P
proud2bcatholic
Guest
Why do so many people (even news organizations) spell Bishop Olmsted’s name wrong. It is not Olmstead, it is Olmsted.
- Status
P
proud2bcatholic
Guest
Here is an update put out by the Diocese in regards to this situation.
Church seeks boy’s full return to Communion
In response to the recent Arizona Republic article, “Church denies communion to autistic boy,” The Catholic Sun presents the following guest editorial from Rosalind Gutierrez, director of the Office of Worship, and Isabella Rice, director of the Office of Disabilities and Pastoral Care Ministries:
read the rest here
diocesephoenix.org/_localnews/2006/060313returntocommunion.html
Church seeks boy’s full return to Communion
In response to the recent Arizona Republic article, “Church denies communion to autistic boy,” The Catholic Sun presents the following guest editorial from Rosalind Gutierrez, director of the Office of Worship, and Isabella Rice, director of the Office of Disabilities and Pastoral Care Ministries:
read the rest here
diocesephoenix.org/_localnews/2006/060313returntocommunion.html
B
beckers
Guest
Seems like the church knows what it is talking about…This is a great statement in general…
All quotes taking from diocesephoenix.org/_localnews/2006/060313returntocommunion.html
Accordingly, the Diocese of Pittsburgh never endorsed the present practice of just touching the consecrated host to Matthew’s mouth or tongue. Therefore, Bishop Olmsted has never denied the Eucharist to Matthew.
In fact, Bishop Olmsted is seeking to return Matthew to the fullness of reception that he previously experienced. Bishop Olmsted is asking that Matthew again receive the Eucharist in ways that are consistent with Church teachings and the documents. The reception of the Eucharist is not “in the eye of the beholder,” as some apparently would like us to believe. The reception of the Eucharist is an objective, grace-filled reality at which the consumption of the consecrated host brings the communicant into a oneness with Jesus Christ and His Church. Continuing to deny Matthew the fullness of the grace of the Eucharist would be unconscionable.
We know there can be no substitute for the Eucharist. However, the present practice of just touching the consecrated host to Matthew’s mouth or tongue does not amount to his receiving Holy Communion; it is**, in fact, only simulation.**
We also trust that God is not restrictive in how He blesses people. If Matthew never receives Eucharist in the manner prescribed by the Church, we trust that God will continue to bless Matthew in ways known to Matthew and God alone.
We applaud Nicholas and Jean Moran for their desire to see their son receive the sacrament of the Eucharist. They have shown they are parents who desire the best for their child. As a Church, we are deeply committed to the goal of providing Matthew with the full reception of the Eucharist.
All quotes taking from diocesephoenix.org/_localnews/2006/060313returntocommunion.html
Accordingly, the Diocese of Pittsburgh never endorsed the present practice of just touching the consecrated host to Matthew’s mouth or tongue. Therefore, Bishop Olmsted has never denied the Eucharist to Matthew.
In fact, Bishop Olmsted is seeking to return Matthew to the fullness of reception that he previously experienced. Bishop Olmsted is asking that Matthew again receive the Eucharist in ways that are consistent with Church teachings and the documents. The reception of the Eucharist is not “in the eye of the beholder,” as some apparently would like us to believe. The reception of the Eucharist is an objective, grace-filled reality at which the consumption of the consecrated host brings the communicant into a oneness with Jesus Christ and His Church. Continuing to deny Matthew the fullness of the grace of the Eucharist would be unconscionable.
We know there can be no substitute for the Eucharist. However, the present practice of just touching the consecrated host to Matthew’s mouth or tongue does not amount to his receiving Holy Communion; it is**, in fact, only simulation.**
We also trust that God is not restrictive in how He blesses people. If Matthew never receives Eucharist in the manner prescribed by the Church, we trust that God will continue to bless Matthew in ways known to Matthew and God alone.
We applaud Nicholas and Jean Moran for their desire to see their son receive the sacrament of the Eucharist. They have shown they are parents who desire the best for their child. As a Church, we are deeply committed to the goal of providing Matthew with the full reception of the Eucharist.
B
buffalo
Guest
**It’s not Bishop Olmsted who’s denying autistic boy communion, says Diocese
**http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/images/olmstedXSmalldropshadow.jpg
Phoenix, Mar. 15, 2006 (CNA) - Officials from the Diocese of Phoenix have responded to recent criticism over a local autistic boy who some claim is being denied communion by Bishop Thomas Olmsted.
A March 4th headline in the Arizona Republic newspaper blared that the Church had denied communion to 10-year old Matthew Moran, a charge which the diocese says, is mistaken.
Under the Moran family’s recent practice, Matthew would receive the host on his tongue where it would sit only momentarily before his father would take it out of the boy’s mouth and consume it himself.
Phoenix Bishop Thomas Olmsted said that this practice does not allow the boy to truly “receive” the Body of Christ and that Church teaching is clear on norms for Eucharistic reception. He wrote in a recent letter that Matthew is not prohibited from receiving communion, only that he could “not able to approve the present practice.”
more…
**http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/images/olmstedXSmalldropshadow.jpg
Phoenix, Mar. 15, 2006 (CNA) - Officials from the Diocese of Phoenix have responded to recent criticism over a local autistic boy who some claim is being denied communion by Bishop Thomas Olmsted.
A March 4th headline in the Arizona Republic newspaper blared that the Church had denied communion to 10-year old Matthew Moran, a charge which the diocese says, is mistaken.
Under the Moran family’s recent practice, Matthew would receive the host on his tongue where it would sit only momentarily before his father would take it out of the boy’s mouth and consume it himself.
Phoenix Bishop Thomas Olmsted said that this practice does not allow the boy to truly “receive” the Body of Christ and that Church teaching is clear on norms for Eucharistic reception. He wrote in a recent letter that Matthew is not prohibited from receiving communion, only that he could “not able to approve the present practice.”
more…
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
I felt the gentle waft of smoke under me kilts when I read the first article.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif
T
Traditional_Ang
Guest
I wrote the following to a TV host who was trying to get the Church to “Compromize” and allow the parents of the disabled boy to continue “Receiving” Communion as they had been allowed to do before in a different Diocese:
*I just saw your segment on the Child who was trying to “Receive” our Lord’s Body and Blood by having the EMHE place the host in the autistic boys mouth and then having his father consume the host. I don’t care what the Diocese of Pittsburgh allowed. THIS IS NEITHER LICIT NOR VALID, and may be a sacrilege! It is against the Teachings of the Catholic Church, and NO Bishop may change this for any reason whatsoever.
If you really want to help these people people, you need to ask these questions: How does this young man eat? Are they providing him with some sort of assistance eating? or, is he eating through a feeding tube? If He isn’t being fed through a tube, maybe he can receive in the Style of Eastern Catholics, but with the same assistance he eats the rest of his food.
You also need to remember the case of Teresa Schindler Schiavo, who because she was so dehydrated was unable to produce saliva, was unable to masticate or swallow the Christ’s Body. NO one “Swallowed the Host for her”. Terri was only able to receive under the species of the Sacred Blood, and that’s what she was given. Please, suggest to the parents that the Priest, Deacon or EMHE give the boy the Blood of Christ after the rest of the congregation has communed (or near the end), and that one of them give the same assistance then as he or she does when he’s eating. Per St. Paul’s Epistle and the Council of Trent, he’ll be receiving the full benefit if he can receive the cup.
That gives them 2 LICIT AND VALID ways he can receive our Lord’s Body and Blood. That’s a lot better than what they’re trying to do now, which is neither licit nor valid, and may even be a sacrilege.
…, you really should know better than this. So, please stop counseling this poor couple that you can help them to “Have it their way”, even though their way is against 19 Centuries of Church Teaching, and there are other more compassionate ways to deal with this.
It just is not compassionate to tell people they should go ahead and break the rules of the Church when the Graces can be obtained in other ways.*
I hope this explains the Teaching of the Church and what the family needs to do in a compassionate fashion. At one time, I developed the technique of “Mechnically Softening” food to assist Severely Disabled Adults in eating their food.
The parents need to stop trying to get the Church to allow them to commit sacrilege and should look at how they feed their son normally. You can bet he doesn’t have some food stuck in his mouth and then watch as his dad chews and swallows it.
In Christ, Michael
*I just saw your segment on the Child who was trying to “Receive” our Lord’s Body and Blood by having the EMHE place the host in the autistic boys mouth and then having his father consume the host. I don’t care what the Diocese of Pittsburgh allowed. THIS IS NEITHER LICIT NOR VALID, and may be a sacrilege! It is against the Teachings of the Catholic Church, and NO Bishop may change this for any reason whatsoever.
If you really want to help these people people, you need to ask these questions: How does this young man eat? Are they providing him with some sort of assistance eating? or, is he eating through a feeding tube? If He isn’t being fed through a tube, maybe he can receive in the Style of Eastern Catholics, but with the same assistance he eats the rest of his food.
You also need to remember the case of Teresa Schindler Schiavo, who because she was so dehydrated was unable to produce saliva, was unable to masticate or swallow the Christ’s Body. NO one “Swallowed the Host for her”. Terri was only able to receive under the species of the Sacred Blood, and that’s what she was given. Please, suggest to the parents that the Priest, Deacon or EMHE give the boy the Blood of Christ after the rest of the congregation has communed (or near the end), and that one of them give the same assistance then as he or she does when he’s eating. Per St. Paul’s Epistle and the Council of Trent, he’ll be receiving the full benefit if he can receive the cup.
That gives them 2 LICIT AND VALID ways he can receive our Lord’s Body and Blood. That’s a lot better than what they’re trying to do now, which is neither licit nor valid, and may even be a sacrilege.
…, you really should know better than this. So, please stop counseling this poor couple that you can help them to “Have it their way”, even though their way is against 19 Centuries of Church Teaching, and there are other more compassionate ways to deal with this.
It just is not compassionate to tell people they should go ahead and break the rules of the Church when the Graces can be obtained in other ways.*
I hope this explains the Teaching of the Church and what the family needs to do in a compassionate fashion. At one time, I developed the technique of “Mechnically Softening” food to assist Severely Disabled Adults in eating their food.
The parents need to stop trying to get the Church to allow them to commit sacrilege and should look at how they feed their son normally. You can bet he doesn’t have some food stuck in his mouth and then watch as his dad chews and swallows it.
In Christ, Michael
- Status