Vatican City, Jul 11, 2017 / 03:01 am (CNA/EWTN News).- The norms regarding gluten and Communion hosts that went viral this weekend are nothing new in the Catholic Church.
On Saturday morning, the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments issued a circular letter to bishops reiterating existing norms regarding the matter of the Eucharist, including the norm that Communion hosts must contain some amount of gluten to be valid matter for consecration.
By Saturday night, the (misconstrued) news had spread like wildfire: “Catholic Church bans celiacs from Communion!” many media outlets declared. It was such a hot topic that Twitter declared it a “moment” in world news.
But these were existing norms – there was no change, no announcement of new norms, nor banning of celiacs from the Sacrament of the Eucharist. Gluten-free hosts have always been invalid matter for the sacrifice of the Mass, meaning that Catholics with celiac disease have already grappled with other options for Communion.
Usually, such “reminder” letters are issued when someone, generally a bishop, has raised a question or has been alerted of a possible abuse of the norm.
Still, the letter left lingering questions regarding people with celiac disease (or those with other serious allergies to wheat) and Communion. Here’s what the Church, and Catholics with celiac disease, have to say about going gluten free for Communion.
Why must a Communion host contain at least some gluten?
Wheat bread and wine of the grape are the matter of the sacrament of the Eucharist because Christ instituted the sacrament under these species. Moreover, Christ compared himself to a grain of wheat, and to the vine.
At some point along the line the question of gluten came arose, and whether the bread used for Holy Communion necessitated at least some gluten (and its accompanying protein gliadin) to be considered wheat bread that was valid matter for the sacrament.
A July 2003 circular letter from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, noting documents from the 1980s and ’90s, recalled that “Hosts that are completely gluten-free are invalid matter for the celebration of the Eucharist.”
It added that “Low-gluten hosts (partially gluten-free) are valid matter, provided they contain a sufficient amount of gluten to obtain the confection of bread without the addition of foreign materials and without the use of procedures that would alter the nature of bread.”
And in 2004 the Congregation for Divine Worship wrote in its instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum that “The bread used in the celebration of the Most Holy Eucharistic Sacrifice must be unleavened, purely of wheat, and recently made so that there is no danger of decomposition. It follows therefore that bread made from another substance, even if it is grain, or if it is mixed with another substance different from wheat to such an extent that it would not commonly be considered wheat bread, does not constitute valid matter for confecting the Sacrifice and the Eucharistic Sacrament.”
That said, the Church recognizes that it mustn’t exclude from receiving Communion Catholics with celiac disease, and has made accommodation for those who are unable to consume normal bread.
Options celiacs have for Communion: Advice from a priest with celiac disease
A layperson affected by celiac disease who is unable to receive even a low-gluten host may receive Communion under the species of wine only.
A priest in a similar situation, when taking part in a concelebration, may with permission of the Ordinary receive Communion under the species of wine only. But such a priest may not celebrate the Eucharist individually, nor may he preside at a concelebration.
Father Joseph Faulkner, a priest of the diocese of Lincoln, was diagnosed with celiac disease in 2008.
Already a priest, he had to receive special permission from his diocese to use low-gluten hosts in order to celebrate the Sacrifice of the Mass.
Fr. Faulkner told CNA he was surprised that the letter regarding communion norms exploded so quickly on Twitter, but he saw it as a teachable moment.
The problem of gluten is especially pressing for priests, who must consume Communion under both species at a Mass which they celebrate individually.
For Father Faulkner, he has found that the best low-gluten hosts are made by the Benedictine Sisters of Perpetual Adoration in Clyde, Missouri. The sister’s website includes a page about proper storage and distribution of low-gluten hosts so as to avoid cross-contamination.
While the hosts are not low-gluten enough to be considered gluten free (which is understood to be less than 20 parts per million), they are low enough to be approved by the Celiac Support Association, which has some of the most stringent guidelines available on what celiacs can safely consume, Father said.
“I throw up if I eat bread, but I consume 8-9 large, low gluten hosts per week, and have done that for 9 years, and I don’t get sick from them,” he told CNA.
Father Faulkner said he recommended that any celiac wary of the low-gluten hosts obtain a few of them, unconsecrated, and try tiny particles to see if they are able to safely consume them.
For celiacs who are unable to receive these low-gluten hosts, Fr. Faulkner said “the safest and most certain thing a person could do would be to ask to receive (the Precious Blood) from a chalice other than the chalice that the priest uses.”
That’s because the chalice of wine that the priest uses contains the frumentum – the little bit of Host dropped in during the Angus Dei. To avoid any cross-contamination, a separate chalice is necessary.
“That’s the most certain way, and when you receive the Precious Blood, you receive Jesus’ body, blood, soul and divinity, so you don’t have to worry” about only receiving part of the sacrifice, he said.
For those who are able to receive the low gluten hosts, travelling with a sleeve of unconsecrated hosts can be a way to ensure that they can receive Communion in different parishes, Fr. Faulkner said.
“Just go up to the pastor and explain, ‘Hi, I’m a celiac, can I have one of these hosts consecrated on a separate paten?’” he said. “Because parishes want to be accommodating, but if they don’t have a celiac in their parish they’re probably not going to stock (low-gluten hosts) in their fridge.”
The lay Catholic experience: What it’s like finding gluten-free Communion
Michelle De Groot is a layperson with celiac disease in the Diocese of Arlington. She said that for a long time, she would approach priests in the sacristy before Mass to ask them to consecrate a separate chalice of wine, so that she could safely receive without cross-contamination.
“That was always kind of stressful because sometimes the priest would understand what I was talking about and sometimes not. And they didn’t always have a second chalice handy,” De Groot told CNA.
“So sometimes I’d just receive anyway from the cup with (the frumentum) and sometimes I’d make a spiritual communion instead,” she said. A spiritual communion is a uniting of oneself to the Sacrifice of the Mass through prayer, and can be made whether one is able to receive Communion or not.
Then, De Groot found out about the low-gluten altar breads made by the Benedictine Sisters. After doing her research, she decided to try these hosts, since they are approved as celiac-safe.
“I’ve never had any symptoms,” she said. De Groot says she also travels with her own supply of low-gluten hosts and a pyx (a small, round container for hosts) that allow her to receive Communion at parishes that may otherwise be unprepared.
She said while her celiac diagnosis was an emotional one for her at first, it has allowed her to establish relationships with priests and Eucharistic ministers at her parish and other churches she frequents.
“At my home (parish), it’s even not the end of the world if i’m running a few minutes late because they know me and my needs – whereas when I was first diagnosed, I had to get to church 15 minutes ahead to give time for the awkward explanations,” she said.
“If anything, celiac has been good for me in terms of my relationship to my parishes – I’m not an isolated stranger there, I’m known!”
Molly O’Connor is also a Catholic with celiac disease, who expressed similar frustrations with trying to make sure the Communion she received was both valid and safe. Having lived in six local Churches throughout the country, she said experiences varied widely from parish to parish.
“I typically just receive the cup at Communion, and I try both to sit in a part of the church where Communion is distributed by a priest so I may receive a blessing and near a cup that doesn’t have part of the host in it. If that sounds complicated, it is!” she said.
Travelling can be difficult, she said, as it can be hard to know whom to approach about receiving Communion. Parishes also often don’t announce whether they have low-gluten hosts, or how low-gluten they are, and not all parishes are conscious about cross-contamination, she said.
The U.S. Bishops issued a letter in 2012, updated in April 2016, regarding low-gluten and gluten-free communion options, as well as guidelines to avoid cross-contamination that can be found here.
O’Connor said the best situations have been when priests consecrate a separate chalice for her, and when parishes announce specifics about low-gluten or gluten-free options.
“As the Eucharist is the source and summit of our Catholic faith, I think making Communion accessible to celiac and gluten-sensitive Catholics, in a manner consistent with Vatican and the U.S. Bishop’s norms, is paramount,” she said.
“How diminished is our faith life if we are unable to share in the paschal mystery with our fellow Catholics?”
[…]
“The Vatican said Wednesday it respects the decision by the Court of Appeals in Victoria”
Well, that makes one of us who respects it.
“The complexity of the search for the truth in this matter has tested many” (Archbishop Comensoli Melbourne) is typical of politically correct blather. There was absolutely zero complexity in this prejudiced lynching. Conviction had to rest on guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Conviction was instead pronounced by the actual morally guilty on the slightest possibility within the spectrum of possibilities. That charge immediately following Mass in a crowded Cathedral he induced two altar servers in the sacristy to perform sodomy. Witnesses denied testimony the charade of justice to the eternal shame of Australia and may I suggest the very possible Eternal condemnation of those who convicted Cardinal Pell. Rarely in history has so obvious a case of vengeful injustice against a Catholic bishop been so evident. The Vatican “respects” the decision of classic Australian Kangaroo Justice. Some Australian Lawyers have commented on this site defending irrational Catholic hate in the verdict. God help them also. The sense given by this Vatican and cowardly prelates is that there is more injustice in store for those who uncover and seek justice as did Cardinal Pell regarding misuse of finances within this Vatican. That is any injustice exposed by the faithful. Ultimately the unjust will lose at terrible price unless they repent.
While the bureaucrats at the Holy See are ducking for cover, I shall continue to believe that Cardinal Pell is innocent for as long as he claims that he is. — Australia’s first martyr in the making.
He is indeed a martyr. An atonement for the hundreds of perverted and weak bishops and priests.
They might as well have done this at Tabatha.
He is indeed a martyr. An atonement for the hundreds of perverted and weak bishops and priests.
They might as well have done this at Tabatha.
It becomes a travesty of justice knowing Cardinal Pell is sitting in prison unable to say Mass while his accuser is free.
The accuser knows full well his testimony is false due to the simple & straightforward fact that he testified that Cardinal Pell held his vestment wide open. All Catholics understand the seamless vestment is not capable of being held split open & yet the jury upon hearing this evidence convicted Cardinal Pell anyway. Shame on them & shame on the appellate court.
Not surprising considering the rampant anti-Catholic bigotry in Australia.
Cardinal Pell , sharing the first name of St.George the dragon slayer , with our Holy Father – before he took on the name of St.Francis ..
St.George and England and Australia connections , may be realms of deep wounds against The Church and all that too .
EWTN commentary mentioned doubts whether the Cardinal has that much ‘fight ‘ left in him any more , because of his age too ..
there in might be the mystery ..
Australia to Argentina, may be a deep sadness , in the Fatherly hearts, of not having foreseen the tsunami that was building up – not due to any personal
neglects , yet … thus , may be even a desire to be the victim , for both sides – for the sake of the falsely accused , which would include The Father Himself, who is the One who gets accused for the human pride , hardness of hearts and the workings of the enemy spirits that are invited in , many walking away , even daring to deny the very existence of The Father ..
the desire too , likely , to help augment focus and thus efforts , to prevent future instances , by a more aggressive implementation may be of , of all the arsenals of The Church , such as ministry of deliverance , as suggested in this article – https://spiritdailyblog.com/commentary/a-simple-inconvenient-truth
Thank God that the simple ministries that do same , such as the Heart of The Father ministries are getting more attention as well .
Would even nonconventional means such as ongoing Eucharistic cruises , esp. around these island nations , be considered , as the appeal process is being looked into – there are persons in the charismatic circles that have reported miraculous results from same .
Those Vilnius images of Mercy too , should any church in our times be without a large enough image of same, to also bring honor to The Father , since this icon seems to have the most Fatherly look AFIK.
The Cardinal , possibly have the means to have Adoration , where he is at – same might have been true for the Holy Apostles too, in their last days , in jails ..
thus joining in spirit with many , to praise The Father , opening the prison doors of those in the fires of purgatory or of the world as well ..
Holy Father’s initiative to share the rosaries in Syria – hope those who can help him to do so for the Divine Mercy images also would take note .
Meanwhile, believers , with that sense of grief too , joining the victims , who are on both sides in one sense in this case , thus aid the Queen of Heaven , to bring the reign of peace , healing the deep wounds and driving out the enemy strong
holds of the dragon from one end to the other .
St.George and Mary , Queen of Heaven pray for us all .
There is a wave of hatred to Catholic clergy and the Church all over the world. The few irregularities committed by some clergy may be one reason for it. Here the judge never cared to hear the plea of the accused. A real judge should hear both sides and consider the case and not fully believing the accuser. Also I will argue that if the accuser had a complaint it should have been registered within a week or month of the happening. Simply accusing someone of immorality after many years is sheer nonsense,but rules do not invalidate . There should be a law of limitation as otherwise it is an encouragement for revenge by people any time.
K. C. Thomas:
“Simply accusing someone of immorality after many years is sheer nonsense,but rules do not invalidate. There should be a law of limitation as otherwise it is an encouragement for revenge by people any time.”
***********
I would agree that making accusations years after a crime has been alleged to occur is problematic, but what other recourse is there for young children who have been victimized & frightened by an adult perpetrator? They are easily threatened & manipulated into silence by the abuser & may not have the courage to confront him until they’re adults.
I worry also about our present anti-Catholic atmosphere & have real doubts about Cardinal Pell’s verdict. But beyond giving victims delayed justice you have to remember that there are dangerous predators who will continue to harm children unless someone speaks out. Even if it’s been
decades since their first crimes.
However to have real justice you have to have real evidence & corroboration-both seem scarce in Cardinal Pell’s verdict.
While some are in a cozy monastery, this honorable servant is in prison. One of the signs of satan, I understand, is he turns things upside down and calls evil good and good evil. One of Mother Angelica’s famous lines is “I wouldn’t want to be standing near them on judgment day.”
There wouldn’t be many convicted criminals who’ve enjoyed as much slavering support as George Pell.
George Pell is no Ned Kelly. Why, then, is so much energy being devoted into trying to make him a folk hero for conservatives?
There is still a chance, however small, that he might yet beat the charges in the High Court, but it’s not much of a chance, and whichever way that final appeal goes, there is one outcome you can bet on with confidence: Pell’s defenders will do immense damage to the institution of the courts and the justice system as a whole in the prosecution of their culture war.
Because that’s what this is. The extra-judicial defence of George Pell is not a fight for truth or righteousness – it is simply a continuation of politics by other means.
It is disgraceful.
The systemic abuse of children by paedophile clergy is not a myth or a meme. It is a massive and well-documented atrocity that has taken the lives of an unknown number of victims, and caused vast suffering to many, many more.
It has blighted the existence of survivors and their families and done incalculable damage to the church itself.
A truly conservative response to the conviction of so senior a figure as Pell would not seek to diminish or even negate his crime. A true conservative would accept the vital importance of a perpetrator accepting personal responsibility for his actions and attempting to make amends for them, no matter how impossible that restitution might be.
Instead we get conspiracy theories, special pleading and brazen contempt not just for the court and its officers but also for the victims of the crime.
https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/queensland/defending-the-indefensible-pell-is-no-ned-kelly-20190827-p52l3l.html
“The extra-judicial defence of George Pell is not a fight for truth or righteousness – it is simply a continuation of politics by other means. It is disgraceful.”
No, your cynical and, yes, politicized, slander of those who believe, with good reason, that Pell is innocent, is slanderous.
Carl, you quote from the article that is linked at the bottom of my post. They are not my words and I believe the situation is much more complex and multi layered that those words suggest. I also believe there is an element of truth to the opinions he has written about. Perhaps I should be more careful in what I post. It is worth stating that there has been numerous statements that have directly attributed motive to my expressed opinions that are unfair, untrue and way off the mark.
……and now I’ve had time to think over the choice of words, I think it a grave injustice that you chose the word slander as a descriptor of my commentary. It does come over as intimidation and a thinly veiled threat and completely unnecessary given the effort I have made to explain myself over many posts.
“I think it a grave injustice that you chose the word slander ”
Quite true; it’s an injustice to the language. It’s written, and therefore I believe the correct word is libel.
Furthermore Carl, It would seem to the casual observer, of which I hope there are many, that It would suit your narrative if my motive was essentially political. I am not sorry to inform you that my motivation is on behalf of the many children, now adults and their families, their broken hearts, bodies and minds, who have suffered abuse under Cardinal Pells watch! Details of which you lot seem to think have no relevance to the legal proceedings because no detailed analysis appears within the articles written so far. So not without reason, my question remains unanswered as to why not! The complete and utter betrayal of their innocence and the many unholy manoeuvrings to negate their just cause, are the subject of my posting here. This is the motivation i have had from since the 1990’s way before I heard anything about culture wars political correctness or Liberal Conservative catholic warring! You state unreservedly of my ” cynical and, yes, politicized, slander of those who believe, with good reason, that Pell is innocent, is slanderous.”
You sir do not know the motive of my heart!
“my motivation is on behalf of the many children, now adults and their families, their broken hearts, bodies and minds, who have suffered abuse under Cardinal Pells watch! Details of which you lot seem to think have no relevance to the legal proceedings”
Because they are not relevant to the legal proceedings, which are about this one person’s accusations about specific acts that he says Cardinal Pell committed.
I have read and written extensively about the Cardinal Pell file.
Many experienced people of good judgement, (including Melbourne Archbishop Peter, international Australian journalist Andrew Bolt, counsel Robert Richter and the lawyer Jesuit Father Frank Brennan S.J.), and who have known Cardinal Pell personally have declared Cardinal Pell to be innocent, not merely not guilty.
My views include that:
1) the search for the truth is continuing
2) the legal system in Australia is not a system designed to establish the truth
3) the chances of Cardinal Pell having a successful Australian High Court legal appeal are low, (his state level appeal was lost)
4) BUT a subsequent application under human rights law to the European based international court of justice has a higher probability of finding Cardinal Pell innocent, based on the public material available to date
To date not one relevant person has stated that they saw the Kid and Choirboy, (the Kid’s fellow chorister, now deceased), leave any post-mass procession and also no relevant person has stated that the Kid and the Choirboy returned to the group of practising choristers at a later time and in a disturbed and alcohol affected state (as would be consistent with the evidence given by the Kid).
To date there is no statement that any contemporaneous material has been sought that would tend to corroborate or contradict either the Kid or Cardinal Pell.
I note that those who claim to have professionally considered the allegations of the Kid, (including the police, the DPP and investigative journalists), have not produced any such material at all.
Regards to all from Peter Halliday at peter.halliday@gmail.com
Mr. Hallam,
I have no idea how old you are, but I can easily imagine how you would have held forth in 1982: “Some mothers have committed infanticide, and therefore Lindy Chamberlain has been rightfully convicted, and anybody who says that she was wrongfully convicted is showing brazen contempt not just for the court and its officers but also for the victim of the crime.”
The disgrace is that you are so fixated on politics and revenge that you seem not to care at all that an examination of the testimony at the trial – and no, I wasn’t there, but I’ve read the reports of it and I’ve read the excerpts provided in the appellate court’s decision, and the reports and excerpts agree – shows that the case was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Or are you of the opinion that Judge Mark Weinberg was part of this “disgrace” because he pointed out how flawed the decision was?
“The systemic abuse of children by paedophile clergy is not a myth or a meme. It is a massive and well-documented atrocity that has taken the lives of an unknown number of victims, and caused vast suffering to many, many more.”
Nobody is saying that the abuse is a myth, or that it wasn’t an atrocity that cause horrible suffering. That has nothing to do with whether Cardinal Pell committed this crime.
Every one of those clergy who committed the atrocity to which you refer is a man. Therefore, is someone ever accuses you of sexually assaulting him and tells a story composed of unlikelihood piled on impossibility, with no witnesses who support his story and many who testify that it couldn’t be true, will you be perfectly content if you are convicted in spite of the many shadows of doubts that should have arisen in the jury’s minds? After all, you are a man, and the crimes that were committed were heinous, and therefore you must be guilty.
“George Pell is no Ned Kelly.” I had to look up Ned Kelly, since I’d never heard of him. You’re quite right, Cardinal Pell is no Ned Kelly. Kelly was guilty, and there was plenty of evidence to prove it.
My concern about the conviction is the lack of evidence and the fact that the accuser’s story is full of things that are at the very best unlikely. I haven’t paid as much attention to Mr. Weigel’s discussion of the toxic atmosphere surrounding the case, since I’m less concerned with the reasons for the injustice of the conviction than the fact that it happened. But every post that you have made has pretty much proved Mr. Weigel’s point. You address not at all the many concerns that I, and others, have posted: about the whole “Operation Tethering” which started with a presumption that the Cardinal must be guilty of something and went hunting for someone, anyone, who would accuse him; about the accuser’s shifting story; about the fact that the accuser’s claims are contradicted by the testimony of many other witnesses. All you do is say that terrible things have happened, and that you dislike Cardinal Pell, and that everyone who doesn’t accept the verdict is focused on politics. In other words, you are a living exemplar of the toxic climate Mr. Weigel mentions. I’m left thinking that if the jury was composed of peoople who, like you, have a massive prejudice, a blind spot, a feeble grasp of logic, and a very strange concept of justice, it explains the conviction in the face of what any reasonable person must consider to be reasonable doubts.
“the victims of the crime.”
There was only one complainant. The other boy denied that he had ever been assaulted. I’ve read the claims that “Oh, but often it’s years before a victim is able to talk about it.” I daresay that’s true; but to claim that even though the second boy never made any accusations that would be just what one would expect of a victim” is the invisible man argument. “There’s an invisible man in that chair.” “I don’t see anything.” “Of course! That’s exactly what you would expect to see if there’s an invisible man in the chair!”
“A truly conservative response to the conviction of so senior a figure as Pell would not seek to diminish or even negate his crime. A true conservative would accept the vital importance of a perpetrator accepting personal responsibility for his actions and attempting to make amends for them, no matter how impossible that restitution might be.”
And again, you’re ignoring that fact that we don’t believe that he is guilty, and not for political reasons. A truly conservative response to a perceived injustice is to fight against it. That’s what we’re doing.
LESLIE!! you go girl!!!! Exactly as I would have said it if I had half your brain!!!!L
Well, thank you!