NCR story: US bishops' guidelines for reopening Mass
Archbishop Leonard Blair, head of the bishops' Committee on Divine Worship, suggests the prelates consider a series of guidelines prepared by the Thomistic Institute at the Dominican House of Studies in Washington.
Guidelines on Sacraments and Pastoral Care
Working Group on Infectious Disease Protocols for Sacraments & Pastoral Care 1 April 28, 2020Part III - Phased Restoration of Public Masses
Based on the Trump model that the country will return to normalcy in three phases, the guidelines offer possibilities for celebrations of the Mass first in gatherings of 10 people, then 50 and then on a more regular, unlimited basis.
Their recommendations are based upon a model developed by the CDC which assumes that most transmission is by cough and sneezes which directly transfer the virus to other persons within a distance of six feet or less. This requires social distancing and the use of face masks. Some transmission may occur by surfaces picked up by touch then spread to face. Hence the importance of hand washing and general cleaning of surfaces.
Priests like physicians may have to break social distance rules for brief periods of time in tending to their clients.
While Phase I (widespread contagion) assumes 10 persons or less in a physical space, and Phase II (lesser contagion) assumes 50 persons or less in a physical space, and Phase III (little contagion) allows for more people without social distancing, more people can be accommodated in large churches while still maintaining the six foot standard.
They dispense ministers from the mask rule because that assume they will all be a very substantial distance from congregates (and each other) for the whole liturgy. This is especially true because they propose moving communion to after Mass. Why? It enables the ministers to take off they vestments and to put on masks to protect themselves and their vestments from coughs and sneezes. During communion of course the congregation cannot wear masks. They are completely dependent upon the ministers for their safety, e.g. to sanitize their hands should they touch anyone while giving communion.
The model of coughing and sneezing also led the study group to recommend that the hosts for communion of the faithful not be placed directing in front of the priest for consecration but off the side of the altar
Pray Tell: Recommended Guidelines Raise Troubling Questions by Rita Ferrone
Rita objects on liturgical grounds that the unity of the communion with the celebration of the Eucharist is more important than the idea that priests should not wear a face mask at any point during the liturgy. She also objects to separating the hosts of the people from the host of the priests
Pray Tell: Returning to Liturgy as the Pandemic Progresses by Benjamin Durheim Benjamin argues that social distancing is more about protection of others than of oneself, that too much attention is being placed on accommodating spiritual needs at the expense of social distance relaxation.
PrayTell: More Masses Because of Corona? Liborius Lumma
In Europe it has been proposed to have an increased number of Sunday Masses with fewer people at each Mass. Liborius argues that livestreaming offers the opportunity to join the one gathering of the local church—albeit in physical distance. While there are a lot of ways the physically gathered can express and experience that they are church the church is more than the physical gathering in its limitations in space and time. Livestream especially if followed by communion to the homebound would be a strong expression of proximity and togetherness in unity—even if not anyone can take part in the same physical manner.
Liturgical federation proposes temporary ban on Communion on the tongue "No one has the right to endanger the life of another even unknowingly by demanding Communion on the tongue when the persons following could be exposed to a virus of which the oral recipient is not yet aware,"
A Synopsis of Pastoral Considerations for the Reopening of Churches and the Resumption of Public Masses
Federation of Diocesan Liturgical Commissions. These are the people that advise the bishops in each diocese. Some vary good general principles and many particular suggestions
THE COMMON GOOD IS OUR PRIORITY -- Our first consideration must be for the health and safety of our parishioners and those whom they will encounter. This is especially true for the most vulnerable members of our populations, including the elderly and those with chronic illnesses. Let’s admit to ourselves that while we as clergy, liturgists, and musicians have expertise on liturgical practices and sacramental theology, we must rely on medical personnel and scientists to give the best advice in these matters.
DEFINE POLICIES IN PHASES --
CONTINUE TO OFFER TELEVISED MASSES – The continuation of live-streamed liturgies is of benefit to those who are homebound, sick, or otherwise vulnerable.
CONSIDER EXTENDING DISPENSATION FROM SUNDAY OBLIGATION -- While we recognize that many are eager to return to Mass in our churches, it remains important for those who are elderly and otherwise at risk to refrain from returning to public liturgies until it is manifestly safe to do so.
PRESERVE THE LITURGICAL YEAR
COMMUNICATION IS KEY
THINK LONG TERM
Jack's Opinion
1. This is a long term problem, We are likely to be dealing with the virus for several years
2. The Elderly and other Vulnerable people should be our chief concerns
3. Livestreaming needs to be an essential part of parish life in order to encourage the elderly and vulnerable to stay at home (until their is a vaccine and/or there are few or no cases in our geographic area)
Thanks, Jack.
ReplyDeleteWhoever invented cut & paste did no favors to forests. That whole document would be half as long is the instructions for Phases 2 and 3 simply said, "Follow the instructions for Phase 1, except for..."
ReplyDeleteTwo points, one of practicality and one of popular theology:
+ Phases 1 & 2 expect ushers to cut off attendance when capacity is reached and enforce social distances But there won't be any ushers in most parishes because the guidelines also encourage older people with conditions to stay home. Those are the ushers.
Also, when people have washed, dressed, assembled the family and arrived at the door it is too late to tell them there is no room for them at the inn.
+ The committee pushes holding off Communion for the layfolk until the Mass is over. If the priest is of the too-fragile variety (like his ushers) it even permits a second priest to take over to distribute the Host after Mass. After the Mass is over. AFTER Mass. I am sure any number of canon lawyers can explain to the laity why that is, I dunno, licit? legal? "just the same"? valid? whatever? It will never convince the layfolk that Communion is not disconnected from the Mass, especially since non-recipients will be urged to hurry off before everyone starts receiving to avoid clogging at the doors. That could trigger demands for going back to the good, old days, when you could grab Communion before Mass and then leave and go about your business.
Besides, doing it after Mass looks to be a lot more complicated than doing it at the usual time in pretty much the usual manner even in Phase 1.
Jack, thanks. I believe these guidelines are not from staff per se, but from a group at the Dominican House of Studies, which the USCCB has forwarded on (which presumably means they like them).
ReplyDeleteYes I guess you might think of the groups as a group of volunteers whose work the staff decided it would publish for the assistance of bishops because the staff liked it and the bishops who supervised them liked it. No real action on the part of any committee of the bishops.
DeleteJack and Tom: over at the PrayTellBlog, our friend Rita Ferrone has provided some in-depth criticism of the recommendation to distribute communion after mass rather than during mass. And she takes a couple of other recommendations to task, too.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.praytellblog.com/index.php/2020/05/04/recommended-guidelines-raise-troubling-questions/
Personally, I don't see why it would be a problem for a priest to wear a mask while presiding. Nor do I see a grave problem with the eucharistic minister and the communicant wearing gloves for the reception of communion in the hand. But both of these are nixed in the set of recommendations we're discussing.
Rita speaks of Communion after Mass being a practice in the past. It must be the quite distant past, it was not the custom in my lifetime. I don't even recall my grandmother speaking of it. What we did have was kneeling at the Communion rail and receiving on the tongue. The priest and the server holding the patten proceeded along the communicants at the rail, left to right.
DeleteI agree that Communion after Mass, if you attended Mass, seems counterintuitive. And I don't see the liturgical problem with gloves or a mask, though it would probably be kind of awkward.
The person distributing communion should be wearing a mask and gloves. Those receiving should be wearing a mask, gloves optional (they are not touching the priest's hands). I saw one video clip of the priest standing behind a door-sized plastic shield wearing a mask and putting Hosts into the hands of communicants through a slot in the shield. This seemed pretty safe. Couldn't see the floor, but people in the communion line were pretty widely spaced. Hopefully, X's on the floor will help people distance.
DeleteIn my view, Communion seems less of a problem than the sitting in the pews, using common hymnals and missals, and being next to other parishioners, especially if they are children.
In our archdiocese it was directed to remove the hymnals and missals from the pews. I see they have already done that in our church. It doesn't look like we'll be singing for the foreseeable future. Which makes me sad. But too risky for spewing germs about. Maybe we can do some instrumental music, that shouldn't be a risk.
DeleteJim, Thanks for the tip on Rita's piece. She got it out fast. I don't recall Communion after Mass, but there was a time when it was common to give it before Mass, so people could receive and get to work. (That led to Fr. Richard Cahill's Ash Wednesday announcement at Gesu in Milwaukee: "Communion up the center aisle and down the side aisle; ashes up the side aisles and down the center aisle, and Mass will begin in five minutes.")
DeleteRita's objections seem to echo Jack's initial comment about clericalism. The guidelines are written as if the priest's reception is all that is necessary to make a Mass. Father CAN say Mass all by himself, but he SHOULDN'T if people are there. Sheesh.
Re: Rita's comment that there is a tradition of reception of communion after mass not striking any chords of personal familiarity with folks around here: I'd like to know more about that tradition and when (and where) it had existed. I'd never heard of it before, either.
DeleteIt reminds me, though, that there is a common perception that everything about the Catholic mass was the same for many centuries, until Vatican II came along and upset that prior stability. Without denying that Vatican II felt disruptive to a lot of people, I just want to note that the notion that the Council was preceded by centuries in which all liturgical practice was encased in amber, is not entirely accurate. A Liturgical Movement existed for many decades prior to the Council, and it found proponents even among popes Pius X and Pius XII. What we've personally lived through is a relatively brief slice of that history of change and development. It's likely that, should our great-great-grandparents be somehow parachuted into a mass ca. 1959, they might have observed a few elements that didn't accord with their expectations.
About a liturgical movement prior to VII, some of us may remember the "dialogue Mass" in the 50s and early 60s. The school Masses when I was in grade school were that way. We learned and said the Latin responses from our missals, English translation on one side, Latin on the other.
DeletePius X encouraged frequent Communion, and lowered the age of reception to "the age of reason". My grandmother, born in 1897, spoke of her 1st Communion at age 14. My dad's was second grade, and that has pretty much been the norm since. The rule of fast before Communion was from midnight for a long time, and that included water. hence the popularity of early morning Masses. By the 50s it was 3 hours for food, 1 hour for liquid (alcohol was 3 hours) and water was any time. The sisters encouraged those who had made first Communion to receive at the school Masses. We were allowed to bring something to eat during the first class period because we wouldn't have had a chance 3 hours prior to Mass.
Katherine, thanks - those are great examples.
DeleteI believe Pius XII also reformed the Holy Week liturgies sometime in the 1950s as well.
About Holy Week in the past, I do remember the Good Friday service being called "the Mass of the Pre-Sanctified". There were no altar bells after the Gloria on Holy Thursday (which is still the case), but the servers used some wooden clapper things instead. They always reminded me of Halloween noisemakers and I'm glad they no longer do that.
DeleteThe most important change of course was removing the phrase "the perfidious Jews" from the Good Friday liturgy.
Re the fasting. When my eldest sister got married fasting was still the rule. At one point during the mass she and her intended were kneeling in front of the altar at prie dieus when suddenly she started to keel over sideways. Her almost husband caught her before she hit the floor. Two chairs and a glass of water got them through to the end of the mass. Nobody ever forgot the wedding where the bride fainted because she was fasting before communion.
DeleteMy grandma told the story of my dad forgetting about the fast and taking a drink of water on the morning of his first Communion. Nana phoned the priest, who dispensed him. He told her, you have to keep the glasses out of sight on Sunday morning until he gets used to it. Glad things aren't so tight that way anymore.
DeleteExcept now we're all fasting, from the sacrament itself.
Jack, I couldn't agree more with your comment that live-streaming needs to continue for a long time even after the restrictions start to relax. This is an area where I'd love to see our parish invest in some equipment and in building a new ministry. Almost certainly, there are parishioners who know much more about the technology and broadcast production than our parish staff, which is comparatively long in the tooth and, quite frankly, a little technophobic. They do wonderful work in their particular areas of ministry, but this is a situation that calls for some heretofore-little-needed skills.
ReplyDeleteOur parish, like many others, is now communicating with parishioners daily with a link to the on-line Mass or a message that the Mass is up and reachable. Our pastor is tossing in good-morning-type comments and sometimes a little more. And the system we have migrated to, Flocknotes, allows for comments to flow back toward the rectory. I can't say the comments have gone much beyond "thank you," but tremendous possibilities can be imagined. And, in the course of this crisis, most parishioners' email addresses are ending up, sorted by ministries in which they are involved, in a master data base.
DeleteI'd hate to see these assets, developed on an emergency basis, just dry up and disappear when we are back to "normal." We stand on the threshold of the electronic age the Church has been told, for decades, to take seriously. Let's take the next steps.
I have mixed feelings about the electronic church. I am grateful for the livestreamed Masses from one of the other parishes in town. Our priest doesn't seem to be really comfortable doing that, since the only time he did it was Holy Week. Not sure if he feels that somehow it is less "real" (I have some qualms myself that way), or if he just isn't very technology oriented. He also lives very simply and doesn't indulge in things we might consider luxuries. Such as, he has a flip phone rather than a smart phone. Which is actually a good example to set. Some of the electronic things are luxuries. But the younger people don't see it that way. I would rather see them tune into the electronic church rather than not tune in at all.
DeleteAnd I am sure that after the Covid crisis has passed we will be undergoing some real struggles about reconnecting, having been "bowling alone" by necessity for so long. Some of us may get so we prefer being hermits.
I think Katherine makes a good point. I prefer "bowling alone," but this is really hard for people like Raber and The Boy who actually like people.
DeleteAlso reading "Individutopia," a middling speculative novel about a near future in which society no longer exists and empathy is dead.
DeleteSo, is "individutopia" sort of a libertarian's paradise?
DeleteNot really. I'm not that far into it, but it's by a British writer riffing off Margaret Thatcher's notion that "there is no such thing as society," so everything is privatized and commodified (including air), people are identified by what they own (though most of their stuff is virtual), everyone competes instead of cooperating, and everything is run by The Oligarchs.
DeleteYou know. The type of thing Jim Pauwels and his Merry Band of Republicans want to create. (Just kidding. I don't think Jim believes we should have to buy air. He might even think a government-run post office and public schools are good things.)
Jean, sure, my kids attended public schools, which turned out to be a lot cheaper than the Catholic schools we sent them to previously. And I have nothing against the post office (usually). But Amtrak is a bridge too far!
DeleteAmtrak seems to be awfully screwed up. I used to take the train from Lansing to Chicago for work about once a month many years ago. It was very pleasant once you boarded, but the schedule was completely indecipherable. Like that train timetable sketch on Monty Python.
DeleteHmm. I was going to take Amtrak overnight to New Jersey for a graduation next week. But the graduation is off, of course. I have absolutely had it with commercial aviation. I am simply too tall for that (6'3"). Nevermore. I used Amtrak all the time in the NY-Philadelphia corridor, even to D.C.
DeleteAmtrak doesn't have a great safety record, at least not out here. And there's only three places in the state where you can get on, and it's always in the middle of the night. Because everybody knows there's nothing to see here, so why waste daylight on it?
DeleteThere used to actually be passenger service, my husband used to take the train to college. I went to the same college, four years later, and it was either bum a ride or take Greyhound. Now it would really be nice get on a train and not drive five hours to see family back home.
Granted that train travel probably needs to be subsidized to be able to compete with other forms of transportation: it just seems to me that the American government, or rather the American people, don't really have the will to pay for the benefit of rail service that achieves a critical mass of comfort and convenience. Europeans have the will.
DeleteThe Trump Administration, backed by a sizeable percentage of the American people, pretty clearly doesn't have the will to wage the war that needs to be waged against the coronavirus. We're bored and this is not working out for us electorally, so re-open the country, consequences be damned. As I mentioned once before: our enemies are observing.
I see you have joined the Cassandra movement, Jim. As for commuter trains, they work in the northeast corridor, not least because if you put their passengers on the road in their cars, you would reduce highway speeds to about 5 mph, and only motorcycles would arrive on time.
Delete