. What he ought to have said is what St Paul says in Ephesians 6:10–20. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=ephesians+6&version=RSVCE
"This is not the time for division", says Cardinal Lacroix, while affirming that we should entirely support the state's orders to divide the flock.
As a resident of Michigan, watching the Canadian response has been particularly remarkable because if you could cross the border into Michigan... entirely normal life. Entirely normal church services. Not everywhere, of course, but legally it is permitted and it is what you will find many places. That recent Atlantic piece about "where I live people live as if COVID doesn't exist" was written by someone in lower Michigan. But if you cross the border into Ontario, suddenly all kinds of rules become "necessary" for "safety". Obviously they really aren't. Obviously. And leaders know that. So what's really going on?
Have appreciated your writing for a year now, thank you.
Thank you. I feel less alone now. I will do my best to act on this warning (I live in the UK).