My original understanding that the goal of lockdowns was not to avert virus-caused deaths, but to postpone them, to spread them out over time. Now it seems life shall not return to normal until scientists have learned to cure or immunize. The assumption that this can be done quickly strikes me as optimistic, and we must prepare for the possibility that the media and government will make social distancing essentially permanent. There will probably always be enough danger of illness from a mutated coronavirus or some other disease to allow journalists to scream that anyone who wants churches open is a murderer.
We must be absolutely clear that social distancing is an evil. Call it a necessary evil if you must, but it is social connection that is good. Visiting family and friends in person is good. Crowded churches are good. Children playing together in parks is good. The Western custom of showing one’s face in public (which conservatives used to argue showed the incompatibility of Islam with our way of life before we outdid them in head-covering) was good. Google hangouts and Zoom are better than nothing, but they are not as good.
If I were a bishop, I would begin preparing a contingency plan for the possibility that meetings of more than 10 worshippers will never again be allowed. (Even if the number is 20 or 30, some planning of the sort below will be necessary.) If they are someday, great. One should still plan for the worst. It will surely not be time wasted. We’re going to lose our churches eventually anyway, either from being taxed as punishment for not approving homosexuality or by legal persecution tactics whereby Catholics lose due process protections in sexual abuse accusations. We will soon be unable to afford buildings that can house more than a dozen souls at a time anyway. Our leaders display an indolence that should not be confused with principled conservatism and would probably not have carried through any serious preparation until our churches were taken from us. In this sense, COVID-19 has given us a wonderful opportunity to restructure without hostile media attention and with with a bit more leisure.
Let us say a parish’s priest offers Mass a few times on weekday evenings (each lasting maybe half an hour) and perhaps a couple of times more than that on weekends, for about a hundred Masses a month serving a thousand parishioners. Everyone could go once per month. Families would have to be organized into groups of about three families. Each group would attend Mass together with the priest that one evening or weekend per month and would be encouraged to meet without the priest for prayer one other time (perhaps outside, if social distancing laws demand it). Each family would have to submit its available times, and there would be a greater sense of commitment than before having officially agreed to a Mass time and with attending such small groups that their absence would be noticed.
Devising the schedule will be work, but it’s manageable. Turning priests into Mass-saying machines while still leaving a bit of time for the other sacraments would be an awful burden on them; we could no longer expect them to do much of anything else.
Praying from home as a substitute for Mass cannot go on for 18 months, or however long it is they think a vaccine will take. It feels silly. We’ll all be atheists by the end of that time.
Also, if I were a bishop I’d still make all my priests wear body cameras, even now that they have been cut off from all human connections.
All of this would be to make the best of a terrible, terrible situation, but that’s what you’ve got to work with when you’re a Catholic.
Filed under: Uncategorized | 10 Comments »