New York Post – Pennsylvania’s Amish community not ‘as spooked’ by coronavirus, mothers say

/0 Commenti/in , , /da

Click here for the news

by Joshua Rhett Miller

Some in Pennsylvania’s Amish country are downplaying the threat of coronavirus, claiming they “aren’t as spooked” as others around the country, according to reports.

Roughly 34,000 Amish families and several thousand Mennonites in rural Lancaster County are aware of the pandemic, but aren’t doing much out of the ordinary to ward off the potentially deadly bug, two Amish moms told the York Daily Record.

“We aren’t watching the news all day like everyone else, so I would say we aren’t as spooked by the coronavirus,” one woman identified only as Mrs. Stoltzfus told the newspaper. “Sure, I’ve been telling my children to wash their hands more with soap, but we’re not constantly being reminded of it. And I think we’re less likely to come into contact with it in our communities.”

Another Amish mother, Ruth Lapp, echoed that sentiment, saying “priming” of her children’s immune system as infants makes them less susceptible to contracting illnesses like the virus that has killed more than 9,100 people across the world.

“It’s important that your body fights on its own … most of the time it can fight its own things,” Lapp said. “And it’s not that we’re against doctors, but we try to take care of ourselves first. If we go to the hospital, we would probably be exposed to more germs.”

In their younger years, Lapp let her children frequently crawl on the floor and gave them doses of vinegar to stave off illnesses, she said.

“How should we be responding?” Lapp continued, adding that she’s putting her trust in God.

Just one of three Amish men interviewed by the outlet said his family was sanitizing as often as possible when asked about COVID-19.

To educate the communities, a pediatrician who has researched Amish and Mennonite families issued an alert distributed in churches across central Pennsylvania, the York Daily Record reports.

“As typical English people would, the Amish don’t run to the doctor right away when there is pain,” D. Holmes Morton, who operates a clinic in Belleville, told the newspaper. “They won’t be concerned about the coronavirus until someone is infected with it. It was the same with rubella, and polio and the measles. Once there’s an outbreak in their community, they get concerned.”

A hospital on Wednesday confirmed Lancaster County’s first case of coronavirus. Details on the patient, including age, hometown and condition were not provided, Lancaster Online reports.

CANOPY FORUM – Selling Religious Cures and Other First Amendment Pitfalls in the Age of Coronavirus

/0 Commenti/in , /da
Download the documentDownload

Click here for the news

by Shlomo C. Pill

Challenging times can bring out the very best in people, but these times also seem to prompt far less commendable actions by others. There are always those happy and eager to take advantage of a crisis, and the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic is no exception. Alongside stories of generosity and courage, there are reports of price gouging, fraud, baseless discrimination, and violence. Unfortunately, religious personalities of various stripes are not immune to such chicanery. Many religious leaders and communities are taking decisive measures guided by public health officials to slow the spread of the virus: they have halted congregational services, closed parochial schools, and offered private and public spiritual guidance to their followers during this challenging time. Others, however, have taken this opportunity to peddle in messianic and apocalyptic messages, downplay the value of official public health guidance, and offer religious panaceas that may run counter to good public health practice.

These unfortunate and potentially dangerous practices raise several First Amendment concerns that lie at the interaction of freedom of speech, religious liberty, and public health.

In one instance that has received some national attention, televangelist preacher Jim Bakker, host of The Jim Bakker Show, has been advertising and offering for sale a “Silver Solution,” which he and a “natural health expert” guest, Sherrill Sellman, have claimed “has the ability to kill every pathogen it has ever been tested on,” including the COVID-19 virus. On March 10, 2020, the State of Missouri sought an injunction against televangelist preacher Jim Bakker, prohibiting him from selling or advertising snake-oil remedies for COVID-19. Bakker has also received a cease-and-desist letter from the New York State Attorney General as well as warning letters from the Federal Trade Commission and Food and Drug Administration, all demanding that he stop promoting “Silver Solution” as a coronavirus cure.

Of course, long-standing First Amendment free speech doctrine maintains that commercial speech deserves less constitutional protection than political speech. In 1980 the Supreme Court decided Central Hudson Gas and Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission of New York and ruled that commercial speech that is false or deceptive does not carry any informational value and does not serve other important free-speech interests. Thus, false commercial speech—like Jim Bakker’s seeking of commercial gain by advertising and selling “Silver Solution”—can be banned or penalized by law. This is all the more true where banning such speech serves substantial government interests. In this case, preventing Bakker from advertising and selling a so-called “miracle cure” for COVID-19 that assuredly does not work is important to preventing greater panic and the undermining of government-coordinated public health efforts. 

The Bakker case highlights other First Amendment concerns, which, while not directly present in Bakker’s purely commercial advertising of “Silver Solution,” are likely to come up in the coming weeks and months. Commercial speech is not fully protected by the First Amendment, and false or misleading commercial speech―like advertising that certain products or activities will provide benefits that they assuredly will not―is unprotected entirely. But what about religious speech? The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that religious teaching, counseling, and instruction are core protected First Amendment activities. But what about when religious teaching and counseling may be creating situations that threaten public health? What about when the religious activities of some faith leaders mislead constituents, undermine public health efforts, and risk exposing others to medical dangers―dangers that they thought prescribed ritual observances or donations to churches would protect them from? Can public officials take steps to restrict or penalize such conduct consistent with constitutional norms?

Here too, existing law provides some guidance. Prior to the Supreme Court’s 1990 ruling in Employment Division v. Smith, constitutional “free exercise of religion” protections precluded the government from directly penalizing religious activities absent compelling government interests. The courts have held that the protection of public health and safety are indeed such compelling government interests that may justify narrow restrictions on constitutional freedoms, including the First Amendment right to free exercise of religion. Smith, however, established that the government has even more leeway in its regulation of religious practices. If the law or regulation restricting religious practice is neutral (that is, it is addressing a policy concern other than religion per se) and does not aim to discriminate against religion, that law regulation is valid. Laws prohibiting fraud and restricting other activities that threaten public health and safety are typically of this kind; and even to the extent that they restrict religious teaching, which also enjoys free-speech protections, they may be constitutionally valid so long as they carefully target only so much religious speech and expression, as is necessary, to protect public health and safety from serious threats.

There is another angle to consider in connection to some religious leaders propagating and peddling ritual prescriptions and theological teachings that run counter to accepted medical realities and public health and safety efforts. Despite the typically privileged status enjoyed by religion and clergy in the United States, religious leaders can and have been held civilly liable to those harmed by their religious activities.

Courts across the United States have rejected the idea that clergy can be sued and held liable for clerical malpractice. Determining reasonable and appropriate standards of care for religious leaders treads dangerously close to government and law determining what religious practices are legitimate or normative and which religious functionaries are departing from “acceptable” religion. Such determinations are prohibited by both the First Amendment’s establishment clause as well as long-standing judicial avoidance of issues that require the courts to answer questions about what a religion teaches or demands of its followers. 

Clergy and religious leaders can, however, be held liable for harming congregants and constituents to whom they owe special duties of care and to those that they know are especially susceptible to their influences. Consider one (in)famous and outlandish case reminiscent of Jim Bakker’s disingenuous attempt to take advantage of the current COVID-19 crisis for his own pecuniary gain:

In 1982, wealthy heiress Elizabeth Dayton Dovydenas joined The Bible Speaks church, which was then led by Pastor Carl Stevens, in Lenox, Massachusetts. Over the next several years, Stevens convinced Dovydenas to donate over $6.5 million to the church― in each case, Stevens stipulated as a matter of religious conviction that the gift would induce some positive outcome. In 1984, Dovydenas donated $1,000,000 to the church in order to cure Stevens’s wife’s migraines. In fact, the headaches continued, but Stevens told Dovydenas that her gift had cured them. In 1985, after Dovydenas told Stevens that she heard God tell her to gift the church with another $5,000,000, Stevens informed her that another of the church’s pastors was being tortured in a Romanian prison―she later donated the $5,000,000 to effect the pastor’s release. In fact, at the time that Stevens told Dovydenas this, the same pastor that was supposedly imprisoned in Romania was living safely on the church’s Massachusetts campus.  Finally, later in 1985, Dovydenas made a $500,000 gift to the church to solve her marriage problems. 

A federal appeal court ultimately invalidated the latter two gifts made by Dovydenas to Stevens’s church on the grounds that they were products of undue influence. Central to the court’s reasoning was the view that Stevens could not be permitted to take advantage of Dovydenas’s religious belief that her donations could impact temporal events like the pastor’s “imprisonment” or the condition of her own marriage. Though this may have been the donor’s own religious belief, Stevens knew that it was not guaranteed to work, as was evidenced by his wife’s continued headaches after the first donation of $1,000,000. 

There are vast differences between the Dovydenas case and most of the kinds of public pronouncements, directives, and instructions that are being issued and will surely continue to come from religious leaders at all levels across the United States. But as lawyers, policy makers, public health officials, and religious leaders consider such matters—whether the more egregiously commercial snake-oil selling of the Jim Bakkers of the world or the more well-intentioned pastoral and administrative advice and actions of other clergy—there are a few points worth keeping in mind.

First, neither religious practice nor religious speech (even if it isn’t commercial) is immune from legal and regulatory oversight, especially in the interest of public health and safety in a fluid and changing context. Many synagogues, mosques, and churches have shuttered their doors, and others may be asked to do so in order to slow the spread of the contagion. Religious leaders may be cautioned against or penalized for speech and teaching that advocates for illegal conduct or that poses genuine and imminent threats to public health and safety.  Religion is often concerned with values that can at times be at odds with more of the material and pragmatic focuses of public policy-making. When such clashes create genuine dangers to public health, religion and speech may be constitutionally required to take a back seat on a limited basis. 

Second, religious leaders should be weighing their words and actions carefully. To the extent that they recognize that others rely on them and their religious instruction and will make important decisions based on that guidance, clergy may bear the risk of liability for foreseeable harms caused by their directives. That a religious leader’s followers sincerely believe in the religious value of harmful religious guidance may not provide any protection. The Dovydenas case, in part, suggests that pastors, rabbis, imams, priests, and others may not avoid liability for providing misleading or dangerous religious guidance to their flocks that they have good reason to think is not effective simply because all those concerned believe in the religious truth of that guidance. 

Religion is often said to bring out both the best and worst in humanity. In times of crisis and uncertainty, religious instruction and practice can offer welcome comfort, stability, and direction. Precisely for that reason, religious leaders of all faiths bear a great responsibility to dispense such advice responsibly and with proper account of the public health, ethical, and legal—as well as theological and ritual—considerations at play. 

The Verdict – The Lessons the Coronavirus Crisis Can Teach Us About the Religious Liberty

/0 Commenti/in , /da

Link: https://verdict.justia.com/2020/03/19/the-lessons-the-coronavirus-crisis-can-teach-us-about-the-religious-liberty-that-serves-the-public-good-aka-the-framers-religious-liberty

t has been a long time since the globe has been challenged by a common foe like the novel coronavirus, or COVID-19. In response, governments are taking action to save the largest number of their citizens. Whole cities, states, and countries are having to force sacrifice on their people for the greater good. There will be some who buck the demands of the common good, but there will also be remarkable acts of service and kindness. This is when people awaken to the reality that no one person can be our superhero. Rather, we must all do our small part to achieve a much larger objective. That means staying home when we are told, no longer shaking hands, washing our hands repeatedly, and whatever else scientists and public health experts ask us to do.

Here in the United States, we are having to dust off the concept of the common good, which has fallen away from public discourse in recent years. True, history contains magnificent examples: the slavery abolition movement’s construction of an “underground railroad”; the acts of brave men and women who fought for us in World War II; and the inspiring rhetoric and actions of leaders like Martin Luther King, Jr., who fought for civil rights for the horribly oppressed. Those acts were marked by self-sacrifice for the larger public good.

Factions of self-interest have proliferated since then. One of the most divisive forces of this era has been the demand for what is called “religious liberty” with no corresponding obligation to the larger public good. That is a false liberty, which the Framers would have called “licentiousness,” but we can simply call selfishness. The “ends” have justified the “means” for these believers, to the detriment of the larger public good.

Look at the following examples of “religious liberty” that have been foisted on the people of the United States in recent years. They share a common thread of believers demanding the right to use their “rights” to hurt others; or, to put it in today’s vernacular, they have been all too willing to sacrifice the larger good so long as they secured their own personal ends.

  1. Religious organizations have battled the victims of clergy sex abuse they created in court and the state legislatures. They have impressed on judges and lawmakers their “rights” to practice their religion, arguing they can’t be held accountable for their eyes-wide-open destruction of children as they handed them off to known perpetrators. Their argument is that they do so much good, it would be horrible to now make them pay for harm they did “in the past.” They say this despite the obvious suffering of the victims.
  2. The owner of Hobby Lobby, which is a store for arts and crafts supplies that advertises to the general public and takes anyone’s money regardless of faith valiantly fought for the right to exclude certain means of contraception from their employees’ health coverage. Under federal law, they are not permitted to discriminate based on faith in their hiring. They didn’t care that many of their employees don’t share their faith or that the policy disproportionately affected women or that their beliefs were inconsistent with medical science. Their sole obligation was to “their faith” not their employees or the larger public good.
  3. Some florists and bakeries have argued vehemently for a “right” to discriminate against LGBTQ couples who seek to purchase items for their weddings. No one invited them to attend the wedding, or frankly sought to ever see them again after the commercial transaction. “Their faith” justified excluding an entire category of American citizens whose right to marry is protected by the Constitution based on their gender and sexual orientation. These merchants’ attitudes are divisive and anti-American.

The lens of the greater public good turns each of these arguments for “religious liberty” on their heads. What would be the same reasoning in this COVID-19 era? I can hear it already: that there should be an exemption for believers from the bans on large gatherings. That would mean weddings, funerals, and worship services go forward despite the risk to those who work such events, as has already happened in New York. Or that religious schools stay open while public schools are closed. Or that when the coronavirus is ready, religious believers who oppose vaccination can avoid it.

In fact, COVID-19 is nondenominational, nonpartisan, and bipartisan. It will be happy to make anyone sick in a group that chooses to gather. It will kill the elderly and vulnerable without remorse.

This is what the Framers had in mind: Religious liberty that includes an obligation to the common good. State constitutions included exceptions to religious liberty for safety, health, and welfare. That common sense was baked into the First Amendment by James Madison. I pray that the coronavirus pandemic can at least have the silver lining of reminding us that we are each responsible for the greater good of all—regardless of your religious or nonreligious beliefs.

Washington Post – The new sound of worship services

/0 Commenti/in , /da

The new sound of worship services: ‘Can you mute your mic? Amen.’
By Julie Zauzmer and Sarah Pulliam Bailey
March 20, 2020 at 5:30 p.m. GMT+1

New Hampshire ban on large gatherings challenged in court

/0 Commenti/in /da

HOPKINTON, N.H. (March 19, 2020) — Three people who planned to attend political and religious events in the next few weeks are challenging New Hampshire’s statewide emergency ban on gatherings of 50 people or more to prevent spread of the coronavirus.

ASSOCIATED PRESS

David Binford, Eric Couture and Holly Rae Beene filed a lawsuit Tuesday, the day after Republican Gov. Chris Sununu issued the order prohibiting large scheduled gatherings for social, spiritual and recreational activities. They argue there is no emergency, and that the governor is violating their constitutional rights.
“We can choose to assemble if that is our desire. What cannot occur is one man in a position of power deciding to strip us of our rights in the name of safety and without due process,” Couture said in press release.
A judge on Wednesday denied the group’s request for an immediate order halting enforcement of the ban and scheduled a hearing for Friday in Merrimack County Superior Court. A spokesman for Sununu said Thursday that the emergency order is consistent with actions taken across the country and is clearly within the governor’s authority.
“We are confident the court will agree,” said Ben Vihdstadt. In their complaint, the plaintiffs describe a variety of events they planned to attend, including meetings of the Grafton County Republican committee, services and Sunday school at a Baptist church and a Meetup group to discuss
“petitioning the government for redress of grievances.” The complaint also mentions buying food at a supermarket, though the order does not apply to shopping for food. It does, however, prohibit on-site dining at restaurants.
“We ask others to let the governor’s office know that they are opposed to living under a government that controls the people, instead of the other way around,” said the plaintiffs’ attorney, Daniel Hynes.
Nearly 40 people have tested positive in New Hampshire for COVID-19, the disease caused by the new coronavirus. For most people, the virus causes mild or moderate symptoms such as fever and cough, and the vast majority recover. For some, especially older adults and people with existing health problems, it can cause more severe illness, including pneumonia, or death.
In Ohio, where Republican Gov. Mike DeWine has taken one of the more aggressive anti-virus approaches, businesses and civic groups have largely supported the closure of restaurants and bars, part of one of the most aggressive anti-virus approaches nationally.
Those include the state Chamber of Commerce, Manufacturers’ Association and an alliance of mayors.

UNITED STATES COMMISSION on INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM- The Global Response to the Coronavirus: Impact on Religious Practice and Religious Freedom

/0 Commenti/in , , /da

Download the document:

2020-factsheet-covid-19-and-forb.pdf

* Thanks to Prof. Javier Martínez-Torrón for letting us know this document.

USA – Spirit Rock Meditation Center

/0 Commenti/in , , , /da

https://mailchi.mp/spiritrock/care-covid-19-2020-03-05?e=e7bcd63a27

Dear Ones,
I hope this finds you as well as possible amidst all of the rapidly changing conditions of our world. We are sending deep mettā to those impacted directly by the Coronavirus (COVID-19) and, on this interconnected planet, to all communities as we feel both the strength and fragility of our interdependence.

It was a blessing to be joined by more than 350 of you here on the land for our regular Monday night meditation class earlier this week. Please let me share the link of the conversation I had with Paul Hawken around how to stay grounded and steady as we navigate the spread of the Coronavirus, global climate change, and other current challenges. We talked about how to use these conditions as a portal to connect to the teachings, right here, right now.

I also offered some teachings on compassion, courage, steadying the heart and gaining a wide perspective via video call to a big group in China the other night, some of whom are at home in quarantine. To get them to laugh, I told them there were a large number of people on retreat at Spirit Rock who paid to sit silently and not go out and not speak to anyone—and that in China they were getting their retreat for free! We talked about how the Bodhisattva turns toward difficulty and deepens their practices to quiet the mind and cultivate compassion for all.

Currently, Spirit Rock’s doors remain open to support practice and to help all of us cultivate goodwill as we face change and new challenges. Right now, we are blessed to be in the middle of our longest residential retreat practice period—our one and two-month retreatants are here, which means almost 100 people sitting meditation up the hill in our retreat center through the end of March. In the meantime, our Community Meditation Center is open for weekly classes and weekend programs to support your practice.

We are closely monitoring the COVID-19 situation as it unfolds, at all levels. We are deeply committed to the safety of our practitioners, teachers, and staff on the land. We are proactively taking preventative measures throughout our campus, continuing to follow county health and government protocols, and acknowledging the dynamic and unknown nature of these conditions. We will use our practice and our policies to make the most skillful response needed as things change—which they will—and will continue to keep you up to date.

The need for the Dharma is stronger than ever. We can choose to live in our fears, confusion, and worries; or to stay in the essence of our practice, center ourselves, and be the ones on this beautiful boat of the earth that demonstrate patience, compassion, mindfulness, and mutual care.

With mettā on behalf of all of us at Spirit Rock,
Jack Kornfield

Archdiocese of Baltimore – Masses cancelled, schools Closed and a novena prayer against Coronavirus

/0 Commenti/in , , , /da

https://www.archbalt.org/coronavirus/

coronavirus-archdiocese-of-baltimore.pdf

Novena prayer against Coronavirus

Archbishop William E. Lori, Archbishop of Baltimore and Supreme Chaplain of the Knights of Columbus, invites all the faithful of the Archdiocese of Baltimore and all members of the Knights of Columbus and their families to join him in praying a novena — nine days of prayer — to the Blessed Virgin Mary beginning Sunday, March 15.

The novena, inspired by a prayer by Pope Francis, asks Mary for her intercession and protection from the coronavirus. A video from the archbishop follows, with the text of the prayer below. To download a copy for printing, click here and to download a card version for printing, click here.

US Episcopal Church – A message from Presiding Bishop Curry related to worship changes during a public health emergency

/0 Commenti/in , , /da

https://www.episcopalnewsservice.org/pressreleases/a-message-from-presiding-bishop-curry-related-to-worship-changes-during-a-public-health-emergency/

Statement of the Presiding Bishop to the House of Bishops

Thursday, March 12, 2020

Day #3

“Opportunity is always to be given to every communicant to receive the consecrated Bread and Wine separately.”  (BCP p. 407)

“The Rector or Priest-in-Charge shall have full authority and responsibility for the conduct of the worship and spiritual jurisdiction of the Parish, subject to the Rubrics of the Book of Common Prayer, the Constitution and Canons of this Church, and the pastoral direction of the Bishop.”  Canon III.9.6(a)(1)

Neither the rubrics of the Book of Common Prayer nor the Canons of the Episcopal Church address a public health emergency such as the one we are facing. My message to you sent last evening, which is being made public today, is designed to send a signal to the Church that the Presiding Bishop is supporting bishops who make decisions to suspend the common cup because of this public health emergency. My hope is that this will obviate or mitigate any effort to take canonical action directed at any bishop for these actions in these circumstances. This is to help uphold the good order of the Church in this context in which the moral primacy of Jesus’ command to love thy neighbor must guide us.

The next 30-60 days at the least are simply going to be unlike anything we have experienced in recent history, even including 9/11. The dilemma of what we know and what we don’t know will continue to complicate our decision making and our lives.

In an email to me last night our brother Mark Van Koevering of the Episcopal Diocese of Lexington spoke of the decision to honor the Kentucky Governor’s request of religious leaders to suspend public worship with these words.

“I am loathe to cancel services, but I do support the Governor’s recommendation and think that I must humbly ask our faith communities to practice a Lenten fast of public worship this week as a sign of love for one’s neighbor especially the most vulnerable.”

Obedience to the moral primacy of love for the neighbor must direct us. My hope is that this will enable us to do that while maintaining the good order of the Church for the sake of following Jesus in God’s mission for God’s world.

God bless you and keep the faith.

+Michael

RELIGION NEWS SERVICE (RNS) – Coronavirus shutdowns disrupt America’s soul, closing houses of worship

/0 Commenti/in , /da

(RNS) — The coronavirus outbreak has disrupted day-to-day life for millions. In the U.S., colleges have shut down their campuses, major sporting events — like March Madness, baseball’s spring training, and the entire schedule of NBA games — have been canceled or suspended, major conferences have been scrapped and public schools and businesses are telling people to stay home.

Faith groups are no different. From Washington D.C. to Los Angeles, churches and other houses of worship are shutting down worship services and other religious practices — often at the request of government officials.

Here’s what we know so far:

What’s closed?

  • Churches, mosques and Jewish congregations in California are canceling services and events, after California Gov. Gavin Newsom and state health officials on Wednesday (March 11) called for the cancellation of gatherings of 250 people or more. 
  • Houses of worship in other states — including Kentucky, Ohio, Massachusetts, Maryland, New Jersey, Oregon, Indiana, Michigan, Washington State and New York — are dealing with similar calls to cancel gatherings of more than 250. In some states, such gatherings are officially banned.
  • Catholic dioceses in Los Angeles, Cleveland, Chicago, Seattle, Washington, D.C., Newark, Little Rock and Santa Fe have canceled masses. Other dioceses, including all of Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and Ohio, along with cities like Minneapolis, Baltimore, Indianapolis — have given Catholics dispensations for missing Mass.
  • The Los Angeles diocese is holding Masses but limiting them to 250 people. “These measures are intended to lessen the risk that we will endanger our people or spread this illness during our worship,” said Archbishop José H. Gomez in a statement.
  • The Islamic Center of Southern California canceled all programs through the end of the month. Certain programs will be moved online. “The board of the Islamic Center made this decision out of an abundance of caution and in keeping with Islamic teachings that prioritize public health over religious gatherings,” said Omar Ricci, a spokesman for the Islamic Center of Southern California, in a statement on Thursday.
  • Megachurches around the country have decided to cancel in-person services and will stream content online over the weekend. Among them are Willow Creek Community Church in the Chicago suburbs; Saddleback Church and Harvest Christian Fellowship in Southern California; Bethel Church in Northern California; The Summit Church in North Carolina; and Lakewood Church in Houston, where bestselling author and televangelist Joel Osteen is pastor.
  • First Baptist Dallas and Prestonwood Church, both prominent Texas megachurches whose pastors have close ties to President Trump, had planned to hold services as of Friday (March 13) to hold in-person services. “How do we avoid what I call the pandemic panic?” Robert Jeffress, the pastor of First Baptist Dallas, told a Texas television station, this week. Prestonwood has since moved services online.
  • The Washington National Cathedral — and other Episcopal churches in the Washington, D.C. area will stop worshiping in person for two weeks. The National Cathedral will stream worship online. This Sunday’s preacher will be Presiding Bishop Michael Curry, according to Episcopal News Service.
  • The Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in Washington, D.C., will suspend public Mass.
  • Rabbis in Bergen County, New Jersey, closed all Orthodox synagogues and banned small prayer groups known as minyans.
  • Trinity Episcopal Church in Fort Worth shut down after a church leader tested positive for the coronavirus, according to published reports.
  • The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints shut down all worship services worldwide
  • Have other faith-related events been canceled?

    • The biennial Festival of Faith and Writing at Calvin College was postponed to 2021.

    The Religion Communication Congress, which is held once every 10 years, has been canceled. 

    The African Methodist Episcopal Zion Connectional Lay Council, which was set to draw 500 registrants at a church in Fayetteville, North Carolina, has been canceled.

    So far, plans for the Southern Baptist Convention’s annual meeting this June in Orlando remain on schedule. J.D. Greear, the SBC’s president, and other church leaders have called for a day of prayer on Sunday for the COVID-19 crisis.  

    United Methodist Church bishops have called for the denomination’s General Conference, scheduled for May, to be canceled. 

    Can faith groups object to a ban on meetings under the First Amendment’s free exercise clause?

    Probably not, said Frederick Gedicks, law professor at Brigham Young University Law School.

    The free exercise clause doesn’t give faith groups a “presumptive right to an exemption” under the Free Exercise Clause, said Gedicks.

    “So as long as the ban on large gatherings applies generally, to everyone, churches cannot complain under the FEC,” he said. “If there were exemptions — say, the ban exempted NCAA tournament games — then the ban would not be generally applicable, and churches and other religious congregations would have a free exercise claim.”

    Even if a church had a free exercise claim, the government could argue that a ban on meetings is the least restrictive approach it could take to accomplish a compelling interest in preventing the spread of COVID-19.

    So far, no faith groups have announced plans to challenge official bans on group meetings larger than 250 people. However, in Kentucky, where the governor has requested that large group meetings be canceled, some faith leaders say their groups will continue to meet.

    The Rev. Stephen Smith of Portland Memorial Missionary Baptist Church told the Louisville Courier-Journal that the church would hold services.

    He also said the church’s Lenten fish fries would go on.

    “If we tried to shut the fish fry down we’d have a protest in the street,” Smith said. “These people are going to come and get their fish; they’re not thinking about a virus.”

    The Archdiocese of Louisville will also keep celebrating masses.

    What about the Pope and the Vatican?

    As of Monday, Italy enacted the harshest measures after China to combat the coronavirus pandemic. The Vatican and churches throughout the country complied with Italian regulations by first abolishing the sign of peace, the use of the baptismal font and standing less than three feet apart, and later by abolishing public masses altogether.

    During his morning Mass on Friday (March 13), Pope Francis noted that “drastic measures are not always good.” This was enough to trigger a response from the Vicar of Rome, Angelo De Donatis, to redact his Thursday decree declaring the closure of all Roman churches. Many Italian priests and faithful had objected to the decision via social media.

    It will now be up to parish priests to decide whether to have Mass while still following the general indications and precautions to avoid contagion. As of Friday, over 1,000 people have died of the more than 12,000 who contracted the virus in the country. The Papal Almoner, Cardinal Konrad Krajewski, was the first to break the Italian decrees on Friday.

    “It is the act of disobedience, yes, I myself put the Blessed Sacrament out and opened my church” of Santa Maria Immacolata in Rome, he told Catholic news outlet Crux. “This is an act that should bring courage to other priests.”

    Download pdf

    coronavirus-shutdowns-disrupt-americas-soul-closing-houses-of-worship-religi.pdf