**1. Introduction**

The COVID-19 pandemic has affected many spheres of human life, including individual and community religious belief and practice. In the early days and for reasons of public health, a number of restrictions were imposed on religious life, ranging from strict social distancing and masking measures to the closure of places of worship. Given its complexity—competing traditions and theological perspectives, as well as different policy responses to the virus globally—there has been little agreement among religious voices on the necessity, scope, and implications of these measures. In Greek Orthodox communities, encompassing the hierarchy, theologians, and the laity, the debate in the early days of the pandemic focused on the mode of distribution of Holy Communion. Various religious and secular actors participated in the public discussion, either in favor of or against the existing practice of giving Communion from the same spoon. The issue acquired the character of an ideological struggle between the proponents of "scientific reason" and the guardians of the "genuine" Greek Orthodox tradition. Various religious agents and voices sought to overcome this polarization by forging a middle path framed in terms of a necessary reconciliation between tradition and modernity.

There is diverse and still-growing literature on the responses of the disparate voices in the Greek Orthodox churches on the conditions of the COVID-19 pandemic. Kosmidis was one of the first to discuss, from a theological perspective, the impact of the pandemic on Greek Orthodoxy's ecclesiastical life, highlighting what he saw as the spread and affirmation of irrational religiosity in confronting the virus (Kosmidis 2020). Mitrofanova analyzed the attitude of the Russian Orthodox Church and of various fundamentalist groups that exist within its ranks during the pandemic (Mitrofanova 2021). Hovorun demonstrated that the distribution of the Eucharist during the viral pandemic provoked an intense polarization between fundamentalists and "*Eucharist realists*", particularly (but not exclusively) in the Russian Orthodox Church (Hovorun 2021). Various publications of collected essays were produced (e.g., Vassiliadis 2020; Asproulis and Wood 2020; Zorbas 2021), rich in

**Citation:** Kessareas, Efstathios. 2023. Holy Communion in Greek Orthodoxy in the Time of Coronavirus: Ideological Perspectives in Conflict. *Religions* 14: 647. https://doi.org/10.3390/ rel14050647

Academic Editors: Andrew Flescher and Joel Zimbelman

Received: 30 November 2022 Revised: 27 December 2022 Accepted: 21 February 2023 Published: 12 May 2023

**Copyright:** © 2023 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/).

theological and pastoral perspectives, which explored the effects of the pandemic on ecclesiastical life. While they ably analyzed and critiqued opposing perspectives, they were less attentive to contextualizing their own theological points of view and the important place and established voice that they occupy within the Greek Orthodox Community (Bourdieu 1977, 1991).

Theological analysis is important to this debate, but it is not an exclusive or sufficient perspective that can shed light on the issues of concern to this faith community. My efforts in this article might best be understood as interpretive sociology. It is a position that attempts to examine, in a systematic way, the ideological struggle that takes place among different groups within Greek Orthodoxy. What I hope to accomplish is to present in a Weberian ideal-typical manner modes of thought that represent these different ideological orientations. To this end, my work critically and comparatively analyzes three conflicting perspectives on a specific concrete issue, namely, the distribution of Holy Communion during the pandemic: (a) the secularist–rationalist viewpoint, (b) the religious–traditionalist outlook, and (c) what I call the "Third Way" perspective. The voices that represent these three perspectives envision the positions and roles of the Greek Orthodox Church in the context of secular modernity quite differently, not only with regard to issues surrounding Holy Communion during a pandemic, but around other controversial and contested issues that sporadically occupy believers and others in the public sphere.

The fierce debate surrounding the praxis of Holy Communion that emerged during the COVID-19 pandemic offers fertile ground both for an ideological confrontation and for deeper analysis. From a strictly scientific and public health perspective, viruses can be potentially transmitted between individuals via contact with contaminated objects, such as communion utensils. However, from the standpoint of those who perceive Holy Communion *literally* as "medicine of immortality," it is impossible for the liturgical spoon to transmit an illness (see Section 3.2 below). The Eucharist stands unequivocally at the heart of Greek Orthodox Christianity, carrying deep but also competing and conflicting meanings for its adherents. By engaging in the sort of comparative and interpretive sociological analysis I am suggesting, I try to show that we can better comprehend the deeper reasons and justifications for these various positions and gain a deeper appreciation of why the Church as an institution and so many individual religious actors are hesitant or refuse to change established beliefs and ritual practices.

My study focuses on primary sources of the most varied kinds produced by Greek Orthodox clerics and lay persons during the COVID-19 pandemic, including encyclicals, announcements, articles, interviews, and sermons. My focus lies on Greek Orthodoxy, and particularly on the Church of Greece, the Patriarchate of Constantinople, and on the Orthodox diaspora. For comparative reasons, I also provide an elaboration of the views of the Serbian Orthodox Church, the Orthodox Church in America, and of various other Orthodox intellectuals, without claiming to give a complete picture of the complex Orthodox world.<sup>1</sup> Since the material is vast, I selected discourses that reveal the distinctive character and orientation of these three perspectives. Additionally, I examined actors who hold different positions within and outside the organized religious community (e.g., bishops, priests, monks, lay theologians, journalists, health professionals). Methodologically, I applied a multi-dimensional discourse analysis (Thompson 1984). First, I comparatively analyzed the content of the primary sources. In doing so, it was possible to distinguish subtle differences concerning the perception of the Holy Communion and corresponding proposals about the method of its distribution in the age of COVID-19. Additionally, borrowing theoretical insights from framing analysis (Benford and Snow 2000), I gave attention to the symbolic vocabulary and framing strategies that these actors employed in an attempt to justify their arguments and delegitimize antagonistic ones. Finally, I attempted to associate the different viewpoints with the institutional position and ideological preferences of their promoters, taking into consideration the various social contexts in which the pandemic crisis arose.

Weber rightly observes that real life is much more chaotic than ideal-types (Weber 2012, p. 125). Frequently, the ideal-typical categories that the researcher constructs manifest in complex, overlapping, and contradictory ways in a given individual or institution. This tendency is evident in the subject under discussion here. A progressive religious actor, who, for instance, might support a new method of giving of Holy Communion, might simultaneously agree on other church issues with individuals who are characterized by a conservative mindset.2

#### **2. Secular and Religious Specialists: Scientific versus Sacred Knowledge**

In the contemporary world of health, medicine, and increasing public policy development, the value, priority, and decisiveness of scientific knowledge is axiomatic. This principle is elaborated in systems of practical and functional reasoning, which affirm that the ultimate criterion for evaluating the various socio-political and economic proposals is whether they are capable of producing practical, enduring solutions to existing problems. Proposals that do not comply with the criterion of effectiveness are rejected, often after being defamed as ideologically informed, metaphysically asserted with no empirically verifiable justification, or as just "magical thinking".

Even the purveyors of positions based on science and pragmatism, specialists who hold privileged status as problem solvers for various professions and who serve an important role in the public sphere as representatives of their fields, often come under similar criticism and disapprobation. To take an example, in the ongoing COVID-19 crisis, it was initially epidemiologists globally who held the public's attention, as their research findings were translated into concrete policy measures that were taken to be the best chance of stemming the spread of the virus. Historically, epidemiologists have enjoyed significant public acceptance because of the perceived objectivity of medical science and their willingness to pursue their research in an "objective" and unbiased way. As the pandemic crisis deepened, however, the public role and expert knowledge of the epidemiologist, and that of public health professionals who were dependent on epidemiology as the baseline for their policy decisions, grew to be contested. This reality invites a situation where multiple authorities simultaneously bear on policy-making.

In addition to these secular experts, in the context of the pandemic traditional specialists in religious communities exert influence on believers' schemes of thought. The Greek Orthodox priest is one such figure, standing at the center of the community's religious life. Not only does that figure have a great knowledge of theological issues, but also possesses technical expertise on the so-called salvific rituals of the church. Bishops have supreme power within the religious field legitimized by reference to the special identity and role that occupies "in the place" and as a "type" of Christ (Zizioulas 1997, p. 229). Still, because the clergy must also be preoccupied with the "mundane", various worldly, administrative, and pastoral concerns, the community's ultimate ideal type of religious expertise is the *saint*. The latter comes close to God through charismatic experience, not through the intellect nor the physical performance of either ritual or other responsibilities. It is not accidental that spiritual elders who have acquired reputations as holy men and women are often idolized in a manner that cultivates attitudes of radicalism, especially in monastic milieus (Kessareas 2022a). Lay theologians form another influential group within the constellation of religious professionals and experts, since they formulate and disseminate schemes of thought and practical proposals, legitimizing them as the product of deep theological knowledge ratified by the tradition.

The various and incommensurable secular and religious values do not, in principle, need to lead to conflict and confrontation as long as the representative actors or experts from each remains and functions within the walls or limitations of their own field. However, the social world, though complex, differentiated, specialized, and dispersed, is hyperconnected. The possibility of conflict on many levels, and between arenas of knowledge and expertise, arises during periods of crises, when issues of individual, broader social interests, and national identities are at stake. Specialists readily engage in public controversies justifying or delegitimizing proposals that have an *ideological* or *utopian* character, namely proposals that aim either to preserve or transform established social relations (Mannheim 2015).

To understand the prestige and appeal of religious actors in the context of the pandemic, we should also take into account the traditional connection that has been established over centuries, even millennia, between religion, sickness, care, and healing (Larchet 2002). Significant religious rituals emerged that were deeply connected to the experience and trauma of human suffering and the care of the sick and dying, even before the efficacy of much medical care became a reality in the modern period. For instance, prophets became famous for their healing skills (Weber 1978, p. 441), the pastor playing a significant role over time in keeping with the needs of local communities dealing with the challenges of illness and infirmity, while the provision of hospital and other medical services by religious organizations themselves evolved as central activities of ministry. The coming of modernity has not diminished the impetus for medical and spiritual intervention by religious organizations on behalf of those who suffer. The Greek Orthodox faith, in this way, does not oppose or underestimate the efficacy of science (Knight 2020). Seeking the care of a physician is fully compatible with the teachings of the church. But the point is that this religious tradition retains a strong sense of mystery, which in certain circumstances can bring the believer into conflict with the tenets, claims, and aspirations of scientific rationality. In the eyes of the faithful, church rituals are both real and useful, even in situations where the interventions of modern medicine are accepted. However, when modern medicine fails to provide therapy, then the road to miraculous salvation opens more broadly as an avenue to be explored and embraced by the believer.
