Had your fill of church sex-abuse scandal stories?

Fortunately, you can get distracted by this one: "8-Year-Old's First Holy Communion Invalidated by Church." (Buck's County Courier Times, Aug 12, 04.)

And why is the moppet's participation in the sacrament invalid? The girl has celiac sprue disease, which makes eating wheat gluten risky and/or potentially lethal. Church doctrine says that communion wafers must have at least some unleavened wheat, as did the bread served at the Last Supper. She took the sacrament with a rice-based wafer, and the Diocese of Trenton ruled that the child can: abstain from this most fundamental rite, drink the wine only, or eat a low-gluten product. If she wants to participate in full communion, she's got to eat bread with wheat, health condition notwithstanding.

This got me thinking about how the Church handles health conditions in general. I was curious as to what the Church said about using wine during Communion, as it poses health hazards to people who are either allergic to wine or recovering alcoholics.

I found a diocese letter on how it's handled if the priest is a recovering alcoholic -- "With the permission of the ordinary after presentation of a medical certificate, priests recovering from alcoholism or other conditions which medically prevent the ingestion of even the smallest quantity of alcohol may consecrate mustum [fresh juice from grapes] instead of wine for themselves."

Another diocese notes: "Given the centrality of the celebration of the eucharist in the life of the priest, candidates for the priesthood who are affected by celiac disease or suffer from alcoholism or similar conditions may not be admitted to holy orders."

Not a word about parishoners. I did find plenty of pages pointing out that Catholics really shouldn't be square with Alcoholics Anonymous and their "liberal and indiscriminate theology." Good thing the Church still considers the bread to be sufficient sacrament, huh?

The Church is pretty adamant that the bread and wine be bread and wine, and the Vatican issued a document earlier this year on liturgical abuses that reiterated this stance (see news on this, the document). It's in keeping with the general practice of sacramentalism -- placing high value on the sacraments as a way of conferring grace and keeping the faith.

However, it seems like insisting on the literal nature of the sacrament -- it must be bread or it doesn't count, it must be wine or it doesn't count -- bars the ultimate purpose of taking communion: to do this in remembrance of God's son, who sacrificed himself, and to restore our faith via the presence of Christ in the sacrament, and to partake of the chance to be forgiven of sin. The logic for justifying the presence of wheat and fermented grape product in fulfilling the spiritual purposes of the sacrament is pretty shaky, as is the logic for excluding anyone who can't countenance the of wheat or fermented grape product.

And on that note, let me end with one of the cleaner Catholic jokes I know:

A salesman from KFC walked up to the Pope and offers him a million dollars if he would change "The Lord's Prayer" from "give us this day our daily bread" to "give us this day our daily chicken." The Pope refused his offer.

Two weeks later, the man offered the pope 10 million dollars to change it from "give us this day our daily bread" to "give us this day our daily chicken" and again the Pope refused the man's generous offer. Another week later, the man offered the Pope 20 million dollars and finally the Pope accepted.

The following day, the Pope said to all his officials, "I have some good news and some bad news. The good news is, that we have just received a check for 20 million dollars. The bad news is, we lost the Wonder Bread account.''

Comments

[cirocco]

I thought the whole doctrine of transubstantiation meant that the bread and wine were actually the body and blood of Christ at the time you ate them. Given that the tools of the communion will be converted into something else in the process of consumption, why the emphasis on their earthly contents? Also, now I have King Missile's "Jesus Was Way Cool" stuck in my head, thanks.

[Shotrock]

It's interesting how the sacrament of Holy Communion *has* to be wheat bread and *has* to be alcoholic wine -- but with the sacrament of Holy Baptism you can use any water you damn well please (and it's the one sacrament that anyone, i.e. laity, can perform). I remember hearing the story of someone who was pulled up on an ocean beach from drowning, and they were baptized using seawater. No officially-blessed H20 required.

The story about the wee gluten girl is from here in New Jersey. I could tell you horror stories about our new Archbishop in Newark (what he's been doing makes refusing pro-choice politicians the wafer seem perfectly reasonable. However, it would also be the world's longest post.

And my head would explode at the end of it anyway.

[Divaah46]

Stories like that make me glad I'm Jewish. No central authority save for God, and if health is at stake, certain practices are lifted, e.g. Yom Kippup fasting for diabetics. Shoot, even a gluten-free matzah alternative would be available for that little girl.

[Diablevert]

I think that the litertalness of the transubstantiation thing is probably why --- after all, the priest can't consecate a 2x4 and a dollop of tar and have them transform themselves into the literal body and blood of Christ, so presuamby he can't consecrate vodka and a Nutty Buddy and have them work either, nor saki and a rice cake...it's got to be unleavened bread and wine, because that's what J.C. was eating at passover. Hunh. It's weird, I think many Catholics would probably be outraged, or at least roll their eyes, at that one, because most people don't really think too hard about the implications of the literal nature of transubstantiation, in which they are supposed, according to dogma, to believe...hard to manage it though, after that first communion, because the wine sure tastes like wine and not blood...

[jm]

Oh! My! Holy! Word! I cannot believe this. Corn flour. Potato flour. Oat flour. I don't think Christ would get all bent out of shape about a small INGREDIENT substitution!

As a member of the Church of Recovering Catholics**, I have to add that I loved the chicken joke. It makes me happy to attend that meeting after my Idealistic Members of the Christian Left meeting which, at least these days, can be downright depressing.

**It's kinda of like Alcoholics Anonymous, but I think the jokes during meetings are funnier.

[Brandy]

I heard about this on the radio a few days ago, and thought it was absolutely ridiculous. I'm not even sure where to start - the notion in the first place that the bread and wine are literally Christ's flesh (it's obvious to me that the act is symbolic, not literal, but I'm also a Protestant by training); the idea that what they are made of would affect what the Holy Spirit could turn them into (why sake and a rice cake wouldn't work is beyond me); the assumption that God would want you to deny participation in the church to someone over a minor detail (wheat!) that has just about nothing to do with emulating Christ's lifestyle; or in general, the insane legalism that seem to pervade the Catholic church sometimes, completely contrary to the teachings of Jesus as explained anywhere in Scripture. I'm not going to go on an anti-Catholic tirade, but this is just nonsensical, and I don't understand how the hierarchy of the Catholic church can't realize that. It's one thing to try and be strict and faithful regarding one's Christian belief; it's an entirely different thing to exclude people from church because they don't follow a bunch of man-made rules they way you want them to.

On a lighter note, cute joke!