Precious Blood for Young Children

And More on Cohabiting Couples

ROME, JULY 29, 2008 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Legionary of Christ Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university.

Q1: I am a religion teacher at a primary school in the United States. Right now we are learning about the sacraments, particularly about the Eucharist. My students (ages 10 to 11) have asked me many times why the "wine" is not offered to children, even when they are serving at the altar as acolytes. I assume that the prohibition to drink alcohol in the United States until you are an adult has to do with it, but as my son once told a friend who is a priest, it is not wine -- it is the Blood of Christ. Is there any rule or policy regarding distributing the "wine" to children, other than the same pastoral reason for which it is not distributed to the whole congregation, for the sake of time? -- B.L., Key Biscayne, Florida

Q2: In our own church, at busy Masses we have the habit of having one Eucharistic minister going down to the back of the church in order to distribute Communion. Personally I would much prefer to see Communion distributed from the step of the sanctuary. I was wondering if the rubrics have any guidelines on the matter. I find distribution at the rear of the church leads to a big crowd of people clustering around the minister and making reception of Communion look a bit of a mess. -- J.McE., Dundalk, Ireland

A: Unless there are specific diocesan policies, I know of no general rule excluding children from receiving the Precious Blood.

Certainly in most Eastern Churches, which always administer Communion under both species, even very small children receive the Eucharist in this manner. Many of these Churches distribute the two species together, directly to the mouth, using a special spoon.

Although I am unaware if the question has been legally tested in the United States, I doubt that there are serious legal concerns regarding distribution of the Precious Blood to children.

If the U.S. Supreme Court can justify admitting the use of an illegal hallucinogen to a specific group in the name of religious freedom, then a few drops of what is apparently an alcoholic beverage is unlikely to muster a challenge.

Of more concern is the possibility of an adverse reflex reaction to wine on the part of young children unused to its strong taste, especially when the most common form of distribution is directly from the chalice. It is also more likely that children could drop the chalice.

This difficulty can be remedied by initiating children to Communion under both kinds under the form of intinction in which a corner of the host is dipped in the chalice and placed directly upon the tongue. This allows them to gradually become accustomed to the taste as well as obtaining the spiritual benefit of receiving both species.

It has the added advantage of introducing them to the possibility of receiving the host on the tongue in places where receiving on the hand has not only been permitted but has become the only option explained to young children.

Regarding the manner of distributing Communion, No. 160 of the General Instruction of the Roman Missal (U.S. version) says:

“The priest then takes the paten or ciborium and goes to the communicants, who, as a rule, approach in a procession.

“The faithful are not permitted to take the consecrated bread or the sacred chalice by themselves and, still less, to hand them from one to another. The norm for reception of Holy Communion in the dioceses of the United States is standing. Communicants should not be denied Holy Communion because they kneel. Rather, such instances should be addressed pastorally, by providing the faithful with proper catechesis on the reasons for this norm.

“When receiving Holy Communion, the communicant bows his or her head before the Sacrament as a gesture of reverence and receives the Body of the Lord from the minister. The consecrated host may be received either on the tongue or in the hand, at the discretion of each communicant. When Holy Communion is received under both kinds, the sign of reverence is also made before receiving the Precious Blood.”

The expression “as a rule” means that this is the best option. But it does not exclude other possibilities if logistical difficulties make it impractical for all to approach the presbytery or sanctuary in a reasonable lapse of time.

However, other solutions should always ensure a dignified approach to Communion and the possibility of making a suitable act of reverence including kneeling in those countries where the bishops' conferences have not specified another habitual form of reception (as is the case of Italy and most other countries).

Going to the back of the church, as our reader has noticed, can lead to disorganization. This makes it easier for hosts to fall and for people with evil intentions to steal a sacred host.

Therefore, in conclusion, it is best that all communicants approach the presbytery area to receive Communion, even from several ministers. If this is not practically possible, then I would suggest using side altars as suitable distribution points. If there are no suitable side altars, then I suggest setting up temporary fixed spots for distributing the Eucharist at which the minister of holy Communion remains in place while the faithful approach him or her.

If possible, this place could be slightly elevated above the floor so as to make administration easier for the minister and facilitate the possibility of kneeling to those faithful who choose to do so.

* * *

Follow-up: Cohabiting Brides and Grooms

Pursuant to the question relating to cohabitating couples (see July 15), several readers asked questions as to what weddings a Catholic should not attend.

This is a very delicate question and one which sometimes sparks bitter division among families, especially as relatives often instinctively allow the heart to rule the head when faced with clearly erroneous choices made by loved ones.

It is necessary to point out that there are no specific Church norms governing this practice. A generalized lack of catechesis combined with a sometimes aggressively pluralistic society have made necessary a loosening of stricter pastoral practices that would have reigned just a generation ago.

There sometimes is no simple answer, and persons with doubts about particular situations should consult their pastor before making a final decision.

One general principle could be that a Catholic should not attend a wedding in which the person is entering into an objectively irregular state. This would include cases where a Catholic enters into a second union after having divorced a living spouse, and without having received an annulment.

Certainly, concrete situations can be hardest to evaluate, and God alone is the final judge of each person’s heart. Yet, a Catholic cannot approve of an action by which relatives deprive themselves of the possibility of benefiting from the sacraments.

True love for our relatives must embrace concern for their eternal salvation and cannot be limited to their temporal happiness.

In making clear that in conscience they cannot support their relative’s decision by their presence, they should strive to retain human affection and support and avoid a breach in social relationships.

Other cases, while serious, might require less radical reactions. For example, if a relative decides to be married in a civil, Protestant or non-Christian ceremony. The Church considers the wedding invalid, since all Catholics are obliged to observe the canonical form or at least be granted a dispensation from the bishop.

Although the wedding is invalid, Church law has several means of subsequently validating it provided there are no other impediments. This is not the case with our earlier example, even though the second union may be sanctified after the death of a legitimate spouse or after a definitive decree of annulment has been issued.

In deciding how to react, Catholics should take into account their relative’s level of catechesis and practice. It is very different if the relative is making an incorrect choice out of ignorance or fully aware that he is disobeying Church laws. The relative's degree of faith knowledge also influences the possibility of his understanding a loved one's refusal to attend the ceremony.

The Catholic should also do all that can reasonably be done so that their kith and kin marry in good standing. They are often ignorant of the fact that, for a good reason, the bishop can dispense from the Catholic ritual so that a wedding according to the rites of another faith is considered as valid in Catholic eyes. This dispensation is rarely granted in the case of civil marriages, but it is always possible to hold a private ceremony later that validates the marriage.

If the Catholic party has done all that is possible and there is obstinate refusal to at least ask for a dispensation, then the Catholic loved one should refrain from attending the ceremony.

If one sees that it is simply ignorance, and nothing but bitterness is to be gained by refusing to attend the celebration, or at least the reception, then one could attend while making one's disapproval clear. But this kind of case is best discussed with one's pastor ahead of time.