Deadly dogma
The Catholic Church’s decision to alienate its gluten-intolerant congregation is potentially fatal:
Anaphylaxis Australia, which represents wheat-allergic people who could die in minutes even from a low-gluten wafer, has written to Australian Catholic leaders, urging them to intercede with the Vatican.
[...]
The Anaphylaxis Australia letter says sufferers risk death within minutes from even minute particles of allergens.
A trial of the new wafers is not an option, nor is taking the chalice instead because communion wine is highly likely to contain traces of wheat.
Rather than admit that its wheat-based host requirement is senseless dogma, the Church is prepared to put people’s lives at risk.
I can’t think of a time when the institution of the Catholic Church set out to actually support people (individual clerics notwithstanding). Compared to their opposition to pro-choice, their support of conservative, anti-social governments and corporations, and their complicity in uncountable crimes against humanity throughout distant and recent history, refusing gluten-intolerant Catholics the Communion is amongst the lesser of their peccadillos.
But it’s just so stupid – that’s the thing.
While the other policy decisions clearly have huge implications, there is a valid argument that they can be justified according to Catholic dogma. They have some internal logic at least.
This one just doesn’t seem to make sense.
There’s not much internal login in the doctrine of transubstantiation anyway.
While I tend to agree with you on this point (and with the rainbow sash people or whatever the gay Catholic group is called) about the stupid intransigence of the Catholic Church, it has always puzzled me why people on the receiving end of its shoddy treatment don’t just up and leave.
I mean if I were a member of a club that said that half-Asians were a lower form of life, I wouldn’t be lodging appeals to the club’s board. I’d tell them to get fucked and take my business elsewhere.
But I guess that’s an atheist’s perspective on an issue I’ll never really understand; I’m told that it is possible to believe that the Church is fundamentally wrong and yet that it is fundamentally wrong to quit. Go figure, I say.
“the Church is prepared to put people’s lives at risk”
No they are not. Am I missing something here? The person that has the anaxypaxy yet still eats the wafer is putting their own life at risk. Sure it all sounds a bit stupid to me that they wont change their wafers but how can you accuse them of putting anyones life at risk unless they are forcing it down their throat?
It’s the body of the Son of Man, it’s a sacrament that is meant to save your soul and allow you to commune with God. Presumably that’s why people eat it. Afterall, the doctrine of transubstantiation states categorically that the bread becomes the body literally (ie, consubstantial with the bread).
the Catholic will go to hell if they do not take Communion..
so, the gluten-intolerant Catholic can take the bread, causing death (suicide), which is a sure path to hell or, not take the bread and…
Be fair, Alex. The modern Church’s position on abortion (or, as you quaintly call it, “anti-choice”) is based on respect for life. The Church defines human life as beginning with conception, and they oppose abortion as a result (I don’t agree with them, but I respect that position). They also aren’t too crazy on capital punishment, in spite of their behaviour in previous centuries.
Since Vatican II, despite the opposition of certain hardliners (amongst whose number our current Pope would probably be counted), the Church has really improved. It’s far from perfect, but we’ve at least gotten to the point where someone can say “I am Catholic” without meaning “I’m a dupe of bastards”.
I’m condemning an institution, not the people who are involved in it. Like I said, there are progressive priests and progressive congregations, but the institution of the Catholic Church itself is so steeped in blood, hate and intolerance that I don’t think it can ever be sufficiently reformed or redeemed (failing divine intervention perhaps).
Of course, if the Church followed every humane policy that it was supposed to, then I’d definitely change my opinion of it as an institution for positive social change.
YMMV
hey robert
- despite your despicable profanity in your other recent post, looks like you’ve virtually got a byline in today’s west – or someone else has got your byline…
bfn, L.