Why do Christians Still want to Gather During a Pandemic?

Editor’s Note: This entry was written prior to recent spikes in cases, and so, may be in need of updating. Further, the author welcomes comments and retorts responding to their arguments and general statements.

---

Dr. Luke Murray | Berkel Chair of Theology | St. Lawrence Catholic Center

---

As the lockdown eases and states begin to open up, a number of Churches are having confrontations with state and local leaders. Should large communities gather together while the virus is still present? Is the right to freedom of religion protected against emergency orders limiting large gatherings? Others, more bluntly, ask isn’t it insensitive to put others into harm’s way by potentially exposing them to the virus?

In order to adequately address this topic and not make us (I am a Catholic) look ridiculous or even sinister, one must delve into some theology (i.e., what we believe and why). This is also my area of expertise rather than constitutional law, so this will be the main angle from which I will discuss this topic.

As I mentioned, I am Catholic and so my treatment will primarily focus on the Catholic Church’s response to the pandemic. In general, however, I do think that many Christian churches whose theology focuses exclusively on reading the Bible and which de-emphasizes the sacraments (more on this later), have weaker theological arguments for attending in person. If you can listen to the Bible and your pastor online, why attend in person and put yourself and others in risk?

However, Catholics have a different theology, and subsequently different reasons for wanting to open up. First, we believe that we were made for communion. We hold that it is not good for people to live lonely, isolated lives, but were instead created in order to love others. This is not controversial but it is at the foundation of waiting to gather together since being lonely, while not immediately dangerous to our physical health, is dangerous for our mental and spiritual health.

This leads me to Catholicism and the need to balance respecting our physical health with respecting our social and religious nature. As Catholics, we believe Jesus told his followers to gather together in person to perform a sacred meal that would make present his perfect act of love (his death on the cross) and unite believers with himself. We believe that what starts out as Bread and Wine is miraculously transformed into Jesus’ body, blood, soul and divinity and by consuming the Eucharist become united with Jesus, who we believe was, and still is, God-in-the-flesh. (For more on this ‘physical’ aspect of Catholicism and the Eucharist - the bread / wine which is miraculously changed- see my colleague Elizabeth Kirk’s article, as well as other articles on Christianity and Culture on our blog.)

For us, the Eucharist both heals and strengthens us during our difficulties, and thus, many Catholics argue that we should continue to attend Mass even at the peak of the pandemic: we need the strength and consolation of God during difficult times.

However, when Catholic Bishops learned how contagious the virus is and that so many can be asymptomatic carriers, they made the prudential decision to immediately cancel all public Masses in March. In my opinion, this was the right call because we simply did not know how many people were carriers or how deadly the virus was. Despite our belief that spiritual health is more important than bodily health, I think they judged that it would not be charitable to intentionally put others in physical harm so that you could benefit spiritually. More on this in just a minute.

There is also a theological principle behind their decision. Since the Catholic Church believes God gave humanity reason on purpose and therefore wants us to use it. While this approach seems to be receding among certain Christian groups (e.g.,the ‘fundamentalists’), Catholics believe ‘Grace’ or the supernatural elements of our faith, should never contradict what we know by reason or science (although mysteries can exist and are not necessarily contradictions).

According to traditional Catholic moral philosophy, a key part of acting reasonably means that the ends cannot justify the means. In other words, wanting to do something good does not justify doing something bad to attain it. For example, a doctor who has been called to the ER to treat someone who is in danger of dying, would not be justified in shooting people to clear a path and reaching the hospital sooner, even if his mother was the one in the ER. The good intention or end (performing a saving operation), does not justify a bad means (killing innocent people to get there faster); it is unreasonable since you are taking life in order to save life.

Relating this principle back to attending church during a pandemic, even though we believe we can be physically united with God via the Eucharist, it is still wrong to attend Mass if that means killing someone else by transmitting the virus. If it were only a matter of only putting one’s own life at risk, perhaps there could be times when one could risk death for a higher or more important good, but without widespread testing and being ignorant about the virus’ communicability, it was judged prudent and charitable to stop public Masses out of respect for others’ safety.

Some have objected that Catholics have frequently disobeyed secular authorities in the past, risking punishment and death, to attend Mass, so how is this different? Setting aside their lack of knowledge about communicable diseases, I think the difference is that when one disobeyed a king and attended Mass, one was only putting their own life at risk, and not potentially thousands of others. Of course, you could counter and say, no one is forcing people to come Mass, they are also freely putting their own life in danger and no one else's, so they should be free to do so. Here is where it gets difficult. I do not know the reasoning of the Bishops in their decision to initially stop public Masses, but I believe they thought you couldn’t be sure you were not also putting others in harm way. So rather than just risking your own physical health by attending Mass, which I think can be heroic, they made the decision out of charity and respect for others we might indirectly put in danger.

More recently, the key question, in my judgment, is: what is the real risk or potential to unknowingly contract the virus and transmit it to others? If there are ways to limit the spread, then when is it reasonably safe to gather together for Church? If people are allowed to attend the grocery store by wearing masks and keeping six feet apart, then why shouldn’t they be allowed to attend a Church if the same precautions are taken? If it is safe enough to gather together to get food at the store, then those churches that are large enough to host people six feet apart should be allowed to open. I admit I find this line of argument to be relatively convincing, as do many bishops, and so a number of Catholic Churches have begun to open up if they can follow the above precautions.

Of course, there is still a risk, so I understand that people will disagree with me, especially if they do not believe in the Eucharist and so do not see any benefit from attending Mass. We also don’t know how prevalent the virus is in society and who might have a potentially fatal reaction. If you knew or had reason to suspect you might have the virus, the reasonable (and charitable) decision would be to stay home and not put others at risk. Hopefully, widespread, accurate testing will be available in the near future and so we can make better decisions. Until this comes, the two main questions are 1) can we be reasonably certain of not having the virus? and 2) can we be reasonably certain that if we take precautions we won’t spread the virus to others?

From what I am reading, it appears that the answer to these two questions is yes. If we can be reasonably certain of not having the virus and also reasonably certain that we will not spread it to others, then attending Church would not be immoral in traditional Catholic moral thought. The reason for this is because then the good intention of attending Church (or going to the grocery store) does not require a bad means; it would not be putting people’s lives in an unreasonable amount of danger (driving a car puts some people in danger but not unreasonably so). It could still happen of course, but it would then be an unintended consequence, something unfortunate, but not something reasonably foreseen, and so not necessarily immoral or culpable to us. In other words, since there will always be a risk of dying in anything we do, from driving to work, walking across the street, or eating a candy bar; the question is whether the benefit (food, union with God) outweighs or atleast justifies the risk of having the virus and transmitting it to others. Still, the lack of knowledge about who has the virus is troubling, but the lessening of hospitalization rates and fatalities seem to provide evidence that the virus can be controlled or that we can be reasonably certain of not passing it to others with the right precautions in place.

Of course, if the infection rate spikes or hospitals are flooded with patients, then I do think the Catholic Church will re-examine its policies for the sake of the common good. But if there are reasonable ways to safely open up, then for theological and common sense reasons, Churches should be allowed to open.

---

---