[ninenot]

You've asked a couple of questions.

First off, 'excommunication' has already been done. The letter from Bp Burke, telling certain pols NOT to receive Communion until they publicly recant, IS excommunication.

Other Bishops have not put it in writing (to our direct knowledge--it COULD be, but nobody's telling...) but, verbally, they have said the same thing (Madison and Boston.)

As to banning them from the property--that's not the Catholic way. It is the right of every Catholic to attend Mass (unless they are otherwise subject to restrictions for violence, etc., as you might expect) Thus, the Bishop cannot ban them from showing up.

But the "shame" quotient is very high here...

[Theodore R.]

But the "shame" quotient is very high here...

I don't think the pro-abortion politicians have any "shame." They are mostly Clintoids. And in the Age of Clinton there is no "shame" over much of anything.

[Dajjal]

The letter from Bp Burke, telling certain pols NOT to receive Communion until they publicly recant, IS excommunication.

Not true.

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/enpeters/a_denialofeucharist.htm

Excommunication (or interdiction) would entail the denial of all the sacraments, not the denial of only the Eucharist, as Burke has done.

[sinkspur]

First off, 'excommunication' has already been done. The letter from Bp Burke, telling certain pols NOT to receive Communion until they publicly recant, IS excommunication.

It is not. Excommunication is an explicit canonical penalty attached to specific actions; in addition, these politicians would be refused a church burial if they were excommunicated. I doubt Burke would refuse them that.

These pro-choice politicians are excluded from communion. They are not excommunicated.