Husband won't shake hands in church

[Tantum_ergo]

yes when one has arthritis or a cold is legitiment but I’d make a statement to the person extending their hand…

As one with sensitive hands, I’ve gone that route. . .ever try explaining to as many as a dozen people who extend the hand, one after another, “I’m sorry, but my hands are sensitive”? One comes across as rude and boorish “Humpf, Miss delicate flower must think that don’t know how to shake hands properly, what nerve”. “Imagine not wanting to shake little Johnny’s hand, as though an 8 year old could HURT some big grown woman’s hand”.

Why (considering that a handshake is NOT MANDATED as THE SIGN OF PEACE) must I, or others, have to APOLOGIZE because we offer a DIFFERENT sign of peace?

It is not that I don’t want to touch others, but just one person’s overhearty clasp could quite literally have me miss a day’s work–and as a single mother with a disabled child and elderly parent to care for, that is not a risk I can afford to take.

Truly I have found that attempting to “explain” why I am not shaking somebody’s hand causes more hurt and hostility than simply making eye contact, bowing, smiling, and saying with genuine love and caring, “Peace be with you”, maybe because I am not getting defensive or resentful, but actually really feeling–and showing–the peace of Christ.

Just one person’s viewpoint here.

 

[avgguy]

Celeste88:

My husband is non Catholic but goes to church with me every Sunday. When it comes to the peace exchange, he will only shake hands with me and no one else. I believe he is afraid of catching germs. This leaves me in an embarrassing situation and I tell people he has a cold (which is a lie most of the time). I don’t really know how to handle this…I told him he can wipe his hands afterwards with one of those antibacterial wipes but he still won’t budge. :whacky:

gimme a break thats a lame excuse catching a germ,does he open a door, push a shopping cart or pick up something at the store? those same germs are there as well

his remote prolly has more germs than the normal persons hand does

 

[Tonks40]

I really don’t see anything wrong with a person nodding or waving or smiling, saying “Peace be with you” if that person prefers not to shake hands with other parishioners. In the liturgy, it is a sign of peace - that sign can be anything appropriate, from shaking hands to a little wave or a smile.

BTW, my husband is a non-Catholic, too, and he’s been attending Mass with me every week so far!

 

[InnocentIII]

Celeste88:

My husband is non Catholic but goes to church with me every Sunday. When it comes to the peace exchange, he will only shake hands with me and no one else. I believe he is afraid of catching germs. This leaves me in an embarrassing situation and I tell people he has a cold (which is a lie most of the time). I don’t really know how to handle this…I told him he can wipe his hands afterwards with one of those antibacterial wipes but he still won’t budge. :whacky:

Personally I’m on your husband’s side. I give my wife a kiss on the cheek and shake hands with my two children but that’s it. No-one should feel any compulsion to shake hands with anybody. Fortunately our holy priest makes a point of telling everyone to restric themselves to those next to them. Still this is what happens when a solemn ritual action is universalised. It ceases to have the original meaning and either becomes a case of enforced togetherness or a free for all social.

 

[anna1978]

As long as he doesn’t stand there actively ignoring people, you know…a nod or a smile is okay too, but if he stands there staring at the toes of his shoes, ignoring everybody’s outstretched hand, now that WOULD be rude! But as long as he acknowledges them with a smile or nod, it’s totally fine! My mom came back to the church after 30 years, and I remember she just thought the sign of peace was plain weird. So, she’d stay on her seat (she couldn’t walk properly by then, due to circulation problems in her legs), read her missal, and at the sign of peace she’d just beam the most radiant smile at everybody with a little nod of the head. I don’t think anybody took offense or felt that was odd !

Anna x

 

[rayne89]

Nance:

Im not a fan of shaking hands either, this morning the fella behind me was hacking up a storm… .

Not everyone that is hacking up a storm is sick. My mom has asthma and major breathing problems. She coughs and hacks during Mass frequently. She feels very self conscious because she knows everyone around her thinks she’s sick when she’s really not. Sometimes she won’t offer the sign of peace to others (except family) because she feels people really don’t want to because they think she has a cold.

 

[mercygate]

Lapsed:

The lady of Asian descent next to me today pressed her hands together, bowed her head towards me, and wished me the peace of Christ. Her beautiful children all did likewise. It didn’t strike me in any way odd (maybe from my karate background) and I returned her and her children’s greetings in kind.

Handshaking is a Western custom, there are many others.

That’s what I do. There is no obligation to shake hands or hug.

 

[jrabs]

mercygate:

That’s what I do. There is no obligation to shake hands or hug.

Let me add a different angle:

I do not get offended when someone does not reach out. A simple smile or word of peace has the same effect. Is it a very Christian thing to get offended in the middle of mass because someone did not extend a hand? As Catholics, are we not also supposed to strive to limit getting offended. The hand shaking is a small thing to get offended over - and during mass even.

 

[Rob_s_Wife]

BLB_Oregon:

People who try to extend a sign of peace are not interrupting you. They’re celebrating the Mass. That is of course why you and your kids are there, too. That it might give your kids an opportunity to misbehave isn’t an excuse for skipping it, under normal circumstances.

We can’t very well do that and also do our best to ignore each other whenever humanly possible.

I want to be clear: This may not apply to Rob’s Wife’s family. I don’t want to mischaracterize or dismiss her method out of hand. Of course smiles and nods suffice, if they are the most the kids can manage without essentially losing control for the rest of Mass. Parents have to make these kinds of decisions all the time. If you can’t bring yourself to touch other people, you can’t.

I guess I mean to say that if you are not schooling your kids in full participation where possible, including the Sign of Peace, you may be training them to miss one of the main points, (if not the main point) of the entire liturgy. That would be a major case of throwing baby out with the bath water. (Besides, coming from Rob’s Wife, it would knock me over with a feather if that were even remotely her intent!)

:nope: **We don’t view it as being “skipped”, we view it as sharing the peace with each of our family members. Usually it is not a case of ignoring an offering of peace or repulsion about touching our fellow christians, as much as it is focusing giving peace elsewhere. In our case, towards our dc. No different than if you are already shaking hands with someone else, another person isn’t being ignored because of it - they just take a quick glance and continue on to the next hand. I don’t think of it as not participating in the sign of peace, just restricting it to our pew (which consists of just us anyhow). **

PS Holding hands at the Our Father, unlike the Sign of Peace, is not part of the liturgy. There are those who will argue that it is not only optional, but an illegitimate addition to the Mass. It goes without saying that it can be skipped without qualm.

:yup: We are supposed to be praying and so we assume the “prayer position”.

 

[Rob_s_Wife]

kaj3:

Maybe the reason the approach Rob’s Wife uses works is because it instills the reverence of the Mass in her children.

:tiphat: There’s the wording I was racking my brain for! I think that’s it exactly. Thank you!

---

ETA: I will say that my method is probably easier on us simply because most people assume we are too busy keeping all the kids in line to shake hands anyhow. If we didn’t have the kids in the pew, I imagine it would be more noticable.

---

**HA! There you go! Yet another perk for married people to have babies if possible! **

 

[BLB_Oregon]

This is what I have been taught about the sign of Peace. It is the point at Mass where, standing together before Jesus, fully present on the altar, Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity, we recognize each other as as members of His Body.

In other words, it is the point at which you show that you are awake to the presence of Jesus in *all *those you celebrate with… a reminder that Holy Communion is truly a communion of all, not just “you and the Eucharist”.

You don’t ignore anyone, exclude anyone, or give preference to anyone. It should not be restricted to an insulated group, but extended to all who may be so greeted without upsetting the reverent atmosphere of the Mass itself. You make your gesture reverently, in a spirit of agape love. As for what the exact gesture is, that is up to the conference of bishops in each country, and for the life of me, I have not been able to find that defined anywhere. I’m no champion researcher, but if the USCCB set it in stone to be a handshake or that it requires physical contact, the stone is pretty well hidden. (To get my pet peeve in: physical contact isn’t necessary, but nothing says agape like eye contact!)

You don’t use it as a chance to make small talk. You don’t disrupt the solemnity of the Mass by leaving your pew and making a general tour of your friends. You don’t have to do anything that you believe will pose a threat to your own health or the health of others.

Kids can participate, but as Rob’s Wife points out, parents know best whether their children can do so with a reasonable expectation that they won’t disrupt the Mass in the process. That is going to differ from child to child, from family to family, and will even differ according to the parish and the setting of a particular Mass. The ideal is that the kids will participate eventually, but isn’t it that way with everything? All in good time, all in good time.

To the main point of the thread, though: While every Catholic present should make an effort to participate to the extent that they are able, there is no offense given if a non-Catholic should choose not to. It is also no offense if a non-Catholic is included. The gesture does not carry the full weight of the reception of the Blessed Sacrament. Having said that… Celeste88, have you ever asked your husband if this has anything to do with the fact that he is excluded from receiving Communion?

 

[Corki]

Bolding mine.

I

guess I mean to say that if you are not schooling your kids in full participation where possible, including the Sign of Peace, you may be training them to miss one of the main points, (if not the main point) of the entire liturgy. That would be a major case of throwing baby out with the bath water. (Besides, coming from Rob’s Wife, it would knock me over with a feather if that were even remotely her intent!)

PS Holding hands at the Our Father,** unlike the Sign of Peace, is not part of the liturgy**. There are those who will argue that it is not only optional, but an illegitimate addition to the Mass. It goes without saying that it can be skipped without qualm.

The Sign of Peace is NOT the main point of the Liturgy. (The Sacrifice of the Mass, which culminates at the Consecration is) The shared sign of Peace, in fact, is OPTIONAL. We don’t do it at all in my parish. IT can be “skipped without a qualm” too. If we train our children to focus on the reverence and mystery of the Mass we are not doing them any disservice.

I hear this kind of thing about “participation” frequently but this is a mistaken definition. When the Church tells us to participate fully, this doesn’t mean that we have to “do” anything. We don’t have to sing, or even say the prayers aloud. Participation at Mass really means that we join our prayer fully with the Priest who is offering the Mass. This is what we need to be teaching our children - not the movements and gestures which can change anyway with a new version of the GIRM.

 

[BLB_Oregon]

Corki:

Bolding mine.
The Sign of Peace is NOT the main point of the Liturgy. (The Sacrifice of the Mass, which culminates at the Consecration is) The shared sign of Peace, in fact, is OPTIONAL. We don’t do it at all in my parish. IT can be “skipped without a qualm” too. If we train our children to focus on the reverence and mystery of the Mass we are not doing them any disservice.

I hear this kind of thing about “participation” frequently but this is a mistaken definition. When the Church tells us to participate fully, this doesn’t mean that we have to “do” anything. We don’t have to sing, or even say the prayers aloud. Participation at Mass really means that we join our prayer fully with the Priest who is offering the Mass. This is what we need to be teaching our children - not the movements and gestures which can change anyway with a new version of the GIRM.

This is getting a bit off of the thread subject, but the idea does need clarification. By “the main point”, I did not mean the Sign of Peace itself. You are right, that would be nonsense.

I meant the point that Mass is a truly and intimately communal ritual of the universal Church, not a publicly held private ritual or even a locally-defined communal one. The presence of Jesus in our brothers and sisters is also a “real presence”, one that our Universal Church thinks important enough to include in the Order of the Mass, so that we might be moved to take them into reverent regard during Mass.

That it is optional for a priest to include or exclude the sign of peace does not imply that when the congregation is invited to extend the sign by the priest or deacon, observance of the request is optional. That would be missing a main point of Mass, which is that it is not primarily about you.

How is it possible to both fully join into a ritual and also pick and choose which parts you will join in with, as the whim hits you? If you are Catholic, there really needs to be a compelling reason to hold yourself out of any part of the prescribed ritual (including the singing).

Granted, that is my interpretation of the GIRM, taken mostly from this exerpt (boldface mine) of the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, Including Adaptations for the Dioceses of the United States of America, Chapter II
www.usccb.org/liturgy/current

Movements and Posture
42. The gestures and posture of the priest, the deacon, and the ministers, as well as those of the people, ought to contribute to making the entire celebration resplendent with beauty and noble simplicity, so that the true and full meaning of the different parts of the celebration is evident and that the participation of all is fostered.52 Therefore, attention should be paid to what is determined by this General Instruction and the traditional practice of the Roman Rite and to what serves the common spiritual good of the People of God,** rather than private inclination or arbitrary choice.**

A common posture, to be observed by all participants, is a sign of the unity of the members of the Christian community gathered for the Sacred Liturgy: it both expresses and fosters the intention and spiritual attitude of the participants.

 

[InnocentIII]

Corki:

I hear this kind of thing about “participation” frequently but this is a mistaken definition. When the Church tells us to participate fully, this doesn’t mean that we have to “do” anything. We don’t have to sing, or even say the prayers aloud. Participation at Mass really means that we join our prayer fully with the Priest who is offering the Mass. This is what we need to be teaching our children - not the movements and gestures which can change anyway with a new version of the GIRM.

I agree. The “Spirit of Vatican II” mood of the 70’s and 80’s mad a fetish of “participation” as if somehow we weren’t participating unless we had some words to say or action to carry out. This wasn’t a problem during the Liturgy of the Word as there were lots of congregational parts in the service. The problem came in the Liturgy of the Eucharist which is quite rightly focused on the actions of the priest in persona Christi. Desperate I would say to involve the laity somehow, the devisers of the vernacular mass included the inane “Mystery of Faith” and then later looking around for something else for the faithful to do seized on the ritual “Kiss of Peace”. The problem is that it should be a ritual action and that is virtually impossible in a congregational setting. Result - it disrupts the flow of the mass and is generally treated as a social free for all in which pressure is applied to conform. Celeste I would just let it be, don’t apologise for it. As another poster said, how Unchristian is it to get offended over a missed handshake.

 

[Lucania]

I don’t see what the big deal is here. I don’t shake hands either. I fold my hands together at my waist, nod my head and say “peace be with you”, with a smile on my face. There are times when someone is extending a hand, but when they in that split second see I’m not extending mine, they just withdraw their hand, smile and say “peace be with you.” I can’t think of anyone looking at me weird or acting offended for doing that either. I think it’s wonderful that your Husband goes to Mass with you. My Husband went with me too while not being a Catholic (he did convert after a few years). I wouldn’t make too much of him not wanting to shake others hands, a simple nod, smile, or wave and say “peace be with you” is sufficient in my book.

 

[seabird3579]

People, get real. This is not a Root Canal, it’s a simple Handshake! You’re a Christian arn’t you? …I bet he can’t get through his work day without at least 10 handshakes, not in any American businesses anyway!

Get over it, already.

 

[Isidore_AK]

seabird3579:

People, get real. This is not a Root Canal, it’s a simple Handshake! You’re a Christian arn’t you? …I bet he can’t get through his work day without at least 10 handshakes, not in any American businesses anyway!

Get over it, already.

Huh? Maybe in a lawyers office…I can’t remember the last time I had to shake hands with anyone other then a very close friend… A simple nod of the head with a ‘nice to meet you’ works well in most social situations…

 

[seabird3579]

Isidore_AK:

Huh? Maybe in a lawyers office…I can’t remember the last time I had to shake hands with anyone other then a very close friend… A simple nod of the head with a ‘nice to meet you’ works well in most social situations…

Well, it sure is different here in California than in Alaska I guess. My dad was a very “reserved” self-employed businessman and he always shook the hands of his customers, especially after closing a deal. It was just customary, and the Polite thing to do.

 

[Celtic_FC]

I say tell whoever wants to know that he doesn’t want to catch germs, if that is his reason. I used to never shake hands when I was a teenager, because I was intractable at that age. I love shaking hands now, and I am never offended if someone will not shake my hand.

 

[Lapsed]

seabird3579:

Well, it sure is different here in California than in Alaska I guess. My dad was a very “reserved” self-employed businessman and he always shook the hands of his customers, especially after closing a deal. It was just customary, and the Polite thing to do.

I would suggest that this is entirely dependent on what line of work you are in. Not a lot of daily handshaking going on in heavy industry, truck driving, wearhousing, convenince stores, fast food joints. When was the last time you shook hands with a waiter or the woman running the check out at the super market?

There are probably more people who go through their work day without being required to shake hands.