Irish Episcopal Conference - COVID-19 Evaluation

Submission to the Independent Pandemic Evaluation Panel from the Irish Episcopal Conference

Introduction

1. The Irish Episcopal Conference welcomes the decision to establish an independent evaluation of the overall strategy and approach to planning for and handling of the Covid pandemic. The Bishops welcome the focus in the terms of reference on learning from the experience in the context of a broad perspective on the policies and actions taken and on seeking to ensure that learning informs policy and planning for future emergencies.

2. In this submission, the Bishops seek to convey their experience of the impact on individuals, families and communities from their perspective as pastors of Roman Catholic Dioceses whose parishes, clergy and parishioners collectively account for a very substantial proportion of the population and some of whose dioceses include communities on both sides of the Border. While addressing the impact of the pandemic and the policy response in this submission, the Bishops are conscious that COVID-19 is not wholly a matter of the past: many continue to suffer the effects of Long Covid, while the interruption of screening and treatment for other conditions and the psychological impact of lockdown and isolation, especially for those who suffered bereavements, continue to weigh on many people.

3. The Bishops wish to record our deep appreciation of the challenges faced by government, officials and the health system in responding to the unprecedented dilemmas created by the onset of the Covid pandemic. The mobilisation of resources to support the population was remarkable. The extraordinary commitment and effort of healthcare providers in particular and the broader public service deserve to be recognised and applauded. The comments which are made later in this submission should be read against the background of that overall sense of gratitude for the effort of so many which the Bishops wish to convey on behalf of the Church in Ireland.

4. In reflecting on the lessons to be learned from the Covid experience, the Bishops in the first instance wish to draw attention to the profound truth laid bare by the experience of the pandemic: as Pope Francis expressed it in his remarkable address to the world from St Peter’s Square on 27 March 2020: “caught off guard by an unexpected, turbulent storm (..) we have realised that we are on the same boat, all of us fragile and disoriented, but at the same time important and needed, all of us called to row together.”

To focus now on specific policies and programmes alone without acknowledging that fundamental aspect of the human condition and the need to attend to what nourishes, sustains and strengthens our souls and our communities would be to risk relying on what Pope Francis called “false and superfluous certainties”.

5. In that context, reflecting on this extraordinary period in Irish life highlights the spirit of resilience and solidarity found in communities across the country, both through community-based organisations, including many parishes and parish- affiliated organisations, and in the spontaneous care and generosity of neighbours and individual volunteers, resulting in a sustained effort to support the most vulnerable, including elderly people living alone and those with disabilities.

6. Faith communities, including the Roman Catholic Church, constitute a key dimension of civil society and social cohesion. The spirit of fellowship and service which they foster and the tangible networks of relationships which they sustain make them a key resource for community solidarity and resilience. This provides a foundation for a considered reflection on the experience of the Covid pandemic and the impact of public policy on the community and it is that which informs this submission.

7. The Church, like all faith communities in Ireland, is the means through which its members exercise their right to the practice of their religion. That freedom is a key principle of international human rights law and practice and is an enumerated right under Article 44 of Bunreacht na hÉireann, which indeed acknowledges the necessity as well as the right to public worship. The protection of that right necessarily extends to those who are essential for the exercise of freedom of religion including clergy, lay ministers of religion and parish personnel. The impact of the pandemic and of the policy response on the exercise of this right is also addressed in this submission.

Focus of this Submission

8. In this submission the Bishops seek to contribute to the objectives of this Evaluation with respect to

– identifying lessons learned and

– recommending guiding principles and processes to guide future decision-making in the context of rapidly moving threats of this scale and duration.

9. In doing so, the Bishops wish to address a number of aspects of the scope of the Evaluation set out in its terms of reference, namely

the structures and processes put in place to support whole-of-government decision-making and response
identifying lessons to be learned having regard to the impacts, both immediate and long term, on individuals, families and communities and the Government’s response to managing and mitigating risk of the disease and competing sectoral objectives
making recommendations on guiding principles and processes which can:

A. strengthen decision-making and transparency;

B. assist in assessing and balancing the complexity of potential trade-offs and the need to move speedily and with agility in these scenarios; and

C. provide a framework to ensure democratic processes and civil rights are safeguarded in the context of whole-of-society responses to rapidly moving threats of this scale and duration.

Onset of the Pandemic

10. The Bishops commend the care for the common good and the protection of the most vulnerable which guided the Government’s approach at the onset of the pandemic. The imposing of restrictions on gatherings and non-essential activities and work at that time were appropriate to protect life and well-being in the context of a highly contagious disease with potentially catastrophic consequences. This was all the more necessary when the nature of the impact and mode of transmission of the virus were not properly understood and the prospects of an overwhelming of the health system by infected people was a very real threat. The actions taken at that time were an appropriate application of the precautionary principle to protect the public health, especially as they were accompanied by bold measures to protect incomes and livelihoods.

11 The Bishops fully supported compliance with the restrictions imposed at that time on gatherings for public worship since it was an appropriate if drastic measure, having regard to the nature of the public health emergency. Many bishops issued public statements and communicated with their flock to explain the necessity to comply with these restrictions for the greater good in all the circumstances. Parishes in many cases developed the capacity to stream Mass and other liturgies and in this way to maintain a sense of community and contact, as well as providing a limited means of participating in the liturgical life of the Church. While virtual participation could never equate to the spiritual and human benefits of gathering for worship, it provided a valued spiritual support. The theological concept of Spiritual Communion and its significance was explained to the faithful and formed an important part of the prayers of Mass when streamed or broadcast.

Broadcasting Mass

12. The Bishops wish to record their appreciation of RTÉ, the national broadcaster, and local radio stations for transmitting celebrations of Mass. The universal feedback from clergy and parishes attests to the great practical consolation and support which this provided to very many people, especially those who because of their vulnerable status were urged to isolate and to others who were not able to access on-line services streamed at local level. This was undoubtedly an important example of public service broadcasting and continues to be a public service that is appreciated by many thousands of housebound and elderly people who are unable to join local congregations in person.

Restricting a Civil Right

13. While drastic restrictions on the constitutional right to the practice of religion through public worship may be necessary and appropriate as an emergency measure at the onset of a pandemic, the continuation of such restrictions requires careful and transparent analysis to justify their imposition. Public policy should proceed on the assumption that such restrictions are to be lifted or eased at the earliest opportunity as they constitute a gross interference with a fundamental human right. Their protracted imposition during the Covid pandemic without any consultation or discussion with the Bishops or with representatives of other faith communities was extraordinary. Moreover, the reported expert advice on which the Government relied did not indicate any attempt to evaluate the value in public health terms of this extraordinary restriction, still less to demonstrate that the breach of fundamental rights was proportionate to the risks which might arise.

14. The absence of any forum or channel of communication for church authorities with those evaluating risk, formulating advice and implementing policy meant no opportunity was created over a very long period to consider feasible risk mitigation measures which, at a minimum, should have enabled the easing of restrictions on the right to worship. While this might be understandable for a period at the onset of the pandemic, it is wholly unacceptable that no arrangements for engagement or discussion on this grave curtailment of civil liberties were made as the pandemic unfolded.

15. Restrictions on personal liberty, even in the context of public emergencies, are of such grave import that they should be imposed as a matter of public law underpinned by criminal sanctions only as a last resort and then for the shortest possible time. It is the established teaching and practice of the Roman Catholic Church that obligations on the faithful to participate in Mass and the sacraments do not apply when to do so creates a severe risk to life and health. In those circumstances, the Bishops are disposed to apply voluntary restrictions on gatherings for public worship. This could have been requested of church leaders and, with appropriate supporting evidence, would almost certainly have been agreed – as indeed it was by the Bishops in respect of their dioceses and parishes in Northern Ireland.

16. Recourse to the criminal law rather than responsible engagement was unnecessary and, as it continued, fuelled considerable dissatisfaction and anger with the public authorities on the part of many of the faithful. Such effects are damaging to trust in Government and in expert advice – such as on vaccination – as they are to a culture of respect for human rights. A distinguished independent expert has observed that ‘it can be argued that the Republic took a more restrictive view of religious freedom than Northern Ireland and some other European countries’. (G Ganiel, 2024)

17. The recourse to the threat of criminal sanctions on a more extensive basis and for a much longer period than in most European countries and in contrast specifically with the quality of engagement between church leaders and public authorities in Northern Ireland, make it difficult to avoid the conclusion that this policy reflected indifference to the role of religious faith and practice in the lives of the people and disregard for the obligation on the State to uphold the rights of religious believers and faith communities.

Impact of Restrictions on Worship

18. This is not a matter only of law or principle: the practical impact of restrictions of such long duration on the practice of their faith caused significant anguish to many of the faithful, especially older people for whom weekly and indeed daily Mass attendance formed a cornerstone of their lives. For them, even where online participation was technically possible, the enforced curtailment of their religious practice had a severe impact. When eventually some easing of the restrictions on gatherings for religious worship were conceded, parishes demonstrated a strong sense of responsibility in organising space and stewarding celebrations so that social distancing was respected and unnecessary risks were avoided. Many months of isolation and the denial of the real hope-giving and consoling effects of religious practice could have been avoided had appropriate discussions and consultations taken place that resulted in an earlier easing of restrictions.

Bereavement and Funerals

19. A more acute impact of these restrictions was on the pastoral care of bereaved families following the death of loved ones. This submission addresses below the pastoral care of inpatients and institutional residents but the severe restrictions on those permitted to attend the celebration of funeral rites undoubtedly aggravated what was in most cases an already traumatic loss. The inability to be with loved ones in their final hours was compounded by the inability of even close family members to attend the funeral of their loved one. Extraordinarily difficult choices had to be made by families and clergy in deciding which close relatives of the deceased could be permitted to be in the church for their funeral. These pressures were also experienced acutely by undertakers and the staff of cemeteries and crematoriums whose sterling service during this period was often overlooked and underappreciated. This traumatising experience has left its mark.

20. The fact is that in a church environment, proper social distancing and other stewarding arrangements were possible and, as experience shows, effective. Denied the possibility to be together in such carefully managed settings, families in many cases gathered in the homes of the deceased or of other family members. As a result, it is not unreasonable to conclude that the risk of transmission on the occasion of funerals could be aggravated rather than mitigated by the restrictions on those permitted to attend funeral services.

21. The Bishops do not doubt the sincere desire of the Government to do the best to protect public health by applying the extensive restrictions which they did. However, the concept of public health and the common good which animated the approach to the policy advice they received was narrow, consisting almost exclusively of the risk of infection and its consequences. It is for others to address the health consequences of interrupted medical investigations and treatments as reflected, for example, in the toll of morbidity and mortality in the period since the easing of the pandemic. The Bishops for their part can assert that clergy, in providing pastoral care across the country, were aware of the burden of continuing distress and sadness as a result of the enforced isolation and the fracture of bonds of family and neighbourly care and support.

Impact on Pastoral Care

22. In addition to restrictions on public worship, restrictions on the pastoral care that could be delivered were extensive and uneven. The lack of clarity on the scope of the definition of ‘ministers of religion’ as recognised in the criminal law constituted a particular challenge. Many priests and religious were themselves vulnerable as a result of age or underlying medical conditions. For others, however, it was often unclear what was legally permissible for them to do in support of their parishioners. The importance of pastoral care of the sick and dying was not reflected in arrangements to facilitate such care, such as advice on appropriate precautions including access to PPE. This was also the case in hospitals and residential settings where, in many cases, chaplains were prevented from continuing to function and sacramental ministry was simply terminated. The vital service of chaplains, lay and clerical, in hospitals, hospices, nursing homes and residential institutions, notwithstanding these restrictions, deserves acknowledgement.

23. It has long been accepted that the spiritual as well as the physical and psychological care of patients is essential to their recovery or, in the case of the dying, to their peace of mind. The absence of clear and supportive guidelines to ensure that these needs were met on a consistent basis caused significant anguish to the families of patients and great stress to clergy unable to minister to those who needed their care.

24. The status of ordained ministers – priests and deacons – was at least acknowledged in regulations. Adequate account was not taken, however, of the role of non-ordained ministers commissioned to form part of pastoral care teams, such as parish pastoral workers and Ministers of the Eucharist who assist in the distribution of Holy Communion. Properly commissioned and recognised lay ministers, most of whom serve on a voluntary basis, need to be fully reflected in policy and practice to ensure that the spiritual needs of people in emergency situations are met.

Children and Sacraments

25. It is not for the Bishops to comment on the educational impact of enforced closures of schools and other educational institutions. It is important to register, however, that the closure of schools under Catholic patronage impacted on the religious education of children and in particular education in respect of the sacraments. Parishes made valiant efforts to ensure that joyful and responsible celebrations of these sacraments could take place as soon as restrictions were eased. The Bishops nonetheless wish to have note taken of the very significant interruption in the celebration of these major milestones for families during the pandemic. The inability of parents to bring their children for baptism was also a source of upset for many and, while overtaken with relative ease when restrictions were lifted, this too must be taken into account in evaluating the scale of the impact of the pandemic and the response made to it.

Economic Impact on Parishes

26. The pandemic and the consequent restrictions had economic and social, as well as health and spiritual consequences. The curtailment of the right to gather for religious worship had an immediate and drastic effect on the income of parishes, which are largely dependent on contributions made by the faithful attending Mass and for the celebration of the sacraments. Some mitigation of this loss was possible through the active encouragement of online donations and many parishioners were generous in response. However, income was severely affected and while there were some reductions in operating costs as a result of curtailed activity, most overheads remained to be paid. Parishes and other church bodies had access to very welcome subsidies for the wage costs of employees, but these were not applicable to clergy, whose stipends were reduced in line with reducing income.

27. In a later phase, the State introduced resilience grants to support the recovery of society. Grants were made available across all sectors of the economy, to businesses of every kind whose turnover had been significantly impacted and to voluntary organisations, including sports and members’ clubs. The only sector of activity which was expressly excluded from the scope of support was that associated with churches. Even parish halls, which host a wide variety of community activities and constitute an invaluable community resource, were explicitly excluded, while community halls not associated with a parish were eligible for support. Such discriminatory policies meant that every other form of economic and social activity, from bookies shops to bridge clubs, are regarded as a social good whose recovery and well-being merit support from public funds. The only social activity to be denied such support is the activity of churches and faith communities, despite their role in supporting social cohesion and community service and the fact that the advancement of religion is a charitable purpose which charity and tax law have long supported.

28. This exclusionary stance has grave implications for potential public responses to future emergencies, such as natural disasters. It is a form of discrimination which is sadly consistent with that the denial of the significance of religious practice and the social role of faith communities implicit in the conduct of public policy at the height of the pandemic.

Summary

29. While the Bishops applaud the commitment of the public authorities to preserving public health and the common good during the pandemic and the committed and generous service of frontline workers especially in healthcare, they are obliged to highlight a number of aspects of policy and practice, which are matters of great concern:

Restrictions on the practice of religion underpinned by the criminal law were a gross restriction of a basic human right.
While the circumstances of the onset of the pandemic may have justified such drastic measures without consultation, their continuation for so long without adequate justification and in the absence of any form of consultation or engagement with faith communities was an extraordinary disregard for religious rights.
The duration of penal restrictions in Ireland was remarkable by contrast with the stance of public authorities elsewhere in Europe and particularly in Northern Ireland.
Restrictions of the practice of religion and on the pastoral care of the sick and the bereaved created major hardship and anguish and have left a lasting burden of sadness and distress.
The lack of consistent policies and guidelines restricted the ability of clergy and chaplains to provide necessary pastoral care, especially to the dying.
Severe restrictions on the celebration of funerals caused extraordinary suffering and may have indirectly contributed to transmission of infection in other settings.
Ambiguity about those recognised as ministers of religion failed to provide for the importance of lay ministers in delivering pastoral care.
Extensive closure of schools under Catholic patronage significantly disrupted the religious education of children and the celebration by families of the sacraments as milestone moments.
The pandemic had a severe impact on the incomes of parish communities and their exclusion from any form of financial assistance during recovery was an extraordinarily discriminatory policy unjustified in the light of their importance in the life of the community.

29. The Bishops believe that the importance of religious faith and practice and the role of pastoral care in responding to emergencies need to be explicitly acknowledged in planning for future emergencies.

30. Many of the difficulties that were experienced during the pandemic could have been at least ameliorated through proper engagement with representatives of faith communities, such as was the practice in Northern Ireland. The complete absence of such engagement during the pandemic was regrettable and aggravated an already challenging situation in respecting religious freedom during the emergency. The disregard for this human right and for the role of faith communities is not only a matter of history: the Bishops were not invited to comment on the Terms of Reference for this Evaluation even though 50 interest groups and NGOs were invited to do so in a consultative exercise in February 2024.

31. The Bishops appreciate that many of the restrictive measures imposed were designed to prevent limited hospital Intensive care capacity being overwhelmed. It follows that planning for future emergencies, including pandemics, should include ensuring that the levels of provision are proportionate to a reasonable estimation of risk.

32. The resilience and solidarity of communities across the country during the pandemic reflects deep communal and ethical roots to which the churches have contributed. In the fractured society of today that reflects the impact of social media and polarising ideologies, public policy should attend carefully to nurturing the roots of social cohesion, including the contribution made by churches and faith communities. This includes public policy in response to major emergencies that should be careful to bolster public trust through transparency and engagement, including engagement with faith communities in respect of their mission and functioning. Peremptory restrictions are a poor substitute for efforts to build understanding and consensus. Ultimately, they foster mistrust and grievance which may have continuing effects long after the emergency conditions have eased. Indeed, such mistrust clearly impacted to some degree on the public response to the vaccination programmes which were a critical element in overcoming the pandemic and its gravest impacts.

33. The Bishops stand ready to play their part in developing a framework for communication, consultation and cooperation that will support harmony and resilience whenever society faces emergency conditions such as those created by the Covid pandemic.

July 2025