"All because there was a brief scene among Catholics in a church (really the public university's student union, but they clapped their hands and BELIEVED really hard, and it transmuted once a week!) where the letter of Church Law wasn't quite followed and they chose to make a big honkin' showdown out of it. Downright medieval? You decide."

What the hell does the Schiavo case have to do with Cook? Other than another opportunity for insane people, incapable of defining the real issue here, to wing a few more cheap shots at a religion they despise? The only thing that makes any sense in your account is confirmation of ignorance of not only Catholicism, but more importantly state and federal (ie, secular) law.

It doesn't matter a damn that you clearly dislike the Catholic Church, ridicule its beliefs, its participants, or that Mass, out of clear (and growing) demand, has been celebrated on this campus for years, as well as on hundreds of public universities, all over the country: this is a federal and state protected right.

You can confine your insults to your 'blog', and share your insights with legions of like-minded people.
Once you, or people like Webster Cook, feel they are going to get a few kicks by intentionally interfering with a Mass, improperly accepting/handling something considered sacred, by those present, you've crossed a line. And this isn't a 'Church' line, its a degree of respect that every adult citizen of this country owes others.
The freedom of religious expression, by this Catholic campus group, is what is at issue here. The freedom not to have their Mass turned into a circus by some idiot, interested in a little Eucharistic 'show and tell', is the issue here.
Cook claims he's 'Catholic'. Any Catholic who has read eye-witness accounts, and read his statements, knows immediately that the motives for his actions were clear: no 'Catholic' would even think of doing what he did. His admission of some 'Catholic' background makes his actions that much more culpable, since it presuposes a basic understanding of the importance of what was going on.

Reading your fine analysis and interpretation of events, you can't help but reveal your contempt for Catholicism, so its understandable that you disapprove of what Cook's peers decided was inappropriate behavior, but the 'Church' didn't have a damn thing to say on this matter that influenced this decision.