I've recently read a couple of interesting secular and Catholic perspectives on the titular issue. First, in The NY Times, Michael W. McConnell and Max Raskin tackle the question "If Liquor Stores Are Essential, Why Isn’t Church?" They posit that:
... religious leaders and public health officials will need to find new ways to deal with the novel conundrums forced on us by this novel coronavirus. Fortunately, these new arrangements can be fashioned with some very old materials: the centuries-old principles of the First Amendment.
Three time-tested principles of the First Amendment stand out as guideposts for navigating the competing demands of religious exercise and public health in a time of contagion.
First, separation of church and state does not give religious communities immunity from regulation that is necessary for the common good. ...
The second principle is that government can regulate religious activity only through what the Supreme Court calls “neutral” and “generally applicable” laws. This means that a government requirement cannot single out religious activity on the ground that it is somehow dispensable or “nonessential.” ...
Third, both sides must seek what the courts call “reasonable accommodations.”
Apropos of seeking reasonable accommodations, I refer you to Archbishop William Lori, who has been one of the most ardent defenders of religious liberty in the hierarchy:
... he is reminding fellow Catholics that “we are a people of faith and reason” and that heeding the government’s orders to suspend religious services is “eminently reasonable” and “it does not in any way attack or undermine our faith.” ...
What is happening now - the suspension of Masses and other sacraments, says Lori - is happening “out of pastoral love for both our people and our priests.”
In recent weeks, some minority Catholic groups have claimed that what is happening is a violation of religious liberty, an argument that is made in the open letter for the launch of a petition titled “We are an Easter People,” which calls upon the bishops to take steps to provide “some form of public celebration of Mass during this time of strife and pandemic.”
Lori - who led the U.S. bishops’ religious liberty committee and was their point person on the issue during the bishops’ clash with the Obama administration over the contraceptive mandate - has another message.
“One of the overriding responsibilities of government is to keep people safe. This is a health and public safety issue. And this is not only a concern that the government has, it’s also a concern of the church,” he told Crux. “The Church has to take steps to ensure that we are kept safe and healthy and those steps have to be reasonable, rational. We do not feel as though we have been forced into doing this by the government. We feel like we’re doing the right thing.”
“We’re doing something important for the sake of our people, for the love for our people, recognizing how painful it is to have churches closed and not to be able to receive the sacraments,” he continued. “Nonetheless, my prayer is that we can minimize the number of deaths and infections and contribute to that day when this pandemic will loosen its grip on us and upon our country and our world. I feel like this is something that we should be doing, and I do not see it at all as a violation of our religious liberties.”
I recommend reading both.
