"The Sad State of Catholic Politicians"

Matthew Archbold provides a run-down on "the sad state of Catholic politicians" at Creative Minority Report:

... Meanwhile, Caroline Kennedy, a pro-abortion Catholic, dropped out of her quest for the open New York Senate seat last week. Instead, Gov. Paterson, a pro-abortion Catholic, chose Rep. Kirsten Gillibrand, a pro-abortion Catholic, to fill the vacancy. This so angered Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, a pro-abortion Catholic, that she has announced she will challenge Sen. Gillibrand in the primary in two years. State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, a pro-abortion Catholic, is now set to challenge a weakened Gov. Paterson, a pro abortion Catholic, in the primary for governor in two years as well. There was talk of Nassau County Executive Tom Suozzi, a pro-abortion Catholic, for the senate seat, and perhaps making a future run for governor.

Whoever gets the Democratic nomination for governor may well face Rudolf Giuliani, a pro-abortion Catholic, in the state-wide race...

[Read the whole thing]

(emphasis in original)

Obama’s Laughable Judicial Philosophy: His Ridiculous Response to McCain's Speech on the Judiciary

Ed Morrissey reports:

Continuing the conversation on judicial nominations, Rudy Giuliani appeared on Fox yesterday to review John McCain’s Wake Forest speech. He gave McCain high marks, but laughed out loud at Barack Obama’s response. Giuliani questioned whether the constitutional law professor even knows what role judges are supposed to play and the difference between the judiciary and the legislature:

***
KELLY: It’s funny you should mention that, Mr. Mayor, because Barack Obama in a statement responding to John McCain’s point today said and I quote, “Barack Obama has always believed that our court should stand up for social and economic justice, and what’s truly elitist is to appoint judges who will protect the powerful and leave ordinary Americans to fend for themselves.”

Why the laughter?

GIULIANI: Well, the laughter because that is not what a judge in the American legal system is supposed to do. That is not a really responsible definition of a judge. The judge is supposed to interpret the law. And the law is written by other people. It’s written by members of the Congress. It’s written by framers of the Constitution. It’s written by the people when they amend the Constitution...***

In our earlier threads, some of our commenters insisted that there would be no difference between McCain and Obama on judicial appointments. Obama himself made the difference clear; he wants judges who would impose social policy rather than interpret and enforce existing law. This makes sense from a legislator who has done nothing to propose social policy in his three years in the Senate. He would rather take the shortcut on which liberal activists have grown to rely when they realize that their radical plans have little chance of success in the legislative process...

(emphasis added)

My Comments:
What do you expect from a man who, in criticizing the Supreme Court's ruling upholding the ban on partial-birth abortion, said this about how he would go about nominating a Supreme Court Justice:

"We need somebody who's got the empathy to recognize what it's like to be a young teen-aged mom," he said.

You know, so the Court could understand what it's like to be "punished with a baby", and vote accordingly to ensure that abortion-on-demand is the supreme law of the land.


Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
McCain's Justice Advisory Committee

Brownback Previews McCain Speech on Judiciary [UPDATED - Must-read text from McCain's speech]

Litmus Test: Democrat Candidates Demand Pro-Abortion Supreme Court Justices

Obama, Clinton Slam Supreme Court on Abortion Ruling

Regular Guy Paul on "The Question of Whether to Deny Communion to Public Supporters of Abortion"

Regular Guy Paul offers his thoughts on the controversy at Thoughts of a Regular Guy.

Fr. John McCartney on Pro-Abort Politicos Receiving Communion

(Hat tip: Creative Minority Report)

Reprinted from the Pastor's Page of St. Matthew Church in Dix Hills NY:

... Some argue that the Eucharist should never be a source of division. They forget that the Eucharist has always been a source of division among people since Our Lord announced it Himself in the synagogue in Capernaum:

The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us [His] flesh to eat?” Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.... Then many of his disciples who were listening said, “This saying is hard; who can accept it?” Since Jesus knew that his disciples were murmuring about this, he said to them, “Does this shock you?” ... As a result of this, many [of] his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him. Jesus then said to the Twelve, “Do you also want to leave?” Simon Peter answered him, “Master, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. We have come to believe and are convinced that you are the Holy One of God.” [Jn 6:52-54; 60- 61; 66-69]

The Gospel of Jesus Christ is not something we vote on to determine whether we like it or not. It is not determined by a poll of how many Catholics would like it to change, to be made easier, more convenient, or softer. Jesus gave the Church His Gospel with the “Great Commission” to “teach them to observe all that I have commanded you.” [Mt 28: 20] We cannot pick and choose what we prefer to follow as Catholics. We must either accept the whole Gospel or reject the Gospel wholly.

A spokesman for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops issued a statement before the Pope’s visit: “People go to church and people go to Communion if they feel in their heart they are prepared to receive Communion.” This in fact is terribly misleading. What people do and what they should do are two completely different things. When people approach the communion rail, the priest has no way of knowing whether they have committed a mortal sin that would bar them from receiving the Eucharist. The assumption must be made that the person has properly examined his conscience in light of the teachings of the Church, and knows whether he may receive Holy Communion or should refrain. It has nothing to do with a feeling; it has to do with knowing whether one is in a state of serious sin or not...

[Read the whole thing]

(emphasis added)


Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
Wrong Target? A Different Look at the Cardinal and the Mayor

Response of Archdiocese of Washington to Pro-Abort Senators Receiving Communion

Deal Hudson Asks: "Will Archbishop Wuerl Follow Cardinal Egan?"

CBS: Cardinal Egan "Rips" Giuliani For Taking Communion [UPDATED]

Novak Criticizes Cardinals for "Disobedience" in Giving Pro-Abort Catholics "a Pass" During Papal Visit

"Wafer Wars, Wedge Issues and the Pope’s Visit" [UPDATED]

Twice-Divorced, Pro-Abort Rudy Giuliani Receives Communion at Papal Mass

Pro-Abort Catholic Politicians to Receive Communion at Papal Mass [UPDATED]

Archbishop Burke Preaches Tough Communion Rule

More on Archbishop Burke's Article on Canon 915 (Regarding Communion and Pro-Abort Politicos)

Archbishop Burke on Bad Catholics in Political Life

Archbishop Wuerl's Stand on Lawmakers Who Back Abortion Angers Some Conservative Catholics

Abortion and the New Archbishop - A Shot Across the Bow

Wuerl to be Installed Today - Mass in Washington, D.C., Will Mark His Debut as Archbishop

McCarrick's Successor Seen as Loyal, Diplomatic, "a Vote for Continuity"; Not Denying Communion has "Served Us Well" (15 links)

Pope Names Wuerl New Archbishop of Washington, DC

Bishop Wuerl's Name Surfaces for D.C.

The Final Word on Pro-Abort Pols and Communion?

Bishop Wuerl: Bishops Should Consult One Another Before Speaking On National Issues Like Kerry And Communion

Wrong Target? A Different Look at the Cardinal and the Mayor

At InsideCatholic, Elizabeth Scalia (the recently revealed secret identity of a well-known and popular blogger at St. Blog's) has an alternate take on the Egan-Giuliani imbroglio.


Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
Response of Archdiocese of Washington to Pro-Abort Senators Receiving Communion

Deal Hudson Asks: "Will Archbishop Wuerl Follow Cardinal Egan?"

CBS: Cardinal Egan "Rips" Giuliani For Taking Communion [UPDATED]

Novak Criticizes Cardinals for "Disobedience" in Giving Pro-Abort Catholics "a Pass" During Papal Visit

"Wafer Wars, Wedge Issues and the Pope’s Visit" [UPDATED]

Twice-Divorced, Pro-Abort Rudy Giuliani Receives Communion at Papal Mass

Pro-Abort Catholic Politicians to Receive Communion at Papal Mass [UPDATED]

Archbishop Burke Preaches Tough Communion Rule

More on Archbishop Burke's Article on Canon 915 (Regarding Communion and Pro-Abort Politicos)

Archbishop Burke on Bad Catholics in Political Life

Archbishop Wuerl's Stand on Lawmakers Who Back Abortion Angers Some Conservative Catholics

Abortion and the New Archbishop - A Shot Across the Bow

Wuerl to be Installed Today - Mass in Washington, D.C., Will Mark His Debut as Archbishop

McCarrick's Successor Seen as Loyal, Diplomatic, "a Vote for Continuity"; Not Denying Communion has "Served Us Well" (15 links)

Pope Names Wuerl New Archbishop of Washington, DC

Bishop Wuerl's Name Surfaces for D.C.

The Final Word on Pro-Abort Pols and Communion?

Bishop Wuerl: Bishops Should Consult One Another Before Speaking On National Issues Like Kerry And Communion

Response of Archdiocese of Washington to Pro-Abort Senators Receiving Communion

(Hat tip: Opinionated Catholic)

Fr. Z has the story and commentary.


Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
Deal Hudson Asks: "Will Archbishop Wuerl Follow Cardinal Egan?"

CBS: Cardinal Egan "Rips" Giuliani For Taking Communion [UPDATED]

Novak Criticizes Cardinals for "Disobedience" in Giving Pro-Abort Catholics "a Pass" During Papal Visit

"Wafer Wars, Wedge Issues and the Pope’s Visit" [UPDATED]

Twice-Divorced, Pro-Abort Rudy Giuliani Receives Communion at Papal Mass

Pro-Abort Catholic Politicians to Receive Communion at Papal Mass [UPDATED]

Archbishop Burke Preaches Tough Communion Rule

More on Archbishop Burke's Article on Canon 915 (Regarding Communion and Pro-Abort Politicos)

Archbishop Burke on Bad Catholics in Political Life

Archbishop Wuerl's Stand on Lawmakers Who Back Abortion Angers Some Conservative Catholics

Abortion and the New Archbishop - A Shot Across the Bow

Wuerl to be Installed Today - Mass in Washington, D.C., Will Mark His Debut as Archbishop

McCarrick's Successor Seen as Loyal, Diplomatic, "a Vote for Continuity"; Not Denying Communion has "Served Us Well" (15 links)

Pope Names Wuerl New Archbishop of Washington, DC

Bishop Wuerl's Name Surfaces for D.C.

The Final Word on Pro-Abort Pols and Communion?

Bishop Wuerl: Bishops Should Consult One Another Before Speaking On National Issues Like Kerry And Communion

Deal Hudson Asks: "Will Archbishop Wuerl Follow Cardinal Egan?"

Deal Hudson writes at InsideCatholic:

Last night Zoe posted the news that Cardinal Egan publicly admonished Rudy Giuliani for taking communion during the Pope's visit to New York. Egan explained that he had an understanding with the former mayor that he would not present himself for the Eucharist.

At the papal Mass at National's Stadium, communion was received by Sen. Pelosi, Sen. Kerry, Sen. Dodd, and Sen. Kennedy. Bob Novak reported they were given communion by the papal nuncio, Archbishop Pietro Sambi, though the photographs posted on InsideCatholic.com show that Sen. Kerry received communion from a dark-haired priest, obviously not Sambi. The gray-haired priest giving communion to Sen. Dodd could be Sambi, but it's hard to tell.

Question: What will Archbishop Wuerl of Washington, DC do now that Cardinal Egan has spoken out on the issue?

I predict he will not follow Egan's example. If Sambi gave communion to the pro-abortion Catholic senators then Wuerl's hand are tied.

My Comments:
I, too, believe it doubtful that Archbishop Wuerl will address this matter in the same way that Cardinal Egan has done because, as Discalced Yooper points out, the situations aren't congruous.

Nevertheless, I can envision a steady drumbeat from some to try to force the hand of Archbishop Wuerl by pointing to the example of Cardinal Egan and Giuliani. Such efforts aren't likely to be successful or particularly productive.

Still, recall that this issue has been prominent since the moment Archbishop Wuerl came to D.C. (actually, before he even got there), and is likely to continue to be so.


Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
CBS: Cardinal Egan "Rips" Giuliani For Taking Communion [UPDATED]

Novak Criticizes Cardinals for "Disobedience" in Giving Pro-Abort Catholics "a Pass" During Papal Visit

"Wafer Wars, Wedge Issues and the Pope’s Visit" [UPDATED]

Twice-Divorced, Pro-Abort Rudy Giuliani Receives Communion at Papal Mass

Pro-Abort Catholic Politicians to Receive Communion at Papal Mass [UPDATED]

Archbishop Burke Preaches Tough Communion Rule

More on Archbishop Burke's Article on Canon 915 (Regarding Communion and Pro-Abort Politicos)

Archbishop Burke on Bad Catholics in Political Life

Archbishop Wuerl's Stand on Lawmakers Who Back Abortion Angers Some Conservative Catholics

Abortion and the New Archbishop - A Shot Across the Bow

Wuerl to be Installed Today - Mass in Washington, D.C., Will Mark His Debut as Archbishop

McCarrick's Successor Seen as Loyal, Diplomatic, "a Vote for Continuity"; Not Denying Communion has "Served Us Well" (15 links)

Pope Names Wuerl New Archbishop of Washington, DC

Bishop Wuerl's Name Surfaces for D.C.

The Final Word on Pro-Abort Pols and Communion?

Bishop Wuerl: Bishops Should Consult One Another Before Speaking On National Issues Like Kerry And Communion

CBS: Cardinal Egan "Rips" Giuliani For Taking Communion [UPDATED]

N.Y. Cardinal says former Mayor broke "understanding" for receiving Eucharist during Pope's visit:

NEW YORK (CBS) ― New York Cardinal Edward Egan is lashing out at Rudy Giuliani for taking Holy Communion during Pope Benedict XVI's visit to the city because the former mayor supports abortion rights.

In a statement released to the media, Egan said:

"The Catholic Church clearly teaches that abortion is a grave offense against the will of God. Throughout my years as Archbishop of New York, I have repeated this teaching in sermons, articles, addresses, and interviews without hesitation or compromise of any kind. Thus it was that I had an understanding with Mr. Rudolph Giuliani, when I became Archbishop of New York and he was serving as Mayor of New York, that he was not to receive the Eucharist because of his well-known support of abortion. I deeply regret that Mr. Giuliani received the Eucharist during the Papal visit here in New York, and I will be seeking a meeting with him to insist that he abide by our understanding."

It's not yet known when Egan plans to meet with Giuliani to discuss his apparent misunderstanding.

CBS 2 has attempted to contact Giuliani's office for a response, but calls were not immediately returned.

My Comments:
I state merely as an observation (NOT a criticism) that I doubt we'll be hearing any "ripping" of Pelosi, Kerry, et al. from Archbishop Wuerl.

Then again, I would hardly characterize Cardinal Egan's press release as "ripping" Rudy Giuliani.


UPDATE
I have a few questions:

Does anyone think Cardinal Egan's rebuke will create a media firestorm in D.C. over the next few days with the intended effect of pushing Archbishop Wuerl to follow Egan's lead with respect to Pelosi, Kerry, and Dodd?

Doesn't Egan's response to Rudy sorta put pressure on Wuerl to respond in some way?

Does anyone really believe Wuerl will follow suit?

Why or why not?


Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
Novak Criticizes Cardinals for "Disobedience" in Giving Pro-Abort Catholics "a Pass" During Papal Visit

"Wafer Wars, Wedge Issues and the Pope’s Visit" [UPDATED]

Twice-Divorced, Pro-Abort Rudy Giuliani Receives Communion at Papal Mass

Pro-Abort Catholic Politicians to Receive Communion at Papal Mass [UPDATED]

"Friend" of Rudy and Hillary! to Retire in April - Speculation on Replacement

Novak Criticizes Cardinals for "Disobedience" in Giving Pro-Abort Catholics "a Pass" During Papal Visit

Columnist Robert Novak, a Catholic, writes in today's Washington Post:

In the aftermath of the U.S. visit by Pope Benedict XVI, traditional Catholics are asking a troublesome question: Did pro-choice politicians receiving Communion at the papal Masses indicate the pope had softened on the abortion question? The answer is no. On the contrary, it reflected disobedience to Benedict by the archbishops of New York and Washington.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Sens. John Kerry, Christopher Dodd and Edward M. Kennedy received Communion at Nationals Park in Washington, as did former mayor Rudolph Giuliani at Yankee Stadium in New York. Archbishop Donald Wuerl of Washington and Cardinal Edward Egan, archbishop of New York, invited them. Given choice seats, they took Communion as a matter of course.

Vatican sources say the pope has not retreated from his long-held position that pro-choice politicians should be deprived of Communion, but the decisions in Washington and New York were not his. The effect was to dull the pope's messages of faith, obligation and compassion. In his Yankee Stadium homily, he talked of "authority" and "obedience" -- acknowledging that "these are not easy words to speak nowadays." They surely are not for four former presidential candidates and two princes of the church, representing Catholics who defy their faith's doctrine on abortion.

Benedict's position was unequivocal when he was Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Asked in 2004 whether Kerry, as the Democratic presidential nominee, should be allowed to take Communion, he replied, "The minister of Holy Communion must refuse to distribute it."

Ratzinger's demeanor necessarily has changed with his elevation from doctrinal enforcer to global pastor, but he has not altered his position. When the pope arrived in Brazil a year ago, he declared: "The killing of an innocent human child is incompatible with going into Communion in the body of Christ."

[More]

While I might not agree that the politicians at issue should have been invited to the Papal Masses or that they should have received Communion while attending, I think Novak goes too far in accusing the Cardinals who invited them of outright "disobedience".

Michael Sean Winters responds to Novak's column at the America Magazine blog:

Robert Novak, famous for publishing the name of CIA officer Valerie Plame [ED.: Relevance? Or does ad hominem pass for intelligent dialogue at America these days? Besides, Novak was "famous" long before Richard Armitrage - State Department hero of lefties everywhere - outed Plame to him.], has decided to use his morning column to pose as the head of the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. He notes that several pro-choice politicians received communion at the papal Masses in Washington and New York but assures us that this shows no softening of Benedict's presumed hard-line stance. Novak instead says the culprit is the "disobedience to Benedict by the archbishops of New York and Washington."

Really? Who told him this? I watched Benedict and Washington Archbishop Donald Wuerl chatting in the popemobile after the papal Mass here, and I did not notice any frigidness or hostility. But, Novak knows better. He not only knows the pope's mind, he claims to know the motives of Archbishop Wuerl whom he recklessly charges with being afraid of clashing with the movers and shakers of D.C.'s political class. Wuerl even shook hands with Senators Kerry and Kennedy at his installation Mass in 2006. Horror! Shaking hands!

***
Novak also rehashes the canard that then-Cardinal Ratzinger made his opposition to giving communion to certain politicians crystal clear in a memo to Washington's former archbishop, Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, in 2004. (Conservatives have long used McCarrick as a whipping boy on this and other issues. He was an outstanding archbishop.) Parts of that memo were leaked to the press and certainly did suggest that pro-abortion politicians should absent themselves from taking Communion. But, the memo was more nuanced than Novak suggests, it was never an authoritative theological statement on the issue, and if Cardinal McCarrick had so thoroughly ignored its reasoning, as Novak suggests, there would have been repercussions. There were none. [ED.: Seriously? Is that how it works? Never mind that His Eminence was on the verge of retirement anyway. And, so, we see the mind of the "progressive" Catholic at work: if we here in AmChurch do something we really oughtn't do, but there are no "repercussions" from Rome, then that should be read as tacit approval of our actions.]

***
I am tired of conservative laymen denouncing our bishops when they fail to follow the talking points from the Republican National Committee... [ED.: I'll agree that Catholic laymen shouldn't be denouncing our Bishops as "disobedient". But does Winters truly believe that those of us who are concerned by the scandal given when pro-abort politicians take Communion are merely parroting GOP "talking points"? And, if so, why did Novak spend an entire paragraph noting how "even more remarkable" it was that Republican Rudy Giuliani had received Communion during the Papal Mass in St. Patrick's Cathedral at Cardinal Egan's invitation? Is the RNC really that concerned about fellow-Republican Rudy receiving Communion? Is there some GOP "talking point" about denouncing Cardinal Egan for inviting Republican Giuliani to the Papal Mass that Novak was adhering to when writing his Op/Ed? And, for that matter, are Archbishop Burke et al on the GOP payroll and/or following a set of RNC "talking points"?]

[More]

Tito also offers his take on the controversy at Custos Fidei.


UPDATE
I note that the title of my post is somewhat off in its reference to "Cardinals" - Archbishop Wuerl is not, yet, a Cardinal. Nevertheless, Novak also uses his column to criticize the former Archbishop of Washington, Cardinal McCarrick, in addition to Cardinal Egan and Archbishop Wuerl, so the title is at least sorta accurate.


Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
"Wafer Wars, Wedge Issues and the Pope’s Visit" [UPDATED]

Twice-Divorced, Pro-Abort Rudy Giuliani Receives Communion at Papal Mass

Pro-Abort Catholic Politicians to Receive Communion at Papal Mass [UPDATED]

Archbishop Burke Preaches Tough Communion Rule

More on Archbishop Burke's Article on Canon 915 (Regarding Communion and Pro-Abort Politicos)

Archbishop Burke on Bad Catholics in Political Life

Archbishop Wuerl's Stand on Lawmakers Who Back Abortion Angers Some Conservative Catholics

Abortion and the New Archbishop - A Shot Across the Bow

Wuerl to be Installed Today - Mass in Washington, D.C., Will Mark His Debut as Archbishop

McCarrick's Successor Seen as Loyal, Diplomatic, "a Vote for Continuity"; Not Denying Communion has "Served Us Well" (15 links)

Pope Names Wuerl New Archbishop of Washington, DC

Bishop Wuerl's Name Surfaces for D.C.

The Final Word on Pro-Abort Pols and Communion?

Bishop Wuerl: Bishops Should Consult One Another Before Speaking On National Issues Like Kerry And Communion

"Wafer Wars, Wedge Issues and the Pope’s Visit" [UPDATED]

From the Reuters blog Faith World:

Remember back in 2004 when some U.S. Catholic bishops declared they would deny communion to the Democratic candidate, Senator John Kerry, because he supported abortion rights? Reporters spied on him in church to see if he received or not. Pundits dreamed up terrible catch phrases like “wafer watch” and “wafer war.” The issue became part of the campaign that year.

Now, four years later, Pope Benedict is visiting the U.S. and three prominent pro-choice politicians — Kerry, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and former New York Mayor Rudi Giuliani — have stepped up and taken communion at his Masses with a minimum of fuss. Pelosi kissed his ring at the White House as President George W. Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice looked on. Apart from his pro-choice stand, Giuliani is also twice divorced and remarried, which according to Church rules should bar him from taking communion. When our Vatican correspondent Phil Pullella asked him if he was uncomfortable with that, he said “No.”

As the National Catholic Reporter’s John Allen observed, “In none of these cases did the politicians receive communion directly from the pope, but it nonetheless happened during a papal Mass, and it took no one by surprise … While it would be a stretch to say that Benedict XVI authorized what happened, one can at least infer that the pope did not issue strict instructions to the contrary. The cumulative effect of these events will likely be to weaken the case that the Vatican wants the American bishops to take a stricter stance against communion for pro-choice Catholics in public life.”

[More]

(emphasis added)

My Comments:
"The cumulative effect of these events will likely be to weaken the case that the Vatican wants the American bishops to take a stricter stance against communion for pro-choice Catholics in public life."

That's what John Allen and his cohorts at National Catholic Reporter wish would happen.

In fact, it is CLEAR that politicians who dissent from Church teaching on abortion are not to present themselves for Communion. That is the Church's stance, and one that has been recently reiterated by the Holy Father himself. The only question over the last few years has been whether bishops and priests should be proactive in denying Communion to pro-abortion politicians.


UPDATE
Christopher Blosser offers his analysis of Allen's NCR piece at Catholics in the Public Square.


Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
Twice-Divorced, Pro-Abort Rudy Giuliani Receives Communion at Papal Mass

Pro-Abort Catholic Politicians to Receive Communion at Papal Mass [UPDATED]

Twice-Divorced, Pro-Abort Rudy Giuliani Receives Communion at Papal Mass

Thank God this guy isn't the GOP nominee:

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Twice-divorced former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani took Communion at a Mass celebrated by Pope Benedict on Saturday, breaching rules that bar those who remarry outside the Church from doing so.

As he left New York's St. Patrick's Cathedral with his third wife, Judith, the failed presidential candidate confirmed to Reuters that he took Communion from a priest.

Asked if he was uncomfortable with having broken the Church ban on the divorced and remarried taking Communion, Giuliani said, "No."

***
Despite his Catholic faith, Giuliani has espoused socially liberal political positions such as backing a woman's right to choose an abortion and supporting gay rights.

[More]

Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
Pro-Abort Catholic Politicians to Receive Communion at Papal Mass [UPDATED]

National Catholic Register: "Why the Rudy Rejection Matters"

Paul Kengor writes in the February 24-March 1 issue of National Catholic Register:

With little fanfare, something politically, historically, and even morally significant quickly passed on Jan. 30, 2008, when New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani withdrew from the Republican presidential race.

Such is the superficiality of our media that within a span of minutes the news cycle had already shifted to the Republican crowning of John McCain, the political demise of Mitt Romney, and Mike Huckabee hanging on.

The reality is that the rejection of Rudy by Republicans should not be brushed off lightly and quickly; it merits pause for careful reflection, and perhaps even celebration.

Let there be no doubt that Rudy was refused because of outrage at how he proudly and unequivocally supports a “woman’s right to choose.” This was a Republican religious rejection of Rudy. He was rejected not only by evangelicals but by the pro-life Catholics who share his party and his faith.

Yet, it was also much more, especially for Republicans and for Catholics. Consider the big picture...

***
All of this now brings us to a historic crossroads: Thanks to pro-life diligence by certain Republicans, and particularly two decades of generally decent court appointments by Reagan and Bush (along with some obvious failures), Roe v. Wade has the chance of being reversed under the next president.

And that’s where denying Rudy Giuliani the 2008 Republican nomination and the presidency becomes so profoundly important: If Roe v. Wade is reversed, Catholics, and Catholics who are Republican, will be spared the shame of a Catholic Republican president unable to understand or make the moral case against abortion. They will be spared the spectacle of a Catholic Republican president voicing his “personal disagreement” with the decision.

[Read the whole thing]

(emphasis added)


UPDATE (20 February)
Regular Guy Paul offers his take on Rudy's continuing impact on the presidential race in "The Giuliani Effect".

Mission Accomplished!

So long, Rudy.




UPDATE
Maybe we need a Catholics Against Rudy "Mission Accomplished" banner to put on our blogs.

But then, if past "Mission Accomplished" banners are any indication, no sooner will we get one up than McCain will make Rudy his running mate.

So, on second thought, maybe we should forego the "Mission Accomplished" banner.

Deal Hudson: "Giuliani Might as Well Work On His Tan"

Deal Hudson writes at InsideCatholic.com:

... Forbes' prediction that Giuliani will emerge as the main challenger to Romney. Rich Karlgaard from Forbes sees the Huckabee campaign running out of gas after South Carolina and Giuliani, in all his secular glory, waiting for McCain in Florida.

I think some of the pundits living in the Big Apple need to sample life outside the confines of their city. Like Karlsgaard, they don't seem to realize that the Huckabee candidacy is real. It's not a bubble of enthusiasm about to burst.

They also don't seem to accept the grassroots antipathy toward Giuliani -- the early level of support for him was based upon a glossy image, but once the basic facts were known, that glossy image got a big black "X" drawn over it.

McCain possesses all the Giuliani "virtues" plus a pro-life voting record, so why continue supporting a guy who failed to show up for the first two (now four) primaries?

Once Huckabee figures out how to connect with Catholics -- which he failed to do in Iowa and New Hampsire -- he will become truly formidable. Between McCain and Huckabee, there won't be room for anybody else. Or the need.

(emphasis added)

My Comments:
I think this analysis is spot on. Why Northeastern pundits continue to place any hopes at all on Giuliani or Romney is completely beyond me. Neither of them has been able to connect with the base of GOP voters to date, and I see no indication that this will change in the future.

As for that last bit of Hudson's commentary - "Between McCain and Huckabee, there won't be room for anybody else. Or the need.", I am surprised to find myself thinking along those same lines. Despite some personal antipathy toward, and doubts about the trustworthiness of, both of those two candidates, I nevertheless am beginning to think they are the only ones in the field who really have anything to offer the Catholic voter in particular and the nation as a whole.


UPDATE
Let me make clear that McCain will have to change his position regarding federally funding of embryonic stem-cell research before I could ever consider supporting him.

Salon: "Are You There, God? It's Me, Rudy"

From Salon.com:

Dec. 10, 2007 Late last spring, Bishop Thomas J. Tobin of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Providence opened his mail to find an invitation to a local fundraising event for Republican presidential hopeful Rudy Giuliani. Tobin made national headlines when he responded to the invitation by penning a column for the Rhode Island Catholic about Rudy Giuliani's abortion views, chastising the former New York mayor for saying he believes abortion is morally wrong yet supports reproductive choice for women as a matter of public policy.

"Rudy's public proclamations on abortion are pathetic and confusing," wrote Tobin. "[His] preposterous position is compounded by the fact that he professes to be a Catholic. As Catholics, we are called, indeed required, to be pro-life, to cherish and protect human life as a precious gift of God from the moment of conception until the time of natural death. As a leader, as a public official, Rudy Giuliani has a special obligation in that regard."

Catholics, who cast almost a quarter of all votes nationally, and higher shares in swing states like Ohio, are one of the most important voting blocs in the American electorate. In fact, in every presidential election since 1972 the winner of the Catholic vote has won the overall national popular vote, something no other religious group -- Jews, evangelicals, Protestants -- can boast. If Republicans nominate him, barring a surprising late surge from Democrats Joe Biden, Chris Dodd or Bill Richardson, Giuliani would be the only Catholic in the general election. And part of Giuliani's supposed "electability," a selling point to the party faithful, is that he would draw support from "Reagan Democrats" in crucial, and heavily Catholic, Democratic and swing states in the Northeast and Midwest.

Polls of likely Republican primary voters have long shown that Giuliani is a favorite among Catholic Republicans. But if Giuliani's electability in the general election hinges in any way on his co-religionists, he may be in trouble. Problems with Catholics like Bishop Tobin were not hard to predict. It was inevitable that during Republican primary season, some conservative and observant Catholics would raise questions about Giuliani's checkered marital history and his stands on abortion and gay rights. But if he is the nominee next fall, he will also have to contend with three other Catholic constituencies in the general election -- less-observant Catholics, politically moderate Catholics and Latino Catholics -- all of whom may find fault with him for very different reasons.

[Read more - "It's becoming ever more clear that Rudy Giuliani suffers from John Kerry syndrome"]

First Things on "Abortion Politics 2008"

Hadley Arkes writes in the December 2007 issue of First Things:

... But there is in his campaign a sobering truth that cannot be evaded: The nomination and election of Rudy Giuliani would mark the end of the Republican party as the pro-life party in our politics. And that would be the case regardless of whether pro-lifers respond to his nomination by refusing to vote for Giuliani, forming a third party, or folding themselves into a coalition that succeeds in electing Giuliani.

I often meet, here in the East, conservatives of an old stripe: eager to vote for a Republican but repelled by what they have seen as a party in which the religious and the pro-lifers have a marked leverage. Are there enough of these voters to convert, say, New Jersey and Connecticut into Red States? There might be if the old-line conservatives see a massive defection from the party on the part of the pro-lifers. For that will be a sign that the party is becoming habitable again for people like themselves, who may come to define again its ­character.

What is engaged here is a truth about the nature of political parties that has gone remarkably unappreciated: Parties have the means of changing their own constituencies or their composition. By altering their appeals, they drive some groups out and bring others in. If a Republican party, reconstituted in this way, manages to win, the Republican establishment will readily draw the lesson that they can win convincingly without pro-lifers and their bundle of causes: the destruction of embryos in research, assisted suicide, the resistance to same-sex marriage. Indeed, a Republican party shorn of those people and their baggage may seem to offer a stronger, more durable majority than the party that eked out victories by narrow margins in 2000 and 2004.

Pro-life voters may subordinate their concerns and join the new coalition, but the lesson extracted will be the same: “The Republican party can win when the pro-life issue is thrust from the center to the periphery of the party’s concerns. Even the pro-lifers do not see themselves as one-issue voters; they will give primacy to other concerns as the crises before us make other issues indeed more urgent. They will content themselves with symbolic gestures or modest measures rationed out to them. For they know that, when their interest collides with others, the party will have to subordinate their concerns to nearly anything that seems more pressing.” And, for all practical purposes, nearly any interest will trump the interests of the pro-life community.

***
For years now, the pro-life movement has followed a strategy of moving in incremental steps, unfolding a plan of principle with, to borrow a phrase from Lincoln, the object being to put abortion “in the course of ultimate extinction.” But a successful candidacy by Giuliani would subtly put in place a scheme whose tendency and object would be to put the pro-life movement itself on the course of ultimate extinction.

It is conceivable, then, that from the standpoint of the pro-lifers it might be better to lose to Hillary Clinton than to win with Rudy Giuliani. The Republican party left standing after the defeat would still be a pro-life party. In the film Ninotchka, Greta Garbo explains to people in Paris the Stalinist purges back home: “We will have fewer but better Russians.” The Republicans might be diminished, but they would be essentially intact as a pro-life party; and, when the electoral winds shift again, they have a chance of coming back with their character intact...

[Definitely read the whole thing]

(emphasis added)

My Comments:
This is the same thing folks like Regular Guy Paul and myself, among others, have been saying for months now. It is exactly the reason that I will not vote for Giuliani under any circumstances - even should he face Hillary Clinton in the general election.


Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
Rich Leonardi on the "Pro-Lifer's Dilemma"

Fr. Pavone, Senator Brownback and Rudy Giuliani

Rich Leonardi on the "Pro-Lifer's Dilemma"

Taking the weekend off from blogging means I'm a little late to the game on getting around to Rich's post from Saturday, which asks:

... What say you? Could you explain pulling the lever for a "President Guiliani (or Romney)" to Christ and abortion's 47 million victims?

[Read the whole post for context]

It looks like a lot of folks have already weighed in over at Rich's with their views on this. I'll add my 2 cents here. While I MAY be able to pull the lever for Romney, I think my own view with regard to Giuliani has been made VERY clear over the last year or so. Under NO circumstances will I vote to put an unrepentant pro-abortion candidate (especially one who purports to be Catholic) like Rudy Giuliani in the White House.

I think some of the commenters at Rich's blog do a fairly good job of providing the reasons why I will make that particular choice to forego voting for Rudy should he be the Republican nominee. See, e.g., Fr. Gearhart who agrees with Fr. Fox who agrees with Paul Zummo who agrees with Donald McClarey, and Regular Guy Paul who agrees with all of them. See also Christopher Blosser's comments.

Reminder: Don't Forget to Sign the Catholics Against Rudy Petition

Here. And please spread the word.

Brownback and Giuliani Discuss Abortion

(AP Photo/Haraz N. Ghanbari)
From the Associated Press:

WASHINGTON (AP) — Sen. Sam Brownback pronounced himself "much more comfortable" with Rudy Giuliani's position on abortion after the one-time rivals for the Republican presidential nomination discussed the issue Thursday.

Giuliani flew to Washington for a meeting he requested with Brownback in the Kansas senator's Capitol Hill office. Brownback dropped out of the race last week, citing poor fundraising, and his former rivals have been seeking his endorsement.

The two men spoke briefly to reporters afterward.

"I'm much more comfortable," Brownback said. "Justices are key. He's stated publicly many times about his support for strict constructionists like, I believe he said Roberts. John Roberts is a personal friend."

He was referring to Chief Justice John Roberts, whom President Bush nominated to the Supreme Court in 2005. Brownback said he was reassured that Giuliani would appoint Supreme Court justices who, like Roberts, take a conservative and more limited view of abortion.

Even so, it's unlikely that an ardent abortion foe like Brownback would endorse a candidate like Giuliani [ED.: I would hope not.], a longtime supporter of abortion rights, especially considering Brownback may run for governor of conservative Kansas in 2010.

[More]

Then there's this from National Journal:

Refuting rumors that an endorsement was imminent, Sen. Sam Brownback declined to pick a horse in the GOP presidential primary this afternoon after an hour-long meeting with Rudy Giuliani in his senate offices. Just a week ago, Brownback told reporters after his speech at the Values Voters Summit that the Republican Party was a pro-life party, which would not nominate a pro-choice candidate and Giuliani was pro-choice.

Today, however, Brownback refused to call Giuliani pro-choice, instead allowing the mayor to explain his own stance on abortion.

My Comments:
I am glad to see that an endorsement of Rudy is not imminent. I hope that Sen. Brownback will decline to make such an endorsement even should Rudy get the GOP nomination.

And, gee, I hope I'm not engaging in calumny, but yeah, I find the statements highlighted above somewhat problematic from a pro-life Catholic standpoint. Not to mention from the standpoint of a Brownback supporter.


Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
Brownback to Meet Rudy

Brownback: I Could Support Rudy

Brownback to Meet Rudy

(Hat tip: Custos Fidei)

From The Hill:

Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) is considering endorsing Rudy Giuliani for the GOP presidential nomination and will meet with him Thursday in Washington to hear his views on abortion.

Brownback, who ended his White House run last week and is a champion of social conservative issues, said he would consider Giuliani because he had heard that the former New York City mayor had changed his position on partial-birth abortion and has pledged to appoint to the courts strict constructionists who would not overturn anti-abortion laws.

If Brownback pledged his support, it would be a big boost for Giuliani. It might help shore up the biggest perceived weakness of his candidacy — namely, the lack of support among social conservatives because of his stance on abortion.

“I’m going to meet with him and I’m going to talk to him and hear what he is specifically saying now because he’s changed on a number of the abortion issues,” Brownback said in an interview. “He’s changed on partial-birth [abortion] and he … has said he would appoint strict constructionists.”

When asked about Giuliani’s position on allowing women the right to late-term abortions, also known as partial-birth abortions, Brownback said: “He is opposed to it. That’s what I’ve been told indirectly. I want to hear it from him.”

Brownback has not indicated that he is likely to support Giuliani, but he has not ruled it out. He said he is also considering endorsing other top-tier Republican candidates. Several have asked for his support in telephone conversations, and Brownback has already met with Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) to discuss a possible endorsement.

***
Giuliani would gain the most from Brownback’s endorsement because he has consistently encountered opposition from social conservatives owing to his views on abortion. He has drawn strong criticism for reiterating in a televised interview earlier this year his position that the federal government should provide funding for an abortion if a woman could not afford one. Giuliani’s standing atop national polls has scared Christian conservative leaders so much that several prominent leaders threatened last month to support a third-party candidate to block his path to the White House.

Brownback’s support, however, could assuage the concerns of many social conservatives and provide him a path to the Republican nomination.

***
Kim Lehman, president of Iowa Right to Life Committee and a member of the Iowans for Brownback Leadership Committee, said she met with a representative from Huckabee’s campaign Wednesday and has also been contacted by Thompson’s campaign.

“Brownback got quite a bit of Catholic support,” she said. “I’m seeing a lot of people at my end trying to decide which way to go.”

She said that social conservatives are beginning to peel away from Romney as they learn of statements he made in favor of abortion rights when he ran for Massachusetts governor in 2002.

She said she would be stunned if Brownback backed Giuliani.

“I find it simply hard to believe because Giuliani has expressed his position to even pay for abortion,” she said.

Lehman’s son, Zachariah Gordon, who served as pro-life coalition director for Brownback in Iowa, said Huckabee’s campaign has expressed interest in hiring him.

He said it would be “hypocritical” for Brownback to endorse Giuliani or Romney because of their views on abortion.

[More]

My Comments:
If Sen. Brownback endorses Rudy, then he's not the man I thought he was. It will prove that he puts party above principle - and that's not the sort of person that I signed on to support when I first announced I was backing Sen. Brownback. A Brownback endorsement of Rudy would be a profound disappointment, to say the least.

And such an endorsement would have absolutely no effect on my stance that I will NEVER vote for Giuliani under ANY circumstances.