"The Church Will Not Be Hannitized"

Fox News' Sean Hannity displayed his ignorance about his Catholic faith in a television exchange with Rev. Thomas J. Euteneuer of Human Life International.

You can watch the video here; for articles and responses, see HLI.org's Hannity vs. Euteneuer, with special attention to "The Church Will Not Be Hannitized" (Human Life International e-Newsletter Volume 01, Number 59).

Is Rick Santorum Backing Giuliani?

Both Pro Ecclesia and Res Publica et Cetera (here and here) link to stories indicating that former Sen. Rick Santorum may be preparing to support Rudy Giuliani's bid for the White House.

It wouldn't be the first time Santorum has placed party and political expediency above principle.

National Catholic Register: "No Deal, Rudy"

The editors of the National Catholic Register have now joined the fray against the headlong rush to annoint Rudy as the 2008 Republican nominee for president:

They are saying that the next GOP presidential candidate might very well be a pro-abortion Republican who promises not to push that issue and is strong on other issues.

They hope that pro-lifers will “be reasonable,” not let the perfect be the enemy of the good, and go along quietly.

We won’t.

***
... Rudy Giuliani has become a favorite for president of conservative talk-show hosts, and pro-war and tough-on-crime Republicans. He’s also way ahead in polls like Newsweek’s, though it’s anyone guess what such polls mean so early in the process.

The way the pro-Rudy argument goes is this: For the past three decades, social conservatives have had the luxury of insisting on purity in the Republican Party. Their clout was such that any candidate had to undergo a “forced conversion” before running for national office. But 9/11 changed that. Now, extremist Islam and the war on terror are such all-consuming issues, and we can’t be so caught up with abortion anymore.

Since Giuliani is committed to the war on terror and is a great crisis manager with a track record rooting out the gangs of New York, we shouldn’t demand that he be pro-life, but instead we should be willing to make a deal.

Rudy’s deal: He’ll promise not to push the pro-abortion agenda, and he’ll nominate judges in the mold of Samuel Alito and John Roberts. Pro-lifers in the Republican Party in return would support him, but keep insisting that the party stay pro-life, and fight our fiercest pro-life battles at the state level, where they belong.

That seems like a good deal, at first blush. We’re well aware that “forced conversions” to the pro-life fold are far from the ideal. Think of the candidacy of Bob Dole in 1996. And it is true that the fight against judicial tyranny is an immense front in the battle for the right to life. Transforming the courts is a prerequisite to victory elsewhere.

But what dooms the deal from the start is the fact that it totally misunderstands what pro-lifers care about in the first place.

When they ask us to “be reasonable” and go along with a pro-abortion leader, they assume that there is something unreasonable about the pro-life position to start with.

We’re sorry, but we don’t see what is so unreasonable about the right to life. We’ve seen ultrasounds, we’ve named our babies in the womb, we’ve seen women destroyed by abortion. What looks supremely unreasonable to us is that we should trust a leader who not doesn’t only reject the right to life but even supports partial-birth abortion, which is more infanticide than abortion.

We also see the downside of Rudy’s deal. If pro-lifers went along, we’d soon find out that a pro-abortion Republican president would no longer preside over a pro-life party. The power a president exerts over his party’s character is nearly absolute. The party is changed in his image. He picks those who run it and, both directly and indirectly, those who enter it.

***
The bottom line: Republicans have made inroads into the Catholic vote for years because of the pro-life issue. If they put a pro-abortion politician up for president, the gains they’ve built for decades will vanish overnight.

[More]

*Shut Up and Eat Your Peas

Fr. Martin Fox has a great post "Weekly Standard: throw prolifers under the bus" about all of the Rudy Giuliani support.

Also Jay Anderson posts in response to Fr. Fox's post Weekly Standard to Pro-Lifers: Shut Up and Eat Your Peas.

I have found all this Giuliani apologetics in recent weeks to be quite sickening. Why is the GOP looking for their own version of President Clinton? Whatever happened to character mattering which was the bugle call during the Clinton years?

We hear that he will give us judges in the mode of Scalia as the constant refrain. That even though he is pro-abortion he will vote the right way on these issues. So I guess now if a candidate is a hypocrite it is okay as long he votes with us. It doesn't matter what he believes, it is how he acts. Now we have come to find this quite common among Democrats in how their personally held opinions won't affect how they vote, and they were rightly mocked for this total lack of personal integrity. Now though we are using open-arms to welcome candidates with the exact same schism between beliefs and actions. Only it is acceptable if the personal schism goes the right way.

Though this idea of Giuliani appointing judges that are strict constructionalist is pretty laughable. He didn't do this in his eight years as mayor where he appointed Democrats over Republicans 8 to 1 with many outright abortion supporters. His pick of judges was praised by NARAL Pro-Choice New York.

Somehow I guess we are suppose to ignore all of his character flaws, affairs, and being the wrong side on so many issues because he will be good concerning the war on terror. That he can be wrong on so many issues of much importance, yet he will be near flawless in his choices in the fight against terrorism. Responding quite well in aftermath of the 9/11 attack does not mean that he will make the right moral choices in fighting terrorism.

Giuliani I mentioned would be our version of Bill Clinton in many ways, and in many others he will be our version of John Kerry. Kerry is a Catholic who is personally opposed, yet would vote for abortion. Giuliani as a Catholic is personally for but will vote against it. They are flip-flop mirror images of each other concerning abortion though they are quite syncopated on many other social issues. Why in the world is so many in the GOP running down the hill to make their first Catholic nominee someone hardly distinguishable from Democratic versions of the same? Exactly where is the clamor for Communion to be denied for Rudy as there was for John Kerry? Though Rudy isn't the nominee yet and I hope the day never comes where he is.

Unjust Choices

From Bishop Vasa's latest column.

Some months ago a prominent Catholic public person, described as faithful to the church, was asked if being pro-choice or pro-abortion was an issue which conflicted with the Catholic Faith.

Here is what was said: "To me it isn't even a question. God has given us a free will. We're all responsible for our actions. If you don't want an abortion, you don't believe in it, then don't have one. But don't tell somebody else what they can do in terms of honoring their responsibilities." According to a close relative the choice to have an abortion or not to have an abortion had no moral component whatsoever. "They were just choices."

It seems to me that there are just choices and there are unjust choices. Choices would be the preference for chocolate ice cream over vanilla ice cream or sherbet instead of ice cream. That is just a choice.
A just choice would be to choose to pay a fair and living wage to employees as opposed to simply meeting the mandatory standard of minimum wage laws. An unjust choice would be to choose to terminate the life of another human being. This is not just a choice and it is not a just choice; it is an unjust choice.

Furthermore it is an unjust choice which is diametrically opposed to the clear and consistent teaching of the Catholic Church as well as to the clear and consistent teaching of God Himself in the Ten Commandments. The direct, intentional taking of the life of an innocent human being is inhumane and unjust. It is not just a choice!

It is categorically impossible for the same person to state that he or she believes simultaneously both what the Catholic Church teaches and that abortion is just a choice. What we believe must inform what we do.

Of course that Catholic politician he references is Nancy Pelosi.