Denver Newsroom, Apr 21, 2020 / 12:31 am (CNA).- The Kansas governor’s emergency restrictions on church services wrongly treated religious gatherings more strictly than similar activities, a federal judge said.
The judge granted a temporary injunction to two Baptist churches which challenged the order.
“Churches and religious activities appear to have been singled out among essential functions for stricter treatment,” U.S. District Judge John Broomes said in an April 18 ruling, saying the restrictions are “more severe than restrictions on some comparable non-religious activities.”
Gov. Laura Kelly’s rules “basically eliminated” association for the purpose of public worship, the judge said. The governor did not argue that church gatherings pose unique health risks, he said, and “the exemption for religious activities has been eliminated while it remains for a multitude of activities that appear comparable in terms of health risks.”
The judge said that the plaintiffs are likely to succeed in their case and will suffer religious freedom violations because the order was not “narrowly tailored” enough to further the “compelling” state interest in countering the spread of the coronavirus.
Chuck Weber, executive director of the Kansas Catholic Conference, told CNA April 20 that the Catholic bishops have tried to be a partner in the coronavirus response and commended the governor’s previous efforts, but found the restrictions imposed on religious gatherings in the days before Easter to be “troublesome.”
“We are grateful for this challenge and will be following the legal developments,” Weber said.
The plaintiffs are two churches and their pastors from different parts of Kansas: First Baptist Church in Dodge City in western Kansas, joined by Calvary Baptist Church in Junction City in northeast Kansas. Both churches are practicing social distancing measures at services, but say they believe engaging in “corporate” prayer is a call from God, the Associated Press reports.
The lawsuit from the two churches said the governor could have used less restrictive measures and that the presence of numerous exceptions for “essential” businesses, but not churches, meant her policies unfairly targeted churches.
Gov. Kelly, however, defended the restrictions and characterized the judge’s decision as “preliminary.”
“This is not about religion. This is about a public health crisis,” she said, adding that six deaths and 80 cases of coronavirus originated at religious gatherings. As of Monday, there have been more than 100 coronavirus deaths and almost 2,000 confirmed cases in the state.
“We all want to resume our normal lives as soon as possible, but for now the data and science tell us there’s still a serious threat from COVID-19 – and when we gather in large groups, the virus spreads,” the governor continued. “My executive order is about saving Kansans’ lives and slowing the spread of the virus to keep our neighbors, our families and our loved ones safe. During public health emergencies, we must take proactive measures to save lives.”
Weber said Kansas’ Catholic bishops have “tried to reach out and be a partner in navigating these admittedly complex situations.”
“The Kansas Catholic Bishops certainly recognize that Governor Laura Kelly has a duty and responsibility to protect the public health of citizens and make use of executive orders to accomplish that goal,” he said, noting that the bishops’ early comments on these orders commended her actions.
“In times like this it can become easy to forget that separation of church and state is a two-way street–a ‘street’ that should be shared by the government and faith communities,” he added.
The governor’s initial executive orders banned gatherings of more than 10 people, with religious gatherings among the exemptions as long as appropriate social distancing was practiced.
Then, in an April 7 executive order, the governor stressed the need for enhanced measures to slow the spread of the coronavirus. For the first time the governor listed “churches or other religious facilities” as venues where mass gatherings were banned, alongside auditoriums, theaters, stadiums, and other venues. The order had specific restrictions on religious activities, barring more than 10 congregants in “the same building or confined or enclosed space.” It allowed those who conduct or perform a religious service to exceed the 10-person limit so long as appropriate safety protocols are followed.
In an April 8 statement, the bishops noted their own suspension of public Catholic worship and large public gatherings at Catholic Church facilities predated state and local orders in Kansas. However, they said the order was “troubling” because “it specifically singles out restrictions on churches and religious activities while granting numerous exemptions to other public gatherings that present the same risk to public health.”
“We question the constitutionality of this order,” they said.
Broomes, the federal judge, said the numerous exceptions for businesses were “arbitrary.” He said the order included a “long list” of exempt activities and facilities: most governmental operations; airports; childcare locations; hotels; food pantries; shopping malls; and other retail establishments with large numbers of people but “not within arm’s length of one another for more than 10 minutes”; restaurants, bars and grocery stores, provided social distancing is maintained; office spaces; and manufacturing, distribution and production facilities.
The temporary injunction, which applies only to the two churches, will last until May 2. A Thursday hearing will weigh whether the injunction should be lengthened or broadened.
The Baptist churches’ lawsuit has the backing of the legal group Alliance Defending Freedom.
“Singling out churches for special punishment while allowing others to have greater freedom is both illogical and unconstitutional,” Alliance Defending Freedom senior counsel Ryan Tucker said April 18.
He added that the judge’s decision said the churches are to follow their own social distancing practices, “which these churches are obviously happy to do, since they proposed those rules themselves for everyone’s health and safety.”
Tucker voiced hope that the governor will “act quickly to remedy the unconstitutional provision of her mass gathering ban and avoid the need for continued litigation.”
Republican legislators had sought to remove Kelly’s order on church gatherings, but the governor contested their efforts before the state Supreme Court, which declined to rule on the merits of the case.
Kansas House Speaker Ron Ryckman Jr., a Republican, told the Associated Press that people need to stay home but “the state cannot and should not set up a double standard.”
State Rep. John Carmichael, a Wichita Democrat, appeared sympathetic to the argument that churches faced more severe restrictions.
“I think a very persuasive case can be made that a number of clusters in Kansas are related to places of worship,” Carmichael said, according to KWCH News. “The problem, of course, is though, if you treat other types of gatherings differently or less stringently than a church, then you have a problem.”
Weber reflected on the situation in the state. The Diocese of Salina in northwest Kansas had not yet reported any COVID-19 case, but metro Kansas City and other populated areas have suffered hundreds of cases.
“No one—and I mean no one—wants a return to ‘normal’ any more than the four Catholic Bishops of Kansas,” he said. “This has been brutal on faithful Catholics, but also on our Catholic priests who have experienced a separation from the flocks they love and seek to serve.”
The bishops have reiterated that public Masses may not take place in Kansas. Funeral Masses, baptisms, wedding Masses are allowed only with no more than 10 people present, and only with appropriate precautions.
These measures will remain in place as long as the bishops deem them necessary, relying upon “the best advice of medical professionals,” Weber said.
[…]
By 
These are just allegations and while I have compassion for any victim of abuse, its disgraceful to find someone guilty before they have even been tried which is what these actions amount to.
Very true.
On the other hand, they should have banned his music years ago on the grounds of being utter tripe.
That made me laugh Leslie.
To those who have been given much, much will be expected.
Anyone in a position of leadership or influence, especially when the influence is over the young or vulnerable, should be held to the highest standard. I am a retired Catholic school teacher. I guarantee I would have been immediately dismissed for some of the comments, innuendos, and actions made toward me and 2 of my daughters 20+ years ago by another “famous” Catholic Church musician. My diocese did absolutely nothing. We were told “It’s not the whole of (person’s name.)” But this person played a pivotal role in damaging and undermining my children’s trust in the Church. Eventually, he was put “underground” for a few years until something “move visible” happened. Afterward, he resurfaced in another diocese. Sound familiar?
It is time to stop giving the benefit of the doubt to people who abuse their position and listen to the “targets” of their bad, and at worst sick, behavior. This is not an argument about church music nor is it an attack on a person. It doesn’t matter how famous, popular, or powerful someone is. It doesn’t matter if the person is a better musician than Bach. While we stand in a stupor, drinking in the “charisma” of these predators, their “targets” are being dehumanized and losing their trust in the Church. How many testimonies does it take before we listen?
Unlike some others who have commented here, I have enjoyed singing some of David Hass’ music. I am not against contemporary music in the Church. But a “rock concert” is not going to keep young people or anyone Catholic, especially when they or their family or friends are being abused by the ones appointed to shepherd them.
I believe in innocent until proven guilty, but I also believe that fame, power, or popularity should not give a person special allowances. Too many Catholics are unwilling to look beyond their own comfort zone in the Church, let alone listen to the “cries of the poor.” People who step forward in cases like this are mistrusted, called crazy, diminished, blamed, etc.
Most decent people don’t want to see someone else lose their job. But a choice has to be made. Why do we as a Church keep choosing the famous, powerful, and popular over our ordinary brothers and sisters? That’s what predators count on. That’s how they succeed.
PS. Yes, I am still Catholic. I am Catholic because of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist.
Well said, Bertasi!
These are only allegations so far.
The censure seems a bit hasty.
Can we not separate the man from the music?
My low opinion of his music has never wavered over the years. And it wouldn’t change even if he was made a “Venerable” or praised by a pope.
I quite liked his Mass our choir sang. (I don’t know if he had more than one).
I also believe I remember our choir director (different choir, different director) saying that Schubert’s Ave Maria was once a no-no because he wrote it for his mistress. More than a few musicians/artists were scoundrels. (Not suggesting Haas’s music is on the same level as Schubert’s).
His music is unsuitable for the Liturgy. Good riddance. This is a small victory for those who want actual sacred music at Mass.
Haas admitted guilt when he apologized last year on his website, after initially denying any wrongdoing. I don’t think any diocese can or should support the use of his music.
Surely Haas deserves his day in court in order to prove or disprove his innocence, however, in my court his contribution to church music has been an abysmal failure.
The OCP has 733 hymns in their publication. Now tell me, just which congregation needs more than 50 to 100 hymns(or 25 to 50) in the first place. Not only that, looking through the publication, more than just the David Haas hymns should be scrapped. For far too long Catholics have been subjected to the singing of a new church into being and having things raining down upon her people, for crying out loud. We could have a grand bon fire with all the misbegotten hymns in print forced upon us in the past 50 years.
Let’s get back to worshipping God with our voices, not each other.
My understanding is that OCP has a stranglehold on church music.
OCP preys on musically ignorant music directors/cantors and distracted/uninvolved pastors. They have an integrated system that “makes it easy” for any one off the street to choose music to plan a Mass. Unfortunately, the choices are usually all of their second-rate composers with their accompanying mediocre music. OCP profits off selling the copyrights of this music. Parishes purchase the same music year after year in a missalette-type subscription format (“Breaking Bread”) rather than a hardbound pew hymnal. It’s expensive besides.
As for Haas, he’s not just a nameless, faceless composer, who has been accused of some sinful things; rather, he used his parish-sponsored workshops and his “Music Ministry Alive” group (which he founded) to groom underage victims whom he later would go on to abuse. He is well-known in certain circles, and used his stature within the Church to gain access to these women. Talk about a “safe environment.” Hearing his music at Mass now, whether one is a victim or simply has heard about these accusations, makes worship a distraction. We can do so much better.
There is a wealth of Catholic music out there which can often be downloaded and reprinted for free, if you look around online or have a savvy music director at your parish. Until parishes have the scales removed from their eyes, OCP will remain the driving force behind mediocre music during the Liturgy.
St. Cecilia, pray for us!