our parish priest refuses communion in the tongue...

[EasterJoy]

So everyone in the world with the H1N1 got it by receiving communion on the tongue? Shouldn’t be much of a problem then. Does the health department know about this?

This is a bit sarcastic for a charitable forum, wouldn’t you agree?

As it turns out, I have a friend who works as a communications officer in a local county health department.

Again, a person can be contagious for a day or so before being aware of any symptoms. Also, unlike the seasonal flu, which hits older people hardest, this one has hit teens and young adults the hardest. It killed a younger adult in our parish, which would have been very unusual with typical seasonal flu. Also, unlike the usual seasonal flu, for which a vaccine is usually available for the older and the vulnerable, H1N1 proved to be much slower to grow than expected, holding up the vaccine and leaving the population more vulnerable than usual. In other words, it is not inappropriate to ask the faithful to be especially careful this year.

The flu viruses won’t go through your skin, but will typically live on a dry surface for a matter of hours. It certainly possible to get the flu by touching a dry contaminated surface that has been contaminated in the last six or twelve hours, and then transferring the virus to yourself by touching your hand to your eye, nose, or mouth. Still-wet surfaces that were contaminated two minutes ago with saliva are by far, far worse than a dry pew contaminated by a sneeze at the last Mass, but anyone concerned for themselves would be wise to use an effective amount of hand sanitizer before receiving Holy Communion in the hand, if they’ve been touching the pews at a later Mass. (At a vigil or the first morning Mass, the pew surfaces would probably be OK.)

In our parish, the faithful are instructed NOT to touch each other. There is no right to a Sign of Peace by touching, so we are instructed to exchange a sign of peace verbally, or with some sign that doesn’t involve touching. Additionally, anyone who will be distributing Holy Communion uses a good shot of hand santizer before starting, in case he’s picked up something unknowingly. The individual communicant protects him or herself, but the parish tries to protect us from each other.

There is a right to receive Holy Communion on the tongue, however. For this reason, the faithful are being ASKED not to receive Holy Communion on the tongue, so their saliva is less likely to touch the hand of the the minister or extraordinary minister.

I expect this state of affairs will continue at least until the vaccine is widely available. By that time, the chances of any particular person being contagious transferring to a person who wants protection but hasn’t had a chance to be vaccinated will have dropped considerably.

To the OP: Know that you have a right to COTT, but talk to the priest yourself before getting too wound up about this. It may be much ado about nothing in the end. Whatever it is, it is still not something about which we would allow ourselves to be tempted away from charity, right?

If you do decide to change parishes over this, though, there is no offense against charity in that, even if you have never talked to the priest about it. That is OK, too.

The good news is that, in our area at least, H1N1 did not hit in one big widespread blast in most places. One local high school had about 25% infection at one time, but at most places, the level of infection has been gradual. Business and schools have gone on pretty much as usual. The hospitals have not been overwhelmed. Prudent action and prayer have done their work, and for that we should give thanks.

 

[DOShea]

Thus far, no one has produced the document that asked the question of the CDF, so we do not know what issue they were answering regarding COTT. It could have been a question re: H1N1 or it could be responding to ordinary situations with no health issue involved. Until that original question is produced, no one really knows if this is advising to supercede the advice of local health officials or not.

One poster stated the CDF was going to contact all those who have issued guidance that opposes this answer from CDF. Well, they have not, and those guidelines are still in place in my diocese (and 6 others I checked online). That guidance being, that IF the outbreak of this particular virus gets worse and poses increased health problems, COTT is suspended. Thus far it has not gotten to the point where it has been suspended, but it could.

When asked about this in light of the letter from CDF this topic quotes, the Bishop stated the letter does not address situations such as a pandemic or other natural disaster where the everyday norms may not able to be followed even if everyone wanted to, OR a situation where an everyday practice may increase the health risk, as was deemed a possible with this particular virus. Those emergency situations ARE the Bishop’s call to make.

Waiting for the CDF to come “correct” us.

 

[ProVobis]

So you say. Others, including the CDC disagree with you.

CDC just wants to sell its vaccines. I’ve done my own research. Four years of working in chemical and biological laboratories. Electron microscopes, lasers, particle size analysis, supercomputers, you name it. And I didn’t kill any mice or chimpanzees either. One of my lab partners did, though, and I chewed him out for it.

But it’s not about me. Take CITH from an H1N1 person at your own risk.

 

[Hotchkiss]

CDC just wants to sell its vaccines. I’ve done my own research. Four years of working in chemical and biological laboratories. Electron microscopes, lasers, particle size analysis, supercomputers, you name it. And I didn’t kill any mice or chimpanzees either. One of my lab partners did, though, and I chewed him out for it.

But it’s not about me. Take CITH from an H1N1 person at your own risk.

You simply made a statement that is inaccurate to support your personal preference. Your comments about the CDC are ridiculous.

 

[ProVobis]

This is a bit sarcastic for a charitable forum, wouldn’t you agree?

Your post was way too long for me to read but I agree. We’ve all done our best to instill fear upon all churchgoers, whether you prefer CITH or COTT or don’t receive at all. I plead guilty for this lack of charity. How about you?

 

[Brendan]

No one could phsically force me to give communion on the tongue. I would no longer serve as a EM…

So does that mean that you are resigning as an EMHC now, or do you plan to simply walk off the altar if someone desires to recieve COTT?

 

[benedictgal]

Thus far, no one has produced the document that asked the question of the CDF, so we do not know what issue they were answering regarding COTT. It could have been a question re: H1N1 or it could be responding to ordinary situations with no health issue involved. Until that original question is produced, no one really knows if this is advising to supercede the advice of local health officials or not.

One poster stated the CDF was going to contact all those who have issued guidance that opposes this answer from CDF. Well, they have not, and those guidelines are still in place in my diocese (and 6 others I checked online). That guidance being, that IF the outbreak of this particular virus gets worse and poses increased health problems, COTT is suspended. Thus far it has not gotten to the point where it has been suspended, but it could.

When asked about this in light of the letter from CDF this topic quotes, the Bishop stated the letter does not address situations such as a pandemic or other natural disaster where the everyday norms may not able to be followed even if everyone wanted to, OR a situation where an everyday practice may increase the health risk, as was deemed a possible with this particular virus. Those emergency situations ARE the Bishop’s call to make.

Waiting for the CDF to come “correct” us.

Well, with all due respect, it is not the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith that will issue the response; it is the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments. That is one of the questions that I raised when I contacted them this past Monday. They confirmed that COTT should not be suspended.

Obviously, they need to know who is doing (or in this case, not doing) what so that they will inform the dioceses and parishes in question. They have repeatedly stated that if these infractions occur, the faithful should certainly inform them.

In any case, this move is not for the priest nor the bishop to make. The CDWDS has repeatedly stated that the faithful have the right to COTT. In fact, bear in mind that COTT is the norm and CITH is the indult. While CITH is a legitimate option, it cannot be forced on the faithful. Furthermore, because CITH is an indult, this permission can easily be rescinded at any time. Indults are not permanent.

 

[OraLabora]

The efficacy of the sacrament comes from the internal disposition of the communicant towards the receipt of its sanctifying grace, and not the outward appearance of its delivery, tradition notwithstanding.

Never on a forum have I seen so many people so concerned with the latter that they are impeding the former.

Whether you receive on the tongue instead of in the hand (and from what I have seen and heard in my lifetime the former is by far the dirtier organ than the latter) will not make you a better Christian.

Charity though, will. And while receiving on the tongue may be a “right”, for every Catholic, charity is an obligation. Br. JR is correct to be worried that one’s concern for one’s rights may in fact cause one to go over the top and lack charity in one’s response to the alleged breach.

Ora

 

[benedictgal]

The efficacy of the sacrament comes from the internal disposition of the communicant towards the receipt of its sanctifying grace, and not the outward appearance of its delivery, tradition notwithstanding.

Never on a forum have I seen so many people so concerned with the latter that they are impeding the former.

Whether you receive on the tongue instead of in the hand (and from what I have seen and heard in my lifetime the former is by far the dirtier organ than the latter) will not make you a better Christian.

Charity though, will. And while receiving on the tongue may be a “right”, for every Catholic, charity is an obligation. Br. JR is correct to be worried that one’s concern for one’s rights may in fact cause one to go over the top and lack charity in one’s response to the alleged breach.

Ora

However, when a priest or a bishop is overstepping his bounds and going against what the CDWDS has ruled, there is cause to be concerned. He may request, but, he cannot require a communicant to receive CITH.

What we tend to forget here is that the CDWDS has consistently stated and restated that no one is to deny a communicant COTT. In fact, the CDWDS has been very clear about that.

Even if the priest may have good intentions, it is beyond his authority to force a person to receive CITH. Furthermore, conversely, a priest would be wrong if he mandated intinction so as to not allow CITH.

That is what some are failing to understand.

 

[OraLabora]

However, when a priest or a bishop is overstepping his bounds and going against what the CDWDS has ruled, there is cause to be concerned. He may request, but, he cannot require a communicant to receive CITH.

What we tend to forget here is that the CDWDS has consistently stated and restated that no one is to deny a communicant COTT. In fact, the CDWDS has been very clear about that.

Even if the priest may have good intentions, it is beyond his authority to force a person to receive CITH. Furthermore, conversely, a priest would be wrong if he mandated intinction so as to not allow CITH.

That is what some are failing to understand.

The world is filled with imperfections, and the Church is filled with sinners including her clergy. I have seen plenty of abuses in my day and I have usually voted with my feet. That is to say, I moved to a place of worship where there were no abuses rather than create a scandal. That has led me to a Benedictine monastery nearby. Where they have, because of the pandemic, requested communion in the hand, but where, from what I have seen, nobody has been denied communion on the tongue in spite of the request.

Given the exceptional circumstances, though, I consider that those who insist on communion on the tongue during the pandemic are in fact being uncharitable towards both the priests distributing communion, and of course other communicants. It is a particularly deadly strain of virus incidentally, many young healthy people in my area were killed by it. Easter Joy very nicely points out how the virus is transmitted, how a person can be infectious before symptoms start, etc.

Again I stress that nobody is perfect. The Abbey where I worship is very orthodox, and even use Gregorian Chant daily. But they sometimes make mistakes and use the wrong chant, or the wrong reading; once I asked my spiritual director why Father L. used the reading from Year I of the two-year cycle at Vigils when it was Year II and the answer was a straightforward “because Father L. made a mistake”. The priest may be in the wrong wrt Canon Law by insisting on communion in the hand and is thus making a mistake. But the communicant who insists on communion on the tongue during a deadly virus pandemic needs to examine whether being in the right, wrt to Canon Law, does not in fact put him/her in the wrong, morally.

Lest we be considered Pharisees who considered ritual observation to be more important than charity towards others.

Ora

 

[benedictgal]

The world is filled with imperfections, and the Church is filled with sinners including her clergy. I have seen plenty of abuses in my day and I have usually voted with my feet. That is to say, I moved to a place of worship where there were no abuses rather than create a scandal. That has led me to a Benedictine monastery nearby. Where they have, because of the pandemic, requested communion in the hand, but where, from what I have seen, nobody has been denied communion on the tongue in spite of the request.

Given the exceptional circumstances, though, I consider that those who insist on communion on the tongue during the pandemic are in fact being uncharitable towards both the priests distributing communion, and of course other communicants. It is a particularly deadly strain of virus incidentally, many young healthy people in my area were killed by it. Easter Joy very nicely points out how the virus is transmitted, how a person can be infectious before symptoms start, etc.

Again I stress that nobody is perfect. The Abbey where I worship is very orthodox, and even use Gregorian Chant daily. But they sometimes make mistakes and use the wrong chant, or the wrong reading; once I asked my spiritual director why Father L. used the reading from Year I of the two-year cycle at Vigils when it was Year II and the answer was a straightforward “because Father L. made a mistake”. The priest may be in the wrong wrt Canon Law by insisting on communion in the hand and is thus making a mistake. But the communicant who insists on communion on the tongue during a deadly virus pandemic needs to examine whether being in the right, wrt to Canon Law, does not in fact put him/her in the wrong, morally.

Lest we be considered Pharisees who considered ritual observation to be more important than charity towards others.

Ora

With all due respect, I find your last statement most offensive. Many people bring up the Pharisees without any understanding as to why Jesus condemned them for their practices. Jesus never had any issues whatsover with the form of temple sacrificial cultic worship. His own Father dictated the norms, and as God, Jesus is not likely to contradict Himself. What Jesus did condemn was the fact that the Pharisees were imposing Levitical-priestly rituals on the rest of the faithful. Their actions were done as a result of the fear of falling into the same trap that their ancestors had fallen into which lead to the Babylonian exile. Unfortunately, this resulted in more harm than good. But, Jesus, again, never had any issues with the proper form of temple cultic sacrificial worship. In fact, when the norms were violated, He was the first to act and speak out, cleansing the temple from the profane.

We are not talking about a simple mistake of reading the wrong reading for the wrong time of the year. This is something much deeper. This is about overstepping one’s boundaries and mandating and placing an undue burden and requirementon the faithful when the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments has clearly stated that this cannot be done.

The CDWDS has repeatedly stated and re-stated the right of the fathful. A priest, a bishop and an EMHC cannot deny the faitfhul what the CDWDS has already ratified. With all due respect, I believe that you are mistaken in your assertion that a communicant is wrong to continue exercising his right to receive COTT.

 

[EasterJoy]

Your post was way too long for me to read but I agree. We’ve all done our best to instill fear upon all churchgoers, whether you prefer CITH or COTT or don’t receive at all. I plead guilty for this lack of charity. How about you?

My biggest offense against charity is probably the length of my posts. I didn’t mean to instill fear, either, but mea culpa on both counts, where applicable.

I’d like to clarify one thing, though: the Church thinks it so important that the faithful have the option to choose COTT that the decision to do so or not is left entirely up to the faithful. While those with a pastoral role sometimes have legitimate reasons for educating the faithful about practical health issues and ASKING the faithful to refrain, it is for each person to discern what charity demands.

IOW: to discourage COTT is only appropriate when there might be a charitable reason for refraining, since to pursue reverence is also to pursue love. I think that if the circumstances become so extraordinary that Church think the clergy themselves should have the authority to unilaterally ban COTT outright, she will give them that authority. The H1N1 situation never got to that level in our archdiocese.

[Aside: We just found out tonight that the vaccine is now available to all who want it. All of the measures taken and requested in response to H1N1 concerns have been lifted in our parish. We’re just asked to follow the same common sense rules as before, if we feel sick: No common cup if you might have something minor that’s catching, and STAY HOME–take your dispensation with the blessings and gratitude of the pastor!–if you have a bug that makes people really sick.]

 

[EasterJoy]

The efficacy of the sacrament comes from the internal disposition of the communicant towards the receipt of its sanctifying grace, and not the outward appearance of its delivery, tradition notwithstanding.

Never on a forum have I seen so many people so concerned with the latter that they are impeding the former.

Whether you receive on the tongue instead of in the hand (and from what I have seen and heard in my lifetime the former is by far the dirtier organ than the latter) will not make you a better Christian.

Charity though, will. And while receiving on the tongue may be a “right”, for every Catholic, charity is an obligation. Br. JR is correct to be worried that one’s concern for one’s rights may in fact cause one to go over the top and lack charity in one’s response to the alleged breach.

Ora

You seem to be arguing that obedience is both optional and unrelated to charity? You don’t meant that?

The Church has discerned that the method of reception is important, and that to recieve on the tongue is (not “may be”) a right of the faithful. Charity does not allow denial of those things that are truly the rights of others, does it? Of course not.

While it may fall on the clergy to educate the faithful about practical health reasons that might argue against exercising any particular right, from the right to COTT to the right to marry, it is not for anyone, whether clergy or others in the laity, to decide that this right does not exist, or that exercising it constitutes a violation against charity.

Now, just as access to the right to marry might be temporarily suspended for truly grave reasons, I have to imagine that the right to COTT could be suspended temporarily, for similarly grave reasons. Having said that, I think that those are situations that would probably call for suspension of the public offering of Mass altogether, as has also happened in a few places where the spread of H1N1 was a grave concern.

 

[sharmin]

So everyone in the world with the h1n1 got it by receiving communion on the tongue? Shouldn’t be much of a problem then. Does the health department know about this?

I’m not sure why you think I meant that. I didn’t say that at all. I said that it certainly is risky, and I, personally am not comfortable with it. As a parishoner, I would be very upset if I thought someone ahead of me received on the tongue and then the EM handed it to me to put in my mouth.

 

[benedictgal]

I’m not sure why you think I meant that. I didn’t say that at all. I said that it certainly is risky, and I, personally am not comfortable with it. As a parishoner, I would be very upset if I thought someone ahead of me received on the tongue and then the EM handed it to me to put in my mouth.

However, you don’t have the right to dictate to another person who they should receive Holy Communion. Nor should we resort to Howard Hughes-esque paranoia when receiving Holy Communion.

With all due respect, maybe I am reading more to this, but, as an EMHC, were you squeamish about administering COTT before the H1N1 paranoia, or, did this crop up all of a sudden?

As an EMHC, I have administered COTT and CITH. I am not squeamish, nor will I go so far as to say that I am going to dictate to a communicant how he is to receive. That is beyond what I can legitimately do.

 

[DOShea]

Well, with all due respect, it is not the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith that will issue the response; it is the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments. That is one of the questions that I raised when I contacted them this past Monday. They confirmed that COTT should not be suspended.

What does that mean, “They confirmed?” Are you saying you’ve verified this written response by the CDF was, in fact, in response to a question dealing exclusively with the suspension or possible suspension of COTT under situations such as a pandemic, or are you speaking only in terms of what is the norm, what isn’t? I don’t think anyone questions what the norm is, and that COTT could not be denied under ordinary circumstances. The situation I have referred to (and twice in other threads posted the diocesan-issued guidelines for) is in the event of an emergency, specifically an outbreak of H1N1. The guidance is ONLY issued for that possible event, no other, and certainly not for everyday normative use.

Obviously, they need to know who is doing (or in this case, not doing) what so that they will inform the dioceses and parishes in question. They have repeatedly stated that if these infractions occur, the faithful should certainly inform them.

Well one would think if the CDF’s letter is what you say, and their answer to you is what you say, I would have to think they are telling the Bishops and the group of Bishops who issued these guidelines would withdraw them. Not only has that not happened, but our own Bishop has addressed the same letter, same question, and his answer differs in terms of what CDF applies it to. I’m going to follow the guidance he gives me. He’s not a Bishop that could be called off the rails by any measure; I find it hard to believe he’s a)wrong about it, and b)refusing to abide by it.

In any case, this move is not for the priest nor the bishop to make. The CDWDS has repeatedly stated that the faithful have the right to COTT. In fact, bear in mind that COTT is the norm and CITH is the indult. While CITH is a legitimate option, it cannot be forced on the faithful. Furthermore, because CITH is an indult, this permission can easily be rescinded at any time. Indults are not permanent.

Yes, understand and agree with it all, with “norm” being the key word to consider here. The situation I’ve asked about is not a norm, but a situation where public emergency has been declared, and these special-case restrictions go into effect as the Bishop directs in those circumstances. That’s the situation I would like either CDF or CDWDS to address.

 

[jayson_bayogo]

i just came from mass here in our parish…

and i noticed that he did not “refuse” communicants after all… some parishioners still chose to receive in the tongue and he allowed it… (although majority, those who heard his announcement, received through their hands)…

i think the title of my thread is inaccurate… sorry…

i really appreciate the discussions… i learned a lot from it…

 

[JReducation]

i just came from mass here in our parish…

and i noticed that he did not “refuse” communicants after all… some parishioners still chose to receive in the tongue and he allowed it… (although majority, those who heard his announcement, received through their hands)…

i think the title of my thread is inaccurate… sorry…

i really appreciate the discussions… i learned a lot from it…

Out of justice to your parish priest, you may want to ask the moderator to close the thread. It also brings the debate to a close.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[sharmin]

With all due respect, maybe I am reading more to this, but, as an EMHC, were you squeamish about administering COTT before the H1N1 paranoia, or, did this crop up all of a sudden?.

I’m not squeamish as a EMHC…I am squeamish as a parishoner. I do not want the EMHC giving on the tongue before s/he gives it to me.