The testing protocol would require sampling and analysis of the consecrated wine and the surfaces of the common cup before, during, and after distribution. Doing this within the worship service and without the knowledge of the communicants and the pastor would be difficult. Each communicant would need to have mouth and lip wipes taken before and after communing.

Conducting a “mock communion” within a controlled laboratory environment using unconsecrated wine would not be comparable. Such a setting introduces a confounding factor, in that the pastor and communicants are aware beforehand of the testing to be done and may alter (even subconsciously) certain behavioral patterns that might affect the test results. The method of double-blind testing would be a prerequisite for any such valid and reliable experimental study.

It would be necessary to medically examine the officiant and all communicants for specific infectious diseases, immunodeficiencies, or lesions in and around the mouth or lips. If the participants had no infectious diseases, subsequent testing to quantify risk would establish nothing. Thus, to test disease germ transmission, it may be necessary to experimentally place one or more infected persons (using double-blind techniques) into the group of communicants. The communicants would then have to be isolated, or else the selected infectious agents would need to be identified by DNA analysis, in order to connect any subsequent infection to the test rather than from some other disease transmission vector. Which disease agents, the number of infected people, and their order in the communion distribution would have to be determined through parametric testing. Again, doing this in a closed communion setting and without the pastor’s knowledge or permission would be, to put it mildly, difficult. It is also presumed here that transubstantiation does not occur.

For these and probably other cost, legal, ethical, and theological problems, such scientific experimental projects, which would determine quantitative risk values for various age groups and others with special health problems, are not likely to have been (or to be) carried out.

How reliable can such testing be? When tested in laboratories scientists also find only bread and only wine…no human flesh or blood. So do we conclude the Body and Blood of Christ are not present because our science tells us so? Of course not. Neither should we be concerned when our science isolates microorganisms from the Cup. Such findings are of no consequence to the faithful. We get into trouble if we try to probe too deeply into these things. The Holy Eucharist remains a mystery.

If you believed that, then the next statement you made is irrelevant, in addition to being incorrect:

“I remind them that alcohol and gold or silver is a lethal combination for germs and scientific study backs it up”

This is not correct, at least not with solutions with an alcohol content of less than 60 percent (120 proof) and for contact times of at least 10 minutes. Check out a paper by Gregory, Carpenter, and Bending (“Infection Hazards of the Common Communion Cup”, Canadian Journal of Public Health, 58, July, 1967, 305-310), a note by Furlow and Dougherty (“Bacteria on the Common Communion Cup”, Annals of Internal Medicine, 118(7), 1 April, p.572), an article, “A Comparison of Commonly Used Surface Disinfectants Alcohol-, Phenol-, Chlorine-, and Quaternary Amine-Based Disinfectants,” (Lauren Crawford, Zhi-Jian Yu, Erin Keegan, and Tina Yu, Infection Control Today, November 1, 2000), and this from a paper, “The Effects of Receiving Holy Communion on Health,” (Anne Lagrange Loving, Lisa F. Wolf; Journal of Environmental Health, Vol. 60, 1997):

“Wine in the chalice has been tested in both church and laboratory settings (16,20,22-24). Chalice rims have been tested for bacteria after people have sipped (12, 22, 24), as have the purificator cloths that are used to wipe chalice rims between sips (12, 26). The heavy metals used to make most chalices have been tested for antibacterial activity, as have glass and pottery (20, 26, 29). Wafers have been tested for sterility and for their ability to transfer microbes when dipped in wine (9, 27). Without exception, every one of these studies has drawn the same conclusion: Some bacteria do survive in the wine, on the chalice rim, or on a wine-soaked wafer significantly longer than the time that normally elapses between one parishioner’s participation and the next. The potential for spread of infection during this religious ritual does exist.”

Noted references:
9. Marty, M.E. (1992), “Intinct, I Think,” Christian Century, 103:79.
12. Page, C.G. (June 27, 1925), “The Common Cup,” The Churchman, p.13.
16. Anders, H.S. (April 3, 1897), “Infection by Common Cups,” Public Health, p.662.
20. Forbes, C. (March 7,1894), “Presentation to a Joint Meeting of the Session and Trustees of the Central Presbyterian Church of Rochester, N.Y.”
22. Gill, O.N. (1988), “The Hazard of Infection from the Shared Communion Cup,” J. Infect., 16:3-23.
23. Godfrey, W.H. (1939), “Communion Cup and Bacteria,” JAMA, 112:2555.
24. Gregory, K.F., J.A. Carpenter, and G.C. Bending (1967), “Infection Hazards of the Common Communion Cup,” Can. J. Public Health, 58:305310.
26. Hobbs, B.C., J.A. Knowlden, and A. White (1967), “Experiments on the Communion Cup,” J. Hyg. (Camb), 65:37-48.
27. Loving, A.L. (1995), “A Controlled Study on Intinction: A Safer Alternative Method for Receiving Holy Communion,” J. Envtl. Health, 58:24-28.
29. Burrows, W., and E.S. Hemmens (1943), “Survival of Bacteria on the Silver Communion Cup,” J. Infect. Dis., 73:180-190.

I also recommend knee braces. Nothing fancy; just the ones you find at the drugstore are very helpful. Then when you’re running, kick your foot out a little further on your forward strides, so that you strike ahead of the heel instead of directly on it. That way you aren’t taking the full force of the foot strike on pavement in a direct line up to the knee joint.

Vestments, music, painting, every single thing is eminently practical!