This piece in the current National Catholic Register has some interesting voices on the subject of Rudy Giuliani and Catholicism.

I’m not persuaded that a majority of Catholics are “turned off” by a candidate who is pro-abortion, even one who is a nominal Catholic like Giuliani; a good number of Catholics backed Kerry, and they also helped elect Clinton. I continue to think that 9/11 and the Iraq War loom much larger for most voters.

Those are the ultimate “life issues” for many Americans, Catholic or not.

But read on:

Seeking the office of mayor in early 1989, Giuliani, who had won a reputation as a tough prosecutor going after organized crime, tried to avoid the [abortion] issue. According to a New York Times article published that year, Giuliani cited his personal and religious opposition to abortion but would not thwart a woman’s effort to seek an abortion if it were the law of the land.

After a close loss to Democratic candidate David Dinkins, Giuliani came out more strongly in favor of abortion rights in his 1993 campaign in an attempt to win more women voters. Dinkins challenged him for flip-flopping, but New Yorkers liked Giuliani’s promise of cleaning up the Big Apple of crime and “quality of life” issues and voted him in.

Fourteen years later, some Catholics and pro-lifers … are urging voters not to let a strongly pro-abortion candidate become the standard bearer of a party whose platform has long been pro-life.

But others see hope in a Giuliani candidacy, which, they suspect, would downplay the candidate’s religious affiliation while winning over voters worried about national security. At the same time, some voters say, Giuliani promises “strict constructionist” judges on federal benches who would not be inclined to uphold Roe v. Wade as settled precedent.

“If Giuliani gives me the judges who will not play fast and loose with the Constitution, which is how we got into the [abortion] mess in the first place, then that’s good enough for me,” said New Yorker Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights. Donohue admitted that he was conflicted, echoing common sentiment that Giuliani would be preferable over Hilary Clinton. “If it’s a choice between him and her, I would support Rudy,” said Donohue, noting that the Clintons have always supported abortion. “Hilary Clinton never found an abortion she couldn’t justify.”

But Stephen Dillard, head of Catholics Against Rudy, believes that a Giuliani nomination would be disastrous for the pro-life positions in the Republican Party.

“The GOP has won five of the last seven presidential elections, in large part due to the energetic and tireless support it received at the grassroots level from faithful Catholics and evangelicals, who fervently believe in creating a culture of life in this country,” said Dillard. “If the Republican Party nominates Rudy Giuliani as its presidential candidate, a significant number of Christians will either stay home on election day or vote for a third party.”

Really? Given a choice between Rudy and Hillary, I can’t believe these voters would invite a replay of ’92, and back a candidate who would further split the electorate and assure that Hillary wins with just 42% of the vote.

Of course, part of me thinks that’s just what Hillary’s people are pining for.