Giuliani A Catholic?

by Steve Ray on August 9, 2007

Giuliani dodges question on Catholic loyalty

Iowa, Aug. 8, 2007 (www.CWNews.com) – Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, a contender for the Republican presidential nomination, told reporters on August 7 that Catholic priests should settle the question of whether or not he was a Catholic in good standing.

When questioned whether he considered himself a loyal Catholic, Giuliani declined to respond, saying it was a question that "I prefer to leave to priests." He added that clerics would "have a much better sense of how good a Catholic I am or how bad a Catholic I am."

Giuliani has been legally married three times and divorced twice. His first marriage was annulled by a Church tribunal; his second was not. The New York Republican has also been at odds with Church teaching in his support for legal abortion, gay rights, and stem-cell research.

If the Elections were today — Giuliani VS Hillary? Would you vote for Giuliani the "Catholic"?

{ 5 comments… read them below or add one }

Stephen August 10, 2007 at 9:27 AM

Given the choices, I wonder if the question would then revolve around “What action (who) would do less harm?” Given what has been said to date about their abortion views and strict constructionist judges, I’ve got a feeling that Guiliani might have a very slight edge– as DISTASTEFUL and as hard as it would be to pull the lever!

On the other hand the vote for him would **NOT** be for him as a “Catholic” but rather as (hopefully) the lesser of two Evils.

– Stephen

James August 10, 2007 at 2:37 PM

The lesser of two evils is still evil.

Whit August 11, 2007 at 11:47 PM

I agree w. what Stephen said. It does, unfortunately, come down to the lesser of two evils. But it often does. One thing folks don’t think of is that the only person you would actually ever be happy having for a President and who would be totally in agreement with you is YOU yourself. Everyone else will be more or less agreeable, therefore less than what you think would be ideal.

Now that said, yes, a vote for Gulliani would be difficult but I would have to do it because of the additional danger if I did not vote at all or voted for Hillary. I don’t trust her at all. I do, at least, somewhat trust Gulliani to at least give me some inkling of where he is coming from. And he did clean up New York which is a far cry today from where he took over from David Dinkins who you could equate to Hillary as to effectiveness and truthfullness.

Yes Gullilani’s social issues are no better for the most part than Hillary’s but that is a no win situation if they are our choices. So we have to make choices on different criteria after that. And in my mind Gullliani wins there.

I just do not trust Hillary at all. I do trust him to some degree. Will he make me happy? No! Will he make me happier than if Hillary wins? Yes. So I ;must vote FOR him or if you want to put it another way, AGAINST Hillary.

ginny August 12, 2007 at 10:39 AM

I would go along with Stephen .I live in western new york and she has done nothing she promised ,,so there you go..At least Gulliani cleaned up New york city ..I just wish we had better choices ,,Just one who was against abortion ,,that would be my choice

Steve August 16, 2007 at 8:07 AM

There is a line that I just cannot bring myself to cross. Unfortunately, Guiliani is so far past any semblance of morality (given his positions on abortion, gay marriage, and even his seeming affection for cross-dressing (no, I’m not kidding – do a google – which, incidently, raises my suspicions about Rudi’s recent live-in with a gay couple…)) I cannot vote for him. I don’t see any significant difference between Rudi and Hillary. Both are evil choices. If confronted with such a choice, I will vote third party.

Leave a Comment

 

{ 1 trackback }

Previous post:

Next post: