So What's The Problem Here?

3/14/06 (UPDATE): See here.

Church Denies Communion to Autistic Boy - the brief on this is that there is an autistic boy in Lake Havasu that "cannot swallow foods with certain textures;" the solution the parents used was to have the Host put in the boy's mouth, then the father would take said Host and consume it himself. Please understand that I also don't care for the slants from the Repulsive.

Think of the EWWWWWWWWWWW!!! factor--!

No, seriously... I'm curious as to how this got to the attention of Bishop Olmsted? I'm glad it did; it tells me SOMEONE knows the correct way to handle the Host and that there is hope for the Church. I wonder what their pastor was thinking when he sanctioned this, er, solution. If in fact he sanctioned it. Silence equals assent?

One would think that the Bishop has excommunicated half of Arizona by some of the reactions - Holy Cow... and interesting that the most scorching are from people totally ignorant of the Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church and the GIRM; sadly, some even come from those claiming that they are Catholic, but are apparently wholly ignorant of how the Blessed Sacrament is to be adminstered and handled.

It comes up in the most interesting conversations, and weeeeiiiirrrddd things come out from the woodwork. My brother-in-law, a very successful lawyer, said that a chocolate Host can be made (oh reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeallllly?); my sister-in-law cried about how we need to be all inclusive. As far as this situation is concerned, the child is included. Off topic. My dad just sighed. I *love* the comment that the Church has "failed" the child.

The issue at hand is about the poor handling of a difficult situation. I feel for the parents in that situation, as their heart is truly in the right place. They wish for their son to receive Communion, so they figured that this is a good compromise--then someone called them on it, and it wound up all the way over here in Phoenix at the Diocese. They say the Diocese of Philadelphia approved it, but the more I read, the more questionable this statement seems to be.

The Catholics who have bothered to take the time to *know* the rules of offering Communion know that it does not matter what size the Host is, or that the host may be broken up if necessary in certain situations. The most miniscule fraction of the Body is equal to a whole one. If one took a small crumb, placed it on his tongue, and that does not seem to cause a problem, would this be an acceptable alternative?

It's not like the poor Bishop issued an ultimatum. According to the articles I've read, there were suggestions made and an entreaty to find an acceptable solution. There was no mention of a ban--maybe the imposition of a temporary suspension until a solution was found. Regrettably, there is nothing on the Diocesan website to link to... on the other hand, why should there be? This was meant to be handled on the family/Church level. It was the parents who ran to the media.

I must admit I have my suspicions on the whole situation. Being an EMHC, I've made it my business to know what's appropriate and not, and find it hard to believe that even their parish priest was OK with this. The way the Morans chose to handle it is, sadly, incorrect, and if they were more aware of the guidelines they would have sought a compromise earlier. It's not like the GIRM or Canon Law are hidden documents.

And it's wise to remember that the Bishop is not in the business of making everyone happy; it's about doing the *correct* thing...

~~~~~~~~

This hot topic got bumped from the local front pages by... errr.... uhh... the interesting situation a Mesa battalion chief was in. No further discussion. *gag*