Freedom of Religion and Belief in Times of Pandemic

To combat the COVID19-pandemic, the state interfered with fundamental rights in a way that had previously been unimaginable in liberal democracies. This also affected the fundamental right to the free exercise of religion and the pastoral care of the elderly, sick and dying. The measures continue to have an impact in many ways even after the end of the pandemic. However, the end of the pandemic also offers the opportunity to come to terms with the situation with the aim of being better prepared for similar challenges in the future. The aim of the project is to use a multidimensional legal comparison to determine the legal framework within which the balance between effective health protection and the greatest possible preservation of the freedom of citizens to exercise their own responsibility can best be guaranteed. The starting point here is the hypothesis that the path taken in Austria of closely involving religious communities in restricting the practice of religion and enabling internal religious norms regarding the celebration of public religious services has led to the goal of combating the pandemic being achieved even without coercive measures. The constitutionally provided public-law status of recognized religious communities took on an unexpectedly topical significance. Apart from an important decision by the Constitutional Court, which raised questions about the equal treatment of religion and art, the courts in Austria have hardly had to deal with the effects of the protective measures on religious freedom. The Austrian experience is subjected to a legal comparison with France and Germany. Germany`s constitutional law on religion is similar to that of Austria. However, due to the more pronounced competences of the Länder, very different experiences have been made, which should be legally systematized. French secular law offers hardly any opportunities for institutionalized cooperation between the state and religious communities. In the course of the pandemic, there were sometimes harsh defensive reactions from key religious stakeholders. The striking difference to both Austrian and German religious law serves as a comparative legal test. Qualitative interviews with religious decision-makers in the three countries are intended to confirm or contrast the legal findings. Finally, the multidimensionality of the project results from the explicit inclusion of Catholic canon law. To what extent has the pandemic dynamized the internal law of the largest institutionalized religion? What impact did it have on minoritarian religions? Did the pandemic not only cause a backslide in traditional gender roles, but perhaps also in an alliance between the state and a certain religion that no longer dominates society?