During the Covid-19 pandemic, the sacrament of Catholic confirmation was temporarily changed, in some locations. The changes involved no touch what so ever, instead implements were used. This violates Code of Canon Law, even Pope Paul 6 forbid the use of implements. How were those confirmations during Covid *"really"* valid? There are priests who have contended it was not valid. Canon Law specifies human touch to administer the oil. The Bible specifies human touch. Also a document was released this year by the Vatican which specified the sacraments **must be done** according to Canon Law. Someone please make this make sense.

[Christian Scientists](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Science) deny the Germ Theory, right? If so, how do they explain COVID-19?

In many places in the United States there are health department rules that require those attending worship inside a church to wear a mask. Yet, there are many churches that refuse to be in compliance with these mandates by not actively enforcing the mandates. One of the big reasons for those not being in compliance with health department rules is that they disagree about the severity of COVID-19 and also the effectiveness of wearing masks in preventing the spread of COVID-19. Many church leaders feel that they should not police the wearing of masks. If there was evidence from the FBI of a terrorist threat of a bomb being possibly placed in a church building, it is not likely that Christians would still demand to meet together in a building under those conditions. And if a church leader opened the doors and insisted on people gathering under those conditions, presumably they would be liable for injuries if a bomb went off. So the subjective interpretation of evidence related to the severity of COVID-19 and the effectiveness of wearing masks is a big part of whether local churches encourage compliance to health mandates. That being said, in Romans 13, Christians are told to pay taxes. And yet, there have been cases (such as the founding of the United States) where civil disobedience was promoted by Christians as being a good thing. What Biblical basis do these churches give for civil disobedience, by not wearing a mask, despite health department rules?

Young earth creationists believe that God created all the species 6000 years ago. But what about Omicron Variant of corona virus? Obviously it's a new thing. What do they think about it?

While I am a fan of Catholic theology particularly and religious sciences and philosophy of religion generally (For example, I am trying to read journals such as [Theological Studies](https://journals.sagepub.com/home/tsj) from cover to cover, though, I don't always have enough time for that.), I have always been a little bit suspicious about the homilies in my local parish church or in televised Masses celebrated by my metropolitan's bishop. Sometimes such homilies don't take into account the exegesis and philological and historical studies Testaments. Sometimes they take one position in issues that are scientifically contentious. To be honest, the homilies with only spiritual content are the best ones. They leave room for practical interpretation and implementation to individuals according to each one's life experience and wisdom. But Catholic homilies in Covid-19 times are too much for me - from local parishes up to the Pope. The talks are only about helplessness, about prayers, about discovery of meaning, about coming back to religion and so on, so on. What I would like to hear: - **More emphasis on what we can do.** E.g. Both these following articles: [Coronavirus treatment: Vaccines/drugs in the pipeline for Covid-19](https://www.clinicaltrialsarena.com/analysis/coronavirus-mers-cov-drugs/) and [Coronavirus Covid-19 outbreak: Latest news, information and updates](https://www.pharmaceutical-technology.com/special-focus/covid-19/coronavirus-covid-19-outbreak-latest-information-news-and-updates/) are a life list of vaccines and therapies developments. There are still open calls for more funding, especially by CEPI which focuses on worldwide availability of therapies (opposite to usual operation of commercial drug firms). If we have tools and if we (as a society) have the skills and funding capacity to fight the virus, then we are bound by the threat of sin to use our capabilities for the greater good. If we are not trying to see our capabilities and if we are not reflecting about our capabilities and our duty to use those capabilities, the this is sin. I think that such reflection gives some depth to spiritual life. It makes spiritual life live and there should be place in homilies about that; - **More emphasis of what we had to do.** The *Guardian* has articles about development of adaptable vaccines (including mRNA vaccines) and the stories are the same - they have been started during previous epidemics (Ebola, H1N1, MERS), but with the epidemics' ends funding dried out (from private investors, from government agencies) and progress has not been fast enough. So - due to lack of enough funding - we are having the first clinical tests of next-generation mRNA vaccines now although tests of similar mRNA vaccines could happen earlier. mRNA vaccines are adaptable and it would be far easier to adapt existing mRNA vaccine with existing experience. So - we should reflect about this sin of Humanity as well - we had money to build big villas and big yachts but we didn't have enough money to fund preparedness for new epidemics and to honor victims of previous epidemics in such a way. Great theme for a homily and for the spiritual growth and life, isn't it? - Current homilies are speaking **about finding new meaning.** Well - I am not having a happy enough life. I have seen hardships in the lives of working men and women. I am not ignoring news from developing countries. While it can be hard to bear this, it gives one nice ray of light in my life - I have meaning! I have hobbies (robotics and AI) that develop tools to ease working life, to accelerate the development of therapies and discoveries. I have no other meaning in life than to help us in an intelligent, meaningful, most optimal way. I have this outlook and homilies can not say anything new. I don't need to search for meaning. Caritas, help for others - what else can there be? But such caritas and help is very practical - some software, some tools in robotics, some software and molecular modelling code for the automatic discovery, some mathematical advancements for AI for automation of the service sector. So - maybe homilies should put more focus on the wider outlook what we as a society can do to help others in intelligent, effective way, using the appropriate tools from science and technology? - And the previous 3 points leads to the **issue of discovering/rediscovering faith**. The current paradigm is that people are feeling helpless and they are discovering faith in such a way. But - as I stated in the previous 3 points - there is no ground to be absolutely helpless. Yes, we can not be sure, but there is a mix of **helpless-uncertainties-accidence/capabilities-duties-faith_in_action-living_actionable_faith**, there is a mix of what we can definitely leave to the God and what we have to do as our duty, duty bound by conditions of sin. I think that is it very important to put any reflection of faith in such a context, otherwise - if absolute helplessness is the only precondition of the discovery of faith, the such faith will not be strong (even more, even the absoluteness of the physical death is not the fact anymore: [The Rejuvenation Roadmap](https://www.lifespan.io/road-maps/the-rejuvenation-roadmap/) . So - I have stated some issues which I would like to hear in homilies and which I would like to enliven in my life and my guess is that any knowledgeable and reasonable human being would do the same. My feeling is that priests and even bishops and the Pope are not informed enough about science. E.g. [Pontifical Academy of Life](http://www.academyforlife.va/content/pav/en.html) does not mention the development of therapies. [Pontifical Academy of Sciences (PAS)](http://www.casinapioiv.va/content/accademia/en/events/2020/coronavirus.html) in contrast clearly states the need for science, basic science and for funding them. So, in theory, PAS has done at least something to inform the Pope and bishops and priests, but still - nothing from that has gone to the reflection and homilies in parish churches. So - my question is - **what is the most effective way to inform the parish priest and the local bishop (and maybe even the Congregations of the Holy See) about developments in science and about reasoning of the ordinary man. And in such a way to guide the priests and bishops in a more reasonable attitude against the Covid-19 pandemic?** So far I have tried to put some (quite short) Facebook comments under announcements made by priests or bishops, but all of them have been ignored. It was the opposite to the local Protestant community in which I suggested to pray for the development of vaccine and for everyone who aspires to become a scientist and develop vaccines, for their efforts - such a prayer suggestion was liked in the Protestant community.

Especially since we have switched from in person to live streamed services due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and continuing as we have had a phased return with both in person people and live steaming, we’ve had a sense of the service being a production. We’ve avoided using the term “performance” to describe the actions of the worship team, because we consider them to be leading the whole church, not performing to the church. But we’ve struggled to find an alternative word to describe it. We want to say “you need to prepare to be ready for your X” for example. It’s possible we’re hunting for a word that doesn’t really exist, nevertheless, is there a good alternative word to “performance” to describe an Evangelical worship music team's actions? --- This is a non-denominational evangelical, independent church. Our hymns are mostly modern with a few more traditional. The instruments are piano keyboard, a couple guitars, drums / cajon and a singer (male or female). Recent songs have included “Only a Holy God”, “This I Believe”, “Come Holy Spirit”, “Jesus Strong Kind”, “Amazing Grace”, “Yes, finished! the Messiah dies”, others “feel” similar to me!

When I attended my first Catholic mass some time in November, I noticed that the priest only distributed the Holy Eucharist under the species of bread, not wine. Upon further research, I learned this was due to COVID restrictions. Which brings up a serious question: What are the theological implications of such a change, especially in relation to Christ commanding to consume the Eucharist under the species of both the bread and wine during Mass?

I've read a lot of shocking stories lately [from Lifesitenews](https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/sweden-vaccine-passports-will-probably-be-required-for-shopping-eating-out-travel-meeting-loved-ones) and the like about the age of vaccine passports. I think they just assume that the reader will have an innate revulsion to them and don't go into whether or not a thing is morally justifiable. So for that purpose, I'm asking here. According to the constant tradition of the Catholic Church, the interpreter of the [Natural Moral Law](https://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c3a1.htm) (which is written on the hearts of all men and women and "expresses the dignity of the person and determines the basis for his fundamental rights and duties"), does a "vaccine passport" comport with human dignity?

Where I live, injection passes ('vaccine passes' or 'health passes') are widely used to discriminate against uninjected people in basic civic life and travel, including most recently the government making it mandatory for certain churches (and in all cases, churches can opt for it and receive the carrot of greater occupancy capacity in return, currently). Have any Christian denominations or high-profile churches publicly presented a theological case against injection passes ('vaccine passes' or 'health passes') for churches?

In the news recently is how the British Overseas Territory of Gibraltar, which at one time had a high “fully vaccinated” rate, is making plans to advise (but not yet require at this time) a Christmas lockdown for 2021. In the U.S.A. there is a holiday called "Thanksgiving." It is a time to cultivate & express those things that one one is grateful for. While there is a temptation to have a doom and gloom attitude about the future in regards to COVID, there is a spiritual imperative to give thanks regardless of what might happen. 1 Thessalonians 5:18 reads: > In everything give thanks; for this is God’s will for you in Christ > Jesus. C.S. Lewis once wrote: > We ought to give thanks for all fortune: if it is ‘good,’ because it > is good, if ‘bad’ because it works in us patience, humility and the > contempt of this world and the hope of our eternal country. Some things that I have heard or read about include a stronger emphasis on Jesus being the reason for the season, with less commercialization taking place. Another good coming out the lockdown of 2020 was a more widespread emphasis & use of internet technology to reach people in their homes. Also, the church being perceived as a community of believers instead of just a building is good theology. Assuming that there is a legitimate health concern about those not being fully vaccinated spreading COVID, ***what potential good has been observed that came out of Christians abiding by another lockdown? What growth has been perceived as happening in the year 2020 during the Christmas lockdown?***

If so, why? If not, why? If he didn’t create it, didn’t he at least know it would happen since he knows everything? Did he allow it to happen anyway? What reasons do we have to know this? Mention any relevant philosophers. I’m curious to see what people think...

With many regions now moving toward using or already having in place medical passes ('vaccine passes') that only allow people to engage in certain basic aspects of civic life if they have had certain medical procedures ('Covid vaccines'), there are 3 basic responses available to the individual. 1. Get the injections the government is coercing them to get. 2. Stop engaging in basic aspects of civic life (restaurants, recreational facilities, concerts, and so on). 3. Get fake id. Given that these measures are discriminatory and may be immoral, what is the Biblical basis for option 3., using a fake 'vaccine pass'? For example, Pastor Doug Wilson is promoting this here .

To some it would smack of nothingburger, but it's notable enough to publish as a ["Whistleblower" report](https://dennismichaellynch.com/watch-project-veritas-releases-bombshell-interview-with-pfizer-whistleblower/) that Pfizer has been testing performing embryonic stem cell tests with more than just one line of tissues derived from an aborted baby. Lots of arguments I've seen (including one in an op ed to our local Catholic newspaper last week by a long time lay leader in the US Bishops conference office of pro-life affairs) have said that vaccines being tested on a _single_ human child aborted several decades ago were moral. A lot of the arguments were that there was just one abortion involved in the embryonic testing (which didn't pass the smell test initially for many pro-lifers) but the Veritas report confirmed the suspicions of pro-lifers who rejected the vaccine on those grounds initially. What we were told from Pfizer, not what was withheld, formed the basis for the religious acceptance of the vaccines. If we truly don't know the nature of the tests done to produce the Pfizer vaccine, does that change the rationale the CDF used for saying the vaccines were OK? > Here, our objective is only to consider the moral aspects of the use of the vaccines against Covid-19 that have been developed from cell lines derived from tissues obtained from two fetuses that were not spontaneously aborted. > https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20201221_nota-vaccini-anticovid_en.html What sort of additional information should Catholics be asking for from Pfizer to persuade vaccine sceptics jumping on this latest news to get vaccinated?

I have already asked a question about the more general issue of medical passes ('vaccine passes') here https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/84217/does-the-catholic-church-have-an-official-position-on-domestic-health-passes-o The answer seems to be 'no', the Church has no official position. These medical passes are now a reality in multiple regions, including the one I live in, and have led to de facto segregation once implemented, preventing anyone who for reasons of conscience decides to opt out of the injections to be barred from basic aspects of civic life. The Church's silence on this speaks volumes. Yet what about these passes being used as barriers to attending Mass? Does the Catholic Church have any official position on this very real possibility?

Hebrews 10:23-25 says > "Let us hold resolutely to the hope we profess, for He who promised is > faithful. 24 And let us consider how to spur one another on to love > and good deeds. 25 **Let us not neglect meeting together, as some have > made a habit**, but let us encourage one another, and all the more as > you see the Day approaching." How do churches that have shuttered in-person services for months (if not over a year) voluntarily (without the government forcing them to) account for this verse? In particular, what is it about meeting together that they hold motivates St. Paul's verse here? Do they hold there isn't actually a Biblical requirement to gather in person, but meeting in person historically was just how certain ends were met that is no longer required by new technologies (and so gathering virtually is relevantly equivalent)? Or do they hold that St. Paul would actually have not encouraged in person gathering if some threshold of in-person risk obtained? Or is it something else?

There are numerous stories on the National Catholic Register about Bishops who have decided to [prohibit priests](https://www.ncregister.com/cna/monterey-bishop-prohibits-religious-exemption-from-covid-vaccine-mandates) in their dioceses from granting religious exceptions for Covid-19 vaccines. Is there any reason that an individual Catholic shouldn't seek a religious exemption from a member of the clergy who shares their concerns with the nature of the vaccines, even if is not their parish priest?

I received an email today from someone who has, thus far, complied with Government advice, concerned that prolonged lockdown conditions or 'semi-lockdown' conditions (which pose significant restrictions on communal gathering for worship) will soon necessitate a decision to go against Government requirements in the future (I am not saying which country this refers to) and to consider house-meetings for worship or other arrangements that will contradict 'advice' or statutory requirements. The thought had crossed my own mind as well, that the restrictions imposed (no singing permitted, limited number of persons allowed in the building, limited scope for normal fellowship, limited scope for prayer meetings where many of the congregation will lead in prayer) might, if prolonged, be considered a situation where one would have to consider 'obeying God rather than men'. My own thought has been to consider meetings in the open air, something done commonly in olden times and done often in the times when Jesus preached to large multitudes. A building is not a necessity and it would perhaps be viewed by authorities less severely than if Government requirements were breached within a building. Have any Christian gatherings or denominations (who have thus far complied with all recommendations) made any public statements in regard to how Christians view the ongoing pandemic situation and what they propose for the future ?

With recent news that France - along with other countries - is in the process of implementing a domestic 'pass sanitaire' (health pass, or vaccine pass) that could control people's ability to go to various places within the country if the person doesn't present it (along, of course, with it being 'up to date' with whatever health measures the government has decided are required), does the Catholic Church have any official views on governments attempting to control their citizens through such passes, and on coercive measures like these to get citizens to take certain medical treatments?

The National Catholic Bioethics Center considers what I think is a straw-man argument against people who reject mRNA vaccines on ethical grounds because they're transhumanist. > Myth 1: For vaccines that rely on injecting patients with mRNA, the possi­ble incorporation of these genes into our genetic makeup will fundamentally alter who we are as humans, moving us into a project of Transhumanism, the production of a “Human 2.0,” etc. > > Reply: Any incorporation of new genes into our chromosomes from a COVID-19 mRNA vaccine would be an exceedingly rare occur­rence, if it were to occur at all. It is actually very difficult to get the ge­netic information of mRNA to in­tegrate into our chromosomes, partly because this would mean a reverse directional flow of the so-called Central Dogma of Molecular Biol­ogy: our DNA or chromosomes are read (“transcribed”) to produce mRNA, which is then read (“trans­lated”) to make proteins. Even if the accidental and unintentional incorporation of an mRNA mes­sage into our chromosomes were somehow to occur following vaccination, this would not mean that we were creating “Human 2.0,” since those genetic changes would not be expected to affect our sex cells, and therefore would not be transmitted to the next generation. Vaccinating people with an mRNA vaccine for COVID-19, therefore, does not imply that we are “remaking man” or heading down the path of Transhumanism. > > https://www.ncbcenter.org/making-sense-of-bioethics-cms/column-182-covid-19-vaccine-myths My problem with this statement is that they consider only what is actually happening this year, not the ethics of the abstract idea of mRNA treatments. (i.e., this is what I'd like to ask the Catholic Bioethics center, and I may, but I'll ask here first as a shortcut) So I have two ethical quandaries that I'd like a Catholic Ethics (i.e. Natural Law) answer from. 1. If mRNA vaccines look like they're useful, an obvious better vector than a shot for stopping a disease would be to make mankind resistant chromosomally, does the mRNA vaccine represent a staging area for the efficacy of such a treatment and therefore represent a first step in a slippery slope that we should reject? 2. If mRNA vaccines are not transhumanist in nature, when it is injecting your body with a synthetic mechanism to prevent (not treat) a disease, how is it less transhumanist than replacing your cornea to avoid glaucoma or replacing your prostate to avoid cancer? 3. Why is it important to inform the public that it doesn't affect the genome? Does something have to affect the genome to be "transhuman"? Bionic eyes and nano-bots would not affect the genome either, but they would be transhumanist. How is turning ones body into a protein generating factory by synthetic means, not transhumanist?

In many places, in-person Masses were paused indefinitely due to Covid-19 related government mandates which labeled certain services as 'essential' and others are 'non-essential'. Ones that were 'essential' continued to operate, those that were 'non-essential' did not - including in many places in-person Mass. My Bishop gave a dispensation to everyone in my diocese indefinitely. Does the Catholic Church accept that in-person Mass is 'non-essential'?