> He should. It’s not just about public scandal for the Church, it’s also about the sinner’s soul...
He should not. The Church should concern itself with matters Spiritual, not matters Temporal.
This is an intolerable interference in matters that are of no concern to the Church. The Bishop ought to be called to the Vatican and be given gentle chastising by His Holiness.
> 1 Cor 11:27 Therefore, whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread and drink of the chalice. 29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh judgment to himself...
This passage suggests that judgment is from the Almighty, and that wilfully partaking of sacriment unworthily becomes a self-inflicted injury. There is no mention of the Church having any role to play here.
Remind me never to go into battle with you. If I’m walking toward a land-mine, by your logic, you’ll stay out of my “self-inflicted” injury and let me go.
The Church is the conduit of the Sacraments. It should not administer them to those for whom it would be a burden on their souls. This is a matter that is spiritual (dealing with the things of God—and the souls of the faithful) and temporal (the Sacraments instituted by Christ).
What you fail to note is that 1) this question was asked of the bishop... so it was a setup to stir controversy. It was a question that demanded a response and he referenced Canon Law correctly. 2) Guiliani calls himself a Catholic. However, he doesn’t consider himself subject to Canon Law. Refusing him the Eucharist is not a political matter, it is a Church matter. He can avoid the issue by declaring what is obvious... he is not a Catholic. Then he won’t have to worry about presenting himself for communion.
You ask that the Church neuter Herself.