P
Phemie
Guest
But we don’t know if bringing that person with her is part of her duty. We don’t have that information.
- Status
S
SimonDodd
Guest
Patty, were you just called for jury service? Is that last comment an attempt to get knocked out at voir dire? How can you seriously say that “*t is irrelevent that we heard only one side of the story”?
But alright. Let’s suppose that we’re going to proceed just on the OP’s side of the story. In that case, we are forced to be something of an advocate for the EM, presuming good faith and construing the stipulated facts in a light sympathetic to the person whose story we haven’t heard. Buckle in, this is going to be rough. You clearly sympathize with the OP, but while you “think the EM is oblivious to the anxiety her actions caused, that she never intended for this to happen, that she will be shocked when she learns of it,” it strikes me that the OP is oblivious to her own contribution to the situation. This thread should never have existed, and I suspect that the EM will be shocked if she learned about it, because I suspect her reaction will be: “why didn’t she just call and talk to me?”
We can’t fairly say that the EM created this situation: the OP did. She created it by failing to communicate with her friend the EM (see post #49). I understand that the OP has some issues, but that buys her sympathy, not a free pass, and calling a friend to clear up a misunderstanding is not a big ask. The OP should have picked up the phone and called the EM instead of posting this, and she should be picking up the phone and calling the EM now instead of reading the replies. Did that register? Pick up the phone and start dialing.
Now, to me, what I’ve just said sounds a little harsh and a little presumptuous. But that’s where we have to go if we don’t want to hear the other side of the story. Now don’t you think it would be better to hear the other side of the story? Don’t you think it would be better if we weren’t involved at all, and if two adults—friends, we are told—would just pick up the dang telephone and clarify what is very likely to be a misunderstanding?
Patty, you seem to be stuck in a classroom model—“don’t talk to someone if you have a misunderstanding, just stick up your hand and let teacher take care of it.” That’s terrible advice; it treats grown ups like adults, it treats priests like inexhaustible resources, and it’s not how Christ told us to do dispute resolution.*
But alright. Let’s suppose that we’re going to proceed just on the OP’s side of the story. In that case, we are forced to be something of an advocate for the EM, presuming good faith and construing the stipulated facts in a light sympathetic to the person whose story we haven’t heard. Buckle in, this is going to be rough. You clearly sympathize with the OP, but while you “think the EM is oblivious to the anxiety her actions caused, that she never intended for this to happen, that she will be shocked when she learns of it,” it strikes me that the OP is oblivious to her own contribution to the situation. This thread should never have existed, and I suspect that the EM will be shocked if she learned about it, because I suspect her reaction will be: “why didn’t she just call and talk to me?”
We can’t fairly say that the EM created this situation: the OP did. She created it by failing to communicate with her friend the EM (see post #49). I understand that the OP has some issues, but that buys her sympathy, not a free pass, and calling a friend to clear up a misunderstanding is not a big ask. The OP should have picked up the phone and called the EM instead of posting this, and she should be picking up the phone and calling the EM now instead of reading the replies. Did that register? Pick up the phone and start dialing.
Now, to me, what I’ve just said sounds a little harsh and a little presumptuous. But that’s where we have to go if we don’t want to hear the other side of the story. Now don’t you think it would be better to hear the other side of the story? Don’t you think it would be better if we weren’t involved at all, and if two adults—friends, we are told—would just pick up the dang telephone and clarify what is very likely to be a misunderstanding?
Patty, you seem to be stuck in a classroom model—“don’t talk to someone if you have a misunderstanding, just stick up your hand and let teacher take care of it.” That’s terrible advice; it treats grown ups like adults, it treats priests like inexhaustible resources, and it’s not how Christ told us to do dispute resolution.*
C
CradleCath
Guest
Doesn’t matter. The poster is dealing with an ILLNESS!! She explained this to the EXTRAordinary Eucharistic minister, she needs the healing power of the Eucharist & doesn’t feel up to having a stranger in her home this week.
I’d notify my pastor, maybe he can bring
Communion to you.
S
SimonDodd
Guest
Of course it matters, and for your sake, I hope the day never comes when you are forcibly taught how wrong you are, discovering that after a simple misunderstanding, you’ve been tried and sentenced in absentia because your side of the story didn’t matter. It’s astonishing how so many posters are adept at doublethink, concurrently displaying an excess of empathy for the OP yet none at all for the EM, even to the point of saying that it doesn’t matter that we’ve only heard one side of it. As I said to Patti, I have to hope that you’re not sincere, and are trying to build a case for getting out of jury duty.
That doesn’t buy her a free pass. It gets her consideration, it gets her sympathy, and it gets her lattitude, but it’s not a free pass. I can honestly say that of all the disabled people I’ve met, none have asked to be treated like a child, and most would resent it if you tried.
No, she did not. Not on the facts that we have been told, anyway. She received a text message (which she may have misinterpreted), sent a reply (which may have been misinterpreted), and received a reply (which she may have misinterpreted). No one picked up the phone and spoke to anyone, and big surprise, we have someone bent out of shape over something that we have no particular reason to think is anything other than a misunderstanding.
I sometimes think that SMS is the most pestiferous invention of the last few decades. Almost everything about it has been poisonous, from its effect on language, to its effect on relationships. This thread demonstrates both: the needless and crass abbreviation of “to” to “2” and “you” to “u,” and a communications breakdown between two people who are at least friendly acquaintances if not friends all because neither of them bothered to talk to one another!
Right, because priests have nothing better to do than intervene in bouts of “I’m not talking to her.”
I see a parallel here to the people who want to write to the bishop at the faintest hint of liturgical error or abuse, instead of just talking to the person you have an issue with.
N
Newbie2
Guest
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
Everyone needs to take a deep breath and relax.
This is a complicated issue due to the anixety disorder.
This can make is so the individual can not confront, can not just call, can not do a lot of what you all want them to do.
Unless you have suffered from any form of anxiety disorder it is very hard for you to understand.
Just a text message saying that the EMHC was going to bring a new person over could set off a lot that could not be handled well in any circumstance for this person.
The EMHC should have called and explained why they were bringing the person over.
The first failure in this whole situation was that of the EMHC for not taking into account this illness and realizing what could happen.
I am not placing any blame though as this is a complicated issue.
Scoochy needs to contact who they feel comfortable with. Either call the EMHC and talk it over or if they are uncomfortable with that becasue of the anxiety issue then do call their pastor if they are comfortable with that.
Just find out who this second person is and why they need to come with the EMHC.
No one should be denied communion if they are homebound and refuse to let the EMHC bring someone with them unless, as stated earlier, this is a new policy being instituted that no one can deliever the Eucharist to the homebound alone.
This is a complicated issue due to the anixety disorder.
This can make is so the individual can not confront, can not just call, can not do a lot of what you all want them to do.
Unless you have suffered from any form of anxiety disorder it is very hard for you to understand.
Just a text message saying that the EMHC was going to bring a new person over could set off a lot that could not be handled well in any circumstance for this person.
The EMHC should have called and explained why they were bringing the person over.
The first failure in this whole situation was that of the EMHC for not taking into account this illness and realizing what could happen.
I am not placing any blame though as this is a complicated issue.
Scoochy needs to contact who they feel comfortable with. Either call the EMHC and talk it over or if they are uncomfortable with that becasue of the anxiety issue then do call their pastor if they are comfortable with that.
Just find out who this second person is and why they need to come with the EMHC.
No one should be denied communion if they are homebound and refuse to let the EMHC bring someone with them unless, as stated earlier, this is a new policy being instituted that no one can deliever the Eucharist to the homebound alone.
S
Sir_Knight
Guest
We are talking about her SECONDARY duty to bring the Eucharist to a recipient and one of her PRIMARY duties (bringing along an elderly parent that needs to be watched, etc.) MIGHT be the reason for her not meeting that SECONDARY duty RESULTING IN withholding the Eucharist. We just do not know and given the fact that this lay person IS giving of her time and money in doing this ministry, the benefit of the doubt should be extended to her until such time that additional information proves otherwise.
Having been in this situation myself, I know how easily misunderstandings can happen. I often try to maintain a regular schedule with those that I bring the Eucharist to but that is not always possible. If I can’t make it, I usually call ahead of time and try to reschedule a day or two later. I had one elderly woman who was hard of hearing so she couldn’t speak on the telephone and either her family did not relay the message to her or she just plain forgot because I would call to reschedule and her family would tell me not to worry about it and just come the following week. When I showed up the following week, I got yelled at by her for not being there the previous week. She would even leave messages at my home screaming why I don’t do what I am suppose to do.
I finally informed my pastor that my best efforts were still leaving her upset and that it would be best for all concerned if someone else took over bringing her communion. Unfortunately, we are a large parish with over 3000+ families and the new person assigned to her is able to make it out to her only once a month instead of weekly like I did.
S
Sir_Knight
Guest
And there is no indication that the EMHC is aware of this illness or, even if she was, has the proper training or experience to fully understand it. She is a volunteer EMHC – not a trained mental health care professional.
And maybe this EMHC feels more comfortable in having someone with her for whatever reason. No volunteer EMHC should be forced to do something that they are uncomfortable with either.
S
SimonDodd
Guest
Who’s talking about confrontation? Just pick up the phone and talk to the person! And if you can’t do it yourself, call a friend and have them do so.
And the EMHC is supposed to know this? The EMHC did know this?
You’re assuming that the EMHC was familiar with the needs of this person, both generally and specifically. (It does not follow that if you know someone has anxiety problems that you will be able to extrapolate an unseen reaction to given stimuli). That would be part their side of the story—irrelevant, according to some posters above.
Maybe the EMHC doesn’t feel safe being alone with the OP because this post isn’t an isolated incident, and the OP has a history of misinterpreting EMHC actions and words? That would also be part their side of the story—irrelevant, according to some posters above.
I fully agree. The EMHC should have called, but when they didn’t, and when the situation seemed thorny, the OP should have called the EMHC.
It’s impossible to understand why an EMHC, who I’m sure has nothing but good intentions, is being sandbagged by people who not only don’t know the other side of the story, but disclaim any interest in knowing the other side of the story.
I wouldn’t blame the EMHC if they never helped this person again if this is the kind of treatment they get. It’s laudable that people are sympathetic to someone with a disability, but that shouldn’t mean suspending all critical faculty, and the response here from some posters has been to try the EMHC in absentia, without any idea what’s going on besides the OP’s version of events, and hang a doubtless well-meaning volunteer from the yardarm. Quick, fetch a rope, we can solve this pesky “people volunteering to help” problem. 
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
There is just a very basic misunderstanding of anxiety disorders here.
I suggest that those interested in continuing to discuss this do a simple google search and learn about it.
This person is on disability becasue of their anxiety disorder, so it is something that is very debilitating.
Maybe the EMHC does not know about it and must be educated and informed about it.
Scoochy must inform her priest of this.
A simple phone call as you put it can be seen and felt as confrontation by someone with a severe (or not all that severe) anxiety disorder. Even calling a friend can be hard to do.
I suggest that those interested in continuing to discuss this do a simple google search and learn about it.
This person is on disability becasue of their anxiety disorder, so it is something that is very debilitating.
Maybe the EMHC does not know about it and must be educated and informed about it.
Scoochy must inform her priest of this.
A simple phone call as you put it can be seen and felt as confrontation by someone with a severe (or not all that severe) anxiety disorder. Even calling a friend can be hard to do.
B
Beachcomber
Guest
This is why I’m not a fan of texting as a primary means of communication. This is a situation where it would have been a whole lot better to discuss on the phone. The EM’s reply is ambiguous. It could mean that the other person wasn’t going to show up until next week; or, (worse case scenario), EM was not coming at all to give communion. Actually talking could have worked it out.
R
Redbaron998
Guest
Her actions were absurdity of the highest order, being a EM is not some fun little trip. It is a sacred duty given by God to carry his own Son to his faithful. Priest should be contacted directly.
J
Joannm
Guest
This thread is getting totally absurd. There are many legitimate reasons why the EM could not come alone or why she was bringing someone. The EM herself could have come down with a condition, an illness that will soon require her to give up her position. The poster could have been giving her problems and she didn’t want to be alone. We have had people who were homebound make so many demands of EMs that people lasted at most 2 weeks with those people. We had one that no one wanted to visit and the preist could only make it there once a month, so the person had to do without. Let’s so some charity toward a person who is not here to defend herself.
J
jmcrae
Guest
I agree. She should not be expected to know things she isn’t being told.
Maybe the EMHC also suffers from a milder form of anxiety, and wanted to bring a friend with her to feel more at ease around strangers when she brings them the Eucharist, and also to assist her with any communication problems she has, as well.
N
Newbie2
Guest
With all due respect to the charitable answers given here, most of it is speculation.
Forget the Speculation.
What to do?
Either the OP should phone the EMHC and discuss it or contact the priest.
Problem solved.
Forget the Speculation.
What to do?
Either the OP should phone the EMHC and discuss it or contact the priest.
Problem solved.
S
Sir_Knight
Guest
How so?
The fact that she is freely giving of her time & money to participate in this ministry is a good indication that she is even better aware of this than those who only watch from the sidelines.
A priest who has three parishes to pastor over should take his time away from more pressing matters before any attempt is made to clear up the misunderstanding? I don’t think so. As was already pointed out, scripture teaches us how to act in situations like this. We are to first discuss it with the individual and then and only then, if that didn’t work, we are to bring the matter before the Church.
Z
zab
Guest
Everything that I wanted to say has already be said. I have nothing more to add. I just want to say -Thank you, Sir Knight, SimonDodd, Newbie2, jmcrae, and Joannm for your defense of the EMHC. We do not have enough facts to make any negative judgement or to be able to answer the OP’s question.
S
Sir_Knight
Guest
Why “must” she be educated? She isn’t a mental health care professional. Her ministry is to bring Communion to the homebound as long as it does not interfere with her primary duties.
She must further burden a priest who has three parishes to worry about over a matter that she should, according to the teachings of Christ (see Matthew 18:15-15), first attempt to resolve herself? I don’t think so.
And being complained about for her services, the EMHC may feel slighted/hurt and may request that some one else minister to her and if no one else is available … what do you think will happen with her regular Communion visits?
As I said above, I went through a very similar experience. I bring Communion to the homebound and the elderly who can not come to Church. I try to maintain a regular schedule with those that I bring the Eucharist to but that is not always possible. If I can’t make it, I usually call ahead of time and try to reschedule a day or two later.
I had one elderly woman who was hard of hearing so she couldn’t speak on the telephone and either her family did not relay the message to her or she just plain forgot because I would call to reschedule and her family would tell me not to worry about it and just come the following week. When I showed up the following week, I got yelled at by her for not being there the previous week. She would even leave messages at my home screaming why I don’t do what I am suppose to do.
If my best efforts are upsetting her, it is then best for all concerned if I stop ministering to her and that is what I told my pastor. Another EMHC was assigned to her but due to the size of our parish this new EMHC is able to visit her monthly instead of weekly as I was doing.
S
Spirithound
Guest
Really? Servers serve at Mass. Do you really think an altar server is going to come with the EMHC to hold out a paten? I am really surprised with how little information is given here. If the 3rd person had an official role to play, I would have expected the EMHC to identify him as such. Same if he’s a family member, or someone to whom she has an ongoing obligation. Regardless of whether the EMHC knows about Scoochy’s illness, it is so common in our speech to minimize the shock of a person who we are bringing along, who was not in the original plans; “I couldn’t get a babysitter, can I bring my son?” “Can I bring my father?” “Can I bring someone to read a Bible passage so we can have a little prayer time before you receive Communion?”
S
Sir_Knight
Guest
Maybe all of that would have been too lengthy to type in a text message.
- Status