I can’t count the number of times that I have been assured that it is safe to drink from the common cup. Admittedly, if it were VERY dangerous, our churches would be empty–we’d all be dead. But is it safe? As a microbiologist and immunologist, I think not.
Let’s tackle the published literature that is used to support this idea first.
Manangan, et al., Am J Infec Control 26(5), 1998
Interestingly, this much-quoted letter to the editor has been removed, perhaps signifying that the author and/or the journal realized it was erroneous. Fortunately, I analyzed the article before it disappeared. A statement in the first paragraph asserted the common cup is safe and is quoted in various other places, even though the second part of the sentence, said “controversy surrounds this issue”. The very next paragraph said that “bacteria and viruses can contaminate a common communion cup”, and that “viral illnesses, such as the common cold” can be transmitted via the cup.
The final paragraph said that “…sharing the communion cup is discouraged if a person has an active respiratory infection (ie, cold or flu) or moist or open sores on their lips (eg, herpes)”. Please note that 20% of colds are caused by a type of Coronavirus.
Now, as I mentioned, the article has been taken down. But it’s still used to support the common cup. Therefore, it might be helpful to analyze what was there. Note first that the first author is a nurse: it is vital to realize that letters to the editor are not peer-reviewed. Indeed, it would never have survived this process. Not wishing to become too technical, allow me to point out just a few flaws, any of which potentially invalidate the entire premise of the article.
First, the letter started by saying that “no documented transmission…has been traced to the use of a common communion cup.” Since valid documentation would require an intensive research study, which costs a lot of money, this amounts to saying, “Hey Guys, we haven’t studied this.” I would like to see a reference to even one research study that investigated whether a particular outbreak could be traced to communion. The CDC is referenced as saying that this has not been done in the last phrase of the second paragraph of the letter.
Second, the letter said that bacteria and viruses contaminate the cup. Since it is not possible to grow viruses in culture, apart from in their host or its cells, I would love to know how they did this research. I don’t doubt that viruses do contaminate the cup, but that does not permit me to assert that “experimental studies have shown” this in the context of a “scientific” communication. Making unverifiable and, indeed, untrue statements nullifies this letter.
Third, the authors quote a study of 681 people where it was found that those who received communion did not become ill more often than those who did not. There are so many red flags in this statement that it cannot even be taken seriously. The offending sentence, which is in the third paragraph of the letter, said that the authors are putting those who take communion daily in the same group as those who take it less often. And they are putting those who attend church in the same group as those who don’t. Any epidemiologist would be appalled. When tracing the source of disease, one must be precise. This is anything but. In my opinion as a published biologist and university teacher, the sloppy technique invalidates the entire study.
I could go on dissecting this letter, but won’t. The point has been made.
This is a very old review article, which was written to address concerns after HIV was discovered in saliva. The authors state that the alcohol content of wine does not reduce the transmission of bacteria. Irrelevant since HIV is a virus and the first virus was discovered because it was impervious to alcohol!
What is more concerning to me is that most readers (and priests) won’t know that not all microbes are created equal. But they weren’t. That is, there is a fundamental difference between bacteria and viruses and fungi and, indeed, between different types of bacteria and different types of viruses and different types of fungi.
Some bacteria and viruses are sensitive to high concentrations of alcohol, provided that they are exposed for sufficient time. Others are not. I know of none that would be affected by a brief exposure to the concentration of alcohol in wine.
But we wipe the cup, right? Yes, and wiping the cup might help to a limited degree, but who of us would remain the patient of a dentist who merely wiped his surgical instruments between patients? Thought so.
Intinction versus Sipping
Since COVID, many people began to intinct instead of sip from the chalice. Of course, if others are sipping, this is of limited use. Everybody who sips contaminates the wine. So some churches offer two chalices: one for dippers and one for sippers. If a believer feels it is important to drink from the cup, they can. Those who would prefer to err on the side of safety, don’t have to.
But what about the argument that it is more sanitary to drink than intinct because people frequently touch the wine or chalice when they dip? It isn’t true. As someone who spent much time working with blood-borne pathogens and in hospital microbiology labs, I can confidently inform you that the human mouth harbors more bacteria (it’s hard to measure the number of viruses for the reasons mentioned above) than the human hand. Sipping is absolutely not more sanitary than dipping.
But how can we make intinction safer? Having the lay eucharistic minister (LEM) take the bread from the communicant’s hand and dipping it will not reduce the microbial load. The bread or wafer already contacted the communicant’s hand. The final person receiving communion will be exposed to microbes that could potentially have come from every communicant before them.
The best practice is for a glove-wearing LEM to take the bread from the plate, dip it into wine, and place it onto each person’s tongue or into their hand, being very sure not to touch them. If they do inadvertently come into contact with the person, they should change gloves. In my church, the LEMs use hand sanitizer and place the dipped wafer on outstretched hands. That works well.
I’m Okay; You Will Be, Too...probably
In an effort to comfort the flock about this issue, I’ve seen people turn to anecdotes. I heard one minister brag that he shared a common cup with lepers and his faith kept him safe. Umm, I suspect it had more to do with the fact that leprosy is not very contagious and is not spread by the oral route.
Another claimed that he does not get sick more often than other people, despite drinking from the cup. I wonder how he knows. Has he studied the source of the viruses and bacteria that have infected him? Does he have any data on how many days a year his neighbor is ill as compared to himself? How big is his sample size? Is he sure that everyone’s immune systems are as strong as his? Anecdotal evidence is not worth the paper it is written on.
So, what should you do? To sip or not to sip, that is the question. It is your decision. But make sure it is an informed one.