So you basically see some of the same things I saw. I took it more as an affirmation of Communion on the tongue. I had forgotten the “it may be helpful” part, but I sure got the impression that the Cardinal believed in supporting the right to receive as one wants.
There is no “right to receive as one wants” There is a right to receive Communion which applies to Catholics who are properly disposed. There is a right to a licit celebration of the Sacraments. The Church does say clearly that there is a right to receive on the tongue. The option of receiving on tongue or hand is an option which belongs to the individual communicant, provided that this is permitted in that place, and provided that it is done w/o any danger of disrespect, but it’s not a “right.”
I appreciate your example, but anecdotal evidence doesn’t really prove anything. Not everyone is you.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.
A major typo and a reversal of what I meant. ( My wife can’t stand it when I do this.)
Fair enough. But keep in mind, I wasn’t trying to “prove” anything. Just sharing an experience.I appreciate your example, but anecdotal evidence doesn’t really prove anything. Not everyone is you.
Whew. That’s a relief.
I’ve often wondered about that. The hand sanitizers I’ve seen say that they work against bacteria but say nothing about being effective against viruses. The flu-formerly-known-as-swine-flu is caused by a virus. I wonder if these things to anything beyond making us feel better, and possible keeping us from spreading other bacteria?
From what I have read, you have to get up above 60-70% concentration, but then they are effective. Also, nothing beats proper hand-washing.
I take issue with the use of the word “right.” Just because something may be permitted under certain circumstances, does not mean that this is a right.
* 3 years agoAlso, this site on controling avian viruses.avian-influenza-disinfectant.com/avian_influenza.htm
While this is a commercial application, it does show that viruses can be be disinfected.
In other words, it is necessary to have a combination of getting the santitizer well into the the prints and folds of the skin on your hand and keeping it there long enough and in a sufficient quantity to do the job.
I just ppsted the links so that no one thinks there is no point in anything, as was done in the earlier post. Not only am I not a doctor, this is not the place for medical advice. I think we all need to be cautious about say something is useless.