No one in difficult person's communion line?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Duesenberg
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Let me ask it this way.

I am calm and see there are two paths ahead.

Path A, I know from past experience will annoy me. It might be minor or it might boil over and stay with me for a while. I can’t know for sure.

Path B, I remain calm.

How is taking Path B an issue?
 
Unless this person managed to individually hurt everyone who crossed over it reeks of a mob mentality.
 
In what sense? If there had been complaints made or letters written, I’d fully support that conduct. But that wasn’t what happened.

The EMHC is flawed. For whatever reason, they have a personality that is difficult to deal with, and either cannot or will not change. Or, they just try to change and fail over and over. I don’t know what their journey is, and I don’t pretend I do. I can’t change that person. All I can do is control how I respond to that person, and if I choose to treat them with contempt or anger or disdain, I’m no better than they are.

So, no, I’m not issuing harsh words to the EMHC. I don’t see this as a “she got what she deserved” situation because I don’t think that’s how we are meant to behave towards one another.
 
KathleenT said:
Path A, I know from past experience will annoy me. It might be minor or it might boil over and stay with me for a while. I can’t know for sure.

Path B, I remain calm.

How is taking Path B an issue?
Click to expand...
By taking Path B, you have avoided the problem, not solved it. The problem I am speaking of is not that of the EMHC’s behavior, but rather the unease in your own heart. On the other hand, Path A is like taking the bull by the horns. By facing the problem and struggling with it, you may, with God’s help, overcome it and let charity take its place in your heart.
 
Last edited:
ConfusedLucy said:
Unless this person managed to individually hurt everyone who crossed over it reeks of a mob mentality.
Click to expand...
That’s the part that confuses me too. And even if the individual did hurt everyone in a parish, as unlikely as that is, why would they stay instead of moving on themselves?
 
This is all speculation. We are taking the OP’s observations at face value.

My issue with this lies in the heart of the fact the EMHC has the power here. Assuming the EMHC is at least somewhat aware of her reputation she has an obligation not to be an occasion of sin to others.

Inserting herself as EMHC, if she knows she has caused great aggravation to many in the parish is making herself a thorn in their side. While they should rise above it, she also has an obligation not be a thorn.
 
I’ve never seen anything like that no. You mentioned campus, is it a University?

How exactly is this woman difficult?
 
KathleenT said:
Inserting herself as EMHC, if she knows she has caused great aggravation to many in the parish is making herself a thorn in their side. While they should rise above it, she also has an obligation not be a thorn.
Click to expand...
Out of curiosity, would your answer be different if this had been done to a notoriously rude priest who was distributing communion and not an EMHC? If so, what is the difference?

This EMHC was made the subject of public humiliation. I’m not convinced they had the power.
 
EMHCs are not priests. They will never be priests.

They do not make the same sacrifices priests make. They do not devote their entire lives and risk their soul for the sake of their flock. The priests are our spiritual fathers.

There are more differences between priests and EMHCs than similarities.

Many people do choose to avoid the priests line by virtue of where they sit. Some do it deliberately. Given that you know which line or two is likely the priests…yes I would object to switching over. That’s being petty or poor planning.

I am given the parish the benefit of the doubt that they didn’t do this to be spiteful but to avoid dealing with a person they rather not deal with.

Edited for spelling
 
Last edited:
KathleenT said:
I am pretty sure the preist wouldn’t do this. Stopping Mass to lecture the people would escalate the situation not de-escalate it. Not to mention causing a larger scandal than what the laity caused.
Click to expand...
You’re right of course…
KathleenT said:
Plus…the laity in the pews aren’t as meek as you think. The preist starts lecturing them, they are going to tell the preist exactly what they think not only about the EMHC but how the preist is dealing with the situation.
Click to expand...
I can’t speak for others, but if the priest would have halted the Mass (a huge no-no) to lecture us about this matter I would have written the bishop.
 
KathleenT said:
…I would limit the EMHC to male high school and college students who were former alter servers or considering the preisthood and the older males of the parish. That would solve 99% of the problems.
Click to expand...
Not only would it help to foster vocations to the priesthood and diaconate, it would assure planned turnover so people would not become entrenched.
 
bjryman said:
I read some of the follow up comments here. Odd…where is the Church Pastor and Pastoral Associate in all this? I know folks who tend to have a “righteous” attitude towards their ministry work that results in “bad vibes” emanating all around them. Normally, I sense that there is a line over which the Church Pastoral staff will step in and council the person involved. Once our Pastoral Associate took aside an individual and really “dressed him down” regarding a situation she witnessed with a particular ministry group.

So…in the main as it impacts the larger congregation, I tend to go with limiting the questionable person’s engagement. Yet, if there is a pastoral way to council the individual and refocus them productively, I’d try that approach first.

P.S. I am taking your critique of the individual at face value in this post.
Click to expand...
We don’t have pastoral associates in my parish, thanks be to God. If we did, this person is precisely the sort that would do whatever it took to become one…

My parish is large. Given it’s configuration, the priest did not see the incident. Even if he would have, nothing would have come of it.

Why she has not been removed from ministry long ago is not really a “mystery” to me, but it’s very complicated and very political.
 
casslean said:
Simply stopping to direct a few parishioners back into the EMHC’s line will send a powerful message.
Click to expand...
In that sort of situation, people are not about to allow themselves be “directed.”
 
KathleenT said:
…I would limit the EMHC to male high school and college students who were former alter servers or considering the preisthood and the older males of the parish. That would solve 99% of the problems.
Click to expand...
There are not enough male high school and college students who were former servers, etc. to solve 99% of the problem.

I won’t even address your male requirement.
 
Last edited:
KathleenT said:
This is all speculation. We are taking the OP’s observations at face value.

My issue with this lies in the heart of the fact the EMHC has the power here. Assuming the EMHC is at least somewhat aware of her reputation she has an obligation not to be an occasion of sin to others.

Inserting herself as EMHC, if she knows she has caused great aggravation to many in the parish is making herself a thorn in their side. While they should rise above it, she also has an obligation not be a thorn.
Click to expand...
Bingo!!!
 
shrugs

The Church is desperate for male involvement and priestly vocations.

I see a high school male stepping up to help and possibly considering the priesthood, if his dad or uncle was involved.

I don’t see him doing it if his mom or aunt was involved.

I think women are strong enough to see the truth of that without falling apart.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top