Priest's Communion ban on Down's boy, 7

Run_to_da_hills

"The parents of a seven-year-old boy with Down’s Syndrome have accused the Catholic Church of ‘cruel discrimination’ for refusing to allow him to take Holy Communion.

Denum Ellarby attends a mainstream Roman Catholic primary school and his parents wanted him to join his classmates in the First Communion ceremony.

But they claim their parish priest refused to consider him for the necessary preparation classes and was ‘abrupt’ when Denum’s mother Clare tried to discuss the matter with him"

Would our Lord have done this?

I quote one of the readers comments, "Suffer the little children to come unto Me, and forbid them not." Ring any bells, Father?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2088629/Catholic-Church-accused-discrimination-priest-bans-Downs-boy-7-taking-Holy-Communion.html

Peregrinus

The decision is wrong, and I hope she presses the matter and has it reversed.

In the Catholic understanding (and not just in the Catholic understanding) participation in the Eucharist is participation in a sacrament, and a sacrament both signified and effects the grace of God.

The “power” of a sacrament, if you want to use that term, what makes this particular moment sacramental, comes from Jesus Christ, and not from any personal merits or acheivements of the participant. In particular, it does not come from the participant’s understanding, however good that understanding may be.

It’s customary, in the Western church, for children not to participate in the sacrament until they have achieved a certain level of maturity and understanding, and so have been prepared to some extent to appreciate what they are doing. And it may be that this boy, because of an intellectual disability, has not achieved that maturity and understanding.

But what may be customary is not necessarily essential. It may may be fitting that children should be prepared to some extent before they participate in this sacrament, but it isn’t essential. In the Eastern church (including in the Eastern Catholic churches), just to underline the point, children receive the Eucharist immediately after baptism (usually in infancy) when obviously they have no appreciation of what they are doing and have had no preparation. That's a perfectly valid, authentic, proper tradition, and respected and acknowledged as such by the Catholic church. And, at the other end of life, we do not withhold the eucharist from people who are declining into dementia, and have a tenuous or no grasp of the significance of what they are doing.

It may be some time before this boy progesses to the point where he can participate in, and benefit from, the usual education about, and preparation for, the eucharist. He may never get to that point. But, either way, that is no reason why he should not receive the sacrament with his classmates.

Onesimus

Thats a real shame. Have they written to their local Bishop or Cardinal about it? I've seen People with down syndrome receive in the Church before. So it's obviously not the Church putting a block to this but a priest who seems quite ignorant of the fact that this child can indeed be communed.

I will pray. How old is this story by the way? is it recent?

Peregrinus

A few further thoughts:

There may be some “coded messages” buried in the news report about what is going on here. Consider:

“Mrs Ellarby said she complained to diocese chiefs, but they have backed Father Patrick Mungovin’s stance that the boy would not sufficiently ‘understand the preparation’ or be able to ‘enjoy participation in Mass’.”

The church has denied banning Denum and says it hopes he will be ready to participate in the important religious ceremony in the future.

Children being prepared for their First Communion, when they receive the ‘body and blood of Christ’ for the first time, are expected regularly to attend Mass on a Sunday.

Mrs Ellarby, 30, said Denum doesn’t go every Sunday ‘as a one-hour Mass is simply too long for him’.

But she and her husband Darren, 36, a property developer, said they expected the church to allow Denum to be taught about the Catholic faith at home and that the authorities would be ‘flexible’ as is customary for children with learning disabilities.

It’s obvious that Denum is not coming regularly to mass.

His mother says that “a one-hour Mass is simply too long for him”. But Denum goes to mainstream primary school. He spends five hours a day in a mainstream class, presumably without his mother or father, but an hour a week in church with his parents is too long for him?

I can appreciate that it may be difficult and challenging; I have a goddaughter with Down’s Syndrome, and an adult friend with Down’s, and I’m the last person to make adverse judgments about how the parents of a boy with Down’s deal with the challenges presented.

But I think the issue here may be a misunderstanding between Mrs Ellerby and the diocese about the significance of mass attendance.

Mrs Ellarby suggests that, as an alternative to having Denum attend mass, the diocese should be flexible, and allow him to “be taught about the Catholic faith at home”. That suggests that she thinks of mass attendance as some kind of training, or education, or instruction. If that’s her view, I can understand why she doesn’t want to impose it on her son, who presumably finds all educational efforts - especially those not aimed at someone with his level of development - frustrating and disheartening.

But the point about going to mass is not to be taught the Catholic faith; mass is not a catechism session; the point about mass - and the eucharist - is that it’s a communal sacrament; a moment of grace found in a collective encounter with the incarnate god. The whole point of preparing for communion and making your “first communion” is that its fitting to do this when you are ready to make participation in this sacrament a part of your life.

If Mrs Ellarby (and perhaps the diocese?) think of sacramental readiness, and sacramental participation, as primarily an intellectual matter, maybe that’s where they’re going wrong?

Denum, like all Christians, has a right to participate in the sacraments according to his capacity. He may not fully understand the significance of the eucharist, on an intellectual level. He may never do. But, then, the truth is that none of us will fully understand it; the truths of God transcend our capacity to grasp them. But that doesn’t mean that Denum can’t participate according to his capacity. He can join in song; he can be encouraged to feel and express joy; he can share the Eucharistic meal and he must have some understanding of what it means to share food. He can be encouraged to use the mass as a time open his heart and his mind to God, whatever he thinks God is. He can listen to scripture being proclaimed, perhaps with the aid of a comic-type book illustrating bible stories.

The preparation needed here may not be for Denum so much as for Mr and Mrs Ellarby. They need to be prepared to bring Denum to mass regularly and to work out, with him, a mode of participation which is appropriate to him and his needs and capacities. And there may need to be some preparation for the parish community, as well; those of them who think the only proper way for a child to participate in mass is by sitting quietly and with his hands in his lap may have to rethink.

Penn

Perhaps they are concerned for other people at Mass, and do not wish for their experience at Mass to be disrupted by their child.

Peregrinus wrote: »

His mother says that “a one-hour Mass is simply too long for him”. But Denum goes to mainstream primary school. He spends five hours a day in a mainstream class, presumably without his mother or father, but an hour a week in church with his parents is too long for him?

That's not a fair comparison. Schools have teachers who are trained to deal with students with disability and work on integrating them into classes and getting them to behave and be interested in what they're taught. Church is not mentally stimulating for young kids of that age, let alone a child with a disability like that, and the parents may find it difficult to keep the child quiet as they aren't able to talk normally, they have to talk quietly again, not to disturb other people's experience in the church.

Peregrinus wrote: »

But the point about going to mass is not to be taught the Catholic faith; mass is not a catechism session; the point about mass - and the eucharist - is that it’s a communal sacrament; a moment of grace found in a collective encounter with the incarnate god. The whole point of preparing for communion and making your “first communion” is that its fitting to do this when you are ready to make participation in this sacrament a part of your life.

But that's not determined on a case-by-case basis. You make your communion based on what age you are, what class you're in, what school you're in etc. For a lot of children (not everyone, but a lot from what I've seen), they make their communion because they're told they have to and they get a party and presents. I've seen the argument made elsewhere that a child with no religion or a different religion going to a Catholic school would feel left out when it came to things like all their friends making Communion, because to most of the children, that's what it is; a ceremony they have when they get to that age. Not because they choose to participate in that sacrament, but because they're 7/8, and that's just what happens when you get to that age. I don't think that at that age, any child fully understands how important that sacrament is in accordance with their faith. Or maybe I'm just speaking from my own experiences.

Jesus Shaves

Does that mean that people with downs don't get into heaven?

PDN

darokane wrote: »

Does that mean that people with downs don't get into heaven?

No, it wouldn't mean anything remotely like that.

jerry2623

Seems like the parents who are not church goers want a nice day out for there child . Now kicking up a stink when the church says there is allot more to it than that .
The church are going to get the crap beaten out of them again here.
They are in a no win situation

Jesus Shaves

jerry2623 wrote: »

Seems like the parents who are not church goers want a nice day out for there child . Now kicking up a stink when the church says there is allot more to it than that .
The church are going to get the crap beaten out of them again here.
They are in a no win situation

No, seems like the priest was a bit of a prick refusing a handicapped child a communion.

SerialComplaint

jerry2623 wrote: »

Seems like the parents who are not church goers want a nice day out for there child . Now kicking up a stink when the church says there is allot more to it than that .
The church are going to get the crap beaten out of them again here.
They are in a no win situation

All the Church has to do is apply the same requirements to the child with Downs as they apply to everyone else. If they test other children to see if they are able to understand what they are doing, then they apply the same test to the boy with Downs. If they don't test other children, then they have no business in excluding one individual, regardless of their ability or disability.

qrrgprgua

Would really like to know the Priests side of this story.

Anyway what he did, if the reports are true, is wrong. The boy should have been treated like the rest.

The Quadratic Equation

As usual, we don't know the full story here at all.

RichieC

darokane wrote: »

Does that mean that people with downs don't get into heaven?

If you're RCC, yes. yes it does.

SerialComplaint

Any chance of changing the thread title? He's not a 'Downs boy'. He's a boy with Downs Syndrome. Please don't define him by his disability.

PDN

RichieC wrote: »

If you're RCC, yes. yes it does.

To anyone who knows anything at all about Roman Catholic teaching, that is an obvious untruth.

If you are going to make such statements you should be prepared to back them up by linking to a source.

gimmebroadband

RichieC wrote: »

If you're RCC, yes. yes it does.

People with DS would MORE likely get to Heaven before many of us, they are innocent and have no guile!

The Quadratic Equation

RichieC wrote: »

If you're RCC, yes. yes it does.

What a pathetically low attempt at trolling.

Benny_Cake

RichieC wrote: »

darokane wrote: »

Does that mean that people with downs don't get into heaven?

If you're RCC, yes. yes it does.

You're thinking of that South Park episode, aren't you? In case there is any doubt, that is absolutely not the teaching of the Catholic Church.

Peregrinus

Benny_Cake wrote: »

You're thinking of that South Park episode, aren't you? In case there is any doubt, that is absolutely not the teaching of the Catholic Church.

You dare to question the authority of South Park?

Benny_Cake

Peregrinus wrote: »

Benny_Cake wrote: »

You're thinking of that South Park episode, aren't you? In case there is any doubt, that is absolutely not the teaching of the Catholic Church.

You dare to question the authority of South Park?

Far from it, I thought of it myself when I first read this story!

SerialComplaint

gimmebroadband wrote: »

People with DS would MORE likely get to Heaven before many of us, they are innocent and have no guile!

They're all the same then, are they?

gimmebroadband

SerialComplaint wrote: »

They're all the same then, are they?

I'm referring to those who don't have the mental capacity to grasp what the the Blessed Eucharist is about, and no they're not all the same!

qrrgprgua

Where is this thread going?? The Catholic Church DOES not stop any person with Downs Syndrome from taking First Holy Communion.

I asked a priest who works closer to the Parish and he confirmed that the disability had nothing at all to do with the decision. The Priests issue was with the Parents and not with the Child, Contrary to what the article said they don't go to mass and didn't prepare the child. If they have gone to him a few months ago he would have gladly helped.


What the Paper did not say... surprisingly.... is that other children who do not have downs were also turned down... Its not a party you gate crash at the last moment.

The mother who opted out of Having her child participate in Communion preparation could just have asked the priest for help and he would have gladly help, but she didn't, he never sees her in the parish and she comes at the last minute expecting the priest to give into her demands.

You can't win... but as usual the paper only has their story..

SerialComplaint

gimmebroadband wrote: »

I'm referring to those who don't have the mental capacity to grasp what the the Blessed Eucharist is about, and no they're not all the same!

So why did you attribute particular personal attributes to a group of people? People with Downs Syndrome are people first. Just like other people, they cover the whole human spectrum. Some of them are pleasant, some of them are nasty, some of them are oozing with guile and cute hoorness, some of them are innocent and naive. They are all individuals?

qrrgprgua wrote: »

Where is this thread going?? The Catholic Church DOES not stop any person with Downs Syndrome from taking First Holy Communion.

Eh, they just did.

qrrgprgua wrote: »

I asked a priest who works closer to the Parish and he confirmed that the disability had nothing at all to do with the decision. The Priests issue was with the Parents and not with the Child, Contrary to what the article said they don't go to mass and didn't prepare the child. If they have gone to him a few months ago he would have gladly helped.


What the Paper did not say... surprisingly.... is that other children who do not have downs were also turned down... Its not a party you gate crash at the last moment.

The mother who opted out of Having her child participate in Communion preparation could just have asked the priest for help and he would have gladly help, but she didn't, he never sees her in the parish and she comes at the last minute expecting the priest to give into her demands.

You can't win... but as usual the paper only has their story..

So why wouldn't the Church have issued a public statement explaining this?

Onesimus

I think the Latin west should return to communing infants at Baptism like us Byzantines do.

By Jesuit priest Robert Taft:

“The practice [of communing infants] began to be called into question in the 12th century not because of any argument about the need to have attained the “age of reason” (aetus discretionis) to communicate. Rather, the fear of profanation of the Host if the child could not swallow it led to giving the Precious Blood only. And then the forbidding of the chalice to the laity in the West led automatically to the disappearance of infant Communion, too. This was not the result of any pastoral or theological reasoning. When the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) ordered yearly confession and Communion for those who have reached the “age of reason” (annos discretionis), it was not affirming this age as a requirement for reception of the Eucharist.

“Nevertheless, the notion eventually took hold that Communion could not be received until the age of reason, even though infant Communion in the Latin rite continued in some parts of the West until the 16th century. Though the Fathers of Trent (Session XXI,4) denied the necessity of infant Communion, they refused to agree with those who said it was useless and inefficacious — realizing undoubtedly that the exact same arguments used against infant Communion could also be used against infant baptism, because for over ten centuries in the West, the same theology was used to justify both! For the Byzantine rite, on December 23, 1534, Paul III explicitly confirmed the Italo-Albanian custom of administering Communion to infants….So the plain facts of history show that for 1200 years the universal practice of the entire Church of East and West was to communicate infants.

Hence, to advance doctrinal arguments against infant Communion is to assert that the sacramental teaching and practice of the Roman Church was in error for 1200 years. Infant Communion was not only permitted in the Roman Church, at one time the supreme magisterium taught that it was necessary for salvation.

In the Latin Church the practice was not suppressed by any doctrinal or pastoral decision, but simply died out. Only later, in the 13th century, was the ‘age of reason’ theory advanced to support the innovation of baptizing infants without also giving them Communion. So the “age of reason” requirement for Communion is a medieval Western pastoral innovation, not a doctrinal argument. And the true ancient tradition of the whole Catholic Church is to give Communion to infants. Present Latin usage is a medieval innovation.”


I personally would like to see the Latin West giving all three Sacraments at Baptism in their infancy. As you can see. The age of discretion theory shows just how much a problem can arise in the latin west when something like this happens. The age of discretion just causes so many problems and confusion in the latin west.

qrrgprgua

SerialComplaint wrote: »

Eh, they just did.


So why wouldn't the Church have issued a public statement explaining this?

1. The church doesn't stop anybody who is prepared from having communion. Certainly not someone with downs syndrome.

2. They are not going to issue a public statement because it was clearly explained to the parents who decided they would go to the papers. 100% this issue has nothing at all to do with downs syndrome. Its to do with the parents attitude towards an entitlement that never existed. That is to say... thinking their son could have communion without any preparation or even having asked for any preparation. Many people in the parish would have gladly helped.. they never asked. Its not a issue with the son.

Onesimus

qrrgprgua wrote: »

1. The church doesn't stop anybody who is prepared from having communion. Certainly not someone with downs syndrome.

2. They are not going to issue a public statement because it was clearly explained to the parents who decided they would go to the papers. 100% this issue has nothing at all to do with downs syndrome. Its to do with the parents attitude towards an entitlement that never existed. That is to say... thinking they son could have communion without any preparation or even having asked for any preparation. Many people if the parish would have gladly helped.. they never asked. Its not a issue with the son.

I'm not a fan of agressive journalism but whats your source for stating that it has nothing to do with Downs Syndrome but the spiritual disposition of the parents? it seems that you are assuming from the article in the paper that since they dont go to Mass every Sunday that they are not prepared? They dont go because they said themselves it's difficult for them to go with a child who has downs syndrome and for him to keep attention at Mass for than an hour. But your assuming the complete opposite. And assumptions just dont cut it for me I'm afraid.

qrrgprgua

Onesimus wrote: »

I'm not a fan of agressive journalism but whats your source for stating that it has nothing to do with Downs Syndrome but the spiritual disposition of the parents? it seems that you are assuming from the article in the paper that since they dont go to Mass every Sunday that they are not prepared? They dont go because they said themselves it's difficult for them to go with a child who has downs syndrome and for him to keep attention at Mass for than an hour. But your assuming the complete opposite. And assumptions just dont cut it for me I'm afraid.

Well the priest who works not far said that when the parents approached the priest regarding communion it was the 1st contact the priest had with the family. Anyway there was no reasoning with the mother .... They were offered preparation for the Child so he could have communion on a later date.. but as it wasn't what she wanted she thought it was discrimination because he child had downs.

Not unnatural for her.. but she could not be made to see reason.

qrrgprgua

Just on the point...

http://forums.catholic.com/showpost.php?p=8853001&postcount=13

Onesimus

qrrgprgua wrote: »

Well the priest who works not far said that when the parents approached the priest regarding communion it was the 1st contact the priest had with the family. Anyway there was no reasoning with the mother .... They were offered preparation for the Child so he could have communion on a later date.. but as it wasn't what she wanted she thought it was discrimination because he child had downs.

Not unnatural for her.. but she could not be made to see reason.

Yeah seems like there is a lot more to it than meets the eye so it seems. Ah well I will pray that the situation gets better.

gimmebroadband

A different take from another article.

The diocese said children could "only proceed to the sacrament of first Communion when they take part in the Church's life and understand the Church's faith".
"In regard to these sacraments Denum's family has not participated in the regular life of the Church or in the preparation preceding first Communion.


"We hope that this will change as Denum grows and we are working with him and his family to help him achieve this."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-16626123

MsEBL

http://evilbloggerlady.blogspot.com/2012/01/catholic-church-bans-down-syndrome-boy.html It may be a mistake, in which case the Church and Priest should correct it right away. Otherwise, raise a stink and find another Parish. The local priest is wrong on this call.

Mellor

gimmebroadband wrote: »

People with DS would MORE likely get to Heaven before many of us, they are innocent and have no guile!

I don't know why you would think that. But its not remotely true. People with Down's syndrome aren't living in some blissful ignornace. There's no reason why they could display guile or dishonesty to get something they want, jsut like any other 7 year old.


There is a big difference between not letting a child make his communion because he has down's syndrome.
And not letting a child (who happens to have down's syndrome) make his communion because he isn't prepared.

MsEBL

I saw the discrepancy in the respective stories--yet the parents claim they have attended that church for years, their boy is in parochial school, yet they were not informed of the classes. I am not sure how they do it in the UK, but typically parents are informed of sacramental training. Yes you cannot just walk into it, but a child in a catholic school is in religious training. Someone is lying. If it is the parents, that should be early proven. If it is the local parish, that can be proven too.

MsEBL

he is in Catholic school, don't they teach religion there? Catholic school children also attend mass regularly . If that is the case, then a couple of months of special Eucharist training is all the child needs.

angeleyes

I can understand that the parish priest might have had issues with the parents in that they are not regular attendees at Sunday Mass.

However, on the flip side - I see in my own parish plenty of families who don't attend Mass at all - one family I know says that Mass on a Saturday clashes with going to the pub time and Sunday morning is too early (10 am) and yet this said same family are allowed to have their children make FHC and probably won't see the inside of a church again until their confirmation. Priests are allowing this to happen too. Its a double edged sword me thinks.

Either the Church allows everyone and welcome them when they come whether frequently or once a year or not at all in the hope that families will engage more in the preparation for a sacrament.

Doc Farrell

I was in an inner city church on Sunday afternoon and there were two working class families there for baptisms. You could plainly see that adult members of the families had more troubles than anybody reading this will ever have and yet they left that church filled with a sense of purpose and love for that child, a sense of belonging to a community that gave a damn about them, with smiles all round.
The parish priest is much loved for his inner city work for 3 decades, undoubtedly responsible for the saving of many dozens of lives from drugs, booze and suicide. And yet what press does he and thousands like him around Ireland and Britain, never mind the world, get?
This story, like so many on this board is nonsense and when it's cleared up do you really think the paper will report it?
Does anyone really believe that the Catholic church is against handicapped or disabled kids? For the love of God.

qrrgprgua

Doc Farrell wrote: »

Does anyone really believe that the Catholic church is against handicapped or disabled kids? For the love of God.

Sure the media has been dancing on the crisis of confidence... The story is total nonsense.

yellowfish

jerry2623 wrote: »

Seems like the parents who are not church goers want a nice day out for there child . Now kicking up a stink when the church says there is allot more to it than that .
The church are going to get the crap beaten out of them again here.
They are in a no win situation

The Church should withdraw from having any school involvement in Communion or infarct in any teaching of faith, then it could honestly say that it only wanted children that attend church to go and be communed.

This of course would have some added benefits for the rest of us, but the main point would be that the church would not look hypocritical by refusing the boy on attendance grounds at the same time as ramming the thing down the kids throats during the state education time.