Posted on 10/14/2007 4:21:04 PM PDT by cpforlife.org
The recent articles regarding Hillary Clinton have been quite popular. I am following up with a series of interviews with friend, colleague and presidential historian Paul Kengor regarding the role of faith and social policy in the upcoming election. This interview presents Paul’s take on the religious views of front-runners Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani, specifically with regard to abortion policy. Would Rudy be denied communion? Does Hillary think of abortion as a kind of sacred right? Read on…
THROCKMORTON: Just a basic question for foundation: Why do you believe that the religious views of politicians are relevant to their campaign for the presidency?
KENGOR: To quote FDR, the presidency is preeminently a place of moral leadership, and religion is the foundation of morality. George Washington noted that religion and morality are the “indispensable supports” of a successful democratic republic. There is no such thing as a legislator or policy-maker who leaves morality out of his or her decision making. All of our figures impose some kind of personal morality, whether flawed or not. Religion is usually the basis for that morality, and, in American history, typically the Christian religion.
Presidential candidates often point to their faith as justification for the policies they promote during their campaigns.
I believe, the scandal is when you have a liberal Democrat like John Kerry who stated in the final 2004 presidential debate, “My faith affects everything I do, really,” and then cites how his faith influences his desire to end poverty, to clean up the environment, to hike the minimum wage, but then, suddenly, completely separates his Roman Catholic faith from life-death issues like abortion and embryonic research. In my view, that’s outrageous. Kerry does it, Mario Cuomo does it, Ted Kennedy does it, and, most recently, from the Republican side of the aisle, Rudy Giuliani is doing it.
THROCKMORTON: Your new book examines the religious views of the current democratic front runner, Hillary Clinton. How about the Republican leader, Rudy Giuliani? What is his religious background?
KENGOR: He says that he studied theology for four years in college, after completing 12 years at a Catholic private school. By studying theology, I think he means that he was probably required to take some religious education courses at Manhattan College, which was the Catholic college that he attended, where I believe he studied politics and philosophy. He says that at one point he considered becoming a priest.
THROCKMORTON: What are his current religious leanings and how will these impact his policy making?
KENGOR: He has been quite private about that, knowing that any mention of his faith will get him in hot water as the first major pro-choice Republican with a legitimate crack at winning the party’s presidential nomination. The Republican Party has become the Party of Life, and nominating Rudy might well change that image. There are numerous pro-life Christians, Protestant and Catholic, who are going to fight that possible shift, from the likes of James Dobson at Focus on the Family to the pages of the National Catholic Register. They are not pleased that after all of these pro-life gains that have come only because of Republican presidents fighting abortion extermists in the Democratic Party, there is a sudden chance of a course reversal under a Republican president named Rudy Giuliani, no matter what his guarantees about appointing “strict constructionist” judges. They understand that in the real world there will be an untold number of pro-abortion executive orders and initiatives and decisions that would come across a President Giuliani’s desk, and that concerns them. As president, he might at best get to appoint two Supreme Court justices, but he will constantly be dealing with a flurry of pro-life and anti-life legislation.
THROCKMORTON: I have heard Mr. Giuliani say, I hate abortion. How does he reconcile this statement and his Catholic affiliation with his abortion public policy?
KENGOR: Hopefully, everyone hates abortion. The burning question in response would be to ask him why he hates abortion. Naturally, one would presume, he would say that he hates abortion because it terminates a human life. That being the case, how can one support the termination of human life? Once he concedes that point, he knows he’s in trouble. His church is very clear on this, from encyclicals like Humanae Vitae to Evangelium Vitae to Veritatis Splendor to the Catechism to the very recent eloquent remarks from Pope Benedict XVI.
Imagine this striking scenario: a Catholic president of the United States who is denied Holy Communion in certain dioceses because of his stance on abortion. That would be truly remarkable.
Non-Catholics have trouble understanding this, so let me try to explain Catholic thinking: Catholics believe that at Holy Communion they receive the literal body and blood of Christ. The recent Vatican document Redemptionis Sacramentum affirms Church teaching that “anyone who is conscious of grave sin should not celebrate or receive the Body of the Lord without prior sacramental confession.” The document restated the church’s position that anyone knowingly in “grave sin” must go to confession before ingesting the consecrated bread and wine that Catholics consider the literal body and blood of Jesus Christ. Cardinal Francis Arinze said that “unambiguously pro-abortion” Catholic politicians are “not fit” to receive the sacred elements.The Vatican has spoken on this. It is up to American bishops to decide whether to carry out the policy.
In 2004, a number of Catholic archbishops suggested or flatly stated that if a President John Kerry presented himself for communion in their diocese he would be turned away. Among others, these included Archbishop Raymond L. Burke of St. Louis, Archbishop Alfred C. Hughes of New Orleans, and even Archbishop Sean O’Malley of Boston—Kerry’s home diocese. Most recently, in Giuliani’s case, Archbishop Burke has spoken up.
THROCKMORTON: Compared to Hillary Clinton, who would be most pro-choice, if such a comparison can be made?
KENGOR: That’s a no-brainer: Hillary Clinton. If you’re a pro-lifer, and if no issue is more important to you than the right of an unborn child to have life, then nothing could be more calamitous than a President Hillary Clinton. I don’t know of any politician who is more uncompromising and extreme on abortion rights than Hillary Clinton. I know this well and don’t state it with anger or hyperbole. Her extremism on abortion rights was the single most shocking, inexplicable find in my research on her faith and politics. I couldn’t understand it. No question. It is truly extraordinary. Nothing, no political issue, impassions her like abortion rights. For Mrs. Clinton, abortion-rights is sacred ground.
By the way, speaking of Catholics, Mother Teresa and Pope John Paul II saw this abortion extremism in Hillary, and both confronted her on it repeatedly, especially Mother Teresa, right up until the day she died. I have a chapter on this in the book. It’s a gripping story.
THROCKMORTON: Of Hillary and Rudy, who would most likely make abortion rights a litmus test for Supreme Court appointments?
KENGOR: Hillary, no question. She has made that clear. Rudy would not.
Santorum betrayed all his great pro-life work when he supported Arlan Spectre over Pro-Life Pat Toomey*. It was the typical move of putting politics over principle. He had the opportunity to advance the Pro-Life movement and he betrayed us... so yea Santorum’s the type Rudy would look at.
Principle above Party. The reverse gets us nowhere.
*The Pennsylvania Treason http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1128870/posts
If you expect Conservatives to band together with liberal Republicans to elect Rudy, I don’t think you’ve been payin’ attention.
And, attempts to reduce this to a “make or break issue” only about abortion fails the reality test—just look at all the other issues with which Rudy stands on the Democrat side of the aisle.
And you are telling others “Don’t fool yourself”?
ROFLMBO!
If Rudy wins the GOP nomination, Hillary will win for sure. The MSM will side with Hillary, Hillary will trash him - for whatever reason he was afraid to run against her in NY, and many Republicans will stay at home because they are not enthusiastic enough about him.
“Why? For FReepers sake, he’s a pro-abortion New York liberal. He doesn’t have a problem with killing. Why would have have a problem with lying?”
Rudy lies like a rug!!
We have a winner!!
To be blunt, so what?
You really think Hillary will appoint "strict constructionists"?
I am NOT a Giuliani supporter. I will NOT vote for him in the primary. But, should he be the nominee, I will NOT be facing a "dilemma".
I'll vote for Giuliani. I may not get what I favor on the pro-life issue, but the country won't be dragged further into socialist totalitarianism.
I simply cannot see where there is any "dilemma".
Thereby helping to elect the worse of them.
Some solution...
For those of us that have core values it is a dilemma.
Which means that the White House is no place for Hillary or Rudy!
To me that’s dangerous and naive.
And Hillary Clinton is not another "committed supporter of baby killing.".
And you would entrust her with the direction of this country?
To me, that is what is "dangerous and naive". Perhaps, insofar as the pro-life issue is concerned, terminally so...
All your arguments are very valid...when they are applied to the GOP primary.
But, should Giuliani win the GOP nomination, they become irrelevant.
There will be only one committed socialist in the race. And her name is Hillary Clinton.
Giuliani vs Clinton is no "dilemma". It is an obvious fight for the very survival of our ideas. The pro-life issue will survive a Giuliani. It will not survive a Clinton administration.
Guiliani will NOT be the Republican Nominee for President.
Take that to the bank.
1: Hillary! is more pro-abortion than Giuliani;
2: Hillary! will bring NO pro-lifers to Washington with her, while at least some of the political appointees Giuliani brings to Washington will be pro-lifers.
3: At least Giuliani promises to appoint “strict constructionists” (he means “originalist”) to the USCC, while Hillary! will appoint only guaranteed pro-abortionist judges at any level of the judiciary.
Giuliani is a scumbag—a suborner of perjury (such as in the Michael Milken case), all-around prosecutorial abuser, and a license egomaniac. But Hillary! is worse.
You would prefer, then, that Hillary Clinton be President?
That is how you propose to move the pro-life issue forward? To give the reins to a committed abortionist who has no intention of doing anything except crushing the pro-life movement?
Thereby helping to elect the worse of them.
When I meet my Maker, I don't believe He will ask me why I didn't vote for the least offensive baby killer. They are both offensive. Advocating the murder of God's most innocent is offensive.
I will not vote for Rudy or Hillary.
Go post to support a no vote for both of them.
Unfortunately, it's not just the "pro-life" issue.
Guliani also supports the "homo-sexual" lobby.
And the anti-Second Amendment lobby.
And until recently, the "illegal immigration is good for the US" lobby.
Aside for his tough talk and leadership in the wake of 9/11, there aint much else I can support him on.
Actually, I believe illegal immigration can and will do far more damage to America than alQaeda ever could.
We (the US) is far too strong militarily for the backward Islamo nutjobs to invade and destroy our American lifestyle.
But illegal immigration from far left socialist countries is ALREADY causing a seismic shift in American politics, to the point that some counties in California are passing laws mandating benefits, mandating language in public education, etc.
Once the voting block reaches critical mass in favor of the leftist lib Democrats, all bets are off in regards to keeping the US the Judeo-Euro-Christian dominated country that we've enjoyed the past 230 years.
So, Hillary would nominate judges that would overturn Roe?
Is that what you're saying?
Did you read what I said?
Apparently not.
To reiterate what I already wrote:
Anyone who supports murdering children for convenience, and disarming upstanding adults for easier prey, is my enemy.
No I don’t trust Hillary over Rudy. I don’t trust either of them. Both would approve of killing my in-gestation child, and disarm me that I be less threat to them and muggers/murderers/rapists. There is a line my vote won’t cross, and both are on the wrong side of it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.