Last night, at the 5 p.m. vigil mass, the last woman in line for communion received the host, and then pulled out from her purse a brown paper napkin.

“Can I have another?,” she asked. “I want to take it to my husband. He’s sick.”

I told her, gently, no, and asked her to see me in the sacristy later. After mass, I explained why we couldn’t do that, and got her name and address, so a Eucharistic Minister could visit the next day.

Did people do this stuff 40, even 30 years ago?

UPDATE: I dashed off the above item before running out the door to begin my day at the parish. A second or third read might have been necessary, however, as this alert reader points out:

Deacon Greg…

As someone discerning the call to the Diaconate I thoroughly enjoy your blog and read it daily.

I’m not looking to be “that guy” who always has to point out every little perceived error as I relate the following:

In your article Odd communion moments: #523, a couple of things jumped out at me. Both are very common errors and in the context of the article the argument can be made that they are correct in their usages. First, the Saturday evening Mass isn’t a ‘vigil Mass’ unless it has the readings for a vigil; it is simply Saturday evening Mass. If the Saturday evening Mass was the Vigil for the Conversion of St. Paul then your usage was correct. Second, the encyclical Redemptionis Sacramentum [156] specifies that the Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion is not to be referred to as anything but that. It confuses the function of the ordinary. If you were saying you were going to send a priest, deacon, bishop, etc. to bring the Eucharist to the infirmed then you would have been correct in your usage.

I know it seems picky and, yes, I do have a huge timber in my eye that could use removing before I focus on another’s splinters! It’s just my opinion that as the ‘face of the Church’ our clergy should be the example. I’ve even gotten my own pastor, whom is also my employer, to use the correct terms!

Mea culpa, one and all.