Fr Harper+

Thank you for your response.  The principle you lay
out is critical.  You said,  “There is nothing in the
canon that differentiates clergy from laity, here,
only the injunction against allowing someone in an
unrepentant state to eat and drink condemnation by
partaking of the Lord’s Table unworthily.”

The American culture that stresses inclusiveness and
tolerance without strong teaching and discipline will
inevitably be confused about sacraments.  The priest
who was presented with the presence of VGR could not
but wonder if, in this circumstance, the service of
worship and Holy Communion were not being turned into
a political event.                                    
                     

I have read of other similar confrontations. 
Depending on the circumstances, if a priest were
confronted with persons of some celebrity involved in
church controversy, he might be justified in changing
the service to morning prayer and reading the
exhortation, especially if there were observers from
the media present.  More than one soul is at stake
here, the peace and well being of the congregation
must also be considered.

Charles+
Church of the Good Shepherd, Indianapolis
-------------------------------------------

--- Chip+ <charper8@... wrote:

Good morning brethren.

Read the string below re +Robinson, et al. The priest,
knowing who his visitor was, acted appropriately per
the canons of the ACA by obeying the rubric of the
BCP, to deny the sacrament to a “notorious evil
liver,” which, archaic English usage aside, seems
pretty clear to me.  W Notable though-is the fact that
whenever an ACA priest is forced to deny the
sacrament, he is required to inform his bishop, which
he did. There is nothing in the canon that
differentiates clergy from laity, here, only the
injunction against allowing someone in an unrepentant
state to eat and drink condemnation by partaking of
the Lord’s Table unworthily.  I think, as the local
priest did, that +Robinson fits that description.  He
has a lot of company, but he is quite public about his
sin.
Although unpleasant, +Robinson’s ECUSA episcopacy is
not the issue. Had the priest not refused, he would be
then in violation of the canons of the ACA and subject
to ecclesiastical presentment and, possibly,
discipline.
In short, he acted correctly. He was not disciplining
a bishop—he was protecting an unrepentant sinner from
condemnation by ingesting the Sacrament.

The sad part is that +Robinson is still in denial
about his sin. May God remove the veil from his
eyes—and all like him.  The real action for us now, is
to commit this to prayer for God the Holy Ghost to
speak to their hearts, before it’s too late. 
Maranatha!
Under the Blood and in the Spirit,
Chip+