Catechism with Rudy Giuliani

He's trying to keep the GOP's social and religious conservatives off his back by playing like he's a faithful Catholic, but I'm betting nobody buys it.

Sadly, I think you are wrong. Never underestimate a) the inattention and low IQ of your typical voter, and b) how deeply the seeds of dissent are sown within the Catholic flock.

He's not trying for the wacko conservative Catholic/Christian crowd as he's already lost them. No, he's going for the moderate, liberal leaning "swing" Catholic voters, who have mixed feelings about homosexuality and even abortion. Think Kennedy. Think Pelosi. Think of a soft, well-dressed, wealthy type of...well...evil.

Would it be too much to say that Catholics should oppose Giuliani just because he will confuse everyone about what the Catholic faith teaches? Kerry did this last time.

I agree completely with Daniel here. What does it matter whether he views homosexuality as sinful?! If you want, ask him about public policy that affects homosexuals, but who cares whether he views it as sinful for not.

It's hard to believe we've gone from JFK insisting he wouldn't be controlled by the Vatican to Guiliani being quizzed on Catholic catechism while being cheered on by the Catholic-thug crowd just waiting to denounce his faith and deny him Communion. It's ugly and offensive.

I don't think anyone -- particularly a politician with an ego (but I repeat myself) -- can help but stumble over an answer where they are forced to confess their own sins, if obliquely, as well as answer for what are perceived as others'.

Rod, you have plenty of other reasons to be against Giuliani for President. IMHO, you're being (a little) too hard on him.

If I had to guess, I'd say what Rod's reacting to isn't Giuliani's articulation of Church teaching, but...*Giuliani's* articulation of Church teaching. That is, it's not Church teaching that's in the wrong, here, but voters being expected to believe that Rudy cares one jot about what the Church teaches about sexual morality, or anything else for that matter. The man's on record as supporting partial-birth abortion, for heaven's sake, so why should anybody believe what he says about accepting Church teachings?

In some sense it's the question itself that's pretty unbelievable. It's rather like somebody asking Ted Kennedy whether or not he believes vehicular homicide should involve automatic jail time, and Kennedy solemnly opining in favor of safe driving practices and tough sentencing guidelines. The only subtext to such a question/answer session is, "Yes, we do believe the American public is hopelessly stupid."

"That is, it's not Church teaching that's in the wrong, here, but voters being expected to believe that Rudy cares one jot about what the Church teaches about sexual morality, or anything else for that matter. The man's on record as supporting partial-birth abortion, for heaven's sake, so why should anybody believe what he says about accepting Church teachings?"

But what does any of this have to do with him being president??? This is what I mean by Catholic-thugs prepared to tar him as "non-Catholic" and therefore somehow unfit to be president because of Vatican doctrine. Why do we really care whether he accepts Church teachings? When did that become a requirement to be President of the U.S., as opposed to president of the Vatican or president of the U.S. Catholic Council of Bishops?

This is a dangerous path we are on, and I hate to see Catholics doing the same things that Evangelicals have done to our political discourse.

as opposed to president of the Vatican or president of the U.S. Catholic Council of Bishops?

Does one laugh or cry?

Both, I think, CourageMan.

Daniel, on the political level I don't care one bit whether Rudy's a good Catholic, a bad Catholic, a Catholic-in-name-only, or whatever. (As a Catholic I pray for his soul, of course.) But I do care that he's trying to present himself as a good Catholic for the purpose of garnering votes and support from religious voters, while trying to reassure the secularist-thugs that he won't really do anything they wouldn't like.

Like I said in the Romney thread about JFK, if Giuliani would say, "Hey, I'm a cultural Catholic, but don't expect me to believe in or act on any of this stuff," I'd give him points for honesty. But the spectacle of the man who likes to remind religious voters of his Catholic creds while nodding and winking at his secular supporters is simply nauseating.

Why does it matter? Well, call me naive, I suppose, but people who try to be all things to all people seldom make good, trustworthy leaders. If your real question is "Why should it matter if Giuliani, or any presidential candidate, is a dishonest disingenuous opportunist willing to wave the altar-boy flag in front of one crowd and the worldly unbeliever flag in front of another so long as it gets him votes?" then we might as well admit that the presidency should belong to the best and most accomplished liar, and have done with it.

To some extent I agree with Daniel on this (although I'm not sure what the phrase "Vatican doctrine" means). I'm tired of hearing about the personal faith commitments of politicians. It's the biggest reservation I have about Huckabee -- the former minister who'll be boring us all the time about his personal "walk with the Lord" and how this or that policy position comes from his reading of the Gospels.

Ron Paul's recent statement in response to the Romney/Mormon dustup was wonderful. Candidates for public office should speak candidly about what they want to do in office, why it's important, and how they propose to do it.

We do not need any more ostentatiously faith-based G.W. Bushes or another blasphemous Clinton "New Covenant" with America.

Ah, how I do love being a pawn in the games you social conservatives play establishing boundaries and tests for each other around homosexuality. I'm now now disordered both objectively AND intrinsically, and I'm evil too! Perhaps soon I can be "fundamentally disordered", "unequivocably disordered", "infallibly disordered", "irreparably disordered", and "unquestionably disordered" if I play my cards right.

Since I'm a software developer, maybe I can expedite the combox process here by simply writing some software to autopost comments for everyone. Here's our scorecard:

Max: Objectively disordered
M_David: Evil
Cleveland: Homosocialist homosocialist
R-e-P, Jim et al: We are not! We are not! (Jim randomly worded subnote: if Catholics really gave a damn, why is Courage not more visible?)
Daniel and Larry: They are not! They are not!
Sig, Susan: non-orthodox Christian position: Our homosexual neighbors and friends are lovable, moral people and we think the little o Christian view is going to be less and less acceptable and understandable to younger generations
Rod: Orthodox Christianity position, emphasis on purity, randomly composed sentence involving the scent of urine anecdote
Erin and CourageMan: Comfort and strength to the gay people trying to live up to Orthodox Christian teaching.
Franklin: Something thoughtful

My apologies to any regular contributors whose positions I have not reflected fairly and any of the above who'd wish to modify their position are welcome to correct me. Otherwise, I think this software would save us all valuable time, don't you?

"But I do care that he's trying to present himself as a good Catholic"

Are we now going to require presidents to be theologians as well?

I don't think he's trying to do that at all. He cannot come out and say it, but like many lapsed Catholics, despite his love and respect for Catholicism's beliefs, morality and traditions, he no longer attends. And he cannot come out and say it because we require presidents to lie to us and have us all pretend they'r perfect human beings rather than simply human beings.

Which is how you get Bill Clinton walking around with the Bible on Easter Sunday mere moments after getting "refreshed" by Miss Lewinsky.Was that more honest, or was it just more acceptable? I'd note Reagan fessed up he didn't go to church but prayed and hoped God would understand.

If it's one thing I will give Giuliani credit for, he at least being honest that his personal and family life leave a lot to be desired. Would it be better if he dragooned his estranged kids into phot ops like Bill Clinton did Chelsea? I'd also note again while the constant GOP drumbeat of "finding a new Reagan" is embarrassing, the Gipper wasn't exactly a prefect family man and dad either.

CourageMan, For all my glibness and sarcasm in the previous post, I honestly do wish you and all who try to live that teaching the comfort and strength that you need. I hope you do not see in me the scorn that I know many send your way when I simply say that my own spiritual journey has led me to a different place so far.

AB,
we do not differentiate between that brokenness and all the other brokenness in our world

The problem being, of course, that far too many people do just that... in many cases, no doubt, influenced by the salacious, nudge-nudge wink-wink nature of the media coverage of anything having to do with homosexuality.

Jim, I consider both what you wrote and the fact that you associate me with Courage Man to be a compliment far above what I deserve. You're in my prayers, and I believe that those who truly seek the Lord will find Him.

Franklin, do you really believe that we are governed by the most unprincipled citizens among us, that the very act of seeking public office proves one's level of dishonesty and disingenuousness? I try to tell myself that it's only my deep level of cynicism for the political sphere that produces such thoughts, but perhaps it's merely the truth.

Bugg, I don't really think Americans want presidents to pretend they're perfect human beings. As I said, I'd be happier with an honest Giuliani than a "faux Catholic" one. It troubles me that the "religion" card gets played the way it does in elections, but I think that American-style politics has long since included the idea that the way to win is to create the illusion that you are smarter, better-experienced, better-connected, more capable of relating to the Common Man, and, yes, more truly saved than your opponent(s). Since each candidate enters into this game with enthusiasm, soon it becomes necessary for each to attack the others even when there's little difference among them; hence the "faith wars," where Huck's "evangelical" style is paraded against Romney's "weird" Mormonism and Giuliani's "weak" Catholicism. All of it, of course, demonstrates just how much of a yawner this election is, just how few differences there are among the Republican candidates (Paul excepted, for better or worse), and just how ideologically vacant the Republican Party is at the present time.

Of course, the Democrats aren't doing much better; you don't recruit Oprah as a sign of self-confidence...

Erin,

I always try to call 'em as I see 'em ...

and to follow on your comment, the whole candidate "faith wars" routine as you describe it really cheapens all religions dragged into the muck, don't you think? (I keep thinking of David Kuo advising us all to think very carefully about where we "take Jesus" in our political discourse).

A sidebar to this discussion:
I have to put out some love to Oprah though. I understand where Rod is coming from on the "therapeutic culture" (his last to Larry being a helpful clarification of what he was critiquing), and I can see how Oprah is easy to see as part of all that, but I have tremendous respect for her and how she's managed the fame and fortune thrown her way. By and large, she seems like she's trying to do good (while admittedly is doing well for herself by and large too). I just can't put her on the same level as the televangelists or the new agey self-help hucksters who exploit those looking to them for direction.

Well said, AB.

"...maybe that is just the sentiment of your average religious 26-year-old."

Also of this 59-year-old.

Erin-

We are making our candidates say the bare minimum to satisfy some basics. Giuliani is merely saying whta he thinks has to be said to get over the hurdle, no more. Are we going to watch him to see if he goes to Mass? Takes Communion? Goes to confession? Again, we're electing a man, not position papers. But Giuliani isn't hiding his messy life. In a way, that's more honest.

Yet I'd note-nobody is asking Obama about his Afrocentric church and it's pastor, who has repeatedly made antigay statements over and over without the least bit of any inquiry. Obama, fighting off so far unfounded rumors of attending a Muslim madrassah in Indonesia as a child, is much more involved in his church that Giuliani is involved his. But again, no questions. Why is that? But of course, we already know the answer. The press will hold some people's feet to the fire and give others a total pass. When Tim Russert goes axhandle and broadsword after Obama or Her Royal Hillaryness on such issues, let us all know.

"Yet I'd note-nobody is asking Obama about his Afrocentric church and it's pastor, who has repeatedly made antigay statements over and over without the least bit of any inquiry. Obama . . . is much more involved in his church that Giuliani is involved his. But again, no questions. Why is that? "

Because Democratic voters don't insist that their candidates play Bible Quiz-bowl in order to vote for them? Because Democrats don't place a religious test on its candidates? Because Democrats are comfortable with Obama's relationship with his faith, his church, and his values and because most of the attacks on Obama are coming from the far right?

Because Democrats don't place a religious test on its candidates? Because Democrats are comfortable with Obama's relationship with his faith, his church, and his values and because most of the attacks on Obama are coming from the far right?

You did hear about the fuss about Obama and his gospel-concert fund-raiser in South Carolina? Lots of lovely things said about the black church in the liberal blogosphere at the time.

>>>>
"Are we really at a point in our political system where politicians are being asked about sin as opposed to, say, foreign policy and the economy????? I want a leader, not a theologian, as president and the sooner we stop worrying about how Catholic or Mormon or Christian politicians are, the better."
>>>>

If you insist that Good Civil Society requires 'faith' be given a prominent place in the Public Square, don't be all surprised that the nitty-gritty details of a candidate's faith are considered fair game for questioning.

"Or lacks your bias and agenda. Clinton and Obama both talk often about their faiths, with little consquence. No quiz bowl, no threats from the church hierarchy, no ugly bigotry."

Do you really believe this, Daniel? I think there's plenty of ugly bigotry on the Democrat side of things; how about the quote Courage Man shared on his blog entry that he linked to above (from Mother Jones):

"Hiding behind the black masses and their unassailable hyper-religiosity will not soon be forgotten by those supporters who thought him the man who'd bring integrity and truth-telling back to Washington. If he doesn't soon answer this question, his silence will do the job for him: how does Obama reconcile his mild, but clear, support for gay rights with an embrace of those who believe God "saves" believers from the sin of homosexuality? No points, Senator, for hiding behind the bigotry of the black masses while positioning yourself as he who will tell blacks, and therefore the country, what they don't want to hear. I guess he just means the ones who'll still vote for him no matter what he does... Maybe it's true what they (used to) say (out loud) about blacks and music: funk it up and anything blacks' ignorantly fear becomes sacrosanct and you, a racist, for objecting."

Tell me why that's not ugly bigotry from the leftist side of things, Daniel?

Ahh. So Democrat bigotry is fine; it's just Republican bigotry you object to.

And for the record, the USCCB doesn't have a "party line" and doesn't call names. If Giuliani's ineligible to receive Communion under internal Catholic disciplinary rules, then he's ineligible. I can think of several reasons why he might not be able to present himself for Communion, and none of them have anything to do with his being a Republican; the fact that by his own admission he's not a regular Mass attendee would be among these reasons, as Catholics are bound under pain of sin to attend Mass on Sundays and Holy Days. So unless you're going to deny to the Church the authority to make such rules for Catholics, your continued slings against the USCCB sound pretty silly.

(Well, they do anyway, as no Catholic I know of takes the USCCB very seriously; they don't make the rules, you know.)

questioning the use of a [sic] gospel singer

Calling the "black masses" "bigoted" and "ignorant[]" and saying they'll believe anything if you set it to music is not "questioning" anything? Not to speak of all the Godwin violations and screeches of Holocaust-denier and the like against Donnie McClurkin.

I guess bigotry against conservatives is simply impossible in Daniel's World, because if the stuff I cited isn't such a thing, then such a thing doesn't exist.

It pretty d*** well is my business, if he's going to court my vote with the whole sly implication that he's a fellow Catholic who "shares" my "values."

Giuliani doesn't have to *run* as a Catholic; it's pretty dishonest for him to do so, anyway.

Frankly, my determination not to vote for Giuliani stems from the fact that he's in favor of things I find abhorrent: abortion and torture, for starters. The fact that he's willing to pander to religious voters while appeasing secularists is a relatively minor strike against him, compared to the many ways I find him utterly intolerable.

"Giuliani doesn't have to *run* as a Catholic; it's pretty dishonest for him to do so, anyway."

He doesn't have a choice, really, since his party insists that everyone wear their religion on their sleeve. I'd be happy if he didn't "run" as a Catholic either, but he is a Catholic--whether you think he is or not--and his party insists that everyone put their faith up for debate and discussion.

"I guess bigotry against conservatives is simply impossible in Daniel's World, because if the stuff I cited isn't such a thing, then such a thing doesn't exist."

I was speaking about the context of bigotry related to candidate's faith. Yes, there is bigotry against conservatives. It isn't paraded around on stage during debates and treated as serious conversation, like it is in the GOP, but sure there is bigotry. I do not, however, consider all the things on your list as bigotry, especially given the context of the comments. Some, however, are bigoted.

Neither of those JFK speech quotes has anything to do with who is or is not in communion with the Church.

The second isn't even related to anything the Church does at all.

Try again.

No, Daniel. By reminding a Catholic politician that public dissent from Church teaching on the hideous immorality of abortion or the depravity of gay marriage renders one ineligible to receive Communion by the Church's own rules, the Catholic prelate is telling the politician how to be Catholic. Whether he chooses to be Catholic or not is still entirely up to him.

Boy I'm glad I'm a Liberal. I've never thought that any politician should be wearing their religion on their sleeve. Here's a great quote by a guy named Ben Franklin:
"The most dangerous hypocrite in the Commonwealth is one who leaves the gospel for the sake of the law. A man compounded of law and gospel is able to cheat a whole country with his religion and then destroy them under the color of law."
It's almost as if Republicans have amnesia about the golden Evangelical they christened named George W. Bush. He's probably done more to turn away fair minded people from Evangelical Christianity than any Hollywood movie producer or any secular educator.
No doubt Giuliani will do the same thing for Catholicism.
It's interesting that practicing Mormon Harry Reid has never had to give 'a speech/the speech' to get Democrats to accept him as Senate Majority Leader.
I really feel that even if the Republicans win the Presidency or get a majority in Congress they're just gonna do more to turn the average person away from the religious groups that rally behind them.
Most people don't talk about the fact that more than 1/2 the electorate doesn't feel it's even worth their time to show up at polls in a presidential race. They think that some guy claiming to be Christ-like while beating the drums for war and ignoring real issues that affect them day to day is just BS.
In fact, people like myself & yourself, if you've even read this far, are in the minority.

You say tomato, I say tomahto.

Understand that "tomahto" means that churches have no right, on these terms, to decide who is and isn't a member and no right to protect their image* from public counterwitness.

* I use the word "image" deliberately. Not because I think the Church is about PR (though scandal inevitably involves at some similar considerations), but to make the point that commercial brand names have more protection from copyright infringement than Daniel would allow churches to have from false-claimants.

"Either a church has the right to conduct its internal affairs according to its own rules and by its own authority, or it doesn't."

The key word here is "internal." Bishops making public pronouncements about candidates' faith is irresponsible and bad for our political system. Public speculation about the state of a candidate's standing in the Catholic church by busybody laypeople is equally loathesome and dangerous to our political system.

Of course, people have freedom of speech. But that freedom has a cost and the cost is a weakened political system and weakened Catholic church.

"Rod constantly gives the example of the Catholic bishop of New Orleans excommunicating (or just threatening, I forget ... it doesn't matter for this point's purpose) Catholic politicians who backed segregation. How is what that bishop's interference in politics any different from anything even being imagined today -- and no, your substantive disapproval of segregation is not an relevant argument to that point."

Equally a problem. Private conversations with politicians are fine; holding press conferences and talking to reporters about it is a problem.

The key word here is "internal." Bishops making public pronouncements about candidates' faith is irresponsible and bad for our political system.

Authority over the sacraments is an internal matter.

And a matter of public record, such as a self-presented religious affiliation, can only be addressed publicly.

And BTW ... there never hasn't been a time when American politicians didn't talk about their religion, or address "political" issues on religious terms, in ways that your last note would disapprove of.

Daniel,

I almost always agree with what you write but I have to ask: why do you continue to beat your head against a wall? I appreciate the fact that you try to present a different point of view on this blog but don't you get tired of the way some people here twist what you write and use their twisted results to try to make themselves seem superior?

C'mon over to Kuo's blog, where rational thought and compassion are better appreciated by people who don't have their opinions handed to them by Fox News or Limbaugh or the Vatican. "Let the dead bury their dead." - Matthew

I don't harp on this but I'm sorry, that apparently sincere post ... it just ... blows my effing mind.

I mean ... if I were to TRY to concoct a straw man caricature called "Smug, Self-Righteous Liberal™," I couldn't do better than "PatientWitness" apparently really just is, in all sincerity. While thinking of himself as the paragon of "rational thought" and "compassion."

I never want to hear from others that SSRL™ is a figment of my imagination.

How does one respond to "have their opinions handed to them by Fox News or Limbaugh or the Vatican"? Sorry bud, but it doesn't matter what you think you "have the need or the desire to make yourself seem." If you can't see the contempt dripping off that 123 am note of yours, I can't help you.

And for the record, I'm not a professional writer.

I never want to hear from others that SSRL™ is a figment of my imagination.

Well, it would apparently not be from lack of experience of smugness and self-righteousness.

>>>>
What you're calling "coercion" I call freedom of religion. Unless you'd prefer to have laws forbidding religious leaders from publicly addressing members of their own flocks, I'd think you'd agree that church leaders should have the right to correct those members who publicly insist that they can be "Catholic" (or Baptist or Jewish or Methodist, etc.) while not only denying Church teaching, but taking public action to undermine it.

Posted by: Erin Manning | December 10, 2007 11:53 PM
>>>>

Well, if you want a return to the days of Al Smith where the non-Catholic majority believes that the Pope would control the votes of Catholic politicians, I guess that's your prerogative.

And the difference between the Catholic example and the Baptist, Jewish, and Methodist examples you gave is that those religions do not have a very public head of their hierarchies or the historical baggage that the Catholic Church has.

Daniel, I appreciate your contributions. You patiently bring sincere questions and put up with a lot of opprobrium in return. I think your opponents should show more appreciation for you, since your probing gives them the opportunity to define and express their own views.

Don't mind Erin. She falls for her own rhetorical flourishes at times, but I'm sure her conscience will bother her in the wee hours of the night.

What you're calling "coercion" I call freedom of religion. LOL. I know you didn't mean that the way it sounds, Erin. But it's still funny.

"the depravity of gay marriage"

Ah yes, THERE'S that "Christian" "charity" we've heard so much about.

And in another post you have the nerve to talk of freedom of religion. SOME religions embrace loving, committed relationships and we reject utterly the foolish notiion it is "depraved"!

And you wonder why we don't agree with you!

BTW, I don't recall any fuss being made over this "bishop's interference" issue when Michael Dukakis was the Democratic nominee for President in 1988.

Dukakis was an Orthodox Christian married to a non-Christian (Jewish) woman. As such, he was barred from receiving Holy Communion by the Greek Orthodox Church.

Exactly, Marian. You didn't have bishops spouting off about the candidate's faith with journalists.

I don't remember any kind of public pronouncement on the subject from the Orthodox establishment at the time. If there was one, it obviously wasn't VERY public.

There wasn't a public announcement at the time, because the denial of communion had been in effect for many years. Nobody cared.

"To suggest otherwise, as Daniel repeatedly has done in this thread, is to imply that the Church must remain silent on these and other moral issues."

Utterly absurd. The Catholic church can maintain its bully pulpit--and well-funded lobbying efforts--while refusing to cast doubt on the standing of Catholic politicians running for public office. To politicize the Eucharist--as you seem committed to doing--is to lessen the church and the sacraments. I realize you are much more comfortable with a paperthin wall between church and state, but fortunately the Constitution and the American people are not as theologically motivated.

Jim:

Nothing human is forever untouchable by God -- even gay relationships. There is nothing wrong with same-sex love, in the sense of "friendship" or "fraternal love." One of my friends, indeed the man who first got me involved with the Arlington Courage chapter, is a former gay activist who lives chastely with his ex-lover. Only gay sex is evil, though this can make an attachment to same-sex acts and scandal in one's public statements derivarively evil as well.

I would definitely acknowledge that some Christians in the blogosphere don't always make these distinctions explicit, which is as hard on me as it is on you. Still, I'd really attribute most of that more to the kind of sloppy rhetoric or imprecise usage that is endemic on all topics, rather than some desire to "put the boot into the fags" (though that does exist). All the major "anti-gay" denominations (i.e., not Fred Phelps) -- Catholic, Southern Baptist, Mormon, Orthodox, LCMS -- make some kind of act-orientation distinction.

Erin:

For the record, I can't abide Oprah, even though I am of course a major Obama fan.

But just from the political calculus, it would be silly to say Oprah isn't an asset to Obama, don't you think?

God's law is His Love -- and His Law for marriage is one man and one union who become one flesh in bringing forth children. It doesn't matter how many Catholics favor "gay marriage". . .The word marriage connotes a union of opposites. . .gay people are the same, not oppposites. . .

How anyone sees you and your concern about someone else's condescension indicate that you and your feelings are the focus of the matter for you. . .you want your feelings to be more important than what Scripture teaches. . .Sodomy is a sin. Scripture makes that point -- not the writers here. It's tough when God doesn't get in line with our feelings.