San Francisco: Under Interdict? And What Took So Long?

“Interdict” was a political technique used by the medieval Catholic Church to bring kings and emperor’s into line: it meant denying the celebration of liturgies and sacraments to the general population because of the actions of their leader. Innocent III used it against France c. 1200 A.D. to bring Philip Augustus into line.

Since this meant unreconciled souls could be condemned to hell, according to the theology of the time, if they died during this period, the pressure against the king was immense. The popes often prevailed, although the piety of the Middle Ages was no doubt greater than it is today in general.

While San Francisco will obviously not be punished for Fancy Nancy’s sins, Pelosi should be placed personally under interdict: a Texas politician some years ago was placed under personal interdict by the bishop of Corpus Christi specifically for openly supporting abortion.

Interdict allows the offender to remain nominally Catholic: excommunication is a complete removal.

My further question is: Why has it taken the Catholic hierarchy so long to address the issue of hypocritical “Catholic” politicians who support an anti-Catholic agenda? Teddy Kennedy is the most famous example from early on.

Why now specifically are they banding together against the Pelosi’s and Biden’s? Where have the bishops been the last 30 + years?

Was it simply that Pelosi invaded their territory on national television by claiming her brain contained actual knowledge of Catholic theology?

Have too many bishops accepted the rationalization that a Catholic politician would not want to impose his religion politically, i.e. abortion is a religious matter, separate from abortion as a matter in politics (somehow)?

My view, based on guesswork and no evidence: the bishops really fear a floodgate of infanticide, and perhaps the beginnings of Dutch-style euthanasia, if Obama and the Democrats get their possible landslide.