I suggest you re-read my post and address what I have actually written rather than what I am "implying" which is distorted beyond belief by you. The reason for my post was primarily in response to what you have written in a similar fashion to the previous gentleman (quite aggressively in tone in my humble opinion) and I don't blame him for not replying. We could write pages of opposing "personal views" about Catholic dogma, disciplines and beliefs and the reasonable point I have made is that you are either RIGHT or WRONG and the same goes for me. I also think that just because something is "permissible" does not make it right in God's eyes.
Re Pope Francis, there is no greater example of a Catholic than St Francis. Why didn't St Francis ever become a priest? It was because he did not consider himself worthy to touch the Body of Christ. What a great example the Saint is to us all. I suppose that today he would operate differently because "the times are a changin".
Why do you think there is something wrong with the faithful being allowed to touch the Eucharist?
Although it was a prctice for a long time to not allow it, it is what was done in the earliest days of the church. Or have you forgotten that the earliest masses were in the form of a meal. Leavened bread was used and each person in turn tore a piece of the loaf.
Who is allowed to touch the Eucharist is a discipline not dogma. A discipline can be changed at any time.
Personally, I prefer receiving on the tongue. But will accept it in the hand if I am unable to receive it from a preist or deacon. That is my preference.