After California relaxed public health restrictions on churches on Monday, the nation’s largest diocese announced its plan on Tuesday to resume public Masses.The announcement from the Catholic Conference reiterates what Abp Gómez implied in the remarks from May 23 that I linked here: a "consultation" had been under way, and the fact that the state conference was involved suggests a strategy very similar to the one used in Minnesota would be employed if the "consultation" didn't work out.. . . While Governor Gavin Newsom’s four-step reopening plan for the state had initially placed churches in stage 3 of reopening, that of “higher-risk workplaces,” on Monday the state announced that churches could begin reopening subject to county restrictions. The state is currently in stage 2 of Newsom’s reopening plan, where manufacturing and some retail businesses have been allowed to reopen.
Now, California has allowed churches to open at 25% capacity with a maximum of 100 people.
The state’s Catholic Conference called the new state guidelines “positive, constructive and fundamentally in alignment” with the diocesan reopening plans, and expressed gratitude for being “a part of the consultation.”
Individual dioceses and archdioceses would make the decisions on reopening parishes in consultation with local authorities, the conference said.
Abp Gómez has been successful in preventing the state legislature, with a Democrat supermajority and a Democrat governor in office, from going overboard in policies singling out Catholic schools for adverse treatment.
He can point to support from Latin Catholic voters, while it's not generally understood that Filipinos, who are heavily Catholic, make up the largest group of Asians in California. (Why would I want to be in a parish full of Anglican snobs, when I can go to mass with some really great Latins and Filipinos?)
Abp Gómez's apparent success is reflected in this Politico story, "Newsom faces growing concerns that he's reopening California too quickly".
Just as significant, though, is that as I pointed out Tuesday, Newsom actually just punted reopening decisions to individual counties and their health departments. Until very recently, the expectation had been that Los Angeles County would track closely with the "blue" states and their stubborn governors, especially after county health director Dr Barbara Ferrer said on May 12 that the lockdown order would "with all certainty" be extended for the next three months.
Ferrer, LA Mayor Garcetti, and the county board began walking that statement back within days, in some part due to the result of the special election in California Congressional District 25, which covers part of Los Angeles County, and which had been held by a scandal-ridden Democrat who was forced to resign. A Latin Republican candidate won the election, considered a tossup, with a 10-point margin. The county found itself quickly reopening parks and beaches and allowing curbside retail pickup on a much faster schedule than had been expected.
On May 26, Mayor Garcetti, saying his policy was coordinated with the county board, announced churches would reopen under the same order Newsom had announced the day before. These orders, while still restrictive (social distancing, disinfecting pews, 25% capacity or 100 maximum) are at least more liberal than those imposed in some other states. I think it's reasonable to expect they'll be eased more over coming weeks.
Interestingly, the Catholic News Agency release linked above goes on to discuss in detail the status of the South Bay United Pentecostal Church, et al v. Gavin Newsom, et al. case appealed to the US Supreme Court over the weekend:
South Bay church had already filed for an emergency injunction on the state’s order requiring churches to remain closed—Newsom’s original plan that placed churches in “stage 3” of the reopening. The church had asked for relief by Pentecost Sunday, May 31.It sounds as though Abp Gómez is very interested in this case, or the story with his photo at the head would not have carried this analyais.Then on Monday, May 25, the state’s health department announced that churches could resume religious services at a maximum of 25% capacity or 100 people.
The allowance is still not acceptable, the church argued in its letter to Kagan, as individual counties can still maintain stricter regulations than the state’s “ceiling” that was announced on Monday.
Furthermore, for larger churches such as South Bay which seats 600 congregants in its sanctuary, the 100-person limit is an “arbitrary cap,” the church argued.
“Some of these churches will seat over 1,000 people, so it makes no sense to have an arbitrary minimum cutoff” of 100 people, LiMandri said.
“They’re not doing that in any other organization or facility,” he added, noting that shopping malls are allowed to open at 50% capacity and warehouse stores like Costco do not have a customer limit.
