Aside from that not being Biblical do you really think that the Eucharist should be earned? Who are you (or your church) to decide who can celebrate the death and resurrection of our Lord?
Romans 3:22b-24, "For there is no distinction, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. But they are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus."
Salvation is not earned, it is a free gift, but according to the same Apostle Paul, communion can cause injury or death if partaken of unworthily. So that is Biblical, and I think the Exhortations for the Holy Communion service in the Anglican
Book of Common Prayer explain the benefits of the Eucharist frequently consumed, and the importance of partaking with a clean conscience; the rubrics also give the Priest the ability to repel from the sacrament “a notorious evil liver.”
I didn’t make the rule; Matthew 16 gives clergy the power to bind and loose, 1 Corinthians 11:27-34 warns of the danger of partaking of Holy Communion while unworthy, and the canons of the early church strictly prohibited abortion and of those who repented, they were required to do years of penance before being readmitted to communion. But the Church has always had the power of oikonomia, to waive penances where they would do more harm than good as spiritual medicine, and at my church all that we require is contrition. I do suggest people who have been involved in an abortion come to me for private confession and absolution (we follow the Lutheran and Anglican model of “all may, some should, no one must), and it might be desirable if they feel they were in a state of apostasy that they be rechrismated. It might be spiritually beneficial if they anonymously or publicly denounced abortion and the harm it causes. However, if someone prays the prayer of general confession and receives the absolution during Matins or Vespers, or the Confiteor during the Eucharist, this is sufficient. And Baptism, which we follow with chrismation and communion, cleanses all sins.
I am in general opposed to “church discipline” of the 9Marks variety, so we don’t do that at all, and in our present society, I think severe penances like those imposed by the early church might cause people to become unchurched and are therefore something to be handed out only with the most extreme care. For example, if a particularly abusive person repeatedly had affairs and committed domestic violence, claimed repentance, but then did it again, and again, imposing a penance such as fasting and prayer might be appropriate.
In the case of baptized Christians who realize they have committed homicide and are generally penitent, guilt can be its own form of penance, and while some in the early church would only communicate a murderer in extremis, or after 35 years, in the case of murder punished by the state, if the person confesses to the authorities, that is penance enough, and in the case of abortion which is legal, although it ought not to be, it is basically a case of “go forth and sin no more.”
In the case of politicians and judicial officials who have legalized abortion, and high profile public supporters of it, they are what the Church of England would have called “notorious evil livers” and I think be might even be anathema under Galatians 1:8, and if one turned up at our church, I think they would be required to confess and be chrismated and agree to appropriate measures to mitigate the harm they have caused, because otherwise partaking of the Eucharist would be potentially extremely harmful for them, as an act of grave hypocrisy, and since the bishop or presbyter or abbot has pastoral responsibility, this means we are accountable to God if we intentionally or unintentionally harm someone through incompetent or malfeasant pastoral care, which includes distributing the Eucharist.
