COMMENTARY: A priest is under investigation after explaining that those in grave sin should not receive Holy Communion.
In March, Father Jakob Rolland, a Catholic priest in Iceland, was placed under investigation after stating in a radio interview a teaching of the Catholic Church regarding the Eucharist — specifically, that those aware of unconfessed grave sins, including homosexual acts, should not receive Holy Communion.
This placed him at risk of criminal charges for possible violations of Iceland’s “conversion therapy” ban. But Father Rolland did not in fact do what he was accused of. So what is the real issue in Iceland: a priest offering “conversion therapy” or a government targeting a belief it finds intolerable?
What Is the Law?
Iceland’s law bans “conversion therapy.” Iceland’s ban on conversion therapy “prohibits any person to cause an individual, through coercion, deception or threats, to undergo an unproven treatment with the aim of suppressing or changing sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression, and makes them subject to fines or imprisonment for so doing.”
Nothing Father Rolland did fit that description.
His remarks did not provide therapy. They did not pressure, force, threaten or coerce any individual to undergo “conversion therapy.” Nor did he attempt to “convert” anyone’s sexual orientation.
He simply articulated a moral teaching of his Church: that receiving the Eucharist requires a state of grace. That principle applies universally — not selectively — to anyone conscious of grave sin, whether related to sexual behavior, dishonesty, greed or anything else.
To equate the communication of a religious teaching with “conversion therapy” is not just blatantly inaccurate — it’s highly suspicious.
Words Mean Things
Father Rolland was not preventing anyone from receiving the Eucharist. Saying someone should not receive the Eucharist is not the same as preventing them from doing so. Father Rolland did not physically block anyone. He did not enforce compliance with Church law. Everyone in Iceland remained completely free to act as they saw fit.
The broader context is this: Iceland is a traditionally Lutheran country that has been thoroughly secularized in recent years. Father Rolland is a missionary priest from France who has been stationed in Iceland for years. Recent immigration from traditionally Catholic countries such as Poland has helped increase the percentage of Catholics to 4% of the population. A more charitable reading of the situation is that Father Rolland used this interview as an opportunity to explain a basic point of Catholic teaching about grave sin to a wider culture that probably has never heard it before.
If someone chooses to receive the Eucharist while knowingly in unconfessed mortal sin, they commit a further grave sin, namely, the sin of sacrilege. This teaching is not specific to homosexuality, but rather applies to any grave sin. Each individual bears the moral consequences of his or her decision. The role of a Catholic priest is to form consciences. A priest claims no authority to “coerce” anyone.
Father Rolland was simply doing precisely what he was ordained to do: offer moral and pastoral guidance consistent with Catholic teaching. But to equate moral guidance with coercion turns ordinary speech into something treated as force. This shift opens the door for any disagreement with dominant views to be labeled as “harm.”
So, if Father Rolland, a priest of a minority religious body, was not actually threatening anyone or performing “conversion therapy,” what is the deeper issue? What is this controversy really all about?
The secular rulers of Iceland take these ideas for granted:
- People are “born gay.”
- No one can change their patterns of desires and behaviors.
- These desires and behaviors constitute an individual’s identity.
- Homoerotic activity is perfectly healthy and normal.
- Suggesting that people can or should change is intrinsically harmful to them.
Not one of these ideas is self-evidently correct. All can be and have been contested. The Catholic Church and Father Rolland challenge this whole package of assumptions. Therefore, in this governmental view, they have to be silenced.
Father Rolland’s actual “offense” was voicing a moral teaching in direct opposition to this deeply held cultural belief. The issue here is not therapy. The issue is dissent. And when dissent is reframed as harm, it becomes easier to justify punishing it. Further, when one side treats its position as unquestionable, disagreement is no longer allowed — it’s criminalized.
A Precedent Worth Watching
This situation represents a dangerous precedent. If a priest can face potential criminal charges for articulating his Church’s teaching, everyone is at risk.
Today, it’s a priest explaining who should receive Communion. Tomorrow, it’s anyone who challenges the notion that every life choice should be affirmed.
The question is no longer whether Father Rolland engaged in “conversion therapy.” He obviously did not. The real question is whether certain ideas and beliefs are becoming so intolerable that even voicing them is viewed as wrongdoing.
Let’s call this what it is: persecution of Catholics. It’s an attack on freedom of speech, religion, and ultimately, freedom of thought itself.
No matter what you personally believe, everyone should be concerned. No one’s dissent is safe.
Jennifer Roback Morse and Maura Eckels Scherber are the president and social media manager, respectively, of the Ruth Institute. The Ruth Institute recently published a study based on its “Leaving Pride Behind” survey, about respondents’ journeys into and out of an LGBT identity.