Silicon Valley's "Hidden Persecution" of the Catholic Church which it apparently Considers Lower in Priority than Dog Parks

The Catholic Monitor was informed of the Silicon Valley Santa Clara County's "hidden persecution" of  the Catholic Church this week.

The county is enforcing unconstitutional tyrannical guidelines for Catholic and all religious services which are apparently considered lower in priority than dog parks as can be seen below in its listing of activities:

Appendix C-2: Allowed Additional Activities - Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19) - County of Santa Clara

(4) Use of Dog Parks

1. Basis for Addition. Dog parks are outdoor locations that typically provide ample space for people to distance from one another.  Risks associated with this activity can be mitigated through measures that ensure adequate social distancing and limit intermixing between households. 
2. Description and Conditions. Dog parks may open to the public subject to the following limitations in addition to those required elsewhere in the Order:
   1. No person shall enter a dog park if it is not possible to easily maintain at least six feet of separation from all other persons.
   2. Face coverings must be worn at all times, except by people who are exempted from the face covering requirement pursuant to the Health Officer’s Critical Guidance on Face Coverings.

(5) Small Outdoor Ceremonies and Religious Gatherings

1. Basis for Addition. Although ceremonies and religious gatherings carry a substantial risk of transmission, they are vital to people’s social and spiritual well being.  The risk associated with these activities is mitigated when the activities occur outdoors, and when the total number of participants is limited.  Risks associated with these activities can be further mitigated through measures that decrease exposure, ensure adequate social distancing, and limit intermixing between households. 
2. Description and Conditions. Outdoor ceremonies and religious gatherings, including but not limited to funerals and weddings, may occur subject to the following limitations in addition to those required elsewhere in the Order:
   1. Ceremonies and gatherings must occur entirely outdoors, except that participants may use restrooms, provided that the restrooms are frequently sanitized.
   2. No more than 25 persons may be present at any one time.
   3. A person or business, as that term is defined in the Order, must serve as the designated host for the ceremony or gathering, and must ensure compliance with all requirements in the Order and in this Appendix C-2.
   4. The host must maintain a list with the names and contact information of all participants. If a participant tests positive for COVID-19, the host shall assist the County Public Health Department in any case investigation and contact tracing associated with the gathering.
   5. Food, beverages, and other concessions may not be provided or sold for consumption at the ceremony or gathering, except as necessary for ceremonial purposes with maximization of all safety precautions and avoidance of sharing.
   6. No equipment or items may be shared amongst persons, except amongst members of the same household or living unit.
   7. No singing or shouting is allowed due to significantly increased risk of COVID-19 transmission.
   8. All participants must wear face coverings at all times, except people who are exempted from the face covering requirement pursuant to the Health Officer’s Critical Guidance on Face Coverings.
   9. Except for members of the same household or living unit, all participants must remain at least six feet from one another at all times. [https://www.sccgov.org/sites/covid19/Pages/health-order-appendix-c2-additional-activities.aspx] 
   
   Santa Clara County rule iv. is unconstitutional and tyrannical:
   
    "The host must maintain a list with the names and contact information of all participants. If a participant tests positive for COVID-19, the host [church] shall assist the County Public Health Department in any case investigation and contact tracing associated with the gathering."
   
   The Supreme Court judged such a rule unconstitutional:
   
   
   
   Freedom of Association
   

   NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE v. ALABAMA ex rel. PATTERSON, ATTORNEY GENERAL, 357 U.S. 449 (1958)

   Argued:

   January 15, 1958

   Decided:

   June 30, 1958

   Decided by:

   Warren Court, 1957

   Legal Principle at Issue:

   Did an Alabama law that required the NAACP to provide the names and addresses of all its members and agents in the state violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments?

   Action:

   The Court ruled that the NAACP could not be compelled to disclose the names and addresses of its members.

   [https://www.thefire.org/first-amendment-library/decision/national-association-for-the-advancement-of-colored-people-v-alabama-ex-rel-patterson-attorney-general/] 

   
   

   Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Mass and the Church as well as for the Triumph of the Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

   
   
   

​​​​​​​