No 1st Communion for kid with cerebral palsy

[Victory9]

Didn’t read the article, but I was taught growing up that “disabled” persons must, at the very minimum, understand and believe what Holy Communion is all about ~ Jesus present, Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity. There are varying degrees of disability, hence even a Down’s Syndrome person may receive Holy Communion if they understand what is going on, Who they are receiving.
2 things we must remember: 1) The Holy Spirit is the Life Breath of the Church, and He guides and protects her, hence, the Church has a right to provide guides and laws that must be obeyed. Whether one ‘agrees with’ Church law or not, one must obey in prayerful humility and faith, trusting the Church is indeed in the hands of God, and He will not fail her; 2) God knows the state of these innocent souls. While it is a tragedy in our eyes that anyone suffers from disabilities and limitations, He loves these little ones, no matter their age or condition, and He will not deny the innocent a happy eternity. On the contrary, they are a blessing for the earth, for they teach us to love, and as He is Love, they will come to Him when he calls them Home, and once Home, they will not have any disability at all, and they will wear the crown of the Innocent, a glorious crown that most of us will not be wearing.
Jesus knows His little lambs, and He holds them in His arms continually. A person with a baby’s mind is not losing out on His presence.

 

[Joannm]

It is almost similar to the story of the parents who were petitioning to have their child receive communion using rice hosts because the child was allergic to wheat gluten. They insisted the Church was being discriminatory and that their child was being denied the Eucharist. They were told the child could receive the Precious Blood but they refused to do that. They “demanded” the child be given a rice host. Well the kid could be given rice hosts until the cows came home but they would not be the Eucharist, even if the priest (and I don’t know any who would) consecrate rice hosts.

I would think that God, in His infinite mercy, would not deny graces to any child, or adult with severely limited mental capacity that would prevent them from receiving the Eucharist. If we gave the Eucharist at baptism then it would be a different story, but we don’t do that.

 

[Birdpreacher]

Not every foetus in Israel did that, though - only John the Baptist.

I agree with you but my point is that John just did something in recognition of Christ which Science today could not explain. I am just hesitant about placing man-made limitations on the the soul’s ability to interact with God, even if it is for a practicality sake.

And that’s another point to understand - I doubt that anyone has told this child that he will never receive First Holy Communion - but only that he is not able to do so right at this moment.

I am glad you bring this up. Its important to pray that this kid will be deemed eligible to experience Christ in the Eucharist. Thank you for your informative responses.

 

[jmcrae]

I agree with you but my point is that John just did something in recognition of Christ which Science today could not explain. I am just hesitant about placing man-made limitations on the the soul’s ability to interact with God, even if it is for a practicality sake.

It is not a “man-made limitation” - it is Church law, which means that it is a law that originally comes from Jesus. Let us never forget that the Church is the Body of Christ - it is He who directs its’ every move. Especially when we are tempted to criticize a priest who is being faithfully obedient to that law - and therefore, to Him - even in an uncomfortable situation like this one.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

It is not a “man-made limitation” - it is Church law, which means that it is a law that originally comes from Jesus.

Let’s not confuse issues here. It is indeed a “man-made limitation” and is not a direct revelation/law from Jesus Christ Himself. Otherwise, the Eastern Catholic Churches would not be able to administer the Eucharist to infants. Only in “man made rules” can the Western and Eastern Churches differ, in divine law they are both the same.

That being said, it is the way in which the West has chosen to safeguard/administer the sacrament of the Eucharist. Bishops, priests, and deacon should not simply dismiss canon law.

In such circumstances, the priest and the chancery should have consulted over the issue to come to a definitive answer. There’s some gray area here and there perhaps could have been better communication with the family.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Let’s not confuse issues here. It is indeed a “man-made limitation” and is not a direct revelation/law from Jesus Christ Himself. Otherwise, the Eastern Catholic Churches would not be able to administer the Eucharist to infants. Only in “man made rules” can the Western and Eastern Churches differ, in divine law they are both the same.

That being said, it is the way in which the West has chosen to safeguard/administer the sacrament of the Eucharist. Bishops, priests, and deacon should not simply dismiss canon law.

In such circumstances, the priest and the chancery should have consulted over the issue to come to a definitive answer. There’s some gray area here and there perhaps could have been better communication with the family.

Perhaps, . .and perhaps there was better communication with the family than the article mentions. The tone and slant are not meant to convey equality of view points but rather to garner sympathy for the ‘denied’ child and family and if possible to ‘shame’ the Church into doing the ‘right thing’ or at least to get people arguing about the topic. It would not be nearly such popular or successful ‘journalism’ if both points of view were presented clearly, fairly, and unemotionally.

 

[waterbrook]

Can anyone fully understand the Eucharist? Is the sacrament legitimate regardless of the perception of the one receiving it? Would Jesus deny this child the opportunity to draw close to him because of his limitations? I find the decision of the church here incomprehensible because in this case noone can determine if or when this child will reach ‘reason’. Should all wilth mental limitations be denied? should those who lose their facalties in old age be denied communion then?

 

[jmcrae]

I agree with you but my point is that John just did something in recognition of Christ which Science today could not explain.

Right - and because he did that, he became Christ’s final Prophet. Not every child born that year in Israel became His Prophet, but only John the Baptist.

Not every child can receive Holy Communion, but only those who manifestly recognize Christ in the Eucharist.

I am just hesitant about placing man-made limitations on the the soul’s ability to interact with God, even if it is for a practicality sake.

It’s not completely random, is my point - nobody is making an excuse to deny the child Holy Communion.

If there is evidence that the child can receive in a reverent manner, and shows outwardly that he understands what’s going on, then the priest will certainly allow it. But if the child is not showing that he can discern the difference between his morning toast and the bread of the Eucharist, then no, he cannot be permitted to receive.

Even if he were of normal intelligence and average ability, if he were not showing evidence that he could discern the difference, then he would not be permitted to make his First Holy Communion at this time. He would be asked to wait a year and try again.

 

[jmcrae]

Can anyone fully understand the Eucharist?

Nobody is requiring this.

Is the sacrament legitimate regardless of the perception of the one receiving it?

The real question is, if the person receiving does not perceive Christ in the Eucharist, then will it benefit him in any way? And will he treat it with the proper reverence and worship, if he has no idea that it is Jesus, but thinks it’s nothing but bread?

Would Jesus deny this child the opportunity to draw close to him because of his limitations?

Jesus loves this child the same, whether or not he is able to receive Holy Communion.

I find the decision of the church here incomprehensible because in this case noone can determine if or when this child will reach ‘reason’.

Actually, we will know when this child has reached the use of reason in the same way that we know it when normal children reach it - when he is able to proceed from a set of facts to a true conclusion in an orderly way.

This isn’t something mysterious that no one can know - indeed, the child himself will let you know when he is able to do this, he will be so excited about it.

Should all with mental limitations be denied?

No one has suggested such a thing.

should those who lose their facalties in old age be denied communion then?

Nobody has suggested this, either.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Even as a life-long Roman Catholic, I still do not get why there is this stringent requirement in the Roman Church for recognition of the Eucharist. Christ’s grace works in all of us whether we recognize it or not.

I am glad that I have become an Eastern Catholic. My 13-month old son has received for the first time yesterday from our Bishop.

 

[RyanBlack]

Even in the Eastern Rite, although First Holy Communion is given at baptism, it typically isn’t given every Sunday thereafter - they often don’t receive it again until they reach an age of understanding, and have the ability to receive it correctly and reverently.

This has not been my experience as an Eastern Catholic. Rather, my experience has been that infants are communed immediately upon receiving baptism and chrismation, and that they continue to receive the Eucharist. My son, who is not quite 17 months old, received at every Divine Liturgy he attends, as do the other young children in the parish who have been admitted to Holy Communion. I’m not saying that this is universal practice, but I’m skeptical about the claim that it is not “typical.”

 

[RyanBlack]

The real question is, if the person receiving does not perceive Christ in the Eucharist, then will it benefit him in any way?

Absolutely it will benefit him. Otherwise, the Eastern Churches would not commune infants and young children, and neither would the entire Church have done so in the past when it was the universal custom to admit infants and young children to communion. Also, even in current Roman practice, do priests not sometimes give viaticum to those whose ability to recognize Christ in the Eucharist might be compromised? The requirement of the Roman Church that one be able to discern Christ in the Eucharist in order to receive has not always existed.

 

[jmcrae]

This has not been my experience as an Eastern Catholic. Rather, my experience has been that infants are communed immediately upon receiving baptism and chrismation, and that they continue to receive the Eucharist. My son, who is not quite 17 months old, received at every Divine Liturgy he attends, as do the other young children in the parish who have been admitted to Holy Communion. I’m not saying that this is universal practice, but I’m skeptical about the claim that it is not “typical.”

I was wrong to have brought it up in the first place, since the practice of the Eastern Rites has no relevance to this particular case. In the Latin Rite, children receive their First Holy Communion after a suitable period of preparation in which they learn that the Eucharist is indeed Christ in Person, and they learn the prayers they need to know, and they learn how to receive Him in a reverent manner. When they have accomplished these things, they are considered ready to receive their First Holy Communion. It is up to the priest to ensure that they are ready, and he would be derelict in his duty if he did not.

 

[MissRose73]

If the child understands, has had the preparation classes and shows proper reverence, then he should be able to receive his First Holy Communion.

I remember years ago, I had my First Holy Communion at age 8. We had classes in the 2nd grade, and had to complete a book with our parents & show sufficient knowledge before we were allowed to participate in the ceremony. I also had a mild learning disability but worked hard to learn my lessons, completed the book, and attended every catechism/sacramental preparation class.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I was wrong to have brought it up in the first place, since the practice of the Eastern Rites has no relevance to this particular case. In the Latin Rite, children receive their First Holy Communion after a suitable period of preparation in which they learn that the Eucharist is indeed Christ in Person, and they learn the prayers they need to know, and they learn how to receive Him in a reverent manner. When they have accomplished these things, they are considered ready to receive their First Holy Communion. It is up to the priest to ensure that they are ready, and he would be derelict in his duty if he did not.

About the highlighted one. Made me realize in the Latin Rite the communicant should respond “Amen” as a profession of faith that he/she believes that what he/she is about to receive is the Body of Christ. In the Eastern Rites, the priest says a short prayer and the communicant receives without saying a word.

The Latin Rite has adjusted the way Communion receives to a way that the person receiving should have knowledge of what is happening.

I still don’t agree with it. We’re depriving those with perfect and total innocence from becoming one with Christ.

 

[jmcrae]

About the highlighted one. Made me realize in the Latin Rite the communicant should respond “Amen” as a profession of faith that he/she believes that what he/she is about to receive is the Body of Christ. In the Eastern Rites, the priest says a short prayer and the communicant receives without saying a word.

The Latin Rite has adjusted the way Communion receives to a way that the person receiving should have knowledge of what is happening.

I still don’t agree with it. We’re depriving those with perfect and total innocence from becoming one with Christ.

All very pretty, but completely beside the point, since this kid is not a member of the Eastern Rite.

If the child is likely to profane the Eucharist by spitting it out and trampling on it (or whatever an 8 year old with the mental capacity of a 6-month-old does to it) then he should not receive it.

It’s a totally different thing if the child is receiving it passively without profaning it in any way.

The priest would not be denying him, if he had shown the ability to receive it reverently - they would be assuming that he understands what’s going on.

 

[boonert]

If the child understands, has had the preparation classes and shows proper reverence, then he should be able to receive his First Holy Communion.

I remember years ago, I had my First Holy Communion at age 8. We had classes in the 2nd grade, and had to complete a book with our parents & show sufficient knowledge before we were allowed to participate in the ceremony. I also had a mild learning disability but worked hard to learn my lessons, completed the book, and attended every catechism/sacramental preparation class.

I was in church a few Sundays ago and noticed a young girl about 8 or 9. During the entire mass she was sitting on the kneeler with her back to the alter playing with a doll and drawing in a coloring book. She did not participate at all in the mass…didn’t stand when she was supposed to stand, didn’t say any of the responses, didn’t give the sign of peace. She acted like a 3 year old. And when it was time for communion she got up, got in line and received the host with everyone else. Then she went back to her pew and began playing again.

Looking back to when I was a child I don’t think I fully understood what was really going on when I started receiving communion. I went to Catholic School and had all of the training but I think it’s difficult for most children that age to comprehend what’s really happening. Perhaps we should have the children wait until they’re a bit older and can really appreciate what they’re receiving.

 

[Bluegoat]

I think that the fact that the canons and directive say that is absolutely shocking. If the Catholic Church accepts that it is theologically and practically possible for infants and the profoundly disabled to receive in the Eastern Church, what possible reason could their be to deny them in the Latin Rite? Do people actually think that Christ would prefer that such people not receive? Why is profaning the Eucharist an issue for a boy in a Latin rite and not an boy in an Eastern Catholic parish? What advantage, pastoral consideration, or theological issue could make this seem like a good idea.

I hope someone tells those parents that they can go elsewhere to receive Christ’s Body and Blood.

 

[ConstantineTG]

All very pretty, but completely beside the point, since this kid is not a member of the Eastern Rite.

If the child is likely to profane the Eucharist by spitting it out and trampling on it (or whatever an 8 year old with the mental capacity of a 6-month-old does to it) then he should not receive it.

It’s a totally different thing if the child is receiving it passively without profaning it in any way.

The priest would not be denying him, if he had shown the ability to receive it reverently - they would be assuming that he understands what’s going on.

I have yet to see an infant spit out the Eucharist. Also, they are given very little amounts of the Precious Blood to ensure they don’t spit it out. They are not given the Precious Body as infants cannot eat solids until they are about a year old (they can take puree at 6 months but obviously no one will do that to our Lord’s body).

Also, can’t see how a child will receive reverently by adult standards. Their complete and perfect innocence is reverence enough.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I think that the fact that the canons and directive say that is absolutely shocking. If the Catholic Church accepts that it is theologically and practically possible for infants and the profoundly disabled to receive in the Eastern Church, what possible reason could their be to deny them in the Latin Rite? Do people actually think that Christ would prefer that such people not receive? Why is profaning the Eucharist an issue for a boy in a Latin rite and not an boy in an Eastern Catholic parish? What advantage, pastoral consideration, or theological issue could make this seem like a good idea.

I hope someone tells those parents that they can go elsewhere to receive Christ’s Body and Blood.

Plus the fact that even the Latin Rite had the same tradition as the East for so long before changing to what we have today.