March 13, 2020, Spain. A State of Alarm was declared due to the COVID19 health crisis; the unthinkable had become real and Catholics witnessed the closure of churches and the cancellation of public worship, something that had not been known since the 1930's. Although there was a series of practically "universal" measures in the case of the Spanish dioceses, regarding the total closure of churches and the limitation of public worship, not all of them opted for a total closure of churches and the limitation of public worship. Although there was a series of practically "universal" measures in the case of the Spanish dioceses, regarding the total closure of temples and limitation of public worship, not all opted for the same solution: there were places where the closure of parishes was advised and others where, following the required sanitary measures, it continued to be possible to attend Holy Mass, for example.
A conjuncture that combines two instances: the civil and the religious and that has led to some bewilderment on the part of some of the faithful who have wondered to what extent, in a free and democratic society, a civil authority can decide on religious practice.
The pandemic continues to be present in our lives and, as a consequence, we continue to experience partial confinements, area closures, etc. This leads us to ask ourselves, will we see churches closed again? With these questions on the table, we spoke with Rafael Palomino, Professor of Ecclesiastical Law at the Complutense University of Madrid, to find out what can and cannot be demanded in conditions that already alter and condition the normal parameters on which our social and, therefore, religious life is based.
Some people claim that the pandemic has been a "perfect excuse" to limit freedom of worship or even prohibit attendance to churches by the civil government. To what extent is this claim true? Can a civil government establish limits in areas such as churches? Has religious freedom been violated at any time with a health "excuse"?
-A statement such as the pandemic has been an excuse to limit freedom of worship needs to be contrasted or proven with certain data. I do not have data that allow me to say that this statement is true or false. Yes, I have been able to verify that, inside and outside Spain, there have been punctual actions of the public authority that have supposed an illegal limitation of the fundamental right of religious freedom. These actions must be denounced. It is equally true that the public authority can limit fundamental rights: there are no unlimited rights. But limitations must be proportionate, suitable, necessary to the end pursued. In this case, proportionate to the purpose of preserving public health. And of course, what does not legitimize the pandemic is the suppression of the fundamental right to religious freedom, not even under the declaration of a state of alarm.
In the case of Spain, especially in the early stages of the pandemic, the decisions of the bishops regarding the total closure of the churches were not the same in all the dioceses: some closed completely, others maintained worship with the established limitations if the parish priests so decided... etc. This led to certain confusions between what could and could not be "demanded" in the field of attendance to religious worship. What can and cannot be carried out? Is it always better, for the faithful, to abide by the decisions of a civil government even if they consider them unjust or disproportionate?
-It is normal that the decisions of the Spanish bishops have not been exactly the same, uniform. The incidence of the virus is not identical throughout the national territory, the situation of the Community of Madrid is not the same as that of Cantabria or Melilla, to give a few well-known examples. What can be demanded or not from the ecclesiastical authorities, from the bishops, from the parish priests? It seems to me that the starting point is similar to the one that arises in the secular sphere. Let us look at it. According to canon 213 of the Code of Canon Law - the basic and supreme norm governing the Catholic Church - the Christian faithful have the right to receive spiritual goods, principally the word of God and the sacraments. This is a true fundamental right, not a toast to the sun, something necessary for the faithful. Let us remember that, as we said before, there are no unlimited rights: neither is this one. But the limitation (not suppression, which would be very serious) of the right to the reception of spiritual goods must be adopted with the prudence proper to good authority, that is, in a proportionate, suitable and necessary manner, complying with the normative requirements of civil authority, of course, but not guided only by criteria of convenience or opportunity.
We cannot reduce God to a telephone or television screen: the Word of God became flesh, not a screen, you know what I mean: as far as possible, with prudence, the goods of salvation must reach people and people must reach the house of God also in body, because we are not only spirit, much less are we an image on a screen.
On the other hand, the faithful must comply with all the legitimate prescriptions of the civil authority (even if we do not like the persons who at a given moment occupy public office) even when they disagree or consider - we all have an alternative ruler inside us - that things can be done better, much better. And if it is seriously considered that the decisions of the authority are unjust or disproportionate, what corresponds to the conduct of a faithful Christian who, being a Christian, is a good citizen (or wants to be one) is to challenge those administrative decisions before the courts of justice.
In this so-called "second wave", in which the measures are somewhat less restrictive, we observe, however, situations such as that of last September in Ibiza, where the civil government decreed "the suppression of the activity of worship", while at the same time allowing the opening and attendance to places of greater concurrence. Legally, can this type of attitudes be sustained or, on the contrary, is it necessary, and consequently, to appeal them?
-The suppression of worship activities by the public authority is a contradiction in terms, it is a nonsense, it is a paradigm of arbitrariness. The civil authority cannot, because of states of alarm, suppress acts of worship. It is totally out of its competence. What it can do is to limit proportionally the capacity of places of worship or to establish measures in favor of public safety or health.
It is true that the public authority has reasoned, more often than not, with materialistic criteria, which has led it to consider that "essential services" for the population can only be, practically, two things: shopping in a supermarket and being cured in a hospital. And this is a mistake that ignores the root of the fundamental rights of the person and the spiritual nature of the human being. Legally, these decisions, norms or administrative resolutions are contrary to law: they must be appealed, but not only for their own benefit, as the expression goes, but also to remind the public authorities that the fundamental rights of the person limit their arbitrariness.
