A Pandemic Retrospective: Did We Pass the Test?
IMPRUDENT PROHIBITION & PANIC
By profession I am a software developer. In my line of work, we conduct a review process called “the retrospective.” Over a relatively short period of time, covering a phase of a project — typically from one to four weeks — the team discusses what went well, what went poorly, and areas for improvement. When undertaken seriously, the process helps the team address problems that are under its control.
I am not suggesting that the Catholic Church become more like the software industry — heaven forbid — but I do think we can apply the retrospective concept constructively to determine what, if anything, we learned from the COVID-19 pandemic and the subsequent lockdowns of the past three years.
As COVID policies varied wildly depending on the location, time of year, and so forth, I will paint with a broad brush. My goal here isn’t so much to come up with answers as to help frame the questions that all of us, but especially our priests and bishops, should be asking ourselves. Here goes.
During the early days of the pandemic, the faithful were prohibited from attending Mass. Was this prohibition prudent? Under what conditions should such a prohibition be enforced in the future? Granted, the prohibitions were imposed largely out of obedience to civil authority, but Catholic bishops likewise possess authority of their own. Under what conditions should they exercise their authority when it differs from that of civil leaders?
You May Also Enjoy
The bishops feign “pastoral accommodation” for those Catholics about whom the dirty little secret is that they wouldn’t come to Mass anyway.
The Church came to see Islam as meriting different treatment because it is a religion, unlike Nazism and Communism, which were secular and atheistic ideologies.
This statement was attacked by business leaders and the prime minister, and was the subject of a full-scale debate in the Canadian Parliament.