The prospects of a Benedict-Guiliani meeting during the Pope's visit to NYC

When Pope Benedict XVI travels to New York in April, he's expected to visit Ground Zero and Yankee Stadium -- places known for their connection to another famous Catholic, Rudy Giuliani.

The Vatican announced Monday that Benedict plans to travel to the United States for a five-day trip to Washington and New York. Given the Rudy-friendly itinerary, is there a chance the pontiff will grant an audience to Giuliani -- a lifelong Yankees fan known worldwide for his handling of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks?

Papal experts say that while Giuliani would likely be invited along on Benedict's visit to Ground Zero, they disagree over whether he would be granted a private audience. [-Newsday]

If Giuliani were to become the de facto Republican candidate by the time of the Pope's visit, the press (and perhaps even the opposition) will most probably try to read into the situation either way.

Personally, I highly doubt Pope Benedict would grant Guiliani an audience, nor do I think the Guiliani campaign would seek it. The press, of course, might try to twist this state of affairs so they could claim that Pope Benedict was somehow intentionally snubbing Giuliani by not meeting with him personally - and perhaps even some conservative Catholics would be happy to play along with that false assumption to undermine Guiliani.

But really, I think that I agree (for the first time in my life) with Thomas Reese, S.J., as he is quoted: The Pope will be dealing with current government leaders on this trip, not past leaders or (possible) future ones.

If Giuliani can't claim to be pro-life, can others for him?

In follow-up to an earlier post ("Burke vs. Giuliani and matching wits with an unarmed foe"), where I accused Giuliani of trying to fake being a Catholic to get votes, LifeSiteNews alerts us to the fact that other republicans are trying to claim Giuliani is pro-life. Again, to get votes:

Rudy Giuliani has tried every trick in the book in order to persuade pro-life voters to consider him for the Republican nomination for president. Now a congressman with a long record of opposing abortion has labeled the former mayor pro-life and said he would have voted mostly pro-life if he had been a congressman as well.

Rep. Pete Sessions, a Texas Republican, says that if Giuliani were a member of Congress today, he'd be considered pro-life.

"In a hypothetical comparison of congressional votes, Mayor Giuliani's voting record would mirror the voting record of Fred Thompson," Sessions told CBN News on Monday.

The congressman, who has endorsed Giuliani for president, says those votes supposedly pro-life votes would include ones "on partial birth abortion, taxpayer funding on abortions, and parental notification laws."

"Mayor Giuliani respects the values of social conservatism, and his position on these issues would categorize him as a predominately pro-life Member of Congress," Sessions claims.

However, Giuliani, as mayor of New York City, was on record as opposing the ban on partial-birth abortions and supporting the use of taxpayer funds to finance abortions for poor women.

Related:

• Confraternity of Catholic Clergy support Abp. Burke's witness and teaching
• [CWNews has a summary of their position here; CNA here.]
• AMDG: Some Recent Letters to the Editor re: Archbishop Burke
• CNA: Giuliani dodges Archbishop Burke's Holy Communion admonition

Burke vs. Giuliani and matching wits with an unarmed foe

Mainstream journalism favors ruts, by which I mean regular, predictable patterns of reporting ... ready-made stories, as it were. "Open box and reheat contents" fare.

One issue (or rut) that American journalism favors during election campaigns is the "Catholic bishop threatens to deny pro-choice Catholic politician communion" story.

I'm not saying this isn't real news, I just wish the media would learn that there are other topics in which Catholic principles run up against contemporary political practice. Anyway, that's not my real point. I'll get to that in a bit.

To start us off, a(nother) report from the Associated Press:

Roman Catholic Archbishop Raymond Burke, who made headlines last presidential season by saying he'd refuse Holy Communion to John Kerry, has his eye on Rudy Giuliani this year....

.... Burke, the Archbishop of St. Louis, was asked by The St. Louis Post-Dispatch if he would deny Communion to Giuliani if the former New York mayor approached him for the sacrament.

"If the question is about a Catholic who is publicly espousing positions contrary to the moral law, and I know that person knows it, yes I would," the paper quoted the archbishop as responding.

Burke has said of Giuliani: "I can't imagine that as a Catholic he doesn't know that his stance on the protection of human life is wrong. If someone is publicly sinning, they should not approach to receive Holy Communion."

And what brilliant, philosophically-cogent, intellectually-nuanced response did Guliani give in return?

Asked about it Wednesday while campaigning in New Hampshire, Giuliani said:

"Archbishops have a right to their opinion, you know. There's freedom of religion in this country. There's no established religion, and archbishops have a right to their opinion. Everybody has a right to their opinion."

Is he trying to sound like a stuck record-player? Maybe he should finally switch-out the disc labeled "moral-relativist/religious-pluralist/double-speak" which he's had set on repeat for the last umpteen years. Laughable.

It's not even like Guliani was even caught-off guard by the question. He routinely gives these kinds of silly responses when asked about his Catholicism. Take another example from the same article:

Last week, Giuliani compared the scrutiny of his personal life marked by three marriages to the biblical story in which Jesus said only someone who was free of all sin should try to stone an adulterous woman.

"I'm guided very, very often about, 'Don't judge others, lest you be judged,'" Giuliani told the Christian Broadcasting Network.

"I have very, very strong views on religion that come about from having wanted to be a priest when I was younger, having studied theology for four years in college," he said.

Goodness gracious - did he study remedial theology?! I think my patience (never one of my strong points) with his ramblings and obfuscations is about at an end. Seriously, stop trying to fake being a Catholic to gain votes.

At least demonstrate some courage about your (lack of) convictions.

Oh! And don't even get me started on the cross-dressing. Yep, that's Giuliani on the left.

[/end of rant.]

(By-the-by: Good for Abp. Burke! Fidelis has more.)

Rudy gets struck down during abortion position speech!

It doesn't get much better than this ...

While explaining his stance on abortion and his Catholic faith at the republican debates, lightning struck the building where Rudy Giuliani was speaking and began messing with the electrical/audio systems!

Video from YouTube:



A full report from Reuters here.

Related: CatholicsAgainstRudy.com

Giuliani digs in his heals and makes his play

Washington Post staff writers:

Former New York mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani yesterday sought to quell a growing controversy over abortion that has disrupted his presidential campaign. Restating his support for abortion rights, he asked Republican voters to look beyond that issue to the totality of his platform and record.

Giuliani called abortion "morally wrong" but said he nonetheless favors a woman's right to choose. "I am open to seeking ways of limiting abortions, and I am open to decreasing abortions," he told an audience at Houston Baptist University. "But I believe you have to respect their [women's] viewpoint and give them a level of choice. I would grant women the right to make that choice."

The speech came after a week of turmoil surrounding Giuliani's candidacy following a Republican presidential candidate debate in California in which he gave an ambiguous answer to a question about how he would feel if the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision that legalized abortion nationwide.

His goal, as he stated yesterday, was to push the controversial issue -- which has put him at odds with much of the party's conservative base -- to the side in the battle for the Republican nomination. But his speech and recent statements left unanswered questions about how his views have changed over the course of nearly two decades as a political candidate and elected official.

Anyone want to speculate how the republicans will react to Giuliani's attempts to become their middleground, most-electable candidate (even by sacrificing the pro-life demographic and much else)?

Repealing Roe v. Wade would be "OK" says Giuliani

Ouch. Is this the most Giuliani could muster?

To Sam Brownback, it would be "a glorious day," and to Tom Tancredo the "greatest day in this country's history." For Rudolph Giuliani, repeal of the Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion "would be OK."

Republican presidential hopefuls, at their first debate on Thursday, were asked if repeal of the Roe v. Wade decision would be a good day for America.

"It would be OK to repeal," said Giuliani, New York's former mayor, contending with his record of support for abortion rights as he courts conservative Republicans.

"I think the court has to make that decision and then the country can deal with it. We're a federalist system of government and states can make their own decisions," said Giuliani, who leads Republicans in the polls.

[More from Reuters.]

Reducing the morality of abortion to whether or not it is legal is simply to avoid the question. Ethics and prudence should guide legislation, not be led by it.

MSNBC added a bit more of his response:

It would be OK to repeal it [Roe]. It would be OK also if a strict constructionist judge viewed it as precedent and I think a judge has to make that decision…. The court has to make that decision and then the country can deal with it,”

Giuliani also emphasized the character of these sorts of decisions as primarily legal and not moral when asked his opinion about the ban on Partial Birth Abortion being upheld. His response, which LifeSiteNews posted (along with the responses of many other candidates and figures), was the shortest:

The Supreme Court reached the correct conclusion in upholding the congressional ban on partial birth abortion. I agree with it.

However, the Democrats have pointed out that this is a 180 for Rudy:

Throughout his career, Rudy Giuliani has been caught making a series of conflicting statements and flip-flops about the federal abortion ban. Ironically, when he was asked whether he supports a ban, Giuliani said "no, I have not supported that, and I don't see my position on that changing." [CNN Inside Politics, 12/2/99]

Well, it did. And of course, I'm not faulting him for coming to the right decision. What I'm worried about is his tendency to make such decisions based on political expediency.

Back in '89 Guiliani called for the public funding of abortion:


Even though he now supports the "Hyde Amendment which bars federal funding of abortion under the Medicaid program." [source.] Admittedly, on both these issues he has become more Pro-Life in his stance, but is this conviction or convenience?

Guiliani's history of association with the Pro-Life cause is evidently murky at best, and therefore he has very much to "prove" to the conscientious Catholic voter in this election.

Saying that it would be "OK" if abortion ended in America is a woefully inadequate response.