A
AHapka
Guest
How would receiving in the hand reduce the risk of transmission of a disease?
Is anyone changing the way they receive communion because of the swine flu?
- Status
C
Charioteer
Guest
L
LilyM
Guest
Exactly - even with the best-trained priest there can be slips between hand and mouth or tongue, resulting in saliva.
To be sure, even Communion in the Hand carries some risk, but coming from a family with a strong medical background I think I can safely say there’s no reason to suggest that it’s MORE dangerous than COTT, Father.
The health authorities would doubtless let the Bishops know if such were indeed the case - then they’d temporarily suspend CITH.
M
meridith
Guest
I work in nursing, my friends consider me a germ a phob, Lol. Like when my children would come home from school, 1st things first-wash those hands, period! I have never eaten after someone else if thy’ve already started eating, nor will I drink after someone,(even my kids or my former husband, go figure). But as far as communion, that doesn’t seem to bother me in the least.I mean, isn’t it not IF you do this, but When you do this? I haven;t recieved communion in long while, but that was because I wasn’t a practicing catholic. Where is your trust? Your faith? Your heart? I do understand if there are medical conditions with a comprimized immune system, but I know several priests at the hopsital I work at who give the Blood and Body to those patients who shouldn’t at the mass held there weekly. privately. Just some randon thoughts on the matter.
F
FrDavid96
Guest
Here’s why the hand is actually more dangerous:
We touch all kinds of things with our hands. The gas pump and station door on the way to church, the handrail on the way in, the doorknob of the church, the kneeler backs, missallettes, etc. etc. and this is where we pickup (or drop off) flu germs. In addition, if the sign of peace is done, germs are spread exponentially throughout the congregation: by the hands, not the tongue. In contrast, we don’t touch anything with our tongues except our own teeth. The hand method makes spreading others’ germs very easy.
When receiving on the tongue, there is no actual contact between the priest’s fingers and the communicant’s tongue. In contrast, with Communion in the hand, contact is nearly unavoidable.
I don’t think we should be worried about spreading germs while receiving Communion. Yes, we should take common-sense universal precautions; absolutely. But we should also look at this issue as one of the things we do in our daily lives, and accept the fact that we take minimal risks all the time. Going to church is no more dangerous than going to the supermarket.
I am not saying that we should suspend Communion in the hand because of a flu outbreak either, but merely saying that when people claim that the hand is a safer method than the tongue, they aren’t looking at facts.
Suspending Communion on the tongue does nothing to suppress the spread of germs. This really is nothing more than an excuse for people who don’t like Communion on the tongue to use scare-tactics to discourage a practice which the Church says cannot be discouraged. People use “the flu” as an excuse to do what they are not permitted to do.
J
JulianN
Guest
Most priests I know have accidentally touched a communicant’s tongue. Thus taking saliva directly from one person’s mouth to the next host.
C
Cat
Guest
Are you a priest?
I’m not sure I quite understand what you are saying in the last paragraph above. Perhaps you wrote it in a hurry and didn’t have time to read through it.
It sounds to me like you are accusing the bishops of using “flu” as an excuse to discourage Communion on the tongue. Is that what you are saying?
C
Cat
Guest
I reported three positive cases today. (I work in a microbiology lab.)
J
juno24
Guest
On Saturday morning, I was at my niece’s First Holy Communion in the diocese of Harrisburg, PA. At the mass, Father announced that even though they are in very close proximity to the Archdiocese of Baltimore (and many of the visitors that day were from Baltimore), there were no restrictions at that time in the diocese of Harrisburg, so people were free to receive however they wished. He did ask that everyone receive in the hand for that mass only, though, since the First Communicants had made the bread to be consecrated, and he did not want to take the chance of a mishap during communion.
I flew home on Sunday and arrived too late to attend Mass at my regular parish, so I went to another parish not too far away. During the announcements before Mass the deacon reported that our Archbishop had “strongly suggested” that people receive communion in the hand, and refrain from hand-holding and shaking hands during the sign of peace. He made it absolutely clear that it was NOT a command, and therefore if anyone still wanted to receive on the tongue or shake hands they were certainly not going to be admonished. (He even made sure to repeat that, stating that he wanted to be 100% clear so that no one would run to the pastor or archbishop saying, “Deacon told us we couldn’t…” LOL!!) Now, when it came time for the sign of peace, Father went from “The peace of the Lord be always with you”, waited for the response, and then went directly into the Agnes Dei, completely omitting the part where he tells the congregation to offer one another the sign of peace.
I flew home on Sunday and arrived too late to attend Mass at my regular parish, so I went to another parish not too far away. During the announcements before Mass the deacon reported that our Archbishop had “strongly suggested” that people receive communion in the hand, and refrain from hand-holding and shaking hands during the sign of peace. He made it absolutely clear that it was NOT a command, and therefore if anyone still wanted to receive on the tongue or shake hands they were certainly not going to be admonished. (He even made sure to repeat that, stating that he wanted to be 100% clear so that no one would run to the pastor or archbishop saying, “Deacon told us we couldn’t…” LOL!!) Now, when it came time for the sign of peace, Father went from “The peace of the Lord be always with you”, waited for the response, and then went directly into the Agnes Dei, completely omitting the part where he tells the congregation to offer one another the sign of peace.
F
FrDavid96
Guest
I did not write it in a hurry, and I stand-by what I wrote.
I am not “accusing the bishops” of anything.
Requiring Catholics to receive in the hand rather than on the tongue does nothing to help prevent the spread of this virus. Our hands are more prone to be the carriers of this virus than our tongues because as I said in my post, it is our hands which come into contact with so many unsanitary surfaces, and so our hands can spread the disease even if the person doing the spreading does not actually contract the virus. On the other hand, only the tongue of an already-infected person can spread the virus. That is, unless someone licks the handrail and the doorknob and the missallette before receiving Communion.
Here’s a brief quote from the American Society on Microbiology: “Infectious diseases, many of which are spread by unclean hands, remain the leading cause of death and disease worldwide and the third-leading cause of death in the United States.” (www.washup.org). With that in mind, I again repeat what I’ve been saying all along that Communion in the hand is no safer than Communion on the tongue. I’m not saying that a person infected with the swine flu virus won’t spread the disease via Communion on the tongue. I am saying forbidding Communion on the tongue is not going to do any good.
The chance that a priest’s fingers will come into contact with the communicant’s saliva is very very minimal–I’ve been distributing Communion for quite some time now, and I know that to be a fact. The chance that the priest’s fingers will come into contact with the communicant’s palm or fingers is almost inevitable. I am NOT saying that receiving on the tongue will not spread the disease–but saying that compared to the hand, it is less likely.
From another American Society for Microbiology website
Research* has shown that flu viruses can survive up to 48 hours on hard, nonporous surfaces and up to 12 hours on cloth, paper, and tissues. Measurable quantities of influenza A viruses can be transferred from stainless steel surfaces to hands for up to 24 hours and from tissues to hands for up to 15 minutes. Virus can survive on hands for up to 5 minutes after transfer from environmental surfaces.
“Flu viruses most frequently enter the body when **contaminated hands **touch mucous membranes of the nose, eyes, and mouth. Frequent hand hygiene certainly makes this transfer less likely,” says Daly. asm.org/Media/index.asp?bid=64452
In other words, the ASM considers our hands to be very good carriers for the flu, therefore reception in the hand as opposed to on the tongue does not help to contain this disease.
A
Aramis
Guest
Rev. Fr:
Most viruses require remaining moist to be spread. few last more than a few minutes on dry surfaces in viable states, and very few last more than a few dozen minutes on the hands.
The actual rate of transmission in dry contact is trivial.
The actual rate of transmission in wet contact is significant.
Dry contact transmission is notable only because generally, wet transmission does not have the chance to occur, but dry contact is insanely frequent.
CITH is comparable in risk to a reception line for hand shakes.
COTT is comparable (but lower) risk to sharing a beverage cup: The chance of encoutering the (much more likely to transmit a virus than simple hand to hand contact) saliva is quite high.
Communion via Spoon, as done in the Ruthenian church, is non-contact (the spoon does not touch the mouth; the precious body is dropped/flicked into the communicant’s mouth), so the risk is much reduced simply by non-contact.
Most viruses require remaining moist to be spread. few last more than a few minutes on dry surfaces in viable states, and very few last more than a few dozen minutes on the hands.
The actual rate of transmission in dry contact is trivial.
The actual rate of transmission in wet contact is significant.
Dry contact transmission is notable only because generally, wet transmission does not have the chance to occur, but dry contact is insanely frequent.
CITH is comparable in risk to a reception line for hand shakes.
COTT is comparable (but lower) risk to sharing a beverage cup: The chance of encoutering the (much more likely to transmit a virus than simple hand to hand contact) saliva is quite high.
Communion via Spoon, as done in the Ruthenian church, is non-contact (the spoon does not touch the mouth; the precious body is dropped/flicked into the communicant’s mouth), so the risk is much reduced simply by non-contact.
F
FrDavid96
Guest
Here’s what the Centers for Disease control has to say about how long the H1N1 virus can last on a dry sufface:
Studies have shown that influenza virus can survive on environmental surfaces and can infect a person for up to 2-8 hours after being deposited on the surface. cdc.gov/h1n1flu/qa.htm
Now if a healthy person touches a contaminated surface, like the back of a pew, before going up to receive Communion and thereby has the virus on his hands, then receives Communion in the hand, that will help spread the virus. Conversely, if that same person receives on the tongue, there is no cross-contamination because 1. the priest doesn’t touch the tongue and 2 the tongue is not yet contaminated even in the very rare instances when this does happen.
Just as with a spoon, when Communion is distributed in the Latin Church on the tongue, and done properly, there is no contact between the priest’s fingers and the communicant’s tongue. It’s not the same as sharing a beverage cup.
L
Lux_et_Tenebrae
Guest
Yes, ideally, the communicant does not touch the fingers of the misinster with his/her tongue, lips, teeth, etc, but this is not an ideal world. I have been licked, bitten and/or slobbered on times too numerous to mention. In the hospital there are sinks and hand sanitizers in every room, but this does not happen on the Communion line. I certainly would not want to receive from a minister who has had any of these experiences.
re:virus on his hands–It is far easier to avoid touching the hand than a part of the mouth, and the hand is dry, while the mouth is wet, so I really do not see your point. There is no upper portion to the hand, and it does not close downward.
Lux
F
FrDavid96
Guest
I don’t understand how you could still miss the point because I’ve made it repeatedly. The flu virus may be spread by Communion in the hand. Since our hands are the part of our bodies which are most likely to come into contact with contaminated surfaces, they are likewise the most likely carriers of this virus. Therefore avoiding Communion on the tongue, and encouraging Communion in the hand does nothing to prevent the spread of this virus.
M
Marsha_Adams
Guest
That must take a lot of practice in the seminary before allowing a young priest to do it with the real Sacrament. I am sincerely impressed.
B
brigid12
Guest
In answer to the OP, no but they can make it easier for priests or EMHCs to deny distributing HC on the tongue. There is a HUGE lack of correct catechesis in parishes!
L
LilyM
Guest
Fr David, my understanding is that the surface of the hand is a MUCH less congenial environment for retaining and breeding any germs that may be lurking about than the interior of the mouth, no matter how many they may come into contact with.
Besides which, it might well be even easier to distribute CITH without touching the hand of the recepient than it is to distribute COTT without coming into contact with the tongue or mouth.
L
Lux_et_Tenebrae
Guest
L
Lainey63
Guest
http://www.ewtn.com/faith/QA/Faith_QA_Header_04.jpg
Previous QuestionNext QuestionHoly Communion reception
Question from on 05-06-2009: What is the “ordinary” way to receive Holy Communion ? Our Bishop has ruled, in light of the Swine Flu viris, that Holy Communion will not be distributed on the tongue, but in the hand, which he says is the “ordinary” way. I have always been told that the ordinary way to receive is on the tongue. Answer by Fr. John Echert on 05-06-2009: You are correct. Reception on the hand is actually the exception–an indult. NO ONE has the right to refuse someone Holy Communion on the tongue, including a bishop in his own diocese or a pastor in his own parish.
Thanks, Lynn Father Echert
Back to Question List
Back to Search Form
HOME - EWTNews - FAITH - TELEVISION - RADIO - LIBRARY - MULTIMEDIA - EWTNKids
WHAT’S NEW - GENERAL - RELIGIOUS CATALOGUE - PILGRIMAGES - ESPAÑOL Terms of Use Privacy Policy Contact Us
ewtn.com/creme2.gif
Previous QuestionNext QuestionHoly Communion reception
Question from on 05-06-2009: What is the “ordinary” way to receive Holy Communion ? Our Bishop has ruled, in light of the Swine Flu viris, that Holy Communion will not be distributed on the tongue, but in the hand, which he says is the “ordinary” way. I have always been told that the ordinary way to receive is on the tongue. Answer by Fr. John Echert on 05-06-2009: You are correct. Reception on the hand is actually the exception–an indult. NO ONE has the right to refuse someone Holy Communion on the tongue, including a bishop in his own diocese or a pastor in his own parish.
Thanks, Lynn Father Echert
Back to Question List
Back to Search Form
HOME - EWTNews - FAITH - TELEVISION - RADIO - LIBRARY - MULTIMEDIA - EWTNKids
WHAT’S NEW - GENERAL - RELIGIOUS CATALOGUE - PILGRIMAGES - ESPAÑOL Terms of Use Privacy Policy Contact Us
ewtn.com/creme2.gif
F
FrDavid96
Guest
No, your response is based on a few false-assumptions.
- You are assuming that it’s more likely that one person infected with the flu will be receiving Communion rather than the much much more likely possibility that someone will approach to receive Communion in the hand after having touched all the surfaces which that infected person previously touched.
For the virus to spread via Communion on the tongue, the person must be infected–not just have the virus on his hands, but have the virus in his system. People might have the virus on their fingers but never get sick (especially if they wash their hands regularly) because the virus has not yet had a chance to enter into the body. However, in the meantime, all of these healthy people are spreading the virus with their hands.
In order for the wet/dry comparison to work, we have to assume that all those people are infected with the disease. We’re no where near that point–and hopefully never will be. However, we ARE at the point where some people might have the infection in which case, they certainly will spread the virus by touching all those surfaces that people touch in the regular course of attending Mass. Things which those healthy people touch with their hands, not their tongues. Your point would be valid ONLY if people opened the doors with their tongues, and licked the missallettes. That doesn’t happen in any Catholic church I’ve ever attended.
The other false assumption is that Communion on the tongue is likely to cause contact between the communicant’s tongue and the priest’s fingers. This is not true. It is nothing more than a scare tactic used by people who don’t like reception on the tongue. In an earlier post, you said “I have been licked, bitten and/or slobbered on times too numerous to mention.” That tells us that either you don’t know how to distribute Communion properly or you’re just trying to scare people by making Communion on the tongue sound more like a trip to pick-up a new puppy. I distribute Communion on the tongue every day. I don’t get “licked, bitten, and/or slobbered on.” Contact with the communicant’s tongue is very very unlikely–at least if we want to have an honest conversation here. Contact with the upper portion of the communicant’s mouth is so absurd as to not deserve being dignified with a response.
- Status