What about the Faithful?

National Review Online ^ | October 17, 2007 | William F. Buckley Jr.

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

There is head-scratching in the political marketplace over a looming contradiction. The candidates for president of the United States include a man identified as a Roman Catholic, and among the voters there are, of course, many Catholics. It would be reasonable to suppose that Candidate Giuliani would get the presumptive backing of the Catholic population.

But there are a couple of caveats.

First, is Giuliani a Catholic other than nominally? Because his name is Italian, one assumes that he subscribes to the faith associated with the Italian people. As a boy, he went to Catholic schools, and he was apparently devout; he even contemplated entering seminary. But is he a practicing Catholic now?

In 1999 the question of his religious faith was put to him directly. His reply: “I don’t attend [Catholic services] regularly, but I attend occasionally.”

Now, plop!, this raises special problems in the Catholic communion. Catholics are not only expected to attend Mass every week, they are bound to do so. In the matter of the Sabbath, you can be an easygoing Episcopalian, or Quaker, or even Reform Jew, and no rule is broken of formal consequences. But that isn’t so in the Catholic communion, because there are rules that include attendance at Mass on Sundays. If you’re a Philadelphia lawyer you might here smile a bit and say, well . . . Christians don’t always behave as Christians, so what else is new?

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

• Send FReep Mail to Unmarked Package to get [ON] or [OFF] the Mitt Romney Ping List •

[fetal heart beats by 21st day]

Yes, and Catholics who promote, sanction, encourage, finance, or publicly advocate abortion are automatically self-excommunicated.

[mrs. a]

Well, he may attend services occasionally but he’s a Catholic in name only.

You can put a cat in the oven but that don’t make it a biscuit!

[hellbender]

This seems like a minor issue. Isn’t the R.C. Church justified in excommunicating Rudy Kazootie, in accordance with its expressed policy towards Catholic politicians who support abortion?

[ishmac]

Which is to say that a candidate holding out his affiliation with a religious body as a reason to presume harmonious values with other voters of the same faith has to prepare for a likelihood of resentment among coreligionists if he appears lax in the practice of his faith.

Logically he's right. But I've been thinking lately that Guliani's laxness might have the perverse effect of attracting Catholic voters--that is to say, "lax-Catholic-in-name-only" voters. There's a fierce ethnic/religious loyalty that overrides doctrinal issues with a number of so-called Catholics. If the choice is between Rudy and Hellery, they might pick Rudy. I know this is counter-intuitive, but it may happen. (Saints prevent it!!)

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

Rudy is self excommunicated due to his policy on abortion.

The remarriage without annulment issue is a little more complicated but I think he is self-excommunicated on that count too.

I’m trying to imagine a President Rudy and Judy meeting the Pope, LOL.

[redgirlinabluestate]

Buckley seems to be predicting that Catholics will reject Rudy, the CINO. We shall see. Like Ann Coulter said, with a choice between Rudy and Romney. No brainer —> pick Romney.

[SuziQ]

Anyone who is baptized in the Catholic Church can CALL him or herself a Catholic, but if they ignore the Church's teachings, or even worse, work AGAINST those teachings as an elected official, they don't deserve the support of Catholics. I have two Catholics as Senators, and one as a Representative, however they are adamantly pro-abortion, and are Socialist, to boot. I've never voted for any of them, because I always had an alternative who was pro-life, at least nominally.

I will not support Giuliani in the primary; Fred Thompson is my candidate. However, if Giuliani ends up as the Republican nominee for President, I can in good conscience vote for him, because to NOT vote, and allow Her Heinous to become President would be a much greater evil than voting for someone who is personally pro-abortion, but is on record saying that he would nominate Justices to the Supreme Court who would vote to overturn Roe v Wade. I wouldn't like it, but I would hold my nose and do it to keep the Democrats out of the White House. A Democrat President would nominate the next three Justices to the Supreme Court, and that will kill even more babies because any gains made by Conservative will be thrown out the window, and Roe v. Wade would not be overturned for many years, if at all.

[onedoug]

Though he'd likely deliver the need electoral votes, and God once used King David - who'd done much worse - to His purposes.

Could there be any less here, than the salvation of the Republic when it would otherwise be thrown to ruin?

[LadyDoc]

He’s a “bad” Catholic...he didn’t attend Mass every week...
But he DID attend every funeral for the NYCFD and NYPD after 9 11...

Hillary did not...

[StonyBurk]

Or should be—but it remains to be seen if such is defacto

[ArrogantBustard]

I believe (IANACL) that the remarriage without annulment amounts to institutionalized mortal sin, but not excommunication.

Agree regarding the abortion policy.