New priest conundrum

[ProVobis]

Whether it’s scientific or not, there is a general perception that the direct exchange of saliva or other bodily fluids is more of a risk than a secondary exchange. Mono for instance is more transferable through kissing than through normal non intimate exchanges between people.

Perhaps that is modern legend but it does seem to be supported by medical evidence.

Doesn’t medical evidence also suggest it is one’s immune system which determines whether the disease gets transmitted to him or not? There are a number of ways which it can be done, but proximity to the disease is a big factor, of course, so doesn’t it make sense that if it’s a deadly disease, people should avoid ANY contact, even airborne?

 

[OraLabora]

every Catholic cannot be denied receiving communion on the tongue, even when there is H1N1, etc.

Not necessarily true unless one is bent on sticking to the letter of the Law, something that Jesus warned against.

This analysis I think is closer to the truth:

In contagions that spread through physical contact, some bishops have eliminated the sign of peace at Mass or mandated that it be done through a simple bow or some similar gesture toward those nearest rather than through a handshake or embrace.

Some bishops have temporarily forbidden Communion on the tongue during epidemics.

Some deny that it is within the bishop’s authority to make such a blanket prohibition. In 2009, during a severe flu epidemic, the Congregation for Divine Worship reiterated in a private letter (Prot. N 655/09/L) that the faithful always and everywhere have the right to receive on the tongue (Redemptionis Sacramentum, No. 92).

At the same time, in truly grave circumstances – for example, a deadly infection that is spread almost exclusively through body fluids – it is difficult to sustain that a bishop would not be able to suspend such general laws for the sake of the common good.

In similar circumstances bishops in various parts of the world have even gone so far as to cancel all public Masses in a diocese so as to prevent contagion. Attendance at Sunday Mass is a higher law than that regarding the manner of receiving Communion. Thus if there is no doubt regarding a bishop’s authority to do the former, it certainly falls within his province to do the latter.

In both cases, however, prudence is required. Such actions should not be taken lightly. They should be backed up by medical recommendations regarding the real danger of contagion and should be for the minimum time necessary.

In this case the faithful, even if they prefer to receive Communion on the tongue, should accept the bishop’s mandate as an act of charity toward others in avoiding all possible danger to themselves and others.

Some writers argue that in some kind of infections Communion in the hand is no safer than Communion on the tongue. It is possible, but I do not have the necessary medical knowledge to enter into that discussion.

Source: zenit.org/en/articles/ministering-to-ebola-patients

 

[OraLabora]

Of course, our reason also tells us that our hands are hosts to a multitude of bacteria and viruses which can transmit diseases and that there is a lot of accidental touching of peoples’ hands while distributing communion in the hands. Therefore, using the logic presented in your post and mine, if there is a deadly contagious virus circulating the local population, then shouldn’t communion of the faithful be suspended all together, so has not to contribute to the spread of disease?

Depending on the severity, it is possible to cancel all public Masses altogether as pointed out in the Zenit link provided by Brendan. It is certainly within the bishop’s mandate do to so.

In reality it should depend on the severity of the situation and mode of transmission. Most bacteria and viruses that are on the hand aren’t an issue for the healthy; we are exposed to many bugs every day and we don’t even notice it. But some are potentially lethal even for healthy individuals. During the H1N1 episode, the abbot at our abbey (who is the Ordinary of the place, with most of the authority of a bishop for his abbey), suspended the sign of the peace and communion on the tongue.

But he did so after consulting with government public health officials. He himself is not a health expert, but he had to weigh the risks and he wisely sought professional help to do so. In effect, he exercised a prudential judgement after obtaining all the medical information available to him, from a trusted source.

In cases like that, I believe it falls on the laity to respect and obey his judgement in all humility.

Laws can be suspended for just cause, by those in a position to decide. Again, common sense has to prevail and as the link from Zenit says, the decisions shouldn’t be taken lightly. I think that by consulting with public officials, our abbot did not take the decision lightly but instead formed his conscience using the best available information.

 

[wild_thing]

I will pray that you are able to discern God’s will in your situation.

 

[punisherthunder]

According to Cardinal Arinze, you cannot be denied Communion on the tongue or on your knees anywhere in the world! He says that any priest who denies this is directly disobeying the Church.

I suggest contacting the Bishop.

 

[LongingSoul]

Doesn’t medical evidence also suggest it is one’s immune system which determines whether the disease gets transmitted to him or not? There are a number of ways which it can be done, but proximity to the disease is a big factor, of course, so doesn’t it make sense that if it’s a deadly disease, people should avoid ANY contact, even airborne?

I’m a little baffled as to why this has become such a convoluted difficult question. Deadly diseases of course warrant some kind of quarantine and segregation but some diseases while not deadly to the majority are deadly to some like the elderly and small infants. I once watched a doco about the Dr. who ‘invented’ handwashing in hospitals and how it drastically changed the spread and prognosis of disease 160 years ago. Today it’s not that bizarre to be cautious about a practice that involves the transfer of saliva such as communion on the tongue in Catholic Mass as a significant measure in reducing spread of some new or particularly nasty virus. Because of knowledge of the spread of virus and bacteria, it falls within the realm of common sense to address these things.

 

[ProVobis]

Today it’s not that bizarre to be cautious about a practice that involves the transfer of saliva such as communion on the tongue in Catholic Mass as a significant measure in reducing spread of some new or particularly nasty virus. Because of knowledge of the spread of virus and bacteria, it falls within the realm of common sense to address these things.

It seems clear that you’re arguing against reception of the sacrament by tongue, and it’s your right to do that. But shouldn’t we be worried about setting up some false sense of security formed by setting up alternate methods of receiving, unless it involves a spiritual communion?

 

[LongingSoul]

It seems clear that you’re arguing against reception of the sacrament by tongue, and it’s your right to do that. But shouldn’t we be worried about setting up some false sense of security formed by setting up alternate methods of receiving, unless it involves a spiritual communion?

It’s actually the other way around. I’m saying that communion in the hand is not a divine right like the right to life. It is justified through Church laws by the welfare of the Church and the communion of Saints. The threads that get started are ones where someone is distressed by decisions to suspend communion on the tongue for practical health reasons concerning the congregation or for abuses of the communion procession by some other agenda than the wellbeing of the Church community… their argument being that communion on the tongue is some sort of divine right.

I’m arguing against that divine right belief because it is not supported by either reason or faith.

 

[ProVobis]

It’s actually the other way around. I’m saying that communion in the hand is not a divine right like the right to life. It is justified through Church laws by the welfare of the Church and the communion of Saints. The threads that get started are ones where someone is distressed by decisions to suspend communion on the tongue for practical health reasons concerning the congregation or for abuses of the communion procession by some other agenda than the wellbeing of the Church community… their argument being that communion on the tongue is some sort of divine right.

I’m arguing against that divine right belief because it is not supported by either reason or faith.

Okay, but for the record, I don’t believe “divine right” has been mentioned on this thread.

And btw, we’re not all saints yet, but the welfare of the Church is a fair point.

 

[808Catholic]

Personally, I believe that the respectful and fair way to deal with anyone when you have a disagreement is to speak with that person first and allow them the opportunity to explain their position to you. If you are not satsfied after that then take it higher up.

I agreed with you. There’s a Biblical procedure: first speak to the person you have a dispute with one on one, then, if there is no resolution, bring someone else to hear the dispute. If there’s still no resolution, take the matter to the Church (bishop or priest) and have them hear the dispute. If still not resolved, walk away (find a new parish).

I like to add: before and after each meeting pray. Prayer invites God into our lives and reminds us to do everything with Him in mind so we can put aside our petty thoughts and feelings.

 

[EasterJoy]

I agreed with you. There’s a Biblical procedure: first speak to the person you have a dispute with one on one, then, if there is no resolution, bring someone else to hear the dispute. If there’s still no resolution, take the matter to the Church (bishop or priest) and have them hear the dispute. If still not resolved, walk away (find a new parish).

I like to add: before and after each meeting pray. Prayer invites God into our lives and reminds us to do everything with Him in mind so we can put aside our petty thoughts and feelings.

That is the procedure for a personal dispute, but when your pastor is making public comments, that is a *little *different. It seems prudent to me to make certain you won’t be the twelfth person to say the same thing and get the same response. (The poor man!)

For the OP, it turns out that she sits on committees with him and knows the priest personally. Were she a friend of mine, I’d ask her why she does not feel comfortable just coming out and asking him at some time it would be discrete to do so. She may have seen others try this, and would respond with a big, “No, thank you!” She may be shy, though, and so she may be asking us whether she has any standing to even ask about this. I agree with you that this should normally be the first step.

Generally speaking, though, when I notice something about our pastor, I find I’m rarely the first to notice it. I would be careful not to get into the gossip mill, but I would ask around a little bit so that I’d avoid being the tenth person in a row to ask our poor new pastor same question. If someone was already going to the chancery office, I’d not want to pile on to that, either.

On the other hand, I have known priests who worked as vicar of clergy. If the person coming to them wants advice on how to proceed, that is OK. That is far different than the person they dread seeing coming, the one who marches in and saying, “This priest you guys sent out doesn’t do what I like, like Fr. X did! Make him do it right!!” They get this over everything from music selection to the color of the priest’s footwear. (I wish I were kidding about that.)

Some bishops will have a certain way they want their pastors to do things, and they want to know when priests refuse to do it and especially when they refuse even when the parishioner pressure has been in favor of what the bishop wants. Some bishops have more of an attitude that in a city with parishes that are close, it is OK for one parish to have this personality and another that personality, and people choosing which one suits them best–whatever helps the faithful to avail themselves of the sacraments and to be active in the Christian life together.

As for things which are rights of the faithful–this includes receiving Holy Communion on the tongue, under normal circumstances–those are in a class by themselves. When the Church spells out your rights, that means you do not have to give that thing up in order to placate someone else’s personal preferences. Sometimes it simply isn’t possible to provide what the faithful have the right to have at the time and place the faithful want it; that is not what I mean. I mean they cannot just deny your rights because they don’t think you need to have what you have a right to have.

I double agree with you on the advice to pray before, pray during, and pray after. There is no substitute for that!

 

[EasterJoy]

I’m a little baffled as to why this has become such a convoluted difficult question. Deadly diseases of course warrant some kind of quarantine and segregation but some diseases while not deadly to the majority are deadly to some like the elderly and small infants. I once watched a doco about the Dr. who ‘invented’ handwashing in hospitals and how it drastically changed the spread and prognosis of disease 160 years ago. Today it’s not that bizarre to be cautious about a practice that involves the transfer of saliva such as communion on the tongue in Catholic Mass as a significant measure in reducing spread of some new or particularly nasty virus. Because of knowledge of the spread of virus and bacteria, it falls within the realm of common sense to address these things.

Depending on what study you believe, we live in a world where 10-40% of women and 25-60% of men do not wash their hands after they use the restroom, even though it is typical for over 90% to say that they do if they are asked. You’d think there would be* E. coli *epidemics running wild everywhere, but there usually aren’t. In spite of the chances of picking up a disease by sharing a drinking vessel, the CDC found in one of its studies that people who regularly partake of a common cup at church do not suffer from a higher percentage of communicable diseases than people who do not.

It is not actually according to common sense, then, that receiving Holy Communion on the tongue presents a health hazard so significant that the practice ought to be prohibited entirely. Why? Because there aren’t any studies that show it results in a higher overall risk of catching a disease than refraining from it. We may as well say that common sense requires that lettuce from the grocery store needs to be boiled before it is eaten. The knowledge of the spread of diseases might suggest that, but experience does not reveal that lettuce is a common health threat. We cannot possibly avoid all the things that could allow us to be exposed to bacteria or viruses, and we probably wouldn’t want to, if we could.

 

[OraLabora]

Depending on what study you believe, we live in a world where 10-40% of women and 25-60% of men do not wash their hands after they use the restroom, even though it is typical for over 90% to say that they do if they are asked. You’d think there would be* E. coli *epidemics running wild everywhere, but there usually aren’t. In spite of the chances of picking up a disease by sharing a drinking vessel, the CDC found in one of its studies that people who regularly partake of a common cup at church do not suffer from a higher percentage of communicable diseases than people who do not.

It is not actually according to common sense, then, that receiving Holy Communion on the tongue presents a health hazard so significant that the practice ought to be prohibited entirely. Why? Because there aren’t any studies that show it results in a higher overall risk of catching a disease than refraining from it. We may as well say that common sense requires that lettuce from the grocery store needs to be boiled before it is eaten. The knowledge of the spread of diseases might suggest that, but experience does not reveal that lettuce is a common health threat. We cannot possibly avoid all the things that could allow us to be exposed to bacteria or viruses, and we probably wouldn’t want to, if we could.

I don’t think the issue is with the common stuff to which we are all invariably exposed and to which we all develop some degree of immunity.

When it comes to things like H1N1 and ebola, we are dealing with particularly nasty viruses, some of which can mutate rapidly and thus beat our immune systems.

Common sense would actually dictate that we err on the side of caution. We can’t extrapolate the experience of common microbes to unusual and particularly dangerous ones.

 

[EasterJoy]

It’s actually the other way around. I’m saying that communion in the hand is not a divine right like the right to life. It is justified through Church laws by the welfare of the Church and the communion of Saints. The threads that get started are ones where someone is distressed by decisions to suspend communion on the tongue for practical health reasons concerning the congregation or for abuses of the communion procession by some other agenda than the wellbeing of the Church community… their argument being that communion on the tongue is some sort of divine right.

I’m arguing against that divine right belief because it is not supported by either reason or faith.

Why split hairs over the origin of one of the rights of the faithful when there is no question about whether or not it is in fact a right? The Church has recognized that to receive Holy Communion on the tongue according to the longstanding tradition of the Church is a right of the faithful. Should someone belong to a jurisdiction in which the bishops conference has obtained permission for communion to be received in the hand, that is also a choice that cannot be denied arbitrarily by the minister.

Although each of the faithful always has the right to receive Holy Communion on the tongue, at his choice,[178] if any communicant should wish to receive the Sacrament in the hand, in areas where the Bishops’ Conference with the recognitio of the Apostolic See has given permission, the sacred host is to be administered to him or her. However, special care should be taken to ensure that the host is consumed by the communicant in the presence of the minister, so that no one goes away carrying the Eucharistic species in his hand. If there is a risk of profanation, then Holy Communion should not be given in the hand to the faithful.[179]
–Instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum, 2004
178) Cf. Missale Romanum, Institutio Generalis, n. 161
179) Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, Dubium: Notitiae 35 (1999) pp. 160-161.

The reasons for which bishops can suspend the reception of Holy Communion on the tongue are not substantially different that the reasons that the bishops could suspend the public celebration of the Mass itself, which includes acute risks to life such as the risk of spreading serious epidemic diseases.

 

[LongingSoul]

Depending on what study you believe, we live in a world where 10-40% of women and 25-60% of men do not wash their hands after they use the restroom, even though it is typical for over 90% to say that they do if they are asked. You’d think there would be* E. coli *epidemics running wild everywhere, but there usually aren’t. In spite of the chances of picking up a disease by sharing a drinking vessel, the CDC found in one of its studies that people who regularly partake of a common cup at church do not suffer from a higher percentage of communicable diseases than people who do not.

It is not actually according to common sense, then, that receiving Holy Communion on the tongue presents a health hazard so significant that the practice ought to be prohibited entirely. Why? Because there aren’t any studies that show it results in a higher overall risk of catching a disease than refraining from it. We may as well say that common sense requires that lettuce from the grocery store needs to be boiled before it is eaten. The knowledge of the spread of diseases might suggest that, but experience does not reveal that lettuce is a common health threat. We cannot possibly avoid all the things that could allow us to be exposed to bacteria or viruses, and we probably wouldn’t want to, if we could.

The experience we had in this country with swine flu and at the moment with the yearly peoples show (carnival) passes through town, and advocated by the medical experts, involved things like putting bottle soap on counters at cafes and shops… putting perspex covers on buffet serveries… signs in schools discouraging children from sharing drinks and foods… signs to remind to take greater care with coughing and sneezing and lots of other little adjustments to regular life in the light of the presence of severe communicable diseases.

Perhaps that was overkill by the Australian establishment and didn’t happen in the US but it makes sense to me in the light of the this countries greater caution around times where viruses were more rampant, that communion on the tongue would be naturally addressed because of the increased risk of direct saliva contact. It seems there may be a discrepancy in how our countries perceive this type of disease control.

 

[EasterJoy]

I don’t think the issue is with the common stuff to which we are all invariably exposed and to which we all develop some degree of immunity.

When it comes to things like H1N1 and ebola, we are dealing with particularly nasty viruses, some of which can mutate rapidly and thus beat our immune systems.

Common sense would actually dictate that we err on the side of caution. We can’t extrapolate the experience of common microbes to unusual and particularly dangerous ones.

If Ebola were going around, it is hardly unlikely they’d be temporarily suspending the public celebration of the Mass itself, not just Holy Communion on the hand or on the tongue. But yes, the bishops have the duty and authority to conclude that a lesser suspension of what is normally a right has become necessary for some period of time. You are right: common sense can discern those times when the perfect should not be allowed to become the enemy of the good.

 

[OraLabora]

You are right: common sense can discern those times when the perfect should not be allowed to become the enemy of the good.

Thanks, I like the way you put that!

 

[biffoqueen]

In Ireland it’s different we can’t really change parish our parish is the one we live in. Each priest is different and works in different ways maybe just give him time he may well be a excellent priest for your parish.

 

[paperwight66]

In Ireland it’s different we can’t really change parish our parish is the one we live in. Each priest is different and works in different ways maybe just give him time he may well be a excellent priest for your parish.

But you can travel to another parish, surely?

 

[Dulcinea2721]

For the OP, it turns out that she sits on committees with him and knows the priest personally. Were she a friend of mine, I’d ask her why she does not feel comfortable just coming out and asking him at some time it would be discrete to do so. She may have seen others try this, and would respond with a big, “No, thank you!” She may be shy, though, and so she may be asking us whether she has any standing to even ask about this. I agree with you that this should normally be the first step.

Generally speaking, though, when I notice something about our pastor, I find I’m rarely the first to notice it. I would be careful not to get into the gossip mill, but I would ask around a little bit so that I’d avoid being the tenth person in a row to ask our poor new pastor same question. If someone was already going to the chancery office, I’d not want to pile on to that, either.

I double agree with you on the advice to pray before, pray during, and pray after. There is no substitute for that!

I appreciate your comment. here is a bit of an explanation of my thoughts.

My reason for posting here is to **avoid **bringing up a non-issue and being a nuisance to a new priest who is very busy getting familiar with the parish. He is a nice guy, easy going and has a lot on his plate (this parish is a one man show: 1 priest,1 part-time secretary and parishioners). I wasn’t sure that my concerns were valid.

It was definitely surprising to hear the responses about the " communion on the tongue announcement". I thought maybe it was common, or a new variance…I really did not know it was as categorical as it is.

As for the penitential rite, I was perplexed because I grew up in a french home going to french mass and the confiteor is NEVER said there. When I went back to my french mass, I realised that the penitential rite is actually there in a different way. It was not missing from the french mass at all just done differently. Coming home to my english parish I thought something was not right. So I asked the question here and got a very clear answer from one of the first posters.

When I realised that these things are more significant than I had once thought, i wondered what to do about it. I appreciate everyone’s (name removed by moderator)ut.

I have no problem talking to the priest, however if these issues are already being addressed then I will wait and see. ( I may opt to have my daughter do her confirmation at a neighbouring parish). Still praying.

Thank you to everyone for your responses and advice