The Moslems might kill his body some day, but his desecration of the Eucharist will kill his immortal soul if he remains unrepentant. This, of course, is infinitely worse. In spite of our anger at what this unhappy individual has done, we should keep the heat on him primarily through our prayers for his conversion. Secondarily, keeping the heat of the spotlight on his actions should have as its end making it too uncomfortable for copycats to try the same thing.
It might also be the time for Catholics to petition Rome to end Communion-in-the-hand as even an option, nevermind a de facto norm. From its inception as a semi-defiant gesture toward some kind of badly conceived concept of "relevance," to its forced acceptance by Rome via widespread, unauthorized usage, C-I-T-H has never been a good idea, prompted by pure and lofty motives. And it has always left the Eucharist exposed to the possibility of desecration exactly aong the lines of what took place here with Myers. Hosts made from traditional recipes of wheat flour and water, easily dissolvable on the tongue, are the only way to go, especially in our demented times. Of course, in spite of Myers' intentions, Jesus is not really "harmed" in the way he imagines. But it is still unspeakable desecration, nonetheless. The Church needs to ensure that She does not facilitate this sort of desecration in any way, to the very end of Her power to avoid it. Let not the initial actions of a few renegade Dutch priests in the 1950's lead to further abominations, all in the name of some warm-fuzzy, misdirected "sign of inclusiveness."
Your Holiness, please get rid of C-I-T-H, ASAHP!
On a recent trip to Eastern Europe I noticed that CITH isn't an option. Also, I saw NO lay distributors and NO girl altar boys.
CITH has always appeared to me as a sign of blatant disrespect, but of course after Vatican II the irreverance before, during and after mass is simply sickening.