Rationality Now Rotating Header Image

Catholicism

It seems I was a bit vague.

My last post about gluten-free communion wafers seems to have a conclusion that is a bit vague… at least a lot more vague than I’d intended (ie… not at all). The two commenters, “David” and “stephanie” concluded that my post was criticizing the Catholic church’s position on the gluten content of the Eucharist hosts.

The Catholic church doctrine seems to require that hosts contain gluten in order to qualify as “bread,” otherwise it cannot properly transubstantiate into the body of Christ. This, of course, poses a problem for coeliac sufferers who cannot tolerate any gluten in their diets.

Although I agree one hundred percent with the comments made by “David” and “stephanie,” and I support them in their fight to be included in their religious ceremonies, the issue of immutable church doctrine was not the focused intent of my post.

My intended point was that, since the Catholic church believes that the host physically transforms into the body of Christ, the wafer would no longer contain gluten when it’s eaten. So, if what Catholics profess to believe is actually true, the host could be made of 100% wheat gluten before being consecrated, but afterward it would contain 0% gluten and would be safe to eat, even by the most severe coeliac sufferer.

Since it’s obviously an issue (and a completely valid one, I agree), it would seem that Catholics, including the clergy, do not really believe that transubstantiation occurs. And more importantly, if any coeliac sufferer has ever had a reaction to a consecrated host (a brief search turned up nothing), it would seem that transubstantiation actually does not occur.

My sincerest best wishes to “David” and “stephanie,” though.

Jesus is Gluten Free

Eucharist hostsLast week, I heard mention of a company making gluten-free hosts (or communion wafers). I didn’t think much of it, since it seems logical that someone (especially a child) who had coeliac disease would not want to eat something during communion that would make him ill.

However, upon further examination, I found the issue to be very odd, particularly with regard to the Catholic faith. Catholics believe that when the bread and the wine are consecrated during the Eucharist service, something called transubstantiation occurs, which means the bread and wine actually become the body and blood of Christ.

From Wikipedia…

The Roman Catholic Church accordingly believes that through transubstantiation Christ is really, truly and substantially present under the remaining appearances of bread and wine, and that the transformation remains as long as the appearances remain.

Not wanting to just take Wikipedia’s word for it, I dug a little deeper and found that, indeed, transubstantiation is a basic Catholic belief.

Here’s what Catholic Culture has to say…

Catholics believe in the doctrine of “transubstantiation,” that the bread and wine become, in a substantial way, the Body and Blood of Christ.

From Ancient and Future Catholics

Essentially, the Church teaches that the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ in substance, while the incidentals (or accidents), the physical characteristics of bread and wine, remain. This means that what you see, feel, and touch will seem to be bread and wine, while in reality, they are actually the body and blood of Christ.

And, unless it’s changed, the Catechism of the Catholic Church says…

By the consecration the transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ is brought about. Under the consecrated species of bread and wine Christ himself, living and glorious, is present in a true, real, and substantial manner: his Body and his Blood, with his soul and his divinity.

So after seeing that idea documented in various places (I only listed a few), I’d have to assume that Catholics truly believe that the bread and wine become the actual body of Christ. I can’t say that I find that rational, in any sense, but I have an understanding that it is a Catholic belief.

This all came to a head when I read a question-answer article on the Eternal Word Television Network, Global Catholic Network about a girl who couldn’t receive her first communion because she was allergic to wheat gluten. She states that it’s Catholic Church doctrine that the hosts be made with wheat gluten.

I found the answer to be quite interesting (and involved). After giving some historical rationale, Father Edward McNamara replies…

The Holy See has declared that some gluten is necessary for the substance to be considered as true bread. And thus a gluten-free wafer, in spite of its external resemblance, is no longer bread and thus is incapable of becoming the Body of Christ.

The sacraments are far too important to risk performing them invalidly.

He then goes on to explain that it presents a problem for coeliac sufferers because they shouldn’t have to worry about whether their hosts were genuinely consecrated. He says…

It would be a manifest act of negligence on the Church’s part to look the other way while some members of the faithful were being innocently induced into an act of idolatry by attributing adoration to what is in fact a lump of matter.

So it’s critically important that the host contains gluten because otherwise, it would not qualify as “bread” and would be incapable of becoming the Body of Christ… thereby invalidating the sacrament, unbeknownst to church members.

Happily, the situation has been addressed and a solution has been found.

Recently, however, another solution has been found thanks to the patience and perseverance of two nuns, Sisters Jane Heschmeyer and Lynn Marie D’Souza, of the Benedictine convent in Clyde, Missouri. Over two years of experiments they have developed a Communion wafer that has been approved as valid material for the Eucharist by the Holy See.

With a level of gluten content of 0.01% it is safe enough for consumption by almost all celiac suffers, according to Dr. Alessio Fasano of the University of Maryland and other medical experts.

So, with all that (boring) background information, I can now get to the problem that I see here.

If the host actually becomes the body of Christ, why does it matter whether or not it originally has any gluten in it? According to Catholic doctrine, when the host is consecrated, it becomes the body of Christ and since the human body doesn’t contain wheat gluten, there should be no danger to anyone, including coeliac sufferers. No Catholics should ever have to refuse the Eucharist unless they have an allergy to human flesh or blood. Wheat gluten should be a complete non-issue.

What I take away from this is that even Catholics don’t really believe in transubstantiation. They may say they do, but when it comes right down to it, they don’t… otherwise gluten-free (or nearly free) hosts would never even come up as an issue. It’s the same as quite a few other religious notions that people claim to believe, but don’t.

Perhaps that’s a topic for another post.

The Pope Seems Pro-HIV

Today, Pope Benedict XVI stated, while en route to Africa to address the continent’s “grave problems and painful wounds”, that condoms do not help stem the spread of HIV, but actually make it worse.

Here’s the quote.

You can’t resolve it with the distribution of condoms. On the contrary, it increases the problem.

In another related quote, he said,

[AIDS] is a tragedy that cannot be overcome by money alone, that cannot be overcome through the distribution of condoms, which even aggravates the problems.

The Catholic Church promotes “abstinence education” and opposes methods of birth control, including condoms. Perhaps the Pope was using statistics such as the ones in this article which state that even though the number of condoms has increased, so has the number of people infected with HIV.

[Edward Green] wrote Rethinking AIDS Prevention: Learning From Successes in Developing Countries and reported that, between 1989 and 2001, the average number of condoms per male ages 15 to 49 in African countries skyrocketed. So did the number of those infected with HIV. South Africa, Botswana and Zimbabwe had the world’s highest levels of condom availability per man. They also had the world’s highest HIV rates.

At first glance, that sounds bad for proponents of condom usage for AIDS prevention. However, it says nothing about condom usage, only condom availability. The hardest part about promoting condom usage in places like South Africa, Botswana, and Zimbabwe is overcoming the social aversion to condom usage. Education is key, and with church representatives like Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo running around saying things like this

The Aids virus is roughly 450 times smaller than the spermatozoon. The spermatozoon can easily pass through the ‘net’ that is formed by the condom. […] These margins of uncertainty… should represent an obligation on the part of the health ministries and all these campaigns to act in the same way as they do with regard to cigarettes, which they state to be a danger.

…educating people is a nearly insurmountable struggle against a increasing rise of deliberately orchestrated ignorance and misinformation. The Catholic Church, because of its adherence to faith-based dogma, is working directly against efforts that are proven, when given the chance, to reduce the spread of HIV.

According to the World Health Organization (information from the same article above), “consistent and correct” condom usage reduces the risk of HIV infection by 90%. Given that the WHO bases their statements on science and research, I’d say that they’re at least a little more reliable regarding medical issues than an organization that bases its beliefs on a 2,000 year old holy book.

The Pope’s statements are irresponsible and ethically bankrupt at best.

Ray “The Banana Man” Comfort -VS- …The Vatican?

ray-bananaThere is an article on The Living Waters website about “The Banana Man’s” (hereafter referred to as BM) disagreement with the Vatican’s “endorsement” of evolution.  Yes, in February the Vatican officially endorsed the notion that Darwinian evolution is compatible with the Bible’s account of Genesis. BM decided to take the gloves off and evoke the written testimony of non other than…wait for it…JESUS! Yes, I said Jesus. BM actually said:

Ray Comfort, author of the hottest Christian book on Amazon, “You Can Lead an Atheist to Evidence But You Can’t Make Him Think,” points out Jesus himself backed up the Genesis account of Creation when he said, “In the beginning God created them male and female.”

 Well, that seals the deal! I didn’t know Jesus said it. I think BM was serious too. BM would make a great prosecuting attorney, “Your Honor, allow me to call forward my next witness to this terrible homicide…the tooth fairy. The tooth fairy herself was hovering above the house of the victim and will back up the prosecution’s account of how the murder took place”. Calling forth Jesus as a witness to the validity of creation is like verifying the existence of Santa’s workshop by …asking Santa. I can’t understand why anyone even listens to BM. Every time I hear or read anything he says I find myself confounded by his sophomoric ramblings. Here is BM’s next revelation:

“But the Vatican has chosen to officially believe Darwin rather than Jesus,” added Comfort. “That belief reveals a shallow understanding of the claims of atheistic evolution. God gave us six senses, and the sixth one is common sense. That one doesn’t get used when it comes to Darwin’s theory. And that’s the problem – its devoted believers don’t think too deeply. That’s why I wrote the book. It shows that Darwin’s theory is a fantasy – a ridiculous and unscientific fairy tale for grownups.”

BM suggests (in his support of Genesis) that Darwin’s theories are, “fantasy – a ridiculous and unscientific fairy tale for grownups.” Yes, one of the biggest evangelical proponents of creationism (Adam’s “rib”+ God =Woman) believes that Darwin’s theories are a, “…fairy tale for grownups”.  Truly boggles the mind.

The story ends with a commercial to promote the sale of BM’s books. He has written over sixty. Nice little business BM has going. Remember what Jesus said BM, “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God” I know it’s true because Jesus said so!

A Perfect Example

Today, I read a perfect example of how religious dogma transcends all rationality and practicality. The link to the article is at the end, but here’s the synopsis.

A South Carolina Roman Catholic priest has told his parishioners that they should refrain from receiving Holy Communion if they voted for Barack Obama because the Democratic president-elect supports abortion, and supporting him “constitutes material cooperation with intrinsic evil.”

Evidently, the priest distributed a letter to parishioners telling them that they are “putting their souls at risk if they take Holy Communion before doing penance for their vote.” The article goes on to say “A few church leaders said parishioners risked their immortal soul by voting for candidates who support abortion rights.”

Doing penance for their vote? Risking their immortal soul by voting a certain way?

(more…)