YES1

Early days….

Dan, you are correct that, by their acts, they are excommunicated latae sententia, no further action on that part is required of the Church. However they do remain Catholic, Baptism is a one-time-only-time Sacrament and can never be undone. (Yes, we may renew our Baptismal vows at Easter and other times, but this is in no way another Baptism.)

The Pope should direct their Bishops to contact them directly, make their status clear, and offer them a path to reconciliation. In the absence of such the Bishops should communicate to their parishes that what was once occult is now public, and they cannot partake of the Sacraments.

http://www.examiner.com/article/abortionist-on-trial-this-baby-is-big-enough-to-walk-around-with-me We are way beyond such attrocities now…

The problem with withholding communion is that the priest or Eucharistic minister has no way of knowing at the moment the person comes to receive the Host whether or not they have reconciled already. They may have confessed to another priest in the booth or even in the parking lot, you cannot know, so it is a matter of honor not to present yourself to receive the Host if you do not qualify.

And we all know how much honor Pelosi and Biden have, don’t we?

It would be appropriate for their parish priest or even Bishop to counsel them, but the same quandary will always be there in the communion line. In any case, such matters are to be kept private and confidential, they are not for public debate.

No, the acts which excommunicated them were public acts, absolution must likewise be public.

“…excommunication latæ sententiæ may be either public or occult. It is public through the publicity of the law when it is imposed and published by ecclesiastical authority; it is public through notoriety of fact when the offence that has incurred it is known to the majority in the locality, as in the case of those who have publicly done violence to clerics, or of the purchasers of church property. On the contrary, excommunication is occult when the offence entailing it is known to no one or almost no one. The first is valid in the forum externum and consequently in the forum internum; the second is valid in the forum internum only. The practical difference is very
important. He who has incurred occult excommunication should treat himself as excommunicated and be absolved as soon as possible, submitting to whatever conditions will be imposed upon him, but this only in the tribunal of conscience; he is not obliged to denounce himself to a judge nor to abstain from external acts connected with the exercise of jurisdiction, and he may ask absolution without making himself known either in confession or to the Sacred Penitentiaria. According to the teaching of Benedict XIV (De synodo, X, i, 5), “a sentence declaratory of the offence is always necessary in the forum externum, since in this tribunal no one is presumed to be excommunicated unless convicted of a crime that entails such a penalty”. Public excommunication, on the other hand, is removed only by a public absolution; when it is question of simple publicity of fact (see above), the absolution, while not judicial, is nevertheless public, inasmuch as it is given to a known person and appears as an act of the forum externum.”

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05678a.htm

I’ve ordered a HUGE pair of cranial forceps …

Stacy, great post! I became an inactive Catholic the day they gave Ted Kennedy a catholic funeral and mass (please spare me the notion that we don’t know if he had reconciled for his sins, he didn’t). The church speaks volumes about the sanctity of the family, but its leaders refuse to hold public officials to the same standards that they would hold on me. I’m ashamed to have had Biden and Pelosi considered my Catholic brethren. By refusing to hold them to their Catholic tenants, they release all of us from ours. I’ll consider returning to the Church when people are held accountable.

In most parishes of any size — including even in my small parish — there will be more than one line to approach to receive the Host. We have only a couple hundred parishioners on any given Sunday Mass, and half of them receive the Host from a Eucharistic minister, not the pastor. You start to get into questions of whether the priest would either stop the Eucharistic minister, or prohibit him previously, from offering the Host to a particular communicant.

Let’s be honest: the priest doesn’t want to make a scene.

Oh, I absolutely agree that they aren’t good Catholics; I don’t see them as Catholics at all. I’m simply stating that Canon 1398 isn’t written in such a maner as to include their actions.

I am not a Canon lawyer, neither are you. The law is, like all bodies of law, interpreted as a whole. To point to a single Canon as determinative in this matter is neither proper nor accurate. Cannon 1329 may very well apply as the common practice of ‘medically’ performed abortion would not occur except in the presence of legal sanction.

An argument can be made that If, within the legislative domain of the above mentioned politicians, even one abortion would not have occurred in the absence of current legal sanction, then they are as a matter of Canon law accomplices to any of those abortions.

Just because other people are idiots doesn’t mean we should follow their example. Your soul is your own responsibility, and saying “But Biden did thus and so” ain’t going to get you off the hook. Come back to the Church. Try one of the Eastern Rite churches – the music is better and the icons are to die for.

Confidential? Really? They blatantly preach pro abortion and this is confidential?