No 1st Communion for kid with cerebral palsy

[Julee]

My son, who just turned thirteen, has severe cerebral palsy and is nonverbal. He goes to Mass with my husband and I every Sunday. Since we can’t leave him in his wheelchair by himself (he also has a seizure disorder), we take him up to communion with us. Occasionally, when we have a visiting priest, he’ll ask if my son can receive communion and when I shake my head no, he’ll bless him. At those times, I’ve wondered if it would be possible for him to one day receive the Eucharist, but it’s not something I’ve ever looked into or pursued. Spiritually, I agree with something one of the sisters in my parish told me, and that is, he’s spiritually way ahead of most of us because he’s been baptized and will never commit a sin. Still, there are those times, when I’ve wondered if in his heart, it would be a joy to him to receive the Eucharist. He’s usually very calm and happy during Mass and I can’t help but wonder if he feels His presence. I hope so.

In regards to cognitive ability—I want to say that determining cognitive ability in a child with profound disabilities is very difficult. My son’s fine motor skills are nonexistent and his gross motor skills are extremely limited and inconsistent. As such, finding a means of communication for him has proven elusive even though everyone who works with him feel he’s “in there” and his movements on a good day are purposeful. As his mom, I know he understands so much more than I could ever prove. Perhaps this is the case with this family. I in no way fault or criticize the priest, but I can sympathize with the family. I’ve been in situations where people, who don’t know my son on a day to day basis (including trained professionals), have written him off as having little cognition and let me tell you, it hurts. Hurt or not, though, I’m sorry this was brought to the attention of the media.

 

[countertenor]

Whatever the Latin Canon law may say, this is just an example, of man made laws putting a road block between the innocent and Christ. Jesus said to bring the children to him, and now, in the not too distant history of the Latin rite, bishops write laws to keep the children away from Christ.

Perhaps some day the Latin Church will return to its own traditions, but until then they’ll just continue to justify their own actions with post facto rationalizations. Infants stopped receiving in the Latin Church, by default when the Latin Church took the chalice away from the laity, because infants couldn’t receive the host, but only precious blood. It was only later that the “theological” arguments against infants and young children receiving communion developed, in order to justify the practice which was a break in tradition.

It’s really too bad that the Latin Church can’t just make disciplinary decision, and say they are that way because bishop so and so says so, rather than trying to create a theology around their disciplines to justify them. Especially since their theology often contradicts the theology of the rest of the Church.

The need to teach the theology of the discipline rather than the theology of the actual sacrament is rampant in the Latin Rite. As someone who has been recruited to help out in RCIA and CCD classes in Latin parishes in the past, I’m always appalled at the way students are taught everything about the reasoning behind the disciplines involved in being confirmed, or receiving the eucharist, without ever truly being taught the theology of either of these sacraments. Even more so I’m appalled at how the Latin priests and the religious ed directors themselves often have a hard time seeing the difference, and when they do, they just say, “well that’s just how we teach it.”

And by the way, the Latin rite bishop or priest has no way to know, what a person with cerebral palsy truly understands in regard to the Eucharist. Maybe try giving the benefit of the doubt. If nothing else, a person with cerebral palsy, can and will experience, and understand the eucharist to the best of his/her ability, and Christ doesn’t ask for more than that.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Whatever the Latin Canon law may say, this is just an example, of man made laws putting a road block between the innocent and Christ. Jesus said to bring the children to him, and now, in the not too distant history of the Latin rite, bishops write laws to keep the children away from Christ.

Perhaps some day the Latin Church will return to its own traditions, but until then they’ll just continue to justify their own actions with post facto rationalizations. Infants stopped receiving in the Latin Church, by default when the Latin Church took the chalice away from the laity, because infants couldn’t receive the host, but only precious blood. It was only later that the “theological” arguments against infants and young children receiving communion developed, in order to justify the practice which was a break in tradition.

It’s really too bad that the Latin Church can’t just make disciplinary decision, and say they are that way because bishop so and so says so, rather than trying to create a theology around their disciplines to justify them. Especially since their theology often contradicts the theology of the rest of the Church.

The need to teach the theology of the discipline rather than the theology of the actual sacrament is rampant in the Latin Rite. As someone who has been recruited to help out in RCIA and CCD classes in Latin parishes in the past, I’m always appalled at the way students are taught everything about the reasoning behind the disciplines involved in being confirmed, or receiving the eucharist, without ever truly being taught the theology of either of these sacraments. Even more so I’m appalled at how the Latin priests and the religious ed directors themselves often have a hard time seeing the difference, and when they do, they just say, “well that’s just how we teach it.”

And by the way, the Latin rite bishop or priest has no way to know, what a person with cerebral palsy truly understands in regard to the Eucharist. Maybe try giving the benefit of the doubt. If nothing else, a person with cerebral palsy, can and will experience, and understand the eucharist to the best of his/her ability, and Christ doesn’t ask for more than that.

Excellent post!

 

[Spirithound]

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.

Couldn’t this be avoided by closely supervising him?

I’m also curious about how the grandmother prepared him over the course of these months.

 

[countertenor]

Couldn’t this be avoided by closely supervising him?

I’m also curious about how the grandmother prepared him over the course of these months.

I have to say that with two children, neither of them ever spit out the eucharist. My oldest is 3 1/2 and my youngest is 20 months. They always swallow, the closest I’ve ever seen one of them come to spitting it out, was simply that my daughter looked down while chewing and it almost fell out, however it did not, and I and my wife are always watching to make sure such an event doesn’t occur.

 

[jmcrae]

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.

And, as you know, that’s not what we do in the Latin Rite. Again, this child is coming into the Latin Rite, which means he will not be receiving a spoon of the Precious Blood on his tongue, but rather, he will receive the Host on to his hand or on his tongue.

If the parents want to change him over to one of the Eastern Rites they surely can do that (although I think the rules of fasting are somewhat stricter - I’ve been told that it’s a 24 hour fast before receiving Holy Communion, rather than just the one hour), as well, but in the meantime, his priest is bound by the rules of the Latin Rite, and if he doesn’t think the child is capable of receiving in a reverent manner in the Latin Rite, he has not only the right but the duty to have the child delay reception of First Holy Communion.

The Eastern Rite has absolutely nothing to do with this particular case, unless and until the parents make that decision.

 

[countertenor]

And, as you know, that’s not what we do in the Latin Rite. Again, this child is coming into the Latin Rite, which means he will not be receiving a spoon of the Precious Blood on his tongue, but rather, he will receive the Host on to his hand or on his tongue.

As an Eastern Catholic who lives in a Roman only area, my children receive the host into their mouths every week, it’s really not a problem. If the Latin Church is really so concerned about the possibility of the host falling, for any reason, then perhaps none of us should be receiving communion. I say this, because when the possibility of a child or other person, spitting out the host is a justification given to prevent them from receiving, I’d have to point out, that I’ve seen many small children and infants receive communion, in both Eastern and Roman Churches, and the only time I’ve ever seen the host fall to the ground, were times that had nothing to do with small children. In fact, I’ve only ever seen adults drop the host, especially older people. Does this mean that we should deny the elderly communion, because they may drop it?

 

[JRKH]

I have something of the opposite case…

Since my wife has Alzheimer’s and the mental capacity of about and 18 month old child, should she now be denied communion? I say - No.

Peace
James

 

[hilde_the_dog]

Courtenterror that’s why we should be using patens. And those elderly for whom this is a concern should recieve communion on the tongue preferably while seated, so as to minimize any chance of dropping the Body of Christ.

 

[ConstantineTG]

And, as you know, that’s not what we do in the Latin Rite. Again, this child is coming into the Latin Rite, which means he will not be receiving a spoon of the Precious Blood on his tongue, but rather, he will receive the Host on to his hand or on his tongue.

So whats preventing the priest from breaking off a really small portion of the Host? He doesn’t need to give an infant the full host. We can’t do that in the East because the Hosts are intincted during Communion. There is no where for the priest to have a very tiny portion of the Host not intincted. The tiniest of crumbs contains the fullness of Christ, placing a very small piece, one that could melt easily and quickly, can be done.

If the parents want to change him over to one of the Eastern Rites they surely can do that (although I think the rules of fasting are somewhat stricter - I’ve been told that it’s a 24 hour fast before receiving Holy Communion, rather than just the one hour), as well, but in the meantime, his priest is bound by the rules of the Latin Rite, and if he doesn’t think the child is capable of receiving in a reverent manner in the Latin Rite, he has not only the right but the duty to have the child delay reception of First Holy Communion.

The East is very practical. We don’t have rules in the same sense as the West. Fasting for example would not apply to infants, even the Communion Fast. When an infant fesses up because of hunger and you want to keep him fasting for 1 hour to receive Communion, good luck with accomplishing that without the child losing it and disrupting Liturgy.

The Eastern Rite has absolutely nothing to do with this particular case, unless and until the parents make that decision.

Of course it does. It shows that the West’s legalism in this instance is unfair to the spiritual life of the child.

edit: Just to clarify my last statement. I fully understand why the West decided to postpone children from receiving the Eucharist until they can be properly catechized. But given the instance of this child, he may never have the capacity of becoming properly catechized, so why isn’t there an exemption made for the spiritual advantage of this child? Why are the hands of the priests so tied up by man-made laws? I’m not questioning the law of the Church here but how man approaches the law. Remember, the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. The Sabbath is the law yet its shouldn’t bind man to it to the point that spiritual growth and the grace of God is prevented from happening because man wants strict observance of the law. That should never be the case. Tradition supports giving the Eucharist to those who are blissfully unaware of its physical reality. As for the spiritual reality, we don’t know and wouldn’t know how they would interact with it. But God will act regardless of man’s limitation.

 

[countertenor]

Courtenterror that’s why we should be using patens. And those elderly for whom this is a concern should recieve communion on the tongue preferably while seated, so as to minimize any chance of dropping the Body of Christ.

All we can ever do is minimize it. However some people take their desire to minimize the chances of dropping the host so far that they take the host away from other people, particularly people who can’t stand up for themselves.

 

[Bookcat]

It is of course important that we seek to understand and respect the different churches and rites and disciplines (and cultures) within the Catholic Church.

Or at least respect the differences…

All are part of the Catholic Church and all are legitimate forms of Christian - Catholic life.

And of course it is important to follow the laws of the various Churches as they are intended to be followed.

Though one can of course send a request to the Congregation for the Disciple of the Sacraments seeking more clarification and perhaps suggesting a change.

 

[jmcrae]

The cry babies win.

I’m out.

 

[TinoTarango]

Sorry that I am barely posting in this thread, I just found it. I’ve wanted to say something on this matter for awhile.

priest is right, family is wrong and displays unwillingness to even listen to church law on the topic.

Exactly. I remember reading something about this story on MSN last year. I too, have CP, and I can attest to the fact to the fact that this child was not discriminated against because of his CP. Because, I can receive Communion. I received my first Communion/Confirmation on April 13, 2010, at the age of 20. (I am now 22.) I made my decision to receive both sacraments based on two things: 1.) after reverting back to the Catholic Church 2.) a surgery that I was supposed to have that, thanks be to God, was canceled Sadly, the difference between myself and the child is the level of cognizance (aside from the fact that I am an adult). Also, I have received the anointing of the sick several times, and I think that it is a wonderful sacrament.