Perhaps there has never been a time in most of our lifetimes when we could draw more fruit for discernment from the actions and motives of Focolare founder Chiara Lubich and her friends during World War II. They risked their lives to come together in the bomb shelters to read the Gospel and pray with each other. Most importantly, they were willing to sacrifice for each other not only their physical lives if necessary, but also their familiar habits, their previous aspirations, their comfortable ways of doing things. Each came there to support the others, though any one of them might have been killed along the way, as they never knew with certainty when or where a bomb might fall.
The actual location where the young women came together was probably the safest place in town, the bomb shelter. But suppose they had known beforehand that this very place was to be bombed? Would any have wanted to jeopardize the lives of the others by meeting there anyway? No! Each was willing to risk her own life for the others, but none was willing to put the others at a preventable risk. Imagine what a world we would live in, if we all thought this way — the welfare of each of us would be guarded by all. It would be the opposite of what we often hear instead: “Look out for number one” (to act in one’s own interests).
Similarly, the early Christians, living under persecution, regularly came together for the Sunday celebration of the Eucharist even when they could have beeen arrested for doing so. Asked by their persecutors why they did so, they sometimes answered, Sine Dominico non possumus! — “Without the Lord’s Day, we cannot live!” But if they had known that their place of worship was to be raided by the imperial authorities that day, my guess is that they would have waited until the imminent danger had passed.
Indeed, if they had been able to connect by video in that era, I think they would have done it, not as a solution that was
“just as good” (because it is not!) but as the best way for that singular occasion. Our bishops today have been faced
with a similar decision, considering the statistical probability that in any church full of worshippers, the deadly virus would be present and that a large percentage would be unaware that they were carriers.
During these past months of the pandemic, the willingness of some persons to put themselves at risk for the sake of others is admirable — healthcare workers who have worked daily with patients who have this mysterious virus; parents, spouses, and neighbors caring for the elderly or for sick loved ones; priests and others who have gone into hospitals and nursing homes to serve the gravely ill and the dying, and who did whatever was prudent to meet the pastoral needs of their flocks without endangering them; workers in food and postal delivery; and providers of many other essential goods and services, not to mention those who have suffered great losses because of the shutdown.
But this is an entirely different kind of risk than the one that some would place upon others for the sake of what they consider to be their own “rights”: reacting angrily at having to wear a mask because they are young and healthy, protesting their “right” to have all sacraments constantly on demand regardless of the risk to others; refusing to accept limitations on their movement, activity or profit for the good of others.
None of this analysis is intended to defend or propose any particular policy or practical solution, whether civil or ecclesiastical. The unprecedented and mysterious nature of these recent challenges requires continuing discernment. Pastors of souls must sometimes take measured risks to provide for the welfare of their flock. And for civil authorities, remaining within constitutional limits remains a moral obligation because laws constitute a social contract. We may indeed learn at some point that lockdowns are less effective than what we thought they would be or that adequate precautions can be taken with less disruption than people have experienced so far. If so, policies will naturally need to be re-examined. But at any given moment, the best possible judgment should prevail.
We should aim at more and more people learning to seek in such a crisis not merely their own individual rights, but the total good of others. I doubt this could ever be accomplished by any individual law or by any form of government, but it can be accomplished by a conversion of the heart!
