The "problem" is understanding the church laws applicable to excommunication. Yes, we don't just toss politicians out of the church because they have 'politically' (as a representative of all the people) disagreed with church teachings. Hence, the links posted above to explain church positions on specific issues.
To put this into perspective, imagine you are a muslim and the governor of Michigan. The muslim community demands that you, as a follower of Islam, impose Sharia Law on all residents of Michigan. You disagree since you represent ALL constituents, including christians and jews. Should the muslims excommunicate you?
I’m not saying I disagree with you but your analogy is flawed. The muslims would not excommunicate you they would behead you for apostasy.
I don’t know what the canons allow for and am inclined to give Mr. Peters the benefit of his expertise. But I think he needs to answer for the entirety of ecclesiastical history before he takes such a strict view of who can be excommunicated.
The assumption is “well, he hasn’t committed an excommunicatable offense.” But how much of that is because no one is being proactive about it and calling him to the carpet?
In prior days, the bishop would have sent a letter: “You appear before me by such-and-such a date on pain of excommunication to answer for your manifest and public support of a putative “right” to abortion. If you don’t show up...bye bye. If you do show up, then prepare to answer a charge of heresy. If you are repentant, you will be given public penance and all will be resolved. If you remain obstinate of such heresy, then bye bye.”
If he cannot be excommunicated without trial and due process, FINE...then HAVE THE TRIAL.
Read this list:
Notice at the end of the list: “All the Catholics and legislators who promoted the abortion law in Uruguay.” How and why were they excommunicated and this reprobate in New York goes free? Are the bishops of Uruguay under a different code of canon law?