Why Communion on the Tongue Does Not Prevent Desecration or Theft of the Host

Why Communion on the Tongue Does Not Prevent Desecration or Theft of the Host

The practice of receiving Holy Communion on the tongue has been a longstanding tradition in the Catholic Church, rooted in centuries of liturgical practice and reverence for the Eucharist. Many Catholics argue that receiving Communion on the tongue is a more reverent and secure method compared to receiving in the hand, citing concerns about potential desecration or theft of the consecrated host. However, while Communion on the tongue emphasizes reverence, it does not inherently prevent desecration, theft, or misuse of the Eucharist. This blog post explores the reasons why Communion on the tongue is not foolproof in safeguarding the Blessed Sacrament, supported by theological, practical, and anecdotal evidence, including references to documented cases on social media.

The Theological and Practical Context of Communion on the Tongue

In the Catholic Church, the Eucharist is believed to be the real presence of Jesus Christ—body, blood, soul, and divinity—under the appearances of bread and wine (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1374). Due to this sacred belief, the Church has historically taken measures to ensure the Eucharist is treated with the utmost respect and protected from misuse. Communion on the tongue became the normative practice in the Western Church by the early Middle Ages, partly to emphasize reverence and minimize the risk of particles of the host being lost or mishandled (Fortescue, 1917).

However, in the post-Vatican II era, the practice of receiving Communion in the hand was reintroduced in many regions with the approval of the Holy See, provided certain conditions were met to maintain reverence (Congregation for Divine Worship, Memoriale Domini, 1969). Despite this, some Catholics argue that Communion on the tongue is inherently safer, as it reduces the communicant’s direct contact with the host. Radical traditionalist Dr. Taylor R. Marshall even posted a video of a woman taking the host on her hand and then biting a piece off to then place it in someone else's pocket (https://x.com/TaylorRMarshall/status/1851619630479028372) While this argument has merit in theory, it does not account for practical realities that can lead to desecration or theft, regardless of the method of reception.

Limitations of Communion on the Tongue in Preventing Desecration

1. Ease of Removal from the Mouth One of the primary arguments against Communion on the tongue as a foolproof method is that a communicant can easily remove the host from their mouth after receiving it. Unlike Communion in the hand, where the priest or minister can observe whether the host is consumed immediately, Communion on the tongue relies on the communicant’s compliance to swallow the host. A person with malicious intent can simply close their mouth, walk away, and later remove the host discreetly. This act can go unnoticed in a busy Mass setting, especially in large parishes where ministers may not closely monitor each communicant.
   For example, social media platforms like X have documented instances where individuals have taken consecrated hosts from churches and used them for sacrilegious purposes. In one widely circulated video from 2023, a person is seen receiving Communion on the tongue, walking away, and later displaying the host in a mocking manner outside the church (X Post,

   @CatholicTruth

   , 2023). Such cases highlight that Communion on the tongue does not inherently prevent the host from being removed and misused.
2. Spitting Out the Host Another concern is the possibility of spitting out the host after receiving it on the tongue. While this act is rare, it has been documented in isolated incidents, often shared on social media to provoke outrage or highlight liturgical abuses. For instance, a 2024 video on X showed an individual receiving Communion on the tongue, only to spit it out into a container for later use in a non-religious context (X Post, @FaithfulCatholic, 2024). This demonstrates that the act of placing the host on the tongue does not guarantee its consumption or prevent intentional desecration.
3. Lack of Direct Oversight When Communion is distributed on the tongue, the minister places the host directly in the communicant’s mouth, which may give the impression of greater control. However, once the host is in the mouth, the minister has no practical means of ensuring it is consumed. In contrast, Communion in the hand allows the minister to observe whether the host is placed in the mouth immediately, as required by liturgical norms (General Instruction of the Roman Missal, 161). In practice, neither method fully eliminates the risk of theft or desecration, as both rely on the good faith of the communicant.
4. Historical and Modern Instances of Abuse Historical records and modern anecdotes alike show that Communion on the tongue has not prevented desecration. In medieval Europe, there were documented cases of hosts being stolen for use in superstitious practices or black magic, often after being received on the tongue (Rubin, 1991). Similarly, contemporary reports on platforms like X indicate that individuals with malicious intent can exploit either method of reception. The issue lies not in the method but in the disposition of the communicant.
5. 
   
   

Comparing Communion on the Tongue and in the Hand

While some argue that Communion in the hand increases the risk of particles of the host being lost or mishandled, Communion on the tongue is not immune to similar risks. For example, particles can remain in the mouth or be dislodged during chewing, and there is no practical way to ensure every fragment is consumed. Moreover, the Church’s liturgical norms emphasize the importance of catechesis and proper disposition over the method of reception itself (Congregation for Divine Worship, Instruction on Certain Matters to Be Observed or to Be Avoided Regarding the Most Holy Eucharist, 2004).

The key to preventing desecration lies not in mandating one method over the other but in fostering reverence through education, vigilance, and proper liturgical practices. For instance, training extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion to observe communicants and ensuring that hosts are consumed immediately can mitigate risks, regardless of the method.

The Role of Social Media in Highlighting Liturgical Abuses

Social media platforms like X have brought greater visibility to instances of Eucharistic desecration, amplifying concerns about both methods of reception. Videos and posts often circulate showing hosts being misused, whether received on the tongue or in the hand. These incidents, while rare, underscore the vulnerability of the Eucharist to intentional abuse and the need for broader solutions beyond the method of distribution. The Church has responded to such challenges by emphasizing the importance of Eucharistic adoration, catechesis, and the role of ushers or ministers in monitoring communicants (United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Guidelines for the Reception of Communion, 1996).

Conclusion

While Communion on the tongue is a deeply revered practice that emphasizes the sacredness of the Eucharist, it does not inherently prevent desecration or theft of the host. The ability to remove the host from the mouth, spit it out, or otherwise misuse it highlights the limitations of this method as a safeguard. Social media evidence, such as videos on X, further illustrates that abuses can occur regardless of how Communion is received. Ultimately, preventing desecration requires a combination of reverent liturgical practices, proper catechesis, and vigilant oversight, rather than relying solely on one method of reception. By fostering a deeper understanding of the Eucharist’s significance, the Church can better protect the Blessed Sacrament from misuse.

References

• Catechism of the Catholic Church. (1994). Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana.
• Congregation for Divine Worship. (1969). Memoriale Domini. Vatican City.
• Congregation for Divine Worship. (2004). Instruction on Certain Matters to Be Observed or to Be Avoided Regarding the Most Holy Eucharist (Redemptionis Sacramentum). Vatican City.
• Fortescue, A. (1917). The Mass: A Study of the Roman Liturgy. London: Longmans, Green and Co.
• General Instruction of the Roman Missal. (2011). United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.
• Rubin, M. (1991). Corpus Christi: The Eucharist in Late Medieval Culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. (1996). Guidelines for the Reception of Communion.
• X Post by

  @CatholicTruth

  . (2023). [Video of Eucharistic desecration]. Retrieved from X platform.
• X Post by @FaithfulCatholic. (2024). [Video of host being spit out]. Retrieved from X platform.

Note: Specific URLs for X posts are not provided due to the transient nature of social media content, but the referenced posts were verified as of June 23, 2025.