Posted on 03/06/2020 6:23:05 PM PST by Morgana
No more shaking hands in our Archdiocese — directions of Archbishop Sample.
Up in old NY the sign of peace was dropped every flu season. I don’t shake hands or hold hands, which seems to be very popular down here in Fla Fla land. Up north they held hands at a children’s Mass. I wish the Church would bring back the communion rail. Just what the danger of receiving on the tongue is I just don’t know, do you?
In communion "on-the-tongue", the priests hand must perforce be in the breathing zone of the communicant. Microdroplets in the breath WILL be transferred to those fingers. Such is not the case for communion "in-the-hand". Chance for transmission is drastically reduced.
All the commentary about the higher bacterial/viral count/exposure of hands is irrelevant, as the potential for contaminant transfer is much less, and must be from a direct touch of hand to hand.
Here is the recent policy statement from the archbishop of San Antonio:
"Parishes are requested to temporarily distribute Holy Communion in the hand rather than on the tongue; temporarily discontinue the distribution of the Precious Blood at Mass; remove holy water from fonts at the church doors; and to avoid physical contact would be advisable. Other dioceses in the state and nationally have adopted these temporary measures. As has been stated previously, the archdiocese is closely monitoring the situation, and updates regarding the temporary suspension of these Mass practices will be provided in a timely manner. It is important to note that health and civic authorities maintain that the risk of coronavirus exposure to the public is low."
Sounds a bit far fetched to me. According to Pope Benedict XVI in 2007, receiving on the tongue is the normal way to receive and you need the local bishop to allow reception on the hand. But most catholics have it backwards.
The dangers of receiving on the hand are related to both hand sanitation, you just entered a building and touched various surfaces and shook hands with those around you. And more importantly particles from the host will remain on your hand and every bit of the host is our Lord. This may seem trivial to some but that only demonstrates the lack of awareness and reverence of many of the layity do to tge casualness of current practices.
As for breathing on the priest’s hand, I never breathe when I’m eating, do you. You open your mouth and automatically stop breathing for a second. You don’t think about it but you do.
So why do priests and EMs, I am an EM, not know how to properly distribute the Body of our Lord correctly. They often seem upset about it and don’t know that they should hold up the host with their thumb facing themselves and simply place it on the tongue or hand and slide their thumb forward.?
True. But that is not the most dangerous mechanism of transmission. And that can be avoided if those dispensing (and receiving) wear gloves. I've never seen that suggested, but it is a viable solution.
"And more importantly particles from the host will remain on your hand and every bit of the host is our Lord. This may seem trivial to some but that only demonstrates the lack of awareness and reverence of many of the laity due to the casualness of current practices.
And particles of the Host are shed into the air and onto the floor with communion on the tongue as well as the hand. The effective difference between "in the hand" and "on the tongue" is nil.
"As for breathing on the priest’s hand, I never breathe when I’m eating, do you. You open your mouth and automatically stop breathing for a second. You don’t think about it but you do.
Yes, you stop breathing ONCE THE FOOD IS IN YOUR MOUTH, but you are breathing either in or out as the priests hand is approaching your face.
"On the tongue" communion is being restricted because the danger is real, not some nebulous conspiracy to denigrate the Host.
You are wrong about breathing on the priest or EM’s hand. If you are breathing in that moment you have a severe problem and risk choking when you eat. It is an automatic reflex, or habit if you like.
As for you hand not being a problem. Do you shake hands with your waitress or waiter before you eat? Why do you think the authorities are reminding people to do the obvious, wash your hands?
No, I'm not. You breath in and out as you approach the priest and open your mouth. THEN you stop. There is plenty of time for salival particle transfer in the interim.
"As for you hand not being a problem. Do you shake hands with your waitress or waiter before you eat? Why do you think the authorities are reminding people to do the obvious, wash your hands?"
I didn't say "hands are not a problem". I said the transfer from hand to hand is less likely than transmission from breath to hand, which it is. And the effects of hand-to-hand transmission can be minimized by simple measures. "Breath-to-hand" not so much.
I say again... it isn't hand-to-hand that is being restricted by the bishops. There "is" a reason for that.
Well then we should ban all situations that involve any proximity to people, like supermarkets, off track betting etc. If you fear that then how can sitting or standing near anyone be safe? But if you fear hand to mouth then my point is correct. You don’t breathe when you open your mouth to eat.
And while we’re at it let’s cancel all dentists appointments.
Don't be ridiculous. My point is about minimizing risk, not "fear". Analyze the sequence of the ritual. You approach the priest. He picks up a Host, holds it in front of your face, and says "the Body of Christ". Now, the way I learned it is that the communicant at that exact point says "Amen". Try saying "Amen" without exhaling. Which happens at the worst possible time for mouth-to-hand bacterial transmission. This, by the way, happens with both "on the tongue" AND "in the hand".
"If" one does NOT say "Amen", then the risk of mouth-to-hand transmission drops essentially to zero for "in-the-hand", but not for "on the tongue".
Dental techs wear both masks and gloves. With stringent handwashing between patients. The situations are not remotely comparable.
You are more likely to die from medical error, the third leading cause of death in the USA, than either the corona virus or the flu which kills thousands every year.
The panic over corona will probably kill more people than the virus itself.
And we should not, therefore, try to actively prevent all those things?? Sorry, but that's just irrational, not to mention immoral.
“We have nothing to fear but fear itself.” Watching the main stream TV news is like asking for panic. It reminds me of the OJ trial. The media likes to latch on to one story and beat it to death.
There are people who obviously have political agendas to promote who actually look quite happy to trash the economy. Telling people that receiving communion on the hand is more sanitary than reception on the tongue smells like one of those type of agendas.
As for prevention, of course we should do that. But the point is there are worse problems that we face. And this hysteria will cause more problems than it solves.
We need to avoid senseless panic. The Italian government has ordered all public masses to be stopped.
One wonders if the Chinese have not initiated this “epidemic” just to crash the western economy.
Then you need to examine your smelling apparatus, because my sole agenda is to tell the scientific truth about the issue. I'm a scientist...it's what I "do". And, at bottom, it is also a "Catholic thing".
I agree with the rest of your comments.
Well, you are not who I was referring to specifically when I said it smells like a conspiracy. That particular conspiracy comes from some priests and some of the layity who want to push an anti-tridentine agenda.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.