Recently, a church member announced on Facebook that a communion service was being organized that would not have priesthood officiating. That generated a great deal of conversation, with many people expressing concern, as doing such would be in contrast with church policies. I was also part of those conversations, and I asked Evan 15 questions to express my confusion, concerns, etc., and Evan was good enough to reply to each in a blog that can be read here. What follows are my responses to Evan’s answers to my questions.
Hey Evan, thanks again for taking the time to answer my 15 questions. I have some follow-up thoughts. I’m numbering my responses to line up with my original questions.
1. In response to my 1st question: “Are you aware that what you are planning to do would not be in harmony with church law?” You replied: “I am aware that D&C 17 “The Articles and Covenants of the Church” specifies who is and is not allowed to conduct the sacrament of communion.”
I am interpreting that to mean “yes”. 🙂
You then pointed out that the Church made a change regarding the requirements for membership, citing Section 20, and the process the church went through that eventually opened the door to people joining our church via confirmation only, if they had already been baptized in a different denomination, and if that baptism met certain requirements that would deem a further baptism unnecessary.
However, the process you mentioned was exactly that: a deliberate process. In 2008, World Church invited the global membership to consider and explore “Conditions of Membership” and it was a very deliberate, structured process.
(also, it was not a decades-long process – yes, as you noted, various people had been exploring the merit of making changes over the years, but the church was not formally, nor globally, engaged in a discernment process on membership requirements for decades)
At the end of the Conditions of Membership discernment process (and even during the process), members were able to share their views with church leadership, which was then able to gauge how people felt about changing our membership requirements.
But it was all a process: A HQ-driven, organized, structured, sanctioned, and deliberate process. It was not an act of suspending or simply ignoring church law and policies, scripture, customs, traditions, etc. So, referencing that process regarding membership requirements is not an effective rationalization for what you plan to do.
Just as Christ kept the Law of Moses while He lived as a human under that Law, the Church kept its law, and policies, as it considered the possibility of updating our church requirements. During that time of consideration, the existing policies were adhered to. But what you are planning to do is to blatantly disregard the law of the Church and the revelations of God.
You also mentioned Section 162, and pointed out that it “spoke powerfully about the need to honor our past, but not let it keep us from our future”.
However, disregarding church law and policies, and our Standard of Authority, of which the Doctrine & Covenants is one portion, is not honoring the past. Even if your interest is to ensure that the church is not kept from our future, there are ways to bring about change, just like you referenced with regard to membership requirements, that do not involve ignoring our policies ad they currently exist.
You also quoted a portion of Section 162 to back up your point. And indeed, we are told in that revelation “to discern the divine will for your own time and in the places where you serve.” And yes, we live in a new world with new challenges, that do indeed require new forms of ministry. And yes, the Restoration is not locked in one moment in time. But, all these wise words are preceded by the following:
“under the direction of the spiritual authorities”.
I am delighted that you want to be part of the efforts to steer the church toward our future, but, I feel you need to do that *under* the direction of our spiritual authorities, as directed in revelation. But the spiritual authorities have not directed you to organize a communion service during which communion will be officiated over by people who are not authorized to do so.
You mentioned: “I want to carry on that legacy of pushing the church out of its comfort zone so we can collectively discern if what we have is truly the best thing for us moving forward.” But you can of course do that without ignoring church policy.
2. My next comment was to explore, given that you had previously said that you find Community of Christ’s sacrament of communion to be meaningful, why you seem to have concerns with our priesthood, given that both are derived from the Doctrine & Covenants.
In your reply, you mentioned various things about the priesthood that trouble you. However, it does not appear that anything you said ultimately explains how you can find value in one thing derived from the Doctrine & Covenants (Communion), but struggle with something else also derived from the Doctrine & Covenants (our model of priesthood).
One thing you did say in your response was “I believe that D&C 162: 2D-2E articulates what my relationship to our hierarchical structure’s relationship with the sacraments”
Which you then quoted:
“You have already been told to look to the sacraments to enrich the spiritual life of the body. It is not the form of the sacrament that dispenses grace but it is the divine presence that gives life. Be respectful of tradition and sensitive to one another, but do not be unduly bound by interpretations and procedures that no longer fit the needs of a worldwide church. …The spirit of the Restoration is not locked in one moment of time, but is instead the call to every generation to witness to essential truths in its own language and form. Let the Spirit breathe.”
I don’t personally believe that these words can responsibly or plausibly be interpreted to mean that it is permissible for people to do whatever they want with the sacraments of the church, including having non-priesthood administer Communion.
Keep in mind, this counsel is with regard to all our sacraments, not just Communion. I think an example of what this counsel is trying to say is that if you had a person seeking baptism, but could not be immersed for medical reasons, another mode of baptism could be utilized.
It also I believe played a role in helping us move forward with changing our policies regarding how people can join the church. As our church continued to spread throughout the world, the challenges of being a worldwide church became apparent, and we discovered that it was very difficult in some places, where immersion was not possible because of how scarce water was, for people who wanted to join the church to be baptized. But, baptism was a requirement for joining. Yet, as you noted in your reply to question 1, the church changed that requirement (if certain other requirements were met). But the church changed that requirement through a very deliberate process, culminating in the canonization of a new revelation that sanctioned people joining the church via confirmation only instead of baptism *and* confirmation. It was not just members on their own deciding that they could, because of Section 162, do whatever they desired.
I feel that the spirit of Section 162 is that accommodations can be made (such as with the aforementioned case of a person seeking baptism being medically prohibited from being immersed), or the scope of our understanding of the appropriateness of a sacrament being broadened (as we see in the Conditions of Membership change), or expanded (marriage no longer requiring a person of each gender).
But, the key issue here is that in all cases, these accommodations, broadened understandings, expanded understandings of who can be married, etc., are done in compliance with that other part of Section 162 that you quoted:
“under the direction of the spiritual authorities”.
A person no longer needs to be baptized to join Community of Christ if they meet certain other requirements. But, if such a person did request to be baptized again, or when someone is being baptized for the first time, the expectation would be that the mode of baptism, the words used, and the person officiating, would all be in compliance with church law and policy.
Likewise, if an accommodation is made for that person who wants to be baptized but cannot be immersed, everything else would still be expected to be in harmony with church law and policy. The same words, the same requirements for who can do the baptizing, etc.
Being not unduly bound gives us the freedom to seek accommodations, or to expand our understanding of the sacraments, but when they are performed, save in whatever way an accommodation has been granted, etc., everything else must follow church law.
Section 162 quite simply does not make it permissible for members to do as they please with regard to the sacraments. An example of this being the case is with regard to the sacrament of Baptism. A few years ago there was a movement and interest in having options with regard to the words used in the baptismal prayer. A request was made to seek permission to use the words Creator, Redeemer, and Sustainer instead of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. After exploring that for a period of time, the First Presidency issued a report in which they said that no alternate words were being approved (with an explanation as to why), with the exception that Holy Spirit could be used in place of Holy Ghost.
So, despite the existence of Section 162, the rules and expectations, etc. around sacraments cannot be altered, suspended, ignored, etc. on the initiative of any given person, independent of working with the spiritual authorities of the church.
You also pointed out in your reply that our sacrament of Communion is actually derived from the Book of Mormon, and not the Doctrine & Covenants as I stated a couple of times. However, there are particulars about our sacrament of Communion that are found in the Doctrine & Covenants, but which are not found in the Book of Mormon; and it also includes the prayers that are mentioned in the Book of Mormon, so I don’t feel its incorrect to say that our sacrament of Communion is derived from the Doctrine & Covenants, when the key details about how to observe it are found in that work. Also, just for the record, the first time I mentioned that our sacrament of Communion was derived from the Doctrine & Covenants, I noted “as an expansion of what is provided in the Book of Mormon”.
But even if all we have in our scriptures regarding Communion was found exclusively in the Book of Mormon, that would not really negate my question, because you clearly uphold the Doctrine & Covenants as scripture, as you frequently reference various verses to back up your positions. Even in your responses to me, you quote the Doctrine & Covenants to make a point. Which just baffles me all the more that you are willing to disregard what it says about it.
But speaking of the Book of Mormon, as you noted, the Communion prayers are found in Moroni 4 &5. Chapter 4 opens with these words:
1 The manner of their elders and priests administering the flesh and blood of Christ unto the church.
2 And they administered it according to the commandments of Christ; wherefore we know the manner to be true; and the elder or priest did minister it.
Note that we are told that the elders and priests are the ones who administer the sacrament, and they do so according to the commandments of Christ. By doing what you are doing, you will in fact be doing so contrary to Christ’s commandments.
In the Third Book of Nephi, chapter 8 verse 32 we are told:
“And when the multitude had eaten and were filled, he said unto the disciples, Behold, there shall one be ordained among you, and to him will I give power that he shall break bread, and bless it, and give it unto the people of my church, unto all those who shall believe and be baptized in my name.”
So, here we see that Christ Himself established that the Sacrament would be blessed by those ordained to do so. So, again, if you go forward with your plans, you, and the other participants, will be directly ignoring Christ’s instructions.
Also, one other point needs to be made here. Again, as I noted earlier, you stated: “I believe that D&C 162: 2D-2E articulates what my relationship to our hierarchical structure’s relationship with the sacraments”, and you then quoted it:
“You have already been told to look to the sacraments to enrich the spiritual life of the body. It is not the form of the sacrament that dispenses grace but it is the divine presence that gives life. Be respectful of tradition and sensitive to one another, but do not be unduly bound by interpretations and procedures that no longer fit the needs of a worldwide church. …The spirit of the Restoration is not locked in one moment of time, but is instead the call to every generation to witness to essential truths in its own language and form. Let the Spirit breathe.”
But, you left out a key portion. The words:
“Be respectful of tradition and sensitive to one another, but do not be unduly bound by interpretations and procedures that no longer fit the needs of a worldwide church.”
are immediately followed by these words:
“In such matters direction will come from those called to lead.”
So, you are essentially saying that you feel empowered by these verses to do what you are doing, while simultaneously ignoring the part that says that in regards to these needs to be less bound, etc., that the direction on doing so will come from church leadership.
3. I can’t think of anything at the moment to say in regard to your response to question 3.
4. In response to my 4th question “Will you be informing…all participants…that what you and the other participants are doing will be an intentional violation of church law?” you said:
“As you and others have pointed out, this communion service clearly is not officially sanctioned by the church. It seems pointless for me to continue to point out the obvious, especially when so many others are.”
I feel that it is very sad that you see no merit in making sure the people you have lined up are fully aware that what they will be doing is in conflict with church law. Where is the harm in putting forth the effort to repeatedly make sure everyone is clear about that, and what the ramifications of their participation *might* be?
Also, its not just that the service is not a sanctioned service. Its that you are going to have people do something that violates church policies, and which runs contrary to what Christ said in the Book of Mormon. And in the Doctrine & Covenants. Also, are the people participating part of this Facebook group? Are they following these discussions? Are the truly aware of the issues and what is potentially at stake?
5. My fifth comment was to push back on your assertion that the priesthood of Community of Christ is an authoritarian organization. I took the position that it is not, and I explained why, and I asked you if you believed that the church as a whole was authoritarian.
In response, you directed me to see your answer to question 13, as you said it covers the same things. But, I don’t see anything in your response to question 13 that touches on what I said in question five. So, I’ll ask again:
“The government of the church is “by divine authority through priesthood.” (Bylaws Article III, Section 2). If the priesthood was authoritarian, then, since the government of the church is through priesthood, the church as a whole would be authoritarian. Do you regard Community of Christ, as a denomination, to be authoritarian?”
6. I can’t think of anything at the moment to say in regard to your response to question 6.
7. I can’t think of anything at the moment to say in regard to your response to question 7.
8. I feel that your response to my 8th question (paraphrased: “why do you feel, as a queer person, you can’t be ordained when we ordain queer people in the U.S.A.”) is…I’m not sure what. At the moment I can’t seem to put into words what I want to say.
9. I can’t think of anything at the moment to say in regard to your response to question 9.
10. The gist of my 10th question was to ask you if what you are planning to do now (hold a communion service in conflict with church policy) might prevent you from being ordained one day.
In reply to that, you said:
“If me advocating for a more inclusive priesthood diminishes my potential to be a part of the priesthood, doesn’t that sort of prove my point that our priesthood is hierarchical and authoritarian and needs to be reformed to be more inclusive?”
How is holding a communion service in which a church sacrament will be performed in a manner contrary to church law, policies, traditions, customs, etc. an expression of advocacy?
There are many ways to advocate for things. But what you have selected isn’t really an expression of advocacy. But what it most certainly is, is a deliberate, wilful disregard for the laws of the church, the writings we uphold as scripture, and our customs, & traditions; as well a seemingly irreverent attitude towards the most sacred rites of our denomination: our sacraments.
This being the case, not only would it be very appropriate for church members and leaders to question if someone with such a history is suitable for priesthood, it would be irresponsible for them not to question the candidacy of someone who blatantly decided to ignore the policies, laws and revelations of the church regarding our sacred sacraments.
11. In my 11th question, I asked if you perhaps felt frustrated by the fact that you have not, since becoming a member of the church, been ordained, given that you have only been a member for less than a year.
In your reply, you pointed out that you will soon be reaching your 2nd anniversary as a church member, so I apologize for my mistake. For some reason, I thought you were baptized in February of 2022, not 2021. You also implied that you felt my question was suggesting that you, as a newer member did not know enough about the church to be ordained yet. What I was mostly thinking when I asked that question is that priesthood calls, unlike the church that you were born in, can take a long time to come about in Community of Christ, and therefore nobody should anticipate one so soon after confirmation.
12. My twelfth question essentially asked, why you joined Community of Christ, given the concerns you have with our model of priesthood, considering that you had already belonged to a church with pretty much the same model, since we and the LDS have similar priesthood structures.
It does not seem to me that your response actually answered the question that I asked.
Also, you stated at one point, to back up one of the things you said: “To reiterate what D&C 162:2E says…”
This is of course one of many instances throughout your blog (and elsewhere), where you cite the D&C to back up your position. But, the D&C also provides us with the requirements for the sacrament of Confirmation. So, again, I just don’t get how you can be willing to disregard the D&C in some cases, yet rely on it so much to try to rationalize your willingness to oversee church sacraments administered in a manner contrary to church law, revelation and the word of Christ.
13. In my 13th comment I suggested that it seemed backward to me that you are planning an event that will violate church law, but that church leaders are free to reach out to you if they have any concerns (my feeling being, the right way would be to contact church leaders first, and ask if its OK to do what you want to do, and if not, to work at getting the policies revised). I also asked “Do your intentions perhaps diminish the meaning, value and significance of what we have, and possibly undermine the rule of law?”
Your response did not really touch on my comment or question.
You did mention that our legislative process is sluggish, but that fact does not make it permissible or advisable to disregard church policy, etc. Its just really not relevant. Yes, it can take a long time for a motion to move through the process, but, that in no way validates or excuses a church member disregarding the policies as they currently exist.
You also said that our system is not reflective of a healthy democracy, and you said that it is up to the hierarchy with regard to what legislation can make it onto the floor. I think there are some nuances you have overlooked.
The chair cannot simply block motions simply because they feel like it. When a motion is ruled out of order, it is because (just as with the examples you mentioned), they are in conflict with something, such as the Bylaws. The chair cannot simply say that they don’t like the motion, and therefore won’t permit it to be moved forward.
You saw this yourself during the most recent Canada East Mission Centre conference when a motion was presented near the end of the legislative session pertaining to the membership of the Mission Centre. This motion was deemed out of order based on perspective provided by the apostle.
It should also be noticed that the decisions of the chair can be appealed, which you also saw during that same conference.
So, the reality is, there are limits to what the Chair can do, and there is also a mechanism for challenging the Chair.
But, your remark lamenting the fact that we don’t have, as you see it, a healthy democracy indicates of course that you want us to have a healthy democracy. And of course, in order for a democracy to be healthy the rights of the membership have to be protected, and this is why our legislative sessions operate under parliamentary procedure. Without the rules a healthy democracy could not exist. So, it’s a contradiction to want a healthy democracy but to take issue with the rules that seek to ensure that we do.
I would also say that a healthy democracy needs to be founded on the concept that the membership will abide by the laws, policies, rules and resolutions of the body.
14. Please see my response to Question 10.
15. In my final question, I asked you if what you are doing is reflective of our Enduring Principle “Responsible Choices”.
In reply, you quoted from one of President Veazey’s sermons, and then said “In light of that, I believe that your question is framed incorrectly, so allow me to rephrase it”
And your rephrased question was “Is boldly pointing out crumbling conceptions of authority and exclusivity within our church and exploring new possibilities reflective of the church’s enduring principle of responsible choices?”
I don’t know that I would say that pointing something out falls within the realm of being either responsible or not. Pointing something out is just pointing something out. Exploring is just exploring.
Also, I don’t think President Veazy would agree that his sermon empowers people to disregard church law, policies, etc. So, my original question still stands. And it comes into play even with your rephrased question. Because, if you want to point out crumbling conceptions of authority, etc., the *how* in how you go about doing that should itself be reflective of responsible choices, and willfully disregarding church law on our sacraments and inviting other people to do the same, is simply not a viable expression of Responsible Choices.
You asked me: “Is the church systemically barring people from helping facilitate fundamental Christian practices reflective of our Enduring Principle of “All Are Called”?
To suggest that the church has “barred” people from doing something suggests that those people have done something resulting in them needing to be, as a consequence of what they have done, prevented from doing certain things.
And, the Church does on occasion impose limits on people for the health and protection and integrity of the denomination as a whole.
But, in the majority of members, if they are not authorized to do certain things, it is not because they have been barred from doing so, it is because the church, as an organized body has requirements for various roles within the church. For example, the Presiding Bishop probably has to have some knowledge and experience with finances. The principal organist needs to know how to play the organ. And the sacraments of the church have to be administered by priesthood members. The intent is not to diminish the worth and value of other people, just like in any other organization. I can’t coach an NHL team because I don’t have coaching experience. I can’t perform surgery because I am not a surgeon. But, I have not been barred from doing these things, I simply do not meet the requirements. That is a key, and important, and very relevant distinction.
Also, what you label “exclusivity within our church” is not exclusive for the sake of being exclusive. It’s not about being part of an exclusive country club. It’s not about lording over others from a booth at the top of the coliseum. Exclusivity is not, in and of itself undesirable. Having requirements for various things promotes the feasibility of…everything, and helps offset chaos.
Also, the Enduring Principle of “All are Called” should not be understood to mean that all people are called to do the same things, or to serve in the same capacities, roles, etc. All are called to follow Jesus Christ. Not everyone is called to preach. Or perform the sacraments. Or teach Sunday school. Or do fundraising. Or counsel at youth camps. Or plan outreach activities. Or to be ad-hoc missionaries. I am certainly not called to sing.
That is it for my responses to your answers to my questions (phew! 😉)
You made some other comments that I want to respond to (I’m going to number these just for the sake of keeping organized, continuing on from before):
16. “Community of Christ no longer believes that it is the ‘One True Church’”
That is debatable. And we most certainly do believe that we were divinely called into being.
17. “meaning we do not believe that our church/institution/hierarchy has the exclusive permission to perform sacraments such as Baptism, Marriage, and Communion.”
We have always taught, and continue to teach that *within* Community of Christ, our sacraments can be performed only by those authorized to do so.
18. “Why is it, then, that people like those in this service are being treated so harshly for what we extend to other churches?”
I don’t know that I would agree that you are being treated harshly, and I certainly can’t say that I have seen comments directed at the people who you have lined up to officiate over the sacramental portion of your service. But, if anyone has been treated harshly, that is of course unfortunate.
I think a better question would be “why is it then that so many people are so concerned with what we are planning?”
I can only speak for myself, but I feel that for most people who are concerned with what you are planning to do, it is because you are intentionally seeking to violate church law, to disregard scripture. And not just with regard to something of less consequence, but with regard to our sacraments.
You’ve tried to rationalize what you want to do by pointing out that we don’t object to what other churches do, and accept them as authoritative (at least that is how I interpreted what you said).
First of all, I don’t know that it can be definitively stated that we accept the authority of other churches. And I don’t think we have any official position on the sacraments of other churches beyond baptism. And with regard to baptism, I don’t feel our position is so much on the baptisms themselves, but on the covenant made between the person and Jesus Christ. To me, that is what our church now recognizes is sufficient.
However, both before and after the canonization of Section 164, our revelations and direction from God has always been with regard to how we administer *our* sacraments, not those of others. So, trying to call attention to the fact that we have never tried to prevent another denomination from holding communion is irrelevant, as we have never been called by God to do so. The Lord gave us instructions on how each of our scarcaments are to be treated by us.
And the requirements of our sacraments have not changed. The Lord has changed what sacraments are needed for membership, but the requirements for how the sacraments are to be conducted remain the same.
In answer to your question “If none of us were members of the church, would it be a problem?”, I would say that it would depend. If you were all exploring Community of Christ, and expressing interest in joining, and decided to perform Community of Christ sacraments, that could raise some eyebrows. It would be like me working towards becoming an adult convert of the Catholic Church, but before joining, declaring my intent to offer Confession to anyone who wants it. That might potentially undermine my progression. I honestly don’t know what the impact, if any, would be in either scenario. But I do think it would be naïve to think that there would be no resistance to doing that.
If you and the others were not members of Community of Christ, and were not trying to become members, or associate with us, etc., and just decided to have a communion service then obviously there would be no problem here, because in that scenario you’re not part of the church, or in relationship with the church in any way.
But you are members. And, whether you joined as an adult or were raised in the church, you have made the decision to continue to remain part of our particular expression of Christianity. The goal of every member should be to be a member in “good standing” which of course presumes that a member will not deliberately violate church law with regard to our scriptures, and not to invite others to do likewise.
19. “Oddly enough, Community of Christ has ‘not-sacraments’”
That is very true. In fact, everything in Community of Christ that is not a sacrament is a “not-sacrament”. The fact that we have some spiritual practices that are not sacraments does not mean that the sacraments themselves have no purpose or place in the church, or that it is acceptable to disregard our policies about them.
Anyone can offer grace, which is a prayer, when we gather to eat. Anyone can offer an offertory prayer during a worship service. The fact that anyone can offer these and other types of prayers does not mean that anyone can offer the communion prayers, or the baptismal prayer, or a prayer of confirmation, ordination, etc.
And yes, we do have agape meals, and we do have prayers of wholeness. But, these are not intended to replace or mimic Communion or Administration to the Sick, including in purpose and implementation. Agape meals are not sacramental, and have a distinct purpose from Communion, and can take many different forms.
Also, it is not correct that anyone can partake of communion (as your chart states).
Likewise, a prayer of wholeness is not intended to replicate the sacrament of administration to the sick. The fact that they have similar elements does not mean that they are interchangeable.
Regarding the commitment ceremony, I’m not sure why you would cite that to support your perspective given that your chart states that priesthood authority is required.
20. “Since many of these seem to only have minor differences…”
But in the case of Agape meals and wholeness prayers, the differences are not minor. Your chart regarding Agape meals vs. Communion list several similarities, but does not list the things about them that are different. Your comparison of Administration to the Sick with a prayer of wholeness highlights that there are a lot of distinctions with regard to the former not present in the latter.
You mentioned that in one case the only difference is two words. I believe you are referring to the Commitment ceremony compared to the sacrament of marriage. This ceremony is, by design, intended to serve a purpose similar to that of the sacrament of marriage. Agape meals and prayers of wholeness are not intended to be just like the sacraments that your comparing them to.
21. “It seems silly that we could say the prayer with a couple of words changed and call it something different, and then it would have the approval of the church, but saying the prayer word-for-word and calling it communion is a big no-no.”
Actually, I think you might also find resistance to doing that as well. Simply changing the words slightly, and/or not calling it a communion service would be, in my opinion, not advisable. If what you are doing is, ultimately, a sacrament in disguise, I feel many people would still take issue with that. This is the beauty of an Agape meal, because it’s a totally different experience. It’s not Diet Communion.
22. “In light of this, we in this service decided to move forward with calling it ‘communion’ instead of ‘agape meal’ and using the communion prayers, because we don’t see a difference between the sacraments and “not-sacraments”.
“because we don’t see a difference”
Maybe you don’t. But, that is of course ultimately not relevant. The mere fact that you don’t see a difference does not legitimize or somehow make it permissible to act in contrary to church policies.
However, since you don’t see a difference between our sacraments and other spiritual practices that the church sometimes uses, my recommendation would be to explore what the differences are, by sitting down with people and having conversations about these types of things. We have so many people in this church who are very willing to share their insights, perspectives, experiences, etc.
23. “I believe that the chief focus of the sacraments are to help facilitate a healthy and fulfilling relation with the Divine, not to uphold tradition, policy, and procedures.”
I agree. Yet, I believe that the sacraments have the greatest potential to serve that purpose when they are administered in the manner that Christ set forth. There is also more to the sacraments than simply performing them. There is more to communion than saying a prayer and handing a person a cup of juice. There is more to administration of the sick than praying that they will be comforted. There is more to the sacrament of marriage than saying “by the authority vested in me”.
You seemed to question why so many people are making such a fuss over this. The fact that you are perplexed by why what you are doing, has caused the reaction that it has, I think indicates that maybe there is more room for exploration on this matter. It is therefore my hope that you will cancel your event, or at least postpone it for several more weeks, to give you and others the time to explore the concerns that people have.