The Catholic Vegan Dilemma: Can I Eat Communion Wafers?

[trotsky]

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2016/06/27/the-catholic-vegan-dilemma-can-i-eat-communion-wafers/

Dan Piraro, the artist behind the comic strip Bizarro recently drew something for a friend of his celebrating her 33rd anniversary. She and her husband were raised Catholic, but they were joking about the communion wafer — the literal body of Christ — and whether vegans could eat it.

So he drew this:



Piraro says it “it might be problematic to publish it in the papers” as his regular strip, so it’ll have to remain online.

It turns out there are vegan-friendly wafers. But if you truly believe Catholic doctrine, then taking Communion would technically mean you’re eating an animal product and the actual ingredients wouldn’t matter.

"It might be problematic to publish it in the papers" - I wonder why?

[Jerry442]

1. I bestow on all Vegans the right to take Communion without compromising their beliefs.

Go and sin no more.

That was easy.

[trotsky]

2. Hey, are you wearing a funny hat?

If not, then what you said doesn't count!

[Jerry442]

3. Ahem

<----------<

[trotsky]

5. Antlers aren't a hat!

But I would definitely follow Pope Bullwinkle I.

[skepticscott]

4. I'd like to get vegan catholics

and gluten-free catholics in a room together with some theologians and watch the meltdown.

Error...Error...Faulty..Must..Analyze..

[trotsky]

6. Physics to the rescue:

Schroedinger's wafer. It is simultaneously both flesh and wheat until the recipient tastes it, at which point it becomes what they want to eat.

No wait, those bland things have no taste. Arrgh!

[skepticscott]

8. Sad thing is, there are supposedly intelligent people

who spend their entire careers dissecting issues like this, when a more sensible approach is available.

[Iggo]

12. ...when more sensible pursuits are available, too.

What a colossal waste of time and brain-power.

[trotsky]

13. Yes!

Did you know we *still* don't have an answer for how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

Let's get our best theologians on that!

[skepticscott]

14. My favorite is

if you're pouring from a kosher container into a non-kosher one, does the non-kosherness run back up the stream, or not?

[trotsky]

15. And can the effect be neutralized by hanging a fishing line around the kitchen?

Inquiring minds want to know.

[Igel]

7. Would it mean you were eating an animal product?

Does Catholic doctrine consider humans to be animals? If not, then the wafer would be non-animal. If you define vegan as "only eating foods with their immediate source in vegetables," it's still not vegan. But if "vegan" means "no animal products," then, well, hey.

If it does consider humans to be animals, does Catholic doctrine license cannibalism? I mean, if there's a potluck and I bring human carne guisado, apart from any legal sanction that would inevitably follow unless it was suicide or of natural causes, would the priest say, "I condemn the eating of human flesh as a sin" or would he say, "Tasty, but it needs more salt"? (Does Catholic doctrine treat animals that die of natural causes as fit for human consumption?)

[trotsky]

9. A helpful link:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transubstantiation

Transubstantiation is, according to the teaching of the Catholic Church, the change of substance by which the bread and the wine offered in the sacrifice of the sacrament of the Eucharist during the Mass, become, in reality, the body and blood of Jesus the Christ.

[rug]

10. The link would be more helpful if you included the essential part.

According to Catholic teaching, the whole of Christ, body and blood, soul and divinity, is in the sacrament, under each of the appearances of bread and wine and in each part of the appearances of bread and wine (since the substance of bread or wine is in each part of ordinary bread or wine, and the substance of Christ is in each part of the consecrated and transubstantiated elements of the host and the cup of the sacrament), but he is not in the sacrament as in a place and is not moved when the sacrament is moved. He is perceptible neither by the sense nor by the imagination, but only by the intellectual eye.

[Major Nikon]

20. Yeah, that helps

[rug]

22. Ah, you may find this more to your taste.

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0074/0074_01.asp?Store=True

[Major Nikon]

24. Nothing quite like unintentional humor

That's why I like you so much.

[rug]

27. Unless it's realizing who you're in bed with.

http://www.chick.com/

[Major Nikon]

28. It's your link

I barely glanced at it and couldn't give a day old dog shit. I guess it must have impressed you somehow.

[rug]

29. The trite drivel you post about transubstantiation is a lot older than day old dog shit.

It's been Jack Chick's bugaboo for a long time too.

[Major Nikon]

30. Two day old dog shit is also a lot older than day old dog shit

I suppose that fact somehow escaped your trap door mind in your rush to make some sort of point, as did the fact I posted virtually nothing about the subject other than it's obviously literalism.

Your incessant whining about trotsky and Jack Chick (whoever the fuck that is) thoughts on the subject suggests you have an awfully big sore spot. Those that can't stand any challenge even to the most ridiculous temple traditions crack me up, so I'm glad you shared that with me.

[rug]

31. No, you posted "Yeah, that helps" with the obligatory smiley.

"incessant whining about trotsky", lol. If I have anything to say about trotsky, I say it directly to trotsky.

I've learned that "that can't stand any challenge" rarely crack up. They seek the comforting blanket of Ignore.

I'll give you points for not seeking that refuge, yet.

[Major Nikon]

32. I couldn't give a day old dog shit for your points either

You seem to value them and yourself so highly you are oblivious to the idea that your banality might exceed whatever entertainment value you have to offer. You don't say anything directly to trotsky anymore. You seem to know this and make the attempt anyway. Very telling that.

I will grant you that "comforting blanket of Ignore" makes at least a little sense. It did seem rather comforting when you were banished to the island of misfit toys. Probably not in the way you think, but more like a neighbor's barking dog that moves away.

[rug]

33. Oh, I think you give a hell of a lot more than dog shit.

And I only speak directly to trotsky, not about him, as you are now doing.

[Major Nikon]

34. So now you know more about what I think than I do

Just when I think your nonsense can't possibly go any farther, you surprise me.

And no, you don't speak directly to trotsky, because he has that comfort blanket of which you allude. But you know this already and still pretend otherwise. Very telling that.

[rug]

35. I can read you like a phone book.

[Major Nikon]

36. Easy enough to disprove

You are now on ignore and will have to just jabber to yourself.

I told you I wasn't playing your games anymore, and yet you still didn't see this one coming. So much for your points, eh?

Cheers!

[rug]

37. QED

I've learned that "that can't stand any challenge" rarely crack up. They seek the comforting blanket of Ignore.

[rug]

11. Transubstantiation is a real bugaboo of yours, isn't it?

[Major Nikon]

21. Seems more like comedy gold

I suspect it must be a real bugaboo for you since it's derived from literalism, kinda like talking donkeys and talking snakes. Strange that you would be so heavily invested in one, but not the other.

[rug]

23. If your taste runs to grotesquerie.

And once again, your suspicions are wrong.

[Major Nikon]

25. Good point

Consistency never seems to be your strong suit

[rug]

26. Rigidity seems to be yours.

[Mariana]

16. I imagine Catholics believe that Christ consents

to the consumption of his body and blood. If they do believe that, I would think that solves the ethical dilemma.

I don't know of any vegans who oppose breastfeeding on the grounds that breast milk is an animal product.

[trotsky]

17. Has anyone asked him recently?

Consent can be revoked at any time.

[Mariana]

18. I guess if he decided he didn't want to be eaten

he would simply refuse to change the substance of the bread and wine into his flesh and blood, or whatever it is that he supposedly does, when the priest says the magic words. I have no idea how anyone would know the difference.

[trotsky]

19. Quick! We need an expert theologian to confirm your theory!

Oh wait, that's right, theology can't "confirm" anything. Never mind.

[Act_of_Reparation]

38. Catholics get a bad rap on this.

Maybe I'm biased here, but I've always found Catholic eucharistic theology only slightly more absurd than many of the other Christian eucharistic theologies. That comic would have functioned exactly as intended if the subjects were Lutheran.

[trotsky]

39. Growing up Lutheran (ELCA), I don't recall it being the same.

Communion was totally symbolic. Don't get me wrong, communion is a wacky thing no matter if you think you're literally eating someone or not!

[Act_of_Reparation]

40. Lutheran Eucharistic theology is typically consubstantiation.

Rather than the bread and wine turning into the literal flesh and blood of Jesus, Lutheran churches typically believe the literal flesh and blood of Jesus coexist with the bread and wine. It always seemed like a distinction without much of a difference to me.

Of course, it's all horse hockey to me, whether Jesus lives in the cracker physically, spiritually, or whatever.

[struggle4progress]

41. This seems to bother atheists more than Catholics

I've never heard a Catholic raise this as an issue

[cleanhippie]

42. Why would they? They've found a way to rationalize the cognitive dissonance.

[struggle4progress]

43. Then he said to the crowd: Understand! What goes into a man’s mouth does not makes him vulgar

or unclean, but what comes out of a man’s mouth makes him unclean

Matthew 15:11