Priest throws a hissy over "wafer"

So, the Worcester, Massachusettes Telegram does a story about how the local Catholic church is dealing with concerns about swine flu, and they use the terms "communion wafer" and "wine" to describe the components of the communion ritual.  A priest writes a letter to the editor to complain.  Here's the funny part:

Second, the Roman Catholic Church doesn’t now, nor has it ever offered a wafer and wine as Communion. We do offer the body and blood of Jesus Christ, which in John’s gospel he proclaims to be our source of life in Him. To refer to the Eucharist as a wafer and wine is to demean the value of this sacrament, seemingly equating it to an evening snack.

Ok, this is really getting ridiculous.  Here's the explanation of transubstantiation from catholicapologetics.org:

Transubstantiation reflects Roman Catholic faith in the literalness of the words of the Bible.  Jesus (omnipotent God) said: "This is my body; this is my blood." And again Jesus said: "I am the bread of life;" "My flesh is true food; my blood is true drink;" "He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood ...;" etc.  Roman Catholics take Jesus at His word: the bread is his body; the wine is his blood.  From the Apostles at the Last Supper until today, the bread and wine of Eucharist looks and feels and tastes like bread and wine in the eating and drinking.  Similar to all of God's Word, faith is essential. Faith in what? In the words of Jesus even though the bread does not look, feel, taste like flesh; even though the wine does not look, feel, taste like blood.

Ok, three things:

1. NOBODY really has faith in "the literalness of the words of the Bible."  If they say they do, they're either lying or delusional.  It's not possible to take the Bible literally; it's both self-contradictory and completely at odds with observation.  If you're going to take this literally, then you'd better be prepared to believe a whole lot of (other) really bizarre stuff that goes along with it, and I know for a fact that you don't.
2. It depends on what your definition of "is" is.  Do Catholics really reject the possibility that Jesus (assuming for the sake of argument that he actually existed AND said any such thing) was speaking metaphorically?  This is a classic case of missing the forest for the trees.
3. Do you mean to tell me that if I visited a factory that produces these communion "items", that I would find boxes labeled "Twenty dozen cartons of individual pieces of the flesh of Jesus Christ"?

Believe what you want, I guess, but don't expect everyone else to automatically accept it as true.  Get a grip.