Getting what for on the wafer
At his Boston Globe blog, Articles of Faith, Michael Paulson reports getting some blowback for using the word “wafer” instead of “host” (or “Host”) in this story on the return of perpetual adoration at a eucharistic shrine in Boston. The most extensive criticism came from Terry Mattingly at his GetReligion blog.
To which Michael responds:
Just to be clear: multiple mainstream dictionaries identify the altar bread most commonly used in Catholic churches as a wafer. Here, from Dictionary.com, is the second definition of wafer: “a thin disk of unleavened bread, used in the Eucharist, as in the Roman Catholic Church.” Although some of the commenters complained that the word is pejorative, so far as I can tell dictionaries do not describe it that way, and a quick Google search suggests that the word is widely used in the Catholic context.
Furthermore, I need to be clear about how I see my role here: I’m a religion writer for a secular newspaper; I am not an apologist or an evangelist for Catholicism or any other religion. Part of my job is to try to describe what is going on in the world of religion using language that is clear, descriptive, and understandable, to readers of a variety of faiths and to readers of no faith. It is not my job to stake out, or to state, a position on what takes place metaphysically during a Catholic Mass or any other religious rite — in this story I described, to the best of my ability, what the Catholic Church says takes place, but it is not my role to simply assert, as some readers suggested I should have, that God is present in the consecrated bread. That is a belief, and one that I respect, but when I am describing a religious practice I am attempting to describe the tangible and visible aspects of that practice in language that readers can clearly understand, and I rely on worshipers, religious leaders, and academics to describe what believers understand to be happening spiritually or supernaturally.
I must admit I winced reflexively at the use of “wafer” in the lead. But it is not a simple question. Or is it? One could argue he should describe it as the Body of Christ if he is going to call it anything. Anyway, nothing could be more fraught than describing the eucharist–and we don’t have to resort to the “wafer wars” uproar.
This is a matter of professional interest to me, as well, so I am interested in feedback. I have written so many stories referring to the eucharist yet I can’t recall exactly what I’ve done, or if I’ve had a set policy, or what newspapers follow. Probably the AP Stylebook–and I’m not sure what AP style is, actually.
I would probably describe it as the host, on first reference (“Mr. Host” thereafter?), with an explainer thereafter as to why Catholics refer to the wafer that way. In other words, try to finesse it a bit.
PS: This also echoes the issue of whether the pronoun referring to Jesus should be capitalized.
Tags: GetGetReligion
If people do not know what a Host is, you have to say it’s a wafer. Why this uproar? Isn’t the point Adoration? Why do people always get caught up with some nonsense involving a word choice. It’s not like the man said “the magic cracker,” or something truly offensive. Some Catholics need to get a life.
In and of itself, I don’t find the word “wafer” objectionable. Although the 8:1 ratio of “wafer”/”host” usage does seem a little off-kilter.
When writing about the consecrated host, my suggestion is to use the word “bread”, as it seems to cover all the bases.
How much credence should journalists give to the easily-offended? (And the professionally easily-offended – can Catholic League commentary be far off?)
This is a good example of the perils of the religion beat. Michael Paulson is one of the best in the country. I’ve had the students in my Beat Reporting journalism course read his work.
Give me three minutes and I could walk down the hall and assemble six people who would confirm that I have no life. So, consider the source here:
Gut reaction: Paulson’s use of “wafer” sounded aggressively hostile to these ears — which he isn’t.
I understand the issue. I’d use “host,” and gloss it — “the thin wafer of bread that, when consecrated, Catholics believe to be the body of Christ” — or something like that.
One way of thinking about this is whether your stance is that of a modern skeptic, in reporting, or somewhat more phenomenological — you assume that what you’re observing matters to someone, and you want to know why.
IMHO, religion reporting is like sport reporting, you don’t assume that the reporters are athletes … but you do imagine that they like their work.
“it is not my role to simply assert, as some readers suggested I should have, that God is present in the consecrated bread. ”
Uh oh :-).
Paulson’s article was respectful and informative. I agree with Steve T. that this is much ado about nothing, though to make the article a little more informative, Paulson could, as David G. notes, have finessed it a bit by also explaining that Catholics usually use “Host” instead of “wafer.” Bonus points to Paulson if he were to have added a line about why the “H” is capitalized, and I thought he was very respectful in using “Mass” with a capital M. A couple of bonus points, too, for his use of “monstrance” and a straightforward explanation of what it is.
1) I agree Michael Paulson is an excellent reporter.
2) On Eucharistic adoration:
In his biography “A Pilgroim in A Pilgrim Church” -which I still think should get a thread here- Bishop Weakland talks about the movement to restore tabernacles to the main Church and devotion to Eucharistic Adoration.
He notes that this is not an issue in the Eastern Church, so it’s hardly a Catholic view, but a view that was put forward again post VII by JPII as part of the movement to return to the past.
(I’d just add that the push to the past is even under more strain than ever with the “visitation” of US nuns -another thread about a lot of the current discssion would be useful – but, the fact that Paulson is brought up on such a minor matter shows how virulent the defenders of “orthodoxy” are in their push to the past!)
PS: I love Michael Paulson more than any of you. Even if he has eaten my lunch over the years, professionally speaking.
PPS: Jim P–I think bread is even more, well, aggressively Proto to my ears. And it recalls that great line about the Host–likely best kept in sacrisities than shouted on blogs–that I have an easier time believing it is Jesus than believing it is bread. :-)
PPPS: I’ll have more when the Apostolic Visitation of the Boston Globe begins.
The Eucharist is not a religious belief, it is The Truth.
Best wishes, David. Just remember, as long as you remain grounded in The Truth, only Good can come from that. (not just professionally speaking.:-)
Seems fairly simple to me. A reporter should call it what Catholics call it; after it’s consecrated, Catholics call it the host. Many non-Catholic readers won’t know what the term means, and so the reporter should define it early in the article. If he wants to use the word “wafer” in the definition, no problem. But it’s silly to argue, as Paulson does, that because Catholics use the word “wafer” to refer to what becomes the host, it doesn’t matter how he uses the word. It’s even sillier for him to suggest that by using the correct term he would be staking out “a position on what takes place metaphysically during a Catholic Mass.”
I wonder how many Catholics actually know that that “host” in the Eucharistic context means sacrificial victim–as in O salutaris hostia. I wonder if anyone imagines it has something to do with Christ being the host at the sacred banquet. And is the possibility of confusion the reason why the Sanctus in English goes “Holy, holy, holy Lord God of power and might” although in earlier versions we had “God of Hosts”?
Joseph Gannon, that is an excellent point–though the answer, as you suspect, might not be the one we’d like to hear.
Hi, Joseph G., fwiw, it appears that the new ICEL translation will restore “Lord God of hosts” in its Sanctus translation- although surely “host” is archaic in its meaning of “army” or “multitude”.
I wonder how many Catholics actually know that that “host” in the Eucharistic context means sacrificial victim–as in O salutaris hostia.
Awareness of the derivation isn’t as arcane on the popular level as you may suspect. Peace.
When writing about the consecrated host, my suggestion is to use the word “bread”, as it seems to cover all the bases.
Obviously you don’t understand the two things I learned years ago that you have to stretch your mind to believe in order to accept that the consecrated host is the body of Christ:
1. That it’s really the body of Christ, and
2. That it was really bread
I don’t find the word “wafer” offensive at all.
Catholic theologian William Cavanaugh wrote a great essay on the Eucharist called “The World in a Wafer.”
Michael Paulson’s the last guy that should be getting blowback for a great article, which I read in situ, here in the Archdiocese of Beantown. Seems to me that those who are most upset are also those who are most enthusiastic about encouraging Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament, which is rather ironic, to say the least. In other words, you have one the country’s leading papers publicizing something that needs good p.r.–in order to alert more Catholics to its resurgence–and you’re going to get upset about terminology? When you write for the general public on religion you always have to make some concessions for the sake of being intelligible. E.g., I rarely use the word “provincial,” the official term for the head of geographic region of a religious order: no one would have a clue what I was talking about. Likewise, most non-Catholics have no idea what the host, or Host, is. And why stop there? The Blessed Sacrament? The Most Blessed Sacrament? Perhaps Paulson could have defined, and then used, the official Catholic term but, after all, he’s a Globe reporter not Cardinal O’Malley.
By the way, I note that even my good friend David Gibson wrote “eucharist” instead of “Eucharist” on Dotcommonweal. Feel free to apply the appropriate canonical penalties.
I’d be inclined to agree with James Martin SJ, that this discussion is a little over-the-top, and deserves some humor. It does call to mind, however, the widespread religious illiteracy that Stephen Prothero addresses in his 2007 book. One of the things that drives me a little nuts is the frequent use of “novitiate” for “novice” in the media. Admittedly, one of the meanings of “novitiate”–way down the list in the dictionary–is novice. But you have to wonder where they get this stuff. Try to picture any of the Sisters or Brothers you know saying, “When I was a novitiate…”
On another front, how’s this for postmodern complexity: an article in the notoriously pro-Catholic Boston Globe ( : highlighting a traditional Catholic worship practice even as it uses a word unacceptable to those otherwise most likely to welcome said article.
There is also the Protestant idea that all male religious can be called “monks”. There is even the confusion among Catholics of the purest water that all groupings of religious are “orders”. Any Dominican will tell you that the Dominicans are members of an order but the Jesuits belong to a society.
As for capitalization of pronouns with divine reference, that is strictly an eccentricity of English, as is the capitalization of “god” even when it is a common noun. But English rejoices and even revels is eccentricity. Consider the spelling “baccalaureate”? How lovely is the image of graduates festooned with laurel berries.
“Obviously you don’t understand the two things I learned years ago that you have to stretch your mind to believe in order to accept that the consecrated host is the body of Christ:
1. That it’s really the body of Christ, and
2. That it was really bread”
A better illustration of the perils of writing about this topic couldn’t be simulated.
For the record, RP, I am familiar with Catholic teaching.
This Sunday, for at least the third Sunday in a row, the words of Jesus will be proclaimed during the Gospel, “I am the living bread” / “I am the bread of life”. If the word is good enough for Him, it should be good enough for the rest of us. :-)
Take a deep breath, Jim. In case you missed the point:
IT WAS A JOKE! TOLD YEARS AGO IN A RELIGION CLASS!
Got it? I’ll run it in bold face if you don’t quite understand yet.
This is all a tempest in a teapot.
Sorry, RP, I truly didn’t get it. I’m from the era where this wasn’t taught in religion class, so I missed out on the shared experience – sorry :-(.