Is anyone changing the way they receive communion because of the swine flu?

[FrDavid96]

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.

Lily,
The issue here is to realize where the virus IS at the time of Communion. According to the Centers for Disease Control and the American Society of Microbiology, most people pickup the flu virus with their hands from hard surfaces, then later transfer the virus to openings in the body. A person may have hands covered in a virus but will never get sick unless and until the virus has the opportunity to enter the body. But in the meantime, the viruses on the hands can be spread to other people.

Yes, the mouth is much more likely to be a breeding ground for viruses (actually more of a source than a breeding ground) as compared to the hand. But that only applies if the individual person is actually infected with the virus. The only way the virus gets to be in the mouth is if that person is infected in the first place and the virus is multiplying within that person’s internal systems. Healthy people don’t transfer the virus via mouth, but certainly do transfer it via the hands.

It is very easy to distribute Holy Communion on the tongue without the danger of coming into contact with the tongue. It is no more likely to touch the communicant’s tongue than it is the hand.

 

[WhollyRoamin]

A good analysis of transmitting swine flu through reception on the tongue/hand is at the website Unam Sanctam Catholicam.
unamsanctamcatholicam.blogspot.com/2009/05/more-swine-flu.html

So I went to noon Mass at a chapel near my work this afternoon and the priest announced that “by order of the Bishop” communion would only be offered in the palm, citing concerns about swine flu. You could hear the congregation sigh; it is a fairly devout chapel where most communions are on the tongue. The priest had a smirk on his face which looked somewhat amused but also forlorn, as if the absurdity of the whole situation would be comic if it weren’t so serious a matter: communion in the palm or none at all. Some attendees were very troubled by this; I saw one woman who went up to communion nervously examining her palms at least twice after returning to her seat and then sticking them under her arms, the way we do when we are trying to hide our hands for some reason.

And why, you ask, was I watching other people and not praying after communion? Because I didn’t receive. I made up my mind years ago that I was never going to receive on the hand again after I became convinced that it promoted irreverence, and upon being told that I had to receive on the hand I opted to not receive at all. Interestingly enough, I had a great tangible consolation after leaving Mass, the consolation of feeling that I’d done the right thing and been blessed for it. I was thankful that I was not in the position of the other woman, a worried look on her face anxiously examining her palms.

Maybe I’m an idiot, but to me reception in the hand is much more unsanitary than reception on the tongue. Is the idea that the priest’s finger might touch your tongue and he might catch what you have? In the eight years I have been a practicing Catholic I can think of only one time out of the thousand of communions I have made that the priest’s finger touched my tongue; oh wait, it was the finger of an EMHC, not a priest. Come to think of it, no priest has ever touched my tongue. I’m sure it happens, but I’m guessing very infrequently. Priests put communion in people’s mouths for a living; they are competent enough to do it without getting slobber on their fingers. If anyone says the issue is about saliva, I think that is very disingenuous, especially when referring to the reception of the sacred host (versus from the chalice). There is virtually no saliva transmission via communion on the tongue.

Perhaps the idea is that the person, when opening their mouth to receive, will breathe on the priest and spread a virus that way. Okay, first off, let’s agree that when we say “breathe on” we mean exhale, right? To breathe on something or someone is nothing other than to exhale. And when do we exhale? Does anybody exhale immediately after opening your mouth? Try opening your mouth right now as if you were receiving communion - don’t you kind of instinctively inhale when opening your mouth? Now try to open your mouth an exhale simultaneously - you can do it, but doesn’t it feel weird and unnatural? Who exhales the second they open their mouth?

“Yes, Boniface, but if you’ve had your mouth open for a time, then it is natural to exhale with your mouth open.”

Point granted. But, who stands in line with their mouth open before they get up to receive? You’d look like an *** doing that and nobody does it in reality. Furthermore, you have to say “amen” when the priest says “Body of Christ,” so even if you did have your mouth open, you’d have to close it momentarily to say “amen,” so the mouth does not open really until the moment when the host is coming towards your it - at which point, as I explained above, it is very unnatural to exhale. It would necessitate you saying “Amen” and the immediately opening your mouth and exhaling just as someone is putting something into it. Try doing that now: say “amen,” then immediately open your mouth and exhale. Who would receive like that?

And who exhales when something is being put into their mouth anyway? Do you exhale while eating putting a cracker into your mouth? What about while drinking something? I’m not being facetious with this emphasis on exhaling, because exhaling is what would spread a virus most likely, not a very unlikely contact with saliva.

One other thing: which is dirtier, the human hand or the human tongue? Isn’t the single biggest factor in human hygienic improvement in the last century the fact that people learned to wash their hands? As one person said in my combox to another post (sarcastically), “Because you know, hands are clean and sanitary, because they don’t touch thousands of nasty, public objects all day long. And tongues are dirty because they’re not tucked away safely, and they aren’t covered in enzymes that sanitize and destroy contaminants.” If a priest did accidentally touch a tongue, it would be a lot less worse than accidentally touching a hand!

When giving communion, what is more probable, that a priest will accidentally touch a tongue or a hand?

What is more unsanitary, a tongue or a hand? The tongue is encased in sanitizing enzymes - but who usually washes their hands before Mass?

I think this directive (if it is a real directive since there is nothing on the diocesan wesbite about it) is not well thought out and very illogical. Besides, if someone in the congregation did have swine flu, don’t you think even if everybody received on the hand and didn’t shake at the passing of the peace that just the fact of being in a cramped room with hundreds of people would be dangerous enough? One of the symptoms of swine flu is excessive coughing. So, nevermind that the guy two pews behind you is coughing nonstop all Mass long - as long as we have communion in the hand everything is okay! Never waste a crisis.

Well, okay, whatever.

 

[Jenny_Z]

So US cases have jumped to around 700, with a huge spike in Illinois of 200…

 

[Cat]

As long as we’re passing around conspiracy theories here, I’ll throw in mine.

I believe most of the precautions in public places are implemented out of fear of lawyers and lawsuits rather than the fear of disease.

That’s why the schools are closed. If a child were to catch swine flu and have complications (or die), the lawyers would swarm in upon the parents and fill them with stories about the necessity for suing and making sure that this never happens to another innocent boy or girl again.

On March 25, I had elective surgery on my ankle to repair a torn posterior tibialis and to insert a titanium orthotic.

A few days after the surgery, my husband was rear-ended on his way home from the skating rink. (The driver was drunk–at 9:00 in the morning! Disgusting. Good thing I wasn’t along–I would have cried MURDER and demanded her immediate arrest. As it was, she stalled and stalled and STALLED about calling the police, and finally she agreed with my husband to call the police, but by then, her EtOH level was probably low enough to pass the test. Disgraceful.)

Anyway, my husband called home to tell me about the delay. A few hours later, someone called our house for some reason. I told them that he was delayed because of a car accident and that I was home recovering from surgery.

The very next DAY we started receiving letters from lawyers asking if I would like to be represented after my “accident and injury!”

Those barracudas were literally surrounding us, chomping their sharp teeth at the prospect of a juicy lawsuit and another yacht!

I honestly think that if I had said “yes” to any of them, they would have found a way to connect my surgery with that car accident, and my husband and I would be much richer now!

 

[pnewton]

Those barracudas were literally surrounding us, chomping their sharp teeth at the prospect of a juicy lawsuit and another yacht!

LOL, I had to apologize just yesterday for being nasty to lawyers in too general a fashion. It is funny how most Americans hold the same opinion, yet we keep electing them to public office.

I think you have a good point, though an unavoidable one. Bishops are not epidemiologists, lawyers or physicians. They have to rely on what others tell them and sometimes get faulty advice. We should be understanding and top being so obstinate. This too shall pass.

 

[Cat]

LOL, I had to apologize just yesterday for being nasty to lawyers in too general a fashion. It is funny how most Americans hold the same opinion, yet we keep electing them to public office.

I think you have a good point, though an unavoidable one. Bishops are not epidemiologists, lawyers or physicians. They have to rely on what others tell them and sometimes get faulty advice. We should be understanding and top being so obstinate. This too shall pass.

This is a wonderful post with such a lovely attitude from pnewton, as usual!

I’m sure a lot of the bishops wonder if things are just a little over-the-top in this swine flu scare, but they really can’t ignore the advice of the Public Health Departments in their dioceses without making themselves and their Church look uncaring. As Catholics in the U.S., we have the obligation to respect our governments, and I think that’s what many bishops are trying to do.

 

[Aramis]

My employer, the Anchorage School District, is instructing parents of children with influenza (ANY influenza) to keep them home for a week. Same with employees.

As far as deaths, tuesday CNN reported a second death in the US; a woman with compromised immune response. They also reported a USN vessel with swine flu outbreak.

The guardian also reports the navy vessel: guardian.co.uk/world/2009/may/06/us-navy-halts-warship-swine-flu

and the death reported hurriyet.com.tr/english/world/11594347.asp?scr=1

 

[Lux_et_Tenebrae]

No, your response is based on a few false-assumptions.

Allow me to explain it to you: the danger of spreading this disease in church comes not so much from one infected person giving it directly to another person. The real danger is in the viruses spreading around the place by surfaces, handshakes, etc. etc. Communion in the hand encourages this spread because people are more likely to be carriers of the virus before they are even infected with the flu.

Do you know the difference between first hand and second hand contact? Certainly they stress the danger of second hand contact because they are assuming you will not be having first hand contact. The germs may be transmitted by hand, but it is a definite if someone sneezes in your face. I certainly will not refuse to distribute on the tongue, but I would much rather distribute by hand, especially during the flu season. And all you need is one infected person to contaminate a whole ciborium, if there is an accidental saliva transfer.

Contact with the upper portion of the communicant’s mouth is so absurd as to not deserve being dignified with a response.

Really? As I said before, many people (especially the elderly or sick) who receive on the tongue do not open their mouth wide enough, or close it too quickly, and their upper teeth (which are part of their upper mouth) do touch my fingers.

Lux

 

[EasterJoy]

As I said before, many people (especially the elderly or sick) who receive on the tongue do not open their mouth wide enough, or close it too quickly, and their upper teeth (which are part of their upper mouth) do touch my fingers.

Lux

A priest I know had a name for women who wore lipstick and closed their mouths too quickly after receving on the tongue: “Red Snappers”.
He hated how quick he had to be to keep from getting lipstick on his fingers.

Still, I’m hoping that since this flu is turning out to be much less deadly than feared, the restrictions might be gone soon.
Using earthquake parlance, it is looking less and less like The Big One that everyone knows will come someday.

 

[preV2tradcath]

FrDavid, I believe you are right on this issue. Thank you. It is great to know of priests like you.

 

[benedictgal]

At Mass today, we returned to receiving under both species and, many of us received on the tongue (including me). My parochial vicar said that we should not succumb to hysteria.

 

[Jenny_Z]

FYI, I received on the tongue today, and the priests finger did catch my tongue ever so slightly. For those that doubt it happens.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

Also, in giving Communion I frequently found may fingers dampened by aerosols in the breath of the recipient. [A nuisance because it tends to make the host cling to the minister’s fingers.] I presume that those aerosols are capable of carrying flu virus.

 

[pnewton]

We are receiving only under one kind now, not holding or shaking hands, and reception in hand is requested, though not mandated. I do not really mind one bit. Hysteria or not, this too shall pass.

 

[FrDavid96]

We are receiving only under one kind now, not holding or shaking hands, and reception in hand is requested, though not mandated. I do not really mind one bit. Hysteria or not, this too shall pass.

I rather doubt anyone can “request” that Communion be administered in the hand. I think that it’s a given no one can “mandate” it, but I personally think that even to request it is not something permitted by the Church, given the fact that on-the-tongue is the universal norm of the Church, and has even been defined by the Church as a right more than once.

 

[EasterJoy]

I rather doubt anyone can “request” that Communion be administered in the hand. I think that it’s a given no one can “mandate” it, but I personally think that even to request it is not something permitted by the Church, given the fact that on-the-tongue is the universal norm of the Church, and has even been defined by the Church as a right more than once.

Again: we have a right to the sacraments, too, but even the public celebration of Mass may be temporarily suspended for grave reasons. I cannot imagine that the bishops do not have the perogative to suspend distribution of communion on the tongue for a limited amount of time, when the difference could literally be between life and death.

If the Vatican did not concur with this, we would have heard about it by now. I believe that if any bishops attempt to abuse their authority in this matter, they will hear from Rome.

 

[FrDavid96]

At this weekend’s Masses I made a point of paying attention to just how much contact goes on at Communion time.

Not once did my fingers contact any part of anyone’s mouth when distributing on the tongue.

About 2 out of every 3 people who received in the hand had some kind of contact with my fingers.

I made it a point to avoid contact using either method, so I am admitting up-front that I was more particular about this than usual.

Interrestingly, the I found that the least likely method for coming into contact with the communicant was when they received on the tongue and kneeling. Afterwards, I thought about this and realized the reason. When people are standing, they are “in motion” the transition from standing to walking is so natural that many people hardly even come to a full stop when receiving Communion–especially those receiving in the hand. If there were a red sign at the altar rails, I would have written a lot of tickets for a “California stop.” On the other hand, when people are kneeling, there is some effort involved in transitioning from kneeling to walking. People who receive kneeling are more likely to “be still” when they do so.

What I noticed is that whatever method is used, the real “culprit” for contact between the fingers and the communicant is motion. Most of the contact with communicants hands had little to do with the method of placing the host, and much more to do with how quickly the communicant moved his hands–either the motion of the hands themselves, or the movement of the whole body.

And just for the record, I was not once licked, bitten, or slobbered upon.

 

[pnewton]

I rather doubt anyone can “request” that Communion be administered in the hand. I think that it’s a given no one can “mandate” it, but I personally think that even to request it is not something permitted by the Church, given the fact that on-the-tongue is the universal norm of the Church, and has even been defined by the Church as a right more than once.

Here is the link to the diocese. I do not link to the pdf, because I can’t stand them and have to save them first before opening. They are a pain.

diogh.org/

Not only can he, he did. In doing so, he actually reaffirms the right to receive in the hand. I know this sounds silly, but from some of the andecdotes that are posted here, an occasional priest needs to be reminded of this.

I do not see Redemptonius Sacramentuum as being applicable. Any such disiplinary document must be considered in its context. In this case, it was issued to correct abuses, not advise in the case of an epidemic. I have no way of knowing which method is safer, but I am smart enough to know it is a medical question, not a theological one.

 

[FrDavid96]

Here is the link to the diocese. I do not link to the pdf, because I can’t stand them and have to save them first before opening. They are a pain.

diogh.org/

Not only can he, he did. In doing so, he actually reaffirms the right to receive in the hand. I know this sounds silly, but from some of the andecdotes that are posted here, an occasional priest needs to be reminded of this.

I do not see Redemptonius Sacramentuum as being applicable. Any such disiplinary document must be considered in its context. In this case, it was issued to correct abuses, not advise in the case of an epidemic. I have no way of knowing which method is safer, but I am smart enough to know it is a medical question, not a theological one.

Thanks for the link. I am going to comment from a purely academic point-of-view and NOT as a comment on what any particular bishop (especially a Cardinal!) is doing.

The letter specifically says “Though I am not demanding it, it may be helpful, for the time being, for persons to receive Holy Communion in the hand.”

1. He is certainly not demanding it–but we all know that’s a given.
2. He’s also not requesting that communion be distributed in the hand (that was my original point). If we read his words carefully, we can all see that he isn’t doing that.
3. “It may be helpful” is not a very definitive statement. It may be helpful, or it may prove not-to-be-helpful. He. is not making any claims that it will be helpful.
4. There is no “right” to receive in the hand. It is an exception to the norm that is permitted by indult, and only in the absence of any danger of disrespect for the Eucharist. Posters here occasionally need to be reminded of this. There is no such thing as a right to receive in the hand.

If you can show me where the Church says that reception in the hand is “a right” I’ll give you a turkey.

 

[redrosetea]

At this weekend’s Masses I made a point of paying attention to just how much contact goes on at Communion time.

Not once did my fingers contact any part of anyone’s mouth when distributing on the tongue.

About 2 out of every 3 people who received in the hand had some kind of contact with my fingers.

I made it a point to avoid contact using either method, so I am admitting up-front that I was more particular about this than usual.

Interrestingly, the I found that the least likely method for coming into contact with the communicant was when they received on the tongue and kneeling. Afterwards, I thought about this and realized the reason. When people are standing, they are “in motion” the transition from standing to walking is so natural that many people hardly even come to a full stop when receiving Communion–especially those receiving in the hand. If there were a red sign at the altar rails, I would have written a lot of tickets for a “California stop.” On the other hand, when people are kneeling, there is some effort involved in transitioning from kneeling to walking. People who receive kneeling are more likely to “be still” when they do so.

What I noticed is that whatever method is used, the real “culprit” for contact between the fingers and the communicant is motion. Most of the contact with communicants hands had little to do with the method of placing the host, and much more to do with how quickly the communicant moved his hands–either the motion of the hands themselves, or the movement of the whole body.

And just for the record, I was not once licked, bitten, or slobbered upon.

Fr.you have got a steady hand…we had a priest with Parkinson’s disease and the poor guy couldn’t manage to do this. I am sure he did his best but I wouldn’t receive on the tongue from him for anything