FoxNews recently reported that:
Faith leaders are speaking out after California Gov. Gavin Newsom banned singing and chanting in houses of worship last week due to a surge in coronavirus cases following weeks of protests.
“Places of worship must, therefore, discontinue singing and chanting activities and limit indoor attendance to 25 percent of building capacity or a maximum of 100 attendees, whichever is lower,” the new guidelines read as state health officials recommend churches have members sing online from their homes.
Over on FB, I offered a snarky comment intended to show derision:
I don't think even the Soviets tried to ban singing at the few churches they allowed to operate.
To which a friend who is no fan of FoxNews responded:
Your loyal "good angel" here ... wondering if you really disagree, or if this is just a snarky post? (And you know what I'm going to say if it is just a snarky post.). The reality of the world right now is that singing, in closed spaces, is probably really risky to the people present, and by extension to lots of other people. And we know that, while many institutions would be thoughtful about masks and spacing, some would not; and so a clear rule -- no singing at in-person events -- might be the only way to get compliance and enforcement. So, given that, isn't this the right call, despite Fox News' always-alarmist coverage and your (witty?) framing? And, if it is the right call, why post about it this way, which will cause people to come to the wrong conclusion about your views?
He is learning (although clearly not accepting) that I will always go for snark and sarcasm. It's a failing, I admit. So let me be serious:
The Catechism of the Catholic Church (1324) tells us that celebrating the Mass is the “source and summit” of our Christian life. This is so because, as John O'Brien wrote, "The Mass is the renewal and perpetuation of the sacrifice of the cross in the sense that it offers [Jesus] anew to God . . . and thus commemorates the sacrifice of the cross, reenacts it symbolically and mystically, and applies the fruits of Christ’s death upon the cross to individual human souls." Government regulation that impacts how the Mass is conducted is thus regulation not of some peripheral matter but of the very core of our faith.
Singing isn't the only element of Catholic worship that poses a transmission risk:
- The traditional way of receiving the Eucharist was for the priest to place the wafer on the believer's tongue, which the believer then swallows. (Hand to mouth transmission risk.)
- We have the option of the priest placing the wafer in the believer's hand, which the believer then eats. (Hand to hand to mouth transmission.)
- We take Communion in the form of the wine from a communal cup.
- We dip our fingers into common basins of holy water and dab it on our forehand and torso while making the sign of the cross.
- There are numerous points in the Mass in which the congregation all recites out loud. E.g., the Kyrie, the Gloria, and the Creed.
- During the Sign of Peace, we shake hands and bless one another.
Is singing is the riskiest of those practices? So shall we let the government regulate all of these practices? I'm making a slippery slope argument, of course, but some slopes are slippery. The government started out by closing churches. Then they put various limits on how churches can reopen.
For the government now effectively editing of the liturgy and the way it is performed strikes me as raising substantial free exercise issues, especially given the slippery slope on which they seem to be launched.
Concern about these issues is not limited to the MAGA crowd. Over on Twitter, Richmond law professor Kurt Lash wrote that "California has just banned singing and chanting in places of religious worship. In addition to being hilariously unconstitutional, it is another reminder to be thankful for the current Supreme Court’s movement in the direction of securing religious freedom."
I would add that the Catholic Church has been really good about voluntarily tweaking its rituals to accord with best scientific practices. Surely the Church, in consultation with medical experts, is better positioned than some bureaucrat to adjust the liturgy.
So in this case, I used snark as a shorthand way of calling attention to the problem.
