Not approved for consumption by the Orthodox Union, Star-K, or ecclesiastical authority of any kind. Unkosher Jesus is an online forum for members of the worldwide interfaith community to explore and share various points of view relating to interfaith relationships and experiences, faith traditions, politics and popular culture.
Is Rudy Giuliani Catholic? He certainly thinks so. "My moral views on this come from the, you know, from the Catholic Church," he said this past weekend on Meet the Press in response to a question on homosexuality.
I've already weighed in once before on the type of Catholic I think Rudy is. For now, I'll just cut to the chase and say that we can automatically presume that every statement that comes out of Giuliani's mouth from this point forward is either a calculated misstatement of the facts, or simply utter bullshit. Actually, he scores a bullshit twofer on the issue of gay rights:
One: Until he was a candidate for president, and most likely not until he was interviewed by Tim Russert, Giuliani's "moral views on this" sure as hell did not come from the Catholic Church.
Two: The Catholic Church's position on homosexuality is bullshit.
Now, that second bullet may be my own opinion, but the first one is a cold, hard fact. Giuliani has been far to the left of his Church, not to mention his beloved Republican Party, when it comes to the question of gay rights. I guess, what with how busy Rudy was single-handedly saving New York City from 9/11, and then talking about it ad nauseum for over six years straight, he must not have realized that we live in an electronic information age- you know, the historic type of period where the stuff you say and do as, you know, an elected public official, is easily discovered. So, let's compare and contrast how Roman Catholic Rudy Giuliani has addressed the issue of gay rights in the recent past:
Rudy Giuliani is a former federal prosecutor. As such, I'll tip my hat to his former role and simply say, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I rest my case.
This just in: today's Washington Post reports that opponents of presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) are spreading "rumors" that he is a Muslim. "Muslim" is obviously being used to associate Senator Obama with radical Islamic terrorists, and to otherwise smear him as un-American. How vile. And, given the current state of political discourse in the United States, how sadly predictable.
And, not to quibble, but although the definition of the word "rumor" is technically applicable to the particular innuendo and insinuations being made about Senator Obama, I think that the Post erred in its usage. You spread rumors about the teacher who is thought to be a child molester. You spread rumors about the mayor's alleged affair with a member of the city council. You spread rumors about the doting old biddy church volunteer who is suspected of pilfering donations from the collection plate. You don't spread rumors about what faith someone supposedly belongs to. So, please, writers and editors of the Post, stick to (return to?) accurate reporting and analysis. FOX, The Weekly Standard, The American Spectator, and other conservative "news" outlets have the rumor mill and character assassination beat covered.
(Tom Toles editorial cartoon: Washington Post, November 30, 2007)
So, now that we've got that settled, think this is the last time we'll see an American politician's alleged connections to the Muslim faith used against him or her? Sadly, no. There are loads of conservative Republicans who are all too happy to keep fanning the flames of ignorance, hate and divisiveness, such as:
Tarring all members of a given faith or ethnic group with the same hateful brush is part and parcel of all of history's fascist movements and governments. Sowing the seeds of hatred and mistrust, fanning the flames of suspicion and fear: what good, constructive purpose can this possibly serve? And how can people who willingly engage in this type of behavior look at themselves in the mirror or sleep at night?
What kind of Catholic is Rudy Giuliani? The rare kind who apparently believes that as an anti-government insurrectionist, Jesus Christ should not only have been flogged and crucified, but waterboarded as well.
Now, of course, if you were to ever ask Rudy if Jesus Christ should have been waterborded by the Romans, he would likely give you his patented Giuliani contemptuous response, making reference to how he is a life-long Catholic, Jesus is more important to him than any of his wives, past present and future, yadda, yadda, yadda. Fair enough. BUT, put Rudy in the shoes of Pontius Pilate, and you'd likely see Jesus strapped to the water board on His way to the whipping post, and finally the cross.
What do I base any of this on? Why, Rudy's own comments on the subject. This past week, asked to define whether or not waterboarding amounts to torture, Rudy bravely equivocated, stating, "It depends on how it's done. It depends on the circumstances. It depends on who does it." So, based upon Rudy's worldview of who the good guys and bad guys are (United States= Good, "Islamofacists" and Enemy Combatants= Bad), waterboarding might be fine. For example, if it's done by Americans in the name of the War on Terror, or by Roman Centurions who are "interrogating" the alleged leader of an anti-government insurrection movement. Rudy didn't just equivocate as to the question of who, he even said that it depends on HOW waterboarding is done before you can classify it as torture. So, just to clarify things for Hizzoner: the circumstances of why, where and to whom waterboarding is done may vary on a case-by-case basis, but the how never does. I refer you to the easy-to-read illustrated chart (above) provided free of charge. Please memorize its contents so that you never have to give such a lame and evasive answer to such an elementary question ever again.
Rudy's comment about how whether or not waterboarding constitutes torture "depends upon who does it" is at least consistent with his overall selective approach to personal morality and accountability. For example, as a former federal prosecutor it is hard to fathom that Rudy has any sympathy for criminals as lowly as pedophiles. True in general, except for when it comes to Monsignor Alan J. Placa, his special priest friend of over thirty years. Never mind that the Catholic Church has ordered Monsignor Placa to cease performing his priestly duties while the molestation charges against him are under investigation. His personal loyalty to Rudy means that even though his high-profile gig with the Church is on hold, there is always a place for him at Giuliani Partners. It sounds like a really plum job, but what about his vow of poverty? Then again, if he couldn't keep his vow of celibacy...
With regard to the charges facing, and his own association with Fr. Placa, Rudy had this to say: "We give some of the worst people in our society presumption of innocence and the benefit of the doubt." Sure, Rudy. If they are Catholic priests who molest kids, absolutely, right? "Enemy Combatants" held indefinitely without charge at Gitmo? Fuggedaboutit.
So here we have a Catholic candidate for the Republican presidential nomination who:
Supports gay rights;
Is pro-choice;
Is in favor of interrogation techniques that constitute torture; and
Sees nothing wrong with his continued association with an accused pedophile who has been suspended by the Church until further notice.
Which brings me to the American Catholic Church. Of the four policy positions listed above, I actually happen to share the first two with Rudy. I also happen to know that the Catholic Church shares none of these. Even so, of the four of these, which position of Giuliani's has him in hot holy water with at least one American Catholic bishop? You guessed it: he is pro-choice. I point this out not to argue whether or not one position or the other is right or wrong. I point it out to ask: is this how narrow the agenda of the American Catholic Church has become, that it will only rouse itself to publicly speak out about a political candidate's position on abortion while ignoring his position on torture? Wasn't Jesus Christ a victim of state-sponsored torture? Why in God's name isn't there any official condemnation of Giuliani's pro-torture stance on the part of the Church? Is the Church's pro-life agenda limited purely to being anti-abortion? Is serving as a vehicle for the conservative political agenda now as, or more, important than preaching and living the Gospel? Or have some conservative Catholic leaders managed to conflate the two?
Some American Catholic leaders may apply the term pro-life more liberally than others, but the fact is that the conservative movement has grown in strength within both the Catholic clergy as well as the laity. Over the past twenty-to-thirty years, conservative Catholics have mobilized into a highly influential voting bloc, and are also counted among those who shape as well as make public policy. Five of the 9 members of the U.S. Supreme Court are now Roman Catholic. The bishop of the Archdiocese of Washington, DC presides over the annual Red Mass to inaugurate each new Supreme Court session. Conservative Catholic publications such as First Things and Crisis are highly influential voices, both in official Washington and across the country. Why, with American Catholics enjoying such prominent positions of power and influence, it is hard to fathom why some of their brethren continue to conduct themselves like minority members of the lunatic fringe with a persecution complex.
This is all to ask, what happened to my Church? The Church of my youth thundered against the immorality of funding a nuclear arms race at the expense of impoverished children and families. The Church of my youth boldly asserted that the Gospel of Jesus Christ proclaims a preferential option for the poor, a summons to all people to treat the needs and concerns of the poor as their own. And now? When it isn't liquidating diocesan assets in order to pay for sex abuse settlements, its bishops limit their moral outrage to publicly inveighing against pro-choice politicians and threatening to withhold communion. I haven't heard of any such threat regarding Giuliani's position on torture, or even his support for the Iraq War which the American bishops opposed.
And so, shameless, mendacious politicians like Rudy Giuliani can crow about the merits of torture, equivocate about what actually constitutes torture, and the most the American Catholic Church does in response is to condemn his tacit support for a woman's Constitutionally-protected right to have an abortion. How so truly sad I am, for my Church and for my country. In recent memory, the American Catholic Church was a voice of moral authority on a broad range of social and moral issues, and was beholden to no party or politician. Nowadays, official Church teaching often seems to resemble a dogma chasing its own infallible tail. At a time in our history when true moral authority is sorely needed from both our religious and political leaders, it is found to be grievously lacking in both.
I've already weighed in once before on the type of Catholic I think Rudy is. For now, I'll just cut to the chase and say that we can automatically presume that every statement that comes out of Giuliani's mouth from this point forward is either a calculated misstatement of the facts, or simply utter bullshit. Actually, he scores a bullshit twofer on the issue of gay rights: 
