I originally was not going to respond to this post, due to the clear bias found within it. However, subsequent posts have convinced me that there should be an intellectual input.
While your premise is interesting, it falls quite flat, on a logical level. Each of the posts, detailing how the Eucharist is "exposed" as a fraud, is really quite silly. One says that because an autistic boy cannot swallow, it exposes the truth. Another, that celiac disease exposes the truth. But allow us to compare these examples, and the logic therein, against other "miracles."
For celiac disease, as the OP pointed out, persons are limited to being able to receive the Host. Of course, the alternative is the Chalice. However, the OP says that "biology" has exposed the truth of the idolatry. Let us utilize this logic, and apply it to the most important event in history, the Resurrection. Biology states that nothing can physically come back from death. Death, biologically, is a final act. An everlasting act. If biology, thus, natural law, restricts all miracles, then Christ, by this logic, did not rise from the dead.
To use the very atheist restrictions of natural law upon the supernatural, you end up denying the abilities of God. It would make sense for an atheist to utilize such logic, as they dismiss supernatural. But for a Christian to utilize such logic contradicts the very core beliefs they should hold, namely the Resurrection.
I know. The first rebuttal will declare "but if it is the 'body of Christ,' how can a person be allergic to it?" Simple. Transubstantiation does not alter the physical properties of matter. The Host will still taste, appear, and have the physical properties of bread. As Christ, God Incarnate, had the physical appearance and properties of man (Thus, being 100% God and 100% Man). If you claim this is possible within the physical incarnation of God, why could He not do this with something as simple as bread?
To the autistic case....
I wish to applaud clefty for actually researching Catholic sources for his information. I believe that is demonstrating an apt sense of research ability.
This claim of "exposing the truth" is less rational than the celiac disease. For it relies on a person's handicap as a base of reason. How could God, being truly present in the bread, allow a person to be unable to consume Him? This goes back to my original reason, relating to celiac disease. But let us apply this logic to other "truths," widely accepted by Protestants. Protestants often cite Romans 3:23 as a means of proving Mary was not full of grace. "For all have sinned." According to Protestants, this means every single individual, without exception. Catholics view this as a widely accepted, and truthful, generalization. All? Really?
One would agree that in order to commit a sinful act, one must have knowledge of their actions, no? Thus, a person must have the cognitive ability to know right from wrong. So, with that, does a mentally handicapped person, incapable of higher cognitive ability, commit sin? Remember, they must do this knowingly, having the ability to discern right from sin. Thus, the "all without exception" rule is broken.
Now, let us apply this to the autistic child being unable to consume the Host. There is no rule that says "all must consume." Anytime consumption of the Host is mentioned, it is a generalization. As evidenced by people with celiac disease, or other mitigating factors. The reason this is, is because common sense prevails. Catholicism knows that there will inevitably be factors that may inhibit a person from full participation in Communion. Thus, the solution being the father being allowed to step in and consume the Host for his son.
Clefty expounds by citing a "controversy" about chewing. There is really no controversy on chewing. The term utilized for reception of the Host is "consume." According to Catholicism, every consecrated Host is to be consumed. By chewing, swallowing (which obviously must be done), etc. It is a matter of respect and obedience. Naturally, Catholics are angered by people who would not consume the Host, stick it in their pocket, and walk away. Obedience to Christ is to "eat," not walk away. It is also viewed as the Living Body of Christ. So, to be so disrespectful as to place it in one's pocket is blasphemous. Satanists, for their black masses, try to obtain a consecrated host, in order to commit vile acts against it (such as ejaculate on it, stab it, mutilate it, etc.). Why would Satanists, clearly opposed to Christianity, treat a mere piece of bread in such a manner, unless they too believed it to be more than bread?
