Some corrections needed on the Roman Catholic bashing?

[millirem]

While I hesitate not to label the Roman Catholic church as insane, I should note that in this case it's really the mother who deserves the lunatic label.

So you are a psychopathologist and you are able to diagnose from a distance?

Not only did the mother reject the use of the standard host (which, even in the case of a small child, probably doesn't contain enough gluten to cause anything more than a case of diarrhea -- this isn't a peanut allergy or anything),

This child is on a gluten-free diet, isn't she? Now, what could "gluten-free" mean, other than "total withdrawal of gluten from the diet"? You are suggesting that the mother had no good reason to reject the use of the standard host, but how do you know or why do you think that?

but also an approved low-gluten host (which stood even less of a chance of causing problems

It has been shown that an amount of gluten as small as 0.1 gram per day, can cause damage to a celiac. Catassi et al. found an increase in intraepithelial lymphocyte count, one of the earliest signs of damage.
http://www.celiac.com/st_prod.html?p_prodid=39&p_catid=2&sid=91hH9H0-w5AR29e-28104539586.d9

-- unless of course homeopathy turns out substantially correct, in which case it would have caused more),

Some celiacs are affected by gluten touching their skin. There are some rare cases of anaphylactoid response to gluten; it goes without saying that such patients should avoid gluten in all forms and doses (except perhaps homeopathical doses).

The use of "gluten-free wheat" has been suggested in this thread. Unfortunately, gluten-free wheat is somewhat rarer than god-fearing atheists. However, foods containing so-called Codex wheat starch can be introduced into the diets of most celiacs, as long as they remain within the norms specified by the Codex Alimentarius, the current limit being 500 ppm of gluten. This standard is in the process of being revised to a level of 200 ppm.

and also, and most importantly, refused a sip of mustum (a low alcohol wine). Now, alcohol causes no problem for people with celiac-sprue -- and in this case we're talking about a small sip of something with an extremely low proof as it is (it's comparable to taking a small sip of cough syrup). Why wasn't this option taken? " "I didn't think any amount of alcohol is appropriate at this point for a child," she said. " ( http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/jersey/index.ssf?/base/news-7/1092734333228950.xml)

By the same reasoning, half a cigarette would not be harmful to an eight-year old child. This mother is concerned about the health of her child, and even if she is slightly over-concerned in the case of the wine, there is no reason or ground to translate her concern into "insanity".

There may be a second reason why she refuses the wine as a substitute for the child's first communion: eating the bread (the Body of Christ) alone (and not drinking the wine) is the common form in which Communion is administered in the RCC. Offering her wine only, is like depriving her of "the real thing".

So, realistically, we've got a church with an odd doctrine, but a willingness to provide alternatives -- and a mother who rejects those alternatives in favor of her own alternative (which the church doesn't approve). As silly as I find Roman Catholicism to be, I think in this case they're the ones acting sane, despite the "won't somebody think of the children!!?!!?" hysteria involved.

So, the woman is not acting sane in daring to speak up and propose an alternative, while the Church must be congratulated in rejecting it? That says a lot about your attitude towards institutions, among other things.

 

[Eleatic Stranger]

So you are a psychopathologist and you are able to diagnose from a distance?

Yes, actually, and the DSM IV conditions make it very clear that the mother is suffering from the condition known as 'lunacy'.

This child is on a gluten-free diet, isn't she? Now, what could "gluten-free" mean, other than "total withdrawal of gluten from the diet"? You are suggesting that the mother had no good reason to reject the use of the standard host, but how do you know or why do you think that?

It has been shown that an amount of gluten as small as 0.1 gram per day, can cause damage to a celiac. Catassi et al. found an increase in intraepithelial lymphocyte count, one of the earliest signs of damage.
http://www.celiac.com/st_prod.html?p_prodid=39&p_catid=2&sid=91hH9H0-w5AR29e-28104539586.d9

What they showed was that .1 grams was the smallest dosage at which there seemed to be an effect, and as I pointed out....

However, St. Denis did offer Haley other options, including a low-gluten host, which would contain .01 milligrams of gluten and has been endorsed by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops — but Ms. Waldman did not accept on the grounds that any traces of gluten in her daughter's system could be toxic.

From: http://www.csaceliacs.org/CDintheNews/NJCoastStar080304.php

Now, my skills with the metric system may be a little rusty, but to the best of my recollection gluten would have to be pretty damn dense for .01 milligrams to come to about or more than .1 grams. Something on the order of about 10 times the density of water at 4 degrees centigrade, right? Does that sound reasonable to you? Your attempt to show that Ms Waldman was in possession of the facts only shows exactly how far from the facts she really was.

Some celiacs are affected by gluten touching their skin. There are some rare cases of anaphylactoid response to gluten; it goes without saying that such patients should avoid gluten in all forms and doses (except perhaps homeopathical doses).

And, of course, my point was that the already accepted on approaches homeopathic dosage levels. Seriously, you do realize just how little .01 milliliters is, right?

By the same reasoning, half a cigarette would not be harmful to an eight-year old child. This mother is concerned about the health of her child, and even if she is slightly over-concerned in the case of the wine, there is no reason or ground to translate her concern into "insanity".

This is complete and utter balderdash. First off, alcohol isn't harmful in quantities as small as a glass or two of wine. Secondly, in this case, the quantity is so far below that that it beggars description. By the same reasoning you're employing the child shouldn't be given, say, antibiotics or meat either right? Because too much of either of those might be dangerous to one's health too. The amount of alcohol contained in mustum is so low that it barely qualifies -- again, I reiterate the comparison to children's cough syrup. The mother is not concerned about the health of her child, she is irrationally protective of things she considers to be harmful in direct contravention of the facts of the matter. And that, to me, sounds like lunacy on the line with any of the other woo woo things we generaly see around here.

There may be a second reason why she refuses the wine as a substitute for the child's first communion: eating the bread (the Body of Christ) alone (and not drinking the wine) is the common form in which Communion is administered in the RCC. Offering her wine only, is like depriving her of "the real thing".

Except of course that as far as the theology is concerned it is just as valid, and that she not only refused the valid form but replaced it with one that is decidedly not the real thing. I suppose that is fair and reasonable of her.

So, the woman is not acting sane in daring to speak up and propose an alternative, while the Church must be congratulated in rejecting it? That says a lot about your attitude towards institutions, among other things.

I think this says more about your attitude towards thinking through things reasonably while in possession of the facts.

 

[Soapy Sam]

Kimpatsu- So which is it that you prioriti(s/z)e?

Spelling or grammar?

There can be only one. Nicht wahr?

 

[Kimpatsu]

Kimpatsu- So which is it that you prioriti(s/z)e?

Spelling or grammar?

There can be only one. Nicht wahr?

No, they are not mutually exclusive.
"There can be only one" applies to immortals.

 

[Robin]

I have criticised James Randi in the past when I thought that he had strayed into the realm of religious intolerance but I am with him totally in this.

As far as I can see he had his facts right (Pastor and Rev are unusual for a Catholic Church but this is not JR's fault).

The word 'represent' is as good as any to describe transsubtantiation, what else would he have said?

The crack-down on gluten-free wafers is happening in the Catholic Church world-wide, it is much discussed here in Australia.

And I think that JR's point was not that the Church was a monster, but that this highlights the absurdities inherent in this belief system.

So what is left that was wrong about his original commentary on this matter?

 

[davefoc]

The significant item left out, IMHO, was that the mother was a bit of a nut case herself.

Eleatic Stranger did a nice job of establishing that.

I'm not sure that the fact that the mother was a nutcase was exactly relevant to Randi's point though, but it was an interesting sideline to the main story.

 

[Kimpatsu]

The significant item left out, IMHO, was that the mother was a bit of a nut case herself.

Of course she is; she's a Roman Catholic, remember? That makes her totally unstable, if she believes such nonsense as transubstantiation.

 

[Robin]

From davefoc:

I'm not sure that the fact that the mother was a nutcase was exactly relevant to Randi's point though, but it was an interesting sideline to the main story.

Not relevant at all since this is a world-wide policy from the Catholic Church, all the mothers of gluten intolerant people can't be nut-cases.

And the point is of course the absurdity of the belief in transubstantiation, or the idea that some all powerful deity would punish somebody for eating the wrong kind of bread in a ritual.