The priest was lucky to find two women willing to take it in the apse.
. . .and the thread has been won. Take a bow, Gyrate! 
My understanding from being raised Roman Catholic is that all altars are required to have a relic, and some quick Googling seems to confirm that. Presumably they pulled the relic out before burning the defiled altar.
Thanks but given the subject matter, I’m afraid to bend over.
Gyration should be fitting enough under the circumstances.
Consenting adults were producing a video for a legal market, and obtained proper permission to use the filming location. How do you make the leap to criminality?
As the article to which the OP linked indicated that they were arrested on obscenity charges, my WAG is that the charges were based on the fact that they were visible from the door or window of the church.
It may or may not be that they had “proper permission,” depending on whether the priest alone is able to grant permission for private use of the sanctuary for non-religious purposes.
Also, depending on local or state laws, filming pornography for commercial use may also be illegal, though it doesn’t sound like that’s what they were charged with.
IANAL but I would say the priest doesn’t own the property; it’s owned by the diocese. The priest is essentially an employee who was in his workplace. So he did not have the authority to give permission for the church to be used as the set of an adult movie.
Two women… at the same time?
Lucky.
The Lord does work in mysterious ways.
I’m not Christian, but I’ve always assumed that so long as the doors aren’t locked, anyone can just walk into a Catholic church off the street, just like they would a shop or a convenience store. If the clerk started having sex with someone on the counter of an open 7-11, wouldn’t that legally be considered public sex?
Condemning the priest himself for his act is easy but, to me, the real problem has always been this absurd Roman Catholic mandate that their clergy cannot marry or, be still my heart, have conjugal relations of any kind. Not only is it completely unnatural. it isn’t even a mandate anywhere in the four Gospels.
Gee, I wonder what can be expected when people are forced to deny the strongest urge in nature for absolutely no other reason than mindless dogma? Hmm … … …
Continuing the “leap to criminality” fiber …
The diocesan authorities are said to have burned the altar and therefore will have to procure a new one. That can’t be cheap, especially given the likely poverty of a parish operating out of a converted house.
If that outcome was a predictable consequence for the priest’s actions if caught , it amounts to malicious mischief or some sort of vandalism: willfully damaging the goods of another.
e.g. If I spray-paint “LSLGuy was here” on a highway underpass, the damage and the crime is real whether or not the highway department ever notices I did that and is then forced to repaint.
I mean, I’d have just used a little bleach water or lysol or something.
*Holy shit, this is so fucking dumb.
One woukd think holy water would do the trick. If not, they should rethink the whole notion of “holy water”.
Depends on which hole the water is from.
Two girls, one chalice? (I’ll see myself out of the thread. 
)
This requires a new adjective, offendvious.
I don’t think it’s absurd, but I do think it’s at the heart of some of the problems the RC church has had for the last 1000 years: the institutional response to any misbehavior by priests is informed by the inability to deal honestly with the quiet heterosexual behavior of priests.
from what I’ve read , any pope can lift the ban on priests marrying.
there are a few married priests because they were priests or ministers in other christian groups and converted . There are also some priests who were widowed.