AmericanPapist Comments
Regrettably, Thom, I don't think Guiliani, given the political cover the Catholic bishops have provided to pro-abortion Catholic politicians (generally Dems) all these years, needs to prove anything. Large numbers of Catholics vote for pro-death politicians all of the time. Tom
Guiliani's personal views on abortion may be questionable. However, I think there is a strong chance that he would appoint strict-constructionist judges. This is the key here. Except for Bill Clinton, most presidents have been pro-life yet their judicial nominees have been horrendous on pro-life issues. With George W. Bush, we have finally had a change in the bench. I think any of the republican presidental candidates would continue that trend. In the end, it will be a moot point. A few more favorable Supreme Court rulings, and abortion will be become a state issue again. And hence, most pro-life legislation/action will go through state governments rather than federal.
I would rather have a McCain or Brownback for the nominee, but I will vote for Guiliani if he is indeed the nominee.
If the original Roe v. Wade case had supported the life of the unborn, I doubt debates about the beginning of life would still be continuing more than 2 decades later. The reality is that without life there is no liberty. Prayer remains our most powerful weapon in this fight to restore this inalienable right.
If Giuliani is nominated, his views will stand a good chance of becoming the official position of the GOP. If he is elected, of course, his views are certain to become those in the GOP Platform for years to come.
What does this mean for conscientious Catholics? It means that our views on bedrock social issues (abortion, marriage, protection for the weak and vulnerable) will henceforth be unwelcome in any major political party. Pro-life will become, as it were, Prohibition Redux, a marginal cause embraced by a laughable fringe group.
I wouldn't vote for her, but I would much, much prefer to see Hillary Clinton as our next President.
My own opposition to Giuliani stems from his second divorce/third wife approach to the "sanctity of marriage." I was living in New York, just outside "the City," when Mr. (Catholic) Giuliani called a press conference, with his "partner/companion/friend" (as the New York Times struggled to name her), to announce that he was divorcing the mother of his two children. Imagine her surprise when she learned about his by watching the news! I wrote then to the NYT to inform them that the correct "title" for his new "love" was the term: "slut" (I won't mention what I suggested they call Hizzoner...). And where was the archbishop of New York at that time? Denouncing the public sinfulness of the major of New York? Nowhere to be found/heard. Too bad Rudy wasn't a Democrat; THEN we would have heard some denunciations and, possibly, excommunication...
Commenting by HaloScan
