Church Prevents Sacrilege, Insures Body Of Christ Is Protected

[RC_]

[url="http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/0304communion0304.html"]Link Here[/url]

The Catholic Church has told the parents of a 10-year-old autistic boy that, because the child cannot consume the host, he is not receiving Communion properly. Until he does, church officials say, he cannot partake of the church's most meaningful sacrament.

According to a letter from Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted, delivered to the Lake Havasu City family on Feb. 12, the boy cannot accept Communion in the Catholic Church until he can "actually receive the Eucharist, actually take and eat."

Because of his condition, Matthew Moran cannot swallow foods with certain textures.
advertisement


So Matthew, who received his First Communion nearly three years ago in Pennsylvania, participates in Communion in an unusual way. As his father watches, the boy takes the Communion wafer and places it in his mouth. His father, Nick Moran, then removes it and consumes the host himself.

[b]Otherwise, Matthew would spit it out, his father says. [/b]

{snip}

Phoenix Diocese officials contend that Matthew has not been prohibited from Communion, only that the bishop is "not able to approve the present practice," according to his letter. He offered assistance, which has come in the form of various hosts for Matthew to try, educational material and other recommendations for the parents, including respite care, in which trained personnel would look after the children while the parents took time for themselves.

"Matthew deserves to be able to take the Eucharist fully and completely," said Isabella Rice of the diocese Office on Disabilities and Pastoral Care. "As long as he is unable to do so, we will keep working with him."

The issue carries extreme importance for Catholics. Communion, a sacrament also known as the Eucharist, is the center of the church's worship life. In his letter to the family, Olmsted says, "The Eucharist is the great treasure of our Catholic faith."

{snip}

"I took my son to CCD (religious education) classes for two years to prepare him," said Moran, a stay-at-home father. "He deserves it."

Moran also said his son realizes that he is doing something special. When he was not allowed to go to Communion on Feb. 26, "it was terrible," said Matthew's mother. "[b]Matt screamed and cried because he did not get his Communion."[/b]

{snip}

But diocese officials say the family never met with the pastor and had never approached him for Communion before Jan. 1, when Deptula told the parents that [b]Matthew was not showing proper respect.[/b]

{snip}

"How terrible, how difficult for the family," said Denise Resnik, board chairwoman for the Southwest Autism Research Center and the mother of a boy who is dealing with autism. "We often seek comfort in our religion, and it would be nice to think the church would support them to the best degree possible." Diocese officials said they are doing their best to accommodate Matthew's needs, including hosts that are thinner than the norm, thicker, even smaller. Moran says none of the hosts has worked. Matthew will not swallow even a tiny crumb of the host or a drop of wine with any regularity, frequently spitting them out, he said.

{snip}


A document of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, "Guidelines for the Celebration of the Sacraments with Persons with Disabilities," says, "Cases of doubt should be resolved in favor of the right of the baptized person to receive the sacrament. The existence of a disability is not considered in and of itself as disqualifying a person from receiving the Eucharist."

Nick Moran said he believes Olmsted is not following those guidelines in the case of his son.

In his letter, Olmsted says, "[b]Just to touch it to one's tongue is not to 'take and eat.' In other words, it is not the reception of Christ in the Eucharist.[/b]

"So while your desire is for your son to receive Holy Communion, he is, in fact, only simulating doing so."

Roberto Dell'Oro, a theologian at Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles, says concerns about whether Matthew is consuming the host miss the bigger point.

"I'm sure God knows that (Matthew) is receiving Communion," said Dell'Oro, whose son has autism.

"The Eucharist is a symbol of deep sharing in love. It seems hypocritical to point fingers at these kinds of nuances. If the father is taking care of the host (so it is not thrown away or destroyed), then what is the big deal?"

That is the question Moran is asking.

"We didn't make this a major issue," he said. "They did."

________________________________________

This boy is not reciving communion, and he may spit out the host, which would be sacrelege.

The "theologian" quoted is the one missing the bigger point. The Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ is not "a symbol of the deep sharing of love," it is our Lord and Savior.

I feel for these people (my brother is Autistic), but unless thier son can actually consume the Eucharist, I feel it should be protected from being spit onto the floor.

[Aloysius]

I'm not sure. I actually thought that this was the accepted practice for those who could not in any other way receive, that it is placed on the tongue so that even invisible fragments would go in through the saliva and he would in effect receive the sacrament, and then another would consume the host. it also sounds like with this practice the child does not spit it out (because he does not swallow a peice of it large enough to spit out)

If the Eucharist rests on the tongue for a little time, saliva will take tiny particles of it into the boy's stomach (or maybe directly into his bloodstream) and the reception would be valid, as far as I knew

Now Dell'Oro is expressing heretical views here, however. If he is not consuming anything of the host, then he is not receiving the sacrament and he might as well be read an act of spiritual communion. I thought, however, and I could be wrong, that this practice was considered allowable and was considered to actually administer the sacrament through the saliva.

[zunshynn]

Isn't this from a while back? I think this is very sad... I wonder if he could recieve the Blood?

[Lil Red]

[quote name='RC_' post='1089149' date='Oct 11 2006, 11:59 AM']"I took my son to CCD (religious education) classes for two years to prepare him," said Moran, a stay-at-home father. "He deserves it."[/quote]the problem being that no one really 'deserves' to receive Jesus. we are all unworthy. and receiving the Eucharist is not a right, it is a privilege.

[RC_]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1089184' date='Oct 11 2006, 02:45 PM']
I'm not sure. I actually thought that this was the accepted practice for those who could not in any other way receive, that it is placed on the tongue so that even invisible fragments would go in through the saliva and he would in effect receive the sacrament, and then another would consume the host. it also sounds like with this practice the child does not spit it out (because he does not swallow a peice of it large enough to spit out)

[/quote]

The full article mentions that, and said that the boy would try to spit out fragments of the Eucharist. That the tounge thing is the only way he'll tolerate it.

[Aloysius]

but if it is on the tongue (especially if it is made of a very dissolvable bread, which actually I kinda think most communion wafers generally are), then it's gonna go in through his saliva microscopically and he's still receiving the sacrament.

[CatholicCid]

Unless he spits up the salvia... I think the Church is taking the cautious path on a road with two very indesirable split paths...

On the one hand, the child might actually be recieving the Eucharist through the way he was.
On the other hand, he might have been spitting everything back up.

Since there seems little ways to tell, the Church is taking the cautious road to protect Christ from any unintentional sacrilege.
Might the child join with our Lord spiritually until he may do so physically.

[Aloysius]

but the norms stipulate that in cases of doubt the Church ought to take the path most likely to offer communion to the baptized. It would be unlikely unintentional microscopic "sacrilege" if some spit with some microscopic particles of the eucharist ended up out in the created world; I wouldn't even call such a thing sacrlege... unless you are prepared to tell me that there is sacrilege committed at every mass where the Eucharist is administered by hand; a rad-trad did an experiment and proved there a great many microscopic marticles which get trampled underfoot with this practice. I don't think that's a sacrilege and I wouldn't consider it a sacrilege if microscopic particals in the saliva got spit out.

on the other hand, the microscopic particles which are substantially Chirst which would not be sacrileged if they happened to land in an invisible microscopic way in the created world, would be a sacrament if they entered into the child's digestive process or gave his body any amount of sustinence.

[thessalonian]

I can't see the problem with just giving him the cup? It is also heresy to think that a very small part of the Eucharist is not equal to the whole.

[RC_]

It's not the "mircoscopic" particles that they're worried about. Placing a host on ones tounge, then removing it is not recieving the sacrement. They might as well be giving the boy an unconcecrated host.

[quote]Matthew will not swallow even a tiny crumb of the host or a drop of wine with any regularity, frequently spitting them out, he said.[/quote]

[quote] In his letter, Olmsted says, "Just to touch it to one's tongue is not to 'take and eat.' In other words, it is not the reception of Christ in the Eucharist.[/quote]

"So while your desire is for your son to receive Holy Communion, he is, in fact, only simulating doing so."
Another concern of mine, is that the boy's family doesn't seem to understand the true pressence in the Eucharist.

Edited October 11, 2006 by RC_

[Aloysius]

it was said above, he would also spit that out.

[Fides_et_Ratio]

[quote name='Lil Red' post='1089186' date='Oct 11 2006, 02:51 PM']
the problem being that no one really 'deserves' to receive Jesus. we are all unworthy. and receiving the Eucharist is not a right, it is a privilege.
[/quote]
Amen. Send the parents back to CCD.



To those suggesting using the Blood... the article said he spits that up too.

Al, I have a question... so the microscopic particles are enough for the boy to be receiving Communion, but yet not enough to worry about TRAMPLING them on the floor? This sounds borderline scandalous and somewhat contradictory. It's enough in one instance, but not the other? I'm sure there are also other surrounding circumstances that the article doesn't convey that would cause the Bishop to render such a decision.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

I have no input, other than that I trust Bishop Olmstead to know what he's doing.

[CatholicCid]

[quote name='Fides_et_Ratio' post='1089275' date='Oct 11 2006, 02:41 PM']
Amen. Send the parents back to CCD.
To those suggesting using the Blood... the article said he spits that up too.

Al, I have a question... so [b]the microscopic particles are enough for the boy to be receiving Communion, but yet not enough to worry about TRAMPLING them on the floor?[/b] This sounds borderline scandalous and somewhat contradictory. It's enough in one instance, but not the other? I'm sure there are also other surrounding circumstances that the article doesn't convey that would cause the Bishop to render such a decision.
[/quote]

I see it as trying to set a microscopic double standard. It is a sad case and I don't think there really is any easy way to handle it.

[Church Punk]

I remember there was someone allegic to wheat at one of my parishes. The bishop made special accomodation that the Eucharist was distributed under both spieces. So the woman who couldnt consume wheat was able to receive communion

I wonder if the same provision could be made here?