"HOC EST CORPUS MEUM"

10/27/09

As a lifelong and rather seriously practicing Catholic and the husband of a nurse by training who seems to be obsessed about the H1N1 virus and the flu in general, especially in light of the death of one of our daughter’s high school classmates from H1N1, I am acutely interested in the Church’s reaction to the H1N1 scare.

First, a little personal background. We are classic parish shoppers; we are registered at what has long been, and is becoming more of, a “traditional” Catholic parish, Sts. Peter and Paul in Naperville. We also attend a neighboring parish, St. Thomas the Apostle, which takes a much more progressive approach to the faith and liturgy. We maintain strong ties to the church I attended as a child, Sacred Heart in Chicago; our kids were confirmed there and I am a lector and Eucharistic minister there. It’s difficult to classify Sacred Heart’s position on the “ideological” spectrum. Yes, it’s traditional, but it’s not. It is clearly run by the laity, and thus is probably on the forefront of Church evolution, though perhaps not realizing so. “Interesting” is perhaps the best, but still least descriptive, way to describe Sacred Heart, though some would say “quick and to the point” and “homey” would be more salient descriptions. We also occasionally attend yet another church, Our Lady of Mercy in Aurora. Its place on the ideological spectrum lies much closer to that of Sts. Peter and Paul than to St. Thomas. We very much enjoy the simplicity of its liturgy.

In the throes of the H1N1 scare, and especially prompted by the death of Michelle Fahle, the aforementioned Naperville North student, St. Thomas suspended distribution of the Precious Blood, distributing Communion only under the species of the Host. Sts. Peter and Paul, a few weeks later, took the same action and went a step further, suggesting that rather than a handshake of peace, a wave, a bow, or a “verbal expression of peace” be substituted.

I applaud these moves. Some would argue that such precautions are unnecessary because God would never allow us to get sick ingesting His Body and Blood and, to a degree, I admire that level of faith. However, I, and most of my fellow Catholics, would argue that God wants us to employ our heads along with our faith. He’s given us the ability to think for a reason; we ought to use it. Taking such precautions just makes sense, especially since the Church teaches that Christ is fully received in Communion under one species; i.e., it is not necessary to take Communion under both species.

However, there are at least two flaws in the Church’s precautionary measures, or at least in St. Peter and Paul’s, and, probably by extension, the more traditional camp’s in the Church, approach. First, people are still taking Communion on their tongues, as opposed to in their hands. As a Eucharistic minister, I know what happens when a Communicant takes Communion on her tongue: her tongue, saliva and all, almost inevitably comes into contact with the priest’s or Eucharistic minister’s hand. That hand then picks up the next Host and distributes it to the next Communicant. The problem is obvious, and if the Church is serious about arresting the spread of disease, it should immediately discontinue the practice of taking Communion on one’s tongue, requiring that Communion be taken in one’s hand.

On this note, I should disclose that I have long looked askance at the practice of taking Communion on one’s tongue. I made my First Communion as Vatican II was winding down and thus, for the first few years I took Communion, I took it on my tongue. However, as soon as Communion in the hand, so to speak, became available, I quickly abandoned the practice of taking Communion on my tongue. Hygiene was not even a consideration at the time; just the wonder of holding the Creator of the universe in my hands was sufficient reason to want to take Communion in my hand. I have to admit that I don’t understand people’s insistence on taking Communion on their tongue. Perhaps in the case of older people (Remember, Vatican II was forty five years ago!) who grew up and came of age in the pre-Vatican II days and have a hard time breaking with tradition, such insistence is understandable. But one wonders what motivates young people, sometimes kids, to insist on taking Communion on their tongues. Obviously, their parents or teachers have them convinced that there is something more profound about receiving Communion that way or even that there is something sinful about taking Communion in one’s hands. If Jesus had not said “Take this and eat,” but had rather said “Stick out your tongue while I put this in your mouth,” perhaps I could understand. And if I weren’t a Eucharistic minister, and thus able to see how ridiculous people look with their eyes closed and perhaps the least attractive appendage on their bodies fully extended, while waiting to receive their Lord, perhaps I could understand. But given my reasonable familiarity with scripture, and my experience as a Eucharistic minister, seeing people at what certainly approaches their worst and having my fingers effectively licked repeatedly, I have become even more opposed to Communion on the tongue. While I understand that the Catholic Church is an awfully big place with plenty of room for people with different approaches to the incidentals as long as we agree on the essentials, I have an especially hard time understanding that odd approach to reception of Our Savior. But hygienic reasons make objection to Communion on the tongue more than a strong preference; it is an imperative.

The second flaw in the Church’s approach to hygiene is the continued use of the holy water font at the entrance to the church. I know people who refuse to engage in the handshake of peace (for hygienic reasons, of course) but think nothing of dipping their hands into the stagnant water of the holy water font upon entering and leaving church. Talk about a veritable agar dish of bacteria! If one is going to eliminate the handshake of peace and the distribution of the Precious Blood, one should certainly take out the holy water fonts!

One would hope that elimination of the distribution of the Precious Blood from a common cup, removal of the holy water fonts, and perhaps altering the handshake of peace would become permanent features of our liturgical practice, even after H1N1 is no longer a threat. H1N1 is not the only disease extant, and having people drink from the same cup, and dipping their hands into the same stagnant water, as people, who are carrying colds, flu, and God only knows what else is an ideal way to spread any type of disease. At least ten years ago, our then pastor at Sacred Heart told me that, in addition to his pastoral duties at two parishes, he was the chaplain for an association of Catholic doctors and nurses. He went on to report that none of the people in that group would ever take the Precious Blood from a common cup for fear of contacting disease. This was long before the current bout of swine flu. It made eminent sense then, and it does now.

The Church teaches us that Jesus is fully present in his Body and Blood distributed to us at Communion. But the Church also teaches us that we are the body of Christ. We have to respect, and continually nourish ourselves with, the former, but we also have to take care of the latter.