Lenten Lockdown—Lest We Forget

The COVID pandemic was the "excuse" for one of the most vicious attacks on faith in the West in the 21st century, used to close churches.

From Crisis

By Joseph Pearce

Everyone remembers when the world was shut down during the great lockdown of 2020. However, there are some things that we are in danger of forgetting, not least of which is the way that the Covid pandemic was used as a pretext to declare war on religion and religious liberty.

Some historical events leave an indelible mark on the memories of those who lived through them. Every American remembered what they were doing when they heard the news of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. Everyone remembered the celebrations on VE and VJ Day in 1945, the dates of the Allied victory in Europe and Japan respectively, which brought the Second World War to an end. Other historical landmarks left their marks in a similar fashion: the assassination of President Kennedy, the death of St. John Paul II, and the 9/11 terrorist attacks come to mind. 

In similar fashion, everyone remembers when the world was shut down during the great lockdown of 2020. In the case of the lockdown, however, there are some things that we are in danger of forgetting, not least of which is the way that the Covid pandemic was used as a pretext to declare war on religion and religious liberty.

Lest we forget, we should all make a Lenten resolution to read Unlocking the Churches: The Legal Victory Against California’s Pandemic-Era Religious Discrimination, recently published by Sophia Institute Press. The book’s author, Jeffrey M. Trissell, was part of the legal team that led the heroic resistance to the tyrannical war on religion conducted by California Governor Gavin Newsom from March 2020 until June 2021. 

The story he tells is a modern-day David and Goliath struggle between the courageous pastors of churches and the bullying power of Big Government. As with the precedent set in the biblical story, it would be David who would emerge triumphant against all the odds. Switching metaphors, we could also see the lawyers defending religious liberty as a present-day St. George defending the distressed faithful against the wickedness of the secularist-political dragon. 

In the case of the lockdown, however, there are some things that we are in danger of forgetting, not least of which is the way that the Covid pandemic was used as a pretext to declare war on religion and religious liberty.Tweet This

The war began on March 4, 2020, when Governor Newsom declared a state of emergency in California. He was the first governor to take this step, precipitating a domino effect across the nation that effectively shut America down. On March 13, President Trump followed suit, declaring a national emergency enforcing the lockdown nationally. At this point, everyone considered it prudent and temperate to “follow the science.” 

What began as the blind leading the blind became the arrogant misleading the ignorant. The war on religion in California and other secularist states would only begin in earnest as the lockdowns began to be lifted. It was then that Christians realized that the lockdown had changed into a lockout in which they would be unfairly discriminated against by those with an anti-Christian agenda.

With Easter approaching, district court judges in California and Kentucky dismissed cases brought by Christian churches seeking the right to hold drive-in worship services. Easter Sunday was spent, therefore, with churches being closed and the faithful being forced to watch live-streamed services from their homes. Two days later, the U.S. Department of Justice issued a statement declaring the federal government’s position that the pandemic was no excuse to discriminate against people of faith.

On May 8, Governor Newsom allowed various “nonessential” services to reopen. Churches were not included. It was at this point that Jeffrey Trissell and his colleagues began the legal resistance, filing suit on behalf of local churches contending that preventing churches from reopening was a violation of the U.S. Constitution. Many battles would be lost in court before the war would begin to swing in favor of religious liberty.

On May 8, Governor Newsom allowed various “nonessential” services to reopen. Churches were not included. It was at this point that Jeffrey Trissell and his colleagues began the legal resistance….Ironically, the tide began to turn in the wake of the death of George Floyd, who was killed when a police officer used excessive force during his arrest in Minneapolis on May 25. Protests against his death erupted across the country with the full support of those political leaders who had been most tyrannical in enforcing lockdowns. A George Floyd protest in Los Angeles was attended by over a thousand protestors and rioters, receiving the full support of Governor Newsom in spite of the protestors breaking his own lockdown rules. 

On May 29, two days after the riot, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against South Bay Pentecostal Church’s right to reopen for services. A day later, riots in support of George Floyd erupted in downtown San Diego in flagrant disregard of Governor Newsom’s lockdown rules. He responded by issuing a press release supporting the protestors.

The hypocrisy of Governor Newsom and others of his ilk exposed their anti-Christian agenda. It was becoming clear that the motive for supporting the freedom of protestors while refusing the freedom of churchgoers had more to do with politics than with public safety, especially since many of the George Floyd protests became the pretext for violence and looting. This was reflected in the court decisions in the wake of the protests and riots. 

On June 18, a judge in Louisiana criticized Governor John Edwards for discriminating against Christians while showing preferential treatment to the George Floyd protestors. Eight days later, on June 26, a judge in New York criticized New York governor Andrew Cuomo and New York City mayor Bill de Blasio for enforcing the lockdown orders against Catholic churches while showing preferential treatment to the George Floyd protestors.

Meanwhile, in California, Governor Newsom continued to single out churchgoers for persecution. On July 6, he prohibited “indoor singing or chanting activities” during church services; a week later, he went even further, ordering all churches and other places of worship to close, restricting worship services to outdoors only. By this time, however, the more courageous church leaders and their congregations were beginning to defy the unjust laws. Churches remained open, ignoring the court injunctions brought against them by the state governments. 

The hypocrisy of Governor Newsom and others of his ilk exposed their anti-Christian agenda.Tweet This

A further blow was struck for liberty in October, when Amy Coney Barrett replaced the recently deceased Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court. Whereas the highest court in the land had sided with the tyrants prior to Barrett’s appointment, her presence swung the balance in the direction of religious liberty, with five of the Court’s nine justices desiring the lifting of the lockdowns and the ending of the church lockouts. The tide was turning.

Failing to see the writing on the wall, the tyrants in California kept up the witch hunt against Christians. On October 15, two “health inspectors” were sent to spy on Our Lady of the Angels Catholic Church in Arcadia. The courageous pastor had kept the church open for private prayer, enabling parishioners to visit the Lord on their own. The “health” spies reported that they had watched “approximately 11” people enter the 500-seat church. No matter how few parishioners were praying in such a large church, Los Angeles County ordered that the church be closed down as a “health” risk. 

Three weeks later, on November 6, Governor Newsom was caught violating his own health orders when dining with at least twelve others in an enclosed space in an elite and exclusive Napa Valley restaurant. Seldom had hypocrisy been flaunted so flagrantly. Then, on November 25, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion titled Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo, responding to the Diocese of Brooklyn’s lawsuit against New York’s governor. The nine justices on the Supreme Court decided by five votes to four to strike down New York’s numerical caps on worship services. 

The opinion of Justice Gorsuch against Governor Cuomo’s war on religion warrants quoting at length:

The Governor has chosen to impose no capacity restrictions on certain businesses he considers “essential.” And it turns out the businesses the Governor considers essential include hardware stores, acupuncturists, and liquor stores. Bicycle repair shops, certain signage companies, accountants, lawyers, and insurance agents are all essential too…. Who knew public health would so perfectly align with secular convenience?

As almost everyone on the Court today recognizes, squaring the Governor’s edicts with our traditional First Amendment rules is no easy task. People may gather inside for extended periods in bus stations and airports, in laundromats and banks, in hardware stores and liquor shops. No apparent reason exists why people may not gather, subject to identical restrictions, in churches or synagogues, especially when religious institutions have made plain that they stand ready, able, and willing to follow all the safety precautions required of “essential” businesses…. The only explanation for treating religious places differently seems to be a judgment that what happens there just isn’t as “essential” as what happens in secular spaces. Indeed, the Governor is remarkably frank about this: In his judgment laundry and liquor, travel and tools, are all “essential” while traditional religious exercises are not. That is exactly the kind of discrimination the First Amendment forbids.  

Jeffrey Trissell believed that this decisive turn of the tide was due to the “significant role” of the Catholic Church in finally standing up to the secular tyranny, albeit belatedly. “The Catholic Church remains the most powerful and influential religious organization in both America and the world…. So, when the Catholic Church says ‘enough is enough,’ that brings a lot of credibility to the table.” Mr. Trissell considered it “incredibly sad” that the bishops in his own home state of California had failed to take a stand. “Perhaps these bishops were prudent,” he says, and they might have felt that “the safest option was to instruct parishes to obey the restrictions while turning a blind eye if they did not.” He continues,

But one wonders whether…the bishops were more concerned about their government funding than about the salvation of souls. I do accept the good faith intentions of many of California’s Catholic bishops, but I will always wonder what could have happened and what would have happened if they had stood up.

Jeffrey Trissell’s sobering conclusion should give us pause for thought. Ultimately, however, it’s not about what could have happened, or what would have happened, or what might have happened. It is about what will happen if it happens again. 

The next time a so-called “emergency” leads to the emergence of secularist tyranny, we need to be much more courageous in our faithful witness and in our insistence on our First Amendment rights. The next time we face being locked down in our homes or locked out of our churches, we need to be as courageous as the saints and martyrs in our fearless defense of the Faith.