Diocese mandating Communion in hand due to epidemic

[savedbychrist]

The 2019 Novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) is spreading in China, and two cases have been found in Hong Kong. The Diocese of Hong Kong, in response to the outbreak of this epidemic, has released a set of pastoral guidelines, which mandates that “all the faithful must stop receiving Communion on the Tounge, and receive on the Hand only”. (See the Original Document Article 2.8)

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.) (Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

. . . . Epidemic prevention is important, but the Communion is something different. How can a Roman Catholic Diocese mandate the faithful not to receive the Communion in the normative and reverent form, which is on the Tounge? How can Communion on the hand, which is only allowed by Indult in extraordinary circumstances, be mandated by the Diocese to be the only acceptable form?

. . . . I am not really affected, since I am just a catechumen and thus I cannot receive the Eucharist. I am still so angry over this.

Am I overreacting and need to take a chill pill, or is getting outraged by this normal and healthy?

 

[redal]

Am I overreacting and need to take a chill pill, or is getting outraged by this normal and healthy?

Yes to the former, no to the latter…it understandable, and not a hill worth dying on.

It’s troubling to me (and just not my opinion) when a parish, a diocese, or even Rome is labeled as “liberal”…I view the word as overused, and becoming void of meaning as a description of the Church…but again, this is my opinion, and not meant as judgement or acclamation.

 

[1ke]

Am I overreacting

YES.

I think you need to step back. The Eucharist isn’t magic. The Church needs to do its part to prevent spread of a serious, contagious disease.

 

[DeniseNY]

I am not really affected, since I am just a catechumen and thus I cannot receive the Eucharist.

I think you maybe have a lot left to understand about the Eucharist. It’s not magic. I think this is a prudent step to take to protect people from this illness. You even said in your post that it’s an epidemic.

 

[paperwight]

I also think that somehow you have wrongly been given the idea that Communion in the Hand is very unusual and extraordinary.

A few years ago there was a survey on CAF, and it was established that between us, people had experienced Communion in the hand in most countries of the world.

 

[Joe_5859]

Am I overreacting and need to take a chill pill, or is getting outraged by this normal and healthy?

Yes, you are overreacting.

Also, this is not a “liberal” thing. The diocese in which I reside is often perceived to be one of the most “conservative” around and our bishop has encouraged all people to receive on the hand when the flu season is particularly bad.

Remember, the accidents remain the same when the bread becomes the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ. That means those with wheat allergies still have allergic reactions. And contagions can still be spread. Transubstantiation does not mean that germs cannot still be passed on from one person to the next.

Receiving on the hand is no sin. So if your bishop asks you to do so, it is better to humble yourself and do so.

 

[Pitcairn17]

It’s not that Communion is being seen as a “disease carrier.” It’s about the saliva that frequently gets on the fingers of those distributing Communion, only to be possibly transferred to another individual. You need to re-think your outrage and your use of “liberal” as an epithet here.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

which is only allowed by Indult in extraordinary circumstances

It’s allowed by indult in many places without there needing to be “extraordinary circumstances”.

If you’re a catechumen, I think you should discuss this with your priest or your instructor. As someone else said, you seem to have some wrong ideas that receiving in the hand is somehow bad, irreverent, or unholy. This is not Church teaching. Furthermore, as others have said, Jesus’ body and blood are not magical prevention against illness which could be borne by someone’s saliva getting on the hands of the priest or EMHC distributing communion.

It’s good that your bishop takes a common-sense approach to this and wants to keep his flock physically well.

 

[Fuerza]

I’m certainly no liberal, and am not really a big fan of receiving in the hand, however this doesn’t seem all that unusual. Also, there is no Church teaching that states that disease cannot be spread through reception of the Eucharist. There are many who believe that it can’t, but it’s not defined doctrine and certainly not “faithless sacrilege” to hold otherwise.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

Am I overreacting and need to take a chill pill

Receiving in the hand is allowed by the Church, so they aren’t actually doing anything wrong. The exterior doesn’t matter as much as the interior as long as it is within the rules the Church sets forth.

 

[Dolphin]

receive the Communion in the normative and reverent form, which is on the Tounge?

Communion on the tongue is equal to receiving on the hand. Neither is considered sinful or less respectful. This has been the topic of countless CAF threads in the past.

Oftentimes during flu season the blood is sometimes not offered and the sign of peace is a wave instead of a hand shake. This is not some “liberal plot to destroy the Church”. This is common sense…

 

[PetraG]

Wait a minute. The bishop is saying that the faithful must either touch the Blessed Sacrament with their hands or not receive Holy Communion at all?

The last time I checked, epidemiologists do not even know how 2019-nCoV is transmitted. More to the point, there isn’t even a single documented case of disease transmission via a common cup, something that is theoretically very possible, let alone by distributing Holy Communion directly onto the tongue.

The bishop has essentially said that members of the faithful who do not want to handle a Sacred Host will be denied Holy Communion. Yes, that really is an extreme measure. It would be more reasonable, for instance, to ask that everyone consider receiving in the hand and that those who insist on receiving directly onto the tongue receive after those who receive in the hand, in order to lower the theoretical chances of disease transmission as much as possible without denying any of the rights of the faithful.

Yes to the former, no to the latter…it understandable, and not a hill worth dying on.

I have recieved Holy Communion in the hand and even served as an extraordinary minister of Holy Communion. It is unsettling to me that the means of recieving Holy Communion that is recognized to be the least likely to result in profanation is put aside in favor of one that lowers a slight risk of disease transmission just slightly more.

In other words, avoiding what is already a very low chance of disease transmission is more important than allowing people to do what even Popes have recognized offers the lowest chance of profaning the Blessed Sacrament? Really? No, I cannot buy that.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Are you in this bishop’s diocese in Hong Kong? If so, you can certainly reach out to him and tell him you think he’s wrong.

If not, it seems a bit inappropriate for you to be second-guessing a bishop’s reasonable decision on a thread started by a catechumen from the bishop’s own diocese. It is setting a very bad example for this catechumen.

I am sure the bishop did appropriate research into the transmission of disease as promulgated by the health officials in his own country before he made this decision. To claim that his idea is all wrong because according to whatever you (who presumably isn’t some expert in transmission of disease) read somewhere, there hasn’t been a documented case of transmission by cup (which has nothing to do with saliva on the hands) also doesn’t seem right.

 

[do_justly_love_mercy]

The Communion is not to be seen as a disease carrier, that is some faithless sacrilege.

But it can be a disease carrier. A consecrated host retains the accidents of bread. The accidents of bread surely include the potential to carry disease.

This is unimaginable in the Roman Catholic Church some 400 years ago.

Probably. But that would be because the germ theory of disease was only fully established as scientific fact around the end of the 19th century. People 400 years ago would not have understood that this virus could be transmitted in this way.

Do we worship Jesus or do we worship our own health?

Jesus would not want us to jeopardize our own health for the sake of receiving Holy Communion on the tongue.

Even if Communion on the tounge might spread the virus, wouldn’t Jesus protect His own divine Eucharist?

I don’t think Jesus intervenes to prevent the transmission of viruses, no.

How can we have so little faith in the Holy Eucharist, and even tyrannically mandate others to forfeit their reverence to the Communion by receiving on the tounge?

It’s not a matter of faith, it’s a matter of protecting public health. It is a sensible precaution.

Am I overreacting and need to take a chill pill, or is getting outraged by this normal and healthy?

I think you need to focus on other things. This is not something that you should be getting angry about.

Wouldn’t this be making the indult practice normative and making the normative extraordinary (or even illicit)?

These are specific circumstances. In these circumstances, it makes sense to make communion in the hand the only permitted manner of reception. It sounds like you are very concerned about the legalistic aspects of Catholicism. If you are not yet even a full member of the Church I would suggest focusing on something more important instead of becoming excessively worried about words like “indult” and “normative”, which most Catholics do not use in day-to-day conversation.

 

[savedbychrist]

It’s allowed by indult in many places without there needing to be “extraordinary circumstances”.

Practices allowed by indults are not meant to be made normative or equal to normative in status, right? Then, how can Communion in Hand be mandated and Communion on Tounge be prohibited? Wouldn’t this be making the indult practice normative and making the normative extraordinary (or even illicit)?

Also, there was a good reason for the Church to have insisted on Communion on the Tounge, despite the Apostles in the Early Church did it in the hand. In the Church today, when this very reason, that is, the lack of knowledge and belief on transubstantiation and reverence to the Lord in the Eucharist, is so very serious, I see no reason why Communion on the Tounge will become unnecessary or even suppressed.

 

[PetraG]

Communion on the tongue is equal to receiving on the hand. Neither is considered sinful or less respectful. This has been the topic of countless CAF threads in the past.

No, neither is considered sinful, but one has been recognized as presenting a lower risk of profaning the Eucharist.

In explaining his decision to restrict reception of Holy Communion to on the tongue while kneeling, Pope Benedict’s directives said: From the time of the Fathers of the Church, a tendency was born and consolidated whereby distribution of Holy Communion in the hand became more and more restricted in favor of distributing Holy Communion on the tongue. The motivation for this practice is two-fold: a) first, to avoid, as much as possible, the dropping of Eucharistic particles; b) second, to increase among the faithful devotion to the Real Presence of Christ in the Sacrament of the Eucharist.
http://www.vatican.va/news_services/liturgy/details/ns_lit_doc_20091117_comunione_en.html

Because the motive is preserving the Eucharist from profanation, those faithful who elect to receive on the tongue and only on the tongue should not be denied that right except under the most extreme circumstances. There isn’t an epidemiological reason to believe that the prevalence of 2019-nCoV in Hong Kong rises to that level.

 

[savedbychrist]

Are you in this bishop’s diocese in Hong Kong? If so, you can certainly reach out to him and tell him you think he’s wrong.

Yes. But I would like to see if I am being reasonable before reaching out to the Bishop (Apostolic Administrator actually, as new Bishop is not yet elected after the death of the late Bishop).

 

[PetraG]

Are you in this bishop’s diocese in Hong Kong? If so, you can certainly reach out to him and tell him you think he’s wrong.

If not, it seems a bit inappropriate for you to be second-guessing a bishop’s reasonable decision on a thread started by a catechumen from the bishop’s own diocese. It is setting a very bad example for this catechumen.

Generally, I would agree with you, but this touches on a universal right of the faithful.

The OP asked, “Am I overreacting?” Is the OP wrong to object? No. Is the OP wrong to let this stir up what the OP describes as a “fury”? No. It is necessary to appreciate that the pastoral motive is appropriate, even if the measures are excessive.

No, though, the faithful should not be forced to receive Holy Communion in the hand or not at all every time a bad virus is going around. There is a rational reason for my objection to the measure. The faithful do have the right to recieve Holy Communion in the hand, when properly disposed to receive Holy Communion at all. There simply is not epidemiological evidence that denying that right is going to make any difference at all in the morbity or mortality due to that disease. Wanting to feel as if one is “doing something” is not the same as actually “doing something.” This change really is not warranted.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Yes. But I would like to see if I am being reasonable before reaching out to the Bishop (Apostolic Administrator actually, as new Bishop is not yet elected after the death of the late Bishop).

As you are seeing, you are going to get a wide range of opinions here. This is typical of the forum.

Many of us, including me, think this is a reasonable thing for the Apostolic Administrator to do. For all we know, he might even be trying to avoid running afoul of some law of your country by taking precautions. Many of us also come from countries where we are permitted to receive in the hand on a regular basis and almost everybody does receive in the hand, so it’s normal for us. We do not agree with the extreme position some others take that it is bad or wrong or unholy to receive in the hand, although we don’t mind if other people choose to receive on the tongue and in general support them being allowed to do so. I myself probably receive on the tongue maybe 10 percent of the time and in the hand the other 90 percent of the time.

I would urge you however if you are concerned with it to discuss it first with your parish priest, and then if you still have questions, with the bishop’s office. Please make sure you talk to your parish priest first, as the bishop’s office usually will just send you back to your parish priest if you have not first discussed with him. And when you discuss it, please do so from a position of 1) respecting the bishop’s authority and 2) trying to understand. If you approach it as “You’re committing a terrible liturgical abuse!” the discussion might not be fruitful.

 

[savedbychrist]

Wait a minute. The bishop is saying that the faithful must either touch the Blessed Sacrament with their hands or not receive Holy Communion at all?

Yes. If you can read Chinese, you can see that in this Pastoral Guidelines, the Introduction part states that “All priests, liturgical administrators and the faithful MUST comply with these guidelines”, and Article 2.8 states that “All the faithful will stop receiving the Eucharist on the Tounge, and only receiving Him in the Hand”.