I see where a bishop in New Mexico is allowing public Masses once again, but with some social distancing guidelines.
Isn't it time for us to think about how we are going to do it?
It seems to me that the best way to do so is to begin with daily Mass. Most daily Masses are sparsely attended depending on the demographics of the parish.
In my parish, we use our small chapel and at its peak we might get about 50 people but normally about 20 to 30 people. If I moved our daily Mass to our main church, which seats about 1,000 social distancing would be quite easily accomplished.
We have one Vigil Mass and two Sunday morning Masses. By far our 10:30 AM Mass is quite full but not packed. Our 5 PM Vigil Mass and 8 AM Sunday Mass have anywhere from two to three hundred people in a building that seats 1,000. It is easy to social distance in a space that large.
Maybe we should begin with daily Mass for a week and then the following week Sunday Mass.
Should we require parishioners to wear masks and plastic gloves? And should we have grocery check-out lines on the floor for Holy Communion, so there is social distancing as people approach Holy Communion?
What to do; what to do; O, what are we to do?????????????????????
New Mexico resumes Sacraments in a limited way:
From the Deacon's Bench:
New Mexico diocese becomes first in U.S. to resume public Masses
The Bishop of Las Cruces, New Mexico, has lifted a diocesan ban on the public celebration of Mass, issued guidelines for distribution of Holy Communion, and told priests they may resume sacramental ministry if they follow state-ordered health precautions.
“We [as priests] have been called by Christ and ordained to serve the people of the Diocese of Las Cruces, to bring them hope and consolation during this difficult time,” Bishop Peter Baldacchino wrote in a letter dated April 15 and obtained by CNA.
The announcement came days after New Mexico’s governor banned gatherings of more than 5 people, a restriction Baldacchino said priests must observe, even as the bishop expressed his objection to it.
Baldacchino is the first U.S. bishop known to have amended a previously declared diocesan ban on public Masses since the coronavirus pandemic took hold of the U.S. last month.
The bishop also made provision for priests to resume weddings and funerals in accordance with state regulations on social distancing, and granted permission for them to be held outside on Church property for the duration of the pandemic.
Christopher Velasquez, communications director of the diocese, confirmed the letter to CNA on Wednesday evening.
Velasquez stressed the “essential ministry of hope” the Church is called to undertake during the pandemic. He added that the diocese urges all Catholics in at-risk demographics to exercise prudence, remain at home and watch the Mass on livestream whenever possible.
In his letter, Baldacchino said that “At the outset of the pandemic, I ordered the priests of the Diocese of Las Cruces to suspend all public Masses as we assessed the situation and established a safe way to continue to bring Christ to the people, both through the Word of God and the Sacraments.”Read more.
11 comments:
For the one weekend when this began that we had masses, we blocked off every other pew. Household groups were together, so that was not a major issue. The number were down 25% to 35%, I'm guessing, so the alternate pew approach worked that weekend.
I think the marks on the aisle floor for distancing in the communion is a workable idea. Tape crosses could be the marks.
Or you could get creative with the "Footprints In the Sand" poem. "...It was then that I carried you."
Communion from the common cup will be back - at least I anticipate it will. That will come in time.
Masks could be expected, but gloves are commonly used incorrectly. People touch things while wearing gloves, then scratch their eyes or nose, thinking the glove is doing something...
The common chalice needs a permanent demise. I saw the bishop at the chrism Mass intinct his Host. I think that is wrong for the main celebrant to do. He should drink from his private chalice and the concelebrants should carefully intinct their Host in a separate chalice. The Hosts should not be distributed to concelebrants during the Agnus Dei, but remain on the altar next to the chalice to intinct as is done at papal Masses at the Vatican.
The sign of peace needs a permanent retirement too.
Father McDonald,
From your lips to God’s ears!
Fr McDonald
It's entirely up to you whether or not you reinstate Communion in both kinds for the laity or the sign of peace. You frequently put up a wish list for the reform of the OF, most of which can be fulfilled by using legitimate options. But you have to make the choice. No-one will (or should) make it for you.
Hopefully the laity are clued in by now, and will make wise personal choices regarding the common Chalice and sign of peace regardless of what any Bishop or priest chooses to reinstitute. I’m personally tired of arguing this subject and will no longer do so.
Life is all about wise, informed choices made via serious prayer.
Anon12
Here are some possible approaches:
1. Continue the suspension of the obligation.
2. Resume Mass daily, either inside church (for a daily Mass), or outside for a Sunday Mass.
3. Have a supply of paper face masks, sanitizer and wipes; insist all use masks and sanitize hands, and recruit X number of volunteers to stay after each Mass to wipe down all surfaces with supplied wipes. (You don't want people bringing their own, in case those are the wrong sort.)
4. Retrain all Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion in the way to distribute the Eucharist, in hand or on the tongue, without touching. It is easier to avoid touching the tongue than the hand, no matter what miracles some priests claim they can perform in this matter.
5. Obtain a bunch of stools, which will be set up at each communion station. On this stool will go a purificator or hand towel, and a small bowl filled with a neutral spirit (i.e., vodka) or some other suitable alcohol that is both antiseptic and safe to consume, at least in small amounts. The person (including priest) would give Holy Communion, purify fingers in bowl, dry, and repeat. (Maybe hand sanitizer is safe for this purpose, I don't know, but I also didn't want any residual taste.)
6. If necessary, parishioners could be encouraged to plan to attend Mass once a week, but not necessarily on Sunday.
7. If necessary, Holy Communion could be brought to people in their cars.
8. The collection could be taken up by inviting everyone to put offerings in stationary baskets as they enter or leave, watched over by ushers keeping their distance.
9. One Mass a week could include a homily, and this could be live-streamed, or a photocopy distributed; all others could be bare-minimum, and this could include four or five Sunday Masses. (I really hate this idea, but for considerations of time and the energy of the priest.)
10. A lottery system could be arranged so that some portion of the parish gets to attend Mass each week, and over time, everyone gets a turn. (I hate this idea too.)
11. The bishop could arrange for, say, the 50 or 100 largest parishes, spread throughout the diocese, will have several hours daily/weekly of simply distributing Holy Communion. Times and days would be announced; priests/deacons/EMHC would be arranged around the perimeter of a parking lot, and there would be a system of everyone taking time to approach, and over several hours each time, hundreds of people could receive the Eucharist. This could be accompanied by printed material or an app that provides prayers and readings for the use of those who are waiting. By doing it in LOTS of places, no one place would be overwhelmed. Priests could consecrate a very large number of hosts, confident that they would be distributed in a reasonable time, and keep refreshing that supply. This way, the faithful could receive the Eucharist regularly, if not weekly. Along with this would be ample opportunities for confession and the encouragement to avail themselves of this sacrament, and other spiritual helps.
12. Regular opportunities for Eucharistic Exposition. No, this is not equivalent to the Mass and reception of the Eucharist, but it is not nothing, and can be done in a safe fashion. (I know because I'm doing it now.)
Excellent suggestions, Father Fox. I think the bishops should mandate Holy Communion on the tongue, a far more sanitary practice. I have NEVER received Holy Communion in the hand in my 60 some years of receiving Holy Communion, but only on the tongue. My tongue has NEVER been touched by the priest or the EM distributing Holy Communion. Of course those belonging to the "Party of Science" will dispute that, 3, 2, 1...
Excellent suggestions, Fr. Fox. Might I add:
- Elimination of the "sign of peace". No head nods etc. Simply continue after "and with your spirit".
- No gatherings and/or crowds in the vestibule, including Greeters. It's just too many people to get through particularly on the way out.
- Regarding Point 5, I believe the Russian Orthodox do something very similar to this to sterilize the spoon between communions
- Very much agree with Point 4. EMHC's should be retrained just because and, I've never had a priest who really knew how to distribute holy communion touch my tongue.
- Point 3 could become oppressive but, obviously, at this juncture, it's necessary.
The only point I'm troubled by is Point 10 as I can see this being challenging to manage (my week, your week, I can't make my week can I trade etc. I think the pastor would quickly lose control there. Maybe not.
I am concerned as to national standards lacking regarding handling the wafers from when they are removed from shipping box, packages opened and decanted, how handled and stored when that happens, all the way until consecrated, and consumed/reserved...
I noted no requirement in print from NM regarding sanitizing vessels/containers, tabernacle, etc....masks and gloves are nice, but handle a contaminated tabernacle key, door, or ciborium/paten/container, and gloves now contaminated, along with every host distributed...
Likewise, who all touches those items and when? Who will assure those who do touch them are wearing gloves and masks, and gloves not touching anything whatsoever prior to them retrieving a host for sick call or whatever? I can easily see some person tasked with delivering the Blessed Sacrament to those homebound or hospitalized wearing their gloves while opening doors, or a steadying hand on a rail or pew or even cane...
It will take near O/R infection control discipline to not risk some parish making national news as source of a Mass outbreak, and needs a national consistant approach to avoid that utter disaster with major media out for blood against the religious segment of society.
There really should be a training program capable of illustrating to local churches how even when they do things seen as "right", (such as an IR/UV fluorescent clear dye applied to a tabernacle door, pix in pocket, or whatever), that they just then transferred the dye to everything else they touched.
Attending Mass I can see and applaud, and shutting them down never should have been done, and they should have continued following best safety practices....Holy Communion is another matter, especially in a church, perhaps wearing masks which must be doffed/redonned by communicants with possibly contaminated hands, and left unsaid is the sacrament placed in those contaminated hands or on the tongue only, with priest changing gloves or sanitizing same at every inadvertant touch detected (and not all will be detected with gloves)?
Would you allow someone with coronavirus to distribute Communion while wearing a mask and gloves? And, how will anyone know this is not exactly what is happening?
Mass, yes....Holy Communion at this time, no....
Fr Fox had some good points, but 70% alcohol is required at minimum, so as for storebought liquors, one is looking at needing 140 proof-200 proof for any anti-viral action, and that action is not instantaneous.
And mainly, every local church doing their own thing is a disaster waiting to happen at this point of infection spread....it needs to be a GOOD regimen, and it needs to be a CONSISTANT regimen, so that all the flocks are equally safe.
Given all the medical folk who are Catholic, there should have been a nationwide call by the USCCB to ALL such persons nationwide to send in their guidance/suggestions, as soon as this virus hit our shores, especially from those in O/Rs and infection control, to be vetted, distilled, and disbursed nationwide, and should have/could have been done in only weeks, with a nationwide rule of do it THIS way, or do not do it at all...whether Mass or Holy Communion...
This every diocese and parish just winging it with only local knowledge or ignorance or supplies (and supplies are a very big deal now) is utterly inexcusable. Almost as inexcusable as entire shutting down Masses and even locking church doors. It just goes to illustrate just what a goat-rope is the USA Catholic scene.
Hey guys, you might find this comment from Gov. Whitmer of Michigan (Dem) interesting in light of her demand that religious services not be held:
Michigan Democratic Governor Gretchen Whitmer said during an interview on Thursday that abortion services needed to be provided during the COVID-19 pandemic because they are “life-sustaining.”
Of course we will have priests and bishops who are Dem tools let this pass while insisting we have no religious services because they threaten life.
Post a Comment