(2nd request) Why was I denied Holy Communion by an E.M.?

[SimonDodd]

Why speculate on the reasons the EM said she was bringing a second person or why, upon learning that you didn’t want this, she didn’t just bring the Eucharist to you, as is her duty, her ministry.

Indeed: why speculate when you could just ask them? As easy as it is for misunderstandings to arise in written media without the benefit of verbal cues, it is all the more so in a medium like SMS, where technology pushes painfully brief messages and culture pushes from from brevity to terseness. I’ve seen this time and again: people (typically young people) getting bent out of shape because they misjudged the tone of a text message.

I would not call or text the individual further, as this is likely to elevate any existing misunderstanding. Call your priest, tell him the Eucharist was not brought to you, tell him about the message you received and your response. Let the priest take it from there, to arrange for the Eucharist to be brought to you at the earliest possible time, to investigate the reason why the Eucharist was withheld, and to take whatever steps are necessary to ensure this never happens again to you or any other member of your parish.

This is terrible advice. Don’t do this. There was a misunderstanding; assume good faith, call the person, and straighten it out. If you can’t straighten it out, then get third parties involved.

And if you won’t take it from me, take it from Mt 18:15. “If your [EMHC] sins against you, go and tell [her her] fault, between you and [her] alone.” Only if that fails (and even here, you’re skipping a step, albeit because the situation demands) should it be taken to the church.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I agree. Perhaps she is thinking of retiring from this ministry and is brining along the person who will take her place. Or maybe she is going on vacation and wants someone to keep bringing you communion and wants you to get comfortable with the person while she is still here. Perhaps, and I have heard that some parishes do this, they don’t want people going alone to someone’s home, to protect both the homebound person and the EMHC. I would call the EMHC and find out why she is bringing another person. The OP might have misunderstood the text message (that is one reason why I don’t text)

Not even retiring, but the EMHC can’t possibly be available 52-53 Sundays a year. There will be vacations, sick time, family stuff, etc. I know we’re speculating here but its the best reason I can think of why a second person needs to be introduced. And I agree with Newbie2, there needs to be more information here as we don’t know the entire situation to be making conclusions, much less judgments.

 

[PattiDay]

Indeed: why speculate when you could just ask them? As easy as it is for misunderstandings to arise in written media without the benefit of verbal cues, it is all the more so in a medium like SMS, where technology pushes painfully brief messages and culture pushes from from brevity to terseness. I’ve seen this time and again: people (typically young people) getting bent out of shape because they misjudged the tone of a text message.

This is terrible advice. Don’t do this. There was a misunderstanding; assume good faith, call the person, and straighten it out. If you can’t straighten it out, then get third parties involved.

And if you won’t take it from me, take it from Mt 18:15. “If your [EMHC] sins against you, go and tell [her her] fault, between you and [her] alone.” Only if that fails (and even here, you’re skipping a step, albeit because the situation demands) should it be taken to the church.

In a perfect world the OP would have called the EM. They would have exchanged information and both would have understood the other. They would have come to agreement, and that would be that. However, the post states that the OP felt anxious and upset. A second exchange led to more anxiety. Would you then send the anxious and upset person back a third time in hope that they could “straighten it out” by telephone? As you look through this post, you read responses of (as you state) people getting bent out of shape because they misjudged the tone of a text message (or in this case the tone or content of a longer posting).

The parish priest would be able to handle this calmly and dispassionately and correct any misunderstanding on either side. I’m as interested in having the EM understand how to carry out her ministry properly, which does not include a decision not to take the Holy Eucharist to the homebound person, as I am to have the OP feel restored to calm.

You quoted Mt 18:15. If this were a sin I agree that it would be best handled by the three-step process 1) privately confront the sinner, 2) address the sin before a circle of witnesses, and 3) bring the matter before the Church. In this case, I don’t see an intentional sin, but poor or incomplete communication, and an error in decision making on the part of the EM. This could be a valuable teaching moment for that particular EM, but wouldn’t that instruction best come from the parish priest rather than the OP?

 

[Newbie2]

The parish priest would be able to handle this calmly and dispassionately and correct any misunderstanding on either side.

Yes, he could. But we’re talking about adults, not children here. Personally, I’d go nuts if I were a priest and had to handle all such situations. But that’s just me…and probably good that I’m **not **a priest.

Perhaps any priests on the CAF would care to chime in about this matter

 

[Sir_Knight]

Why speculate on the reasons the EM said she was bringing a second person or why, upon learning that you didn’t want this, she didn’t just bring the Eucharist to you, as is her duty, her ministry.

I was a EMHC in two different parishes in two different Dioceses and both times I was told that our duty to family, work, etc.; comes BEFORE our ministry of bringing the Eucharist. It was explained that this even applies to deacons unless they are transitional deacons.

 

[PattiDay]

I was a EMHC in two different parishes in two different Dioceses and both times I was told that our duty to family, work, etc.; comes BEFORE our ministry of bringing the Eucharist. It was explained that this even applies to deacons unless they are transitional deacons.

With all due respect, I don’t see that this has any relevance to this particular post. I see no evidence in the information in this post that the EM’s family or work would have suffered if she attended to her ministry.

 

[Spirithound]

I think you and others are rashly judging this woman.

I think it more likely that by “maybe we need 2 wait till next week so u can think about it.”, she meant that she will hold off bringing the new person around for a week out of consideration for Scoochy’s feelings. **NOT **that she would refuse to bring him Communion this week! Come on, do you really think it’s likely that any EMHC would say or do that?

I read the OP to have already happened, past tense, as in the scheduled meeting where Scoochy was going to receive Holy Communion had already passed, without the EMHC coming.

 

[Trishie]

Hi,
I’m sympathetic of your difficulties, and hope they can be resolved.

Do consider that there is another side to the story. The person who brings Communion to you is a generous volunteer. Due to circumstances in her life and pressures you don’t know, she may no longer be able to volunteer, and your situation adds to her pressure as she means well but needs to withdraw. I’ve had to withdraw from ministries, and it is stressful to do so, but can also be overwhelmingly stressful not to.

She has done the right thing in contacting you to ask permission to bring in another person, and it is kind of her to wish to help you adjust by bringing the person with her so you can make some sort of acquaintance with the new person before she leaves you to the care of that person.

Whatever our situation, it is always kind to consider the other person’s needs also. Whatever our circumstances we must always also consider others, you know. Jesus requires this of us when He commands us to “Love others as you love yourself.”

Every person has problems in their lives. We mightn’t know about the problems, and they mightn’t show on the surface, we mightn’t understand them even if we did know them, but they can be overwhelming.

God bless you and may God empower you to live more fully and more alive, even with your disability. My husband also is on disability, so I don’t speak without some understanding.

 

[FrCorey]

They were wrong. contact your priest and tell them about what happened. if another person would stress you out. they should have come alone to perform thier duties. they are there to serve you.
this minister needs to be reminded of this.

 

[Joannm]

They were wrong. contact your priest and tell them about what happened. if another person would stress you out. they should have come alone to perform thier duties. they are there to serve you.
this minister needs to be reminded of this.

To be fair, we only heard one side of the story.

 

[Trishie]

To be fair, we only heard one side of the story.

That was my thought also.

And the person didn’t say she wasn’t coming, but only that she was bringing another person along with her, as you rightly do if you are acquainting the recipient with a possible replacement. It is a fact a courtesy not to simply dump a recipient with a new person.

The lay volunteer hasn’t made a solemn vow to serve but is serving from goodness of her heart at cost to herself. It is not easy to be a minister of the Eucharist to the housebound as people’s expectations can be high and you may have limited time available.

People’s circumstances change but they aren’t obliged to divulge private information to others. The OP’s resistence may have been an added stress to an already stretched situation. The OP also has stresses and anxieties and the lay minister is doubtless aware of this with stress of her own in relation to this. I certainly would be stressed if circumstances demanded that I had responsibilities that overode this particular charitable volunteer work, or quite justly I was obliged to be away for work, to assist family, or a much delayed necessary vacation.

At the time of posting this thread, the recipient hadn’t taken the lay minister’s possible situation into consideration as yet, due to the natural hurt caused by personal emotional issues…but probably by now has generously done so.

Please God all will be resolved to everyone’s best intersts and the OP will have happy access to weekly Communion

 

[sojo]

Sorry, but I have a more experience with PTSD, anxiety and mental illness than I would ever wish on anybody. My first thought was that this poor volunteer was just trying to break in a new alternate to give her some relief with bringing the Eucharist to someone that was already stressing her to the point of breaking. Admittedly, I’m reading a lot into it, but if it were me…

So report her, sanction her, and a whole lot of folks are going to be deprived of this particular volunteer. And when word gets around, you can bet there’s not going to be a line around the block of folks willing to donate time and gas to bring the Eucharist to the homebound.

An, “OK, but I’m scared but I know you will be there with this stranger” would have been sufficient.

Its hard enough to work with the mentally ill as a paid worker, but to volunteer one’s time and then be abused because maybe you just need some help in the endeavor? Jeez… I’m sure the poor Priest will be thrilled to death to deal with this.

 

[jmj603]

They were wrong. contact your priest and tell them about what happened. if another person would stress you out. they should have come alone to perform thier duties. they are there to serve you.
this minister needs to be reminded of this.

Frankly, it seems imprudent for any Church minister to be alone with anyone in private, especially these days, and especially with someone who has emotional issues.

I might go alone, but if someone told me I had to go alone, I wouldn’t go.

When there are no 3rd party witnesses, it is so easy for one party to say … anything … about what transpired.

 

[Trishie]

Scoochy

P.S.: I posted this as a “New Thread” earlier today, but never have received a response from you yet.

I understand that it would have been stressful not to have heard from anyone at that time, and you would have felt further isolated.

I checked the Statistics on your Profile, but another thread regarding this subject doesn’t show up on the list of the other three threads you’ve posted. It may not have lodged properly, and therefore no one was aware of your question prior to the current thread. Hopefully this reassures you that folks were neglecting you.

God’s kindest blessings to you.

 

[laszlo]

Unless the sentence ‘I believe that laywomen should be severely punished’ is a mis-typing for ‘I believe that laywoman…’ (i.e. that particular one in the OP), alarm-bells are ringing louder than an oldfashioned fire engine.

lazlo, please explain. Did you really mean to say that laywomen, as opposed to lay people, should be treated so severely? And potentially unjustly, I could add, until we know the whole story. Would it have made any difference if the EMHC had been a man, and if so, why?

Naturally the plural was mistype. The principle is that no lay person can act by herself related to the sacraments. If the proposal to bring someone else was rejected, the answer should be to discuss the case with the pastor, and let him make the decision.

 

[jmj603]

The principle is that no lay person can act by herself related to the sacraments.

That’s false. The minister is individually bound in conscience to obey the laws of God and of His Church (including Canon 915). Obedience to the pastor is part of this, but it is not the only part.

 

[Spirithound]

That’s false. The minister is individually bound in conscience to obey the laws of God and of His Church (including Canon 915). Obedience to the pastor is part of this, but it is not the only part.

Is there a law of the Church mandating a second minister present?

 

[jmj603]

Is there a law of the Church mandating a second minister present?

The preferred rite involves a priest with servers.

There is no provision for the communicant himself to choose to choose a lesser solemnity.

 

[vinfdz]

dear scoochy,

first i would like to correct the usage of Eucharistic minister , they are known as the extraordinary ministers of the holy communion. Even i Had some troubles with the ministers, may be you let the diocese know or parish priest know what is happening or strong catholic who knows the law of the church. Yet your desire to receive the lord is sufficient for the your guardian angel is watching and he will do the rest.

thanks again.

P.S.: I posted this as a “New Thread” earlier today, but never have received a response from you yet.

 

[Elizium23]

Is there a law of the Church mandating a second minister present?

In certain circumstances, yes, by following the Safe Environment regulations in my diocese.

Adults are not to be alone with minors or “vulnerable adults” in most circumstances, not in a car or in a private room or home. (There are exceptions for sacramental confessions and other ministry work.) The term “vulnerable adult” is unfortunately not defined in the policy. But it could include people with intellectual or mental disabilities that would interfere with their ability to discern inappropriate behavior.

So the regulations may require that a second adult, not necessarily a second minister, must be present for EMHCs in private homes if this did not fall under the exception for ministries.