Back in November of 2009, we blogged about a "Mechanical Communion Machine." We didn't hear anything about them being used, at least not in Catholic circles, but we most certainly feared it. Well, it appears now that we were sadly right. That is where Deacon Greg comes in, with his post about fears of Hepatitis in a parish from "contaminated wafers" and therefore the need for its use.
···•°···
Now before you get confused let me explain why there is fear, in case you didn't go read Deacon Greg's blog. You see, at some parishes where daily Mass, or ever Sunday Mass, attendance fluctuates there has been devised a system whereby the parish can Consecrate only the necessary amount of Communion. They do this by leaving a large bowl of unconsecrated hosts next to an empty bowl in the back of the Church. When the faithful come in, they are supposed to take a host [wafer] from the large bowl and place it into the bowl that will be brought up during the offering and then the Communion will be Consecrated as normal. [FTR: This was a description and not an endorsement.]···°•···
Apparently, The Deacon's Bench linked and article from the Wall Street Journal, where folks worried that this practice was spreading Hepatitis. [Due to all the hands and germs spread during the process.] So what did the church do to rectify the problem and address the concern? The stopped using this procedure and went back to having only the Priest handle the communion. They eliminated Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion and now only the priest distributes it. They decided to install "Communion Dispensing Machines...
Now don't get all upset at me yet, and say that my tradionalist-esque tendencies are missing the forrest for the trees on this one, and let me lay out an argument against this. From a purely analytical point of view this makes no sense. The picture from the WSJ shows people coming up and using the machine, one after another. Doesn't that spread Hepatitis just as easily, if not MORE SO? I mean, it is sort of like the old: "The dirtiest place in a bathroom is the sink faucet handle or the doorknob." Doesn't this just transfer the place where the germs are, and in some sense centrally locate them? As I said, this is only my analytical argument against this practice. My more theological argument, which I think is even more important, actually stems from some of the comments over at The Deacon's Bench. But to conclude with this line of argument, I really do fail to see how people find this is an acceptable alternative. Again, not in the Theological sense, but simply in the "this prevents transfer of germs" way of thinking.
···•°···
As to the Theological argument, if you look at the comments over at The Deacon's Bench you will find arguments on both sides of the aisle. My point is this: every time we alter the way we look at the Eucharist, even in its unconsecrated form, and make it about us as the faithful, we loose sight of the True Presence. The problem of this machine is that it is exactly that – a machine. So we enter church, and instantly the focus is on us. A machine to dispense His Body, For All. Not to get into a Pro Multis discussion, but the latin in the Missal is actually "For Many." So we have from the get go, at this parish, altered the view about the Eucharist from True Presence to us, the sinful faithful. Sure, there are plenty of other ways we do this, but we should subtract and not add to this problem.
I see no good reason for this addition to the parish, or the church. There are better ways to address this... problem. We need to decrease the ways and manner upon which we place focus onto ourselves at Mass and increase the focus we place on Christ. This sort of thing unfortunately does just the opposite.
†††
No comments:
Post a Comment