Swine Flu and Communion in the Hand

About.com is about "Guidance. Not Guesswork."

So says their homepage.

Scott P. Richert is a contributing editor to the About.com Guide to Catholicism and "an author of numerous articles on Catholic moral, social, political, and historical issues."

According to his bio page on About.com, Scott has a somewhat unusual background and history:

In his monthly column for Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture (of which he is the executive editor), and in articles published elsewhere (especially the national Catholic weekly newspaper The Wanderer), Scott frequently writes on Catholic themes.

While Scott was completing his studies at the Catholic University of America in Washington, D.C., he and his wife, Amy, spent two years at a Byzantine Ruthenian Catholic parish in Annandale, Virginia, where they became well versed in the history and liturgies of Eastern Rite Catholic churches.

Today, they belong to St. Mary Oratory, a traditional Latin Mass parish in Rockford, Illinois. Scott and Amy homeschool their seven children using a traditional Catholic curriculum, and Scott has written homeschooling courses for Seton Home Study School, a Catholic homeschooling organization in Front Royal, Virginia.

On Saturday past, Scott wrote an interesting piece entitled Swine Flu and Communion in the Hand in which he takes issue with some of the recent diocesan policies which have mandated Holy Communion only in the hand and NOT on the tongue. He maintains that the advent of the swine flu may be a teaching moment--even for some of our bishops.

There are at least two problems with this. First, as I noted in my earlier post, even encouraging Catholics to receive Communion on the hand rather than on the tongue seems an overreaction. Suspending the Sign of the Peace, in which the faithful shake hands, makes sense, because it's easy to see how the flu virus might be transmitted. The same is true of distributing the Precious Blood of Christ, since there is physical contact with the chalice.

But when Communion is distributed on the tongue, there is no physical contact—as long, of course, as everyone involved is doing things right. In almost 30 years of receiving Communion on the tongue almost exclusively, I do not remember ever having a priest, deacon, or extraordinary minister of the Eucharist touch my tongue or lips while giving me Communion.

His summary of problem 1:

So mandating the reception of Communion on the hand seems at best an overreaction and, at worst, perhaps the less sanitary way to go.

And then he tackles problem 2:

The second problem with mandating Communion on the hand is that it is, by its nature, a denial of the right to receive Communion on the tongue. And that opens up a real can of worms.

He then provides some historical background, which is basically summarized in this excerpt:

Pope Paul VI had made it clear in Memoriale Domini that Communion on the tongue had to remain an option, and in 1977, the Congregation for Divine Worship reiterated this point:

"The practice must remain the option of the communicant. The priest or minister of Communion does not make the decision as to the manner of reception of Communion. It is the communicant’s personal choice."

Which brings us back to today, to public-health concerns over the swine flu, and to bishops who are "mandating" Communion in the hand. No matter what their intentions (and we should always assume the best of intentions), the bishops who have effectively banned Communion on the tongue have overstepped their authority.

What's the Catholic layperson to do who wishes to receive on the tongue but who may be subject to local prohibitions?

The best way to avoid a scene is to avoid the opportunity for one. If you have access to a Traditional Latin Mass or to an Eastern Catholic Divine Liturgy, attend that instead. Communion in those rites will continue to be distributed on the tongue, according to their normal practices.

Scott then finishes by providing three insightful--and practical--options for those who do not have access to a Traditional Latin Mass or a Divine Liturgy, including the option of being prepared to be refused Communion.

Read the full article here.

Douglas McManaman on "Reading the Word Sotto Voce"

Deacon Douglas McManaman is a Religion and Philosophy teacher at Father Michael McGivney Catholic Academy in Markham, Ontario, Canada. He is currently the President of the Canadian Fellowship of Catholic Scholars. He maintains the following web site for his students: A Catholic Philosophy and Theology Resource Page, in support of his students.

His latest article, short but powerful, "Reading the Word Sotto Voce" appeared in the Catholic Education Resource Center this week.

Subtitled "Reading the word of God in the context of a Mass is radically different from public speaking," allow me to whet your appetite for the full article:

Seminarians of a previous era were often instructed to say Mass sotto voce (Italian: 'under voice'), that is, in low voice (not low in volume, but 'low in profile'), because there was a real appreciation for the opus operatum of the entire liturgy, and a corresponding appreciation for the minister's duty to become less and less ostentatious, after the manner of John the Baptist's "He must increase; I must decrease" (Jn 3, 30). To stress engaging eye contact, intonation, inflection, and to seek to move and emote are all rooted in a basic theological error that regards the written word of God as a dead letter that stands in need of a grandiloquent orator to bring it life. But it is the word that brings life to man, not vice versa: "Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God" (Mt 4, 3).

I doubt that Deacon Doug had the ancient liturgy in mind when he wrote this article and I'm really not sure whether he has "traditionalist" sympathies. I suspect so. In any case I see in his brief instruction an extremely strong case for the power of the Latin Mass.

I'll leave it to someone else much more qualified than myself to explore this article along those lines. Perhaps Fr. John Zuhlsdorf might be interested in doing just that. But suffice it to say that Mass in the Extraordinary Form does not easily accommodate dramatization, ostentation, or a "stealing of the show."

I think, without intending to do so, Deacon Doug strikes to the heart of why the Latin Mass is not given over easily to such things:

Finally, when readers look up periodically, they must address the congregation as a single entity, not making eye contact with individuals within the congregation; for eye contact only makes the reader unfittingly self-conscious, and causes a degree of self-consciousness unbecoming of the faithful, who do not need to be engaged as if they were unmotivated adolescents passively waiting to be animated. They engage themselves through an active readiness to lose themselves in the proclamation of the word.

Isn't that exactly the case? I have found that devotees of the Mass in the EF predominantly "engage themselves through an active readiness to lose themselves in the proclamation of the word," indeed in the entire liturgy.

And think about the following statement for a moment in light of the variety of outrageous displays one often finds in the ordinary form of the Mass.

The more a reader puts himself and his own personality into the word he proclaims -- that is, the more he increases -- , the more he stifles the Holy Spirit of God (cf. 1 Thess 5, 19) by distracting the listener, turning him from a prayerful attention to God's word towards the talent and idiosyncrasies of the reader.

But the reader must forget himself. He must read sotto voce, albeit slowly, clearly, and with sufficient volume. Indeed, poor reading in its turn can distract the listener, making it difficult for him to concentrate, but poor reading does much less harm than even a slightly theatrical reading; the former merely hampers concentration, the latter "steals the show", which is what the liturgy often becomes for those with a flare for the dramatic.

Thanks for this, Deacon Doug!