Changes at church because of the H1N1 virus

[kage_ar]

Why would you post such a silly comment in all sincerity? Do a quick web search and you’ll find several including my own diocese. Do it right now. Shouldn’t take you more than 30 seconds using any number of search engines.

The “official document” was a uniform notice in every bulletin in the diocese two weeks ago from the chancery office. It’s still mentioned (although paraphrased) in this week’s edition of our cathedral’s bulletin:

“Because of the Swine Flu (H1N1 virus), the Bishop has
once again made the decision to limit the following practices
at liturgy:
The Eucharistic Bread should only be received in the
hand, not on the tongue.
While the practice of communion from the Common Cup
is still permitted, each person is asked to consider not
drinking from the Cup if they are not feeling well.
Please remember to wash your hands before and after
mass.
You are free to give and receive the sign of peace, unless
you are not feeling well.
Above all, please remember, you are under no obligation
to attend mass if you are sick.”

sancarloscathedral.net/bulletin/913080_Bulletin_Oct%2011.pdf

Your suggestion that " it is safe to say you or someone at your Parish has misunderstood your Bishop’s guidelines" would be ludicrous if it were not so offensive. If you are still not satisfied about the position of a diocese you know nothing about, please feel free to call or e-mail. Perhaps they will fax you an “official document” or at least an old bulletin with the official statement from the bishop:

Diocese of Monterey
P.O. Box 2048
Monterey, CA 93942
Phone: 831-373-4345
Email General Info: webmail@dioceseofmonterey.org

You will notice that your announcement said “should”.

A forbidden thing would be far more strongly stated “Communion is permitted only in the hand” or something similar. The word “Should” shows what your Bishop is following the USCCB guidelines to a “T”.

BTW, your Diocese web site contains nothing on the Flu.

 

[MusicMan]

Nor is your interpretation authoritative. That’s what pretty much keeps these forums going. People offering or arguing about their personal ideas or interpretations.

I am neither a Canon Lawyer nor the holder of an STL, so you are correct that my interpretation is not authoritative. I do, however, stand by my interpretation of the documents until someone can show me otherwise. Were my Bishop to ban Communion on the tongue, it would not affect me personally because I receive in the hand. Were I to prefer to receive on the tongue, I would discuss the matter with my pastor in a private, charitable manner. I would suspect that any sacred pastor of souls would be willing to work with a communicant who ardently receives on the tongue.

Refusing to receive, either out of respect for the Bishop’s directive or to “send a message” is a silly way to go about handling this matter. Rather, discussing it with one’s pastor is the wisest, most logical course of action.

I cannot comment on whether or not I would pursue such concerns up the chain of command where I to be met with an untennable response from my pastor.

 

[mystified]

In the parish I attended this week, the instruction discouraged hand-holding in favor of the orans posture or simply clasping hands together in a prayerful attitude, and a simple smile and nod instead of shaking hands. Members of the congregation used the orans gesture frequently throughout the Mass.
No noticeable changes at Communion.

 

[Rosalinda]

Music Man[SIGN]Refusing to receive, either out of respect for the Bishop’s directive or to “send a message” is a silly way to go about handling this matter. [/SIGN]

Let’s show some charity here. The faithful who choose to receive the Eucharist on their tongue do so because it would violate their conscience to receive OTH. Some of them would even describe it as a lack of reverence on their part. Brothers and sisters of the Lord should repect the conscience of their fellow parishioners especially since receiving Our Lord on the tongue is the norm whereas receiving in the hand is the exception. My father is suffering greatly from this decision because he is a daily communicant. Furthermore, he has spoken to his pastor and while the pastor understands he feels duty bound by obedience to strictly enforce this policy. My father is by no means a “silly” man nor is he trying to send a message. He has enough wisdom to know that in this diocese such a message would fall on deaf ears. Furthermore, more than one Knight of Columbus has openly mocked him and seems delighted that Catholics who have refused CITH for decades are now sent away hungry; denied the Bread of Life. It is very serious business to take this decision; I don’t envy the bishops and yes they have made a prudential judgement which must be respected.

Any Catholic who is delighted to see others suffer is lacking in love as St. Paul said love does not gloat over another’s misfortune. Not a few of these Catholics are being denied food for the journey in their final days as they are quite elderly; how many will die before the restrictions are finally lifted? This is all very sad.

 

[MusicMan]

Human nature appears to desire an enemy. We appear to want to be “against” people who do things differently. Fundamentalist/Evanglical/Non-Denoms have found an enemy in Evolution. It seems that Catholics have found an enemy in house with reception of Holy Communion. Stories of “us against them” disturb me greatly, especially the one you just told about KC mocking your father for receiving on the tongue and being delighted that those who receive on the tongue are not being allowed to receive in your diocese. You question my charity, and so be it, but this person sounds like he could be posterchild for uncharitable behavior.

But let’s put the comment you quoted back into context. As I indicated these folks who feel like they’re being denied Communion because they receive on the tongue have a recourse, and that is to discuss the matter with their pastor, and then pursue it with the Bishop. Taking no pro-action is what is silly. Just putting up with it is silly. Now, if they pursue it and get no satisfaction, chosing not to receive out of respect for the Bishop or to prove a point ceases being silly, because they have exhausted their opportunities to be proactive.

Does that make sense?

I receive on the hand. I am capable of receiving on the tongue and have done so in the past. I do not support the suppression or removal of either method. I have come to the conclusion that both methods are probably equal in the possibility of spreading disease.

This morning I was on the Diocese of Madison’s website on a professional errand, and I came across Bishop Morlino’s guidelines, and to be honest, I think he’s giving out the best guidance when it comes to reception of Holy Communion:

1. Our people are to be reminded to extend the tongue sufficiently when receiving the consecrated host on the tongue to assist the priest, deacon, or extraordinary minister in avoiding contact between the tongue and the fingers;

madisondiocese.org/Portals/0/Communications/Press%20Releases/Memo%20-%20Communion%20during%20flu%20season.pdf

 

[Lennox]

You will notice that your announcement said “should”.

A forbidden thing would be far more strongly stated “Communion is permitted only in the hand” or something similar. The word “Should” shows what your Bishop is following the USCCB guidelines to a “T”.

BTW, your Diocese web site contains nothing on the Flu.

1.) As I said it’s a paraphrase. Call/write/fax/e-mail the diocese for the official wording.

2.) That’s why I gave you the contact information. Just because it’s not on a website does not mean it does not exist. Had you made your comments a couple of weeks ago I could simply have given you the URL of any number of parish bulletins with the quoted release from the chancery.

 

[Lennox]

I am neither a Canon Lawyer nor the holder of an STL, so you are correct that my interpretation is not authoritative. I do, however, stand by my interpretation of the documents until someone can show me otherwise. Were my Bishop to ban Communion on the tongue, it would not affect me personally because I receive in the hand. Were I to prefer to receive on the tongue, I would discuss the matter with my pastor in a private, charitable manner. I would suspect that any sacred pastor of souls would be willing to work with a communicant who ardently receives on the tongue.

Refusing to receive, either out of respect for the Bishop’s directive or to “send a message” is a silly way to go about handling this matter. Rather, discussing it with one’s pastor is the wisest, most logical course of action.

I cannot comment on whether or not I would pursue such concerns up the chain of command where I to be met with an untennable response from my pastor.

I guess that’s the difference. I rely on my bishop either directly or through my pastor to understand the Church’s directions – not on my personal interpretation of Church documents.

If you discussed it in the manner you mention with my pastor he would very charitably ask you to please continue following the Bishop’s directive until further notice. You would receive the same response from the chancery.

 

[Lennox]

…The faithful who choose to receive the Eucharist on their tongue do so because it would violate their conscience to receive OTH. Some of them would even describe it as a lack of reverence on their part…

I’m sorry your father was mocked by a KofC member. That’s simply unacceptable…

I’m curious though. Why would it violate your father’s conscience to receive CIH? Why would he consider it a lack of reverence?

Consider what’s going on. H1N1 is a national emergency. People are dying from it. Bishops of the Church are doing what they think is best – not to offend or hurt people but to help stem the spread of a potentially fatal virus.

Your father’s bishop has obviously released a directive to use one approved means of receiving communion. Your father’s pastor is trying to follow that directive. Why can’t he accept their wisdom and authority? Why does his conscience trump their actions made on his behalf and that of his fellow parishioners? Why can’t he trust in God’s Church (in practical terms his bishop and pastor) and not in his own personal understanding of Church rules?

 

[kage_ar]

I’m sorry your father was mocked by a KofC member. That’s simply unacceptable…

I’m curious though. Why would it violate your father’s conscience to receive CIH? Why would he consider it a lack of reverence?

Consider what’s going on. H1N1 is a national emergency. People are dying from it. Bishops of the Church are doing what they think is best – not to offend or hurt people but to help stem the spread of a potentially fatal virus.

Your father’s bishop has obviously released a directive to use one approved means of receiving communion. Your father’s pastor is trying to follow that directive. Why can’t he accept their wisdom and authority? Why does his conscience trump their actions made on his behalf and that of his fellow parishioners? Why can’t he trust in God’s Church (in practical terms his bishop and pastor) and not in his own personal understanding of Church rules?

Please note, the link below tells you what the USCCB has said about Flu and precautions.

usccb.org/liturgy/swineflu.shtml

 

[MusicMan]

I guess that’s the difference. I rely on my bishop either directly or through my pastor to understand the Church’s directions – not on my personal interpretation of Church documents.

I don’t typically go in with the rubrics uber alles crowd on things, but for some reason, I am on this matter. I agree with you that we should be trusting our bishop and pastor to be following the Church’s directions and not policing them. But, what if they’re wrong?

The issue of reception of Communion appears to be a line in some mythical battle between traditionalists and Catholics raised on the now-called Ordinary Form Mass. As if we’re engaged in some sort of warfare for control of the Church. Traditional Catholics are terrified that they’re going to lose their option to receive on the tongue. They were raised in a different era with a different spirituality. Fewer Post-VII Catholics understand the spirituality, although there are those who do and those who chose to partake in it. For them, the thought of unconsecrated hands touching the Body of Christ is unthinkable. It is sinful, shameful, and filthy. They would rather risk contracting H1N1 from the person in front of them’s saliva getting on the priest’s fingers than dare profane the Sacred Host by touching it with their unclean, unconsecrated hands.

Some will even contend that this is a play for modernization of the Church, and the next thing you know they’ll be ordaining married men and women next, all because a little Swine Flu outbreak gave teh_librulz the opportunity they needed to do away with Communion in the tongue and usher in a new era of liberalism to the Church. Some will take this opportunity to give you statistics that 80% of Catholics don’t believe in the Real Presence anyway, and that Communion in the hand is to blame.

And you know what? If Bishops are actually banning Communion on the tongue, then maybe that statistic is valid and it right.

And to give the traditionalists who are terrified of this happening a little ammo to say, “See, we were right,” Bishop Morlino is using this situation to do some housecleaning of non-proscribed actions during the Mass. One of his directives in his letter regarding H1N1 Procedures is to cease holding hands during the Lord’s Prayer. Morlino believes this is not to be done, and is using H1N1 as his chance to run it out of his diocese. So, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. Maybe there are “modernize the Church” bishops out there who will take advantage. Certainly Morlino is.

 

[Lennox]

Please note, the link below tells you what the USCCB has said about Flu and precautions.

usccb.org/liturgy/swineflu.shtml

I was addressing your original comment:

There is no documentation of any Bishop banning reception on the tongue.

If you have an official document from a Bishop, post the link. If you do not, then, it is safe to say you or someone at your Parish has misunderstood your Bishop’s guidelines.

It’s not the USCCB. There is documentation from my bishop banning reception on the tongue.

 

[Servulus]

Writing on this topic in the “First Thoughts” blog (accessible through this link:
firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/ , Joe Carter writes,

“Good grief. Have Christians really lost all sense of perspective? In a world of 6.7 billion people, 4,735 have died of swine flu infections. In contrast, 90,000 people around the world die each year of snakebites. I’m not a statistician or gambling man but I’d bet the chances are higher that a Christian somewhere on the planet will receive a fatal snakebite on the way to church than will die from partaking of swine flu infected Communion wine.”

(Please note, by the way, that he is addressing the practice of many Christian denominations, so don’t be offended by his use of the term “Communion wine”.)

I think he makes a valid point. It may not be time to panic.

 

[Lennox]

I don’t typically go in with the rubrics uber alles crowd on things, but for some reason, I am on this matter. I agree with you that we should be trusting our bishop and pastor to be following the Church’s directions and not policing them. But, what if they’re wrong?

The authority rests with the bishops in this case – they are not espousing heresy. Your question could (and sadly is) applied to anything in the Church that people personally disagree with. As far as I understand my bishop reports directly to the Pope. Unless the Pope takes exception or unless it runs contrary to the dogmatic deposit of faith, individual bishops have a tremendous amount of legitimate latitude and authority in how they interpret and apply the rules we have been discussing – most particularly in exigent circumstances like we face today with regard to H1N1.

Those that read the GIRM, RS, etc. and then get frustrated because their bishops are not following the documents to the letter (at least per their own personal interpretations) have a great deal to learn about where authority rests within the Church.

So what if they are wrong? Their actions were born out of a desire to safeguard their flocks resulting in their flocks being limited to one licit (although not always preferred) manner in which to receive communion. The cost in obeying one’s bishop in this case are negligible. The potential gain tremendous.

 

[bkovacs]

The Devil loves to corrupt the Roman Liturgy. Doesn’t he!. First the Second Vatican council, and now the H1N1 Flu. “No communion on the tongue”. So much for the Extra-Ordinary Form, where everyone receives on the tongue. As well as the Papal wishes. I wonder what the Eastern Catholics are doing!. Are they still putting the spoon in peoples mouth?. Or do they to have to drop Christs Body and Blood “mixed” in your hand. Hope napkins are available.

 

[Cat]

Writing on this topic in the “First Thoughts” blog (accessible through this link:
firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/ , Joe Carter writes,

“Good grief. Have Christians really lost all sense of perspective? In a world of 6.7 billion people, 4,735 have died of swine flu infections. In contrast, 90,000 people around the world die each year of snakebites. I’m not a statistician or gambling man but I’d bet the chances are higher that a Christian somewhere on the planet will receive a fatal snakebite on the way to church than will die from partaking of swine flu infected Communion wine.”

(Please note, by the way, that he is addressing the practice of many Christian denominations, so don’t be offended by his use of the term “Communion wine”.)

I think he makes a valid point. It may not be time to panic.

In keeping with my post above–I’m guessing that the families of most of those unfortunate people who died of snakebite did not bring a lawsuit for millions of dollars against the snake.

But in this country, the United States, people are lawsuit-crazy, and people do not hesitate to sue at the slightest provocation. The death or disabling of a family member, especially a child, that could be linked with a practice in a church, especially a Catholic Church, is duck soup, the mother-lode, the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow!

Not only could a person get rich, but they could also soak it to the Catholic Church at the same time.

Heck, someone would probably offer to pitch the tragic story for a screenplay and if it’s optioned, then the plaintiff and their lawyer could collect residuals, too.

I think that those who ignore this possibility are living dangerously and gambling. Considering that most dioceses can’t afford to lose a few more million dollars, and that the “mood” of the U.S. public and the U.S. judges is definitely NOT sympathetic to the Catholic Church, I think our bishops are wise to take extreme precautions. There’s too much at stake.

BTW, our bishop has not cautioned against Communion on the tongue, and I have continued to receive Communion on the tongue. But I would switch back to the hand if Bishop Doran advised it.

 

[MusicMan]

The authority rests with the bishops in this case – they are not espousing heresy. Your question could (and sadly is) applied to anything in the Church that people personally disagree with. As far as I understand my bishop reports directly to the Pope. Unless the Pope takes exception or unless it runs contrary to the dogmatic deposit of faith, individual bishops have a tremendous amount of legitimate latitude and authority in how they interpret and apply the rules we have been discussing – most particularly in exigent circumstances like we face today with regard to H1N1.

Those that read the GIRM, RS, etc. and then get frustrated because their bishops are not following the documents to the letter (at least per their own personal interpretations) have a great deal to learn about where authority rests within the Church.

So what if they are wrong? Their actions were born out of a desire to safeguard their flocks resulting in their flocks being limited to one licit (although not always preferred) manner in which to receive communion. The cost in obeying one’s bishop in this case are negligible. The potential gain tremendous.

I don’t disagree with anything you’ve said, in fact, I tend to side more with your position than any other. However, I do hope you can understand and respect the fears and concerns, justified or not, of traditional Catholics who are afriad that Communion on the tongue will be taken away from them forever.

 

[perfectpeach]

In keeping with my post above–I’m guessing that the families of most of those unfortunate people who died of snakebite did not bring a lawsuit for millions of dollars against the snake.

But in this country, the United States, people are lawsuit-crazy, and people do not hesitate to sue at the slightest provocation. The death or disabling of a family member, especially a child, that could be linked with a practice in a church, especially a Catholic Church, is duck soup, the mother-lode, the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow!

Not only could a person get rich, but they could also soak it to the Catholic Church at the same time.

Heck, someone would probably offer to pitch the tragic story for a screenplay and if it’s optioned, then the plaintiff and their lawyer could collect residuals, too.

I think that those who ignore this possibility are living dangerously and gambling. Considering that most dioceses can’t afford to lose a few more million dollars, and that the “mood” of the U.S. public and the U.S. judges is definitely NOT sympathetic to the Catholic Church, I think our bishops are wise to take extreme precautions. There’s too much at stake.

BTW, our bishop has not cautioned against Communion on the tongue, and I have continued to receive Communion on the tongue. But I would switch back to the hand if Bishop Doran advised it.

Maybe we should all sign a liability waiver before mass.

In all seriousness, I do see this point of view, but why can’t parishoners who are afraid just abstain for a while? Why should those of us who wish to recieve the Lord on our tongue be tossed aside? I for one am not afraid of H1N1.

As MusicMan has stated, I am one of those who fear Communion on the tongue will be taken away forever.

 

[Bailey2]

This is quite the discussion on the importance of whether it is more reverent to receive our Lord on our tongues or in our hands, even though it is couched in the H1N1 virus situation. I have said this on another forum in another way. How about we receive our Lord in our hearts since both tongue and hands are corrupt and do whatever little we can to at least try to minimize the spread of the illness, however misguided, inconvenient, or otherwise silly. It will make many elderly and young mothers feel safer going to church and receiving communion. Besides Jesus requires mercy, not sacrifice.

As for H1N1, we have had our second child die of it yesterday; the first had lived in the next town and went to the Catholic school there, the child who died yesterday went to an elementary school down the road from me. My son had this illness and we worried and kept vigil. To me, this discussion is a legalistic letter-of-the-law, self-righteous (both sides) mental exercise. A nun died today on a Navajo indian reservation ministering to the poor in a dangerous environment. I’m sure she didn’t care how Eucharist was received. She was Eucharist. In charity for those afraid, we should be too.

 

[crazzeto]

Last Sunday our pastor informed us that, because of the flu epidemic, we would temporarily discontinue having the congregation drink from the Communion cup, and the holy water would be removed from the font at the entrance. Has your parish done anything like this?

Holy water has not been removed, we no longer get communion wine and we no longer share the sign of peace. H1N1 really makes mass just a little sadder But as long as the Lord is always present in the Eucharist, I guess that’s what it’s all about.

 

[Lennox]

This is quite the discussion on the importance of whether it is more reverent to receive our Lord on our tongues or in our hands, even though it is couched in the H1N1 virus situation. I have said this on another forum in another way. How about we receive our Lord in our hearts since both tongue and hands are corrupt and do whatever little we can to at least try to minimize the spread of the illness, however misguided, inconvenient, or otherwise silly. It will make many elderly and young mothers feel safer going to church and receiving communion. Besides Jesus requires mercy, not sacrifice.

As for H1N1, we have had our second child die of it yesterday; the first had lived in the next town and went to the Catholic school there, the child who died yesterday went to an elementary school down the road from me. My son had this illness and we worried and kept vigil. To me, this discussion is a legalistic letter-of-the-law, self-righteous (both sides) mental exercise. A nun died today on a Navajo indian reservation ministering to the poor in a dangerous environment. I’m sure she didn’t care how Eucharist was received. She was Eucharist. In charity for those afraid, we should be too.

I am sorry for the losses. Thank you for the reality check.