Yet how does someone know if someone repented before receiving even if they went back to sinning afterwards?
Yes but for what purpose? The Eucharist is the pinnacle of the Mass. If they are going to continue to dissent and be forbidden to receive Jesus, they could also pray and hear Scripture and hymms at other places.
Hopefully they were properly catechised to know it doesn’t work that way.
We’re talking about politicians openly and consistently promoting evil. In public. Which means they haven’t repented.
DeBlasio no longer attends the Catholic church or Mass?
You make some valid points, which is why my understanding is that the times the Eucharist has been withheld are few and far between. It would certainly be better for a bishop, or priest, to have a discussion with a politician and advise them that if they have not repented for their public positions, that they should abstain from receiving the Eucharist, lest they “drink judgment” upon their soul (to borrow from St. Paul).
It’s possible to be “properly catechized” but still not have the necessary faith.
I don’t follow how it means they haven’t repented? Does every repentant go on to sin no more? If so, what would be the need to return to the confessional?
You might be interested in what a previous archbishop in Oregon had to say on the subject. It seems similar to what you are saying.
While public dissenters should refrain themselves, “Speaking as a pastor, it is less abrasive to refuse to baptize a child or to marry a couple when the request is made beforehand than it is to refuse Holy Communion during a public liturgical service.”
If they repented, they would not continue to promote (e.g., abortion, gay marriage, etc) evil as a politician. They are promoting evil. Ergo, they haven’t repented yet.
You didn’t answer the question. So did anyone else not repent either who confesses but then commits the same sin again?
Good grief, it was about Catholic politicians, not hypothetical anonymous laity, who are publicly advocating for grave sin.