[Prospero]

Beat me to it. I was looking to post this scripture from the KJV to illustrate that the priest was not denying communion so much as preventing someone from "eating and drinking damnation to themselves."

Only those who don't understand Christian doctrine have a problem with what the priest chose responsibly to do. In the old days, had the priest chosen the apparent path of least resistance, treating the Church like a public school and being concerned more about hurting someone's feelings than eternal damnation, the clerics would have burned him, the supplicant and all the chalices and utensils, etc.

This is a Catholic communion, after all. Even a "Protestant" Christian like me knows the context and would not seek Catholic communion out of respect for their beliefs that the service involves transubstantiation, and the very literal presence of the blood and body of Our Lord and Savior.

I'll save the notations on Paul's use of the adverb translated "unworthily," as in modifying the action and not the actor, for another more appropriate time.

Thanks again...

[stayathomemom]

Beat me to it. I was looking to post this scripture from the KJV to illustrate that the priest was not denying communion so much as preventing someone from "eating and drinking damnation to themselves."

These were the verses I was thinking of also as I agree with your point. By the way, I'm a Lutheran whose church practices close communion for this reason.