Alcoholics, Gluten Allergies, and the Eucharist

[Narcole]

Hi all,

 After searching around I've seen this issue touched on briefly but never fully answered.  Catholics consider the Eucharist necessary, but what if someone is physically unable to receive it.  It's been said that alcoholics can just take the bread and avoid the wine, and that people with gluten allergies can avoid the bread and just take the wine, but what if someone has both?  It has been suggested that gluten free hosts exist, but from my research all I can find are low-gluten versions, which may be fine for many people but I have a friend who will stop breathing even from very small traces of it, so even very low gluten doesn't work.  Also I would imagine there are cases of people who are just physically incapable of ingesting anything that doesn't come through an IV.

 So my question is, given the necessity of the Eucharist, are those who can't take communion any worse off spiritually?  And if not, how can we say that the Eucharist is truly necessary?

Thanks!

 

[Corki]

Not sure what you mean by saying that the Eucharist is a necessity.

Catholics are required to receive Communion once a year. This is a discipline of the Church. If your friend is an alcoholic and has a severe gluten allergy, she can ask her pastor to dispense her from the obligation to receive Communion.

Of course, the Eucharist is a spiritual good that should not be given up lightly. But the sacrifice involved in refraining from Communion in the circumstances you describe is also a spiritual good.

 

[Rock_Happy]

Hi all,

 After searching around I've seen this issue touched on briefly but never fully answered.  Catholics consider the Eucharist necessary, but what if someone is physically unable to receive it.  It's been said that alcoholics can just take the bread and avoid the wine, and that people with gluten allergies can avoid the bread and just take the wine, but what if someone has both?  It has been suggested that gluten free hosts exist, but from my research all I can find are low-gluten versions, which may be fine for many people but I have a friend who will stop breathing even from very small traces of it, so even very low gluten doesn't work.  Also I would imagine there are cases of people who are just physically incapable of ingesting anything that doesn't come through an IV.

 So my question is, given the necessity of the Eucharist, are those who can't take communion any worse off spiritually?  And if not, how can we say that the Eucharist is truly necessary?

Thanks!

My Episcopal church will let you request gluten free bread for communion. I am not quite sure how that would work during the actual service, as there are two lines for communion. I am gluten intolerant, but not alcoholic. I just palm the bread and drink the wine, otherwise it can be awkward. One pastor knows that I skip the bread.

I understand why an alcoholic would not want to drink alcohol, and I respect that. However, I also don’t think that wetting the lips with wine is intoxicating. In the case of gluten, just a few crumbs can evoke an immune response.

 

[Narcole]

Not sure what you mean by saying that the Eucharist is a necessity.

Catholics are required to receive Communion once a year. This is a discipline of the Church. If your friend is an alcoholic and has a severe gluten allergy, she can ask her pastor to dispense her from the obligation to receive Communion.

Of course, the Eucharist is a spiritual good that should not be given up lightly. But the sacrifice involved in refraining from Communion in the circumstances you describe is also a spiritual good.

But what about the grace that is given through the sacrament? Can that grace be received any other way? Am I wrong in saying that it’s the grace that matters, not simply fulfilling your yearly requirement? It seems like my friend would be missing out on something spiritual and important by not taking communion, at least from my understanding of Catholic doctrine and the sacrament’s importance as a means of grace.

 

[DavidFilmer]

but I have a friend who will stop breathing even from very small traces of it, so even very low gluten

You describe an allergy - something that would trigger an anaphylactic reaction, which could affect the respiratory system. Wheat allergies are very rare, and a person with an allergy of this sensitivity would probably spend his life wearing protective filters, because wheat dust (flour, etc) is commonly found in the air.

Celiac disease is not an allergy - it is a dysfunction in the body’s immune system. The immune system attacks the celia lining the walls of the small intestine. The effect of accidental exposure to wheat by a celiac are stomach cramps. There is no systemic reaction (it cannot affect the heart or respiratory system), and a celiac cannot die from eating wheat. The low-gluten hosts offered by the Benedictine Sisters are safe for celiacs.

So my question is, given the necessity of the Eucharist, are those who can’t take communion any worse off spiritually?

Baptism and Eucharist are both considered “generally necessary for salvation.” There are exceptions in both cases. An alcoholic with a wheat allergy (not celiac disease) may be dispensed from his general obligation to receive Eucharist at least once a year.

Of course, this also deprives him of the Grace of the Sacrament. Is it possible for a person to receive this Grace without actually consuming either the Body or Blood?

The Church recognizes “Baptism of Desire” - whereby the Grace of water Baptism may be imparted to someone who desires it but is somehow prevented from receiving it. This is an extraordinary (ie, not ordinary) means of receiving Baptismal Grace.

Many Catholic theologians have speculated that a similar mechanism might apply to Eucharist; this idea is often called “spiritual reception” or “reception by desire.” However, to my knowledge, the Church has never formally taught such a doctrine.

 

[Narcole]

You describe an allergy - something that would trigger an anaphylactic reaction, which could affect the respiratory system. Wheat allergies are very rare.

Celiac disease is not an allergy - it is a dysfunction in the body’s immune system. The immune system attacks the celia lining the walls of the small intestine. The effect of accidental exposure to wheat by a celiac are stomach cramps. There is no systemic reaction (it cannot affect the heart or respiratory system), and a celiac cannot die from eating wheat. The low-gluten hosts offered by the Benedictine Sisters are safe for celiacs.

Baptism and Eucharist are both considered “generally necessary for salvation.” There are exceptions in both cases. An alcoholic with a wheat allergy (not celiac disease) may be dispensed from his general obligation to receive Eucharist at least once a year.

Of course, this also deprives him of the Grace of the Sacrament. Is it possible for a person to receive this Grace without actually consuming either the Body or Blood?

The Church recognizes “Baptism of Desire” - whereby the Grace of water Baptism may be imparted to someone who desires it but is somehow prevented from receiving it. This is an extraordinary (ie, not ordinary) means of receiving Baptismal Grace.

Many Catholic theologians have speculated that a similar mechanism might apply to Eucharist; this idea is often called “spiritual reception” or “reception by desire.” However, to my knowledge, the Church has never formally taught such a doctrine.

Thanks! I will have to look into the “reception by desire” thing.

I have had two friends with an actual wheat allergy (not just coeliacs). While wheat allergy is somewhat rare, it’s common enough that the Church really should take these people into consideration.

And to Rock Happy, I’m not an alcoholic so I’m not sure about this, but I believe there are people who have a hard time even wetting their lips with it a little. Also, while rare, some people are allergic to alcohol, so the same principle can apply to the wine as it does to the bread. It’s nice to hear your church has a completely wheat free option though.

 

[Corki]

But what about the grace that is given through the sacrament? Can that grace be received any other way? Am I wrong in saying that it’s the grace that matters, not simply fulfilling your yearly requirement? It seems like my friend would be missing out on something spiritual and important by not taking communion, at least from my understanding of Catholic doctrine and the sacrament’s importance as a means of grace.

Two different things. One is the requirement to receive Communion once a year. That’s a precept of the Church. It is a sin to disobey a precept of the Church but in the case you described, the obligation could be dispensed.

The second is the grace of the Sacrament. Receiving Communion is an important and powerful channel of grace but there are lots of ways to receive grace. For example, there is grace in the Sacrament of Matrimony but that doesn’t mean that someone who enters religious life or remains single is “missing out”. If a person simply can’t receive Communion without causing herself harm, she shouldn’t receive. She can seek grace through other channels (prayer, acts of charity, other Sacraments, etc.)

There is no sin in forgoing a specific Sacramental grace (Communion), especially for such a reason as bodily harm.

 

[George_Stegmeir]

I grew up in a Jesuit parish in South Florida that was sort of a rest and rehab parish for priests in that Jesuit Provence. When I was an altar boy, I knew of several “problem” priests who were alcoholics. They said mass using only a couple of drops of wine diluted by water. In addition to the psychological effect of the sacremental nature of the wine, the actual amount of alcohol consumed had no effect on them.
In my case, I developed alcohol problems in adulthood. I have now been dry since the night Jimmy Carter got elected. In that time, I have received Communion in both forms with no ill effect. The actual amount of alcohol in the couple of drops of sacremental wine (which has a low alcohol content to begin with) diluted with water is so slight that it is overcome by the sheer joy of receiving the body and blood of our Savior.

 

[Narcole]

Two different things. One is the requirement to receive Communion once a year. That’s a precept of the Church. It is a sin to disobey a precept of the Church but in the case you described, the obligation could be dispensed.

The second is the grace of the Sacrament. Receiving Communion is an important and powerful channel of grace but there are lots of ways to receive grace. For example, there is grace in the Sacrament of Matrimony but that doesn’t mean that someone who enters religious life or remains single is “missing out”. If a person simply can’t receive Communion without causing herself harm, she shouldn’t receive. She can seek grace through other channels (prayer, acts of charity, other Sacraments, etc.)

There is no sin in forgoing a specific Sacramental grace (Communion), especially for such a reason as bodily harm.

As mentioned above, the Eucharist and Baptism are considered essential for salvation, so comparing the grace from Eucharist to that received in Marriage doesn’t make much sense. I am assuming that it is necessary for salvation because of the grace given in the sacrament. That is the reason the church requires it, right? It seems to me that missing out on that grace could not be made up for by doing something else (as in, no matter how much I pray I will not receive the graces of Baptism or Communion from prayer alone. If I could, the whole sacramental view of salvation would not make sense.) Simply being released from your obligation would convey that grace either.

 

[Corki]

As mentioned above, the Eucharist and Baptism are considered essential for salvation, so comparing the grace from Eucharist to that received in Marriage doesn’t make much sense. I am assuming that it is necessary for salvation because of the grace given in the sacrament. That is the reason the church requires it, right? It seems to me that missing out on that grace could not be made up for by doing something else (as in, no matter how much I pray I will not receive the graces of Baptism or Communion from prayer alone. If I could, the whole sacramental view of salvation would not make sense.) Simply being released from your obligation would convey that grace either.

You are operating from an erroneous starting place. Receiving the Eucharist is not essential for Salvation.

 

[Heuchler]

Well I think God would be fine with the act of spiritual communion which is for those who physically can not eat either or cannot make it to mass but still wish to partake in communion. And I think that in serious cases like this, God wouldn’t blame these people. They have an allergy, they have aren’t expected to eat bread theyre allergic to it. So, don’t worry about it and have your friend just talk to a priest to see what to do in this situation.

 

[Corki]

I have had two friends with an actual wheat allergy (not just coeliacs). While wheat allergy is somewhat rare, it’s common enough that the Church really should take these people into consideration.

What do you think the Church should do?

 

[EricFilmer]

As mentioned above, the Eucharist and Baptism are considered essential for salvation, so comparing the grace from Eucharist to that received in Marriage doesn’t make much sense. I am assuming that it is necessary for salvation because of the grace given in the sacrament. That is the reason the church requires it, right?

The Church may require something that is not necessary for salvation. This comes under the topic of what sort of activities should be the minimum for someone who sincerely professes to be a practicing Catholic. So the aspect in question is not so much, “What is necessary for salvation?” but rather, “What sort of things should a Catholic be doing?” The Church teaches that the Eucharist is the “source and summit” of the the Catholic Faith. In light of this, it would be hard for people to justify their identity as Catholics if they never received the Eucharist (barring an acceptable reason such as has been discussed in this thread).

 

[Will_S]

I grew up in a Jesuit parish in South Florida that was sort of a rest and rehab parish for priests in that Jesuit Provence. When I was an altar boy, I knew of several “problem” priests who were alcoholics. They said mass using only a couple of drops of wine diluted by water.

If they literally had a chalice of water with a few drops of wine added, that would be an invalid Mass.

 

[EricFilmer]

Many Catholic theologians have speculated that a similar mechanism might apply to Eucharist; this idea is often called “spiritual reception” or “reception by desire.” However, to my knowledge, the Church has never formally taught such a doctrine.

I don’t think it has ever been taught as a doctrine either, but I think you are definitively onto something. “Reception by desire” is in keeping with the Church’s general notion of the “ordinary means” and “extraordinary means” of dispensing grace. The ordinary means by which one receives the sacramental grace of the Eucharist is, of course, consuming the Body and/or Blood of Christ as Communion. But God may have a variety of other means (i.e., “extraordinary” means) by which such grace can be applied to other people. For example, there is the common practice of having a Mass “offered” for someone which, of course, is a practice officially recognized by the Church. A person who is in a coma who has a Mass offered for him would not be able to consume the Eucharist himself. We could imagine the same sort of limitations for people in Purgatory who have Masses offered for them.

I think there is enough similarity between such things and the concept of “reception by desire” to give a measure of credibility to the latter. Both cases commonly involve the desire for a person to receive the grace of the sacrament of the Eucharist who (for whatever reason) is not receiving the grace by consuming the Eucharist. The question simply seems to be exactly who is doing the desiring. As a side note, I know that there are a variety of other valid reasons for offering a Mass for someone, so I am just focusing on the ones that pertain to the topic at hand.

 

[Will_S]

I have had two friends with an actual wheat allergy (not just coeliacs). While wheat allergy is somewhat rare, it’s common enough that the Church really should take these people into consideration.

The Church does take these people into consideration by permitting the use of low gluten hosts and the communion under the species of wine only.

The Church has no authority to change the species used in the Mass from wheat bread & grape wine to anything else. Asking the Church to allow the use of, say, rice crackers, is like asking the Church to allow the baptism of monkeys. It’s just not possible.

And to Rock Happy, … It’s nice to hear your church has a completely wheat free option though.

Rock Happy has the dubious pleasure of belonging to a “church” where anything goes and there isn’t a valid eucharist anyway, so they can use anything they want and achieve the same effect: exactly nothing.

 

[EricFilmer]

The issue of alcoholics being able to receive the Precious Blood can also be addressed by the use of mustum.

Consider the following quote regarding it (and low-gluten hosts):

“In recent years, the use of low-gluten hosts and mustum has become an option for those suffering from gluten or alcohol intolerance. Both low-gluten hosts and mustum possess valid matter. Low-gluten hosts are hosts that have a sufficient amount of gluten to obtain the confection of the bread and are free from any other additions or substituted ingredients. They must be prepared in a manner that does not alter the nature of the bread’s substance. Mustum is grape juice that has a very low alcohol content (less than 1.0%). It is either fresh or preserved by methods that suspend its fermentation without altering its nature (for example, freezing). As with the low-gluten hosts, it must not contain any additives. (See Vatican Protocol No. 98/78-17498 and the Nov. 2003 BCL Newsletter.) Through these alternatives, the Church seeks to aid the faithful in participating in the life of the Church.”

Source: Holy Communion for Catholics Suffering from Celiac Sprue Disease, Alcoholism, or Other Related Diseases.

With such options, valid Communion is available even in the rare case of an alcoholic (or someone with an alcohol intolerance) who also has a dangerous wheat allergy. Such people could elect not to receive the Host but instead consume the Precious Blood with which mustum was utilized). For such a person to be excluded from the Eucharist, he would have to be in a health situation that absolutely prohibited both the miniscule amount of alcohol and the miniscule amount of gluten available in these options. I know this is not a medical impossibility, but I think we could consider it an extreme rarity.

 

[Neil_McFhane]

The Catechism of Trent provides the idea of a spiritual communion, suggesting that even without physically consuming the Eucharist one can still receive some/all of the graces associated with it.

Recipient of the Eucharist

Threefold Manner Of Communicating

That the faithful may learn to be zealous for the better gifts, they must be shown who can obtain these abundant fruits from the Holy Eucharist, must be reminded that there is not only one way of communicating. Wisely and rightly, then, did our predecessors in the faith, as we read in the Council of Trent, distinguish three ways of receiving this Sacrament.

Some receive it sacramentally only. Such are those sinners who do not fear to approach the holy mysteries with polluted lips and heart, who, as the Apostle says, eat and drink the Lord’s body unworthily. Of this class of communicants St. Augustine says: He who dwells not in Christ, and in whom Christ dwells not, most certainly does not eat spiritually His flesh, although carnally and visibly he press with his teeth the Sacrament of His flesh and blood. Those, therefore, who receive the sacred mysteries with such a disposition, not only obtain no fruit therefrom, but, as the Apostle himself testifies, eat and drink judgment to themselves.

Others are said to receive the Eucharist in spirit only. They are those who, inflamed with a lively faith which worketh by charity,’ partake in wish and desire of that celestial bread offered to them, from which they receive, if not the entire, at least very great fruits.

Lastly, there are some who receive the Holy Eucharist both sacramentally and spiritually, those who, according to the teaching of the Apostle, having first proved themselves and having approached this divine banquet adorned with the nuptial garment, derive from the Eucharist those most abundant fruits which we have already described. Hence it is clear that those who, having it in their power to receive with fitting preparation the Sacrament of the body of the Lord, are yet satisfied with a spiritual Communion only, deprive themselves of the greatest and most heavenly advantages.

Otherwise the option of Mustum as explained above by EricFilmer is an option, although I’m not sure on the current permissions regarding its use for the faithful. Certainly priests can use it (as they must receive both species) but I believe (not sure, this is a distant memory of a past discussion) that it requires the Bishop’s permission.

 

[EricFilmer]

Otherwise the option of Mustum as explained above by EricFilmer is an option, although I’m not sure on the current permissions regarding its use for the faithful. Certainly priests can use it (as they must receive both species) but I believe (not sure, this is a distant memory of a past discussion) that it requires the Bishop’s permission.

You are correct. Permission for a layperson to receive the Precious Blood with which mustum was used was initially reserved for the Vatican. But as of 2003, authority in this regard has been given to bishops as it pertains to laypeople in their respective dioceses. Therefore, if people desire to receive the Eucharist in conjunction with mustum (or low-gluten Hosts for that matter) they should make their desires known in advance to their pastors. A pastor can then arrange for such permission through the office of the local ordinary. Naturally, such permission would only be given due to circumstances that truly warrant it (such as what has generally been discussed thus far in this thread). For the sake of serious health considerations, I doubt if such permission would be difficult to obtain.

In the case of a layperson, however, I think that it would have to be a health problem where neither the Host nor the Precious Blood which is normally available is a viable option, and this would probably be a rarity. In other words, those who cannot consume the Host can receive the Precious Blood. Those who cannot consume the Precious Blood can receive the Host. And the rare person who cannot consume either can speak to his pastor about arranging an appropriate alternative.

As a side note, clergy must also receive permission from their bishops to use mustum and/or low-gluten hosts even if it is solely for their own personal consumption.

 

[Orleans_Attny]

My Episcopal church will let you request gluten free bread for communion. I am not quite sure how that would work during the actual service, as there are two lines for communion. I am gluten intolerant, but not alcoholic. I just palm the bread and drink the wine, otherwise it can be awkward. One pastor knows that I skip the bread.

I understand why an alcoholic would not want to drink alcohol, and I respect that. However, I also don’t think that wetting the lips with wine is intoxicating. In the case of gluten, just a few crumbs can evoke an immune response.

This is not relevant to reception of the Eucharist.

Pax,
OA