Oh. The. HORROR!

 https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/bishop-strickland-reaffirms-that-unrepentant-homosexuals-adulterers-cannot-receive-communion/

I want to say before anything else that I did not read this article.  I only read the headline and first bit about the subject therein.  

Now I want to say how much I appreciate that anyone within Christendom would stand for the Will of God and not take the Eucharist so lightly as to ignore unrepentant sinners who stand before clergy administering the sacrament as if it's not big thing.  It is.  It should never be taken so lightly as it is in some of the more (*gack!*) "progressive" "Christian" churches.  Such churches put man before God, and that's not a good thing.

I've mentioned my time in a U.C.C. congregation...where I learned what a heretical denomination it is as I served there as Council President and Chairman of the Board of Elders, hoping to push the people to succeed from that denomination (to no avail whatsoever...they now have a female pastor.  Sad.)  There was a time when the subject of withholding Communion came up as it did nationally with regard to particular Democrats who promote abortion as a "legal right"...because as we know, one can't fully be a woman and not have the right to murder her own child.  I want to say it was specific to either Nancy Pelosi or then VP (or Senator) Joe Biden, but I can't be sure if it was even either one of those fake Roman Catholics.  Our pastor went out of his way to tut-tut the very notion of withholding.  "All are welcome", he intoned.  (In researching this question, it appears to have been Joe Biden who was refused in S. Carolina in 2019...at least the article I was reading was written then.  But that may mean my pastor was referring to someone else, or in 2019 Biden was refused the sacrament yet again.)

Of course, that's not at all Biblical.  The "progressives" don't take their "faith" seriously.  That's clear by virtue of all the many unBiblical stances they take on the social issues of the day.  And as if it wasn't bad enough they defend those issues, that defense leads to the young and the spiritually poor to believe indulgence in those sins is OK.  So it results in leading people to sin by legitimizing the bad behavior of those who won't be refused at the Altar. 

The "modern progressives" don't regard the sins they defend as sinful, and so you'll see the "modern progressive" clerics...many of whom are women, homosexuals...already themselves indulging or promoting/defending what is clearly forbidden, with their token allowance, "Sure...I could be mistaken"...passing out the bread and wine like it's franks and beer at the ball park to any who step up. 

Now, it must be remembered we're not talking about not partaking by sinners, as we're all sinners, with many of us in a constant struggle with our own sinful temptations and tendencies.  That's not what this is about.  This is about those who have no excuse for presuming they're good to go simply because many of them say, "Lord, Lord!"  This is about those who reject the clear teaching on the behaviors listed in the subtitle of the piece.  There's no doubt about the sinfulness of them (with perhaps one exception).  Such people do themselves a grave disservice not being more considerate of the Lord in mocking Him by their unjustified self-assurance.  They're worse than the Pharisee in the Temple thanking God he's not like the tax collector. 

A member of the clergy is right to deny the Eucharist to those who are openly in rebellion, such as the politician who defends the invented right to whack your kid before she's born.  Such a clergyman is using it as a teaching moment for the rest of the congregation, affirming the sinfulness of the behavior openly indulged by the denied.  He's letting the congregation know that God is not inclusive where the unrepentant and rebellious are concerned.  He's proclaiming just how serious it is to show such disregard for the Holiness of God were he to administer the Elements to the openly sinful.  I applaud those who will not put the world before God.

(Re: that "one exception".  The RCC has issues with contraception, and by that word I refer to any and all means of preventing conception.  The rhythm method is contraception and I don't know how that could be sinful between man and wife.  Knowing a woman's cycle and engaging in relations accordingly doesn't negate the "risk" of pregnancy 100%.  Only abstinence does and man and wife are not commanded to remain abstinent unless a child is desired.)