For people who practice intinction (dipping the host into the wine):

There are a significant number of Catholics who -- for health reasons -- can't receive the host because it contains wheat and gluten. They can only receive Communion in one form -- the wine. If you contaminate the wine with your host, you prevent other Catholics from receiving Communion at all (or you damage the health of those who decide to take the risk and receive anyway).

I hope you will reconsider. If you're squeamish about drinking from the cup or worried about germs -- fine. You don't need the wine. Take Communion in a single form (the bread), just as people who can't eat wheat are limited to taking the wine.

Thank you for thinking about this.

that don't contain gluten? I don't recall any scripture that specifies that the bread at the Last Supper was made from wheat. I'm dead sure they didn't use little white hosts!

the Vatican to change its policy and to allow non-wheat hosts -- and he was turned down. Tradition -- not Scripture -- was cited. Not long afterwards, it was announced that men with preexisting Celiac were ineligible for Holy Orders.

You can imagine how hurtful that was to millions of Celiacs and others who need to avoid wheat.

So, when I'm going to take Communion, I sit as close to the front as I can, and on the aisle. When everyone else gets in the Communion line, I go the other way and try to be first to the wine. (Which often startles the person serving the wine! They expect recipients to come from the other direction, after receiving the host.) I've had too many times of having to leave the Communion line after seeing others dip their hosts before I could get there. (And then having to leave with nothing.)

But I've never seen anyone else do what I do, though I know there are plenty of Celiacs and wheat-allergy people out there. Either they've given up on Communion, or they're risking their health. (Celiacs who continue to consume any amount of gluten are at an increased risk of lymphoma and of a number of serious auto-immune diseases.)

Guess who wrote the rule? Cardinal Ratzinger!

I went to a conservative Catholic web site to get this info, and the sanctimony was disgusting. The tone was that of course wheat had to be used, because that's what it says in the rule book (aka the Roman Missal) and if the celiacs complained, well too bad, rules are rules and we can't go around bending the rules, can we?

So now we know that to be a priest, one must be an unmarried straight male, non-alcoholic and free of celiac disease!

On edit: WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH THESE PEOPLE!There isn't any Scripture specifying the bread at Mass be made from wheat, but there sure is plenty about Pharisees using rules to separate people from God!

felt the way you did. I, too, was shocked, when the Irish Archbishop's very reasonable request on behalf of Celiacs everywhere was flatly denied -- and for no good reason. To the people with wheat allergies and gluten intolerance, it was a real punch in the gut. "No, Archbishop -- Celiacs can't substitute rice hosts. And, now that you've brought it up: they can't be ordained from now on, either."

American thing. I've traveled in Europe and Brazil and all their food packaging is labeled to indicate the presence or absence of gluten!

I guess Benedict XVI has the excuse of not going shopping for himself since, maybe never?

It's only lately that American doctors have realized that Americans of European descent are just as likely to have gluten intolerance or Celiac disease as Europeans.

By the way, at one point all ITALIAN children were being tested for Celiac disease at kindergarten age. That's how common -- and well known -- it is there.

pure oats, but if the oats have been processed with equipment used to process wheat, enough gluten is transferred to cause problems. I mention this because if the trace amounts of wheat gluten present in a bag of oat flour are sufficient to cause problems, it means that celiacs concerned about the hosts or contamination of the wine aren't exaggerating.

not anaphylactic shock like a person with a wheat allergy might have, but an immune reaction that damages the intestines (and other parts of the body, depending on the person) and is triggered by even a tiny amount of gluten. And not everyone has an immediate noticeable reaction -- you can be causing permanent damage to your intestines (or setting yourself up for cancer) without having ANY immediate reaction to gluten. So we can never feel truly safe, unless we prepare all our own food and know exactly what is in it.

When a Catholic gets diagnosed with Celiac disease, first they have to go through the usual sense of loss and deprivation that everyone does. But sooner or later every Catholic realizes that they'll never be able to take Communion in the form of bread again -- at least, not and remain healthy. So there is an additional mourning process involved. And then the message we get from the Vatican is: You're sick? Tough! Our tradition based rules are more important than your health.

P.S.

The other problem with oats is that they're often grown in fields that in alternate years are planted in wheat. So that's another source of contamination. I know oatmeal used to bother me a lot, so I'd be afraid to try any kind of it now -- especially knowing that damage could be taking place even without symptoms.

to get mixed in at harvest! I see the same thing around here when the odd corn stalk sprouts in the middle of a field of soy beans. The Vatican's offer of "low gluten" hosts is ignorant and insulting!

The damage the gluten does to celiacs reminds me of the reaction my husband gets to poison ivy. He is scrupulous about avoiding contact. The problem is that one drop of oil on his hand can trigger a reaction that continues long after the oil is washed away. Once the process starts, the rash spreads to areas not touched by the oil as the reaction cascade goes into full speed. It doesn't get better but just keeps spreading. The reaction will continue until interrupted by some steroids.

http://celiacdisease.about.com/od/glutenfreefoodshopping/a/Passover.htm

SNIP

For the entire eight days of the holiday, observant Jews do not eat any "regular" bread products or baked goods. They can eat matzoh, or in some cases, products that have been made with ground-up matzoh (matzoh flour, or matzoh meal, or matzoh cake meal). Wheat, oats, barley, rye and spelt in any other form are forbidden.

Why Does This Matter To People With Celiac Disease?

In many parts of the world, supermarkets carry special products that are available only during the Passover season. Because wheat, oats, barley, rye and spelt in any form other than matzoh is prohibited, many of these once-a-year products are gluten-free.

What Should You Look For?

Very important: Merely being labeled "Kosher for Passover" does not make a product gluten-free. It must also be labeled "Non-Gebrokts" or "Gluten-Free." Non-Gebrokts (sometimes spelled "Non-Gebroktz" or "Non-Gebroks") means the item does not have matzoh as ingredient.

SNIP

matzoh, which in pre-baking powder days meant the fermentation process. If you look here, the emphasis is on ensuring the wheat is kept absolutely dry to ensure no fermentation has taken place:

http://www.kashrut.com/Passover/matzoh/


As an aside, if people with celiac disease can eat matzoh, that suggests that fermentation by yeast or other bacteria changes the gluten somehow.

What it's saying is that during the Passover, these observant Jews can't eat wheat, barley, oatmeal etc. EXCEPT for Matzoh. In other words, they wouldn't be able to eat a cookie or a cracker (other than Matzoh) or anything else that contained wheat. So, during the Passover period, there are a number of food products sold in which other grains (rice, for example) have been substituted.

The rules regarding non-gluten hosts have been mentioned in other threads, but I certainly would never have realised
that a host could contaminate the wine as well.

This is another example of petty rules coming before humanity and compassion. It should be possible in every church,
if parishioners ask for it, to have one line where communicants can receive the host in gluten-free form. I don't
think the sky would fall.

This silly rule amounts to a form of excommunication, and is very, very wrong.

You're right about that.

on a lot of things: I have a married daughter who wants to become a priest and another daughter who is gay, but if this bunch is so rigid they won't accept a host made from rice flour?

that my father was gay. Imagine trying to square that with being a Catholic way back then?

Then we moved to Seattle where we had our wonderful Archbishop Hunthausen, who let Dignity hold masses in our parishes and who himself protested in anti-nuclear work. When the Vatican took away his powers as an Archbishop, that, to me, was the beginning of the decline.

Then the first cases of molestation came to light, with promises of more to come.

Then the Vatican "bound and silenced" Catholics everywhere on the subject of women's ordination.

Then the full force of the molestation scandal came to light.

I got diagnosed with Celiac and, while I was still dealing with that loss, the Vatican turned down the Irish Archbishop's petition for non-gluten hosts and banned Celiac men from ordination.

Somewhere in that period, the Vatican changed the format of the mass -- but only for American Catholics. Now there was to be a lot more standing and kneeling -- less sitting. Why? Because Americans need more "discipline."

And now, the Vatican is investigating the largest organization of nuns in the world, to see if they are faithful enough.

I tell you, Hedgehog, I'm hanging on by a thread.

Especially since last Sunday.

If it was in Church, I wasn't there.

Along with the fact that Bill O'Reilly - a Catholic - incited all this with his words then tried to avoid responsibility instead of owning up to the fact that it was his words that encouraged a disturbed individual to walk into a Kansas church and end a human life. That's the main thing that's caused me to reevaluate my relationship to the church.

and he sounds like a good Christian man to me. When are the Powers That Be going to understand that as long as they
look only for those who don't think for themselves, never rock the boat, don't question authority and obey all the
most petty rules, they will attract only the mediocre to the priesthood? Jesus was a pain in the bum to the
authorities of his day, so why are we not supposed to emulate him?

A rebel priest in Brisbane has today been suspended from all priestly duties - he was certainly provocative in his
questioning of the Virgin Birth, and his masses were very informal affairs with people sitting on the floor if they
wanted to, around a central altar. But he also ministered to the Aboriginal population, the drug addicts, the
alcoholics and the poorest in the community, and had been given government funding for his mission work to the poor.
He'd been in the same church for 28 years, but it took a complaint from a "conservative" (read: Opus Dei) to Rome
to bring down the wrath of the Church on his head, principally because he had the temerity to allow women to preach,
and he blessed gay couples. That's what finished him. His style isn't mine, but if he's reaching the most
marginalised people, how can that be bad? The Vatican thinks it is, and he's now banned worldwide from priestly
duties. If he'd been a pedophile, he'd have just been moved somewhere else.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/06/05/2590829.htm

Unfortunately, the people who brought him down seem to have taken over the Church.

Now, who cares? Father Kennedy will continue his work as long as he can. The only problem that I see, and this is the reason Church needs some sort of structure, is who will take up the yoke when Father Kennedy can no longer work? Note, I said yoke and not reins! Father Kennedy serves his people, he doesn't attempt to rule them!

More and more dissidents are being excommunicated, and with each excommunication the hierarchy is making itself more irrelevant. My favorite example currently? The bishop of Miami telling Father Cutie that he is no longer a priest but is still bound by his vow of celibacy!

someone who has left the Church and the Catholic Priesthood is still subject to its disciplines. Or to think that anyone else would even care.

in the control of a bunch of petulant old men afraid of everything. Given that I see a higher and higher percentage of men in the priesthood who probably never had a vocation, it all makes sense. I can't tell you how many I know who seem to have become priests for the fire insurance. (i.e. they thought that if they became priests, it would guarantee they wouldn't go to Hell.) Too many of these guys are afraid of God, and then they turn around and tell the rest of us they know everything!

I hope not.

The faithful are not allowed to ask questions, or suggest other ways of
doing things - push it, and the threat of excommunication is held over
their heads. As an example, how dare they tell us that we can't even
discuss female ordination? To tell free men and women living in modern
democracies what they can and can't talk about?

I do sometimes wonder whether they realise the implications of the fact
that, in most of the world, people are educated to a high degree, and
have almost unlimited information at their fingertips via computers. We
are not a bunch of illiterates who need to have everything explained, but
can form our own views and opinions. Some would regard this is healthy,
but the Church is frightened of it.

(unless the topic has become a discussion of the harm from control freaks ):)

Around here, laser cut tombstones have become affordable.What this means is that a grieving family can take an old photo and have it transferred to a tombstone.

http://www.southerngranite.com/


A local family had a picture of their dad in his fishing boat engraved on his tombstone. The priest in charge of the cemetery told them that they had to remove the stone, that only religious images were allowed in the cemetery and that the picture of their dad enjoying himself on his boat would disturb people visiting nearby graves. The family responded by moving the body to a a non-denominational cemetery.


To top it off, the name of the Catholic Cemetery is St. Peter's!

I don't know about you, but I suspect St. peter and the departed are sitting around heaven swapping stories about the one that got away!


Seriously though, more and more people are responding to petty officiousness by just walking away.

A couple of the stones on the site do look a wee bit over the top, as it were, but my feeling is if it's what the family wants then that's their decision. As long as it's nothing hateful or obscene.

Of course some people are not happy unless they're messing it up for other people. At least the Catholic cemeteries up here none of the people running the cemeteries are as stuck up as that priest would be. I know one guy who owned music store that has his stone shaped like a grand piano. The local bartender has a picture of him in his favorite old pickup and an image of a tractor on his stone. And the stone that my grandparents had placed for their eventual use has their picture, a picture of a cow and some chickens on it.

the more they alienate WOMEN from the Church, the more they alienate the MOTHERS of the men they hope will join the Priesthood some day? How many women do you know who would encourage their sons to become a Priest?

But I don't watch people closely when they are taking the wine.

This is my observation as a Eucharistic Minister.

Mainly for health reasons, I think.

more elderly parishioners

Some older people have said they don't take the wine at all, because
they were taught that both forms are present in the Host, so it's
unnecesssary.