www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Parish Life & Evangelization Eucharist for a diabetic celiac

Here [catholickey.org] is an article about the above mentioned nuns. Some notables from the article:

Furthermore, the church has ruled that a priest who is unable to receive the Eucharist in both species "may not celebrate the Eucharist individually, nor may he preside at a concelebration." The church further warned that bishops must "proceed with great caution before admitting to Holy Orders those candidates unable to digest gluten or alcohol without serious harm."

and

Gluten content: .01 percent.

Safe enough, according to Fasano and other medical experts, for consumption by almost all celiac suffers. But would it pass the scrutiny of the church's hierarchy?

The answer came last July. The recipe had been approved by the Vatican, and subsequently by the U.S. bishops, as part of a new set of norms for celebrating the Eucharist.

And this from Catholic Answer's Dragnet [catholic.com] is lengthy, but appears to fully answer the issue of wine and bread consumption vis-a-vis ordination from the Western POV:

Some months ago Karl Keating had an exchange of e-mail, reproduced in these pages, with Ingrid Shafer The subject was access to a left-wing discussion group on the Internet. In October Shafer's byline appeared in The National Catholic Reporter under an article titled "REAL PRESENCE A FUNCTION OF GLUTEN?"

The article complained about Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger's recent reminder that the bread used in the Eucharist must be made from wheaten flour and the wine must be real wine, not grape juice. Shafer called Ratzing-er's statement "one of the most absurd pronouncements in the history of the CDF" (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, of which Ratzinger is Prefect). Her complaint was that his decision deprives celiacs (men who are allergic to the gluten in wheat) and alcoholics from being priests, and this, she insisted, is unfair.

"It's not a light matter to those who are affected-not only or even primarily priests, but countless laymen and laywomen, both celiacs and recovering alcoholics, who by virtue of their baptism have a right to the sacraments of the church for which they are properly prepared, a right to be offered sustenance, not poison."

Shafer, who referred to the Pope's right-hand man as the "Grand Inquisitor" (Mr. Dostoevsky, please call your office), said, "The magisterium [should] seek ways to interpret the rules in such a way that potentially none of God's children could be excluded, at least in theory. Alas, the logic that cuts human beings off from the Eucharist and bars men from the priesthood because of a congenital condition or an illness is precisely the rigid and loveless logic Yeshua the Healer came to combat and precisely the same kind of narrow, literalist legalism that views God as accountant, distinguishes between natural family planning and artificial birth control and bars women from ordination."

You see, said Shafer, Ratzinger "is ruthlessly consistent. If he were to permit non-gluten wheat to be baked into the bread that will become the Christ or not-yet-fermented grape juice to serve as communion 'wine,' then he might also have to permit non-male humans to image the male Yeshua and speak the words of consecration. . . . After all, celiacs, alcoholics, and women share one characteristic with unfermented grape juice and gluten-free wheat: They are 'inferior matter,' not capable of consecrating or being consecrated."

No surprise in any of this. Would any experienced reader have doubted that an excursus on the proper matter for the Eucharist would end up arguing for priestesses? You might say Shafer's writing is ruthlessly consistent-and ruthlessly predictable.

But more needs to be said, at least a few words about her comments on "depriving" certain men, not to mention all women, of the priesthood or of receiving the Eucharist. If someone is a celiac, he can take Communion under the form of wine; if someone is an alcoholic, he can take Communion under the form of bread. Such people might be unable to take Communion under both species, but most of us take it under only one anyway. (Do we need to reiterate that the whole Christ is present under either species?)

It would seem that, in theory, the only people who might be excluded from Communion would be those who are simultaneously celiacs and alcoholics. Are there any such people? Assume there are a few. That still doesn't settle the issue.

While no alcoholic should be given a glass of wine at dinner, few alcoholics are unable to handle a single drop of wine-for most of them the problem was that they were taking wine by the jug, not the drop. While celiacs should not eat triple-decker sandwiches made with thick slabs of wheat bread, few of them will have measurable reactions to a tiny particle of bread. So we narrow the field even further, to those individuals whose bodies can tolerate neither a single drop of wine nor a single crumb of bread. Are there any such people? The odds are against it, but let's presume we can find one.

Would such a person be deprived of Communion, and would that be "unfair"? The answers are: Yes, then No. Such a person would be unable to take Communion if he were unwilling to undergo whatever discomfort there may be in ingesting a single drop or crumb. Let's go the whole way and say he has no choice because even such minuscule amounts would set off violent physical reactions, so he really must stay out of the Communion line.

But is this "unfair"? No, it isn't, since receiving the Eucharist is not absolutely necessary for salvation, and one can receive grace through a devout spiritual Communion. Besides, there already are actual people, not just theoretically-constructed people, who are unable to receive Communion: children under the age of reason, non-Catholics, the comatose, those who are so ill that their only means of sustenance is intravenous feeding. None of these people is in a position to take Communion, and it isn't "unfair" that they can't do so.

Shafer's article skirts the key issue that Ratzinger was addressing: What constitutes valid matter? Does rye bread? Does Welch's grape juice? The answer is either case is No. Breads made with grains other than wheat may be bread, but they aren't wheat bread, which is what hosts must be made from. Grape juice may, like wine, be a "fruit of the vine," but it isn't wine, even though, if allowed to ferment, it someday would be. If grape juice were a permissible substitute for wine, why not "grape-ade," why not fruit punch, why not liquid Jell-O?

The answer is as obvious as it is uncomfortable: Because this is the way God set it up. He decided that wheat bread and wine would be the things that could be transformed into his body and blood-not croissants, not Perrier. This is an "arbitrary" fact, and its arbitrariness may bother people, as might the "arbitrary" fact that God took flesh in a particular culture, in a particular people, in a particular place.

Why didn't the Redeemer come as a woman in Boston in 1950? There are plenty of reasons, which don't need be addressed here. All that needs to be said is that Christianity is an incarnational religion, which means our faith is a faith of dates, places, people, deeds, things, and facts-things like wheat bread and real wine and facts like the inability of a few people to receive Communion.

It is unfortunate Catholic Answers and EWTN continue to confuse people and make the false statemnt that grape juice is invalid matter. Mustum is valid matter. What is Mustum? 100% pure grape juice that has not been pasteurized or preserved in order to prevent fermentation. All grape juice starts to ferment as soon as it is squeezed.

Fr. Deacon Lance

I wish to understand why lay people can consume just one of the two (I know this is true in the West, and I believe it is so in the East); where as priests must take both (at least in the Catholic world, I have not yet heard from an Orthodox sourse).

Would not logic say that it should be the same rule for both?

Arn't we are all called to be alter Christosses? (male & female, ordained or not) We are all called by God to Divinization. Priests do not have a 'extra hight' to strive for beyond lay people. You cant get higher than God.

Shouldn't then all lay people by this logic also be required to recieve both the Sacred Body AND Blood?

Please help me understand, so that I can say something intellegent to my friend. (Heck knowing him, he is probably reading this.)

Kadylo

Deacon Lance,
Thanks for the info on Mustum. I wonder, in the case of a diabetic, if the mustum would have a higher sugar content than the wine. In the case of an alcoholic, the mustum would obviously have a lower alcohol content and be a proper alternative.

Kadylo,
I looked at the NewAdvent [newadvent.org] website about communion under both kinds. It is very long and I didn't read it all. The first paragraph says this, though:
The article, of course, is very old and refers to a time when the laity was only allowed to partake of the host. (I remember a post I read on this forum a while back which discussed the reason the wine was limited to the clergy.) What I get from it is this: it was early church custom to partake of both. The Eastern Catholics obviously continue this custom, while the Western church limited the usage of the wine. Believing that Christ is fully present in both, there is not a theological problem with this application. However, Christ clearly said to consume both and the early church obviously did. If all the laity can consume only one (and further, if it is the norm--as it was--that the laity ONLY recieve under one kind), then it is up to the priests to be able to consume both forms and uphold the command. It seems to me that the ideal is that every person recieve under both kinds, but it is theologically sound for an individual (or the laity as a whole) to recieve under one, so the priests then take on the requirement of consuming both.

I MUST say, this is all my best guesses, and I am not well-informed on the subject. If I am wrong, I would be happy to be corrected. However, I thought I would present this as a possible argument as it seems likely to me.

I do not see anyhing wrong in trying to find a way that a person with diabetes or any other situation can receive the Mysteries. there is a Protestant church here in Chattanooga that has done something like this. there is a lady in the congregation that cannot eat gluten due to a food allergy, and this church uses loaf bread for its observance of the Lord's Supper, so the church has graciously provided corn chips for this lady. just something to think about.
Much Love,
Jonn

Although I wouldnt recommend this, I know a celiac who goes to communion without any apparent side effects. In a restaurant however she is addamant that she not have the least thing tainted with flour.
Stephanos I

Mustum is not exactly grape juice. Grape juice has a lot of additives and preservatives in it, there is also an agent used to prevent fermentation added.