Roman Catholic Bishops Begin Pushback On COVID Restrictions
[San Francisco Abp Salvatore Cordileone] criticized a new health order from the state of California placing San Francisco and San Mateo Counties into a more restrictive tier of coronavirus restrictions, resulting in a ban on indoor worship services.
The health order treats religious worship as a “non-essential” activity, while allowing hair and nail salons, massage parlors, and tattoo parlors to remain open, Cordileone noted.
“This is precisely the kind of blatant discrimination to which the Supreme Court gave injunctive relief in New York,” he said, referencing a decision Wednesday which blocked New York from similarly closing houses of worship while allowing secular retail venues to remain open.
. . . The archbishop recognized concerns over rising COVID hospitalizations, and said he is discerning the proper course of action, with advice from his fellow bishops, archdiocesan lawyers, and infectious disease specialists.
Also from the Catholic News Agency,Kentucky’s four Catholic dioceses will not suspend public Masses despite the governor’s request that religious services be held online only until December 13.
. . . “At this time, we will not be suspending public liturgies but encourage all to act in a responsible way that respects the seriousness of this pandemic and the health and safety of all,” said Archbishop Joseph Kurtz of Louisville in a statement on November 19.
I think the subtext here is that, with the Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn winning its injunction against New York State lockdown orders, the US bishops are beginning to evaluate their options. Abp Cordileone has been in the lead in objectinng to California lockdown measures, while the Archdiocese of New York endorsed the Diocese of Brooklyn's suit when it was filed. That Cordileone would mention that he's getting "advice from his fellow bishops, archdiocesan lawyers, and infectious disease specialists" suggests that serious next steps will be undertaken.It appears from the direction of both statements that the ecclesiastical authorities intend to regain control over conditioins of worship and liturgy, for now giving communicants discretion over whether to worship in person. I don't know if the bishops would articulate their situation in exactly these terms, but I think they see that we're in a moral panic, where "moral entrepreneurs" have seized public opinion and are controlling public behavior for essentially their own aggrandizement. This would include a public health establishment aligned with leftist politicians who wish to de-privilege a range of social behavior, including Jewish and Christian worship.
Although moderates insist that such measures -- extending not just to church, but increasingly to traditional holiday celebrations like Halloween and Thanksgiving -- are meant to be temporary, other politicians and public health figures telegraph that they're meant to become a "new normal". Even the moderates are vague about just how "temporary" the measures will be, and a consensus seems to be emerging that they won't end with a vaccine. I think the bishops are correct to oppose all such trends, legally and in the public forum.
"Moral enforcers" are also seeking to perpetuate the authority they've gained from the initial crisis, for instance now by insisting that new waves of the virus continue to threaten the social order. The bishops legitimately see themselves as the traditional spokesmen for some part of the social order and are seeking to regain their normal role. Even if they don't necessarily see the current circumstances as a "moral panic", I think they're at least resisting the right symptoms, and for the right reasons. I think Evangelical spokesmen like Pastor John MacArthur are correctly working in the same direction.
The fairly recent notion of "moral panic" does seem to be a productive way to understand what's going on. I'll look more closely at this in subsequent posts.
