Is Cardinal Collins taking a knee to Caesar?

Update: June 26, 2020. 09:41 A.M.

Barona at Toronto Public Witness has done more research and not only extracted more quotes from Cardinal Collins but has found the posters from Toronto Public Health and Ontario Public Health. The latter admits that it's recommendation or regulations may actually conflict with the Law - "Any conflict between this document and the emergency orders ... the emergency order or directive prevails."

Here is the Emergency Order: https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/200052

Toronto Public Health provides "General Guidance" to "suspend all communion related activities." Note, "General Guidance" because they are not higher than Ontario Public Health which freely acknowledges that if its regulation are in conflict with the Law, then they are moot - the Law Applies.

Now, the emergency order does state: “3. The persons conducting the wedding, funeral, service, rite or ceremony must ensure that it is conducted in compliance with the advice, recommendations and instructions of public health officials, including any advice, recommendations or instructions on physical distancing, cleaning or disinfecting.”

Holy Communion is not mentioned, but it is implied. However, the Cardinal and bishops could have come up with either solution or adamantly fought the dictats of the Government. They have done neither, they have acquiesced to Caesar. Cardinal Collins and most, not all, of Ontario's bishops have acquiesced to public health officials - un-elected bureaucrats, not the duly elected Government of Ontario. The bureaucrats have overstepped their authority and our emasculated episcopal "leaders" have shown themselves and who it is they serve.

Is Cardinal Collins taking a knee to Caesar?

In the video below you will hear Thomas Cardinal Collins, Archbishop of Toronto and Fr. Ivan Camilleri, Chancellor discussing Holy Communion. At the 37:00 mark, the Cardinal alludes to public officials and a poster with a loaf of bread and a chalice and red line through it - "No Communion."

The purpose of this post is not Holy Communion in the hand or the mouth. That is another post and another discussion and has already been addressed. While Holy Communion in the hand is an abomination, this issue is deeply odious.

The Premier of Ontario, Douglas Ford, has decreed, under his legitimate authority, that churches could open with a limit on capacity at 30%. In some parishes, it works out to a lot less because 30% occupancy does not always maintain a 6-foot distance. 

The issue in this video of the Cardinal (which may be taken down as it is not on the public feed) and by a priest in the Diocese of Hamilton is allusion to government orders into how we worship. The Cardinal is not so discreetly attempting to put the responsibility for this on public health officials without coming out and saying it directly, or issuing a formal protest. 

Our Lord said, "Let your yes be yes and your no be no." He also said to "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's and to God the things that are God's." The occupancy numbers of a building, even a church, lit EXIT Signs, washrooms, parking requirements, are all under the legitimate authority of Caesar as expressed in fire Codes, building Codes, zoning by-laws or ordinances and in this case, emergency orders from an Act previously approved by the Legislature. The liturgy and the distribution of Holy Communion and singing at Mass is not the jurisdiction of Caesar. It is the jurisdiction of God as manifested through His Church.

If Ontario health officials threatened to prevent the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass from occurring over this matter, that is a violation of our God given rights under Common Law and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that itself recognizes "The Supremacy of God," and should be, must be, resisted in every way.

If on the other hand the bishops are acknowledging that the secular government has the right to regulate the liturgical practices of the Church then there is a deeper problem here that is far more significant than the manner in which Holy Communion is distributed. If the bishops have handed over the decisions that rightly belong only to them by virtue of their apostolic authority where does it end? If they acknowledge that the government can regulate specific aspects of our sacramental praxis then how can they not regulate any other aspect of the expression of the faith of the Church.

The bishops seem to think that they must comply with government diktats concerning the expression of our faith in the administration of the sacraments. Will it be inevitable that the government will regulate the expression of our faith in things that are non-sacramental, such as preaching?

Our human rights commissions already accept the idea that speech can be violence. What will the bishops do when these commissions decide to regulate preaching in order to protect the public from "violent words." Will a priest who preaches on the sanctity of life, on the family as created by God, on the inviolable dignity of the human person with respect to the Church's constant teaching on transgenderism and homosexuality be handed over to Pilate for judgement? For if the bishops accept that the State has the authority to regulate one area of the Church's expression of faith when it deems it to be a matter of public safety how can they deny the State's authority to regulate another aspect, another expression of faith when the State deems it to be a matter of public safety.

If the Province of Ontario has ordered this action, under threat, the Cardinal must reveal this to all Catholics. If on the other hand, he and the other bishops are acting on their own, then they must be honest before God and man and testify to the truth that this is their doing. The difference may end up akin to Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops becoming the Canadian Catholic Patriotic Association. If that is the case, we will see the emergence of an underground Church in Canada. There is a precedent.