CathInfo.com

That presumes that such catering to special needs is legitimate. I honestly don't know, not having studied this in a professional manner.

.
Well, the general principle is that Catholics (well disposed, of course) have a right to sacraments.  Sacraments are often offered as a "special need," e.g. when a priest travels a hundred miles to give last rites.  Thing is, that happens outside of mass and no one sees it, so it isn't a spectacle.  Another example, again less spectacular, are the elderly who cannot kneel for Holy Communion.  I am tempted to think that catering to "special needs" is not just legitimate, but that priests are generally bound to do so. It should be done, when it can be done, with little spectacle.  But even if it can only be done with "spectacle" it should be done.  Well disposed Catholics, even celiacs, have a right to the sacraments, a right which definitely transcends the sensitivities of those who seek scandal in Holy things.
.
I knew some people who were not celicas, but who (I think) were very close to being celiacs.  To my knowledge they did not receive any special Host, nor did they receive a "Chip", but if I recall correctly they had to drink copius amounts of water soon after receiving Holy Communion and even at that it made them quite uncomfortable.  I think.

NEIL OBSTAT,
I was researching and found this can you explain it to me. Doesn't it mean what it says ? COUNCIL of TRENT, SESSION 13 CANON 4   " If anyone shall say that in the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, the substance of the bread and wine remains, together with the Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ," Let Him BE ANATHEMA ."

The key word here is "substance". A substance is what a thing is, accidents are how a thing is perceived by the senses. In Catholic theology, none of the substance of the bread remains after the consecration. While it looks like bread, in no way can a Catholic say that it "is" bread.
There were other views on the Eucharist that said Christ's body and blood was present along with the bread. These views rejected transubstantiation, but not always the Real Presence. The Lollards in England (associated with Wycliffe) had a view that is sometimes called "consubstantiation" (both present). Martin Luther had a similar view (though Lutherans say consubstantiation does not reflect exactly what he thought.) There was also a view called "impanation" that viewed the Eucharist as analogous to the Incarnation. The formulation of Trent says these other views are heresy.

.

NEIL OBSTAT,
I was researching and found this can you explain it to me. Doesn't it mean what it says ? COUNCIL of TRENT, SESSION 13 CANON 4   " If anyone shall say that in the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, the substance of the bread and wine remains, together with the Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ," Let Him BE ANATHEMA ."

.

STANLEY N ,
My point was getting back to gluten in the bread, the bread and wine are no longer bread and wine after the Consecration. I still don't know why if its been changed the substance ,how can someone have an intolerance to it. Could it possibly be in their mind , Thinking about the Eucharist being made out of Bread ?

.
The Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation teaches us that the substance of the host becomes the substance of Our Lord, however, it does not teach us that the look, smell, feel, magnetic field, appearance, density, taste, hardness, alkalinity, radioactivity, weight, color, texture, mass spectrometer readings or chemical potential of the host is any different that what it was before it became the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ. If you take a consecrated host, for example, and hold it over a burning candle, you can fully expect it to catch fire. Does that mean that Jesus Christ is inflammable? If the host had gluten in it before the consecration, the host continues to have gluten after the consecration; the only difference is that the gluten has mysteriously become the Real Presence of Jesus, in every way, even though there is nothing we can do with material instruments or our 5 senses to ascertain that Real Presence -- it's a matter of faith.
.
To say that the gluten is this part over here, and Jesus is that part over there, and these two parts are together in the same host but separated somehow, is not transubstantiation, it's consubstatiation, which the Lutherans hold, which is why they're heretics (among other reasons too).
.
I have no idea whether some people have a gluten intolerance because of how they think about what they eat. Nor do I know if anyone with a gluten intolerance has no physical reaction to consuming a consecrated host with gluten in it. Maybe there is someone like that. If there is anyone who can't tolerate gluten EXCEPT when receiving Holy Communion, then that would be a situation that can't be explained by scientific examination.
.
That would be the same science that cannot measure or observe any physical change in the host after it's consecrated.