A child has been denied first Communion due to a rather severe cognitive disability which, according to the pastor, made him unable to understand the Eucharist.
I don’t know the right answer here but it seems to me that the Church should do everything we can to offer the sacraments but the bishops have said:
It is important to note, however, that the criterion for reception of holy communion is the same for persons with developmental and mental disabilities as for all persons, namely, that the person be able to distinguish the Body of Christ from ordinary food, even if this recognition is evidenced through manner, gesture, or reverential silence rather than verbally.
It seems to me to be up to the priest to make the call.
Here’s the television report:
I do get a bit weary of the exit line from the reporter saying that this incident makes the mother question not only her pastor but her faith. And Anointing of the Sick isn’t just for those dying, despite what the woman says. And her calling it “discrimination” is a bit awkward in that the Church must be discriminating as to who receives Communion.
In the end, this is a terrible situation but I think you have to trust the pastor.
HT The Blaze
April 26, 2011 at 2:57 pm
Well, Orthodox baptize, confirm and give Communion to babies to bring them into the church. This child may understand much more than the priest can tell. The child obviously cannot do anything to the Blessed Sacrament to desecrate it. He cannot take it and play with it. He can only eat it. How many of us in our lives have received Holy Eucharist empty-headed or even unworthily?
And I think the Catechism says somewhere that baptized members of the Church have rights to the reception of the Sacraments of Eucharist, Confirmation and Reconciliation.
I understand the mother's anger and hurt. I vote (if it were permissible) that the child be given Communion.
April 26, 2011 at 3:00 pm
The interpretation of the law holds water. The law, however, should be changed.
Communion was always given to infants (people who can not believe anything regarding the sacrament), both in the East and the West, for at least the first millennium, as far as we have evidence.
The reason communion for infants died out in the West was that it was a casualty of not allowing the laity to receive from the cup (the minister would dip their finger into the Precious Blood and put it on the lips of the infant). No communion from the cup, no infant communion, as they couldn't receive the host (or smaller children might not actually eat it, thus risking profanation).
Explanations given by Thomas Aquinas and others as to why infants and the mentally disabled cannot receive communion (and do not need to, anyway) are an attempt to justify then-current practice, and shouldn't be interpreted as definitive reasons against the once common practice.
The East, except where affected by Latin thought on the issue, has continued the practice of communicating infants to the present day.
April 26, 2011 at 3:23 pm
The story notes that the pastor did not meet the child, which means the sacrament coordinator and the DRE made the call. In a case like this, we (religious educators) would normally advise the pastor, and the pastor would meet with the family to make a final judgment and explain it to them. That step was lacking and tends to call the pastor's judgment into question. You don't make a radical decision like that without personal consultation with the family. (He also could have explained the Anointing of the Sick to her.)
In preparing students for Confirmation, we wind up refusing the sacrament to about 1 person a year. This is only reserved for extreme examples, such as someone who says "I don't believe in God or Jesus or the Church." We explain that they can come back when they are older and more properly disposed to the sacrament. In this case, however, the child is unlikely to become more aware of the nature of the sacrament. As previous commentators noted, Eucharist for infants has a long historical pedigree. Since the Eucharist is at the heart of the life of the Church, it's rather cruel to deny it to the child.
April 26, 2011 at 4:20 pm
It doesn't make me question my faith, but it does make me question the Roman Rite on this issue. The EO and the Byzantine etc have it right in giving Communion to anyone baptized in the Church. I agree it's cruel to deny disabled children and adults Communion, and as the mother of such a child, I find it really offensive, frankly. I don't anticipate issues with this for my child, but I'm willing to drive an hour and a half to the Byzantine Rite church every week so she can receive our Lord if I have to.
Regarding Anointing of the Sick instead, um, doesn't that include reception of Communion? And confession of sins? No, it isn't just for the sick, but to say he's capable of receiving that sacrament but not the Eucharist seems silly.
April 26, 2011 at 4:54 pm
you may want to check out Father Z's commentary about this episode here
http://wdtprs.com/blog/2011/04/quaeritur-1st-communion-denied-child-with-cerebral-palsy/
April 26, 2011 at 4:57 pm
Eastern Catholic and Orthodox chrismate and commune infants. This implies to me that 'understanding' is not a Requirement to be a full and participating Christian. Furthermore, since Catholics can commune under both species, why not give him a drop of the most precious blood and be done with. I have to wonder if the has more to do with a lack of imagination or not wanting to upset the apple cart of extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist.
April 26, 2011 at 5:02 pm
Do any of us really UNDERSTAND the mystery of the Eucharist? Is it not childlike faith that is so needed "this is the body of Jesus" rather than being able to articulate the theology? If this child can communicate in simple language, he ought to be able to understand that Jesus is coming to him. And I suspect that Jesus would love to enter this child, not stand back and say "you don't grasp what I am doing so I will not enter". Think of the throngs of people who barely say Amen, don't even look at the Host, won't bother to lift their hands or open their mouths to receive the Lord in the Eucharist…is this pastor addressing that? This child would not have been able to receive his first communion without preparation. Was this denial of the entire preparation process or after the fact? Just a few questions that are unanswered.
The SPRED program, Special Religious Ed that is based in Chicago, has enabled mentally disabled children and adults to receive the Eucharist with good, simple formation. When I listened to the instruction given to them (and my son), it moved me to tears because as adults we rarely hear the simple beauty of the Eucharist…adults look for explanations and theology. I wonder how well this pastor is familiar with the disabled, and can only hope that he looked to see if this child is capable of simple faith.
April 26, 2011 at 5:19 pm
In our parish, we have several developmentally disabled children and adults receive. One girl is nonverbal autistic. But her brother — as his Boy Scout Eagle project — developed teaching aids and story cards (of the type used to teach autistic children anything) for Special Ed religious education. When she could demonstrate she recognized the host as holy and God, they met again with our Pastor. He recognized her level of understanding and agreed that she should receive. She received a modified penitential blessing (since she can't confess and really can't sin), but she receives Communion with her family every week.
But there are other issues — did the grandmother communicate with the Pastor or anyone in the Sacrament process ahead of time, during the "months" of preparation? Did she arrange this ahead or really just present him for Eucharist? I agree that there are pieces missing here and that, if nothing else, the pastor (with or without the DRE or sacrament coordinator) should have met with the boy and his family individually to make the decision and then properly explain it to them.
April 26, 2011 at 5:46 pm
no matter what: lesson to be learned- work DIRECTLY with priest with special cases- DO NOT leave it to DREs
to whom it may concern- thanks for recommending Jesus- Miracle Maker on netflix- we really enjoyed it and watched it twice!
April 26, 2011 at 7:45 pm
Absolutely ridiculous. Go to another parish. Flee from morons who seem to only love the law of the Church when it comes to giving Jesus to this innocent, lovely child.
And Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden get it served forth on a silver platter. Frauds all.
April 26, 2011 at 10:28 pm
The mother commits a mortal sin if she arrives to the point of wilfully and deliberately giving scandal in that manner.
She may or may not disagree with the priest or the bishop about the decision; a right to publicly question the Faith she most certainly hasn't.
She should also understand that if her son is deemed not able to receive communion, he is ipso facto considered unable to commit a mortal sin; being baptised, this automatically opens to him the doors of Heaven.
If her son's interest had been paramount, she would have received the news with great joy.
M
April 27, 2011 at 2:40 am
Well said, mundabor.
April 27, 2011 at 4:06 am
Would would Jesus Christ want? Didn't he say something about letting the children come to Him?
April 27, 2011 at 4:09 am
It's incidents and pharisitical quirkiness like this that injure our Lord's Church.
April 27, 2011 at 5:29 am
Mundabor – it is gruesome is to judge this mother who wants to give communion to her innocent child to be in a state of mortal sin. You have absolutely no right to do so, especially in public, and you only add to her despair. I rarely see something so mean and proud here, particularly when you judge that she doesn't have her son's best interest at heart. Think of the heroic love she has shown him already and have some compassion. Imagine her hurt, whose son is deprived of nearly every normal ritual a regular healthy child undergoes. School, friends, birthdays, outings, running, dancing, dating, marriage… it would be compassionate indeed if he could just have his first communion.
But no! You love your rules so much. Here's something that might be helpful: when your beloved rules produce an attitude that is absolutely antithetical to the Jesus of the Gospels, then it's rules you love, not God. Would you not think that Jesus ESPECIALLY wanted these little children to come to him, or just those perfect children who could address him by his proper catechetical title? BABIES can even receive first communion in some rites.
I am understanding the suffering of this mother more and more when I read some of these comments.
April 27, 2011 at 5:45 am
First, in response to mundabor's judgment about the mother in saying "a right to publicly question the Faith she most certainly hasn't." She is not questioning "the Faith." She is questioning a legitimately debatable pastoral decision. She may even be questioning or outright challenging the wisdom of the current code of canon law. There is no sin and certainly no scandal in doing either of those things. Canon law changes and contradicts previous versions of itself. It is not "the Faith." It is a set of rules we think it wise to have at the moment. Beware the attitude of the Pharisees.
This may be a correct application of the current code of canon law for the Roman church. If it is, we would be well advised to adopt the applicable sections of the code for the Eastern Catholic churches that allows for communion from infancy. Let the presumption be that all baptized Catholics and Orthodox are welcome and that they must act in some way as to disqualify themselves (such as Kathleen Sebelius) in order to be denied.
April 27, 2011 at 12:34 pm
Blackrep, I don't do PC so you can spare your rants. And yes, I do love the rules, but they are not my rules, I don't do them.
It is rather you who love do-goodism, even when it endangers souls (do-gooders always do). This is called "being accessory to another's sin".
Again, not my rules, mind.
Mundabor
April 27, 2011 at 12:40 pm
David, the blogpost says: "I do get a bit weary of the exit line from the reporter saying that this incident makes the mother question not only her pastor but her faith."
So it is clear enough that according to the journalist, the woman questions not only the decision – which she is free to do – but **her faith**.
Please also note that I have written "if" the mother & Co., as the journalist might have misrepresented her and she might be, in fact, not questioning her faith.
Once again: to question the Faith means to put one's soul in danger. It is the Catholics' duty to point out very clearly to this. To indulge in easy "let us feel good"-ism is to be accessory to another's sin and to help the scandal spread.
Mundabor
April 27, 2011 at 5:57 pm
Mundabor – you are, what Peter Kreeft has called, "morally stupid." This is one of those things that is obviously a good thing to do, like lying to the Nazis that are after the Jews in your basement. About this he says:
"It's a good thing to do. If you don't know that, you're morally stupid, and moral stupidity comes in two opposite forms: relativism and legalism. Relativism sees no principles, only people; legalism sees no people, only principles."
You would shame Jesus himself for healing on a Sabbath… that PC "do-gooder!"
April 27, 2011 at 6:31 pm
Blackrep,
how does your insulting me – even if through the convenient hiding behind what another has written – squares with your being oh so charitable?
You see I do not even need to insult you back.
Mundabor