Posted on 01/24/2012 10:24:29 AM PST by SeekAndFind
Should marital fidelity matter in a political candidate? And yes, I am talking about Newt Gingrich. There are many who would scoff at the notion.
Certainly, there were a large number present at the Republican primary debate who delighted in booing down John King when he questioned Gingrich on his ex-wife's allegations. A delight that was only surpassed when their favored excoriated the value of the question and the questioner, with a perfect fury that smacked more cold calculation than any true genuine emotion. For as Mr. Gingrich was undoubtedly already well aware, his greatest positive exposure throughout the campaign to date has come when he has rounded on the hopelessly biased left-dominated mainstream media, and let loose with both barrels. And didn't Mr. King's question give Mr. Gingrich the perfect opportunity to do just that?! Enabling Mr. Gingrich to garner to kind of publicity that no amount of money can buy. Publicity which carried him to victory in the election that followed.
And what an election it was! One in which people lined up to cast their ballot. Voting not so much against the "injustice" which had been perpetrated upon Newt Gingrich. But more against the morally and intellectually bankrupt fawning coverage that has been employed by the bulk of the media to carry Obama administration these past years. Coverage for which Mr. Gingrich courtesy of John King, had now perfectly positioned him as the poster child against. Yes, a vote for Newt was indeed a vote against the left media. And my, how they voted!
At least, we can but hope that that was what motivated them. Otherwise, a man who has employed some of the most despicably divisive leftist tactics ever used by a conservative candidate has a significant swell of support!
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
I don’t know there Mr “SeekAndFind” maybe you need to ask you OWN “States’” “Governer”!
Infidelity in one’s past should be noted, and considered.
Infidelity WHILE ONE IS IN OFFICE, should be frowned upon.
Funny...
It didn’t matter for FDR.
It didn’t matter for JFK.
It didn’t matter for dead Ted.
It didn’t matter for Bubba.
but....
Now, it matters?
Sorry, but the MSM’s record on this is clear.
And as has been said many times above, I want a competent leader first.
(Oh, one who has an actual birth certificate would also be nice.)
Hope you are well. :)
Ooooo....that’s a good one.
Of course, it should matter. However, at this point I just want someone who loves America and will enforce the US Constitution.
It comes down to this: we will have to choose between a flawed Republican and a flawed Marxist. Take your pick.
Everything matters in a leader.
Everything matters but if a loved ones heart stops you don’t question the doctors commitment to marital fidelity. I try to tell my kids, my wife and anyone else who will listen, we’re not picking a guy to date my daughter of marry my sister. We’re picking a guy to go toe-to-toe with the worst people on earth. Often. We’re picking a guy who can understand how an economy works and how not to (further) screw it up. We’re picking a guy who can draft a realistic budget.
Extending that logic implies that Bill Clinton’s Yale law degree trumps the fact that he’s a slimball.
Mr. Roberts, that wacky feeling isn’t anger, it’s called cognitive dissonance.
slimball = slimeball
same same
/lousy laptop
In an ideal world, I'd like to see a discussion on Free Republic about how evangelical social conservatives and secular conservatives can unite behind Newt Gingrich. Obviously, I don't make those decisions and it's probably not going to happen. But since it won't, here's a very detailed article on Free Republic by Rev. Jim Garlow, pastor of Skyline Wesleyan Church in San Diego, who has endorsed Newt Gingrich and comments on his spiritual condition:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2822096/posts
I find it helpful.
If Romney is going to be defeated, we evangelicals are probably going to have to make our peace with Newt Gingrich since it looks like he's the only person left who's able to do that.
Read the article, especially the sections near the end where the author says Gingrich has told him some important and very politically incorrect things about joining the Roman Catholic Church because it provides him structure in his faith and has a long history of successfully fighting Islam.
I am anything but a supporter of the Roman Catholic Church, but I like what Gingrich says about fighting Islam and modern liberalism.
I like it a lot.
I've pretty much come to the conclusion that while Gingrich would be barred from membership and probably even from receiving communion in my church, since the same is true for Santorum as a Roman Catholic, and since Gingrich has proved his ability to win Southern votes in a strongly conservative Bible Belt state like South Carolina, unless Santorum catches fire soon, we evangelicals are stuck with Gingrich as our only choice left and need to make the best of it.
It is by no means an easy process to straighten out three marriages. The Church has very advanced procedures to examine each and every aspect of the prior marriages. It particularly becomes a super-serious issue if the prior marriage was made in a Christian union, whether Catholic or not. It gets a bit easier if they were civil marriages. I have no idea what the Gingrich circumstances were, nor am I a canon lawyer. But it certainly appears that a duly constituted Church court has ruled on the issues. And, as I said, that’s good enough for me.
“Because power corrupts, society’s demands for moral authority and character increase as the importance of the position increases.”
- John Adams -
And I agree with you.
But the candidate you are looking for, perfected and electable, does not exist.
Santorum, at least it appears, comes across as very ethical, but he’s not electable.
It’s been because of the want to have a perfect candidate that America is going down the tubes, because good candidates are rejected because they aren’t perfect and liberals get the power.
I agree with your Adams quote, but the problem is that it is a relative thing. We are not comparing Gingrich to Ronald Reagan. We’re comparing him to Mitt and Obama.
He still comes out on top, not least because there are multiple areas in which a man can fail in moral authority besides the bedroom.
It's kind of long, but interesting, I think, so I'll give it a shot. With regard to marriage, the Catholic Church teaches the following:
Applying these considerations to the Gingrich case, we see that his second civil marriage was never a valid sacramental marriage. There are many reasons this is true, including both the fact that he was still sacramentally married to his first wife, Jackie. His adulterous relationship Marianne did not invalidate that marriage. When Jackie died, he was considered not to be sacramentally married anymore, since his new civil marriage to Marianne has no sacramental effect. When he started his affair with Callista, he was still legally married to Marianne (but not sacramentally). He later civilly divorced Marianne and entered his third civil marriage to Callista.
When Newt converted to Catholicism, the whole issue of his marital relationships had to be cleared up in the eyes of the Church. Since Jackie had died, there was no question that he was not married to her anymore. However, he had entered a civil marriage with Marianne. While the existence of a civil marriage has no sacramental effect, there is, nevertheless, an obligation to clarify one's marital status when entering the Church. There would have had to be an official declaration that his purported marriage to Marianne was not sacramental, and that therefore, he was free to enter into a sacramental marriage with Callista. Newt would not have been received into the Catholic Church if he was not willing to either stop living with Callista, or to enter a sacramental marriage with her. So when he converted, he also sacramentally married Callista.
Thus, it's not that his civil marriage was blessed. Rather, it is that he entered a sacramental marriage with her either before or immediately after he was received into the Church.
I need to make clear that the Church is not "looking the other way" with regard to Newt's repeated infidelities. And this is not some sort of loophole. On the contrary, the Church simply presumes the sincerity of all those who repent of their sins and wish to convert. And since sexual activity outside a sacramental marriage is prohibited by Christ, a sincere person in Newt's position who wants to enter the Church would have to sacramentally marry the person with whom they are living, or to separate from them. Newt and Callista chose to marry.
Another point is that the Church condemns Callista's behavior before their sacramental marriage, too. But presumably they both have had a conversion of heart. Let's hope so, anyway.
Newt is a serial monogamist, as many of us are or were.
I finally figured out after 6 years of marriage to my first wife and 25.5 years to my second, that it is simply not worth it.
I have simple reasons for that; the simplest is that now when I put something someplace, it is where I put it when I go to retrieve it.
No denigration meant for the lady FReepers, just sayin'.
One major problem with your scenario, Jackie is NOT dead.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.