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.
I guess that's pretty much it. If you can't consume the sacred species, you cannot receive Communion. Pretty straightforward. I'm sorry for the autistic boy, and the parents, but that's kind of where it's at.
So the boy's family has designed a little ceremony. It's cute, but it isn't Communion.
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.
So Matthew licks the Real Presence of our Lord and Savior, then his father takes our Lord out of his son's mouth, and consumes it himself.
So does the boy say "amen"? Does the father say "amen"? Do both of them?
Here's the bottom line. Matthew doesn't receive Communion because he doesn't swallow the sacred species, he just desecrates it by licking it before his father consumes it. Did either one of them actually receive communion?
"We are out of our minds over this," said the father, who with his wife, Dr. Jean Weaver, has two other children, one of them also disabled.
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."
I don't think you can ask for anything more from the diocese. They believe this is just as important as the parents do. It's just (as it was in the case of the 8 year old celiac girl) the parents want to do it their way. In the case of the girl with celiac (which is an intolerance to gluten) the mother wanted to be able to use invalid species (a rice host). In this case they want Matthew to partake of an unapproved ceremony in place of the actual sacrament.
The Morans responded that Deptula has barred employees of the parish, the only one in town, from speaking to them.
"How does the diocese intend to help us when (parish) employees are threatened with the loss of their jobs for speaking with us?" the parents asked. "Where is the effort and support from this church?"
Well, Mr. Moran, might it be because any quotes they make to you might end up appearing in the local paper out of context? Could that be? Naww.... That couldn't be it, it's just the nastiness and uncharitability of the Catholic Church.
The Bishop rightly said:
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.
"So while your desire is for your son to receive Holy Communion, he is, in fact, only simulating doing so."
Protecting the sanctity of the real presence of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ? Right on, Bishop!
Now the paper needs to go find a dissenting priest or religious to counter the Bishop. They usually don't have to go far. Just go to California and look for someone with S.J. after their name. You won't have to go through too many of them to find one that thinks like you. And after all, that's what you want, isn't it. You don't want the truth, you want someone to validate what you think is correct. They found him here...
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?"
Of course, Dell'Oro has a pipeline directly to God. He called Him on the golden phone at Loyola Marymount University. They call God directly on it when they have questions about things like this. Also for bigger problems like what color greasepaint is appropriate for the faces of the providers at the "Clown masses".
Well, Mr., Father, whatever Dell'Oro, the Eucharist is the real presence of our Lord come down to earth. It's not some sort of "munch out", it's not "sitting at table", it's not "sharing the love", it's accepting the REAL PRESENCE OF OUR RISEN LORD AND SAVIOR INTO OUR BODIES!!!!! (Sorry... I lost it there for a minute.)
I just have to say: Thank heavens for blogs. If I had to read these sorts of "news"papers on a regular basis, I think I'd just go nuts.
A complex of canons builds a strong case in favor of reception of the Sacraments (1983 CIC 213, 843, and 912, to name some), and persons with special needs deserve extra efforts at accommodation (See, most recently in a considerable literature in this area, P. Vere, "Calling God's special children to holiness: sacramental access for the mentally and cognitively challenged", Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 66 [2004] 195-206).
But a clear canonical preference for sacramental access, augmented by the accommodations that special needs persons deserve, does not amount to a "reception under any circumstances" rule. There are other important values that need to be considered here, and some of these necessarily guard against the profanation (intended or not) of the Eucharist. Both the parents and pastoral ministers in this case have, it seems, sincerely tried to find a way to let this boy receive the Eucharist and avoid profaning the Host. Still, the bishop, among whose duties is to monitor the celebration of the Eucharist in his territory (See, e.g., 1983 CIC 389, 392, and 838), has determined that those efforts were not successful. That is a reasonable conclusion within the scope of the bishop's authority. The situation is no one's fault, but it does mean that parents and parochial ministers will have to think of something else.
In the meantime, no one should doubt the good will of anyone involved in this difficult case; and there is certainly no question but that Christ will help all find the right answer in time.
Jesus told the apostles to "take and eat" the species, and eating normally involves swallowing. But is swallowing the species necessary to receive Communion in all circumstances?
What about the widespread practice of individuals who allow the Host to disolve in their mouths before they swallow it. Since the process of letting the Host dissolve means that it no longer has the appearance of bread, this would mean that the Real Presence has ceased by the time they swallow. Yet the Church has not traditionally said that such people have not received Communion.
Further, what about people who are medically unable to receive more than a few drops of the Precious Blood? In the case of their reception of Communion, the Real Presence may also cease before they swallow as the sacred species are corrupted by the saliva in their mouths. Yet the Church does not deny these people Communion or say that they have not received Communion in these situations.
Lots of interesting thoughts, and not a lot of answers. It does let me know that this isn't as clear cut as I had originally thought.
Update 3: Pete Vere of Catholic Light, is actually involved in this case. Let's keep him, Michael and his family in our prayers while they work through this sticky Canon law case.
