Harm None

Under the study of the Wiccan Rede, those who follow the path shall "do what ye will so long as it harms none." When I first read that idea, I thought to myself that it was a type of Golden Rule. It also made it even clearer to me that we should live our lives according to our values, but if those values harm others, they were no longer moral. Depending on how far you extend this idea, you may be vegan or you may practice other dietary restrictions or you may use certain herbal medication in place of prescriptions because of unforeseen side effects of the traditional treatment. You may become a healer or psychologist to help others. The guiding rule: always endeavor to help, not harm.

I don't think that's what it means, Goat.

The Rede has been knocking around in my noggin a lot this week as the Catholic Church set forth an edict that the communion host shall not be gluten free. My first instinct when I read that was, "What about my aunt and cousins?" and "How can they in good conscience withhold the host, which is a large part of the religious practice, due to a medical condition?" As it turns out, they did--thanks to some nuns and consulting physicians--develop a host that is really low gluten and safe for most people with celiac disease. The key word in that idea being most. I know that one of my cousins has such significant reactions, she gets hospitalized if she's exposed to gluten. When she was young, she had just been diagnosed and on a family vacation, she and her siblings were allowed to choose road snacks. She chose licorice. Well, in licorice, there happens to be wheat, which caused her to go into seizures and subsequently an emergency room. That makes me suspect that perhaps the "mostly" gluten free host would not be gluten free enough for her.

Me either, Indigo.

I posted an article about this ruling online and received some information from a college acquaintance who happens to be quite devout. She provided some really good information. I asked the question about accommodating the wine for people who are alcoholics, but not gluten free host. In the article she shared, "Why the Catholic Church Frowns Upon Gluten Free Communion Wafers" by Barbara Stepko, it told the story of how the low gluten host came to be and the reason behind it. While I knew the why (because Jesus' bread at the last supper was wheat, therefore the communion must also contain wheat), I was not aware that the alternate wine also contained some alcohol. She also posted from The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops "Celiac Disease, Alcohol Intolerance, And The Church's Pastoral Response"  about mustum (sounds a little too like sputum), the grape juice provided for alcoholics or the like. The fermentation has begun, but has been suspended so the alcohol content is less than 1%. 1% is far less than Nyquil (10%) or Listerine (26.9%). Honestly, I thought the alternate wine was just juice, no fermentation at all. I was wrong. So again, they accommodate, but only so far because of religious doctrine.

Do you think "a little bit" is enough, John?

This person I was discussing with said that the Catholic Church is a very old institution and it is slow to change. Yes, I agree. Apparently so slow to change that even in the face of potentially harming its followers, it will cling to formulas that they think Christ would have used. Formulas based on historical evidence I would imagine. To be honest, insisting on a certain amount to be valid just adds to the whole "magic" of transubstantiation. Transubstantiation is the belief that the host and wine actually become the body and blood of Christ. Can I get an "Ew!" Let's be clear: this belief says it must have this ingredient and stored in a certain way, the priest must say specific words while holding hands over the items, and then BAM! Body and blood. To a Wiccan, that sounds an awful lot like magic. Of course, I'm sure members of the church would be up in arms at that. But, let's be real. It's magic.

Only with less sparkle.

While this acquaintance of mine from college (a Catholic college btw) stuck to her guns that because the church is old, because it thoughtfully considered and made accommodations they didn't need to, and that most celiac or alcohol intolerant folks can take this offering or not, that was good enough. Personally, the church has exerted enough control of faithful followers. I think they should back off and stop interfering with people's autonomy and medical decisions that belong between patient and doctor. In the Stepko article, it does say that if you're concerned talk to your doctor. Ya think? Of course I'm gonna talk to my doctor rather than just take the church's doctors' word for it that it's safe. The church doesn't have a really good track record on safety when it comes to their followers in my opinion.

Yes, Sir Paul. Do I have to remind you of the abuse scandal, the refusal to report because of confessional, or the refusal to marry LGBTQ members? Gah!

For example, the American Civil Liberties Union has brought and continues to bring suits against the church on behalf of women who have been denied reproductive services. The church does not believe in things like birth control, abortion, sterilization, and some fertility treatments. Women have been harmed by Catholic doctrine at hospitals they might to have known were Catholic run or maybe because it was a medical emergency, had no choice as that hospital was where the ambulance went. I don't believe that the Catholic Church has the medical interest of their faithful or those in need at all. Consider the case of Tamesha Means, a woman from Michigan who was taken to a Catholic hospital because she was suffering a miscarriage, bleeding horribly, and an in agony. They denied her services to deliver the baby via an abortion procedure. They sent her home and she developed a life-threatening infection that they didn't inform her of. Does that sound like doctors who have a patient's best interest and health in mind? No! It's doctors and nurses having to follow Catholic doctrine even when the patient isn't Catholic and might die.

They must have, Saul.

Another case in Michigan had a woman who was told she needed a tubal ligation to prevent further pregnancy due to a brain tumor. Another pregnancy would kill her. The Catholic hospital refused because of doctrine. Tubal ligation at the time of delivery is recommended because it's easiest on the woman. She wouldn't have to undergo another round of anesthetic and she wouldn't have to go to another hospital that may be unfamiliar. Maybe she lives in a rural area and the Catholic hospital is the only one available. In Illinois, a woman fell and knocked her IUD out of place. If an IUD is dislodged, it can create a painful and deadly (although preventable if given proper care) infection if it is not removed. You'd think that if the church is against birth control, they'd allow removal of such a device, but nope! They refused. These stories are shared on the ACLU's web site under "Catholic Church Denied These Women Critical Care. Now They're Speaking Out". Again, these hospitals put dogma before health. They put lives at risk. Tell me why I should trust their judgement on gluten free hosts?

The answer is easy, Jack.

I shouldn't.

Of interesting note, an article from The Humanist "Where 'First Do No Harm' Is Secondary: The Threat of Catholic Hospitals to Women's Health," details that doctors at Catholic hospitals report to the National Women's Law Center that women denied abortions due to ectopic pregnancy developed life-threatening ruptured fallopian tubes that ultimately had to be removed. Huh. So that means that due to Catholic rules, the women endured more pain, more anguish, and even sterilization (psst! Isn't that forbidden, too? Refuse one procedure and cause another prohibited one to happen only under threat of death?) because the doctors could not provide the medically necessary abortion. The woman's life was in peril. The baby was not even remotely going to live and yet, doctrine written by men said this was how it had to be.  The Catholic creed imposed on women and practiced by doctors violates the creed of physicians. How in the hell does this make sense to people?

Oh crap! Even the Evil Queen doesn't get it.

Oh. That's right. It's about money and power and control for the church as they seek to merge with more secular hospitals. Isn't avarice named as one of the deadly sins? More truth than poetry in that one, eh? According to The Washington Post, 1 in 6 hospital beds in America are now Catholic run. That means more women will be put at risk. They put children at risk. They put the communities at risk. They put LGBTQ followers at risk. Why in the hell should they be allowed to continue to sacrifice lives under the misguided notion of religious freedom?

In its defense, Sloth does everything slowly. I'm sure it'll understand eventually.

The Catholic News Agency ran a story "Is this Really About Women's Health? The ACLU's Latest Tiff with Catholic Hospitals". In it, the writer draws the conclusion that this whole issue is really just about trying to impose the practice of abortion on Catholics. It contains  quotation that if directives are properly followed, "there should be no compromise of the well-being of human beings." This is from the public policy director of the National Catholic Bioethics Center. So does that mean the church is faulting the doctors and nurses or the women themselves? This sounds like either throwing your staff under the bus or victim blaming. The argument leads to if you're not wanting to play by the Catholic rules, go somewhere else. Funny, that was the response from my online college pal. If the person does not want to risk the host and the wine, they can opt out. Never mind that in cases of emergency, the Catholic hospital may be the only one. Never mind that the Eucharist is an important pert of faith for many. Our way or the highway as the saying goes.

Geez, Mr. Wonka. When you put it that way...

And ye harm none, do what ye will. How is the Catholic Church not choosing yet again to harm their faithful? How can the faithful remain so in the face of the systemic harm? It's an ongoing struggle to harm none as an individual; however, I don't think being a centuries old institution is defense enough. They cry that they can't be forced to violate their conscience by making communion truly for everyone, by providing health services that go against their dogma, by reporting on abusers and criminals because of the sanctity of confession, by denying LGBTQ marriages. I simply do not see how the Catholic Church does not do more harm than good.

Yeah, Moose. Glad I walked away from it, too.