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?”
[…]
Your Holiness;
Israel only attacks specific targets of military value, and it warns the residents beforehand to give them time to evacuate the area.
Iran, on the other hand – has no problem with TARGETING CIVILIANS. It is, in fact one of their commonly used strategies. E.G. – In their retaliation last night they sent missiles which killed 86 people, and a goodly number of them were residents of an Old Folks’ home.
In any case I understand that in your position you have to speak like this.
I agree with you entirely. Iran has been a terrorist nation for years. We do not discipline (i.e., help change the behavior) unruly or “mean” children by being sweet to them and allowing them to continue to terrorize others. We discipline them, we punish them and make their lives uncomfortable so that they have a motive to stop misbehaving. Yes, we take them to behavioral specialists who sometimes discover physical, mental, or psychological conditions, or environmental conditions (e.g., abusive relative) that causes the child to behave in an unacceptable and “violent” way and we can help that child in various ways (counselling, meds, different schooling, etc.), but often, a child who acts out does so because he/she has been allowed the power to do so by wimpy parents, teachers, etc. And if they are not “stopped” and helped to change their ways, these kids will often grow up to be poor and/or criminals.
We give tickets and occasionally incarceration to people who break traffic laws or other laws of the land–we don’t just overlook it as “their personality” or “their culture.” When someone murders someone, we don’t just say, “He or she had a troubled past.” Yes, sadly, they often did, but that does NOT excuse their horrific behavior. MANY people have a “troubled past”, but they manage to pull themselves out of despair and become good citizens who do much to help their fellow man.
We can’t allow criminals to terrorize our land.
And we should not tolerate national leaders and nations that terrorize their own people along with other nations and put the entire world in danger of planet-wide conflict. We need to teach Iran (or at least the leaders) to “behave” like civilized world citizens and hold them accountable for their many past crimes against humanity.
Pres. Trump gave Iran plenty of warning–it wasn’t a “surprise attack”. They had plenty of chances to change their ways, and they chose to thumb up their noses at the U.S. and other nations and continue their cruel, uncivilized ways in the name of their “religion”. Many Muslims and Muslim nations ARE peaceful, so the “religion” is not telling them to do this awful stuff. It’s the leaders who value power over human life, even the lives of their own people.
Good for Pres. Trump and our American military!
Mrs. Sharon Whitlock: you couldn’t be more correct in what you’ve written here. Our granddaughter just graduated from elementary school. We gifted her with the trilogy Kristen Lavransdatter and in each book we wrote: “The life you have tomorrow will be determined by the choices you make today.” We need to end this ethos that tells everyone they’re a victim and that others reward them on account of it.
We read: “Let diplomacy silence the weapons; let nations shape their future through works of peace, not through violence and bloody conflict.”
Absolutely. In a barbaric age we’re periodically on the brink, and yet globally we’re also like ships passing in the night. In the entirely different context of domestic parties or government agencies at odds with each other, there’s the well-developed path of formal mediation.
Four points:
FIRST, assuming that the parties are symmetrical, potential mediators point to nine criteria which must be met in order to be even eligible for promising mediation. Two of these criteria are that “the issue must be ‘ripe'” (#3, meaning that mediation resolves conflict and does not avert conflict); and that the “agencies [of the same government] are at a point where decisions and actions are ‘needed'” (#7). So far, so good, but criterion #4 is that “‘delay’ serves none of the parties”…
SECOND, this is not to diminish in any way Pope Leo XIV’s plea of reason, but it does admit to complicated communication between a Western culture still rooted somewhat to the incarnational coherence of faith & reason, and the different governments/regimes of a fideistic and non-Trinitarian culture still tied to the non-Western 7th Century. We might be also reminded of the varied understandings of “mokusatsu” by which Bushido Japan either diplomatically “withheld comment” on the final and problematic demand for “unconditional surrender,” or else signaled only to its own captive population that the ultimatum was “unworthy of public notice” (the response was received only as a decoded intercept).
THIRD, these comments, here, are barely even academic and are taken from quite different contexts. Still, in simply trying to decode the Islam world—meaning to understand sectarian and often mutually conflicted Muslim minds (plural)—yours truly, as an un-credentialled layman, now pulls from my shelf a still mostly unread copy of an Islamic compendium: Abdul Aziz Said, Nathan C. Funk, Ayse S. Kadayifci (editors); “Peace and Conflict Resolution in Islam,” University Press of America, 2001).
FOURTH, “Peace and conflict resolution” through plural Muslim lenses?
Diplomacy, yes, but at the same time “a fireman does not negotiate with the fire.” In any event, the recent combination of “rhetoric” plus a stated “60-day deadline” for productive negotiation is now largely history. The state (?) of Iran now pauses to consult with the networked Kremlin…Putin’s strategy in Ukraine of victory-through-delay hasn’t worked so well in Iran.
SUMMARY: No conclusions here, except that words are not always cheap….and with lingering memories from August in 1914 and in 1945.
Thou shall NOT kill.
Your holiness: Why not direct your message of peace to Muslims. They are causing mayhem around the world. In Europe, they are burning Catholic churches, looting, setting cars afire, murdering priests while saying Mass, raping women and young girls. In Africa, Muslims are murdering Christians wholesale. They have kidnapped hundreds of Christian women and forced them to convert to Islam and to worship their god Allah. There isn’t anywhere in the world that’s safe from Muslim predation. They go around bombing schools, hospitals and other civilian targets. In its simple-minded attempt to be “fair”, idiot influencers lay blame on all – Muslim as well as those they refer to as infidels. Frankly, your holiness, somw of us Catholics are tired of our Church leaders tripping over themselves to appear impartial. You can speak to us about Church teavhings but when it come to global politics and civil matters, we’re not listening anymore.
I believe in the concept of just wars. I also believe it is imperative to know your enemy. Iran has been led by a regime of death and destruction from its beginning. There is no path of diplomacy when your enemy is planning your death by any means necessary. Their religious path revels in war and sees war as a path of evangelization as well as a path of creating their desired world order.
The plea for peace is good. But when the lion remains committed to destruction of all around it, it is not time to talk about peace to the lamb.
“War does not solve problems — on the contrary, it amplifies them and inflicts deep wounds on the history of nations that take generations to heal.”
Your Holiness, I strongly suspect that Pope Pius V of Lepanto fame would disagree with you that wars do not solve problems.
And then there is this: ” “No armed victory can make up for a mother’s grief, a child’s fear, or a stolen future.” Really? So are we to infer that a nation that does not resist but allows itself to be destroyed will eliminate a mother’s grief, a child’s fear, or a stolen future?
Good grief! Is this the pacifist pablum we can expect moving forward? Boko Haram may appreciate your rhetoric but I would not want you to address my Marines who are about to go into battle. Respectfully your Holiness, reflect on Ecclesiastes 3:8 please.
Pope Leo: “War does not solve problems; on the contrary, it amplifies them and inflicts deep wounds on the history of peoples, which take generations to heal.”
Pope Francis said similar things. But, if this is the case, then there is no such thing as a just war. However, the possibility of a just war has always been the Church’s position. The Church is not pacifist. Pope John Paul II said as much even when he was objecting to the Gulf war.
Since the issue is about nuclear weapons IMO the very phrase ‘just war’ becomes irrelevant.
“Today more than ever, humanity cries out and pleads for peace…”
.
Honestly, I don’t think that is an accurate statement.
Dear Pope Leo:
The Church holds and teaches that there can be just wars.
Whether this particular situation is such is an important question that deserves attention.
Casual pacifism is not serious.