By Modesto P. Sa-onoy
For years the Philippine Church copied the American way of giving Holy Communion by the hand although one priest confirmed that the Philippines was not granted an “indult” (special permission) to do so. Some European countries have also this special privilege.
One reason for this form of giving communion was the belief that it is healthier. It started during the SARS pandemic in 2003 because the virus spread through the mouth and nose. But even at the time, communion by the tongue was not prohibited as now.
A report of LifeSiteNews of September 21, said that a group of German medical doctors wrote the German Bishops’ Conference in which they said that there are “no medical reasons for a ban of Communion on the tongue.”
The physicians from different regions and with different medical specialties took the initiative of writing the bishops “because we in Germany thought that, after the lifting of the ban on Communion on the tongue in Austria, this would be allowed again after a short delay also in our country. But since this was not even the case after weeks, we started this initiative.”
The twenty-one Austrian doctors quoted Professor Filippo Maria Boscia, the president of the Association of Catholic Doctors of Italy who stated in May 2020 that “Communion on the tongue is safer than hand Communion.”
The German faithful thought that the ban on communion by the tongue was temporary but it was not lifted, thus the letter to the bishops.
The German medical doctors rely, among others, on the work of the Munich virologist Michael Roggendorf who works in the field of coronavirus crisis intervention and according to these physicians, “the hands of communicants in the churches are also carriers of viruses and bacteria since they touch the pews when sitting and kneeling, therefore the reception of Holy Communion in the hand cannot be regarded as a safe [hygienic] alternative.”
They said that “if during the distribution of Holy Communion, the priest should touch one of the communicants’ tongues, he can disinfect his hands. In addition, when opening one’s mouth, one tends to breathe in, rather than out, so that the dispersion of droplets is not so probable. Thus, Communion on the tongue is safer than Communion on the hand, also since the kneeling position for communion on the tongue creates a safer distance between the priest and the communicants.”
In the Philippines the “innovators” of the 1960s removed the communion rail and hardly anyone is left receiving the Host kneeling. Nevertheless, the communicant and priest need not be too close.
The doctors’ statement also cited the “strict procedure of the cleansing of the hands. That is to say, the cleanliness of the priest does not depend upon his own whims, but is, instead, part of the rite of the Mass. Only the priest is allowed to touch the chalice and the paten and ciborium. In addition, the priest celebrating the Traditional Latin Mass is not even touching anything anymore with his thumb and pointer – which remain pressed upon each other – after consecration, thus keeping these two fingers especially clean.”
Our Novus Ordo Mass, however, is not strict on this and even allows an un-anointed hand to hold the sacred vessels and the Host and priests no longer press their thumb and pointer finger even after consecration.
The doctors also pointed out that Switzerland never put a ban on Communion on the tongue and never experienced a spike in infections.
In Austria, on the Feast of Corpus Christi, in June of this year the Austrian Bishops’ Conference lifted the ban on Communion on the tongue.
If the ban is lifted it would put “an end to the conflict of conscience among many faithful and priests as the canonically ordinary form of reception of Communion will no longer be denied.”
The press release claimed other doctors have joined the original group of signatories.
Will the Philippine follow? We don’t know because Filipinos merely follow their priests, unknowing of the ramifications of sacrilege that the communion in the hand had created. The Novus Ordo Mass and the use of communion ministers have not raised questions about the tiny particles of the Host falling on the floor and trampled upon.
Who is to blame for the sacrilege?
