Scripture addresses church discipline and the final, biblical resolution for an impenitent "christian" is excommunication - treating the person as an unbeliever. This is hardly equal to holding a membership card.
Actually, it's a spiritual issue, not a temporal, political one.
1 Pet 1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but incorruptible, by the word of God who lives and remains for ever
Bottom line is that you can't undo Baptism.
Scripture addresses church discipline and the final, biblical resolution for an impenitent "christian" is excommunication - treating the person as an unbeliever. This is hardly equal to holding a membership card.
No...you're not right there. The final step is not excommunication (exclusion from the sacraments), the final step is anathema:
1 Cor 16:9 If any man love not our Lord Jesus Christ, let him be anathema, maranatha.
Gal 1:8-9 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema. As we said before, so now I say again: If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema.
You may be thinking about that passage in Titus 3 (10-11):
A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid: Knowing that he that is such an one is subverted and sins, being condemned by his own judgment.
Of course, the anathema there is not stated...but it sure is implied, isn't it?
You will notice that there are basically two things, specifically, where one should anathemitize somebody:
Of course, there is another discipline that you could look at, and that is delivering one to Satan:
1 Cor 5:5 To deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.
1 Tim 1:18-20 This precept, I commend to you, O son Timothy: according to the prophecies going before on you, that you war in them a good warfare, having faith and a good conscience, which some rejecting have made shipwreck concerning the faith. Of whom is Hymeneus and Alexander, whom I have delivered up to Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme.
There...you have the subject of sexual immorality (but not just sexual immorality, but bragging about it, perverting it, like it's a good thing)...and, again, drawing people away from the faith.
Unlike an anathema, though, the goal of delivering one over to Satan is that the spirit may be saved in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ / that they may learn not to blaspheme...so, that is far more a medicinal type of penalty rather than an expiatory type of penalty, wouldn't you say?
Then, of course, you have the situation with homosexuals (Rom 1:24):
Wherefore, God gave them up to the desires of their heart, unto uncleanness: to dishonour their own bodies among themselves. Who changed the truth of God into a lie and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. For this cause, God delivered them up to shameful affections.
But that is not a penalty imposed by man, that is a spiritual end.
Now, I don't know if you were thinking about some other passage...
The way the Church deals with the above anathema situations is through clergy suspensions, laicizations, and other interdicts that are actually expiatory in fashion. The key concern expressed in the Scriptures I cited above was the possibility of spreading the heresy and the lies to others. The ones who would be in a position to do that, primarily, are the clergy (along with lay catechists).
And, if you think about it, in a pluralistic society such as the one where we live, that makes all the sense in the world.
If the Church imposed "Vitandi" type excommunications, it would be laughable. (In the old days, when everybody was Catholic...and serious about it...such an excommunication could potentially ruin a person). Think about the recent example when Bishop Olmsted of Phoenix just confirmed that one Sister who approved an abortion happening in a Catholic hospital. That was simply an announcement that she had met the criteria for a latæ sentinæ excommunication. At max, one could consider that a "Toleranti" excommunication. At max. And he was absolutely skewered. If, in our pluralistic society, a bishop was to attempt a "Vitandi" excommunication (assuming hypothetically they weren't suppressed), it would never work. And, that act in of itself, would end up utterly scandalizing his flock.
Having said that...I do think that more bishops need to be stand-up people in regards to how they are dealing with public politicians who make public scandal. 100% I agree with that. I agree that they should make public announcements that politician "a" or "b" have, through their public votes and public statements, excommunicated themselves.
But, one must also remember that the ultimate goal is the salvation of souls. Including the souls of those politicians. Taking too drastic a measure (a measure that would make me very happy) would not only result in that politician anathemitizing him/herself from the Church, but, a significant portion of the bishop's flock would also take offense and leave, as well.
Sure, it would be easier to preach then...more preaching to an "amen corner." But what about the souls of them who leave?
Better for them to start preaching more firmly about moral absolutes, sin, and the final four things. Because then those with ears to hear will recognize that those politicians have placed themselves out of communion with the Church. Then...if you have an outlier like Patrick Kennedy (whose excommunication was announced by his bishop) or Nancy Pelosi (I'm still waiting....)...such a pronouncement would have less effect.
We are still getting over the hippy-dippy days of the 60s and the "spirit of" Vatican II. It is getting better. But it sure is taking long enough. :-(