Jump to content

Talk:Communion and the developmentally disabled

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

See Also

[edit]

I added a reference to Infant Communion, without which this article makes little sense. I think this aspect should be more than a See Also, but should be placed at the beginning of the article as a necessary prerequisite to understanding what follows. I shall be thinking of how to word it all... --Sophroniscus 00:02, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have written an introduction which makes the See Also unnecessary. --Sophroniscus 19:05, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Categories

[edit]

Category:Christian liturgy, rites, and worship services

Category:Catholic Eucharistic Theology

Category:Discrimination

--Sophroniscus 00:02, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Question

[edit]

Has the Church made any statements about Communion for the developmentally disabled specifically? This article just has so much more on infant communion that it seems in danger of crowding out the information on the topic at hand. --User:Jenmoa 19:14, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent question. What is the official policy? Let's get that cleared up before we proceed further, and let's also get information on non-Roman Catholic or Eastern Rite practice as well. JHCC (talk) 20:38, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I wish I could find some official position. I have searched and searched but not found anything which would contradict what Canon Law says -- something that I could present to my bishop. --Sophroniscus 23:10, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal from JHCC

[edit]

Immediately jumping into the history of infant communion is a problem. I would suggest something like this:

Regarding Communion for the Disabled, there is no consensus on whether or not developmentally disabled Christians should be allowed to receive the Eucharist. Some Christians maintain that a rational understanding is necessary to receive the sacrament. Others believe that the disabled deserve special consideration because they are among the least of Christ's Faithful.
==History==
The history of administering the sacraments to the mentally retarded is difficult to establish. Many forms of developmental disability were only identified comparatively recently, and cases of mental retardation may often have been mistaken for demonic possession or the particularly dramatic consequence of original sin. In these cases, the Eucharist may have been withheld simply by virtue of a misunderstanding of the nature of the condition. [NOTE: this is a little sloppy, but you get the idea.]
==Catholicism==
The Code of Canon Law of the Roman Catholic Church (and those bodies in full communion with it) has no official policy about the sacraments and the developmentally disabled as such [NOTE: this needs to be fact-checked!]. The nearest parallel can be found in the principles relating to infant communion, specifically, the age of reason. According to the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia article on Communion of Children:
"In the best-supported view of theologians this phrase means, not the attainment of a definite number of years, but rather the arrival at a certain stage in mental development, when children become able to discern the Eucharistic from ordinary bread, to realize in some measure the dignity and excellence of the Sacrament of the Altar, to believe in the Real Presence, and adore Christ under the sacramental veils."
Additionally, Canon 913 states
"§1. The administration of the Most Holy Eucharist to children requires that they have sufficient knowledge and careful preparation so that they understand the mystery of Christ according to their capacity and are able to receive the body of Christ with faith and devotion."
"§2. The Most Holy Eucharist, however, can be administered to children in danger of death if they can distinguish the body of Christ from ordinary food and receive communion reverently."
Many, both in and out of the Catholic Church, believe that applying the standard for children to the mentally retarded is unfairly discriminatory, since it sets the guiding criterion at a level that many of the disabled (unlike most children) may never reach. Advances in medicine and psychology have also identified natural causes for mental retardation, without reference to such things as evil spirits or ancestral guilt. At the same time, the Disability Rights Movement has wrought major changes in the way people think of the disabled, leading many to ask whether a more inclusive policy might be in order.
==Orthodox Christianity==
{{expand}}
==Protestantism==
{{expand}}

How does that look? JHCC (talk) 20:38, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely an improvement. --User:Jenmoa 23:29, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Too much left to be filled in... --Sophroniscus 01:57, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there's a lot to be filled it, but we haven't cut anything relevant from the article (I don't think), and it is now more clear where more is needed. I'm going to go ahead and make the change, especially in view of Sophroniscus's statement above that he/she hasn't been to locate an official position as such. We can always update and add more later. JHCC (talk) 13:31, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Article title

[edit]

"Communion for the Disabled" is giving me pause. Given that the issue is mental capacity rather than physical ability, do we want to move this to "Communion and the Developmentally Disabled"? JHCC (talk) 13:31, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking the same thing. Maybe we ought to put information about communion and the physically disabled? Otherwise, yes, I think a move is in order. =| --User:Jenmoa 17:36, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'll move the page to "Communion and the Developmentally Disabled". I don't know of any comparable issues with physical disability that need addressing, but even if I did, I'd hesitate to put them here without a major restructuring. JHCC (talk) 17:46, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern Orthodoxy

[edit]

I have added a couple of paragraphs here that may amount to little more than a stub, so I have left the {{expand}} template in place for now. My information is based on actual local practice without reference to any written source, so I leave it up to other editors if what I wrote is incorrect in any detail. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:04, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good addition; very well put. I made a couple of small changes, mainly to clarify that confession before each communion is not universally mandatory. JHCC (talk) 01:28, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. It's a personal issue for me since it affects both my children.

I wonder if the connection between Confession and Communion needs to be reinforced a bit more strongly. Certainly you can't have one without the other. As I understand it, the difference in practice is that in some places you need to have Confession before every Communion and in others you just need to have confessed "recently". I think the "every time" rule mostly originates and is maintained in those places where frequent Communion is very much the exception. In the OCA the standard is monthly for those who receive Communion weekly. Is it all that much different elsewhere? TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:10, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If we do reinforce the "Confession & Communion" connection, it should be over in Eucharist, not here. Here, I think we've got enough to clarify both the theory and the practice as they relate to Communion and the Developmentally Disabled.
FWIW, I believe that you are quite correct regarding the "every time" rule, the OCA standard, etc. Check out Guidelines for Clergy in the Orthodox Church in America: The Mystery of Penance, On Spiritual Life in the Church (encyclical from the Holy Synod of Bishops), and most especially Confession and Communion (report to the Holy Synod of Bishops by Protopresbyter Alexander Schmemann). JHCC (talk) 13:21, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't intend to insert a detailed discussion of the practice. As I had originally put it, I was trying to express nothing more than the basic connection. (If it came across as suggesting that Confession was always required before every Communion then I wrote it badly.) As now phrased, Confession appears to be optional. If this is indeed the case in a significant number of places I'll be happy to leave it as it is, but if not a minor rephrasing might be in order. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:10, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken a stab at a succinct clarification. See what you think. JHCC (talk) 01:08, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A bit more detail than I had in mind. I just wanted it phrased so that the connection is clear. I agree with what you said earlier that the exact details can be left to Eucharist. Maybe I'll try it later when my head's clearer. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:06, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since we now have a Eucharistic discipline article, I just replaced the detail with a "see also" link to that page. Ah, the power of the wiki! JHCC (talk) 13:23, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rational Understanding??

[edit]

I was always under the impression, that in order to be a christian, it was required that you NOT have a rational understanding of anything --172.152.1.161 14:16, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A mistaken impression. JHCC (talk) 14:40, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This talk page is not really an appropriate plece for the question. That having been said, I suppose that the answer depends on what you mean by a rational understanding. Faith is certainly required in a Christian. Faith is not opposed to reason. Faith simply goes beyond what reason can know without faith.
For example, faith teaches that Jesus is the Son of God.
Faith also tells us that Jesus is the son of Mary.
Reason then tells us that Mary is Mother of God.
But that seems impossible. How can a human being be Mother of God? Faith tells us that Mary is Mother of God according to Jesus' assumed nature, as Son of Man. For she did all the things for the Son of God which any other mother would do for her son. She carried Him for nine months; she nursed Him at her breast; she mended His clother; etc.
Thus reason and faith go hand-and-hand, the latter leading the former and then the former leading the latter in an unending dance, as it were. --Sophroniscus 23:58, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Some interesting materials

[edit]

From the Eucharist page of the Sacraments section of the website of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Gallup, NM:

"I. PREPARATION OF CHILDREN WITH SPECIAL NEEDS
Children who are developmentally disabled, who have severe learning disabilities, or who have other handicaps are to feel welcome in the parish preparation program. Whenever possible they are to participate in regular preparatory activities and be included in parish sacramental celebrations with adaptation provided for their needs. In catechesis for children who are developmentally disabled, emphasis should be placed on their desire to receive Eucharist. While people are generally accustomed to communicating verbally, there are other modes of communication often used in catechesis for persons with developmental disabilities when verbal communication is limited. Desire to be in communion with God and others is what is most important. It is helpful to remember that a person' s receptive language is generally much greater than their expressive language. In some cases it is difficult to determine the readiness of an individual to receive the Eucharist even after catechesis has been offered. In such situations the faith of the community suffices and the individual is welcomed at the Lord's table."

And, lower down, under "QUESTIONS & ANSWERS":

"10. Is a priest permitted to allow a mentally handicapped or developmentally disabled person to receive communion at Mass?
In order for developmentally disabled or mentally retarded persons to be admitted to Eucharist it is required that they be appropriately disposed to receive the sacrament, be adequately prepared so that they are able to distinguish the Eucharist from ordinary food, and be able to receive communion reverently. Parents or guardians and the pastor share responsibility for seeing to the preparation for and the participation in the Eucharist by such individuals."

A 1964 article from the Cleveland Plain Dealer describes a first communion class for mentally handicapped children.

The second grade catechesis from the Roman Catholic Diocese of Duluth, MN states:

Children who are mentally retarded are to be admitted to the Eucharist when they express a desire for the sacrament and in some way manifest their reverence for it. In cases of profound retardation, the Eucharist may be shared without further requirements, as long as the child is able to consume the sacred elements.

Identical language is to be found in the second grade catechesis from the Roman Catholic Diocese of Pittsburgh.

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has a resource page for Adults with Cognitive Disabilities/Mental Retardation: Approaches to Adult Faith Formation.

Hope this helps. JHCC (talk) 15:45, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it could be most helpful. I suspect, however, that my bishop will say that since it contradicts Canon Law it isn't valid here. For I have written to three bishops and received the same answer from all of them. Perhaps it's worth a shot, though... --Sophroniscus 19:17, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've included in the article some more material from the website of the National Catholic Partnership on Disability, specifically the relevant section from the USCCB publication Guidelines for the Celebration of the Sacraments with Persons with Disabilities. JHCC (talk) 20:59, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
For what little it is worth, the local church did eventually grant my son the right to receive the Eucharist. I had to wait through the terms of five bishops to find one who cared enough to grant my request. But patience can wear down the most determined opposition.
--Sophroniscus 00:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The soul knows what I don't?

[edit]

I'm not sure what you mean...

"The theory is that the soul of the recipient understands what is being received even if the conscious mind is incapable of doing so"

Aristotle, of course, said that the soul is not affected by life, but is merely the cause of life. He also thought the soul to be separate and divine. Perhaps you mean something like that. Personally, I reject those ideas since it means that the good and evil thoughts and deeds of a man cannot cause any change in the soul.

He also said that one has several souls, metabolic, sensitive, intellectual... Perhaps that is what you mean. As I recall one of the Ecumenical Councils condemned that idea. (Third Constantinople, perhaps?) --Sophroniscus 14:46, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt very much if Csernica meant anything like what Aristotle is saying. The Fathers of the Church (prepare for sweeping generalization) considered the mind and the soul to be related (and even intertwined) but not necessarily identical. For example, St Anthony the Great said "if a man arms himself with patience and an unswerving faithfulness to the commandments of God, the Holy Spirit will teach his mind how to purify his soul and body" [1]. In other words, understanding, especially spiritual understanding, is not something that rests entirely in the conscious, rational mind, but also in the spirit. Thus, opposed to your remark below, the soul of an infant may be entirely aware of the Sacred Mystery and receive spiritual healing at the same time that his/her body and mind partake of Christ's healing touch, even if he/she is not rationally, consciously aware of it. Even a physical medicine can heal us while we sleep. JHCC (talk) 15:41, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(1) I doubt it too. But as I indicated, I don't know what was meant...

(2) Catholic thought does not speak of man's spirit, per se. Man has a soul by nature, not a spirit, though sometimes the two terms are used equivocally. One may receive the Holy Spirit as one's own. But we have the Holy Spirit by participation not by nature. In addition, one may be possessed by a spirit. But that, again, is by constraint, not nature.

(3) It is true that one may know something habitually so that one possesses it even while asleep, or thinking of other things. But I do not believe that one can know something habitually unless one has at some time known it actually.

(4) It is interesting to note that -- as I seem to recall -- the Western Church has no problem giving the Eucharist to one who has lost one's mind, provided that he had once had a mind to lose and provided, of course, that he be able to do so without serious danger that the Eucharistic species will be mishandled in the process.

JHCC has it right above, but I admit the phrase does admit some ambiguity. It almost has to. Oddly, nous (usually translated to "soul") has never received a precise definition in Orthodoxy and you can find various fathers saying various things about it. The same is true for pneuma, "spirit", which is sometimes interpreted as a component of the nous and sometimes not. You can, for example, find it taken literally as "breath" and thus a faculty shared with the animals. On the other hand, you can reference Gen 2:7 and say that the divine Spirit God breathed into Man in the beginning is what makes him rational, the nous being the seat of rationality. You can almost take your pick. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:01, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... I forgive me if I am a bit slow. I guess what you meant to write was more like...

The theory is that the Holy Spirit understands what is being received even if the one's own conscious mind is incapable of doing so...

Am I close?

No, I meant the soul of the individual.
Maybe I should try to be clearer, although I don't know if I can be. I said "ambiguous" above, but that's not necessarily true. The Eastern Fathers agree in broad terms about the nature of man's immaterial component and how it relates to the material, and in the main without dualism. That is, they consider man to be both material and immaterial simultaneously, and neither one nor the other is the complete man. Thus the General Resurrection is greatly important, since it reunites two parts of man that were unnaturally seperated by death. But the exact names for the immaterial portion and the different aspects of it vary, and the descriptions of how it interacts with the material body through the medium of the mind are often expressed under different labels. They seem to have had some difficulty in expressing a truth that was clear to them but for which they lacked the linguistic tools. The Fathers' understanding comes from living out lives in contemplation and from receiving Divine illumination (here I'm being unforgivably Palamite) which doesn't always yield expressible truths.
Doubtless it would be more clear to us if an Ecumenical Council had ever taken up the issue, but none did, in part I think because none of the expressed opinions by the Fathers are really heretical and attentive readers get a general sense of what they were trying to express even if it's not clearly understood. Thus when we say "soul" we intend to be talking about an aspect of man's immaterial being. From context we deduce that we're talking about the higher functions of the nous that are not always accessible to the waking, rational mind. What exactly this higher function is labelled depends on the Father you're reading.
Is that better, or have I made a complete muddle of it? (Bear in mind that I don't have my references handy at the moment.) TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:19, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A good general overview of all this is Standing in God's Holy Fire: The Spiritual Tradition of Byzantium by John Anthony McGuckin, ISBN 1-57075-382-2. JHCC (talk) 13:27, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I was basing what I said on my recollection of some of my reading of the Philokalia some time ago. Please feel free to contradict me anywhere I might have been misleading. TCC (talk) (contribs) 18:01, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in my humble opinion, it makes no sense to tell me that I know what I don't know. So I am sure you are using the word equivocally. I can deal with metaphors, as long as one says they are metaphors.

Personally, I believe that the soul is transcendental, not categorical in nature. Perhaps that is what you are saying...

I guess I'd be able to say one way or the other if I knew what that meant. It's been many years since I studied philosophy. TCC (talk) (contribs) 18:00, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The implications of this section heading just struck me. Orthodoxy is not dualistic that way, and draws no distinction between you and your soul. Both are you: different parts of you with different functions but as intimately connected as your various internal organs are in a single system interacting in all its parts. The soul can know something your physical brain doesn't in a way analagous to how your eye can perceive something your hand cannot, and vice versa. It's not something separate. (If it were, how could it be judged?)
Or have I misunderstood you? TCC (talk) (contribs) 20:56, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, you have me confused... Things can be distinct without being different. For example, [God] the Father is distinct from both His Son and Their Holy Spirit -- yet without being different from either of them. But how can things be different without being distinct? --Sophroniscus 22:03, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

By being two portions of a whole. I'm not sure where your confusion lies. The Holy Trinity isn't a good example here since each hypostasis is fully Divine, but a soul seperated from its body is not fully human. (By which I don't mean to imply that it's partly inhuman, only that it's less than a full human being. By contrast, the Son considered by himself is still fully God.) And I still don't know what "transcendental" and "categorical" mean. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:10, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(1) I was commenting on your use of distinct and different.

(2) Categorical refers to the Categories. Transcendental refers to what does not belong to any of the Categories. Aristotle considered substance to be a category in itself. But that really doesn't make much sense, since one says that God is a substance. (As when one says "of one substance with the Father.") Yet clearly, God is transcendental, not categorical.

--Sophroniscus 23:46, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(1) I wasn't using them very precisely, but was groping for what was implied by the header. If "the soul knows what I don't" then you seem to be saying there's a sense in which the soul is not you.
(2) In that case I suppose I'd have to deny the soul was transcendental. The Orthodox ontological gulf is between the created and the uncreated. The soul is definitely created. But we don't say that God is a substance. We might describe him as "consubstantial", but then we go on to say he's also "supersubstantial", by which I suppose we mean that whatever it is that is proper to the state of Godhead, it's not the same as that which is respectively proper to everything else. But here I start to put my toe over the line of what I'm competent to talk about, if I haven't already. This is why I tend to limit my contributions on Orthodoxy to subjects of practice and rite. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:13, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Regarding the question of whether I am or am not distinct from (or different from) I probably do not differ from your understanding by very much. The West, of course, does make a marked distinction.

(2) The Categories are relevant in the matter of definition. The question of origin (created/uncreated) is not relevant. Aquinas was not particularly consistent in his use of the terms. He placed God in the category of substance by analogy, not by nature. But I would think it better to say that substance is not a category, at all.

(3) I understand that Orthodox theology is not philosophical. Western theology, unfortunately is all too philosophical...

--Sophroniscus 01:00, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(2) For the Orthodox the created/uncreated distinction is more than merely a description of origin, but this is not particularly Aristotlean. You might be able to get a sense of what we mean by them in St. John of Damascus, although he does not provide a rigorous definition.
(3) Orthodoxy has been philosophical ever since St. John wrote, "εν αρχη ην ο λογος". I think the difference is knowing when to stop probing the Mystery and to simply stand in awe of it, hence the marked preference for the apophatic approach. Unless you're intending to point out is that Orthodoxy is more experiential? But not only Orthodoxy. Aquinas was right, in the end. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:14, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For an Aristotelian the Categories have nothing whatsoever to do with origin. They are purely a matter of meaning and definition. One defines a thing by similarity and difference. That is to say by genus and species. The genus is a category into which one places the subject. The definition first tells what is similar between the subject of the definition and others of that genus. Then it tells us how the subject differs from those others. That difference specifies the subject. For example, to define a horse one could say, for example, that it is a mammal. Then one would explain how a horse differs from other mammals.

Aristotle saw that the whole theory of definition by genus and species has a flaw. In particular one must have some genus or genuses to begin the process. He proposed a list of ten: substance, quantity, relation, quality, action, passion, time, space, position and state, saying that whatever one wished to define must fall into exactly one of those categories.

The Eastern Churches are theological, not philosophical. The two terms are clearly related, but not the same.

Somehow this dialog seems to have diverged from the subject of Communion and the Developmentally Disabled. If you wish we may continue here, but perhaps it would better to do so at User:Sophroniscus/The soul knows what I don't? --Sophroniscus 16:47, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

for the healing of soul and body

[edit]

I love that phrase, "for the healing of soul and body." It clearly delineates one difference between the Western Church and the various Eastern Churches. The west will only agree to the first part, the healing of the soul. Somehow they forgot that man is both body and soul and both need the Christ's healing power in the Eucharist. What difference does it make that the soul of an infant may not be aware of the Sacred Mystery if his body can partake of Christ's healing touch? --Sophroniscus 14:59, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I should have referenced the quote, but I'm not sure how to cite it. It's best remembered from a prayer by St. John Chrysostom that's said in preparation for receiving Communion, but there are a few other such prayers that say the same thing, or something close to it. I wasn't aware this was a subject where East and West disagreed. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:04, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say it's a matter where East and West disagree. It's merely a matter of blindness in Western thought. Everything has to be categorized. The Anointing of the Sick may heal the body. The Eucharist heals the rational soul. So they don't think of it in terms of bodily healing. That doesn't fall into the same category.

[edit]

Hey, the link to Abortion and Paedocommunion was taken out of Infant Communion and I think maybe it ought to be taken out of here as well. It seems kind of like original research, which we aren't supposed to use here. If anything, put the link on the talk page or a user page, not in the article. =\ It's a personal blog, as User:Mkmcconn said, and its especially iffy because its the blog of one of the article's main editors. I'm going to take it out, but I figured I'd explain here first and let anyone argue it if they disagree. --User:Jenmoa 05:19, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Abortion and Paedocommunion

[edit]

It doesn't surprise me that you would reject the obvious connection between Abortion and Paedocommunion, or rather the lack of Paedocommunion. That's all right. All I can say is that there are consequences to what one does, even if one doesn't understand the connections that exist. For human life is a matter, not so much of law as of spirit.

The Eucharist truly should be a pro-life sacrament.. That the West had been a failure in its approach to this critical issue is due, without question to the sad fact that the West has rejected the words of Christ: "Suffer the little children to come unto Me..."

--Sophroniscus 14:50, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that anyone is trying to "reject the obvious connection between Abortion and Paedocommunion, or rather the lack of Paedocommunion." Rather, what both Jenmoa here and Mkmcconn over in Infant Communion are saying is that it is inappropriate for a Wikieditor to insert a link to their own blog anywhere other than their own user page, regardless of topic. You may be entirely justified in your opinion about such a connection, but that's not the point. Assume good faith and let's not get personal. In XC, JHCC (talk) 15:30, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing personal about it. But it doesn't surprise me... --Sophroniscus 15:37, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
One other thing (regarding good faith)... People made major modifications both to my article, Infant communion and this article without major complaint from me, though it hardly is what I would have written. I could have fretted over it all. But as long as the facts are presented reasonably well, I am not going to worry myself about it. --Sophroniscus 20:38, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sophroniscus, please see my comment on your talk page. JHCC (talk) 15:13, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "the obvious connection between Abortion and...the lack of Paedocommunion", I must confess myself a little puzzled. The Catholics and the Orthodox have completely opposite views on infant communion, but practically identical views on abortion. If you look at the various Protestant bodies, their eucharist practices vary almost as much as their support or opposition to abortion. The connection may be obvious, but could you be a little more specific? JHCC (talk) 15:19, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(1) There is a straight line in Western thought from the refusal to administer Holy Christ to childern to the refusal to give the Eucharist to them; to the denial of baptism by many Protestants; to our own age in which they have no recognized right to live unless and until the mother grants that right.
Do you mean "Holy Chrism"? JHCC (talk) 16:11, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Did I do that? I suppose I did. Yes, chrism.
The funny thing is that I seem to remember that it was wrong and that I had corrected it. Ah well, the mind is a terrible thing! --Sophroniscus 18:42, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Must've been editing the Wikipedia in your sleep again! :P --User:Jenmoa 06:04, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
(2) The Church today has a weapon that could be used to proclaim the value of children. But the Church has no intent to use it. The Eucharist could become a real pro-life sacrament is the Church wanted to make it so. One can hardly expect to win if one isn't willing to use the weapon at one's side. That is all the more so since the weapon comes from God and is God's chosen instrument for the fight. Why else did Christ command the Church, Suffer the little children to come unto me? --Sophroniscus
[edit]

The first 2 external links under Catholic are broken, as well as the Alzheimer's link at the bottom. Could some one either fix them or find other suitable links? C4bl3Fl4m3 05:34, 20 July 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by C4bl3fl4m3 (talk • contribs)

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Communion and the developmentally disabled. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:36, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Communion_and_the_developmentally_disabled&oldid=1201073954"