I don't make generalizations about priests. Every priest is different.

We're off topic from the original post. I repeat, in OPs case:

don't need to find the priest and attack him. He might have been having a bad day or his tone misinterpreted. We can give the penitent reassurance and encouragement without going after the priest. That is how you respond to someone who is hurt, regardless of the priest's intention.

It's not about the priest. It's about the OP.

I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion?

When did I say I didn't trust my priests?

What I'm saying is that priests are human. They make mistakes. And yes, some are predators too. Most aren't. But all of them do make mistakes.

She got permission from her spiritual director, did she not? She didn't throw a fit in the middle of the Mass.

I love the priests at my church and have admiration and respect for the priesthood. Seeing how caring many priests are and the crazy amount of work they do and sacrifices they make strengthens my faith.

But that does not mean priests can do no wrong. And when they do, those hurt by them should not be dismissed. I don't just mean criminal actions, but even when they mistreat or hurt parishioners. Because they can drive people away and souls are at stake.

In this case, we don't need to find the priest and attack him. He might have been having a bad day or his tone misinterpreted. We can give the penitent reassurance and encouragement without going after the priest. That is how you respond to someone who is hurt, regardless of the priest's intention.

I agree. I thought the same thing when I first came across it.

That's your choice, but the Church teaches otherwise (communion in the hand is allowed) and we are supposed to recognize her authority.

 Our mouths and hearts can be just as sinful as our hands. We are equally unworthy to receive communion either way, yet He wants us to receive Him.

 Again, it is not right to be denied reception on the tongue. And it can be hurtful. I know, it happened to me before. But is our heart ready to receive if we turn the communion line into a battleground?

The Church gives her the title Apostle to the Apostles so she did more than just tell people stuff.

I don't think it is ever interpreted that way. Others would be "person other than the penitent". https://canonlawmadeeasy.com/2016/02/04/besides-the-priest-who-else-is-bound-by-the-seal-of-confession/

I think we're talking past each other. 

A priest can be uncharitable without doing something criminal.

Also if he did commit a crime in confession, he still couldn't defend himself. So we still give him the benefit of the doubt??

So what happens if a priest actually does something harmful or hurtful in confession? We accuse the penitent of lying? Also in this case, the priest has no need to defend himself. We don't know who he is.

It is in Canon law. 

. 983 §1. The sacramental seal is inviolable; therefore it is absolutely forbidden for a confessor to betray in any way a penitent in words or in any manner and for any reason.

§2. The interpreter, if there is one, and all others who in any way have knowledge of sins from confession are also obliged to observe secrecy.

The seal only applies to the confessor and anyone else who overhears the confession.

Not the penitent.

See also https://www.catholic.com/qa/who-is-bound-by-the-seal-of-confession

Interpreting the priest's intention with charity is one thing. Saying that it is Jesus speaking through the priest is another. A priest can have good intentions but still end up hurting people in confession. We don't judge the priest but we also give the same benefit of the doubt to the penitent. 

This is a pilgrimage site. It is not unreasonable for pilgrims to go to confession.

It is not a waste of time to confess venial sins. A confession should not take long if you are brief

Also just because someone frequently commits grave sin doesn't necessarily mean they are not contrite. We don't know their struggles. And if the contrition is not perfect, the solution is to keep going to confession more, not less

The priest acts in persona Christi when giving absolution, not for everything else. Priests can and do give bad advice and say inappropriate comments. That's not necessarily God speaking

The sin would be bad-mouthing and slander, not revealing what happened in confession. The penitent is free to talk about their confession

It was allowed in some places, if the bishop put measures in place for COVID.

 But the pandemic is over and normally receiving on the tongue the universal norm. And if you are holding a child, there is no safe way to receive in the hands. Priests often remind parishioners to receive on the tongue if they are holding a baby.

 We shouldn't be denied but I'm not sure communion is the time for a fight or to make a scene either.

I'm glad you were prescribed some meds, I hope they help. Go with the advice your priest gave you in the past. You aren't rejecting God's mercy or you would not be posting this. God looks at the heart, not technicalities

I doubt the priest would be angry, you can go to confession even if you don't have mortal sins.

 Anything message inducing anxiety is not from God.

I understand. I would trust the priests you spoke to over Catholic Answers since they know and have spoken to you specifically. If you are scrupulous, you don't have a healthy conscience, so the response in Catholic Answers wouldn't apply. Instead of looking online, talk to a priest and follow the advice given. My main point however, is to trust in God's mercy. He's not a capricious monster waiting for us to slip and looking for excuses to send us to hell, He's there's to catch us when we fall if we allow Him. Instead of overanalyzing (easier said than done, as someone with anxiety myself) focus your energy on loving Him and on recovery.

Besides counselling, you may also want to speak to your doctor about your anxiety if you haven't already and see what other treatments and specialists may be available to you.

I'm sorry you have been going through such a rough and stressful week.

You said you thought it could be a mortal sin, not that you knew it was a mortal sin and did it anyway. It doesn't seem like you had full knowledge. And with your lack of sleep and anxiety, even if emailing your professor was wrong (it isn't), you were in no condition to think straight.

Are you receiving any treatment or getting any medical help for your anxiety?

Jesus said: Peace I leave with you; my peace I give to you. Not as the world gives do I give to you. Let not your hearts be troubled, neither let them be afraid. 

God is the author of peace, not fear and anxiety.  Whatever is causing you to freak out is not from God. And He loves you. Our relationship with Him is not some sort of video game where if you take one wrong step and die at the wrong moment, you lose. God wants more than anyone for you to be in heaven with Him forever. He redeemed us at a very costly price and was willing to go through so much suffering for our salvation. Even if you did commit a mortal sin, and were sorry but couldn't make it to confession before suddenly dying, do you not think He would be merciful and take that into consideration? 

Please seek help for your anxiety. And when you are able, speak to a priest as well, not because you committed a mortal sin but because he may be able to advise you better. I am praying for you.

The Church recognizes the marriages between non-Catholics as valid.

It is only invalid if a Catholic gets married outside the Church because as Catholics, they are supposed to be married in the Church.

I would add that the wager is sometimes misunderstood. It doesn't mean God plays games with us and will send us to hell simply for guessing the wrong religion. Salvation not some kind of jackpot we win for gambling.  There could be people genuinely seeking the truth, with the limited information that they have, that "choose wrong". Pascal's wager is more about encouraging belief in God for salvation, rather than about avoiding damnation. He is saying that we lose nothing by having faith, being open and seeking God. For both this life and the next, it is better lived in relation to God. I don't think he actually mentions hell in his writings. 

Susan is doing nothing wrong. The Church allows for EMHCs as well as communion in the hand, so it is not "wrong" for unconsecrated hands to touch the Eucharist.

Priests hands are consecrated to consecrate the Eucharist, not to touch the sacred species. Deacons are ordinary ministers of communion and they don't have consecrated hands. This was the case before Vatican II as well.

Now not to say that it makes it better, but communion was received in the hand in the Early Church, long before the Protestant reformation, so it is not a Protestant thing. Apostolic churches that have retained this tradition throughout the centuries include the Assyrian church.

For the record, I don't receive communion in the hand, but I'm not going to say that it is wrong. To me, it is a reminder that I am being fed, and that the Eucharist is not ordinary bread. I also don't need to worry about crumbs on my hands. (EMHCs wash their hands afterwards in an ablution cup).

I also know "Susans" who receive on the tongue and encourage it, but for reasons other than "unconsecrated hands shouldn't touch the Eucharist", which is not Church teaching or practice.

Agreed. It always turns into "why married priests are a bad idea" instead of "here is why celibate priesthood is practiced".

Though on the flip side, sometimes arguments in favour of married priests also devalue the charism of celibacy and turn into "why not allowing priests to marry is a bad idea". And are presented as the solution to all our problems. Celibacy itself is a vocation.

Not only do we confuse irreverence with liturgical abuse, but also aesthetics/ preference. There is nothing inherently irreverent about guitars or communion in the hand. Even though neither are my preference. Reverence is about showing respect for God, and it is not disrespectful to receive in the hand (where it is allowed) or guitar.

Irreverence would be something like chatting in church, using your cell phone for no good reason, not acknowledging the Eucharist and treating it like a mere piece of bread.

Liturgical abuse would be something like changing the words of the Mass, skipping necessary parts of the Mass, allowing the faithful to self-intinct / self-communicate etc. All of which are also irreverent.

Your friend was mistaken or used the wrong terms. The antidoron is still treated with respect because it is blessed, though it is not consecrated, so people are still careful not to drop crumbs and like other blessed food, if it falls on the ground, you pick it up and bury it or feed it to the birds.