Then lets train folks in respect.
As much as I liked the kneeling at the communion rail, I do believe that receiving in the hand is closer to the command of Christ – “Take this and eat” and what happened at the last supper.
Nobody knows exactly what Jesus did or exactly what happened at the Last Supper. However, the practice of the Church for centuries - in fact, millenia - both in the East and in the West - was for the priest to place the Host or the consecrated species, in the case of the Eastern Church, in the mouth of the communicant.
One of the problems in our modern analysis of things is that somehow we follow the Protestant approach of trying to jump back to some original point in time that (a) we really don’t know with any certainty because we weren’t there and they didn’t make a video; and (b) is separated from us by some 2000 years of development of doctrine and practice, which we certainly have no right either to skip over or throw out. So I think Catholics have more to consider than the speculations of Biblical scholars on what may or may not have happened at a certain moment in the life of Jesus.
That said, we still have our communion rail up! It’s a beautiful malachite and marble railing. Our current pastor has been angling to take it down, but it has some historical value and a number of defenders, and now if Rome comes along and supports Communion on the tongue, it will be logical to start using it again. Woo hoo!
Remember, though, that it was the 12 Apostles - Jesus' 'choice' followers - who were present at the Last Supper, and became the first bishops.
Except Christ didn't speak English and we don't know what happened at the Last Supper. And it's still a Middle Eastern practice, at least sometimes in a relationship of any kind of friendship or affection, to "feed" someone a bit of something right to the mouth.
When I was preparing for my First Holy Communion, everything stressed respect or this was the Body of Christ we were receiving. We were also taught to receive the host in our hand, for practicality reasons. Our priest suffered from Parkinson’s and little seven year old tongues and Parkinson’s hands did not mix well.
I still take Communion in the hand. The one time I tried taking it on the tongue, the priest hit my nose with the host which then bounced off the plate and onto the floor. I figure, better in my hand than in the aisle.
Actually, it's interesting too that your argument was actually addressed by Archbishop Ranjith recently.
From Ranjith on Kneeling for Communion during the liturgy and Communion on the Tongue
At the same time, speaking of communion in the hand, it must be recognized that the practice was improperly and quickly introduced in some quarters of the Church shortly after the Council, changing the age-old practice and becoming regular practice for the whole Church. They justified the change saying that it better reflected the Gospel or the ancient practice of the Church... Some, to justify this practice referred to the words of Jesus: "Take and eat" (Mk 14, 22; Mt 26, 26).
Whatever the reasons for this practice, we cannot ignore what is happening worldwide where this practice has been implemented. This gesture has contributed to a gradual weakening of the attitude of reverence towards the sacred Eucharistic species whereas the previous practice had better safeguarded that sense of reverence. There instead arose an alarming lack of recollection and a general spirit of carelessness. We see communicants who often return to their seats as if nothing extraordinary has happened... In many cases, one cannot discern that sense of seriousness and inner silence that must signal the presence of God in the soul.
Then there are those who take away the sacred species to keep them as souvenirs, those who sell, or worse yet, who take them away to desecrate it in Satanic rituals. Even in large concelebrations, also in Rome, several times the sacred species has been found thrown onto the ground.
The problem is, as Catholics we believe that Christ established a Church to transmit and interpret his commands.
Please read from Mediator Dei, the encyclical of Pius XII:
61. The liturgy of the early ages is most certainly worthy of all veneration. But ancient usage must not be esteemed more suitable and proper, either in its own right or in its significance for later times and new situations, on the simple ground that it carries the savor and aroma of antiquity. ...Assuredly it is a wise and most laudable thing to return in spirit and affection to the sources of the sacred liturgy. For research in this field of study, by tracing it back to its origins, contributes valuable assistance towards a more thorough and careful investigation of the significance of feast-days, and of the meaning of the texts and sacred ceremonies employed on their occasion. But it is neither wise nor laudable to reduce everything to antiquity by every possible device. Thus, to cite some instances, one would be straying from the straight path were he to wish the altar restored to its primitive tableform; were he to want black excluded as a color for the liturgical vestments; were he to forbid the use of sacred images and statues in Churches; were he to order the crucifix so designed that the divine Redeemer's body shows no trace of His cruel sufferings; and lastly were he to disdain and reject polyphonic music or singing in parts, even where it conforms to regulations issued by the Holy See.
63. Clearly no sincere Catholic can refuse to accept the formulation of Christian doctrine more recently elaborated and proclaimed as dogmas by the Church, under the inspiration and guidance of the Holy Spirit with abundant fruit for souls, because it pleases him to hark back to the old formulas. No more can any Catholic in his right senses repudiate existing legislation of the Church to revert to prescriptions based on the earliest sources of canon law. Just as obviously unwise and mistaken is the zeal of one who in matters liturgical would go back to the rites and usage of antiquity, discarding the new patterns introduced by disposition of divine Providence to meet the changes of circumstances and situation.
64. This way of acting bids fair to revive the exaggerated and senseless antiquarianism to which the illegal Council of Pistoia gave rise.