He ought to. Nowadays, servers mostly just stand there in their street clothes looking bored, so it’s hard to tell the difference between a server and some guy you just met. A diocesan director of worship once told me that they could be one and the same.
You keep saying this.
Yes, I am because people are not getting it.
With all due respect, that is incorrect. I’ve been a EMHC in two different Dioceses (in two different states) and in BOTH parishes I was told by the deacons, nuns, priests and pastors that my duty as a EMHC came SECONDARY to my responsibilities to family, work, etc.
You are right, it is secondary, but the moment you pick up the Eucharist for delievery to a homebound person, then your primary duty is to do that, unless an emergency occurs. Otherwise you should not be volunteering to take it to them.
First off, there is no indication that the EMHC had already picked up the Eucharist. You are again assuming the worst of someone that is giving of their time and money in order to bring the Eucharist to others instead of giving them the benefit of the doubt.
And that is the course of action more and more people are doing – resulting in less and less people volunteering – which results in less and less homebound people receiving the Eucharist less and less frequently. Is that a good desired effect?
We don’t know if she had an emergency that came up. We don’t know if she misunderstood Scoochy’s reply. We don’t know if the EMHC volunteered or if she replied, “Yes, I will serve” when asked by the overworked, ailing pastor. There is a lot that we don’t know. We don’t know if she is trying to take a well deserved break from this thankless ministry. We just don’t know.
Even the priest did not respond to the phone call and email of the OP after 6 days. Yes, there is a lot we do not know about this issue.
She should have returned to the priest who is busy running three parishes? Chances are he would have been unreachable and would not have received her message until the evening or even the following day. As was already pointed out, he didn’t get back to the OP post until almost a week later.
Let me see if I understand this correctly. There is a shortage of EMHCs to begin with to visit the homebound and you are saying that those volunteers should be stretched even thinner by doubling them up? That will serve to reduce even further the amount of people and frequency that they are able to receive our Lord in the Eucharist.
As stated earlier, it protects the Church from lawsuits and it protects people’s safety. More importantly, it serves to protect the Blessed Sacrament from harm and irreverence.
I understand it a whole lot better than you may realize. I’ve been a EMHC for nearly a decade. As a matter of fact, next month will be exactly ten years. I didn’t volunteer for it. I was asked to help out by the Monsignor because there was a shortage. During those nearly ten years I watched our numbers SHRINK instead of grow despite the importance of bringing our Lord to those that wish to receive Him but are unable to come to Church to do so.
We have enough EMHCs for Mass but only one of them is willing to go to the hospital and homes to bring Communion to the sick and shut-ins. I’ve already told the Liturgy Coordinator that I’d be willing to become an EMHC but only for sick calls, not at Mass. I already do sick calls when the pastor is away so adding bringing Communion is not a long reach.
Hmm…
Yes, because no EMHC should be walking around carrying the Eucharist that is not going to someone.
And if this is the case it should have been communicated in some other way than a text message. Like say a phone call.