Girl's communion not valid, according to church
 

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...mmunion_denied

A girl who cannot digest wheat has been told that her first communion was not valid because communion wafers must contain wheat.

I saw this in the paper this morning... I feel badly for the girl

There are alternatives to the traditional wafers used in communion. Heck, oreos (without the creamy middle) are even acceptable according to one priest I know :D

But yeah, I feel bad for the girl and I think the Church needs to figure something out here.

It's stories like these that make me wonder if practicing organized religion is a good idea. :rolleyes:

I don't know how common celiac disease is, but what do other Christians do if they have the disease?


ETA: The church my mom used to go to growing up used actual wheat bread... not the waffers. It may have been special because it was an Easter mass... but the whole "unlevened" bread tradition was thrown out the window.

I feel bad for her too... just another example of the Catholic Church's inflexibility :(

Can she take communion wine instead? They're both equally valid.

I don't see it as an example of the Church's inflexibility. I see it as an example of the Church being faithful to her teachings and individuals wanting things the way they want them.

The child and her mother were offered an alternative. Why didn't she just take the wine, which is just as much Jesus' body and blood, soul and divinity as is the wafer?

Was that a Catholic Church?

I played the church service at our national convention, our Grand Chaplain was Episcopal -- didn't use the unlevened bread either. It was just torn up white bread.

I may have missed it in the article, but I didn't see anything about the girl having been offered wine as an alternative. That probably would have been a better way to handle it - no question as to its validity. It does draw a distinction, though - most Catholics take either bread or both - I've never seen anyone take just wine, and wine is not always offered to the congregation.

Interesting. I currently attend an Anglican church. My church has two services, one at 9:30 am and another at 11:15. The 9:30 one is more modern, and the communion bread is definitely not a traditional communion wafer. In fact, it's slightly sweetened! The 11:15 one, which is the one I normally attend is more traditional.

She can take just wine and it would be valid. This is just another example of wah wah whiny parents. They've been offered an option and are refusing it, so phooey on them. A lot of these food allergies are BS anyway. (Sometimes they are real, but a lot of the time they're total BS.)

We had a congregant who was a recovering alcoholic and he didn't take the wine (we have actual wine) in little cups. Yes, maybe it made him a little "different" but the important part was that he received the Sacrament. Obviously this family thinks making their point is more important than that.

Yes-- destruction of the small intestine is BS... :rolleyes:

And I agree- the Catholic Church was offered an alternative and they turned it down- phooey on them.
And if they keep pushing it- proof that organized religion is harmful to people. Catholics wanting a little girl to get gastrointestinal cancer...

No, it is an example of ONE PRIEST'S inflexibility (and w/ holes in his medical information). Big difference.

There were several people w/ celiac sprue in the parish I used to live in. (Which, incidentally, serviced the Texas Medical Center, so you had ALL kinds of medical issues cropping up.) It's not as rare as the article is making it out to be.

The pastors all made it clear that if someone was in this very situation, approach them directly and let them know. That way, they could receive either a VERY small piece of the wafer, or just wine and everything was OK.

This quote is very telling. The alternative was offered - MOM rejected it. The Church tried to help, Mom is making the issue here. The rest of the article shows how flexible the RCC is w/ medical issues.

No need to slame the church over an isolated quote in the article, or over what seems to be a misunderstanding.

--add

But I don't think the alternative was acceptable. In this case, gluten is basically poison for her. If it were me, and the church was saying "You need to take this poison", I'd say no. The option of "Okay, well then just take a little bit of poison" doesn't seem that much better :(

That's why the "wine only" option was presented. (notice there were TWO different options given in the quote posted) No gluten in communion wine.

Mom turned that down too, and it had nothing to do w/ gluten.

--add

I understand that the girl has a serious medical condition. She could have received only the blood and not the body, and it would have been legitimate. I think that shows flexibility.