Personally, I have no issues with this for obvious reason that I don't really care one way or another. One issue I have is with the spokesperson of the church who said the following:
"Something happened that won't happen again. Something our interim priest did spontaneously."He misjudged our congregation." Oh, did he? I don't think the complainer misjudged anything because it "won't happen again." What part of this makes sense? If you are going to say that the complainer misjudged the congregation, then I would have expected the church to have defended the priest and told the complainer to loosen up, then I would have had a "Bring Your Pet to Communion Sunday" just to make the point . Instead of siding with the majority, the church sided with the complainer and banned the practice. The guy was a douche and he won. Misjudged? Not likely.
This person went to the top and emailed our bishop to make a fuss and change things. But he misjudged our congregation."
So, what rule changed? For all but one member of that congregation, their image of their God is a being that would have taken some measure of joy in seeing the dog receive communion, or at the very least could care less. However, Mr. Complainer's image of God saw this as a travesty, so he complained. The archbishop agreed. What part of Anglican Biblical canon changed? Surely, the priest, taught in the ways of his God, would have known such an action would have displeased his God? Certainly the priest's image of his God didn't have an issue with it, nor did the image of the old woman's God sitting in the front row beaming when this all took place.