1 Introduction

This article contributes to an understanding of how religious and belief groups interacted with various authorities during the pandemic, shedding light on the ethical and religious factors involved in their decisions to comply or resist. It is based on the RECOV-19 research project, which examines the role of religion in Canada, Germany, the island of Ireland, and Poland. Details of the project methodology are published (Radde-Antweiler et al. 2026), and this special issue’s introduction includes details about the project’s rationale, methods, and data sources, but the following summarizes some key elements. The choice of countries is largely based on the pool of countries (around twelve) contributing to calls for projects through the RECOV-19 project. Notably, it allowed a comparison of the changing role of majority and minority religions in a few Global North contexts.

In these five national contexts the research examines the experience of a few selected religious groups: the Catholic Church and several Protestant churches, and two religious or nonreligious minority groups in each context: Muslim minorities were addressed in Germany, Canada, and the island of Ireland; Germany also included anthroposophists, Canada included Jews, and the island of Ireland included humanists; in Poland, Jehovah’s Witnesses and Orthodox Christians were selected. The project collected and analyzed four bodies of research: (1) public documents produced by religious groups during the pandemic (March 2020–February 2023); (2) journalistic articles from religious media (March 2020–February 2023); (3) online questionnaires with leaders (1,333 respondents, 14 November 2023 and 19 February 2024) and members (1,411 respondents, 27 February and 6 September 2024); (d) qualitative interviews with members and leaders of the groups (eighty people per country).

By using different data sets and methods, triangulation took place (Carter et al. 2014), which allowed comparisons to be made both within and between countries regarding the common research questions and core research areas. The two main research questions are the following: (1) Has the role of religion changed during the pandemic in our Global North case studies? If so, how? (2) What are the main similarities and differences between these contexts, and what factors contributed to changing directions in different contexts? Three main research areas were investigated: (1) discourses on health, illness, and science; (2) relations with governments and policymakers; (3) digital innovations. This article focuses specifically on the second research axis, which explores the role of religious authorities and the relationship between selected groups and public authorities, including both governments and public health institutions.¹

From their earliest uses, the concepts of authority and power have often been distinguished (Arendt 1968), although their boundaries can vary depending on context. Authority is typically understood as a relationship of voluntary subordination (Lat. auctoritas: prestige or influence), while power can imply a relationship of control (Foucault 1993), which at times is enforced through mechanisms of coercion (Gr. despotês; Lat. potestas) (Pilger-Strohl 2007, 156). However, these boundaries are not always rigid: authority may also rely on formal institutional structures, and power does not necessarily manifest through violence (Weber 2013). While authority is conditioned by the trust and esteem of subjects—which can be withdrawn at any time—it often integrates control mechanisms as part of institutional legitimacy. Formal authority may be exercised by individuals or groups, particularly elected officials or experts. The relationship to authority is shaped by personal histories and trajectories, with trust being granted or not depending on the circumstances (Putnam 2001), also influenced by prior experiences with power dynamics (Scott 2008). In the case of the pandemic, at least in the countries studied, a singular and complex interaction between authority and power emerged, where trust or distrust in scientific and political authorities often coexisted with coercive measures. Religions have been marginalized to some extent, as public health management and government have taken over. What then has become of their power or authority, the exercise of which can be understood through the influence they have been able to exert on public decisions and their followers? On which principles did they base their adherence or opposition to public health measures?

In fact, a source of meta-authority emerged during the global pandemic, namely the urgency associated with what is referred to as an issue that overlooks all decision-making bodies. It involved restrictions aimed at protecting the health of both individuals and groups, with violations of these measures being seen as serious breaches of security (Edmonds and Flahault 2021). Governments enacted extraordinary emergency measures, relying on special laws that granted them the power to restrict freedoms and lifestyles in exceptional ways. Health security now seems to be recognized as one of the most critical global nontraditional security issues.

This research focuses specifically on religious and belief groups, whose organizational and doctrinal structures of authority and power also played a role in the dynamics of submission or resistance. On the one hand, these groups adhere to ethical and religious imperatives and principles, which shape their practices. On the other hand, they offer structures of authority that influence both the nature of discourse and its implementation, while their associative frameworks allow them to mediate between their members and public authorities in times of crisis. Finally, multiple sources of authority emerge from the research material, including public government, medical and religious experts within the group, law, doctrines and beliefs, ethical principles, diverse leaders, and individual conscience.

The concept of secularization provides a framework for understanding the context, with different levels of secularization: the privatization of religion, the decline in religious practices and beliefs, and the separation between the spheres of science, politics, and religion (D. Martin 1978; Dobbelaere 1981; Casanova 1994). The levels of secularization relevant here are understood in relation to the authority/power held by the leaders of the groups studied in each country. This is illustrated by their varying degrees of proximity to the state, the recognition they receive within their own group and specific structure, and the nature of their public discourse—whether it is more theological or secular.

After examining the different types of organizations and power structures, a first section analyzes the Canadian and Irish cases, which offer a common way of dealing with government authorities, through interfaith networks. A second section, mainly based on public, official group documents, explores the principles and resources used to justify or not the decisions of the groups to comply with the restrictions. A third section follows, analyzing the material provided by nearly 2,700 questionnaires completed across the four contexts, exploring the groups’ ambivalence, even though a majority approve of the restrictions. The fourth section proposes to reframe the relationship between public, medical, and associative authorities, showing that these are not purely separate spheres, and that the collaborations were ultimately fruitful.

2 Structures and Interreligious/Interfaith Initiatives

The groups studied exhibit various types of organizational structures. As a reminder, both Catholic and Protestant churches were studied in all five contexts, while each focused on different minority groups. The Roman Catholic Church is the most centralized, while allowing bishops in different dioceses a certain degree of autonomy when doctrine is not involved. Mainline Protestant churches are more decentralized and congregational, while the Anglican Church maintains a certain hierarchy around the bishops, and all are structured within federations that are sometimes decision-making bodies. Muslims, studied in Germany, Canada, and on the island of Ireland, as well as Jews—a group examined in Canada—display a diversity of spiritual affiliations while freely organizing around common organizations. Jews in Canada have historically established central organizations with government ties (Abella 1990). However, ultraorthodox groups drew attention during the pandemic due to their resistance to public health measures (Cherry 2021) and the need for specialized mediation efforts to reach different religious minority groups (El-Majzoub et al. 2021). Jehovah’s Witnesses, studied in Poland, exhibit a highly hierarchical structure, while Irish humanists, with their view based on science, and German anthroposophists, which offers alternative spirituality, are organized into more democratic associations.

The five contexts have been shaken by heated debates on divorce, abortion, and sexual abuse scandals in the Roman Catholic Church, and in some cases in Protestant churches. Nevertheless, in the three European countries and Northern Ireland, close ties between the state and Christian churches are maintained, despite a decrease in the number of affiliates and a loss of moral influence (Madeley 2021). In Germany, churches benefit from a favorable tax system (being recognized as corporations in the constitution), whereby their members pay an annual tax, and they manage most health-care institutions (although heavily secularized) while maintaining a role in education (Sander, this issue). Poland remains dominated by the Roman Catholic Church, which enjoys constitutional recognition and substantial funding, though it faces growing criticism. The smaller groups selected in all countries exhibit structured organizations and vitality to varying degrees, depending on their level of recognition, which made their inclusion in the research possible.

While Christian churches still have a constitutional status in Germany and Poland, it has never been the case in Canada, and it is no longer the case for the Republic of Ireland; the latter abolished “the special position” of the Catholic Church in 1972. Christian churches still play an important role in public education and the health system, while churches still have influence over political parties in Northern Ireland, which, as a devolved nation of the UK, has its own assembly (McCrudden et al. 2024). Canada has a history heavily influenced by Christian churches, framed as “shadow institutions” (D. Martin 2000; Lefebvre 2012). They performed significant social and educational functions, which gradually diminished after the Second World War, except for a few public religious Catholic schools and Catholic small hospitals. The inclusion of a Charter of Rights and Freedoms in the Canadian constitution in 1982 further secularized education in several provinces and limited the influence of religious authorities in the name of state neutrality and equality between beliefs and nonbeliefs (Manley-Casimir and Manley-Casimir 2009). All three contexts have witnessed a complex combination of constitutional changes (toward greater neutrality), Christian influence, and increased protection of religious freedom.

Following this perspective of the national contexts studied, we can approach the question of interreligious structures as reflected in the research results, which appear to be linked to the state status of religions.

In Germany and Poland the research corpus of public documents produced by the religions studied reflects structured communication by groups, with little attention to interreligious initiatives. At most, interreligious collaboration is occasionally mentioned, such as the example of the Catholic Church in Poland, which referred to the theological concept of the “sign of the times” to describe the pandemic and encourage cooperation between believers, nonbelievers, Christians, and other religions (Rabiej-Sienicka and Kolodziejska 2023a). These European states are accustomed to negotiating directly with main churches and are equipped with public institutions competent to do so.

Canada, Ireland, and Northern Ireland differ from Germany and Poland in having seen mostly interfaith communications with public authorities during the pandemic, and this section attempts to understand the reasons. The phenomenon was not always made public through official publications. The Irish team had to wait for interviews to get a better idea of it (Ní Dhónaill, this issue), while the Canadian team had access to relevant public documents produced by an interfaith group formed to respond to the challenges of the pandemic in the province of Quebec and by a well-established pan-Canadian ecumenical organization. Constitutional status seems to be key.

Since the 1960s, for different legal, political, and religious reasons, the national contexts have all undergone a process of progressive secularization, with the common thread of heated controversies around sexual issues such as abortion, contraception, divorce, homosexuality, and same-sex marriage. The three contexts (Canada, Ireland, Northern Ireland) present a diverse demographic picture, while having Christian majorities and a significant increase in nonreligious people over the last two decades. The two jurisdictions of Ireland have very small numbers of non-Christian religious groups, while Canada has a broader spectrum. Two types of networks bring together several groups: interchurch (ecumenical) Christian networks (sometimes including other faiths), and interfaith or interreligious networks composed of various religious and spiritual groups. While Canada has certainly experienced interreligious conflicts throughout its history (the most recent occurring between Sikhs and Hindus), it has generally been characterized by peaceful coexistence for several decades (Policy Research Initiative 2009). On the island of Ireland, although church institutions are organized on a north-south basis, both jurisdictions have struggled to establish deep ecumenical ties, in the wake of the three-decade conflict in Northern Ireland—starting in the late 1960s—which was identity-based and political in nature while being built on Roman Catholic and Protestant lines (Altglas 2022). Nevertheless, religious leaders have played an important role since the 1980s in overcoming the deep divisions (Sandal 2017). By the early 2010s, some have noted a “growing investment in working towards a more ecumenical (Republic of) Ireland” (Neville 2013, 436).

The Inter Faith Network for the UK (IFN), founded in 1987,² includes Northern Ireland, while the Irish Council of Churches established the Dublin City Interfaith Forum in 2011 through a partnership with Dublin City Council and support from the European Investment Fund (Dublin City Interfaith Forum, n.d.). The forum’s website posts news about different events, notably a leaders’ interreligious meeting during the pandemic (McGarry 2020). During the UK Inter Faith Week in 2019, one member was amazed at the progress made in Northern Ireland: “Having been born and raised in Northern Ireland, I left the event feeling proud of the steps that are being taken to develop good relations between the different faith communities” (Inter Faith Network for the UK 2022, 54).

In Northern Ireland during the pandemic, an interfaith forum was used for consultation between religious leaders and public authorities, while in the Republic of Ireland, the government took a top-down approach (Ní Dhónaill, this issue). The NICVA (Northern Ireland Community and Voluntary Agency) was tasked with the work there. Until then, the agency was mainly linked to Christian faith-based organizations, but it wished to expand its relations to other groups, so it connected with the interfaith forum.³ A key person explained that until the pandemic, the key actor being funded by government was ecumenical: “It would represent the main churches, didn’t represent the multiple facets of religion in Northern Ireland at the time, so one of the first jobs I was given to do … was to try and get to the right people across all of the denominations.” (Individual interview, leader, Northern Ireland, Protestant, female, 51–60, university degree, large city) In Canada, the interfaith dialogue became a key factor right at the beginning of the pandemic, as this letter signed by dozens of religious leaders shows:

The message reflects a unity of thought and concern among Canada’s diverse religious communities in the face of the uncertainty, fear and anxiety surrounding COVID-19. Acknowledging the significant impact of COVID-19, the message reminds Canadians of the hope we share, the reasons we have to give thanks, and the ways we can act together for the good of one another.

Canadian Council of Churches 2020

An interview with various Protestant leaders reveals the following: “Early on in the pandemic, we felt a little left out because it took the faith leaders’ initiative to say, we need guidelines for faith communities” (Leader group interview, Canada, United Church, female, 40–50, university degree, large city). The case of Quebec, which was dominated by the Roman Catholic Church until the 1960s, is particularly illustrative of a strict secularism, as explained in an interview by this Catholic leader: “It took time to establish formal communication channels. There was a time when, for the archbishops of Montreal and Quebec, picking up the phone and calling the Premier’s office to have a conversation was possible … But that is no longer the case” (Leader group interview, Canada, Catholic, male, 50–60, university degree, major city)

This aspect of secularization, marked by the loss of influence of religious authorities, is well documented (Palard 2011). Faced with the difficulty of establishing contacts, religious leaders in Quebec set up the Table interreligieuse de concertation du Quebec (Quebec Interreligious Roundtable), formed following an initial joint statement by religious groups. At the onset of the pandemic these groups had been approached by the government to voluntarily issue a directive suspending gatherings in places of worship, thus sparing the government the risk of infringing on religious freedoms (Table interreligieuse de concertation du Quebec 2020a). The Roundtable could rely on the well-established Canadian Centre for Ecumenism in Quebec to help with its organization. In several interviews with religious leaders of other provinces, the establishment of interreligious committees was also mentioned (e.g., in Saskatchewan), as well as the revitalization of existing interfaith networks.

Our hypothesis is that the combination of the growing number of nonreligious people, the abuse scandals that have hit the Catholic Church very publicly, the controversies around sexual issues, and the legal and constitutional changes, have motivated governments’ preference for liaising with interfaith networks during the pandemic. It seems that in certain types of multicultural contexts, “manifestations of acceptable religion in public take on the character of an interfaith dialogue” (Hedges 2019). Yet the Northern Ireland NICVA, in the unique context of the United Kingdom, took the lead. In Canada, religious leaders had to find a way to reach out to the government. The Republic of Ireland did not actually use structured interfaith mediation but communicated decisions after convening all groups.

What can we conclude from this section? In relation to the question of religious power and authority, which we can understand through the exercise of influence over the public sphere, it is remarkable that the comparison of these contexts reveals the importance of the legal status of religions, regarding their relationship with the state. A clear constitutional status provides a certain power in a society, despite social secularization or a loss of credibility. This status results in clear, state-funded religious management structures, so that in times of crisis, the competent authorities are active in intervening alongside other public bodies. In both Germany and Poland, traditional Christian churches enjoy such a privileged position. The situation is quite different in societies where there is a greater separation between state and religion, as is the case, to some extent, on the island of Ireland and more completely in Canada. Religions must therefore defend their place and rights in the same way as other groups in civil society, having lost their former power. Christian churches, still the majority, are forced to ally themselves with smaller groups to be heard by public leaders. These leaders believe they cannot grant any particular power, authority, or legitimacy to any specific religion, and must treat all groups equally. This logic is more advanced in Canada, while Irish jurisdictions maintain significant institutional ties through public institutions. Not to mention the fact that Northern Ireland is heavily influenced by the United Kingdom, where interreligious networks have played notable roles for several decades. From this comparison emerges the following prospective hypothesis: The increased separation between religions and the state will lead in the future to an increase in the importance of interreligious/interfaith organizations and initiatives.

3 Submitting without Fully Agreeing

Despite variations in scope, conditions, and timing across the countries compared, restrictions were nonetheless significant in their nature and consequences for religious communities, particularly in the closure of places of worship. Other restrictions included the limitation of the number of people in enclosed spaces, the requirement to provide proof of vaccination upon reopening, the regulation of the number of attendees according to social distancing rules, mandatory mask-wearing, the prohibition of singing, and the sanitization of hands and spaces.

Figure 1 provides a summary of the main themes that emerged from our analysis of the corpus composed of public documents issued by religious groups. Unsurprisingly, the most common theme was the impact of restrictions, followed by cooperation or conflict relations, and then social and religious impacts, except for Germany, which shows a higher level of concern for societal impacts than levels of cooperation (the state having structured relationships with churches and religions).

View Full Size

Figure 1

Axis 2: relationships with governments and policymakers

Citation: Journal of Religion in Europe 19, 1-2 (2026) ; 10.1163/18748929-bja10143

• Download Figure
• Download figure as PowerPoint slide

The global health emergency framed as a security issue—the meta-authority mentioned earlier—led to extraordinary measures in several countries. How did the groups studied respond in their official and public communications? Most complied with government guidelines, sometimes criticizing and negotiating them. The framing of the meta-authority varied, but their written statements often illustrated their role as mediators. In documents and interviews, several leaders reported facing resistance from some of their members across all countries. One offered an important distinction: “I think the real theological reflection that most interested me is on the responses to the pandemic, not the causes … I was trained as a scientist” (Leader group interview, Canada, Presbyterian, female, 51–60, university degree, major city). It is true that religious groups relied more on the authority of science to explain the causes of the pandemic, while its effects and responses were subject to social and theological/philosophical debate. Regarding sources of authority, the key issue raised involved the principles underlying the acceptance of health regulations. All Christian churches referred to the concept of the common good, a central notion in the churches’ social doctrine rooted in Aristotle’s philosophy (Rhonheimer 2013).

A second key principle was caring for the most vulnerable. For instance, bishops from the diocese of Winnipeg (Manitoba, Canada) explained the reasoning behind accepting restrictions, including the requirement for proof of vaccination to attend Christmas masses in December 2021. They emphasized their active cooperation with public health and civic authorities, that Gospel values and Christian principles guided their decisions, focusing on loving neighbors and promoting the common good, especially for the vulnerable.

Gospel values and Christian principles at work in discerning and implementing these instructions in your parishes

We are the Body of Christ. We are in this all together. Our primary goal must be the love of neighbors and the common good for all in society, now especially in terms of health and life security for all, with particular attention to those vulnerable or fragile in their health. From the beginning of the pandemic, the Catholic Church in Manitoba has sincerely cooperated with Manitoba Public Health and other civic authorities.

Gagnon et al. 2021

A similar sentiment was expressed in Ireland, where the motivation behind the new restrictive measures was rooted in the same principles: Christian communities being urged to be keenly aware of their responsibility. “The motivation for these new restrictive measures is a sense of care for the common good and especially for those most vulnerable. Each Christian community should be acutely aware of the responsibility to care for those who are most at risk” (E. Martin et al. 2020).

German and Canadian Protestant churches did the same, and the following quote highlights the explicit mention of voluntary submission to authority, based on deep convictions:

Above all, I see the positive realization that we, as a society, have managed to place the common good above the needs of the individual. Most people have not only accepted the restriction of individual freedom, but also voluntarily and out of deep conviction practice consideration for their neighbor, who may be weaker and more vulnerable than themselves.

Behrendt 2020

The United Church of Canada explained the rationale for their acceptance and cooperation:

The theological rationale for this commitment … is grounded in scripture: Jesus came into the world to bring life in all its fullness. As followers of Jesus, we are called to show love to one another and to the world (John 13:34–35), to share our gifts and resources, and to build a community of mutuality and respect (Acts 2:44–47). As a church, we have a primary duty to care for those who are marginalized, less powerful, or more vulnerable.

Office of Vocation 2021

The Catholic Church in Germany appears to align itself more closely with secular values (Radde-Antweiler, this issue) and presents itself as a societal institution that functions with reason and responsibility, like political actors (Gruenenthal 2023a):

For weeks … we, as the Roman Catholic Diocese of Dresden-Meißen, have fully supported the tough measures to contain the Corona pandemic in the awareness that these restrictions serve the great goal of protecting life and working together to prevent further spread of the Corona disease. It is thanks to the discipline of the public that these steps are now possible.

Bistum Dresden-Meißen 2020

What about smaller groups? The Canadian Jewish community emphasized the paramount principle of life: “We want to stress the great importance Judaism places on protecting our health. Pikuach Nefesh, saving a life, is a paramount Jewish value. We implore every member of our community to strictly follow the guidelines set by the health ministry” (Jewish Federation of Winnipeg 2020). Notably, Jews did not discuss relations with decision-makers in the public documents (cooperation/conflict relations accounted for less than 5 % of the segments). As mentioned earlier, they benefit from well-structured organizations for dialogue with different levels of government, but leaders denounced a surge in antisemitism linked to conspiracy theories claiming that Jews were responsible for the pandemic (Calgary Jewish Federation 2021).

Islam in Canada benefits from several organizations representing a variety of actors, but the public documents reviewed often emphasize the most vulnerable members of society while adopting a rather secular tone, for example: “Eid Al-Adha 2020 … is a celebration of Islamic tradition that maintains the inclusion of all members of society and makes it incumbent on the community to take care of each other” (Muslim Association of Canada 2020). The Jehovah’s Witnesses in Poland specify their position on secular authorities, an important doctrinal theme: “It is good to keep informed and comply with the government’s directives (Romans 13:1)” (Jehovah’s Witnesses 2020). This statement touches on critical dimensions of this minority group in various countries. Scholars have noted their shift from a more sectarian attitude to a more conciliatory stance. Especially since the 1990s, they have increasingly accepted the social practices of each context, utilizing secular avenues such as legal or public educational systems when useful (Dericquebourg 1999).

Humanists in the two Irish jurisdictions base their position on science and civic values, asserting an anthropology that refers to human beings as sentient animals, a frequent way of presenting the nonreligious as opposed to supposedly “anthropocentric Christians” (Caruana 2020):

At Humanists UK, we trust the scientific method when trying to understand how the universe works; we support humanists in making their ethical decisions based on reason and empathy, guided by concern for the welfare and fulfillment of human beings and other sentient animals; and support them to make a positive contribution to building a better society.

Humanists UK, n.d.

Some minority groups are less assertive when it comes to cooperating with authorities, such as Orthodox Christians in Poland, anthroposophists in Germany, and Evangelicals and Baptists in Canada. Although they present themselves as conciliatory in their official communications, Orthodox Christians still maintain that “the Holy Eucharist is an inalienable right against which no illness has power” (Wiadomości Polskiego Autokefalicznego Kościoła Prawosławnego 2020). Regarding the “causes” of the pandemic, German anthroposophists suggest that social disorder contributed to its emergence. Based on their spirituality, they criticize hierarchical health authority structures and emphasize the importance of considering individual viewpoints: “The decisive factor is always whether there is a willingness … to accept other arguments … In the ‘mainstream’ of the public, however, the complexity of the situation finds little room for a critical, objective debate” (Schmock 2021).

Founded in Germany, where it still maintains a presence (through its periodical Das Goetheanum), the Anthroposophical Society is typically associated with esoteric, scientific, and parapsychological movements, and its members are often well educated. They emphasize personal spiritual experience and techniques for reaching higher levels of consciousness, fostering moral relativism by treating conscience and inner experience as supreme ethical standards. They may not fully accept the meta-authority justifying rapid, top-down emergency measures (Herzig van Wees et al. 2023).

In Canada the Baptist and Evangelical groups, due to their decentralized nature, offer few public documents. However, the available materials indicate internal tensions among members. Some interviews, as well as online questionnaires, revealed that social media spread ideas hindering leaders’ efforts to encourage congregations to follow public health directives. The infamous truck convoy that stormed Ottawa, and gained global attention for its unprecedented protest strategies, was reportedly influenced by specific Evangelical currents (Dick 2024), although the precise extent of this influence remains unclear.

Regarding the concepts of power and authority, it appears that major principles of the religious or nonreligious doctrines of these (authoritative) groups are invoked to justify acceptance or reservation regarding directives issued by public health. No group exercises coercive power over its members, except in the case of the application of certain rules issued by public health, such as the requirement of a vaccination passport or the limitation of the number of practitioners. An implicit recognition of the higher authority of the principle of health emergency seems to be shared by most groups. The monotheistic religions—Christian, Muslim, and Jewish—evoke ancient foundations endorsing health protection measures, summarized around the supreme principle of protecting life and the most vulnerable, integrating in passing the philosophical notion of the common good. Nevertheless, members of these groups declare themselves in disagreement with the measures adopted by the government. Minority or decentralized groups, such as evangelicals in Canada, Orthodox Christians in Poland, and anthroposophists in Germany, demonstrate more dissent. These do not grant exclusive authority and legitimacy to traditional medicine, which they articulate with alternative visions. Orthodox Christians appear to have opposed a health-protecting Eucharistic mysticism to conventional medical approaches. Some evangelicals, influenced by various libertarian and antivaccination contents, have opposed the measures. The following section explores these aspects in more detail, discussing the online questionnaires, which, although not representative and with limited responses from some groups or countries, provide qualitative insights.

4 Between Adherence and Criticism

While adherence to the restrictions appears widespread, notable minorities of respondents expressed strong critiques, sometimes leading to noncompliance with the regulations. A large majority of leaders reported being aware of the directives issued by their religious authorities, with only 3 % indicating otherwise, while among members, 11 % responded negatively or with “I don’t know.” Therefore, the respondents were largely informed of the various restrictions.

The qualitative online questionnaire gathered the perceptions of 1,333 leaders and 1,411 members across countries and groups. The survey notably explored opinions on the decisions of both religious and public authorities. This section includes answers across groups and contexts, except when mentioned. Regarding the leaders, 83 % reported complying “well” or “very well” with public health directives, 83 % agreed with their congregations’ stance on restrictions or limitations to religious gatherings (strongly agree 46 %, agree 37 %), but only 68 % agreed with public authorities (strongly agree 26 %, agree 42 %). Breaking down by country, approval rates for decisions by religious authorities are generally high (between 77 % in Germany and 86 % in Poland), with the response “strongly agree” being clearly high only in Poland (65 %). Around 10–12 % disagree in each context. Approval rates for public authorities are lower, rising from 52 % in Northern Ireland and 67 % in Poland to 79 % in Germany (70 % in Canada, 73 % in RI); the rate of disagreement with public authorities ranges from 19 % in Germany to 32 % in Northern Ireland.

The case of Northern Ireland is rather unusual, as the online questionnaire was distributed during the UK’s COVID-19 survey (Clarke 2025). During this period, several critical questions were raised about the lack of discernment amongst certain political leaders; former Prime Minister Boris Johnson himself had broken certain rules (BBC News 2023). As Northern Ireland is a devolved UK nation, it was affected by the current of public indignation.

We looked at the 10–12 % that disapproved of religious authorities’ decisions. In all countries, a good number of these people also disapproved of public authorities and expressed doubts about science. A good share is from mainline Protestants and Catholics, just a few from other groups. It does not seem to be a question of religious belonging, nor age or education. Unfortunately, political opinions were not considered in the surveys. To conclude, given the variation in approval rates with public and religious authorities, one could hypothesize that since it was the public authorities who issued the decisions regarding the restrictions, they received lower approval rates than the religious authorities who relayed these decisions. However, there is a gap between fairly widespread submission to these directives and negative opinions about them.

What about members? The approval rate for religious authorities’ restrictions on religious gatherings is lower than the percentage found in the religious leaders’ questionnaire, but still higher than for public authorities: 70 % strongly agree or agree, 18 % strongly disagree or agree; as for public authorities: 59 % agree and 29 % disagree. When it comes to different countries, Canada’s members show a higher respect for their religious authorities (74 %), Germany, Poland, and the Republic of Ireland score between 65 % and 69 %, with Northern Ireland being as low as 57 %. Public authorities get less adhesion to their decisions: 48 % in Germany and 51 % in Northern Ireland, Poland and the Republic of Ireland scoring 57–58 %, and Canada 64 %. Canadian respondents seem to have trusted their authorities a bit more in general, and Northern Ireland less so. Again, no single variable makes much difference. Some minority members express their disagreement slightly more than leaders.

In response to the question, “To what extent did you personally follow the instructions of government/public health authorities during the pandemic?” an overwhelming majority of leaders reported complying “well” or “very well,” with a slightly lower majority of members doing the same (leaders, more than 90 %; members, between 79 % and 85 %). The same pattern was observed regarding local group compliance (“To what extent did your local group follow …”): 95 % positive answers except in the Republic of Ireland, where the majority was lower (less than 80 %). Despite these high proportions of reported compliance, in response to the multiple-choice question about the “Main challenge in implementing the health measures,” the answer “some group members resisted the health measures” appeared in significant proportions (between 20 % and 36 %).

An analysis of the responses to the survey’s final questions, inviting additional comments, highlights various challenges encountered. Among the leaders, one from the United Church of Canada, who answered “very well” regarding his own compliance and that of the members, explains: “Some people found the changes too restrictive but did not object—they simply stayed home” (Leaders’ online questionnaire, Canada, United Church of Canada, Male, 61–70, university degree, major city). A Presbyterian in Northern Ireland, who reported complying, criticized the severity of the measures: “Health measures were very strict and extreme” (Leaders’ online questionnaire, Northern Ireland, presbyterian, male, 31–40, university degree, large city). Most of the open responses highlighted the complexity of the situation, frequent changes, and difficulties keeping up with the pace. For example, a Catholic woman in Germany, who had answered that she followed the measures “very well” but had “no opinion” about the community, wrote: “Partial lack of understanding; each ‘group’ had to react very quickly on site—high time expenditure—no preparation, e.g., making plastic walls—a lot of misunderstanding” (Leaders’ online questionnaire, Germany, Catholic, female, 51–60, university degree, several villages of suburban area).

Regarding the members, a woman who answered, “strongly disagree” to both questions regarding the directives of religious and public authorities but nevertheless responded having followed the directives “very well,” wrote the following:

The total lockdown of religious services was detrimental to the spiritual and mental well-being of religious communities, and their leaders could have done more to engage with civil authorities … I believe that the inadequacy of the response and the unwillingness to challenge the prevailing narrative will have long-term consequences for religious communities in the future.⁴

However, many supported the decisions, acknowledging the complexity of the situation, like this Canadian Catholic woman: “I think we did the best with what we were given while faced with all the unknown! It was a difficult time. I feel very blessed to be able to attend mass in person again!” (Members’ online questionnaire, Canada, Catholic, female, 41–50, university degree, small city). A young Protestant from Germany responded: “I think the pandemic has shown how important it is to be in contact with one another and, on the other hand, has opened up many opportunities to enable, expand, or try out digital offerings … Many great offerings would never have come about without the pandemic” (Members’ online questionnaire, Germany, Protestant, Female, 18–30, university degree, major city).

Leaders and members predominantly declared they followed their own groups’ decisions, conveying instructions, rather than directly adhering to public authorities’ directives. This demonstrates the importance of associative mediation during the pandemic, even though the restrictions primarily originated from public authorities. Understanding perceptions of whether freedom of religion was respected during the pandemic is crucial for assessing the groups’ relationships with authorities, especially given the emphasis on rights and freedoms in the studied contexts. The results show a divided response among respondents. One question considered here is: “To what degree do you agree with the following statement? Freedom of conscience and religion was respected as much as possible during the pandemic.” Among leaders, 53 % believed their freedom was respected, while 27 % did not; 49 % of members believed it was respected, while 34 % did not. A slim majority felt their religious freedom had not been violated. It should also be noted that the overall proportions for the “strongly agree” response are lower compared to agreement with other decisions.

In addition, what about paying attention to the needs of religious groups? Two questions address this aspect: “How well do you think government/public health authorities have paid attention to the needs of your group (local/regional/national)?” Positive responses (“well” and “very well”) totaled only 37 % among leaders, with 42 % responding “not at all” or “somewhat,” 21 % having “no opinion.” Among members, 37 % said “well” and “very well,” and 27 % answered “not at all” or “somewhat” (with many choosing not to respond and 19 % having “no opinion”). A more specific question was asked about the medical scientists: “To what degree do you agree with the following statement? In relation to the pandemic, people could trust the official medical scientists?” Leaders agreed with this statement to the extent of 65 % and disagreed at a rate of 13 % (22 % had no opinion); and 59 % of members agreed, while 25 % disagreed (16 % with no opinion).

Let’s look at the 344 respondents who felt scientists could not be trusted. These were primarily Catholics (178), who made up the bulk of the respondents, along with a few members of other groups (ninety-five Protestants (mainline or not), twenty-five Jews, ten humanists, 9 anthroposophists, five Jehovah’s Witnesses, three Orthodox Christians). A closer look at the respondents who had little or no trust in official medical scientists reveals an equal number of men and women, and an equal number of university graduates and nongraduates. It is worth noting the low participation rate of minority groups in the online questionnaire, which limits the scope of the results. Among the sixty-six Irish humanist respondents, who are generally very committed to science, 12 % responded negatively. Only five Jehovah’s Witnesses out of the forty-four respondents in Poland, and only three Muslims out of fifteen, responded negatively. Half of the Canadian Jewish respondents responded negatively (twenty-three out of forty-six); this finding was surprising to us, and we have no explanation for it. Muslim minorities as well as Jehovah’s Witnesses aligned with science but constitute fragile minorities as well. What was the answer of the 344 respondents to the following question? “To what extent did you personally follow the instructions of government/public health authorities during the pandemic?” 43 % said “well” and “very well,” and 47 % “not at all or somewhat” (no relation to their group of belonging).

It should be added that it was difficult to recruit participants from all groups for the qualitative interviews who were known to have strongly disagreed with the restrictions. It is also worth remembering that these are retrospective responses, obtained after the end of the pandemic. Of the 344 people who expressed little trust in scientists in relation to the pandemic, 151 added personal comments at the end of the questionnaire. Here is one that is very revealing of this retrospective position:

Precautions may have been necessary but then went beyond what was reasonable. Particularly after the primary lockdown, more evaluations on measures needed to be done in terms of increasing freedoms not further restricting them. A balance was lost in favour of pursuing an unachievable goal of zero spreading. What was lost in terms of social interaction, education and socialization for our young and irreparable damage to our Faith Communities has proven to be far more damaging through the restrictions. I followed the protocols and restrictions wholeheartedly, even had to defend them from people in my faith community who questioned and would not follow them, and to see that they were more in the right than I with everything said and done. This has taken a big toll on me personally to the point that … I never want to be placed in such a position again. As my faith professes, there is only one God and the health authorities are not Him.⁵

Regarding these more contentious issues, revisiting the collected official religious material would be useful. While these public documents and respondents largely affirmed compliance with directives, they also expressed critiques and reservations. For example, the Table interreligieuse de concertation du Quebec expressed the following opinion in a press release:

The rules imposed on places of worship last Sunday, without any prior dialogue, are disproportionate and infringe upon the freedom to worship. In these difficult times, hundreds of thousands of Quebecers find a source of meaning, comfort, and resilience in their regular religious practices. Let us remember that this is one of their fundamental rights. We once again invite the government to better target its interventions and to thereby contribute to respecting the freedom to worship.

Table interreligieuse de concertation du Quebec 2020b

Polish Catholic bishops expressed similar views, presenting the same ambivalence, though few leaders responded to the questionnaire. Based on the group’s communications, they complied with the measures but regretted their severity, particularly regarding the restriction of worship or gatherings. They considered that the church’s key responsibility would be to enforce the right to freedom of worship while fully respecting sanitary requirements (Rabiej-Sienicka and Kolodziejska 2023a). On the island of Ireland, humanists expressed regret over the restrictions on their freedoms, the prolonged ban on civil marriages in hotels or restaurants, which lasted longer than for other groups that could celebrate in places of worship, city halls, and town halls (Ní Dhónaill and Ganiel 2023). Humanist weddings were particularly affected, but they were able to use a faith forum where they met with government staff to ask for this to be changed, which was done. In the German official documents there was little discussion around these questions, for any religious group.

Let us recall that one of the research corpora consisted of the main religious media published by the groups studied. In these media, the code “freedom of belief” appears slightly more than in public and official documents (even if it represents less than 10 % of the total), while the levels of cooperation/conflict type codes are the highest there. Beyond the numerical importance, the criticisms are strong and can be expressed in a different framework than that proposed by the more official communications of the group leaders. Figure 2 presents the main results of this research material in relation to Axis 2 (Relations with the authorities).

View Full Size

Figure 2

Axis 2: relationships with authorities

Citation: Journal of Religion in Europe 19, 1-2 (2026) ; 10.1163/18748929-bja10143

• Download Figure
• Download figure as PowerPoint slide

In Canada and Poland, as the pandemic progressed, sharp criticisms of the restrictions on religious freedom emerged (Rabiej-Sienicka and Kolodziejska 2023b; Colin and Lefebvre 2023a, 2023b). In the Republic of Ireland The Irish Catholic recommended pressuring the government for a return to worship, supporting a petition from February 2021 (Ganiel and Ní Dhónaill 2024). In Germany Christian churches have refrained from opposing religious freedom to public health guidelines, with only anthroposophists asserting their right to decide what is best for them (Gruenenthal 2023b).

What can we conclude from this section? Trust in religious and public authorities has been severely tested. Despite disagreements, a strong majority of respondents report complying with the restrictions—hence the section’s title, “Between Adherence and Criticism”—those most critical of science being less compliant. The international state of health emergency exerted its coercive power over the societies studied, relayed by the extraordinary measures adopted in each country. In retrospect, some respondents regret its severity and social consequences.

The following section will conclude the discussion by highlighting the close interrelations between health-care environments and religious groups.

5 Reframing the Relationships between Public, Medical, and Religious Authorities

In democratic countries like those studied, there is a tendency to conceive of relations between the state and religion as distinct spheres that engage in official or unofficial interactions. However, our investigation reveals a different picture. Interrelations between the state, health authorities, and religious, spiritual, or philosophical groups are depicted in Figure 3.

Many members of the groups studied indeed work in the health-care and government sector, as well as having contracted the virus. In European contexts, Christian religions maintain close relationships with state health institutions. In Canada, respondents included or mentioned medical experts among their members in secular healthcare institutions (although the country also has some small Catholic health institutions and a Jewish hospital). It is noteworthy that humanists emphasize the scientific basis of their worldview, while anthroposophists have developed an understanding of health that is founded on anthroposophical medicine, considered by the World Health Organization as a form of traditional, complementary, and integrative medicine (World Health Organization 2023). In their German media, anthroposophists refer to anthroposophical doctors endorsing vaccination but emphasizing that the decision is personal (Oltermann 2021).

In Ireland religious media, such as The Irish Catholic, published scientifically oriented articles written by doctors that discuss the importance of adhering to public health requirements. The media of other groups, including Protestants and Muslims, also encouraged their adherents to comply (Ní Dhónaill and Ganiel 2023). Moreover, there were interfaith events, following the appeal by Pope Francis, for believers of all religions to unite on 14 May 2020, and the Dublin City Interfaith Forum reported on the gathering on zoom, which included an imam who had become ill and was hospitalized: “Dr. Al Saleh, they explain, himself a medical doctor and graduate of the Royal College of Surgeons, was one of the Dublin faith leaders who took part in a joint service ‘to implore God to help humanity overcome the coronavirus pandemic’ ” (McGarry 2020).

View Full Size

Figure 3

An illustration of the relationships between the government, the health sector, and religious groups

Citation: Journal of Religion in Europe 19, 1-2 (2026) ; 10.1163/18748929-bja10143

• Download Figure
• Download figure as PowerPoint slide

In Canada, debates regarding the relationship between some vaccines and abortion originated from a letter signed by national Catholic medical experts and associations (Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops 2020). In Germany Catholic media, while supporting vaccination, comment little on scientific facts, and the same is true for Protestant media. However, it is frequently mentioned that many Christian members work in health care. The former general secretary of the Central Committee of German Catholics, Stefan Vesper, writes:

The churches are undoubtedly relevant to the system: in the many Christians who are involved in system-relevant professions and areas of responsibility … Many nurses, doctors and medical staff have also chosen their professions because they are Christians … They are the church—hundreds of thousands of times.

Katholisch.de 2020

In an interview, a Canadian Jewish leader mentioned that a doctor from a provincial pandemic committee, who attended his synagogue, provided clear guidance on following restrictions. Similarly, a Muslim leader described the efforts undertaken by the Canadian Council of Imams to solicit various experts from their communities, including medical experts, culminating in an official declaration concerning vaccination in January, ultimately ruling out any religious reason for Muslims to seek an exemption (Canadian Council of Imams 2021).

Nevertheless, some of the minority of respondents who expressed distrust in official medical experts highlighted the suppression of alternative scientific voices, as reflected in this comment from an Evangelical survey respondent:

As someone who was a trained and qualified nurse and worked for a pharmaceutical company, I won’t follow lockdown or get an mRNA injection unless I see proper evidence that it is needed and years of clinical trials take place with open discussion of side effects. No one should be forced to take a vaccine or injection unless they want to, no coercion in any shape or form.⁶

A Canadian Roman Catholic nurse, in an interview, expressed strong beliefs in some conspiracy theories. While the vast majority accepted the restrictions, though not necessarily agreeing with them, a minority of adherents from the groups studied expressed objections, sometimes revealing dissent even within the health-care sector.

6 General Conclusion

The pandemic accelerated the closure of struggling places of worship in many countries (Molteni and Biolcati 2023; Ferreira and Chipenyu 2021). The first two indicators of secularization highlighted by Casanova—privatization of religion and the decline of practices—seem observable in the countries studied, at least among the majority religions. Regarding Casanova’s third element—separation between religion, state, and science—the situation is more complex. Canada and the island of Ireland appear to exhibit a more advanced separation, as the groups studied had to rely on interreligious bodies during the pandemic. The other two European countries exhibit paradoxes, maintaining constitutional ties in education and health while experiencing social secularization through critiques and declining practices. However, our final point posits that the concepts of society, religion, and science are not entirely autonomous spheres; religious actors or members of belief groups simultaneously engage across all these domains.

The concepts of authority and power were examined from multiple perspectives. The pandemic functioned as a testing ground for authority dynamics, combining governmental control through extraordinary crisis powers, formal authority from public institutions, and the reinforcement of public health measures by other formal bodies, such as associations in this context. The fact that a source of meta-authority was ultimately crucial during the pandemic is clear in the results: The global “health security issue” led to special emergency measures in all the countries studied. An ambivalence seems to pervade many groups, their leaders, and their members. Although dominant discourses emphasized collaboration with authorities and acceptance of the measures, there was also criticism. Nonetheless, in most cases, respect for the broader scientific guidelines prevailed.

Two minority groups reflect broader trends. Jehovah’s Witnesses in Poland exemplify internal secularization, shifting from radical opposition to secular institutions toward increased collaboration. The anthroposophists, heavily criticized in the German press during the pandemic (Jäckle and Timmis 2024; Sander, this issue), illustrate the current resistance to the biomedical field, found among movements proposing alternative health visions in several countries. At the very least, they do so in a structured and relatively transparent manner, allowing for open debate and without rejecting conventional medicine. Alternative movements often operate more diffusely, making their influence difficult to measure within the broader population (Bromley et al. 2012).

In most groups studied, many leaders and their communities acted as mediators by conveying restriction details, engaging with public and health authorities, and supporting vulnerable members. Many leaders faced resistance or anger from their members, navigating disputes among people who disagreed with one another and fostering debates about the relationship between beliefs and science. It is important to note that the responses to the questionnaires and online interviews were collected after the end of the pandemic, which gives the material a certain retrospective and reflective angle. Respondents, like the entire population, are driven by contradictory emotions, between regret and meaning-making, between anger and empathy, between sadness, grief, and hope. How citizens reflect on their obedience to rules, or their deep-seated resistance is one of the defining dimensions of democracies. It is remarkable that, in the face of such a challenging time as the pandemic and its severe restrictions, the societies studied retained their peaceful character.

The data collected by our research team across Canada, Germany, the two Irish jurisdictions, and Poland reflects vibrant democratic vitality. It is crucial not to underestimate the role of groups united by common convictions during crises. They not only combat isolation but also mediate between the public and medical authorities, balancing restrictive power and persuasive authority. Some critical analyses, however, confront the fact that certain fundamental freedoms, such as freedom of religion, have been called into question too quickly, without detailed analysis, in favor of other rights, such as public health and safety (Flood et al. 2020). Religious groups debated these same issues in moral and theological terms, torn between serving the common good, “saving a life,” the desire to protect the most vulnerable within their communities and society at large, and the need to foster community, and transmit and practice their faith.