I believe that the post-Vatican II Catholic Church would probably not do that. :) It has been the position of the Latin Church since the Vatican II that those who reject the teachings of the Church cut themselves off from the life-giving mysteries (sacraments) of the Church and therefore incur self-excommunication.
In other words, either you receive the Eucharist unworthily (in the Catholic theological sense) or you stop receiving it all on your own because you no longer participate in the life of the Catholic Church, and (the belief is) God will count you as no longer of his own.
The Orthodox Church, on the other hand, will deny you the Eucharist if the Church knows of anything that you do or believe or profess that is contrary to the Church.
Nancy Pelosi and Joe Bidens in the Orthodox world would not be receiving the Eucharist, trust me. But you are right that the EOC is not and has never been in the business of condemning anyone to hell. That was never part of the declaration of heresy in the undivided Church but rather a Cathoic innovation after the Schism.
The East has never believed in God who condemns. Matthew's Chapter 25 (verse 31-end) speaks of those who have condemned themselves, by choosing not to follow Chirst. It is clearly presented as a choice. The choices you make are believed to carry consequences in the end. If you choose a life of sin, if you only go through the motions (fake it, tyr to fool God) then God will grant you your wish and "honor" your choice.
If you want to leave, God will not force you to stay, for forced love is no love. You can't make someone love you; love, by definition has to come from the heart. God-man relationship has to be genuine, respecting man's freedom that God granted him.
We held a rally outside Rep Gabby Giffords (AZ-8) office a while ago, protesting her refusal to meet with any constituents concerning the health care bill. I think the negative publicity forced her to hold, finally, a couple of townhalls. I’ll leave in a few minutes to try to get in.
Since time is limited, let me just say that I suspect I have significant disagreements with the Orthodox Church, but A) they are fewer in number, since the Orthodox aren’t big on Purgatory and Indulgences, and B) they are less emotional, because they don’t carry the baggage of a history that includes their burning us at the stake, or vice-versa. Although as a Baptist, those who came before me were much more likely to be burned, than to burn others.
In most of my discussions with them, Romans 14 has been an acceptable approach:
“5 One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. 6 The one who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord. The one who eats, eats in honor of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God, while the one who abstains, abstains in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God. 7 For none of us lives to himself, and none of us dies to himself. 8 For if we live, we live to the Lord, and if we die, we die to the Lord. So then, whether we live or whether we die, we are the Lord’s. 9 For to this end Christ died and lived again, that he might be Lord both of the dead and of the living.
10 Why do you pass judgment on your brother? Or you, why do you despise your brother? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God; 11 for it is written,
“As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to me,
and every tongue shall confess to God.”
12 So then each of us will give an account of himself to God. 13 Therefore let us not pass judgment on one another any longer, but rather decide never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of a brother.”