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

[SimonDodd]

And if this is the case it should have been communicated in some other way than a text message. Like say a phone call.

I love that you continue to blame the EMHC for texting instead of calling, apparently oblivious that while the EMHC can be faulted for doing so, she certainly is no more at fault in that regard than the OP, who did exactly the same thing, and is arguably less at fault than the OP, since the latter was the one who had the problem with it and needed a more detailed communication. A simple thought experiment will illustrate why that might be so: imagine that the EMHC had texted to say that she was on her way but needed to bring someone with her. If the OP had been fine with that, and had texted back “OK,” the EMHC couldn’t possibly be faulted for using a text message. We have no reason to suppose that the EMHC had any grounds to anticipate the need for anything other than notification; the onus was on the OP as the person raising concerns to call the EMHC. The problem began when the OP had concerns and texted back instead of calling, was compounded by the EMHC’s failure to pick up the phone on receiving that message, and compounded further by the OP’s decision to call her sick, overworked priest instead of just calling the EMHC.

The worst thing I heard this weekend was a woman I know who is an EMHC in another parish saying that when they bring Communion next Sunday they will dress up for Halloween to do so because the sick people 'Will really enjoy that." Assuming they aren’t planning to come to Mass in costume it means they will return home to change, bringing the Blessed Sacrament with them, instead of going directly to the sick beds.

I’d say there’s a bigger problem here than their taking a detour to change clothes.

Hmm. wondering if perhaps the EMHC that was bringing communion was “quitting” and bringing a replacement. Wouldn’t be very nice to have a stranger show up to deliver communion to a person with such a disorder

You’re implying that there may be facts we’re not aware of? That there may have been, like, some reasonable explanation other than a high-handedly imperious EMHC? That perhaps, I don’t know, people here are jumping to conclusions about the EMHC without hearing her side of the story? Dat’s craaaaaazy talk!

Remember, accordingly to PattiDay and CradleCath (explicitly) and many other commenters (implicitly), it’s “irrelevent that we heard only one side of the story.” It just “doesn’t matter.” The evidence before the court is incontrovertible; there’s no need for the jury to retire…In all my years of judging I have never heard before, of someone more deserving of the full penalty of the law!

As Sojo said above (post #32), go ahead: “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.”

And all this despite the fact that the EMHC did her job, so far as we can tell. BaltoBetsy’s first comment was that the EMHC’s job is to distribute the Eucharist, not "manage [homebound comunicants’] anxiety and try to get [them] over it. We’re told that the EMHC was all set to bring the Eucharist to the OP, but the OP told her to take a hike. Maybe with good reason; maybe not. Who can tell on the basis of what we’ve been told? But either way, the upshot is that she denied herself the Eucharist. If you show up to a papal Mass, and you stand in front of the Holy Father with your hands outstretched, refusing to receive kneeling and on the tongue, who really denied you the Eucharist—him, or you?

I realize that I may sound as if I’m unsympathetic to the OP. I’m not. I’m just frustrated and angry with the way some of you are treating the EMHC and the priest. It’s possible that the EMHC may be the bad guy here, and the OP just a saintly lady hard done by, but too many people here are too ready to conclude that this is the case on a record that is fragmentary and one-sided. Thusfar, she seems more sinned against than sinning.

 

[jmcrae]

The worst thing I heard this weekend was a woman I know who is an EMHC in another parish saying that when they bring Communion next Sunday they will dress up for Halloween to do so because the sick people 'Will really enjoy that."

Yikes!

Assuming they aren’t planning to come to Mass in costume it means they will return home to change, bringing the Blessed Sacrament with them, instead of going directly to the sick beds.

Bad enough - and those who are near death, and those with anxiety issues, will think they’ve been possessed by the Devil.

What in the wee man would give someone the idea that the home-bound are interested in seeing EMHCs in Hallowe’en costumes?! Leave that for the kids - please!

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I love that you continue to blame the EMHC for texting instead of calling, apparently oblivious that while the EMHC can be faulted for doing so, she certainly is no more at fault in that regard than the OP, who did exactly the same thing, and is arguably less at fault than the OP, since the latter was the one who had the problem with it and needed a more detailed communication.

No blaming coming from me. I am sorry that you judge it so though.

Texting should not have been used by either side. It should have never been started.

It is most likely the easiest way for the person with an anxiety disorder to communicate but it leads to issues as we see here.

 

[zab]

Yes, because no EMHC should be walking around carrying the Eucharist that is not going to someone.

Also, was it stated that the priest for this homebound woman’s parish has three of them?

We don’t know that she had extra Hosts. It is likely that she was making her calls (text in this case) before she picked up the Hosts so she would know how many she needed that week.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

We don’t know that she had extra Hosts. It is likely that she was making her calls (text in this case) before she picked up the Hosts so she would know how many she needed that week.

Could be.

But I am sure that if one is assigned to take communion to the homebound and one is skipped for some reason then the parish should have some sort of plan in place for this to be known by those who need to know it.

There is just so much we do not know about this story and so much that people do not know about anxiety disorders that this thread is really useless.

Scoochy needs to get in touch with this EMHC and work out something so this does not happen. If she can not do so becuase of her disorder then she needs to contact those people that she can so that this can be resolved and not happen in the future.

I think thats the last I will say on this.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Yes, because no EMHC should be walking around carrying the Eucharist that is not going to someone.

I was always told to bring a few extra in case there are other people who want to receive. The reason being that it is better to have more that are not needed and return them to the tabernacle then to not have enough and either deny the Eucharist to someone and having to start breaking the host and risk possible small particles falling off.

Also, was it stated that the priest for this homebound woman’s parish has three of them?

That is what was said …

My parish Priest has many health difficulties, also; worse than mine.
I left a message on his answering machine & on email. No response yet after 6 days.
He’s trying to care for three different parishes

… Overburdening an already overworked priest who has worse health problems than the OP is not a wise or charitable thing to do especially if no attempt is made to resolve it by themselves.

 

[Sir_Knight]

But I am sure that if one is assigned to take communion to the homebound and one is skipped for some reason then the parish should have some sort of plan in place for this to be known by those who need to know it.

Well, as I said above, I just bring any extras back to the tabernacle.

 

[SimonDodd]

No blaming coming from me.

You’ve said that before, but the tenor of your posts is otherwise. You criticize and/or blame on the EMHC in posts #99, #90, #84, #66, and to some extent, #70. More broadly, everything you have said has carried a tone of total sympathy and empathy for the OP and, unconscionably, none at all for the EMHC.

Texting should not have been used by either side. It should have never been started.

I tend to agree, but most people take a more moderate stance on texting than I do, and even I would be hard-pushed to say that the initial contact by the EMHC was inappropriate. You’ve failed to engage in the thought experiment that I suggested: if the EMHC had no reason to think there would be a problem, and if the OP had in fact been fine with it, most people—most people don’t share my visceral dislike for texting in any circumstances—would think that a text message notifying the OP that the EMHC was en route would have been an acceptable alternative to calling. As it turned out, the OP wasn’t fine with it, but ex ante information can’t bootstrap a criticism of the original decision; you can only criticize the EMHC’s decision to text if you assume (or have some basis for concluding) that she knew or had reason to know that there might be a problem, neither of which is tenable on the facts presented. And so we’re back to a point that you have to concede: the first dubious text was cast by the OP.

As we’ve just seen, the claim that the EMHC’s first text was misjudged is frivolous—you can’t defend that claim. You can criticize the OP for failing to call immediately, and the EMHC for failing to call when it became apparent that a situation had developed. But that is quite different to your original point, which leaps off the face of post #70, that the OP has a legitimate grievance with an potentially ignorant EMHC that must be taken up with her priest. You can’t say that. You have to concede the possibility of mutual fault on the facts presented, and since we’ve only heard one side of it, you must also concede that there’s a possibility that the fault was lopsided against the person with whom your sympathies lie.

It is most likely the easiest way for the person with an anxiety disorder to communicate but it leads to issues as we see here.

Here you seem to concede that the EMHC may actually have been trying to help, but you can’t give that much away with the left hand without taking something else away with the right (“she was well meaning” but “she should have known better”). And again, your assumption is that the EMHC knew the condition of the OP, both generally and particularly. The EMHC may or may not have been aware of the OP’s condition as a general matter, in more or less specific detail, but anxiety sufferers have better days and worse days, and she certainly can’t have known the OP’s particular state of mind at the time; that information wasn’t available to her until after she had texted. Which brings us back to the point made above, which is that at most, you can tentatively conclude mutual fault, and even then, in a situation like this, you have to be open to hearing the other side of the story, and sympathetic to the person not represented in their absence.

 

[Sir_Knight]

And if this is the case it should have been communicated in some other way than a text message. Like say a phone call.

Unless the existing protocol that the two of them established between themselves was to text each other.

 

[Dandelion_Wine]

I’m on disability and homebound. Therefore, I rarely get to attend Holy Mass.
I’ve had many stressors since March, 2010, which cause me to feel more anxiety than usual.
Wednesday, 20OCT2010, the EM (Eucharistic Minister) sent to me a text message which said that she was going to bring with her a stranger; a new person in this Church who I don’t know. I told her that my anxiety was bad to the point of having an anxiety attack from the thought of meeting someone new. Her response: “…maybe we need 2 wait till next week so u can think about it.”
At this time I’m in need of God’s Saving Grace more than usual; how can this EM deny me the receipt of Jesus Christ?
Thank you.

Scoochy

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

Why don’t you ask her Scoochy instead of us? I mean for crying out loud, you’re communicating via text messages!! By what little you told us, maybe she took your message that another time would be better for you because you were on the cusp of any anxiety attack. I hate to be rough but it sounds like you’re over-reacting and playing the victim card here.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

You’ve said that before, but the tenor of your posts is otherwise. You criticize and/or blame on the EMHC in posts #99, #90, #84, #66, and to some extent, #70. More broadly, everything you have said has carried a tone of total sympathy and empathy for the OP and, unconscionably, none at all for the EMHC.

I apologize that you see it that way.

I see more crticizing the homebound person and a great misunderstanding of anxiety disorders so maybe I was over compesating for that.

But again, I apologize for your preception.

Now for sure, this has been my last post on this issue as there is nothing that can be done at this site to fix this situation. All that can be done is to make it worse.

 

[Spirithound]

And all this despite the fact that the EMHC did her job, so far as we can tell. BaltoBetsy’s first comment was that the EMHC’s job is to distribute the Eucharist, not "manage [homebound comunicants’] anxiety and try to get [them] over it.

Betsy was making reference to a technique of overcoming anxiety by facing it head-on. Let’s look again at what Betsy said:

It’s not up to the EM to manage your anxiety and try to get you over it. It is her job to bring you the Eucharist. Period.

Call the parish and speak to the priest. He will make sure someone sets her straight and that you receive Communion.

"SimonDodd:

We’re told that the EMHC was all set to bring the Eucharist to the OP, but the OP told her to take a hike.

No, let’s take another look at the OP:

I told her that my anxiety was bad to the point of having an anxiety attack from the thought of meeting someone new. Her response: “…maybe we need 2 wait till next week so u can think about it.”

Scoochy told the 3rd person to take a hike. “So u can think about it” is a very condescending thing to say. It is not something you say when your legitimate request has been refused. If the EMHC was bound to any legitimate commitment such as an elderly parent or a young child, or serving the community in pairs for responsible ministry, this situation ought to be reported to the pastor so that alternatives can be explored (and please note that I am assuming the EMHC’s innocence here. It goes to the pastor because reception of the sacraments is his responsibility, and the OP would be considered a “problem case”); you don’t “wait till next week so u can think about it”. She sounds very much like she is trying to play psychologist.

 

[Joannm]

Betsy was making reference to a technique of overcoming anxiety by facing it head-on. Let’s look again at what Betsy said:

No, let’s take another look at the OP:

Scoochy told the 3rd person to take a hike. “So u can think about it” is a very condescending thing to say. It is not something you say when your legitimate request has been refused. If the EMHC was bound to any legitimate commitment such as an elderly parent or a young child, or serving the community in pairs for responsible ministry, this situation ought to be reported to the pastor so that alternatives can be explored (and please note that I am assuming the EMHC’s innocence here. It goes to the pastor because reception of the sacraments is his responsibility, and the OP would be considered a “problem case”); you don’t “wait till next week so u can think about it”. She sounds very much like she is trying to play psychologist.

it sound to me that “so you can think about it” could mean that she was givng the homebound person time to think about a new person coming along, which might be the way it is going to be from now on.

With regarding to texting and not making a phone call…there is also phone anxiety. I know because I had it. I could not make a phone call unless it was to a family member or someone I knew well. It took me wll into adulthood to get over it. I still procrastinate about making phone calls, that is why I love the computer (I don’t text though). So maybe the OP or the EM has a phone phobia. The problem with e-mail, IMs and texting is that the message can often be misinterpreted and in the brief space allowed one can’t get their full point across. Just look how people in these forums misinterpret what they read from other posters.

That said, some homebound people can be difficult and a really special person is necessary to minister to them. I have had many of my EMs quit homebound ministry because of difficult people or difficult families of the homebound. They make demands on the EMs which are often difficult to be fullfilled.

 

[malphono]

it sound to me that “so you can think about it” could mean that she was givng the homebound person time to think about a new person coming along, which might be the way it is going to be from now on.

That may well be, but we have nothing to suggest that such information was conveyed to the OP.

With regarding to texting and not making a phone call…there is also phone anxiety. I know because I had it. I could not make a phone call unless it was to a family member or someone I knew well. It took me wll into adulthood to get over it. I still procrastinate about making phone calls, that is why I love the computer (I don’t text though). So maybe the OP or the EM has a phone phobia. The problem with e-mail, IMs and texting is that the message can often be misinterpreted and in the brief space allowed one can’t get their full point across. Just look how people in these forums misinterpret what they read from other posters.

The idea of “texting” just kills me, and I don’t care if it’s the “in” thing. I (and many others) have lived quite well without it for more than half a century, and I have no plans to change that now. (Yeah, I’m old fashioned ) If a telephone call (and I mean actual vocal communication between two adults) would have been problematic, a note to that effect should have been included in the parish records, and same should have been communicated to the EMHC scheduled for that particular route.

And that leaves us with good-old “snail mail” which, if there is a change of policy (e.g. all EMHCs are to be paired from here-on-out), would have been the way it should have been done. A nice little note on parish letterhead explaining the new policy would have likely eliminated this entire incident. It’s official and it’s far more innocuous. (Well, I said I was “old fashioned” … )

 

[zab]

sojo makes sense.

 

[SimonDodd]

We’re told that the EMHC was all set to bring the Eucharist to the OP, but the OP told her to take a hike.

You join the story in media res—conveniently for your angle—but what happened before that? The EMHC sent the OP “a text message which said that she was going to bring with her a stranger.” This was unacceptable to the OP, who told the EMHC that if she wouldn’t come alone she couldn’t come at all—i.e., in effect, take a hike.

Notice what I have not said. I have not said that the EMHC was in the right. But compared to other posters, it sure looks that way, because I’m not making the equally untenable assumption that the OP was in the right. Whether the EMHC had any basis for her position is something that you have no basis whatsoever to judge because you haven’t heard the EMHC’s side of the story, either from her, from a third party, or even from the OP. Maybe she did and the OP is the bad guy; maybe she didn’t and this EMHC is a tool. We can’t say, and you do no one any favors in judging the EMHC in absentia out of misguided and excessive empathy for the OP’s situation.

It goes to the pastor because reception of the sacraments is his responsibility, and the OP would be considered a “problem case”); you don’t “wait till next week so u can think about it”. She sounds very much like she is trying to play psychologist.

As others have already pointed out, we’ve been told that the pastor is ill and busy; why should he be forced to intervene in a situation where two adults haven’t even tried to resolve their dispute? The OP should call the EMHC and try to resolve the problem there. If it can’t be resolved between the two of them, then and only then should the parish be involved.

 

[Spirithound]

it sound to me that “so you can think about it” could mean that she was givng the homebound person time to think about a new person coming along, which might be the way it is going to be from now on.

I agree that if a new person is going to be taking over this ministry, it will be very beneficial to the OP to get used to this new person, but what about this week? Why was it unacceptable for the third person to stay behind?

 

[Spirithound]

You join the story in media res—conveniently for your angle—but what happened before that? The EMHC sent the OP “a text message which said that she was going to bring with her a stranger.” This was unacceptable to the OP, who told the EMHC that if she wouldn’t come alone she couldn’t come at all—i.e., in effect, take a hike.

Notice what I have not said. I have not said that the EMHC was in the right. But compared to other posters, it sure looks that way, because I’m not making the equally untenable assumption that the OP was in the right. Whether the EMHC had any basis for her position is something that you have no basis whatsoever to judge because you haven’t heard the EMHC’s side of the story, either from her, from a third party, or even from the OP. Maybe she did and the OP is the bad guy; maybe she didn’t and this EMHC is a tool. We can’t say, and you do no one any favors in judging the EMHC in absentia out of misguided and excessive empathy for the OP’s situation.

I do appreciate critical thinking, and I apologize to y’all, and my philosophy professors if I have not been exercising it. At the same time, I simply cannot think of any good scenarios that could generate the EMHC’s final text (which I take to be given to us exactly as it originally appeared, due to the “txt speak”).

Perhaps Scoochy could relate that first message to us also. Was the stranger identified?

As others have already pointed out, we’ve been told that the pastor is ill and busy; why should he be forced to intervene in a situation where two adults haven’t even tried to resolve their dispute? The OP should call the EMHC and try to resolve the problem there. If it can’t be resolved between the two of them, then and only then should the parish be involved.

If we assume that the EMHC is innocent, that is, she has a legitimate, compelling reason to have a family member with her (and I agree that family is her first priority), and OP has told her this is unacceptable, then EMHC’s legitimate compelling first priority becomes a legitimate, compelling reason to give up this ministry. If this is the case, then the pastor needs to be notified so that alternatives can be arranged. Please let me be clear that this applies if the EMHC is innocent, and I am saying that she should have reported the situation, not Scoochy.

 

[Philomeena]

I skimmed through as many pages of this as I could looking to see if ANYBODY has considered that in many places, if you are ministering to a vulnerable adult (which in our parish includes the sick and homebound), it is safe envronment policy to bring 2 cleared adults. Both for the protection of the vulnerable adult and for the the protection of the minister.
Perhaps this was the case here. And perhaps the EMHC did not feel comfortable going alone to this person’s home and he/she has every right to not place him/herself in a situation that would make her uncomfortable. (and given the response to the request, justifiably so!)

 

[CradleCath]

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.

One thing we DO know is that there are more problems here than the one being discussed. A sick priest responsible for 3 PARISHES?? I’d say that there is a serious priest shortage in this area & that the “lay minstries” are not the answer. Of course this whole idea that Liturgists, EEM’s, Lectors, Readers & on & on & ON can replace the ordained priesthood is, IMO. ridiculous.

As one of the posters said, it is a “secondary obligation” for the laity.