Child allergic to host

  • Thread starter Thread starter BlessedBe
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I wonder if the child in question was one of those unfortunate kids who reacted to nearly everything on a skin prick test and thus his parents weren’t taking any chances, even if they didn’t know for sure that ingestion would cause anaphylaxis. Having seen the reactions that some have to peanuts, eggs, and soy, I can understand their fear. I hope they have the kid retested, as some of the things he reacted to as a small child may not have the same effect now.
I believe his allergies were determined through the prick test, and figuring out what he could eat was a trial-and-error process, keeping him hospitalized for the first several months of his life. Last I heard, they had been flying him out West every couple of months to some kind of allergy specialist center, where he received injections as part of an experimental program.
 
I’m wondering what you all think about this. Some years ago, I was a teacher in a Catholic school. I had a student with severe, life-threatening allergies. The list of foods he could eat would fit on a post-it note. Neither bread nor wine was an option for him. Needless to say, when he became old enough for his first Communion, there was a general uproar. The child’s parents requested a special host for their son so he could participate in his religion without, well, dying shortly thereafter.

Parish opinion was deeply divided. Most felt the child shouldn’t be punished just for the way he was born. Of course, others said too bad, the recipe cannot be changed. The boy had an almost saintly desire to have Communion; if you’ve ever known a child with a terminal illness who just seems wise beyond their years, you understand what I mean.

The request was refused. Eventually the family left the parish and moved away. I don’t know what became of them, but I do know their leaving was a direct result of this issue.

I’ll state upfront that although I spent several years working closely with this parish, I am not even a Christian, much less a Catholic. I’m pretty well-versed in your beliefs, but I’m sure there are things I will simply never understand. This is one of them, and I’m curious to hear what people think about it.

To me, if a person has a deep and genuine desire to participate fully in their religion, an affliction outside their control should not be permitted to get in the way. It all seems incredibly unfair and to this day I still think of that little boy. I have an extremely hard time picturing Jesus saying to a child, “Sorry, you can’t partake of this sacrament because it has to be wheat.” This does not mesh at all with the image I have of Jesus Christ, or of God the loving father. In fact to me it’s more like the “soup Nazi” on Seinfeld - “No soup for you!”

I’m interested in hearing everyone’s thoughts on this.
I’m confused: What is it you expect the Church to do? :confused:

The Eucharist can only be consecrated using wheat bread and wine made from grapes. If the priest pretended to use anything else for the consecration, not only would it be completely ineffective, it would be sacrilege.

Obviously, this child wasn’t meant to receive the Eucharist. There’s absolutely nothing the Church can do. There’s no sense in giving him something that isn’t the Eucharist and telling him it is…

This is another example of the fruits of poor catechesis after the Second Vatican Council. Not even the most basic understanding of transubstantiation is common anymore…a teacher at a Catholic school doesn’t even have a clue! It’s mind-boggling.
 
I would suggest a change to the title of this thread:

Is: Child allergic to host

Should be: Catholics offended by relativism
You only have 28 post so maybe you are not aware but around here we try and just assume good will with an OP and answer the question. This is also a more chartiable thing to do and frankly Catholic thing to do. You might want to check out the forum rules.
 
BlessedBe,

I give you credit for asking and seeking to understand a tradition in the hope of respecting that which is not your faith. I hope my above scripture verses and reflections on their meaning will help you to understand this important component of the Catholic faith.

It is out of love for the child that we would not lie to him or attempt to deceive him with rice crackers or cherry juice. Why would we give him food that nourishes the body and let him think it is bread that nourishes the soul? The Lord, the Bread of Life, the wheat that fell to the ground and died to resurrect into eternal life, makes himself present to us in the wheaten Eucharist. If this child is unable to physically partake of it, what good will a cheap imitation do for his soul? Jesus himself told us it would do no good for the child’s eternal life.
John 6:49 Your forefathers ate the manna in the desert, yet they died. 50But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which a man may eat and not die. 51I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.
Instead, he should be led to the grace and life in Christ through other means which the Lord established. The Lord obviously loved this child very much and was already blessing him abundantly, as evidenced by the child’s desire to know Him most fully and to unite with Him in the intimate way the Eucharist provides. What could we with a rice imitation provide that would be better? Nothing. Instead, we could show him other ways we know of coming to know God and uniting his life with the Lord’s will for him.
Naturally, metaphorical readings of these divine gifts are not lacking. The “finest of wheat” makes one think of the immense gift of the Eucharistic bread. Indeed, Origen, the great Christian writer of the third century, identified that wheat as a sign of Christ himself and, in particular, of Sacred Scripture.
This is his commentary: “Our Lord is the grain of wheat that falls to the earth, and multiplies itself for us. But this grain of wheat is supremely copious. The Word of God is supremely copious, it encloses all delights in itself. All that you see, comes from the Word of God, in the same way as the Jews recount: when they ate the manna, it took on the taste in the mouth that each one desired. So also with the flesh of Christ, which is the word of the teaching, namely, understanding of the Sacred Scriptures, the greater our desire, the greater the nourishment we receive. If you are holy, you find refreshment; if you are a sinner, you find torment” (Origen-Jerome, *74 omelie sul libro dei Salmi *[74 Homilies on the Book of Psalms], Milan 1993, pp. 543-44).
  1. The Lord, therefore, acts with his Word not only in creation but also in history. He reveals himself with the silent language of nature (cf. Ps 19[18]: 2-7), but expresses himself in an explicit way through the Bible and his personal communication through the prophets and fully through the Son (cf. Heb 1: 1, 2). They are two different but converging gifts of His love. -General Audience of Pope John Paul II on Wednesday, 20 August 2003
 
BlessedBe,

I give you credit for asking and seeking to understand a tradition in the hope of respecting that which is not your faith. I hope my above scripture verses and reflections on their meaning will help you to understand this important component of the Catholic faith…
Thank you for your clear and obviously well-thought-out answer. In my experience, it is people like you who are most representative of the Catholic faith, and it is because of people like you that I am able to have respect for it… where many others of my own religion do not. This type of response makes me want to continue defending Catholicism even when I don’t entirely agree with portions of it.
 
BlessedBe,

The Church teaches that for the consecration to be valid, the priest must use what Christ used - wheat bread and red wine. That’s what Scripture says He used, and Tradition as well as the Magisterium of the Church confirm that priests don’t have the option of celebrating the Eucharist using different materials than what Christ used. This isn’t merely a rule, it is a part of the faith that cannot be changed. In other words, if a priest prayed the same prayers over a rice cake it would remain a rice cake - no transubstantiation.

Now, if the child cannot receive the Holy Eucharist the answer is not to play a cruel joke on him by tricking him into believing that he’s receiving the Eucharist when he’s really just getting a rice cake or a sip of water - the answer is that the Lord will provide other ways for this child to receive His grace. Perhaps the way that this child can receive grace is by offering up his suffering and uniting it to the suffering of the Lord Jesus on the Cross. I am sure the Lord will love and cherish that! And, as others have mentioned, there is also spiritual communion. Trust in the Lord Jesus and know that He has a special place in His Sacred Heart for this child.

God bless you.
 
could help me out and post the scriptural reference, chapter and verse, from which the idea of having the host be of wheat only is derived…
Wait a minute! you said you weren’t a christian in your first post! Why would you want a reference from somthing you don’t believe in. Certainly a quotation from canon law would be equally sufficient as scripture to a non christian to wonder why the Eucharist has to be made of a certain matter.

Secondly I am wondering what kind of Catholic School would hire a non-Christian to teach. Where we live the schools REQUIRE one to be a Christian and preferably a Catholic.
 
Let me see if I can cover the idea of Sacred Tradition a little more thoroughly, since it is one of the more misunderstood aspects of the Catholic faith. Catholics DO hold the Bible to be the inspired Word of God and above all other writings, of course. However, for much of the early Church, Christians did not have access to the Bible. Much was taught through oral tradition. In fact, large parts of the Bible are simply oral traditions written down. There was much disagreement in the early church as to what actually constituted Holy Scripture. Some documents, like the Didache, Epistle of Barnabas, the Letters of Clement, and even the Gospel of Thomas were considered for inclusion and used in some regions by early Christians. Others, like 2 Peter and Revelation, were almost not included. This disagreement continued until a decision was made by the Catholic Church to finally determine which scriptures could definitively be considered inspired. The Councils of Carthage and Hippo in the late 300s AD, later reinforced by statements made by the pope, finally settled the matter. But up until that point, communities did not have complete access to ALL of the scriptures in all places. Even if they did, the Old Testament was in Hebrew, and the New Testament was in Greek and Aramaic. Few could read both languages. People still needed to learn about Christianity through oral tradition. The first widespread version of the Bible in a single language was the Latin Vulgate penned by St. Jerome in the mid 400s. So, for over 20% of Christianity, there WAS no Bible, per say. Even once the Vulgate was completed, Rome fell soon after, and for several hundred years, the literacy rate in Europe remained under 1%. This is also why Catholic Churches tended to have statues and stained glass windows, so that parishoners could learn about Christianity orally and pictorally.

With regards to the beliefs of the Catholic Church, the Church will ALWAYS look to the Bible first. However, we also know that there are concepts that were believed and followed by early Christians that are not included in the Bible. (For example, the scriptural evidence for the Trinity is not very explicit. Sacred Tradition fills in much of the gaps in our understanding there.) The Catholic Church also looks to what the consensus of belief was in the early Church, as spelled out by the Early Church Fathers in their writings. If a belief has been held by the Early Church, and has remained constant over time, then it cannot be changed by the Catholic Church. Those things that cannot be changed by the Church are called Dogmas (a theological point that is also shared by the Orthodox Church, I might add). Now, some traditions can be changed, and these are generally called disciplines. An example of a discipline would be priestly celibacy. Although celibacy is a tradition of the Latin west, at times in the past married priests were permitted, and they still are among ministers of some other faiths that convert to Catholicism, and in Eastern Catholic Churches. Dogmas do NOT have to be proclaimed as such. Dogmas are usually only specifically defined if they are challenged by outside groups. The Council of Trent defined dogmas that were challenged during the Protestant Reformation, and the dogmas of the Immaculate Conception and Assumption were proclaimed by special ex-cathedra statements of the pope in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. (Neither of which are to be found explicitly in the Bible, I might add.)

So, dogmas are the very things that minimally define Catholicism. Once they are proclaimed, they cannot be changed, even by the pope. For example, no pope could ever un-proclaim the Trinity. If any dogma were to change, it would throw into question every other dogma of the Catholic Church, and the Church would fall. The Catholic Church believes, as a dogma, that for the miracle of transubstantiation to occur, it requires real wheat bread and real grape wine, even if the wheat content is minute. It also requires the valid words of institution (i.e., This is my Body, This is my Blood…). The unfortunate consequence of this is that there is nothing that even the pope can do to change this belief. The Catholic Church considers it a sign that it’s belief is protected by the Holy Spirit that its dogmas have remained utterly unchanged since the time of the Apostles.
 
Wait a minute! you said you weren’t a christian in your first post! Why would you want a reference from somthing you don’t believe in. Certainly a quotation from canon law would be equally sufficient as scripture to a non christian to wonder why the Eucharist has to be made of a certain matter.
It is interesting how many people here are choosing to cast doubt on my honesty. To answer your question, I am merely curious. It is true that I don’t hold to the Bible as a document that has much bearing on my spiritual beliefs, although I am the first to admit it holds plenty of wisdom. But I have always had an intellectual curiosity about religious customs and beliefs. Have you never wanted to learn more about a faith that is not your own? In addition, this specific case touched me deeply, and when discussing it with others I’d like to be more informed.
Secondly I am wondering what kind of Catholic School would hire a non-Christian to teach. Where we live the schools REQUIRE one to be a Christian and preferably a Catholic.
I am not going to give out details of where I taught because the case was so unique, it would be easy to identify the child and that would be a breach of confidentiality. I was certainly not the only non-Catholic/non-Christian teacher at the school. This is a very rural community and an impoverished school; they had enough trouble retaining teachers in general, much less being picky about what religion they followed.

I was required in my contract not to be Christian, but to live a public life that would exemplify Christian values. In other words, not be going out drinking or doing illegal things where I might be seen be a parent. I fulfilled this contract, of course.
 
Hmm.

I’m going to be completely honest with you here. I think that’s very sad. If the Bible is the word of God, and that was in there, I could understand. But if this is just “tradition,” I don’t understand why tradition can’t be changed.

Again, I am not attacking Catholicism. It’s just sad to me to see a religion work so hard to gain and keep young people and then reject certain people due only to “tradition.” Especially since some traditions in the church have changed over the years, although perhaps there is a distinguishing line between “Sacred” tradition and “ordinary” tradition?

And okay, “reject” is the wrong word. It’s not like they excommunicated the boy. But you see what I mean.
The Catholic Chruch teaches that there is indeed a difference between Sacred Tradition and customs of the faithful, such as the rosary. Sacred Tradition means the Oral Teachings of Christ to the Apostles that were not written down in the Bible. The Catholic Church does not believe in Sola Scriptura, or that every tenant of faith must be found explicitly in the Bible.
 
Now, if the child cannot receive the Holy Eucharist the answer is not to play a cruel joke on him by tricking him into believing that he’s receiving the Eucharist when he’s really just getting a rice cake or a sip of water - the answer is that the Lord will provide other ways for this child to receive His grace.

God bless you.
Not to mention that adoring the rice cracker would be to worship a rice cake, instead of worshiping Christ.
 
I just wanted to point out that St. Therese suffered terrible vomiting in the weeks before she died, and as a result, she could not receive the Eucharist. However, she maintained that “everything is grace” and felt that her inability to receive the Eucharist would only increase her longing to be united to Christ in heaven.
 
It needn’t be red wine.
You’re right, sorry. White wine can validly be used (though red wine is better for the symbolism.)

What I should have said is *grape *wine.

Thanks for pointing that out. 👍
 
The Scriptures are clear that Jesus and the Apostles were eating the Passover meal when Jesus institutes the Eucharist (This is my body, This is my blood). We know what the Passover meal consisted of (unleavened wheat bread and wine). Also we must remember that Jesus says earlier that he is the “Bread come down from heaven” just as Moses and his followers ate the bread given from heaven. The Church has always taught (through Sacred Tradition) that to confect the sacrament, the proper matter must be used: wheat bread and wine (and the male priesthood). Now, there certainly isn’t a recipe in the bible, however, we have a good idea what kind of bread and wine the Jews were eating. Jesus did things with a purpose. He chose wheat bread and wine for a purpose–do I know that purpose? not really, but if Jesus chose wheat bread and wine, it’s good enough for me 😉

The child in question could be taught to make a spiritual communion, as others have said. He could also be retested in the future to see if the allergy has gotten less severe–often they do lessen as you age. Careful catechisis should have been done with the parents and the child so that they understood what was going on. It’s a sad situation but one that could lead to great holiness.

Here are 3 links that might help:
cuf.org/faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffID=45
cmri.org/02-matterform-euch.html
scborromeo.org/papers/eucharis.PDF

Jennifer
 
The Scriptures are clear that Jesus and the Apostles were eating the Passover meal when Jesus institutes the Eucharist (This is my body, This is my blood). We know what the Passover meal consisted of (unleavened wheat bread and wine).
Three of the four gospels say that anyway. John says it was the day before Passover. The west uses unleavened bread and the east uses leavened bread based on the difference in the gospels. That’s all aside from what grain the Eucharist is made of and both east and west are clear that Jesus said he was the grain of wheat that fell to the ground and died and rose again to be the Bread of Life.
 
The request was refused. Eventually the family left the parish and moved away. I don’t know what became of them, but I do know their leaving was a direct result of this issue.

I have the distinct feeling that this was just an excuse. Their leaving the church had more reasons behind it than this.
 
There is an excellent book out called “Why Matter Matters” that deals specifically with this topic. The author’s name escapes me at this moment, but I’m sure it wouldn’t be hard to find.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top