I liked it that Rudy Giuliani, who is Catholic, did not flinch yesterday in face of being excoriated by Bishop Thomas Tobin for supporting abortion rights.

I was impressed that Giuliani, instead of ignoring the press, as presidential candidates often do, fielded a barrage of questions on the topic outside a Providence fundraiser for his campaign.

But I was disappointed the Republican was not more emphatic in his stand and puzzled that he didn’t have a better response to a key point the bishop posed.

Giuliani said abortion is wrong but individuals must be allowed to decide for themselves without government intervention. He said he favors unspecified limits on abortion, wants to reduce them, is proud of increasing adoptions in New York.

He spun his position as non-confrontationally as possible. That’s what politicians do. And it can’t be easy to be a Catholic at odds with a Catholic bishop or to be the only hope that “choice” advocates have in the GOP race.

But here’s what surprised me. Bishop Tobin, in his breezy but tough Rhode Island Catholic column, said, “Hey Rudy, you say that you believe abortion is morally wrong. Why do you say that, Rudy; why do you believe that abortion is wrong?”

So I asked Giuliani why it’s wrong. He said, “Because we’d be much better off if we had a society which, through free choice, people could come to the conclusion to not have an abortion. I believe that would be the better choice. That’s the one I would select. People of equally good conscience, people who are equally as religious, come to a different conclusion. So the reality is, in America, the best thing to do is to keep government out of that and respect those differences and work together to reduce abortions, to increase adoptions.”

Fine by me. But if I were the bishop I’d say: “Hey Rudy, you didn’t answer my question.”

Former Gov. Lincoln Almond, an Episcopalian who is a top Giuliani fan and who favors abortion rights, said he doubts the bishop’s views will sway votes and in fact could give Giuliani a boost. “If it gets your name in a headline, it helps you,” he said.

If Giuliani captures the nomination, I’m still curious how a Republican who backs the unpopular Iraq war and has to surmount the legacy of George Bush can win the general election.

He said, “I don’t think any Republican is pro-war. I’m anti-war. The reality is that we have to be on offense against terrorism … I think a Republican will get elected who is strong on the war on terror, on being on offense against terrorism.” He said it would be more dangerous to go back to playing defense, which he asserted Democrats want to do. “That’s the choice the American people have to make.”

On another front: Giuliani relishes baseball. Though some New Yorkers are Mets fans, he’s always strutted his Yankee allegiance. Red Sox fans find his Yankee ties, um, grating.

I asked yesterday: If the devil said you can be president if you become a Sox fan, would you do it? He laughed and declared:

“I’m a Yankee fan. My father made me a Yankee fan probably before I was born. I always believe it’s a sign of my being straight with people, about not wanting to fool them, that I was one of the first mayors to be willing to say I was a Yankee fan. Most mayors pretended they rooted for both sides. I have great respect for Mets fans, Red Sox fans. I have great respect for people who really are fans of the team they say they are fans of. But probably that’s a deal I could not make.”

And he laughed again.

M. Charles Bakst is The Journal’s political columnist.

mbakst@projo.com