Lancaster, England, Mar 6, 2020 / 03:19 pm (CNA).- The Bishop of Lancaster on Thursday issued a decree meant to reduce the risk of coronavirus transmission at Mass, which focused on suspending the sign of peace and the reception of Holy Communion from the chalice.
The March 5 decree, signed by the diocese’s bishop and its chancellor, discouraged, but did not attempt to prohibit, reception of the Host on the tongue.
Bishop Paul Swarbrick introduced seven “pastoral measures” in the diocese effective March 5-21 “to reduce possible transmission” of coronavirus.
The sign of peace, reception from the chalice by the lay faithful, and the use of holy water stoups have been suspended.
“Those who choose to receive the Sacred Host on the tongue should be encouraged to receive on the hand instead. Their doing this represents an act of loving charity to their community. Alternatively, they should be encouraged to make a ‘Spiritual Communion’,” the decree states.
It addes that churches and chapels open for private prayer should remain open, with regular sanitization; ministers should wash and sanitize their hands before and after distributing Holy Communion; and “shared hymnbooks and Mass books should ideally not be used at this time.”
There are 147 confirmed cases of coronavirus in England. There has been one death in the country due to the infection.
Many Churches around the world have issued precautionary guidelines for Masses, or cancelled public Masses entirely, because of the coronavirus outbreak which originated in China late last year.
The new strain of coronavirus causes a respiratory disease, COVID-19, and has a fatality rate of roughly 3%. There have been more than 100,000 confirmed cases of coronavirus in at least 81 countries, and more than 3,400 deaths. The vast majority of cases and deaths have been in China.
Like the Diocese of Lancaster, the Archdiocese of Chicago has urged hygienic practices, and it it said that “given the frequency of direct contact with saliva in the distribution of Holy Communion on the tongue, every consideration should be given by each individual to receive Holy Communion reverently in open hands for the time being.”
The Archdiocese of Portland in Oregon said March 2 that “a parish cannot ban the reception of Holy Communion on the tongue, nor may an Ordinary or Extraordinary minister refuse a person requesting Holy Communion on the tongue.”
Its worship office emphasized that ministers of Holy Communion should be “able to distribute Holy Communion without risk of touching the hands or the tongue,” and that “parishioners should also be instructed how to receive Holy Communion properly either on the tongue or in the hand.”
The Portland archdiocese said, “We consulted with two physicians regarding this issue, one of which is a specialist in immunology for the State of Oregon. They agreed that done properly the reception of Holy Communion on the tongue or in the hand pose a more or less equal risk.”
“The risk of touching the tongue and passing the saliva on to others is obviously a danger however the chance of touching someone’s hand is equally probable and one’s hands have a greater exposure to germs.”
The Portland archdiocese referred to Redemptionis sacramentum, the Congregation for Divine Worship’s 2004 instruction on certain matters to be observed or to be avoided regarding the Most Holy Eucharist, which notes that “each of the faithful always has the right to receive Holy Communion on the tongue, at his choice.”
Immediately to Portland’s north, in the Archdiocese of Seattle, Archbishop Paul Etienne issued a differing set of directives in response to coronavirus.
The Northwest Catholic wrote March 3 that Archbishop Etienne “said that holy water should be removed from fonts” and “that Communion hosts should be received only in the hand, not on the tongue.”
On March 4, Bishop Thomas Daly of Spokane encouraged pastors to suspend the sign of peace, and to refrain from distributing the Precious Blood. He added that “this might also provide a catechetical opportunity to remind the faithful that reception of the Sacred Host is indeed reception of the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ.”
The following day, after a meeting “with local health experts, the vicars, school and other diocesan leaders,” Bishop Daly added that clerics should “consider encouraging parishioners to receive Holy Communion in the hand. Receiving in the hand carries a risk of infection, but there is an increased danger of transmitting this virus through droplets in the mouth.”
Archbishop John Wester of Santa Fe issued directives March 3 that directly prohibited the reception of the Eucharist on the tongue.
“During the flu season and given the possibility of being exposed to the coronavirus, ALL communicants are to receive Communion in the hand,” the archbishop said.
The Diocese of Tucson said March 5 that “as receiving Holy Communion on the tongue almost always involves some accidental touch with tongues and lips, Holy Communion should be distributed only in the hand for the immediate future.”
In guidelines updated March 6, the Diocese of Phoenix said that at the current stage of the outbreak, pastors “may implement” voluntary precautions, among which is that they “may invite communicants to receive on the hand,” adding that “reception of Communion on the tongue could inadvertently contaminate the hands of those distributing Communion. However, individual communicants have the right to decide.”
Should the outbreak become worse, pastors would be mandated to “invite communicants to receive on the hand.”
On March 5, Bishop Peter Baldacchino of Las Cruces issued guidelines which said that “it is still left to the discretion of the communicant how they wish to receive the Host. Please note that it may be good to notify them that receiving Holy Communion in the hand and not on the tongue is preferred to limit the exposure of being exposed to the Coronavirus Disease.”
Bishop Baldacchino added that “as the distribution of Holy Communion involves contact with both the mouth and hands, any Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion who feels uncomfortable distributing Communion should be allowed to temporarily step down from ministry.”
Archbishop Leonard Blair of Hartford wrote March 3 to the clerics of his local Church to say that “Communion on the tongue should be strongly discouraged” as a precautionary measure against the spread of coronavirus.
A Feb. 28 memo sent from Archbishop Blair in his capacity as chairman of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Committee on Divine Worship to the US bishops regarded “liturgical celebrations amid public health concerns regarding the spread of the coronavirus.”
The memo offered considerations “meant to be helpful” to bishops “if and when it becomes necessary to take preventative steps with regard to the celebration of the liturgy in your local church.”
The precautionary measures it offered were “suspending the exchange of the sign of peace” and “suspending the distribution of Holy Communion to the faithful via the chalice.”
Prohibiting the reception of Holy Communion on the tongue was not mentioned in the memo.
CNA contacted the USCCB and the archdioceses of Seattle and Santa Fe March 5 to inquire whether an ordinary is able to prohibit the reception of Communion on the tongue, considering that the Congregation for Divine Worship has called this a right that each of the faithful always has. No responses have been forthcoming.
[…]
Justice Scalia shocked many when he made an observation that offended the prejudices of most Americans who can not deal with the possibility that they are unable to apply commonsense to a treasured belief. He insisted that in law there is no presumption of innocence as commonly assumed. Of course. The law does not presume anything, neither guilt nor innocence. Neither should we. But we are always obligated to be prudent. Given that Rupnik is a self-admitted degenerate, commonsense would preclude his fitness to function as an active priest.
Francis ignoring this reality is one of numerous reasons for him to step down.
Edward. Law, applied as a just arbiter cannot presume innocence or guilt until the person who is under the law is charged. A charge presumes some degree of guilt. The accused consequently is a defendant. Legal codices including the Roman required that the defendant be allowed a defense. Cicero argued for the presence of a defense attorney. Although it wasn’t until the Inquisition that the Dominicans, who were the sanctioned inquisitors, insisted that a defendant have an attorney to represent their defense.
Insofar as Rupnik it’s not clear whether he admitted guilt of sexual abuse followed by confession of the abused. There appears sufficient circumstantial evidence to convict him, based on the sisters’ testimonies.
Has he committed criminal acts that should be investigated by law enforcement?
Edward. Law, applied as a just arbiter cannot presume innocence or guilt until the person who is under the law is charged. A charge presumes some degree of guilt. The charged consequently is a defendant. Legal codices including the Roman required that the defendant be allowed a defense. Cicero argued for the presence of a defense attorney. Although it wasn’t until the Inquisition that the Dominicans, who were the sanctioned inquisitors insisted that a defendant have an attorney to represent their defense.
Insofar as Rupnik, it’s not clear whether he admitted guilt of sexual abuse followed by sacramental confession of the abused. Just scanned Altieri’s article who claims a “mountain of evidence”, although no citing of his confession of guilt. There nonetheless appears sufficient circumstantial evidence to convict him, based on the sisters’ testimonies. Added to that, their are priests who have been convicted of sexual abuse and incarcerated on unreliable allegations.
Read the commentary recommended by Carl Olson, which provides strong circumstantial evidence since it cites three locales from which Sisters had claimed abuse, Ljubljana, Slovenia, Rome at the Centro Aletti, and Gorizia, Italy. The charge of hearing the confession of a woman following sexual activity with her, allegedly occurred at the Centro Aletti Rome. What apparently sealed his conviction was his unwillingness to respond to a Jesuit investigation team.
It may be said silence doesn’t necessarily admit guilt. Christ is said to have remained silent when accused. However, when Caiaphas asked directly if he was the son of God, Jesus answered in the affirmative in witness to himself.
It appears Fr Rupnik hasn’t directly admitted guilt, if it can be justifiably differentiated from acknowledgement. “Fr Sosa [Jesuit Superior General] said that Fr Rupnik acknowledged the crime and repented, and so the excommunication was lifted. Given that the penalty was declared by the CDF to have been automatically incurred, which action is akin to a non-automatic penalty being imposed by the CDF, it is probably the case that Fr Rupnik did not admit guilt for the crime, thus ‘purging the contempt’, which means abandoning his contumacious and stubborn refusal to make such an admission” (Fr Gerald Murray in Diane Montagna interview, Catholic Herald Dec 2022). It’s complex. Acknowledgment of a crime means it was understood by Rupnik to have been committed. Silence may signify guilt if there’s no denial. In contrast Christ in response to Caiaphas declared the truth of the allegation.
I totally agree by what the headline screams. Compare that with Donald Trump. I see him as innocent of all the charges brought against him in various courts until proven guilty in these courts.
You might want to read this exhaustive piece published by America Magazine in June 2023…
What the Bishop protecting Rupnik meant to say is this: “Rupnik is assumed innocent until be proven guilty a second time.”
That’s just being “open to the spirit.”
And now that their esteemed sex abuser friend and macabre-artist Rupnik is safe from a second guilty verdict, Cardinal O’Malley (who “mis-spoke” when he last messaged us this year, by “incorrectly” and pre-emptively asserting that the leading priest of the papal sex abuse committee was resigning because he was too busy with other stuff, resulting in the public contradiction…within 24 hours…by the same priest who had to tell the truth that the committee was a farce…as did Marie Collins a few short years before), has deemed it a fitting time to finally “reach out” to the women religious victims that Rupnik is “presumed innocent” of abusing.
Apparently, to this group above, this all makes sense to them, in their own internal logic: like worshipping Pachamama and then saying you didn’t.
Because for the sake of “the movement,” we are all asked…to pretend for the hierarchy…that reality isn’t happening.