No, nothing will stop this from happening if someone is intent on it. But…it would at least be a deterrant. Easier just to walk out of church with the Host in hand and not have to fish it out of you mouth!Communion on the tongue won’t stop those who want to do this again or something similar.
But…excellent point about having one’s legacy chisled into the internet.
BTW, what’s a statue of St. Michael going to do to thwart this kind of situation?
But that is exactly what he did - fished the Host out of his mouth and put it in the ziplock bag he brought with him. He is now bringing anti-hazing charges against the Catholic Campus Ministries because they ‘made’ him consume it. Actually, they said, consume it or give it back so he was not forced to eat it. He could just as easily have handed it back but he refused to do so.
Why is that. If he taken the host on his tongue it would not have been noticed. He would have just kept his mouth shut.
IIRC, Roman canon law requires him to confess to the bishop before the excommunication can be lifted.
Eric & Hilde, that’s why we receive on the knees under both species - The Wine made into the Blood of Christ actually can help in removing the Body of Christ from the Roof of the Mouth. If all else fails, use the simple expedient of a 1/2 cup of water swallowed with the Body of Christ (Must NOT be spit out)…LOL! been there, done that. that could have happened either way.
…I’m sure Professor Myers wouldn’t dare mention desecrating the Holy Quran or any thing else that is holy to Muslims, because, unlike Catholics, He wouldn’t live to regret it or tell the tale.“Cook said he still hopes to meet with the local Bishop to discuss prohibiting the use of force to recover the Eucharist. He also wants an apology.”
Hmmm…a deliberate attempt to antagonize, and he wants an apology.
My guess is that if he were to have the sand to try to desecrate the Koran durning a Muslim service, there’d be a little more than physical restraint involved…not to mention he’d probably be arraigned on a hate crime.
Which, by the way (not that the parish or diocese involved would actually do it), but couldn’t he be accused of a hat crime?
And “Professor” Myers of conspiracy to commit a hate crime?
In any case, what these two need is our prayers rather than the good thrashing that our weak side would rather see them receive.
Newbie:Communion on the tongue won’t stop those who want to do this again or something similar.
But…excellent point about having one’s legacy chisled into the internet.
BTW, what’s a statue of St. Michael going to do to thwart this kind of situation?
This delict is reserved to the Holy See, in particular the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. See Sacramentorum sanctitatis tutela (The Safeguarding of the Sanctity of the Sacraments.) The bishop can only investigate and refer. That gives an indication of just how horrific this is to us (nor is it a suitable topic in the minds of Catholics to occasion humor).
This is true as well, the thought came to me while commuting. It is appropriately timed with the event of the pope requesting that all who receive communion from him at WYD do so on the tongue.
I was going to mention that too…
I agree, but methinks neither would thwart an effort by someone intentionally out to do what this clown managed to do.
If that’s true…those student ushers assaulted that man…they had no right to apply force directly, without his consent and nor did they have color of right to remove from his hand, that which had been given to him.
If he had been spray painting obscenities on the church walls, surely they would have the right to force the spray paint can from his hands. Why should his desecration be treated any differently?
Colour of right.
The Catholic Church has bouncers now? Sad.
The Eucharist was given to him for him to consume, not for any other use, and certainly not to do with as he pleases.
What contract did he sign that stipulates that ushers may grab him and forceably remove the host from his hands?
