I had a thought yesterday on the arguments against restoring communion on the tongue. I have never heard a good one. I've heard some things like "but I get to HOLD Jesus". It sounds a bit contrived to me but I'm not going to judge a person who says that. Now we have this story of a wacky university professor destroying a consecrated Host. The argument begins again with the point that these sort of abuses would be much less prevalent if we restored mandatory reception on the tongue.
The nay-sayers doubt this. "Ah! But you can just immediately remove it from your mouth and slip it in your pocket before it dissolves." Yes, that is true. But EVERYONE will see you do it. Still, that doesn't make it impossible - I admit.
So I will compare this to something a bit more practical: Seatbelts. Regardless of the spiritual benefits of reception on the tongue, consider its practice like you would wearing a seatbelt. Seatbelts save lives and are worthy of use. They don't save every life, yet they are required by law.
We take our lives very seriously and regardless of law, we still wear and would wear seatbelts. That is because we cherish and respect our lives even beyond respect for civil law.
Now, ponder this in relation to communion in the hand.