BS and Fair Game

Like Scott Lemieux, I think the AP should be ashamed of itself for publishing this. Ed Kilgore, however, raises a much better question about the religious status of the GOP field: Is Rudy Giuliani a Catholic?

After all, the man has been married three times. His first marriage of fourteen years was annulled on grounds of a rather tardy discovery that he was married to his second cousin. I'm assuming this annullment was blessed by the Church. So his second marriage was technically his first. But what about his third? Did he somehow get a second annullment? Or was either his second or third (performed by none other than Mayor Bloomberg) marriage just a civil ceremony unblessed by the Church, which means Rudy was self-excommunicated by openly living in sin and/or pretending to be remarried?

Also: What ever happened to this communion business? All these Bishops went around condemning John Kerry for his pro-choice views, but shouldn't Giuliani be in the same boat?

Comments

Scott asks:
Should we start scrutinizing politicians to see if they had distant relatives who were involved in the Inquisition, or owned slaves, or opposed the signing of the Magna Carta? At least most silly "character" stories are ostensibly about the candidate, not their great-great-great grandparents.

And right on time:
Geneaologists have found that civil rights activist the Rev. Al Sharpton is a descendent of a slave owned by relatives of the late Sen. Strom Thurmond, a newspaper reported Sunday.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20070225/sharpton-thurmond

Posted by otto | February 25, 2007 11:29 AM

All these Bishops went around condemning John Kerry for his pro-choice views, but shouldn't Giuliani be in the same boat?

They have an old saying among the cardinals and archbishops: money talks, bullshit walks.*

*Sorry, don't know it in Latin.

Posted by calling all toasters | February 25, 2007 11:38 AM

It's OK, Matt. I read somewhere that Jesus is a Republican.

One of the many reasons I'm not a Christian.

Posted by Joel | February 25, 2007 11:43 AM

IOKIYAR.

Posted by Ted | February 25, 2007 11:47 AM

I'm pretty sure the AP story is inaccurate in at least one respect, about remarried widowers having multiple wives in the hereafter, since first marriages are billed as "for eternity" and subsequent marriages as "for time." Or so I'm told.

In one respect I disagree with those who object to publishing stories on Romney's family past. It's obviously not useful as a "gotcha" story, but may be of some interest as to how pulls the somewhat complex task (complex for more than the LDS, of course) of simultaneously being molded by the values of his family past while repudiating or distancing himself from some aspects of it. For what it's worth, my sense is that the more "liberal" a Mormon the less abject and emotional their distancing from polygamy. And the more one can learn from listening to them discuss their heritage.

As one who once traveled to Orderville to try to find out more about it, I can also say that the Mormon communal/ quasi-socialist past is even more repressed than the polygamous past.

Posted by Gene O'Grady | February 25, 2007 12:06 PM

Wrong way to pose the question. The correct question is whether certain right-wingers' very narrow definitions of Catholicism should be accepted, given that most Catholics don't accept them.

Posted by Dilan Esper | February 25, 2007 12:24 PM

The United Order! Yes, excellent point, Gene O'Grady. There are still traces of it in the Mormon social services, but few indeed are the Mormons who want to talk about it. Brother Brigham had many ideas that didn't always develop as he imagined they would.

Look, this AP story is hilarious. Every Mormon family that goes back more than two or three generations has polygamy in it. Every Mormon child who had non-LDS peers got teased about it.

This was a perfectly inevitable article, and I'm sure Romney is very happy to spend his media time denouncing it as a hit piece rather than clarifying one more time his position(s) on abortion.

And I'd rather read funny denunciations of polygamy and polygamous relatives than serious-minded musings about whether Mormons are all a bunch of heretics.

Posted by Jackmormon | February 25, 2007 12:24 PM

What ever happened to this communion business? All these Bishops went around condemning John Kerry for his pro-choice views, but shouldn't Giuliani be in the same boat?

don't forget, it's still very early. we'll get there yet.

Posted by right | February 25, 2007 12:26 PM

IIRC - and I might be very wrong about this - Giulianni's second divorce was due to the fact that his wife caught him cheating on her with another woman. Therefore, she may have been able to get a divorce if she could convince the Church that Rudy had no intention of actually remaining faithful to her when they got married (i.e. he misrepresented himself to her, therefore she was married under false pretenses, and therefore the marriage should be annulled). So, in theory the second marriage might have been annulled too, if his ex really wanted to push it and could have found a sympathetic ear to make her case to.

Posted by NonyNony | February 25, 2007 12:28 PM

That would of been Lula Mae Giuliani from down by the feed mill. She was a purty little gal, but ol' Rudy got tired of her oncet he made the big time.

Posted by John Emerson | February 25, 2007 12:32 PM

"For what it's worth, my sense is that the more 'liberal' a Mormon the less abject and emotional their distancing from polygamy."

I think is a correct observation, Gene, at least in certain respects. I strongly doubt that, out in the heart of Mormondom in Utah and southern Idaho, you'd really find many members of the church desperately trying to deny their their polygamous ancestors or somehow align them with the mainstream of American Christianity; most Mormons, like most people period, our fairly unconcerned about politics and history. But amongst the politically involved, I'd say you're right; Mormons who get caught up in the religious right's gameplan really want to fit their religion into the (among other things, heterosexual monogamous) program, whereas those who are of a "liberal" bent, whatever that means, don't have as hard a time admitting the Mormons used to be dissidents--religious, political, and economic dissidents, as well as sexual.

"As one who once traveled to Orderville to try to find out more about it, I can also say that the Mormon communal/ quasi-socialist past is even more repressed than the polygamous past."

Unfortunately, this is entirely true. Every time I read about Mitt Romney's implicit campaign--abetted, I can't deny, by many others in the faith--to discover a perfectly acceptable Republican-style social conservatism in Mormon doctrine, I long for somebody to start mining our 19th-century communitarian rhetoric again, and start condemning capitalism and advocating community ownership and a levelling of wealth. I suppose I'm waiting in vain, though.

Posted by Russell Arben Fox | February 25, 2007 12:32 PM

Otto, the story you linked seems like a reasonable human interest story to me. The difference isn't that Sharpton isn't running for anything and the story isn't presented as something that might discredit him.

Posted by Matt Weiner | February 25, 2007 12:33 PM

NonyNony, it's SO much worse than that.

Judi Nathan was one of a string of women that Rudy'd had affairs with. One of his long-term affairs was his press secretary, iirc.

Giuliani's second wife found out that Rudy was leaving her when he HELD A PRESS CONFERENCE TO ANNOUNCE HE WAS LEAVING HER.

Seriously, "married three times, once to his cousin" doesn't even begin to do justice to how repeatedly and publicly shocking this guy has been.

Posted by anonymous | February 25, 2007 12:40 PM

Matt

Thanks. I linked a bit frivolously since the Sharpton story seemed relevant to Scott's post. I suppose I'm tempted to see both as reasonable human interest stories. And if we learn a bit more about America's tangled history via the history of politicians families why not? It's normally rather difficult to get anyone to think about US history as anything other than a costume drama of Whig progress ...

Posted by otto | February 25, 2007 12:47 PM

Wow, that Romney article is even more hilarious than the "One Drop" scandal in "Confederate States of America".

Posted by Consumatopia | February 25, 2007 1:00 PM

"What ever happened to this communion business? All these Bishops went around condemning John Kerry for his pro-choice views, but shouldn't Giuliani be in the same boat?"

This whole Christian thing is such a scam. Church leaders know it's not about personal faith, it's about party machinations. Rudy will elect judges that satisfy christian dogma. Thus, church leaders won't delve into Rudy's faith. It's irrelevent.

This isn't a knock against people of faith, it's a knock against christian's political agenda.

Posted by A different Matt | February 25, 2007 1:19 PM

I'm not totally up on the ins-and-outs of 2nd marriages and'self-ex-communication' and communion. But my father, having divorced my mother and remarried - no annullment - was precluded from going to communion. That is, until my mom died. After that, it was OK for him to go to communion again, at least in his mind. I don't know for a fact that he had cleared his interpretation of it all with a priest, but I assume he did.

So with Rudy in much the same position now as my dad was then, there won't be any question of whether or not to withhold communion; he probably isn't trying to get communion anyway.

(Now, if he is indeed in the same position as my father was, and he IS going to communion anyway, there's a story that will get the Catholics riled up!)

Posted by Robert Earle | February 25, 2007 1:49 PM

Of course nothing in the AP story is relevant to whether Romney is qualified to be president. The AP story didn't make any such claim, so I don't see the problem.

Posted by David Tomlin | February 25, 2007 1:55 PM

Rudy will elect judges that satisfy christian dogma. Thus, church leaders won't delve into Rudy's faith. It's irrelevent.

I'd be very surprised if Giuliani managed to go deep into the primaries, or get the nomination and head toward the general election, without a number of Catholic prelates speaking out about his unsacramental marriage and his support for abortion rights. Of course, maybe his second marriage was annulled (I somehow doubt it), which would mean his marriage to Nathan might well be considered licit in the eyes of the church, and maybe, too, Rudy will pull a Romney with respect to abortion. But if not, he's definitely in for some trouble from the Catholic right.

Posted by Jasper | February 25, 2007 2:52 PM

Jasper -

You might be right. I don't remember Kerry getting gruff until he was the nominee, so maybe the Catholics/christians don't just rail against anyone who's anti-abortion.

But I'm skeptical as I've seen nothing to indicate christian's ability to denounce or be critical to any significant degree of their party's officials.

Posted by A different Matt | February 25, 2007 4:03 PM

Forget the bishops (and a lot of Catholics, left, right, and center, would certainly like to). I can't imagine that Giuliani's colorful marital history won't really hurt among Catholic (practicing or not) women over the age of 45. It offers a rare chance to combine doctrinal orthodoxy (not to mention orthopraxis) with real personal insecurities.

Posted by Gene O'Grady | February 25, 2007 4:26 PM

A few years ago, a couple of young Mormon girls were proslytizing in my neighborhood and when they saw me raking my leaves rushed right over. Seems I'm a Joseph Smith lookalike- there's a picture of him in the Mormon bible that even I thought was me. (true) Yet to convert but if I do- I could knock Mitt out of the race. Send your contribuitions to...

Posted by Trevor | February 25, 2007 5:16 PM

Why the fuss with Kerry and the hush with Giuliani?
parish priests are Democrats, bishops are Republicans

Posted by liberation theology | February 26, 2007 4:08 AM

"...I long for somebody to start mining our 19th-century communitarian rhetoric again, and start condemning capitalism and advocating community ownership and a levelling of wealth. I suppose I'm waiting in vain, though."

Orson Scott Card used to take a stab or two at this in his political commentaries. Then came 9-11 and gay people...

Posted by witless chum | February 26, 2007 11:40 AM

Actually, very few bishops had the guts to denounce Kerry; most evaded the issue. And even those bishops who did denounce Kerry generally waited until he was actually the nominee. We haven't heard any condemnations of Giuliani yet, but neither have we heard any condemnations of Biden, Richardson, or (before we made the issue moot by leaving the race) Vilsack. And when Loyola University in Maryland gave Giuliani an honorary degree a few years ago, Cardinal Keeler was publicly critical of the Jesuit institution.

Posted by James Kabala | February 26, 2007 4:46 PM

this is stupid. you don't stop being catholic just because you commit a sin. sure, the catholic church probably doesn't recognize rudy's 3rd marriage as legitimate, but at long as the pope has excommunicated the fellow, he's catholic. ok, maybe he's not in a state of grace and probably shouldn't be taking communion, but neither should the rest of us who don't go to confession beforehand. and it certainly doesn't mean that God doesn't love him.

let he among you who is without sin cast the first stone ...

Posted by we are all sinners | February 26, 2007 5:30 PM

It's good human interest, just as the fact that Barack Obama's dad was a practicing polygamist and his marriage to Obama's mother was bigamous is of interest and should hardly be covered up.

Posted by Steve Sailer | February 26, 2007 9:50 PM