Catholic communion wafers

[Guest guest]

Fellow Catholic Celiacs:

I was diagnosed recently. Upon inquiring about the availability of

gluten-free communion wafers in the San Francisco Archdiocese, I was

directed to this rather awful website:

http://www.ewtn.com/library/Liturgy/zlitur47.htm

For your convenience and horror, I've reproduced the text below, at

the end of my email. My wife and I have many, many problems with the

official Church response, and although I am a Christian in the

Catholic tradition, have been loyal to the tenets of the Church, went

through RCIA and joined as an adult, I'm troubled enough by the

response that I may simply leave the Church.

If you feel motivated, please write your feelings and thoughts on this

to info@..., or your own local archdiocese, or the Holy

See in Rome (office@... -- although if anyone has a better address,

please let me know). Please also circulate this among Celiacs if you

see fit to do so; very simply, Catholic Celiacs need to know that the

Church is dealing with us in bad faith.

Specifically:

-- The Church response fails to acknowledge that wheat at any level is

toxic to those of us who are Celiac, and fails to understand that

spiking communion wafers with wheat at any level, however small, harms

us. It misrepresents the current state of the science, which is

troubling given that those who accept the advice may not have the

scientific background required to discern the truth.

-- For those of you who took freshman philosophy, the Church appears

to have made a serious philosophical error by failing to note the

difference between the substance of a communion wafer (Christ) and the

accident of a communion wafer (wheat).

-- The Church appears to be in doctrinal error as well, as there is

neither an exhortation to use wheat nor a proscription against using

other grains anywhere in the Last Supper or Passover passages of the

Bible. Wheat is indicated in the cultural subtext, but its use is not

elevated in the text as an element of liturgy.

-- The Church discriminates against us on the basis of our *inherited*

attributes. This is a little like saying black people can't drink

from the same water fountains as whites. The response provides no

solution for us whatsoever; it's hard to believe this came from the

Church that advised us in the Catechism that the Eucharist is the

" sum and summary of our faith " and " the source and summit of the

Christian life. " How can they hold it out of reach, then, to us?

-- To add insult to injury, the Church accuses us of being Gnostics

afflicted with " creeping Docetism " , and advises us to submit to " the

reality of the Incarnation " as Christ " submitted himself to the limits

of space and time by becoming man. " Got that? In plain English, that

means, " Christ suffered, so why shouldn't you? " I don't know about

you, but I find that incredibly offensive and awfully abusive.

Please write to the Church, if you feel moved to do so, and let them

know what you think.

Thank you for your time.

Dan Green

-------

Complete text found at the above URL on 4/26/06

ROME, 14 SEPT. 2004 (ZENIT)

Answered by Father McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina

Apostolorum Pontifical University.

Q: I've been recently told of a girl who could not receive her first

Communion because she was allergic to wheat gluten. The Catholic

Church doctrine says that is the composition the host needs to be made

of. I don't know how to answer this question from a " fallen away "

Catholic. — M.G., Milwaukee, Wisconsin

A: The problem is twofold. One is theological and concerns the proper

matter for the Eucharist and the broader question of the Churches

power over the sacraments.

Another question is practical and concerns how to address special

situation such as celiac disease.

From the theological perspective the Church's power over some elements

of the sacraments is not absolute and must respect those elements

which it understands as having been determined by the Lord himself.

Among these elements is the use of water and the Trinitarian formula

for baptism and the exclusive use of wheat bread and grape wine for

the Eucharist.

In a certain way the submission to these limitations is also a

recognition and an affirmation of the reality of the Incarnation in

which the second person of the Blessed Trinity submitted himself to

the limits of space and time by becoming man.

By continuing to use only those elements used by Christ, the Church in

a way joins herself to his act of self-limitation and to the concrete

historical reality of the Incarnation.

If it were possible for the Church to change the essential elements of

the sacraments with every historical epoch and every cultural context,

then this connection with the Incarnation, and indeed the reality of

the sacraments as prolongation of the Incarnation, would become rather

tenuous.

In the end, as has happened at times with other Christian groups that

weakened the sacraments, the faith in the very reality of God become

man is often undermined in favor of a creeping Docetism or a nebulous

manifestation of the Divinity.

Thus one can understand why the Church pays such very great attention

to the elements of the sacraments in spite of at times appearing

excessively attentive to details such as alcohol and gluten levels.

The Holy See has declared that some gluten is necessary for the

substance to be considered as true bread. And thus a gluten-free

wafer, in spite of its external resemblance, is no longer bread and

thus is incapable of becoming the Body of Christ.

The sacraments are far too important to risk performing them invalidly.

On the practical level, sufferers from celiac disease, about one in

every 130 people, face a real difficulty as they are incapable of

consuming gluten.

At the same time the Church has too much respect for the faithful with

this condition to allow them to fall into error regarding whether they

receive a genuinely consecrated host or not.

It would be a manifest act of negligence on the Church's part to look

the other way while some members of the faithful were being innocently

induced into an act of idolatry by attributing adoration to what is in

fact a lump of matter.

This might seem harsh on the sentiments of some, especially in the

case of children who reach the age of first Communion and don't want

to stand out from the rest by receiving differently. But, until

recently, as we shall see below, there was no viable alternative.

One fairly easy solution is to receive only under the species of wine.

This usually requires the use of a second, smaller chalice as even the

particle of host that the priest places in the chalice can have

adverse effects on sufferers.

This is the solution I adopted for a sufferer in my own parish, with

no great difficulty. It is even easier to apply in those countries

where Communion is habitually offered under both species and the host

fragment is placed only in the principal chalice.

Recently, however, another solution has been found thanks to the

patience and perseverance of two nuns, Sisters Jane Heschmeyer and

Lynn Marie D'Souza, of the Benedictine convent in Clyde, Missouri.

Over two years of experiments they have developed a Communion wafer

that has been approved as valid material for the Eucharist by the Holy

See.

With a level of gluten content of 0.01% it is safe enough for

consumption by almost all celiac suffers, according to Dr. Alessio

Fasano of the University of land and other medical experts.

The U.S. bishops' Committee on the Liturgy has deemed the sisters'

bread " the only true, low-gluten altar bread approved for use at Mass

in the United States. "

Fasano called the sisters' accomplishment " very wonderful news, " but

added that celiac sufferers should still consult with their doctors

before consuming the new hosts. " In rare cases even 0.01% is still too

much, " Fasano said.

See the Catholic Key story posted on the Web.

Although the sisters' work seems to be the most promising to date,

others were also working on the problem and the Church has also

recently approved other low-gluten breads in Italy and Australia.

ZE04091422

* * *

Follow-up: Gluten-free Hosts [from 09-28-2004]

I received several comments regarding the use of low-gluten hosts (see

Sept. 14). One reader wrote that the problem he sees with the

" low-gluten solution is that one could eventually reach 0.00000001%

gluten content, and then would the Church still recognize it as valid?

It seems that this is chasing a chimera. "

All I can say is that I have no idea how low a level would be

acceptable to the Church. But I am sure it is a question that only the

Church can decide.

What is clear is that with no gluten the substance is simply no longer

bread and is incapable of becoming Christ's Body.

Reciting the words of consecration over such a substance would be at

best a farce and at worst blasphemy and idolatry.

This brings me to another correspondent from Ohio who directly

addressed the original case of the young girl whose first Communion

was declared invalid because her host did not contain gluten.

He wrote: " I see this as yet another attempt by mere mortals to

presume to place restrictions on the power of Almighty God. Even you

said in your response of Sept. 14, 2004, 'The Church's power over some

elements of the sacraments is not absolute.' When Christ directed his

disciples to prepare for his final Passover meal, I don't recall him

saying, '... and by the way, make sure there is gluten in that bread

or the deal's off!'

" You can preach 'gluten' to me until the day I draw my last breath and

I will never believe that Christ was not present for that little girl

on the joyful day of her first Communion! And then, to tell her after

the fact that Jesus did not come to her after all is unconscionable.

Still bearing the pain and embarrassment of the sexual abuse of

children, must we Catholics now witness, and attempt to defend, the

spiritual abuse of a child?

" How does an ordinary person like myself get the message to the powers

that be that in this, the 21st century, we do not single out or

exclude individuals who face physical challenges every day of their

lives? Perhaps our bishops could begin by revisiting Mark 10:13-15,

'Let the little children come unto me ...' "

I think that our correspondent has some valid points, especially

regarding the difficulty that the Church has in explaining the

importance of what seems to many people to be obtuse hairsplitting.

I would first observe that the Communion was not declared invalid

because the bread had no gluten, but rather, as we have seen above,

because it was not bread.

Second — it saddens me to say so — if there has been an act of

spiritual abuse to this child, it was done by the priest who performed

an invalid consecration when he should have known better or should at

least have consulted with the bishop before proceeding in a doubtful

situation.

No amount of concern for the sentiments or feelings of a person, nor

the legitimate desire not to single out people who suffer physical

challenges, can justify performing an invalid sacrament.

Just think of the consequences if priests and bishops were to apply

the same criteria to baptisms, confessions, confirmations, anointings,

weddings and ordinations.

If the Church cannot be sure of the validity of her sacraments, her

whole structure would be fatally weakened.

The bishop who declared the first Communion invalid certainly had no

desire to hurt this little girl. But he did his duty because he

understood that something larger was at stake than hurt feelings.

I also fear that our reader misunderstood the argument regarding the

Church's power over the sacraments.

The argument was that the Church is limited by Christ's will in

instituting the sacraments. So, just as Christ accepted the limits of

space and time by becoming man, the external aspects of some

sacraments are similarly limited through a direct connection with the

time when Christ walked upon this earth. Thus they serve as a constant

reminder of the concrete historical reality of the Incarnation itself.

Over these elements, and the requirement of bread for the Eucharist is

one of them, the Church has no power to change.

Our reader is actually talking about something else: God's power to

act outside of the sacramental system as such.

Whether Christ became in some way present to that little girl when she

received what she believed to be her first Communion, nobody has any

way of knowing.

Almost certainly she would have received some special grace.

However, she certainly did not receive sacramental Communion. ZE04092822

This article has been selected from the ZENIT Daily Dispatch

© Innovative Media, Inc.

ZENIT International News Agency

Via della Stazione di Ottavia, 95

00165 Rome, Italy

www.zenit.org

To subscribe http://www.zenit.org/english/subscribe.html

or email: english-request@... with SUBSCRIBE in the " subject " field

Provided Courtesy of:

Eternal Word Television Network

5817 Old Leeds Road

Irondale, AL 35210

www.ewtn.com

[Guest guest]

what p..ses me off is that the debate about actual alcool in the " wine " is not

even as close

to the debate about gluten.

Jesus served wine WITH alcohol (altho scolars would tell that the proof was

around 4-6%

like a beer, and not 15-16% as in napa wine.). In many countries who have an

extended

blue cross group (zero alcohol as a moral petition against a family member who

have a

drinking problem), wine is replaced by juice. In some other countries, churches

have

decided that juice can NOT be blessed in place of wine.

So it's the *same* debate... altho nobody would actually get sick by drinking

one in place

of the other.

and guess what? Rome HAS NO POSITION on the question.. and usually you can get

what

you want!

correct me if I'm wrong...

Sophie

PS: as a general rule, I believe that churches should welcome us AS WE ARE. If

they dont,

change church! (whereas it's a specific church within a big group, or a whole

group) - eg

churches which dont have childcare are not for my family.

>

> Fellow Catholic Celiacs:

>

> I was diagnosed recently. Upon inquiring about the availability of

> gluten-free communion wafers in the San Francisco Archdiocese, I was

> directed to this rather awful website:

>

> http://www.ewtn.com/library/Liturgy/zlitur47.htm