but the question is, will he die for my sins?

Hi War Room,

I'm not sure what the point of printing this quotation is. Is your point that there's no way Giuliani can be a good Catholic if he's been divorced and is pro-choice? That it's laughable hor him to suggest he could possibly be considered in good standing with the Church? If so, why do you care? Wouldn't you guys be the first ones to say that someone's religious affiliation shouldn't be a factor in an election as long as that affiliation doesn't unduly affect the candidate's policies? Giuliani's right, whether or not he's a "good Catholic" is indeed between him and his priest. Whether he's a good or a bad Catholic, or how many times he's been married and divorced is meaningless to me, and to many other smart voters out there. We care that he has manipulated 9/11 to his advantage and pandered to the Bush administration every since then; we don't care how and when he chooses to follow Catholicism.

Back in 2004, the Catholic bishops were up in arms about Kerry's stance on abortion. Some of them were calling for his excommunication and some refused to allow him to take Holy Communion in their diocese. Just about all were claiming that it was the duty of a good Catholic not to vote for anyone who was pro-choice regarding abortion.

Where is their outrage now regarding the thrice-divorced, pro-choice Ghouliani? Is it OK to vote for a pro-choice, thrice-divorced candidate if he's a Republican? Or because he remains the staunch friend of a disgraced pedophile former priest? Or both?

Cannonfodder's outrage about the double standard being applied to Giuliani as compared to Kerry is merited, but the double standard shouldn't suprise anyone.

Let's remember that the "family values" revolution started with a once-divorced President married to a once-divorced woman whose children did not exactly sing their praises, as parents or otherwise.

And for the record, the New Testament, presumably the text to which the radical Christianists turn for guidance, says ". . . whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery." (Matt.5:32.)

So where were the Christianists when Reagan was running for President?

because of the exhibit "Sensation," which included Chris Ofili's infamous "Blessed Virgin Mary" that used elephant dung as one of its materials? Giuliani was angry about everything in the exhibit, but when he saw a way to pander to Catholic voters, he decided that Ofili's painting was the worst of the lot. So people who hadn't seen the show and didn't have any idea what Ofili's painting actually looked like lined up outside the Brooklyn Museum to say the rosary and picket the people in line to see the exhibition.

Personally, I had no interest in seeing "Sensation," but I was appalled by Giuliani's threat to close down the Brooklyn Museum, which is a great institution with a world-class collection of ancient Egyptian art. So what if one loan exhibition was in questionable taste? Curators always have to take chances, and occasionally do controversial things, without Big Brother constantly looking over their shoulders. Even though I knew Giuliani's lawsuit against the Brooklyn Museum was going nowhere, I could see that the museum would have to pay huge legal fees to fight it, and most museums don't have that kind of cash just lying around. But it got Rudy the headlines and publicity he wanted.

No, I don't think that the same bishops who tried to excommunicate Kerry will utter a peep about Giuliani.

A priest knows better than you the depth of your faith or your practice of it?

Or are you saying you don't know what being a "good Catholic" means, even to you?

People choose their leaders and believe what they want to believe about them. I happen to believe he is a hypocrite who spun 9/11 disaster into personal gold. He did "clean up" NYC with some help of his "organized" friends. As a former New Yorker, Rudy has said a few things I agree with, for example:

"Motorists who cause gridlock are simply uncivil, Giuliani said. "When you block the intersection, you're basically saying, 'I don't care about anybody else, I just care about myself,' " the mayor said." -"Rudy's Road Rules" - Daily News 11/13/98.

What he says about his faith, I agree with too. He doesn't have my vote, but if he did, how or to whom he prays doesn't really matter.

Emma, you would be correct that no candidate's religious affiliation or lack thereof would matter, if it weren't for the inconvenient fact that Giuliani and pretty much all the other Republican candidates offer up their religiosity as a reason why people should vote for them.

If the Repugs will leave religion out of the conversation, so will I. And so, I daresay, will most of the rest of their opponents. However, if they insist, as they seem almost constantly to do, on using their supposed religious "bona fides" as a selling point, then their deviation from the straight and narrow of those religions is fair game. As in this column.

And you knew that before you made the comment, now didn't you, Emma Grace? C'mon, fess up!

I'll say this, though: you're right about Rudy's manipulating 9/11. As he apparently manipulates damn near everyone and everything, including his alleged religious faith.

Asked about the fact that he doesn't get along with his kids, or that his kids won't support his presidential campaign: "That's private."

Asked about how he met his third wife (which occurred while he was still married to Mrs. Giuliani Dos): "That's our romantic secret."

Asked about what specifically he would do to turn things around in Iraq: "That's not my business."

In other words, "If it's damaging or embarrassing, I am not going to talk about it because it's private."

I think I'd agree that what faith a candidate professes isn't all that important.

However, if that candidate professes to belong to a religion that is clearly and forthrightly opposed to the candidate's political views and personal behavior, that's a different thing. Rudy's a Catholic; some of his political opinions and personal conduct go against Catholic teachings. How he resolves that tension, it seems to me, is a fair question.

As President, Giuliani will be entrusted to uphold and defend the Constitution. It's reasonable for any of the Presidential candidates to field questions about how they square their personal views with the law of the land. When a candidate's personal views conflict with the clear language of the law, what will win out? We've had almost seven years of an administration where in every case, the personal beliefs of the President have trumped the law. I, for one, don't want the next President to do the same.

The question that was posed to Giuliani is an approximation of the same question. We know that the Catholic Church is opposed to abortion, capital punishment, and divorce - yet Rudy is in favor of all three. Does he have some intellectual justification for those positions - has he thought them through and decided for compelling reasons that, on these issues, the clear command of the Church is wrong - that is, is he respectfully disagreeing with the Pope for articulable reasons? Or is he just doing what he wants, when he wants it, because it's personally or politically expedient? I don't know, and it would be a service to the country if we all did.