Enough, Already
August 20th, 2004 | by Craig |This story about a young girl whose first Holy Communion was deemed invalid by the Roman Catholic Church has been making the rounds all week, and just damn near everyone has been missing the point.
I first noticed the story when it was mentioned locally, then I saw John Cole and Russell Wardlow going back and forth about it. (Plus a myriad of others. I’m just too lazy to dig up a whole slew of links.)
The discussion seems to center on the young girl’s communion being invalidated by the church, and the technicalities of following church doctrine. As per usual, the church has been receiving all the scorn.
Here’s a couple of things that have been (conveniently?) left out of almost every commentary that I have seen:
- The mother herself suffers from celiac sprue, and the daughter was diagnosed at age 5. Surely she had to know that this would be an issue, and if she wanted to petition for change, why didn’t she start the process sooner?
- The church offered her two alternatives: a low-gluten wafer, or wine only.
In other words, the mother knew about the condition for at least two years, and evidently made no effort during that time to agitate for change; and the church gave her at least one reasonable alternative, a wine-only communion.
After all of this, the mother still went against the rules, and is outraged when she’s held responsible.
I feel horrible for the little girl. She has to be extremely confused about everything that has happened, but the fact of the matter is this: it was her mother who brought down this situation because she had an axe to grind and wanted to raise awareness about the disease.
Well, she’s certainly done that, but at what cost?
13 Responses to “Enough, Already”
By David Summerlin on Aug 20, 2004 | Reply
I didn’t know that the Church offered the option of a wine-only communion. Are you sure that the mother made no prior efforts to petition for change?
For what it’s worth, a “low-gluten” wafer would be just as toxic to someone with Celiac Sprue. When people with this disease ingest any form of gluten, even minute doses, it does irreperable harm to their digestive tract and permanently damages their ability to absorb and process nutrients.
It seems like another example of the Church being a little slow to adapt traditions to current science. If the Church offered a wine-only communion, why would they invalidate a communion that included wine? So she drank the blood of Christ, but ingested a surrogate body of Christ? Isn’t it all just surrogate anyway?
By mike erickson on Aug 20, 2004 | Reply
One can only hope that it proves NOT to be at the cost of her daughter! For me it was when I received a “statement” from the church that I looked elsewhere…surely her mother had that as an option.
By Craig on Aug 20, 2004 | Reply
“Isn’t it all just surrogate anyway?”
No. In the Catholic tradition, the bread and wine is changed into the actual body and blood of Christ.
OK, so a low-gluten wafer isn’t an option. Fine. She had the option of wine only (and low-alcohol wine at that), and the mother still refused, because she doesn’t feel that alcohol is appropriate for youngsters. That’s all well and good, but as someone explained to me, as a Catholic, you don’t have to agree with the church’s teachings, but you do have to accept them. If they hadn’t given her any alternatives, then yes, I might agree that the church wasn’t adapting to science. But, by acknowledging the disease, and offering other means of communion, that tells me that, indeed, thought has been given.
How long has the mother been taking communion? She’s 30, so I’m guessing it’s been a few years. I can’t say it enough: It’s not like this was a surprise. She deliberately set out and did something she had been told was contrary to church doctrine, and now there’s this huge uproar about it. No one, at any time, said that she had to take a wafer with gluten.
How about this from Keith Olbermann?
Sorry, Keith, but the Church didn’t do that, yet the segment quoted above proceeds from this false assumption that the church has dictated that the young girl must eat the wafer, yet it is perfectly acceptable to have wine only.
To me, this whole thing reeks of an axe to grind, and I’m just sorry that she dragged her daughter into it, needlessly.
By Chuck Rightmire on Aug 20, 2004 | Reply
Well, Craig, are you catholic? First, I agree with David that any gluten at all is dangerous. People with the disease can be affected by eating something else that has been processed through the same machine as wheat.
And what I can’t understand is how a person who gives a child alcohol in the home can be considered a child abuser and their child taken away from them and a bartender or a store clerk who sells alcohol to a minor can be prosecuted and a church that allows children to sip wine is not. Churches are, or should be, subject to the same type of laws the rest of us are. And most wine is low alcohol content, compared to hard liquor.
To me, the action is against the law and I would think you conservatives and libertarians out there would be the first to act rather than defend an illegal act. Or is it illegal only when liberals do it?
By Craig on Aug 20, 2004 | Reply
Chuck–
I am, indeed, Catholic.
I’m losing your train of thought when you start talking about secular law, though. Communion wine has long been held as an acceptable religious practice. Even peyote, a Schedule I drug has been OK’d for religious reasons, so I’m not sure where you’re going with this.
I don’t think anyone’s debating whether or not any gluten is dangerous to a person with celiac sprue. I’ll be more than happy to stipulate that point; I’m not arguing that. What I’m saying is that an argument cannot be made that the church “forced” her to eat a wafer containing gluten when it clearly did not.
By David Summerlin on Aug 20, 2004 | Reply
I haven’t checked your facts, Craig, but if they are correct I happily concede the point. If the Church made good-faith efforts to offer reasonable alternatives to the traditional communion, I don’t think the mother has much to complain about. She could, however, continue to argue that she and her daughter are still being denied the body of Christ, that his blood alone doesn’t slake their need.
If the Church insists that the wafers are literally transformed into the body of Christ, I’m not sure I understand what difference it makes whether they are made from wheat, rice, corn, millet, or whatever — does the type of grain impede the somewhat cannibalistic magic?
I suppose if it’s a “Terminator” kind of arrangement where the advanced-model Christ from a post-apocalyptic future is sent back in time to transform himself into a poison for Celiacs who will give birth to an anti-christ liberator, it would make a difference.
But all irreverent kidding aside for the moment, assuming the Church doesn’t really believe this, I wonder if they worry for the souls of folks whose disease prevents them from full participation in the sacrament?
By Chuck Rightmire on Aug 20, 2004 | Reply
Yes, religious ritual is considered inviolate where adults are concerned as long as it isn’t sexual, or cannibalistic or murder. But we are all constrained from giving children alcoholic beverages. I don’t think that is legal or it shouldn’t be. Churches are not exempt from criminal acts. And when I was young only the priest got the wine.
By Randy on Aug 20, 2004 | Reply
For a VERY good explanation on the Church’s teaching about the bread and wine used for eucharistic services and what can and cannot be used as substitutes please check out this entry on Jimmy Akin’s blog about the realities of what this Mother, her daughter, the parish priest and their bishop are talking about.
http://www.jimmyakin.org/2004/08/cnncom_misrepor.html
On another note what I am reading in Chuck’s protest of using wine as one of the communion species and giving it to children is illegal and tantamount to child abuse is a case of misunderstanding the Church’s teaching on sacramental wine. No child is forced to accept the Lord’s precious blood and if they wish to receive the sanctified host alone they can.
As far as why wheat bread is used and not rice cakes or some other substitute it really boils down to this.
Since Our Lord changed wheat bread into His precious body on Holy Thursday we are similarly bound to use wheat bread during the Mass for the Eucharist.
I hope I haven’t muddied this up any more. Thanks
By Chuck Rightmire on Aug 20, 2004 | Reply
Randy, how do you know what he changed. As I recall all it says is bread. It doesn’t even say unleavened although it probably was given the time period. I would bet, however, that it wasn’t in the shape of the host used in catholic communion.
That argument doesn’t hold.
By Randy on Aug 20, 2004 | Reply
Chuck, when Jesus changed bread and wine into His body and blood on Holy Thursday you must keep in mind they were also celebrating the Passover which has strict rules as to what is served and eaten. So yes, they do know what he changed so I do feel my argument holds up.
The shape of the host is immaterial, it is what it is made of that matters.
For a description of a Passover meal you might check out
http://www.ewtn.com/library/FAMILY/PASSMEAL.TXT
By Craig on Aug 20, 2004 | Reply
David–
It’s easy enough to check my facts, just look at the article I linked to, or do a Google search for the little girl’s name. (I’m not going to mention it here, as I don’t want to feed the Googlebeast.)
Chuck–
We’re not trying to debate the validity of Catholic doctrine here. That argument is about 2000 years old, and I doubt we’ll get it settled today.
Catholic doctrine is what it is — it’s traditional as well as scriptural. The main point of the story can be boiled down to this: If you claim membership in a group, and decline to follow that group’s rules, you shouldn’t be surprised when you are sanctioned for it. It doesn’t matter whether it’s the Catholic Church or the Rotarians.
By David Summerlin on Aug 21, 2004 | Reply
Okay, this is a curiosity question more than anything else. Even though I studied theology at a Catholic university, I guess I kinda forgot some of the more traumatic college experiences.
If the bread and wine were and are literally, not just symbolically, transformed into the body and blood of Christ, does the Catholic church have a response as to why they still taste like bread and wine? Why don’t they taste like human flesh and blood? Or was Jesus made of unleavened wheat and fermented grape juice? Seems to me the principle of Occam’s razor would say that if it still tastes like bread and wine, it probably is bread and wine, and not flesh and blood.
I don’t seriously expect to challenge any beliefs here, I’m just curious about something that seems weird to me, and more than a little dark. I suspect if Catholics were really eating human flesh and drinking human blood, the religion wouldn’t be quite so popular.
By Craig on Aug 21, 2004 | Reply
David–
The short answer is this: Even though it appears to us as bread and wine, it is truly the body and blood of Christ.
Ordinarily, Ockham’s Razor would apply, but transubstantiation is a matter of faith, not reason.