Diocese Institutes Swine Flu Precautions

[Jean_Anthony]

The topic is the announcement by a diocese not “who is right about what.” If you can’t discuss this topic in a civil manner I will have to close the thread. Please keep the interests of the OP in mind when you post to threads, everyone.

 

[Spirithound]

As of this week, the Diocese of London, Ontario is in Phase 1.

Phase 1
• Temporary withdrawal of Communion from the cup
• No Communion on the tongue
• Hand sanitizers at the doors of the church
• At the greeting of peace recommend a greeting and an acknowledgement but no shaking of the hands
• Encourage parishioners to stay home if they exhibit flu-like symptoms
• Parishes should prepare for Phase 2

Phase 2
• Removal of Holy Water at the entrance of the church (to be replaced by rite of sprinkling at the beginning of Eucharist)
• Sanitizing of pews and hymnals with appropriate sanitizer before/after each Sunday Liturgy

 

[JFK]

For some tips to prevent the transmission of the Flu – see Elmo
from Sesame Street on Lockergnome:

lockergnome.com/jfk/2009/10/24/elmo-a-safety-message-from-elmo-and-the-cdc-ad-councel/

 

[Iggyone]

Spirithound writes that the diocese of London says “No Communion on the tongue”. I’m wondering if it is within the authority of the bishop to restrict communion on the tongue. “Redemptionis Sacramentum” 92 says that “each of the faithful has the right to receive Holy Communion on the tongue.”

 

[diggerdomer]

Spirithound writes that the diocese of London says “No Communion on the tongue”. I’m wondering if it is within the authority of the bishop to restrict communion on the tongue. “Redemptionis Sacramentum” 92 says that “each of the faithful has the right to receive Holy Communion on the tongue.”

Yes, for circumstances such as these. The Bishop could not make a general rule, always applicable, removing the option of receiving on the tongue.

 

[Iggyone]

To say that something is a “right”, such as communion on the tongue, is pretty strong language. On what canonical basis, could an individual bishop curtail something which is mandated as a right by universal church legislation? It cannot be just “circumstances” which permits this on an individual basis, even circumstances involving the possible spread of disease. There needs to be some basis in church law which allows this to happen also. Does anyone know what that basis is?

 

[diggerdomer]

To say that something is a “right”, such as communion on the tongue, is pretty strong language. On what canonical basis, could an individual bishop curtail something which is mandated as a right by universal church legislation? It cannot be just “circumstances” which permits this on an individual basis, even circumstances involving the possible spread of disease. There needs to be some basis in church law which allows this to happen also. Does anyone know what that basis is?

The authority of the diocesan bishop (ordinary). See for instance Canon Law 381.

 

[diggerdomer]

The authority of the diocesan bishop (ordinary). If you need a legal reason see Canon Law 381.

 

[Brenda_V]

The PO appears to be wildly caught up in the paranoia.

Guess what, the flu is the flu. Sadly, some people with compromised immune systems or other underlying health issues die from the flu every single year.

Let the media hype die already!

At the beginning of the year I would have agreed with you kage but with the cases and deaths occurring here in NM I would say that this flu is causing more healthy people to get sicker - mostly secondary infections but it seems to compromise their immune systems. Now not everyone who gets it gets that sick. I just got off the phone with a friend who told me another friend’s daughter (6 yo, otherwise healthy) has had the symptoms for going on two weeks now and was on antibiotics.

This flu is somehow different from the “seasonal” flu for some people and there is no indicator of who those people will be.

I agree with the Bishops requests of no holy water fonts (get a bottle and fill it up at the Holy Water cistern at your church and use that). No shared cup for the entire congregation, at my Parish there are three of us who share a cup because we do not tolerate wheat gluten, we are the only ones who share the cup and we are pretty good about not receiving if we think we are coming down with something or are sick.

Brenda V.

 

[Cathryn]

In the Diocese of Santa Rosa California we have been told no common cup with the Precious Blood. No handshaking at sign of peace. No holy water in the fonts. We still have Holy Communion on the tongue, however. I don’t miss the handshaking during Mass at all.

 

[sheepyfred]

Here in Edmonton, we’re in phase 1 but have also removed holy water from the fonts. Archbishop Smith sent out a letter to all parishes at the end of September, instituting these precautions. We also had similar restrictions earlier in the year when H1N1 first started to spread.

 

[Iggyone]

I note that Zenit’s column on liturgy today handles precisely the question I raised a couple of days ago regarding the extent of the Bishop’s authority with respect to what measures can be taken to contain illness. Responding to a questioner from Alberta, Canada, Father McNamara says essentially the same thing that diggerdomer says above: that the Bishop has authority for a temporary period of time to take these measures.