I assume the OP is referring to the type of Cafeteria Catholic who has been fully catechized and knows what is categorized as a grievous sin and egregiously chooses steadfastly not to acknowledge the Church’s stance on certain grievous sins. That is they defiantly choose to continue specific grievous practices and still present themselves to receive the Holy Eucharist.
Under such circumstances, I would agree with the archbishop in Ireland, Diarmuid Martin, that they should leave the Church rather than receive the Holy Eucharist defiantly unworthily. They are truly an apostate in every way, except declared.
I assumed this, as well, and I think the answer to it conditions our responses. For myself, when I see the word “apostasize,” although it’s incorrectly used in this context, I tend to think he is referring to an informed and deliberate decision to abandon certain truths of the faith, rather than unintentional, uninformed, ignorant disobedience of the sort that probably characterizes the majority of disobedience among Catholics. (Although, how many of those people would continue to be disobedient if they were fully informed?)
Incidentally, I was reading the Gospel of Matthew earlier, and a useful passage of Scripture popped up with which we’re all familiar with:
[BIBLEDRB]Matthew 18:15-17[/BIBLEDRB]
This is useful to bear in mind for those insisting everyone must be treated exactly the same whether they obey the Church’s teachings or not (although, again, that’s a secondary question here – the main one is whether rebellious Catholics have a place for good in the Church, either their own good or that of the Church at large). There is, in fact, a qualitative difference between a penitent sinner and an impenitent one – and we have the words of Christ Himself to confirm this. A person who struggles with, say, masturbation, can’t quite seem to break the habit of it, and must frequently avail him/herself of confession, is simply a different creature than the one who denies the Church’s teaching authority, declares that there’s nothing wrong with masturbation and anyone who says otherwise is a stuck-up fossilized prude, etc.
None of the politicians that was mentioned preach as if they were Pope. They represent their community and their personal political opinion. For example, the current (Democrat) majority leader is a Mormon and pro-life amongst other positions. Yet, I would never think, without evidence, that he represents his Mormon faith in his speeches, decisions, and votes. Nor do I think that he SHOULD represent his Mormon faith. His duty is to represent his state.
I don’t think he should represent his Mormon faith, either. But then, I think that because Mormonism is false and dangerous, not because I have some principled objection to representing religious truths in the political sphere.
The problem is that (a) every Catholic is required to give full assent of faith to the Church’s moral teachings; and (b) why in the world, if you actually do this, would you want something other than the Church’s teachings to be actualized in the world?
As far as the Church cutting off rotten branches remember the parable of the wheat and the weeds. When the evil-doer sowed the weeds the field workers asked to pull up the weeds and the master said no because it may damage health plants nearby. Let Christ and the Holy Spirit prune the branches. Too often when the Church does it themselves they pull up healthy plants near by. Just as bad they are not able to fully remove the dead plants which provide fuel for fires that destroy the majority of the crop.
OK, but again, no one here is talking about kicking people out of the Church. What’s being addressed is simply the prudential question of whether people who obstinately refuse to be in communion with the Church should stay in it or leave.
There is a small leap to make between “Is it good for rebellious Catholics to leave the Church?” and “Rebellious Catholics must leave the Church.”
