Just before Christmas, the Archdiocese sent pastors this note in one of the regular chancery to parish e-mails:
“Regarding Christmas Mass, we wanted to alert you to a national campaign called ‘Christmas Day Uprising.’ This campaign is urging Christians to flood churches for Christmas, citing First Amendment religious freedom. We hope this is not the case here in the Archdiocese, but are warning you nonetheless. We have been very clear that restrictions are in place to protect each other and the common good. We have also communicated that parishes may add up to four masses on Christmas Eve and Christmas Day to accommodate more people.
Unlike other states, we have been very blessed to share common goals with Governor Inslee, who recognizes worship, ‘as an essential part of life.’ In fact, you can read the letter he wrote to the Bishops stating that he is committed to working ‘to ensure that you can provide these invaluable services in a safe and healthy environment for all.’ Please share this with your parishioners if you have not done so already.”
Well, this did not happen at Assumption, thank goodness, and now I have shared the information with you. But I also want to add my own commentary. Since the beginning of this pandemic, we have had parishioners wonder why we in the Archdiocese of Seattle do not push back more on governmental restrictions, demanding that our churches be opened with full capacity and no limitations. With the recent victory of the Diocese of Brooklyn at the Supreme Court and other actions by that Court following, this question might be on even more of our parishioners’ minds as of late.
The short answer is that reasonable restrictions for the sake of the common good are an expression of our faith, not a threat to our faith. We agree that some restrictions are required in the face of a pandemic, and we want to do our part to contribute to the common good of all of human society.
The long answer is that of course the worship of Almighty God, especially in the Holy Mass, is the pinnacle of all human activity, the thing for which we are made and without which our life has no meaning. But the Mass, as with everything else in our lives, exists in a fallen world marked by sin and the corruption (including disease) wrought by sin. Even while Jesus has won the ultimate victory over sin and death, everything we do, in some way, has to adjust to the continued presence of evil in our world. Do I, for example, shop at a grocery store that supports political causes opposed to the faith? Pre-pandemic, how did I balance the requirement to attend Mass with the fact that I might be ill? The calculus of making adjustments due to the corruption of this present world has been present since the beginning of humanity, but the newness of this pandemic has made the answers to these perennial questions seem less settled and more debatable.
In the face of all of this, the standard that every Catholic diocese in the United States has applied to governmental restrictions on worship has been whether these standards are reasonable. Are these restrictions necessary to protect the common good? Do these restrictions treat religious gatherings at least the same as other gatherings of similar size, or is religion unfairly disfavored? The Diocese of Brooklyn had to go to the Supreme Court because the Governor of New York was singling out houses of worship for particularly onerous restrictions, in a way that did nothing to advance the common good. Only allowing 10 worshippers in a church that can seat 1000 people is not reasonable, and we are thankful the Court sided with the Diocese.
Here in Washington State, however, though we may disagree with Governor Inslee on many other topics, our bishops have found him to be a collaborative partner on Coronavirus restrictions, listening to what they have to say and trying to treat religion fairly, even occasionally favoring us in light of the 1st Amendment. Speaking as an individual pastor, I agree with our bishops that the Washington State restrictions have been reasonable and that I have been given the flexibility that I need to continue to bring the Gospel and the sacraments to the people under my care. My only disagreement would be with the 30-person limit on weddings and funerals, though I will also say that these are the occasions when I have seen our coronavirus procedures most in danger of being violated (by visitors who are not familiar with the parish), so I do understand where the Governor is coming from.
I understand why Catholics who deeply love the faith, and who have witnessed our faith leaders fail over and over again to defend the doctrine, practice, and moral witness of the Church, why these Catholics would be itching for a fight that proves that we will not allow religion to be steamrolled or sidelined by an increasingly militantly secular society. There are many times when I, myself, have dug that trench and I am sure I will dig it again. But in my estimation, this is not the context for that fight. Our state government has been more reasonable than many regarding these restrictions, and I would rather preserve that collaborative relationship than unnecessarily develop an adversarial one, particularly in the face of something as dangerous as a global pandemic.
Fr. Moore 