Philip Lawler on Cardinal Egan's public rebuke of Giuliani

By emphasizing the gravity of support for the legalized killing of the unborn, the cardinal takes a strong stand in defense of human life. Since Giuliani is not currently a candidate for political office, the cardinal's statement cannot be misinterpreted as a partisan gesture. Rather, he is using an opportunity to instruct the faithful.

At the same time, the cardinal is protecting the Church from further scandal. And as a pastor he is showing his concern for Giuliani, who is endangering his own soul by receiving the Eucharist improperly. The cardinal's message should not be lost on countless other Catholics who are receiving Communion while in a state of serious sin; in that respect, too, his is a valuable pastoral statement.

In all these respects, Cardinal Egan's statement stands in stark contrast to the official silence from Washington's Archbishop Donald Wuerl after several prominent pro-abortion Catholics-- most notably Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senators John Kerry and Ted Kennedy-- received Communion during the papal Mass in that city. Although these prominent politicians had indicated beforehand that they planned to receive the Eucharist, the archbishop made no statement to discourage them or to indicate to the public that they would be receiving Communion in violation of Church law. A spokesman for the US bishops' conference issued only a lame statement: "People go to church and people go to Communion if they feel in their heart they are prepared to receive Communion.”

After the fact, Archbishop Wuerl had another opportunity to clarify Church teaching. He remained silent, and his silence appeared to give consent. Perceptive reporters like John Allen of the National Catholic Reporter and Bob Novak of the Washington Post concluded that the net effect of the papal visit had been to encourage the notion that "pro-choice" Catholics are eligible to receive Communion-- a notion that the future Pope Benedict himself very clearly rejected during his exchange with American bishops in 2004.

The public statement from Cardinal Egan, then, corrects the record and prevents the further dissemination of a very misleading and damaging perception about Catholic Church teaching and pastoral practice. For that reason, too, the cardinal deserves our thanks.

Lawler also speculates that there was a specific reason that Egan focused on Giuliani's stance on abortion (as opposed to his marital status, which would itself have barred him from communion):

By basing his argument on Giuliani's advocacy for abortion, Cardinal Egan has sharpened the contrast between his stand and the stand (or non-stand) taken by Archbishop Wuerl. If the cardinal had cited Giuliani's marital status as the factor that disqualified him, the argument would not have applied to Pelosi, Kerry, and Kennedy, all of whom are properly married (with annulments in place where appropriate) in the eyes of the Church.

As Lawler points out, Egan had already spokenw ith Giuliani privately, then reaching what he had referred to as "an understanding" that the ex-mayor would refrain from the Eucharist. Giuliani chose to violate that agreement, forcing Egan's hand:

When he was apprised of the cardinal's rebuke, Giuliani responded through a spokesman with a statement claiming that his Catholic faith "is a deeply personal matter and should remain confidential." But if he had really wanted to keep the matter confidential, he would have abided by his agreement from Cardinal Egan. Instead he received Communion at the very time when his action would receive the most widespread publicity. He richly deserved the cardinal's rebuke.

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

From Reuters:

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]

See also "Pro-Abort Catholic Politicians to Receive Communion at Papal Mass"

Paul Kengor on "Why the Rudy Rejection Matters"

Paul Kengor on Why the Rudy Rejection Matters (National Catholic Register):

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:

Over the last two or three decades, the Democratic Party has increasingly championed policies that extinguish what Pope John Paul II and his Church have called the first of all freedoms and the most basic of all human rights: the right to life.

Since Roe v. Wade, and particularly since Ronald Reagan’s election in 1981, the Republican Party (by and large) has not sacrificed its soul at the altar of political expediency on the abortion issue. Republicans like Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush have battled dogmatic abortion advocates in the Democratic Party like Bill Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi and now Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, for whom abortion remains a kind of political sacrament, even though some of them are Catholic. . . .

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.

However, if Obama's momentum persists as it has been, we may very well find ourselves with a president wholeheartedly committed to the preservation of the "right to choice" under Roe v. Wade. There's the rub.

Giuliani Nomination "Would Mark The End of the Republican Party as the Pro-Life Party"

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.

- Hadley Arkes, Abortion Politics 2008 First Things December 2007).

I've appreciated Arkes' writing in First Things on life matters for some time (I recommend his book, First Things: An Inquiry into First Principles of Morals and Justice). And when it comes to describing the state of pro-life matters, he doesn't mince any words or pull any punches. Here he dismantles Giuliani's lukewarm assurances to pro-lifers, on judicial appointments and "favoring adoption over abortion," -- and notes the eery similarities between Senator Douglas' professed neutrality on slavery in his memorable debate with Abraham Lincoln in 1858, and Giuliani's own response in a recent interview with Charlie Rose:

Lincoln said that Douglas was trying to “blow out the moral lights” among us by teaching a policy of “indifference”—that slavery just did not matter enough to stir such divisions in the country. In a similar way, Giuliani is teaching us, in the style of Douglas, that we should not care overly much, that we should treat as a matter of indifference a right to take a human life for wholly private reasons that need not rise beyond convenience. Not that people choose abortion for the sake of a trifling convenience. The point, rather, is that even a decision taken for the most flippant reasons may not be judged by anyone else.

According to Arkes, a successful Giuliani campaign would have long-lasting implications for the identity of the Republican Party:

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.

Where does this leave Arkes at the present moment -- and in the event of Giuliani's nomination?

Now that Brownback has withdrawn from the race, the question is just which of the other candidates, apart from Romney, can actually explain the grounds of his pro-life position. So far, neither McCain nor Thompson has been able to do that. I would back Romney, then, as far as he can go, I would back any of the others as soon as they show that they are speaking more than by rote. If Giuliani became the nominee, and he genuinely wished to preserve the pro-life constituency within his party and his administration, he could select Brownback or Romney as his ­running mate. He could also offer the assurance that their perspective would have standing, would have a claim to bear on the policies of his new Republican administration.

Faced then with the possibility of a Democratic presidency determined to weave the ethic of abortion rights more firmly into our law and to have its judges install same-sex marriage, a Giuliani candidacy could offer some slender grounds of hope. Under those conditions, I might bite my lip, vote for him, and indulge those hopes. But they would be the hopes of the supplicants. And they will be affected at every point by the awareness of just who has the upper hand, and just who, in this party newly reshaped, does not matter all that much.

Curiously, despite his sure critique of Giuliani's position and the implications of a Giuliani nomination for the future of pro-lifers and the GOP, he would to give Giuliani a chance provided certain assurances are met and Giuliani could sufficiently demonstrate "his wish to preserve the pro-life constituency within his party and his administration." He would risk the loss of the Republican Party's identification as "the" pro-life party and take his chances iwth Giuliani, if only to counter what the even more certain consequences of a Democratic victory.

In the National Review, responding to pro-Giuliani David Frum (Contra Frum National Review Dec. 10, 2007), Arkes elaborates on the dangers of a Democratic administration:

I too have been aware of the vast damage that can be done by eight years of a Democratic administration that regards abortion, not merely as a regrettable choice, but as a positive good, to be promoted at every turn by executive orders and through resolutions at the United Nations, meant to feed back into the American law. And, in addition to the aforementioned effects, we would suffer the steady appointment of judges who regard the freedom to order abortions as the new “first freedom.”

and precisely what would it take to merit his grudging support of Giuliani:

No Republican White House, under Reagan or the two Bushes, has had a member of the staff who bears responsibility for devising and overseeing an integrated strategy on abortion. That is, there has been no one who has been assigned the distinct task of orchestrating a scheme of strategic steps, moving with a combination of executive orders and legislative measures, designed to put premises in place and advance, with each step, the cause of protecting life. Each Administration has people who can be in touch with the pro-life movement and go out in public occasionally to “make nice” to the pro-lifers. But Rudy could send a notable signal if he announces his intention to create a post of that kind, and appoint to it one of those notable lawyers who commands the respect of the Federalists and the pro-life movement. Then we could go forth with the sense that his heart and his head are truly in it.

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"]

Catholics Against Rudy has a new petition, by which you can express your public opposition to the candidacy of "pro-choice Catholic" Rudy Giuliani:

We are Catholics who will not vote for Rudy Giuliani in the GOP primary. The purpose of this petition is to allow faithful Catholics to speak out against Rudy Giuliani's abysmal record on non-negotiable "Culture of Life" issues (e.g., abortion, embryonic stem cell research) and traditional marriage, and to publicly oppose his candidacy for the GOP presidential nomination.

Archbishop Burke vs. Rudy Giuliani: "Matching Wits with an Unarmed Foe" American Papist has the goods. October 3, 2007.

Giuliani Professes Ignorance of Catholic Faith

Giuliani Selective on Questions of Religion CNN August 10, 2007:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Rudy Giuliani evokes his Catholic upbringing as he campaigns for president, yet he refuses to say whether he is a practicing Catholic.

When a voter asked this week if he is a "traditional, practicing Roman Catholic," Giuliani insisted his faith should be private.

"My religious affiliation, my religious practices and the degree to which I am a good or not-so-good Catholic, I prefer to leave to the priests," the former New York mayor responded in Davenport, Iowa.

It would be difficult for him to answer yes. Someone who, like Giuliani, divorces and remarries without getting an annulment from the church cannot receive communion or other church sacraments.

Yet, the article goes on to note that "Giuliani brings up his Catholic upbringing when it suits him."

"Leave it to the priests?" -- I imagine there are some elementary school kids right here in New York who know what it means to be "a good Catholic."

The article compares the Republican mayor with the Democratic Senator:

Both [Giuliani and Kerry] are at odds with the church because they favor abortion rights. In 2004, several bishops said they would refuse communion for Kerry, the Democratic nominee, over the abortion issue. And, Providence, Rhode Island, Bishop Thomas Tobin has criticized Giuliani's position, calling it pathetic, confusing and hypocritical.

However, while the church lets individual bishops decide whether an abortion rights candidate may receive communion, priests have no such discretion when confronted with someone who remarried without getting an annulment.

Some of Giuliani's critics, such as conservative blogger Stephen Dillard, believe his marital history is fair game. Dillard started a "Catholics Against Rudy" Web site that raises that issue, among several others.

"The way he treated his wife gives us insight into how he views the role of family, how he views marriage, how he views the church's teaching on adultery and divorce," Dillard said.

MORE:

• US presidential candidate Giuliani questioned about his Catholic faith Associated Press August 7, 2007.
  
• Carl Olson sums it up perfectly: "Giuliani admits he doesn't know what a Catholic is".
  
• Conservative Group Running Ad on Giuliani's Abortion Record Pro Ecclesia.
  

Catholics Against Rudy

. . . has officially launched.

Related News

• No Wafer for Rudy: "Giuliani campaigns as a Catholic, but he's on the outs with God", by Wayne Barrett. Village Voice June 26th, 2007:

  The ex-mayor's newfound piety also includes a mantra about abortion that wasn't heard while he was in City Hall. "I hate abortion," he now says across America and, in a proposed 12-point plan, he declares that he's committed to decreasing the number of abortions. "I would encourage someone to not take that option," he says, though as a candidate for mayor he said he would pay for an abortion for his daughter. Today, he says it would be "OK to repeal" Roe v. Wade, though he hosted celebrations of its anniversary three times at City Hall. His wholesale reversal on Medicaid funding, late-term abortions, and parental consent are all part of a repackaging designed to soften not just his New York public record, but also the inconvenient details of his personal life.

  Married three times, Giuliani simply isn't the Catholic candidate he claims to be. . . .

  On the whole a suprisingly good article from the Voice.

• And already a storm of controversy -- Andrew Sullivan and Vox Nova's Morning's Minion found something to criticize right off the bat. Michael Denton's got the goods at Catholics Against Rudy finds its first critic For the Greater Glory July 10th, 2007.
  

Fr. Pavone, Senator Brownback and Rudy Giuliani

A topic that seems to be on many a Catholic mind this week is the potential emergence of Rudy Giuliani as the GOP presidential candidate in 2008. A self-proclaimed "pro-choice, pro-gay rights" Catholic, conservative voters are finding themselves faced with the moral equivalent to Senator Kerry (also a self-proclaimed "pro-choice" Catholic) on their side of the political isle.

Fr. Pavone on the Permissability of "Voting for the Better of Two Bad Candidates"

Last month, Michae Iafrate (Catholic Anarchist) noted his disapproval of Fr. Frank Pavone's response to the question of what to do when the two major parties’ candidates are pro-choice, but a third party candidate is anti-abortion?? (More “Republicatholic” hypocrisy, courtesy of Frank Pavone May 13, 2007) -- In response to which, Fr. Pavone maintains that Catholics must distinguish between "choosing evil" and "limiting evil":

. . . just ask a simple question: Which of the two candidates will do less harm to unborn children if elected?

For example, is either of the candidates willing at least to ban partial-birth abortion? Is either of them willing to put up some roadblocks to free and easy abortion? Will either support parental notification, or parental consent, or waiting periods? Has either of them expressed a desire to ban late-term abortion, or to support pregnancy assistance centers? How about stricter regulation of abortion facilities? Has either candidate expressed support for that idea? Nobody is saying that's the final goal. But ask these questions just to see whether you can see any benefit of one of the candidates above the other.

One of the two of them will be elected; there is no question about that. So you are not free right now, in this race, to really choose the candidate you want. Forces beyond your control have already limited your choices. Whichever way the election goes, the one elected will not have the position we want elected officials to have on abortion.

In this case, it is morally acceptable to vote for the candidate who will do less harm. This is not "choosing the lesser of two evils." We may never choose evil. But in the case described above, you would not be choosing evil. Why? Because in choosing to limit an evil, you are choosing a good. . . . by your vote, you can keep the worse person out. And trying to do that is not only legitimate, but good. Some may think it's not the best strategy. But if your question is whether it is morally permissible to vote for the better of two bad candidates, the answer -- in the case described above -- is yes.

Michael omits from his post the fact that Fr. Pavone was taking a cue from Cardinal John O'Connor (no slouch on the pro-life front, he). Pavone continues, citing from the Cardinal himself:

Cardinal John O’Connor, in a special booklet on abortion, once wrote about this problem,

“Suppose all candidates support ‘abortion rights’? … One could try to determine whether the position of one candidate is less supportive of abortion than that of another. Other things being equal, one might then morally vote for a less supportive position. If all candidates support "abortion rights" equally, one might vote for the candidate who seems best in regard to other issues” (1990, “Abortion: Questions and Answers”).

In this context, the question also arises as to whether one is required to vote for a third candidate who does not have a strong base of support but does have the right position. The answer is, no, you are not required to vote for this candidate. The reason is that your vote is not a canonization of a candidate. It is a transfer of power. You have to look concretely at where the power is really going to be transferred, and use your vote not to make a statement but to help bring about the most acceptable results under the circumstances.

Of course, our conscience may be telling us, “Don’t say it’s impossible to elect the candidate who doesn’t have a strong base of support.” Of course, it is possible to elect almost anyone if the necessary work is done within the necessary time. God doesn’t ask us to base our choices on “the possibility of miracles,” but rather on solid human reason. The point is that if there’s a relatively unknown but excellent candidate, the time to begin building up support for that person’s candidacy is several years before the election, not several months. What you have to ask as Election Day draws near is whether your vote is needed to keep the worse candidate (of the two, less acceptable but more realistic choices) out of office.

Michael Iafrate's reaction to Pavone is to brand him a hypocrite, although he has not actually established this to be the case. In fact, Fr. Pavone has held this same position (with respect to voting when faced with two leading "bad' candidates) back in 2000:

“Because voting is not a canonization,” he continued, “we may morally vote for a less perfect candidate who is actually electable at the present moment, rather than a better candidate who does not have the base of support to actually get into office. Our vote is our way of participating in actually moving our society forward, rather than a forum for ‘making statements.’ Statements can be made in a thousand other ways. But there is only one way to elect people to offices in which they can make a difference.”

I believe Fr. Pavone makes an important observation here about the viability of a given candidate -- a principled vote for the 'better' third party candidate with no political viability will result in the election of one or another candidate (and party) who will set the agenda and policies for the country. Last month I had devoted a post to exploring this very decision ("To Vote or Not to Vote?" Catholics in the Public Square April 21, 2007) and the ramifications of voting for a candidate with no realistic chance of success or even abstaining from voting altogether.

Moving on, Michael Iafrate's assertion that Catholic Answers teaches that "Catholics are obligated to vote for pro-life/anti-abortion candidates (typically Republicans) and may not vote for pro-choice/pro-abortion candidates (typically Democrats)" is not exactly true. A look at Catholic Answers' Voting Guide for Serious Catholics reveals an answer that is very much along the lines of Fr. Pavone's and Cardinal O'Connor's:

In some political races, each candidate takes a wrong position on one or more issues involving non-negotiable moral principles. In such a case you may vote for the candidate who takes the fewest such positions or who seems least likely to be able to advance immoral legislation, or you may choose to vote for no one.

A vote cast in such a situation is not morally the same as a positive endorsement for candidates, laws, or programs that promote intrinsic evils: It is only tolerating a lesser evil to avoid an even greater evil. As Pope John Paul II indicated regarding a situation where it is not possible to overturn or completely defeat a law allowing abortion, "an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality"(EV 73; also CPL 4).

Catholics must strive to put in place candidates, laws, and political programs that are in full accord with non-negotiable moral values. Where a perfect candidate, law, or program is not on the table, we are to choose the best option, the one that promotes the greatest good and entails the least evil. Not voting may sometimes be the only moral course of action, but we must consider whether not voting actually promotes good and limits evil in a specific instance. The role of citizens and elected officials is to promote intrinsic moral values as much as possible today while continuing to work toward better candidates, laws, and programs in the future.

Senator Brownback - Consistently Pro-Life or Sell-Out?

In the third debate among GOP candidates, Wolf Blitzer posed the question to Senator Sam Brownback of whether he would be able to vote for a pro-choice GOP candidate. Here is the exchange in full:

SEN. BROWNBACK: [...] I am pro-life and I’m whole life. And one of the things I’m the most, the proudest about our party about is that we’ve stood for life. We’ve been a party that has stood for a culture of life, and it was in our platform in 1980 and it continues today.

And with that respect — and I have respect for my other colleagues — that’s why I don’t think we can nominate somebody that’s not pro-life in this party because it is at our core. We believe that every life is beautiful, is sacred, is a child of a loving God, from natural — from conception to natural death, and that applies not only here and in the womb, it applies to somebody that’s in poverty, it applies to the child in Darfur.

And that philosophy, being pro-life and whole life, is something I think can really help move us forward as a country and as a party.

MR. BLITZER: Senator, if Rudy Giuliani got the Republican presidential nomination, would you be able to support him?

SEN. BROWNBACK: I — that question came up at the first debate, and I stated that this is something that we as a party have struggled with. I have great respect for the mayor. I don’t think we’re going to nominate somebody that’s not pro-life.

MR. BLITZER: Would you be able to support him?

SEN. BROWNBACK: I can support and will support the nominee of our party, but our party has stood on principles. It’s a party of principles, it’s not a party of personalities.

Michael Joseph of Vox Nova / Evangelica-Catholicism expressed his disapproval of Senator Sam Brownback, characterizing the Senator's response as a compromise of his moral principles, at the same time asserting that the "more Catholic and more democratic action" would be to vote for a third-party candidate (Brownback Backpedals Vox Nova June 6, 2007):

. . . All of Fr. Pavone's talk about ending abortion definitively in America by consolidating the pro-life vote ends here. He introduces a manufactured category to the matter: "realistic choice." So as a Catholic, I do not need to vote pro-life as long as that vote goes toward a "realistic" candidate? Is "realistic" an emergency moral category whose glass is broken in the event that a Republican nominee for president is pro-choice? "Realistic" releases me from any moral obligation to vote pro-life? I should not feel compelled to find a pro-life third-party candidate for whom I can vote in good conscience? I should not do the more Catholic and the more democratic action of voting for a third-party? I should allow practical politics to trump pro-life principles? Why, then, can I not just vote for a "realistic" pro-choice candidate anytime, even if there is a "realistic" pro-life candidate in the race?

Fr. Pavone exacerbates his double-talk by suggesting that a pro-choice candidate could be an "acceptable" candidate. If both candidates are pro-choice, one may be more "acceptable" than the other. Really, Fr. Pavone? And how so? Is there another behemoth non-negotiable issue that can overshadow a candidate's public desire to protect right to the murder the unborn? Perhaps socialized medicine? Perhaps tax-cuts? Perhaps immigration reform?

In "Worthiness to Receive Communion, General Principles", Cardinal Ratzinger noted:

[N.B. A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia. When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favour of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.]

(Cardinal Ratzinger's position -- not to be distinguished with proportionalism -- is explored and defended by Catholic Apologist Jimmy Akin: What Ratzinger Said Sept. 9, 2004). I think that the collective voice of Vox Nova are rather too hasty in their rush to castigate Senator Brownback and Fr. Pavone as hypocrites guilty of "pro-life backpedalling" whose only desire is that Catholics vote Republican. Based on a closer analysis of Brownback and Pavone's own words and stated reasoning, this is simply not the case.

Steve Dillard and Catholics Against Rudy

Responding to an piece on Catholics Against Rudy on Vox Nova this week (Catholics Against Rudy: All the Way?, by Michael Joseph Vox Nova June 12, 2007), Steve Dillard conveys the position of his organization Catholics Against Rudy (formally launching in July 2007):

(1) My comment that, "You cannot, in good conscience as a faithful Catholic, vote for Rudy Giuliani," is limited to the GOP presidential primary. . . . I certainly believe that there would be "proportionate reasons" to vote for Mayor Giuliani in the general election against a pro-abortion democratic candidate (e.g., Clinton).

(2) Yes, if Giuliani "were to earn the Republican nomination," which I agree is "a very likely scenario," Catholics Against Rudy will "continue its campaign beyond the Republican primaries" That having been said, for the reasons noted above, our arguments against his candidacy will have to shift gears a bit. While there clearly are not "proportionate reasons" that would permit a Catholic to vote for Giuliani in the GOP primary, the same cannot be said for the general election, and, as such, our arguments will shift from the theological to the prudential (e.g., that Catholics should not vote for Giuliani because of the long-term harm that would result from having a pro-abortion leader as the head of the only pro-life political party).

(3) For all of the reasons noted above, Catholics Against Rudy "will . . . make good on its campaign and advise Catholics to choose a pro-life third-party candidate," while at the same time respecting those Catholics who, for other prudential reasons (e.g., supreme-court vacancies), elect to choose the lesser of two evils.

Before I go on, I would like to publicly commend Steve Dillard for his patience and Christian charity, having been the recipient of a great deal of verbal abuse and unjust accusations in Vox Nova's combox. The accusation that Catholics Against Rudy would be an organization "utterly beholden to the Republican Party" is unjustifiable and patently ridiculous on its face. Thanks to Michael Joseph for displaying the courtesy of amending his post.

In Conclusion

Like Senator Brownback, I hope and pray it will never come to pass that Giuliani will be the GOP presidential nominee. Unfortunately, I fear that Brownback is far more optimistic about the integrity and conviction of the Republican Party than I at this time. While the Giuliani campaign has been met with increasing opposition among conservative Catholics, the amount of attention bestowed upon him by other Republicans is disconcerting, not to mention what one would describe as fawning adulation from the likes of FoxNews pundit Sean Hannity and Rich Lowry of the National Review (in what Jay Anderson appropriately described as a "Rudygasm").

A conscientious vote for Giuliani against, say, Hillary or Obama is perhaps defensible from a Catholic point of view (or at least not prohibited). I honestly can't predict my decision come November 2008. For the moment, I think it is clear that we as Catholics should collectively put our effort into opposing the nomination of Rudy Giuliani -- not only for the sake of accurately presenting Catholic teaching in the public square, but for the sake of maintaining the integrity of the Republican party in future elections.

The Republican Party has recognized in its platform that "the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed." Would it be worth it to elect a "pro-choice" politician at the cost of sacrificing or making a mockery of that very position? Would it not be a slippery slope, in fact "widening the Republican tent" to allow for the election of more "pro-choice" politicians in the future? -- The Democrats have worn the "pro-choice" mantle for decades. Let's curb this headlong rush to join them.

* * *

This post is written in the attempt to work out my thoughts on the issue and a clarification of the positions of Senator Brownback and Fr. Pavone; I welcome the feedback of my colleagues and readers and their reactions. Let the discussion begin.

Abraham Lincoln recognized that we could not survive as a free land when some men could decide that others were not fit to be free and should therefore be slaves. Likewise, we cannot survive as a free nation when some men decide that others are not fit to live and should be abandoned to abortion or infanticide. My Administration is dedicated to the preservation of America as a free land, and there is no cause more important for preserving that freedom than affirming the transcendent right to life of all human beings, the right without which no other rights have any meaning. -- President Ronald Reagan Abortion and the Conscience of a Nation

General Reading

• Anti-Rudy Catholics Plan Their Assault, by Rebecca Sinderbrand. New York Observer May 27, 2007.
  
• The Failure of Catholic Political Leadership, by Robert P. George and William L. Saunders. Crisis 18 no. 4 (April 2000): 17-22.
  

Responses to This Post

• Fr. Pavone, Senator Brownback and Rudy Giuliani by Jay Anderson (Pro Ecclesia June 13, 2007).
  
• Response from Morning's Minion [see also: "Can Catholics Vote for Pro-Abortion Politicians?", by Morning's Minion. Vox Nova May 23, 2007].
  
• Does Voting for Giuliani Make You a Pro-Life Fraud?, by Michael Denton. For the Greater Glory June 13, 2007.
  

"Abortion is the civil rights issue of our times,"

Stephen Dillard was on Chris Matthew's Hardball to talk about his group Catholics Against Rudy along with E.J. Dionne.

You can see a video of Part I and Part II.

As you would expect Chris Matthew took the single issue approach asking Stephen Dillard about the war in Iraq, capital punishment, etc in the normal moral equivalence lump that is so often used. Democrats are always talking about nuance except when it comes to abortion, just war theory, and capital punishment and then everything is black and white.

It was also pretty funny when Chris Matthews said that the hierarchy is populated by a lot of Republicans. Yeah I guess that really explains the bishop's tepid voting guide and their taking several years to comment when the Democratic Party turned hard-core abortion rights. Though it is always rather dumb to try to divide up the bishops into Democrats and Republicans and giving that as their primary rationale for the way they act. Though I think historically the Bishops mostly have been quite sympathetic to the Democratic Party since there was such a long alliance between the two groups.

E.J. Dionne was fairly good and even mentioned Ramesh Ponnuru's excellent column on Rudolf Giuliani made available today. Though he did wonder if the the Bishops would "intervene" the same way they did with John Kerry. Well I don't remember much intervening, but no doubt the same Bishops who did say they would not allow Kerry to receive Communion would be the same ones who would act the same towards Rudy.

After Stephen's appearance I got a lot of searches to my site looking for Catholics Against Rudy (the website won't appear till July 4th) and a bunch of comments on a previous post. I did have to go through and delete a bunch of them since their were rather vulgar and mostly anti-Catholic. Considering Chris Matthew's audience I am not exactly surprised.

A Singular Issue - Why Abortion Should Doom Giuliani’s Campaign

(Hat tip: Darwin Catholic)

National Review's Ramesh Ponnuru on Rudy and Abortion:

In April, a reporter overheard Rudy Giuliani explaining his theory of the campaign: “that the other candidates would divide up the ‘right-wing’ voters, as he called them, leaving him to consolidate the moderates and the economic and military conservatives who aren’t fixated on social issues.” It was a perfectly reasonable analysis. People for whom prohibiting abortion is a top priority are not going to favor the presidential campaign of a man who wants to keep abortion legal and, indeed, to subsidize it. It would be irrational if they did favor it, and it would be irrational for Giuliani to court them.

Since Giuliani’s campaign began, however, vast quantities of political commentary have been devoted to obscuring these simple truths. Generally this commentary has come from writers who do not themselves care about protecting unborn life but feel qualified to lecture people who do about how they should advance their agenda. While the emphases of the commentators vary, their basic argument is that presidents cannot do much to affect abortion policy except to appoint judges, and that Giuliani is just as conservative as the other candidates on that question.

***
In a way, Giuliani’s nomination would cause more trouble for the pro-life cause than his election would. The pro-life cause can survive without a pro-life president: It emerged from the Clinton years stronger than it had been at their beginning. But it will find it harder to survive without a pro-life party. And that would be the meaning of his nomination, even if most Republican congressmen and governors remained pro-life, and even if the party platform, left unread and unheeded, continued to offer solidarity to the unborn. America has been a presidential nation, politically, for almost a century now. The parties are, in the public mind, their leaders; and those leaders are their presidential nominees.

The most specific polls on abortion policy ask respondents whether they think abortion should be banned altogether, banned with exceptions when the pregnancy threatens the mother’s life or resulted from rape, or allowed. Such polls consistently find that the people who want to ban abortion altogether and the people who want to ban it with rare exceptions add up to a majority of Americans. If Giuliani wins the Republican nomination, that majority will have no representation at the level of presidential politics. We will instead have a contest between a candidate who believes that taxpayers should fund abortion through the federal government and one who believes they should do it through state governments.

In 1973, the Supreme Court tried to declare an end to the state-by-state debate on abortion by setting abortion policy nationally. The New York Times, the next day, reported on the decision as a “historic resolution” of the abortion controversy. Before that day, supporters of legal abortion had claimed that their policy was necessary for women’s equality, or population control, or the promotion of liberty. On that day, however, they acquired the most powerful arrow in their quiver: the assertion that abortion policy was a settled matter, an assertion that had the strong support of the country’s journalistic, financial, and legal elites. The principal reason that the question has not been closed is that over the last 30 years the Republican party has stood — shakily at times, it is true, but always officially — against this elite consensus.

The abortion lobby would not be alone in declaring the Republican party to have capitulated to this consensus with Giuliani’s nomination. So would neutral observers; and even some pro-lifers would give up the fight.

***
The pro-life position has carried real costs for the Republican party, in terms of lost votes. But those costs have been more than offset by the gains the party has made. For more than two decades, exit polls have shown that people who vote on the basis of abortion are far more likely to be pro-lifers than pro-choicers. (Using that measure, the issue netted George W. Bush 2.4 million votes in 2000.) Without the realignment of American politics based on social issues — a realignment caused by abortion more than any other issue — the Republicans would never have attained the near-parity they have today.

Now would be a strange moment in our politics for Republicans to abandon the pro-life cause, or even to weaken their commitment to it. The party is in serious trouble these days, for all kinds of reasons — but its pro-life position is not one of them. The public has been moving in a pro-life direction. In this season of Republican discontent, for the first time ever, a few polls show more Americans identifying themselves as pro-life than pro-choice...

[More]

Fidelis Calls Giuliani a "John Kerry Catholic on Abortion"

Fidelis condemns Giuliani embrace of abortion rights:

CHELSEA, MI – Fidelis President Joseph Cella today condemned the unapologetic embrace of “abortion rights” by Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani.

Cella stated: “This is the third position Rudy Giuliani has had on abortion in two weeks, and his credibility with faithful Catholics and other pro-life voters is beginning to evaporate.”

Following a series of contradictory positions on the abortion issue and according to this morning’s edition of The New York Times, Giuliani has decided to strongly assert his support for abortion, shifting his target of support from states with strong pro-life constituencies among the primary electorate – such as Iowa and South Carolina – to more liberal-leaning states such as New York, California and New Jersey.

“Rudy Giuliani supports abortion on demand in all nine months of pregnancy, he has supported partial birth abortion, he supports forcing taxpayers to pay for abortions, and he has financially supported Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion provider. He is as far outside the mainstream on the abortion issue as one could possibly be and yet still considers himself a viable candidate for the Republican nomination,” Cella said.

At a press conference yesterday in Huntsville, Alabama, Giuliani shrugged off concerns his position on abortion would have on his candidacy saying: "I guess we'll find out. Is it an acceptable position? I'm at peace with it," he said. Cella called his statement: “A disturbingly callous abandonment of the most vulnerable in our society.”

Cella added: “Giuliani shares the exact same position on abortion as fellow Catholic John Kerry. As more people of faith who are pro-life begin to realize this, they will reject Giuliani’s candidacy.”

To Vote . . . Or Not to Vote?

Abortion Ruling Is All About Alito. Pro Ecclesia Friday, April 20, 2007. Jay makes a good point here:

Andrew Cohen laments at The Washington Post:

This is why presidential elections matter even if and when you don't particularly like one candidate or the other. The re-election of George W. Bush in 2004 begat the nomination to the United States Supreme Court of Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr. and Justice Alito's ascencion to the High Court last year begat today a landmark abortion ruling that anti-abortion advocates have pushed to get for years. You can spin this any other way you want but in the end it comes down to a simple matter of personnel. Justice Alito was willing and able to go in the law where his predecessor, former Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wasn't. And, as a result, doctors in this country now may be sent to federal prison for performing a type of abortion procedure even if those doctors believe that a woman's health would be jeopardized by not having the procedure. As the late, great Kurt Vonnegut might have said: so it goes.

To which Jay comments:

Let me repeat and emphasize the one thing on which I agree with Cohen: "This is why presidential elections matter even if and when you don't particularly like one candidate or the other."

Back in 2004, the Catholic philosopher Alisdair Macintyre expressed the opinion that The Only Vote Worth Casting in November was . . . no vote at all:

. . . the only vote worth casting in November is a vote that no one will be able to cast, a vote against a system that presents one with a choice between Bush's conservatism and Kerry's liberalism, those two partners in ideological debate, both of whom need the other as a target.

Why should we reject both? Not primarily because they give us wrong answers, but because they answer the wrong questions. What then are the right political questions? One of them is: What do we owe our children? And the answer is that we owe them the best chance that we can give them of protection and fostering from the moment of conception onwards. And we can only achieve that if we give them the best chance that we can both of a flourishing family life, in which the work of their parents is fairly and adequately rewarded, and of an education which will enable them to flourish.

Other Catholics have expressed similar dissatisfaction with the present administration and the GOP in general. Last November, Catholic apologist and fellow blogger Mark Shea wrote dismissively of the choice in the mid-term elections as one between "Tweedledee and Tweedledum", and voted for a third-party candidate, so as to express his dissatisfaction with what he habitually refers to as "the torture party" or "the Stupid Party" (who he presumes operates under the motto: "We Exploit Pro-lifers Every Four Years by Pretending to Care about Human Life").

There is an element of truth to Mark's criticism of the GOP. After all, Hadley Arkes had his own bone to pick with the Bush Administration shortly after the 2004 election, characterizing the outcome as "Bush's Second Chance" (First Things April 2005). At the same time, I think that a blanket condemnation of the GOP such as made by Shea -- even in jest -- does a disservice to the many Catholic (or Protestant) Republicans who do work tirelessly to pass pro-life legislation. (I see that I'm not the only one noticing the bitterness and cynicism emanating from Catholic & Enjoying It these days).

Honestly, if this post sounds conflicted, it's because I am. There's a lot of discussion lately about a crisis of identity within the GOP -- the candidacy of "pro-choice Catholic" Rudy Giuliani being a present symptom. And I think we would be in something of a predicament were Giuliani to actually be the presidential nominee. Were that to happen, do you make the attempt to save the GOP by working from within? Or do you "opt out" and resign yourself to criticizing from afar?

Which would have the better chance of reforming the party or doing some good in the long term?

Like my colleagues, the prospect of a Giuliani presidential nomination is a fearful one. But I also have strong difficulties with the decision to abstain from voting, or to cast a principled-but-ultimately-ineffective vote for a third-party candidate which no clear chance of electoral victory. I would be greatly concerned were religious conservatives to embark on a "protest vote" en masse, because in either case, the outcome is the same: one hands over the victory to the Democrats, and those who are arguably more likely to do greater damage, rolling back any legislative pro-life gains made by Republicans. Consider:

• According to the Washington Post, crisis pregnancy centers have received 60 million in federal funding since 2001 ("Altogether, local antiabortion and crisis pregnancy centers have received well over $60 million in grants for abstinence education and other programs" "Grants Flow To Bush Allies On Social Issues" March 22, 2006. One knows what would have happened under a Kerry presidency -- and one can reasonably predict what would occur under Hillary Clinton or Obama.
  

• Consider also the heavily contested the Mexico City Policy instituted by President Reagan, requiring "nongovernmental organizations to agree as a condition of their receipt of [U.S.] federal funds that such organizations would neither perform nor actively promote abortion as a method of family planning in other nations." The policy was repealed by President Clinton on his first day of office, and then reinstated January 22, 2001, by president George W. Bush. Senator Kerry in turn vowed to revoke it, were he elected president. Again, whoever is elected to the presidency, his action would likely adhere to the example set forth by his party.
  

• Consider what might have happened had Christians, despite their concerns about the Bush administration, embraced a position of non-engagement and "opted out" of the election in 2004 . . . and those Supreme Court judges appointed by President Bush were intead appointed by a certain "pro-choice Catholic" senator from Massachusetts? -- Would we have anything to celebrate this past week?
  

Food for thought and discussion.

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.

Terrence Jeffrey at National Review: "Rudy’s a No-Go"

Terence P. Jeffrey, writing at National Review Online, says "Free markets and the rule of law are great, but support for them doesn’t make Rudy Giuliani a conservative":

“Murder and graffiti are two vastly different crimes,” Rudy Giuliani once said. “But they are part of the same continuum, and a climate that tolerates one is more likely to tolerate the other.”

Good point, Rudy.

Now, what about a climate — not to mention a Republican presidential candidate — that not only tolerates, but allows unelected judges to legalize the practice of delivering a child until only its head remains within its mothers womb so the child can be killed by sucking out its brains?

What about a climate where same-sex couples are given the same legal status as married couples, whether the resulting arrangements are candidly called “same-sex marriages,” or are semantically papered-over with terms such as “civil unions” or “domestic partnerships”?

Apply the Giuliani Continuum to fundamental issues such as marriage and the right to life, and where does it lead?

Not where conservatives want America to be.

***
Giuliani’s positions on abortion and marriage disqualify him as a conservative because they annihilate the link between the natural law and man-made laws. Indeed, they use man-made law to promote and protect acts that violate the natural law.

***
By advocating abortion on demand and same-sex unions, Rudy is doing something far more egregious than, say, defacing a New York subway train. He is defacing the institution that forms the foundation of human civilization.

[More]

Cardinal Egan: Hillary, Pataki, Giuliani "friends of mine"

"Pro-Abort Politicians 'Friends of Mine' says New York Cardinal Egan", by Hilary White. LifeSiteNews.com January 26, 2006:

The NBC interviewer, David Ushery, asked for the Cardinal's response to the pro-abortion stance of three of the most prominent politicians in New York, presidential hopefuls Hillary Clinton and Rudolph Giuliani, and ex-governor of New York George Pataki.

Cardinal Egan responded, "They're all friends of mine."

"Governor Pataki's a friend of mine, Mayor Giuliani's a friend of mine, Senator Clinton is a friend of mine and whomever else you want to name."

The Cardinal added, "I think I'm a good friend of all three of these people, whom you've mentioned or whom I've mentioned. And I wish them all the best, and they've been very good to us. And I will vote, I assure you, right here in the New York, and that will be one vote. I won't ask you to vote the way I think you ought to vote."

Read The full transcript of the NBC interview, in which Cardinal Egan makes his case for abstaining from comment:

Cardinal EGAN: And Governor Pataki's a friend of mine, Mayor Giuliani's a friend of mine, Senator Clinton is a friend of mine and whomever else you want to name. And I've been very, very careful, I hope you notice. Never have I got into partisan politics of any kind at all. You know, I told you that we're going to be 200 years old.

USHERY: Right. And you're going to be preaching about that later today at the cathedral, and on Sunday.

Cardinal EGAN: Exactly. But if you go back to the first bishop we had, Bishop Carroll...

USHERY: Mm-hmm.

Cardinal EGAN: ...was the only bishop we had back in the 1800s, the early 1800s. He made it very clear that once he got himself into a political situation and years later he said how he regretted doing that, that his job was to preach the gospel, to celebrate the liturgy and to do the works of charity and justice. And I belive that John Carroll got it right. And so, no, don't ever expect me to be involved in partisan politics. I think I'm a good friend of all three of these people, whom you've mentioned or whom I've mentioned. And I wish them all the best, and they've been very good to us. And I will vote, I assure you, right here in the New York, and that will be one vote. I won't ask you to vote the way I think you ought to vote.

Giulian's record on abortion is pretty clear:

“I’m pro-choice. I’m pro-gay rights,” Giuliani said. He was then asked whether he supports a ban on what critics call partial-birth abortions. “No, I have not supported that, and I don’t see my position on that changing,” he responded. [Source: CNN.com, “Inside Politics” Dec 2, 1999].

He has been out of the public eye for a while, but it is doubtful as to whether he has reconsidered his position. Pataki's record is, well, mixed, and I think Senator Hillary Clinton's deplorable record on abortion and related issues needs no introduction.

Telling Catholics whom to vote for is one thing. I agree, for example, with CPS colleague Jay Anderson's reservations about Fr. Pavone formally joining Brownback's team. On the other hand, I think there are a good many faithful Catholic citizens of New York who would hope that Cardinal Egan, if given the opportunity to comment on the voting records of prospective presidential candidates, especially Catholic ones, would do something more than assert his personal friendship. Hence like Fr. Neuhaus' remark:

But of course [Egan] was making a statement of momentous political consequence, in that he seemed to be saying, as far as he is concerned, that the Church has no problem with pro-abortion politicians.

Catholic? Rudy Watch

Nate Nelson has fired up a new blog called Catholic? Rudy Watch. His mission? Oppose the candidacy of Rudy Giuliani for president. As many know, Rudy "disagrees" with Church teachings in re: to abortion, protecting marriage, and ESCR. Looks like Nate wants Catholics to get to know the real Rudy. Great idea Nate!

Reminds one of Catholic[?] Kerry Watch which Christopher, Jeff, and Oswald contributed to during the 2004 presidential campaign.

Tags: Catholic, Giuliani, abortion, ESCR, marriage, 2008