Welcome to Friday. NCR's editorial staff says we know it's Advent season, but 2020 has been a year like no other so go ahead and decorate for Christmas early. NCR political columnist Michael Sean Winters says that the Supreme Court's recent decision to not restrict participants in religious services — despite spiking COVID-19 cases — threatens the nation's health.
It's December, and you know what that means: It's time for the Catholic liturgical Scrooges to admonish those who jump the gun on Christmas and in the process miss the very important season of Advent.
"We get it," NCR writes in our editorial. "Advent is a distinct season, not just those weeks that you light a candle and finish your Christmas shopping. It has its own readings, music and purpose: to mark the importance of expectant waiting, hope and preparation — and to meditate on the end times and Christ's second coming."
Normally we would join the chorus of those decrying round-the-clock Christmas carols beginning the week after Halloween and fully decorated Christmas trees in early November. We would — gently, of course — encourage early decorators to festoon their Advent wreaths instead of trees, to sing " O Come, O Come, Emmanuel" instead of "Jingle Bells." And, for the love of God, do not turn those Christmas lights on yet!
But 2020 is not a normal year.
You can read more of our editorial here.
Just last week, the Supreme Court granted injunctive relief to the Diocese of Brooklyn, New York, and other religious organizations, from the state-imposed, COVID-related restrictions on the number of congregants who can attend a religious service in those parts of the state where the spread of the virus was rampant.
The decision argues the case is not moot, says NCR political columnist Michael Sean Winters, even though the areas in Brooklyn classified as "red" and "orange" at the time the suit was filed are no longer so classified, and consequently are no longer subject to the rigorous restrictions. Then the decision adds, "injunctive relief is still called for because the applicants remain under a constant threat that the area in question will be reclassified as red or orange."
"No, the threat is not reclassification," Winters writes. "The threat is spiking COVID-19 rates that justify reclassification."
"To say that the decision is filled with nonsensical assertions is too generous," Winters writes. "… If public health regulations do not meet the criterion of public order, what would? If 'the moral principle of personal and social responsibility' does not extend to avoiding the spread of a deadly disease, what does?"
You can read more of Winters' column here.
More headlines
Final thoughts
Every Friday, we pull together letters to the editor from readers like yourself. This week, we are publishing responses to Benedictine Sr. Joan Chittister's recent column about the lessons she learned from President Donald Trump. You can join in the conversation by following the guidelines here.
Until Monday,
Stephanie Yeagle
NCR Production/Online Editor
[email protected]
Twitter: @ncrSLY
