PRUDENCE AND TRUTH: At the basis of the Church's response to the coronavirus.

By Fr. Deogratias O. Ekisa S.T.D

March 10, 2020

RESPONSE TO A HEALTH CRISIS 

The various responses of the Catholic Church in many places to the epidemic and potential pandemic of the novel coronavirus or COVID-19 has caused no little spiritual turmoil for some Catholics, particularly regarding the area of liturgy.  The following measures contained in this letter from the Diocese of Houma-Thibodaux are typical of many dioceses in the USA. 

1. Advising "faithful that if they are sick or are experiencing symptoms of sickness they are not obliged to attend Mass and are encouraged not to do so." 
2. "Suspending the distribution of the Precious Blood via the chalice to the faithful during Holy Communion." 
3. "Suspending the exchange of physical contact during the sign of peace; instead, verbally saying 'peace be with you' to your neighbors in the pew." 
4. ". . . Strongly recommending, but not requiring, that the faithful receive Holy Communion in the hand. . . ." 

In other countries where the epidemic is actively killing people, such as Italy and Hong Kong, more radical steps have been taken such as the following. 

1. Cancelling Masses, a decision sometimes made by the Church and at other times by the State, or both. 
2. Emptying holy water fonts. 

Some of the faithful have therefore asked questions like the following: 

1. By cancelling Masses does the Church no longer believe in the power of the Sacrifice of the Mass? 
2. By suspending distribution of the Precious Blood isn't the Church suggesting that it is merely wine which can make one sick, and by recommending communion in the hand, that the host is not the Body of Christ but bread which can make one sick? 
3. I thought holy water was holy; so how can it make me sick? 
4. (A complaint from the other extreme on the ideological spectrum) Aren't the faithful being denied communion with the Lord by the suspension of communion via the chalice? 

It is clear that these restrictions, especially in places like Italy are a cause of great suffering for many people.  This suffering was very well expressed by the Italian Bishops' Conference, which, in response to the government's suspension of all civil and religious ceremonies, which included "the Holy Masses and the funeral rites" described the measure as a highly restrictive one "the reception of which comes with suffering and difficulty among the pastors, priests and faithful."   

And yet I believe that the Church's response, even in this involuntary extreme situation is not only wise but is also consistent with Catholic doctrine.  And so I would like demonstrate my position by speaking to two areas of Catholic doctrine and so attempt to help people asking these questions. 

PRUDENCE, "RIGHT REASON IN ACTION" 

The Church in this case, as it should always, is exercising the cardinal virtue of prudence, the first of the four Cardinal Virtues.  The Catechism defines prudence as "the virtue that disposes practical reason to discern our true good in every circumstance and to choose the right means of achieving it . . . ." (Catechism 1806). 

Prudence thus makes the right decisions for a particular situation by considering the circumstances and weighing the evidence available.  The scientific evidence today tells the Church that liquids like water, saliva and other bodily fluids are some of the means of transmitting this virus.  The scientific evidence also tells the Church that the contamination of others is more likely when people gather in public places.   

Moreover, scientific knowledge itself is God's gift, for by science God allows man to use reason to learn about nature and the world, especially when this scientific research is not inconsistent with the moral law, as explained in Catechism 159 and Catechism 2293. 

The Church's own teaching about preserving life, all life, therefore dictates that she listens to this reasonable evidence of science, in the pursuit of that most noble goal.  As the Italian Bishops' Conference said: “The acceptance of the decree [of the Italian government] is mediated solely by the desire to do its part, also in this situation, to contribute to the protection of public health."  And so, the Church, basing itself on this scientific evidence pointing towards the preservation of life and weighing it against the spiritual benefits of the liturgy, makes these prudential decisions.  These are the same decisions routinely made with regard to the celebration of the sacraments during snow storms, hurricanes and other natural disasters. 

THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE 

As already noted regarding scientific information, the Church's prudential decisions also have to be consistent with theological truth; prudence is not "anything goes."  Prudential decisions cannot undermine the truth about what we believe.  And indeed with regard to the Eucharist, these decisions regarding the coronavirus do not contradict Eucharistic doctrine. 

To begin with the Church teaches in the Catechism 1374 that "The mode of Christ's presence under the Eucharistic species is unique. . . .  In the most blessed sacrament of the Eucharist 'the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ and, therefore, the whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained'" (Council of Trent – DS 1651).1 

The key word here is substantial presence.  Christ is not present physically nor is he present symbolically, but he is present substantially.  Cardinal Ratzinger brilliantly explained how these two polar understandings of the Eucharistic presence got it wrong in the past.2  The Church owes a great debt to St. Thomas Aquinas who provided the conceptual framework by which this impasse was resolved.  He explained that Christ is present, not in a physical manner nor in a symbolic manner; Thomas used the philosophical concept of substance to explain his presence.  Although this notion of substance comes from metaphysics, an area of study that is not readily accessible to most people, even in common parlance we speak of Mr. Chesterton as being "a man of substance."  When we do so, we are not referring to his girth or weight, but rather to his inner character and being.  It is in this latter sense of essential being that the Church understands the substantial presence of Christ, one that allows him to be present to us "truly, really, and substantially", in his "the body and blood, soul and divinity." 

As Cardinal Ratzinger explained, the Lord did not wish us to consume him in the manner of cannibals.  And so he made himself present under what the philosophers call the accidents of bread and wine, and the Church calls the appearances or the species of bread and wine.  After the consecration, the substance of the bread and wine are changed into the substance of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.  In plain words, whatever belonged to the essential being of bread and wine is no longer there and all that is left are the contingent appearances of bread and wine such as smell, taste, size, colour etc.  That host you receive and the sip that you take from the chalice are for all intents and purposes the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, despite having the smell, taste, size and colour and other appearances of bread and wine.  Despite appearances, Christ is "truly, really, and substantially" present after consecration. 

This teaching about appearances helps to protect Christ's presence from any corruption or degradation.  For when we break the host, it is the appearances of bread that we are breaking not the  Body of the Lord himself; when we chew on the host it is not the bones of the Lord that we are masticating.  When, by accident, the host turns into mould or the Precious Blood into vinegar, it is not the Body and Blood of the Lord that spoil, but the appearances of bread and wine.  And when one drinks a large amount of the Precious Blood one's inebriation does not come from the Blood of Christ but from the species of wine. 

And so it is these appearances that make it possible for one to be contaminated by the coronavirus while receiving communion.  The virus in the saliva of a sick communicant could attach itself to the priest's hands as he gives communion and then he passes it on to the host of the next communicant.  That is why when a host falls down during communion, what the priest will do with it will depend on the circumstances; if it fell on your average Church floor, he will probably pick it up and consume it;  if he were in a hospital room with a greater exposure of germs he might dispose of it in a different way.  While that host is truly the body of Christ, Christ is present under the species of bread whose appearances are subject to quantity, decay and therefore contamination. That is also why people with celiac disease or recovering alcoholics are allowed to receive the Body and Blood of the Lord from low-glutten hosts and from wine with minimal alcohol in it, so that those accidental qualities of the host or the wine do not make them sick.   

Finally, as for those who feel they are missing out on communion when they receive only under one species, it is Catholic teaching in Catechism 1390 that "Since Christ is sacramentally present under each of the species, communion under the species of bread alone makes it possible to receive all the fruit of Eucharistic grace. . . ."   That means that even when one receives only the host or only from the chalice, one still receives the whole Christ, Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity. 

And as for the holy water in the fonts, its consecration is not the same as that of the Blessed Sacrament.  The difference is that the water does not become something else in the same way that the Eucharistic bread becomes the Body of Christ.  The holy water remains water, albeit water set apart for sacred use.  And like all water, holy water it is susceptible to contamination, even though it is blessed water.  A sick person can transfer the virus to the water and subsequent users of the holy water to bless themselves can catch the virus.  Like all sacramentals, and unlike the Blessed Sacrament, the consecration of holy water comes from its use rather than from any substantial change to what it is.  That said, it is holy water and should be treated as such.  It is the means by which the faithful seek God's blessings and are reminded of their own baptism  (For more information see this article from Jimmy Akin). 

AVOIDING THE TEMPTATIONS OF PRESUMPTION AND MAGIC 

And so, if the Church did not take these measures, she might have been guilty of presuming God's power and mercy (cf. Catechism 2092).  It is this presumption that Our Lord himself avoided when tempted by the Devil in the desert who said to him: “If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down. For it is written: ‘He will command his angels concerning you’ and ‘with their hands they will support you, lest you dash your foot against a stone.’”  Refusing to presume his Father's power Jesus responded “Again it is written, ‘You shall not put the Lord, your God, to the test'" (Mt. 4:6-7).  I believe the Church is doing the same thing, not putting the Lord God to the test, but instead using the knowledge and reason he has given us to choose the right thing to do here and now.  It might turn out that the measures were an overabundance of caution since hindsight is 20/20.  But the Church's actions have to be judged by what is happening here and now and in the foreseeable future. 

Finally many well-meaning Catholics in an effort to defend the Church's teachings and practices, particularly when they set reason aside, can also fall into the temptation of seeing the Church's sacraments and sacramentals as magic (see Catechism 2117).  The fundamental difference between true religion and magic is this:  in magic man uses material things to manipulate God for favours; in sacraments and sacramentals, God uses material things to grant favours to human beings.  That is why the Church can prudentially set the sacraments and sacramentals or aspects of them aside temporarily in the assurance that God in his sovereignty has other ways to share his life with us as he sees fit.  For as St. Thomas so wisely put it, God, whose power is not tied to the visible sacraments can sanctify man inwardly through other means (cf. S.Th. III, q. 68, a. 2). 

Those who are temporarily deprived of the sacraments and sacramentals might take this opportunity to unite their suffering with the many millions of Catholics especially in mission countries of Africa, Asia and South America, who receive the sacraments only every few months or even once a year.  It is this spirit of solidarity that the Holy Father's Vicar for Rome, Cardinal Donatis encouraged the faithful of Rome to have, even as they accepted the government's restrictive decree that prohibited religious services until April 3rd, 2020. 

And for us who are not yet personally affected by the crisis, let us pray fervently for those who are affected by the coronavirus, for a prompt resolution of the crisis (see A Coronavirus Prayer). 

Endnotes:

[1]  And then quoting from Pope Paul VI, the Catechism goes on to explain what the Church means by a Real Presence, saying, "This presence is called 'real' - by which is not intended to exclude the other types of presence as if they could not be 'real' too, but because it is presence in the fullest sense: that is to say, it is a substantial presence by which Christ, God and man, makes himself wholly and entirely present" (Paul VI Mysterium Fidei 39).

[2] "In the twelfth century the mystery of the Eucharist was on the point of being torn apart by two groups, who each in its own way failed to grasp the heart of it.  There were those filled with the thought: Jesus is really there.  But 'reality,' for them, was simply physical, bodily.  Consequently, they arrived at the conclusion: In the Eucharist we chew on the flesh of the Lord; but therein they were under the sway of a serious misapprehension.  For Jesus has risen.  We do not eat flesh, as cannibals would do.  That is why others quite rightly opposed them, arguing against such primitive 'realism.'  But they, too, had fallen into the same fundamental error of regarding only what is material, tangible, visible as reality.  They said: Since Christ cannot be there in a body we can bite on, the Eucharist can only be a symbol of Christ; the bread can only signify the body, but not be the body.  A dispute such as that has helped the Church to develop a more profound understanding of reality." (God is Near us: the Eucharist, the Heart of Life (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2003), p. 84.)


ADDENDUM (March 13, 2020)
Since writing this essay a few days ago, I have arrived at two more thoughts in discussion with others on the subject.

Some people have made the suggestion that the Church's actions are failing to follow in the footsteps of saints like St. Marianne Cope, Blessed Seelos, St. Damian of Molokai and even Mother Teresa who heroically gave their lives to serve others, especially the sick.

I think this comparison is an apples and oranges situation for a number of reasons.


1. The aforementioned saints acted in their personal capacity while the bishops today act as hierarchical leaders who have a shepherd's oversight over the people of the God.
2. The former, while using their charismatic gifts, did a lot of good in caring for those in need personally; the latter, exercising their institutional role see to the overall good of the whole people of God.
3. The former have a right to offer themselves and their lives for the good of others; the latter don't have the right to offer the lives of others, particularly the most vulnerable among the faithful such as the sick and elderly, by putting them in danger.


The measures taken by the hierarchy in no way stop individual members of the faithful, both clergy and laity, religious and secular, to follow the example of the saints in serving the needy, especially the sick.  That has been the theme of Pope Francis' messages at Mass and elsewhere in the past week.  In fact on one occasion he has encouraged priests to visit and take communion to the sick.