Catholic church prohibits gluten-free wafers as Jesus’s body must have gluten

July 12, 2017 • 12:00 pm

A communique from the Vatican, as reported by The Washington Post, lays out the guidelines for what must be in Communion wafers, and that means that there MUST BE SOME GLUTEN.  (Gluten is a complex of proteins in grains that allow bready stuff to rise and hold its shape.) This dictum apparently isn’t new, but has been reconfirmed in light of people’s recent tendency to avoid gluten. As the Post reports:

The letter drew attention from media outlets around the globe, but it actually reaffirmed earlier guidelines saying that bread and wafers must have at least some gluten in them. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops already has guidelines allowing churches to use low-gluten wafers and nothing will change in American Catholic churches, said Andrew Menke, executive director of the Secretariat of Divine Worship.

“Absolutely nothing has changed,” Menke said in a statement. “The ‘new guidance’ from the Vatican is simply a reminder to bishops that they need to be attentive to the bread and wine that is used for Mass, making sure that it’s consistent with the Church’s requirements.”

Guidelines are also given by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops:

The most recent Church teaching on the use of mustum and low-gluten hosts at Mass remains the letter from then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger. . . on July 24, 2003 (Prot. n. 89/78-17498), which was addressed to the Presidents of Conferences of Bishops. In that letter, pastors and the faithful are reminded that for bread to be valid matter for the Eucharist, it must be made solely of wheat, contain enough gluten to effect the confection of bread, be free of foreign materials, and unaffected by any preparation or baking methods which would alter its nature. The amount of gluten necessary for validity in such bread is not determined by minimum percentage or weight, though hosts which have no gluten are considered invalid matter for Mass. (In the Roman Rite, the bread prepared for the Eucharist must also be unleavened.)

This is of course a problem for people with celiac disease, for if they can’t tolerate even a small amount of gluten in a wafer, they’re plumb out of luck. After all, theologians, who get paid to figure out this kind of stuff, have studied the scriptures assiduously and decided, “YES, there must be gluten” (my emphasis):

The Catholic Church teaches that the practice of the Eucharist should be in continuity with Jesus, who ate wheat bread and drank grape wine, describing them as his body and blood.

“Christ did not institute the Eucharist as rice and sake, or sweet potatoes and stout,” said Chad Pecknold, a theology professor at Catholic University.

Some theologians have argued the bread and wine are simply symbolic, but the Catholic Church does not consider the elements to be symbols. It teaches that Jesus himself instituted the bread and the wine during the Passover meal, and churches should follow his lead.

“It may seem a small thing to people,” Pecknold said. “But the Catholic Church has spent 2,000 years working out how to be faithful to Christ even in the smallest things. To be vitally and vigorously faithful … is something which is simply integral to what it means to be Catholic.”

Bread and wafers “must be unleavened, purely of wheat, and recently made so that there is no danger of decomposition,” the letter from the Vatican states. “Hosts that are completely gluten-free are invalid matter for the celebration of the Eucharist.” However, low-gluten wafers and bread may be used, it says.

But apparently most sufferers from celiac disease are okay, as there’s not much gluten in a wafer after all. You’d have to eat handfuls (or is it “handsful”?) of them to get sick:

In 2004, Alessio Fasano, director of the Center for Celiac Research at the University of Maryland, said that one of the Benedictine Sisters’ low-gluten wafers contained such low gluten that someone with celiac disease would have to consume 270 wafers daily to reach a danger point.

“You’d have to be very devout or really excited about going to church to eat that much at communion,” said Claire Baker, spokeswoman for Beyond Celiac, an advocacy organization for people with celiac disease. “You don’t eat communion wafers like you eat crackers.”

A regular wafer contains approximately 22 milligrams of gluten, according to registered dietitian Nancy Patin Falini. Wafers that contain under 10 milligrams of gluten are considered low-gluten.

This all reminds me of rabbis deciding that Passover matzos must be made from scratch and baked within 18 minutes after the process starts—lest yeast get in there and the matzos be “leavened.” That wouldn’t be kosher! The bakery is also cleaned out between batches. The 18 minutes was determined by oodles of rabbis intensely pondering scripture—and I suppose biology, though I’m dubious).

It’s all nuts.

h/t: Diane G.

87 thoughts on “Catholic church prohibits gluten-free wafers as Jesus’s body must have gluten

  1. Well when I’m changing wafer’s into the body of Jesus at my home I just use what I have on hand. That goes for turning wine into water (urine) as well, though I try to stick to the dryer wines, just a matter preference.

    1. Think of this as a diversion from the usual raping of children, demonization of gays and murdering of pregnant women that occupies most of their time.

    2. I think this is well worth worrying about because it shows the faithful the unending awarteness of the Church for important details. 2.000 years and counting!
      .-

  2. This is true? hard to believe that grown- ups spend time worrying about christ and gluten. Silliest thing I ever heard. Don’t they ever look at each other and say ‘What the H are we dong?’. With all the problems in the world….the elders of the catholic church obviously don’t have enough to do….

    1. I would think that the wafer would have to be from whole-wheat flour, then, as they didn’t have white flour in Jesus’s time…..

      1. I think they should be asking “What in Jesus’ name are we dong?”

        I read a suggestion that one reason the RCC is reticent to be open and honest about child abuse is that they fear that it would reflect poorly on them (what a surprise) and that many souls could be lost if people leave the church.

        But you’re right, this is bizarre.

        1. “… that they fear that it would reflect poorly on them…”

          Like that ship hasn’t sailed…

    1. There was a controversy over this point a few years ago. A teenager who couldn’t eat gluten asked if she could have a gluten-free Host. There was a letter in the newspaper from someone saying that the Host is the body of Christ and couldn’t possibly hurt her. I’m sure that if the girl got sick, she would have been told that it was her fault for not having faith.

  3. Is this a universal christian thing, or just a catholic doctrine? I wondered if the belief in transubstantiation plays into this, it would seem less important were these things are recognized as representative of, rather than actually, the blood and body. As an aside, how do teetotal sects deal with the wine issue? I’m not sure how being teetotal is compatible with following someone who supposedly turned water into wine….but that’s just me 🙂

    1. Jesus turned the water into “non-alcoholic wine” a/k/a grape juice. That’s what the Methodists say, at least.

    2. My understanding is that this is only an issue for those churches, like the Roman Catholics, that believe in transubstantiation. Most (? all) Protestants see the host as merely symbolic.

      It used to be (I don’t know if it’s still true) that one Catholic nunnery made the host for all churches in NZ, both Catholic and Protestant. But, of course, only Catholic spells are capable of turning it into the body of Christ.

      I’ve yet to hear anyone claim the taste of raw pork and blood during communion though. 2000 years and they haven’t got the spells to work, but for centuries wars were fought over whether transubstantiation was real or the ceremony was symbolic.

      Not much different to Sunni versus Shi’a.

      1. You’d think any supposedly omnipotent creator of the universe would be able to settle the matter. He could use pencil and paper or skywriters, or another burning bush. It couldn’t be too hard for the almighty.

        1. Or just wipe out all those who are doin’ it rong. That would save a lot of time and might even convince some nonbelievers..

  4. In the 1960s when young Catholics in the U.S. started having folk masses and rock masses, Newman Centers (where university students went to mass) began celebrating masses with bread that someone in the congregation had made. It wasn’t gluten-free, but it certainly wasn’t anything like a traditional wafer. Who knows what foreign matter was present? BTW, I’m pretty sure Jesus wasn’t handing out tiny, thin wafers at the Last Supper.

    1. Nor was he handing out jerky made from himself, or open his veins to fill the cups. He was probably being symbolic at the original communion.

  5. And I JUST started production-scale baking of gluten-free communion wafers ready to ship after a hard-fought but ultimately highly successful Kickstarter campaign!

    1. Funny you should ask. I had thought I’d read this in the WaPo article itself, but apparently I’d actually clicked on the first link in it (can’t believe I had that much time on my hands…):

      The same Congregation also decided that Eucharistic matter made with genetically modified organisms can be considered valid matter (cf. Letter to the Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, 9 December 2013, Prot. N. 89/78 – 44897).

  6. Christ didn’t eat gluten free bread. Yeah, and I don’t expect that the bread he ate was laden with present natives as is most supermarket bread. But that doesn’t seem to be an issue for our head of a pin dancing friends!

      1. Canon law requires wafers unladen by present natives. Not sure about natives past and future. 🙂

    1. One of the all-time best spell-checker goofs!

      Also, a coinkydink–the subject line of my email to Jerry was, “talk about head-of-a-pin stuff…”

      Well, I’d rather see them spending time on this sort of thing than on all the other shenanigans they’re known to devise/commit.

      1. I’d rather see them handing the criminals they are shielding over to justice, like the kiddie fiddlers, and those that promoted genocide in Rwanda.

    1. It doesn’t matter. While his body can’t be made without gluten, his blood can be made with or without alcohol.

  7. I sometimes have to remind myself it’s 2017. It seems I’m doing it more as time moves forward or backward? Hard to tell.

  8. Ener-G foods since 1962 has been selling gluten free foods ranging from croutons to corn muffins to apple-cinnamon biscuits.

    They also make gluten-free communion wafers, and I assume most of their customers are Episcopalian or Lutheran (not sure about Greek Orthodox).

    Of course, Teresa Carlson above is correct in pointing out that Jesus wasn’t handing out tiny, thin wafers at the Last Supper.

    1. No, he passed out Streit’s Passover Matzos. And speaking of passings, I can’t pass on saying this is one of the most delightfully nutty things I’ve seen in a while.

  9. Fact – the human body has zero % gluten in its make-up.

    Clearly Jesus’ gluten came from his father’s sperm.

  10. “… handfuls (or is it “handsful”?) ”

    A question far more worthy of debate than most of the issues raised in theology.

    1. It’s perfectly okay because the hosts are consecrated on Thursday! So I guess it’s alright to eat day-old meat.

    2. According to the catholics, it isn’t symbolic at all! But it isn’t cannibalism because although Jesus was a human he was also god. Or something – theophagy coupled with the trinity is just wacky stuff.

      It was this, in part, that made my friend Raven terrified of Christians. As a Cree / Inuit she had always been told that cannibalism was a last resort. *The* last resort, after clothing made of leather and your dogs, and to be done with great (as we would say) moral reservation and concern. And here this guy proposes to do it in a group where we’ve all had enough to eat? What sort of evil (read: dangerous) barbarian is this?

  11. Well, this is just plain silly. As any good catholic would know the wafer miraculously becomes the flesh (meat) of Jesus Christ. Cereal grains (wheat, rye, barley but not corn, rice and oats) have the protein gluten, not mammalian flesh. So no worry about gluten but beware of a red meat allergy particularly if you have been sucked on by a Lone Star Tick. Bad theology and Bad biochemistry.

  12. I’m still waiting for them to get back to me about my idea for a line of kosher and halal communion wafers.

  13. I’m actually glad they’re strict about this. I’d hate for them to try luring children by using Hostess Cupcakes.

  14. So, for the magic to work, certain ingredients must be present? I would have thought that the miracle of transubstantiation would be a little less side-showy.

    And, boy, “Prot. n. 89/78-17498” that just makes one all goose-pimply. I expect to see that replacing John 3:16 tattoos.

    1. “So, for the magic to work, certain ingredients must be present?”

      Duh! They’re called material components, don’t you do D & D?

  15. You raised the question of handfuls vs handsful, much more important in the real world than whether a host may contain gluten.
    I’d go for handfuls, rather than handsful. I think a handful is a (loose) measure of quantity. We’re not talking of every handful literally being held by a hand. If a recipe called for three handsful of (gluten-free) flour, you’d need a friend to help you, because on your own you could only have two handsful.
    Also, my spell-checker agrees with me FWIW.

    1. It’s “handsfull”. The word is a concatenation of two words, “hands” and “full”, and is the same as saying “his two hands were full of stuff”. “Hands” is a noun, “full” is an adjective. Adjectives do not have plurals, so the noun is plural and the adjective describes the condition of the noun. Same thing as “governors general”, “attorneys general”, “courts martial”, “heirs apparent”. There are two “l”s on the end because the word is “full” not “ful”. Some people say that “handfulls” is ok because most people use that form, but that’s like saying “I done it” is ok because lots of people say it. Saying it doesn’t make it correct. Language changes over time, but rools are rools!

      1. Thanks for the ‘splainin’. I love learning good reasons. I hope I retain it. Quite a mouthsfull. 😉

      2. No it’s not, not it’s not, NO IT’S NOT!!!

        Oh wait, that should have been all caps.

        Anyway, I disagree. It isn’t like governor’s general, etc, because the governors are indivisible people (well you get what I mean). Handfuls is a measure, like cups or quarts. Hands full are hands that that are full. Coincidentally two hands full contain two handfuls.

        Merriam?!?? Pfft.

        Anyway, the way usage works anything is acceptable these days, so it seems.

        xkcd.com/1860/

        And don’t get me started on “there’s (plural) (something something)…”

        There are reasons we have grammar rules, it is to communicate clearly. And so what if the rules were introduced recently or by a bunch of elitists know alls (or is that knowalls?). The rules which mandate which side of the road you drive on or what to do when changing lanes or driving around a corner are pretty recent too but that isn’t grounds for dismissing them. And if legislators aren’t a bunch of elitist knowalls, or know alls, nobody is.

        Arrrgh!! Just fell of my horse. It’s too high.

        1. LOL!

          Yeah, my first reaction was rebellion as well. Then I tried it with another item and suddenly it sounded right to me; would you say “add two teaspoonfuls of sugar” or “add two teaspoons full of sugar?”

          Love the xkcd rollover text!

        2. Coincidentally, the xkcd that follows the one you posted is relevant to another discussion we’ve been having around here lately:

          xkcd.com/1861/

          🙂

  16. Andrew Menke, executive director of the Secretariat of Divine Worship.

    “Absolutely nothing has changed,” Menke said in a statement.
    Bet your darn boots nothing has changed, for 2000 years did i read.

    Anyhow, they where actually discussing GLUTTONY but some fool in the above office decided that was way to personal about the waistlines of cardinals.
    Obesity being a major global health problem and all that.
    Instead lets mess with the faithful and since our gory… eh…glory days of torture are over we can knock off a few by stealth.
    It’s good for business you know.

    We are gathered here today… anyone for a wafer?

  17. The Catholic Church’s view on gluten free wafers in the Eucharist is hilarious. One does not have to satirize the CC when it can do it so well itself. The ban goes back at least to a papal bull on the matter by Ratzinger. Such a serious theological matter!
    I note that one web site talks of Eucharist abuse. Go to:
    http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/vatican-calls-on-bishops-to-prevent-eucharistic-abuse-in-their-dioceses-28313/
    Now in the order of sins, is Eucharist abuse more of a sin than child abuse, or less? I hope the CC will wheel out the theology too decide the matter – and let us know.

  18. In the original version of the eucharist story (Pauls divine revelation )Jesus did not DO anything he merely told PAUL that those of the church should remember him when eating and drinking.

  19. “But the Catholic Church has spent 2,000 years working out how to be faithful to Christ even in the smallest things.”

    Like buggering kiddies?

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *