Priest Criticized For Refusing Last Rites to Homosexual Patient


The Washington Post continues to go after priests who uphold Catholic sexual teaching. Last week, it was the smear of Fr. John DeCelles for not renewing his contract with the Boy Scouts of America following their decision to allow openly gay scouts into their membership. Now it’s an attack on Fr. Brian Coelho, a chaplain at MedStar Washington Hospital in DC.

The story begins with Ronald Plishka, a 63-year-old man who was undergoing treatment for an undisclosed condition this month at the hospital in question. According to Plishka, after being in the hospital for 24 hours, he “became concerned that he might not make it.” And that’s when the trouble started.

An altar boy until he was 18 and a weekly attendee at Mass, Plishka asked to see a priest.

According to Plishka, he asked Coelho for Communion and last rites, more commonly called the anointing of the sick. Coelho asked whether he would like to say confession first and Plishka said he began to talk about his history, including his lifelong struggle with his sexuality. Plishka didn’t come out as gay until he was in his 50s.

“Then we started talking about the pope, and I said I was so excited about him, because of what he said about gays. I said: ‘Does that bother you, that I’m gay?’ And he said ‘no,’ ” Plishka said.

The conversation was interrupted by someone coming into the room, which he shared with another patient, Plishka recalled. After that, Coelho“would not continue” with the specific prayers and acts of Communion and anointing, he said. “He said, ‘I will pray with you,’ but that’s all he’d do. That was it.”

“I just saw red. I cursed at a priest. I called him a hypocrite. As he was leaving — I can’t repeat what I said, but it was bad. . . . I’m thinking I’m going to rot in hell now,” he said. “But after that, I became scared — fear settled in. I don’t have the rites, I didn’t get Communion. I believed in the sacraments; this is something we’re taught we need before we die.”

“I’ve tried to be a decent person all my life. I’m not perfect, believe me. And I wouldn’t wish [being gay] on anyone. But you can’t be somebody you’re not. Otherwise you’ll end up 63 and alone,” he said.


Plishka said that a few days after the incident he called the Basilica of the National Shrine, where he has attended Sunday noon Mass for at least a decade. He didn’t know any priests but asked for one on duty to call him back, Plishka said. The priest agreed with the chaplain, Plishka said.

“He said, he can’t give you [Communion] if you continue that lifestyle, if you’re an active participant,” he said.

This story avoids the issue of Plishka’s own involvement in the gay culture, which forces us to read between the lines. It’s one of the problems with the usage of the term “gay”, which to some indicates merely a same-sex attraction, and to others, an active homosexual lifestyle. Plishka’s admission that he was gay did not, if his story is to be believed, “bother” Fr. Coelho.

But something else did. And this something, it appears to me, was Plishka’s unwillingness to see that he was doing anything wrong.

You’ll note that when he was asked to confess his sins, he chose instead to talk about his history. Instead of a spirit of penance, he talked about his excitement at his perception that the pope was embracing gays. Instead of saying that he condemned the homosexual lifestyle, he said that “you can’t be somebody you’re not…otherwise you’ll end up 63 and alone.” The implication is that Plishka chose the opposite – not to be alone.

Finally, Fr. Coelho’s decision to deny communion to Plishka was reinforced by the priest at the Basilica, who also warned that he could not give the sacrament to someone who is an “active participant” in the lifestyle.

Clearly, there is a fine line here. A person who struggles with same-sex attraction but remains chaste is not living in sin. In such a circumstance, there would be no grounds to deny sacraments. We can’t know for sure, but it certainly sounds like Plishka was more involved than that.

If so, it appears that Fr. Coelho’s actions were justified. A person who is living in sin and refuses to repent is not eligible to receive certain sacraments. They cannot be forgiven through confession, because they lack contrition. A priest has the right to withhold absolution to anyone he believes is not making a sincere confession.

And of course a priest is obligated not to provide a person he knows to be in grave sin with the Most Holy Eucharist.

The one oddity in this story is the alleged refusal to provide the Anointing of the Sick. This sacrament is not a “sacrament of the living” — one which requires that the recipient be in a state of grace to receive it — and can, in circumstances where a person is unable to confess their sins due to some physical or psychological impediment, effect the remission of sins. In the case of Plishka, who appears to have been fully conscious and capable of making a confession if he so chose, the sacrament would not have had this effect, but may have offered some of its other salutary benefits.

Still, nothing about Plishka’s account indicates that Fr. Coelho was in any way uncharitable toward him, only that he refused to offer sacraments which (with the possible exception of Anointing of the Sick) should have been refused by any Catholic priest in his situation. In that regard, it looks to the outside observer as though he made precisely the right call.

For his part, Fr. Coelho’s reticence to be interviewed is understandable. This is a minefield for any Catholic priest. Just two years ago, the case of another DC-area priest, Fr. Marcel Guarnizo, gained national attention when he was placed on administrative leave and had his faculties withdrawn after refusing to give communion to a woman who had revealed to him that she was living in a same-sex relationship. It was later claimed that he was placed on leave not for denying communion, but for intimidating behavior – a claim that Fr. Guarnizo has flatly denied.

As the story of Fr. Coelho’s actions continues to make waves, I hope he will respond to the accusations with his own side of the story. It’s not going to go away, and it’s becoming increasingly apparent that the media will capitalize on every story like this to further their agenda. Sadly, this likely means that fewer priests will be willing to protect Our Eucharistic Lord from sacrilege, for fear of the fallout.


Categories:Culture Religious Liberty

  • jackie

    This is why i left the Church..mostof her members have no fear of God any longer. His warnings mean nothing.

  • Bridget

    Being criticized doesn’t mean that there is a war on your religious liberty.

  • Rob

    I’m just continually amazed at how much everyone demands homosexuals to live such pure and upright lifestyles while not giving a damn about the heterosexuals sinning all around them.

    • Bob

      Fine. If we start re-emphasizing heterosexual sins, will people like you stop denying that homosexual acts are sinful by their very nature?

      • Eric Johnson

        Excellent re-direction in order to avoid Rob’s point.

        • EC

          Of course he care about the sins of heterosexuals, but sodomy is still sin. I discourage fornication for everyone. However still story will be mentioned by the media to attack the church for “getting in the way” of their revisionist marriage agenda. Might as well mention that the gay community likes to beat up other gays too, why is the LGBT groups avoiding the cons to their agenda every time?

  • C

    The problem that is stated here can be reduced to two logical fallacies that come from American social thought and are foreign to the Church: 1 – the sacraments are a vested entitlement for all members of the Church, which must be given upon demand at any time and under any condition, and 2 – this holds even when laity completely disregard any of the responsibilities involved with membership in the laity.

    The real question is: why do we care what the Washington Post thinks? Clearly they (and most media outlets) are not aligned with the Church. 9 times out of 10, propaganda streams forth from the idolatry of these interactive lightscreens that we beckon towards daily.

    Maybe it’s time to listen to the Mass/Bible/Catechism instead of the league of false prophets.

  • somethoughts

    I find it interesting that “conservative Catholics” are so proud of this priest for denying rites to a gay man. Do priests do this to the 90-95% of Catholics who have/used contraception? What about those cohabitating, etc.? Or the 60 to 70% who do not believe in the real presence? Or frankly, idk, the 95% of Catholics who are not Catholic by the Catechism’s definition? It seems like some people only talk eucharistic discipline to gays, but don’t want to talk about all the other sins people committ and get away with sacraments.

    • Bob

      It’s been part of Church discipline for centuries that if a Catholic says things in the confessional that lead the priest to suspect that he’s not penitent for all his sins, or has no intention of avoiding some sins in the future, the priest CAN’T give absolution. And I doubt that the people who ignore Church teachings on the subjects you mention are flocking to Confession anyway. At any rate, there’s no way of gathering reliable data you would need to confirm or deny your suspicions.

      • somethoughts

        Whether or not they regularly go to confession is completely irrelevant. How many people cohabitating/using contraception been denied final rites or communion? Where are the priests denying sacraments to the far more numerous heterosexuals who neglect these teachings? Reliable data? All my statements are based off of consistent polling on these issues. Google it for yourself everyone knows it. The day “good orthodox” Catholic priests/laity start applying Eucharistic discipline consistently to gays/straight people is when I’ll start taking them seriously.

    • Gary

      Some Catholics may admit to pollsters that they use contraception or engage in other behaviors that are contrary to Church teaching, but does that mean that they admit them to a priest in the confessional and/or before they receive the Anointing of the Sick? I’m willing to bet that the sacrament would still have been denied to this man if he admitted to living with his girlfriend or to using contraception and was unrepentant. There isn’t a different set of standards for people with same-sex attraction and those without with regard to how the sacraments are administered. Repentance of sin is required before sins can be absolved, and no one is supposed to receive Holy Communion if they’re in a state of unrepentant grave sin.

  • Antonio A. Badilla

    Jimbob, “Coelho did not do his job.”
    It is precisely because this priest did his job that you and the Washington Post are still criticizing him. Being compassionate has nothing to do with being permissive.



Receive our updates via email.