But as it stands --- and remember Peters writes as a canon lawyer who has to interpret it as it stands --- what we're looking for is a manifest sign of repentance. A Catholic who has requested the Sacraments and has been absolved of his sins, is considered to have shown this outward "sign" of repentance.
We can't guess about his interior disposition.
Of course, he might never have truly repented. However, all the Church can go by, is what is manifest, not what is hidden in the heart. And as the law stands, all you need is "a" "sign," and, as you know, that's what a Sacrament is: an outward sign established by Christ to give grace.
IMHO, in any case it ought to have been a private Mass in the Kennedy compound chapel, with 50 kinfolk in attendance and no media.
Pray for mercy and skip the microphines, the massed choirs and the grand procession of highest-perched hierarchs.
Leon Suprenant puts the entire question to rest quite capably here. He quotes St. John Chrysostom, an Early Church Father who lived from 347 to 407 A.D. Chrysostom writes:
I speak not only to the communicant, but also I say to the priest who ministers the Sacrament: Distribute this gift with much care. There is no small punishment for you, if being conscious of any wickedness in any man, you allow him to partake of the banquet of the table: ‘Shall I not now require his blood at your hand?’ (2 Sam. 4:11). If some public figure, or some wealthy person who is unworthy, presents himself to receive Holy Communion, forbid him. The authority that you have is greater than his. Consider if your task were to guard a clean spring of water for a flock, and you saw a sheep approach with mire on its mouth–you would not allow it to stoop down and pollute the stream. You are now entrusted with a spring, not of water, but of blood and of spirit. If you see someone having sin in his heart (which is far more grievous than earth and mire), coming to receive the Eucharist, are you not concerned? Do you try to prevent him? What excuse can you have, if you do not?
The saint then explains that:
You ask how you should know which individual is unworthy to receive? I am speaking here not of some unknown sinner, but of a notorious one. If someone who is not a disciple, through ignorance, comes to Communion, do not be afraid to forbid him. Fear God, not man. If you fear man, you will be scorned and laughed at even by him; but if you fear God, you will be an object of respect even to men. But if you cannot do it, bring that sinner to me, for I will not allow anyone to dare do these things. I would give up my life rather than give the Lord’s Blood to the unworthy.
He then clarifies that there’s no sin in offering the Eucharist to someone who turns out to be an unrepentant sinner, but who the priest didn’t realize was at the time. He then explains why this denial of Communion is so important, listing two reasons (neither of which, interestingly, are “to help out the Republican Party”):
I say the things above concerning only those who sin openly. For if we amend these, God will speedily reveal to us the unknown also; but if we let these flagrant abuses continue, how can we expect Him to make manifest those that are hidden? I say these things, not to repel sinners or cut them off, but I say it in order that we may being them to repentance, and bring them back, so that we may take care of them. For thus we shall both please God and lead many to receive worthily. And for our own diligence, and for our care for others, we will receive a great reward. May we attain that reward by the grace and love that God gives to man through Our Lord Jesus Christ, to whom be glory, world without end. Amen.”
In other words, St. John Chrysostom says we need to do this for the sake of folks like John Kerry, and those who follow in his bad example in forming their opinions. The rest of Leon’s post is worth reading, as is his follow-up.
Turns out, those Bishops who deny the Eucharist to unrepentant advocates of intrinsic evil are doing exactly what the Church has prescribed from the time of the Apostles onwards to avoid the sin mentioned in 1 Corinthians 11:27 of eating the Body of the Lord unworthily. It is instead those like Fr. Greeley who want the Church to jettison Her traditional teachings, and reduce issues like abortion to the level of prudential judgments like death penalty and just war.
That's the scary part. Bergoglio can change canon law at his whim; although for years as a bishop, he ignored the law by washing the feet of women and non-catholics on Holy Thursday. He continued to ignore the law the first few years of his papacy until he did change the law to his liking. Franicis' motto should be, "Laws should be made to be broken, and I will then make the breaks the new law".