The Newt Evangelization: Gingrich to become Catholic

Deacon's Bench ^ | March 3, 2009 | Deacon Greg Kandra

[NYer]

Buried deep inside this long and wonkish profile of Newt Gingrich in Sunday's New York Times, was this little nugget that, I suspect, went largely unnoticed:

At a moment when the role of religious fundamentalism in the party is a central question for reformers, Gingrich, rather than making any kind of case for a new enlightenment, has in fact gone to great lengths to placate Christian conservatives. The family-values crowd has never completely embraced Newt, probably because he has been married three times, most recently to a former Hill staff member, Callista Bisek. In 2006, though, Gingrich wrote a book called “Rediscovering God in America” — part of a new canon of work he has done reaffirming the role of religion in public life. The following year, he went on radio with the evangelical minister James Dobson to apologize for having been unfaithful to his second wife. (A Baptist since graduate school, Gingrich said he will soon convert to Catholicism, his wife’s faith.)

PHOTO: by Nigel Parry for the New York Times.

[Global2010]

It is only to late to become a part of the Catholic Body if you die first.

It was Salvations Catholic threads that was one of the things that led KV an me back to the Church and we both received our Confirmation.

The humans and such of our local Parish turned KV away as a teen when he was entering the year to be Confirmed...they moved the class up a flight of stairs and said it was the other kids choice.

That Priest should never have allowed the parents to turn KV away and as the rest of the story goes he himself ended up losing his to his own demons and left the Priesthood. Sad.

We went South to a very Conservative Priest whom I respect and look up to as a teacher that cuts right to the chaste in his opinions. Not everyone can take his non progressive ways.

We feel fortunate to have him as part of our lives.

And due KVs circumstances Father received permission to be the one to Confirm us and a few others in the class that he formed after our request to be educated and receive confirmation.

Very cool and now a never ending mind/intellect to soul journey.

The other thing that led me back was a dream about seeing Marys appearance in the wet of the Ocean rocks and she was crying.

I had been Praying for peace in my heart and she spoke to my heart in the dream to seek the Church and return to my faith.

I will never forget that dream and on the rare occasion I go to the beach/cliffs that are running wet with rain I think about that wonderful dream.

I would love to see Joy Baher from the View come back home to the Catholic Church.

Obama too. It would be a global change we could all get with. : )

[annalex]

Yeah, that too.

[MEGoody]

most Protestant marriages, upon inspection, prove to be deficient in some sense, because the participants almost always have mental reservations knowing they have recourse to divorce

I agree that many people (not just Protestants) enter marriage thinking "Hey, if it doesn't work out, I can always get a divorce."

Having said that, I see no where in scripture that says "Well, the marriage was never valid because one of the parties harbored some doubts on the day of the wedding or wasn't committed enough."

Sadly, too many churches, the Catholic church included, have compromised when it comes to the issue of marriage.

[Philo-Junius]

I don’t mean to throw stones at Protestants, but it’s undeniable that two generations of no-fault divorce have radically changed many Protestants’ understanding of marriage from the lifelong commitment that the Church teaches.

Full consent means full consent to what the Church teaches marriage is, not just consent to the current secular understanding.

[Philo-Junius]

Also, seeking proof-text in Scripture is not the final argument in matters of Canon law—but we could, for instance, start with Jesus’ admonition to the Samaritan woman at the well—none of her marriages were valid because she had no enduring commitment to any of them.

[Philo-Junius]

Also, I should make clear I mean “defective” in the sense of validity in the eyes of the Church according to Canon law, not any absolute judgement about the Christian marriage of Protestants who do commit to what the Church teaches marriage is.

[Global2010]

Will he ever be able to recieve Holy Communion with his past marry/divorces?

Wonder if Pelosi is ever going to put a cork in her drunk with Power trip and come back to her faith as the Church teaches like in Mr. Sperm meets Mrs. Egg and that is conception 100% not to be aborted for any inconveinance to the Parents to be.

We could sure use those in the Political position to speak out for the faith like Alan Keyes does that could turn around alot of those Catholics who do not undestand the Churches teaching on issues such as abortion.

[jwparkerjr]

How did he sell out? The Democrats came after him with all guns a-blazen’ and his Party and those in the House with him turned tail and ran from him. If I recall correctly it was after he led the revolution that produced Republican control of both houses of Congress that we had a balanced budget that led to a brief period of surpluses and the role of welfare was changed dramatically.

If he had been supported even half as much as Clinton was by his side of the aisle we would have a much different America than we do today.

This is nothing more than my personal opinion. I was a Newt supporter and followed his triumph and subsequent travails pretty closely. 99 percent of what I read about him now simply never happened. BS like the Contract was never carried through, etc.

[Melian]

What makes marriage a sacrament is the three of you (you, spouse, and God) all completely committed to the union. If you or your spouse entered into the union with serious mental/emotional/spiritual issues, God may not have united Himself with you in your marriage. He cannot be part of something deeply flawed. That is why people can get Catholic marriages annulled. The Church studies the marriage and determines there were deep flaws in the commitment of either party. God would not have been united in the sacrament of marriage with such a couple. So, it wasn’t a sacramental marriage.

You have to take it on a case by case basis. If someone is deeply dishonest about who he is or what he believes, commits adultery, or has personality disorders, then he can’t possibly make a real commitment to someone. If he can’t make a real commitment, God wouldn’t participate in uniting an innocent person to him. The couple would have had a valid, legal marriage but not the sacrament of Marriage.

That’s my understanding.

[redhead]

"I know we all can think of a Preist we admire/respect who would be a great Adult Catechism teacher for Newt. : )"

Now, why did the image of Fr. John Corapi come to my mind when I read this??

[ml/nj]

http://www.house.gov/house/Contract/CONTRACT.html

Listen, Dearie. We all liked the Contract. We loved how he tool over. Some of us were enthused when I asked him on national television about Vince Foster's "murder" and he said that he thought that the Congress should investigate.

But then it all went terribly wrong. There was the supposed conversation the "grandparents" listened in on. There was the abandonment of his wife. There never was another word from him about Vince Foster. And he started kissing up to the Clintons.

Follow-through is important, to some of us.

ML/NJ

[ml/nj]

How did he sell out? The Democrats came after him with all guns a-blazen’

Oh, please. They went after Reagan. They're coming after Rush. See my post at #51.

ML/NJ

[Global2010]

I really like him.
We (since Christmas) now have EWTN on tv!

KV has (cant fast due to being g tube fed/medically nixed) chosen to watch only EWTN tv for Lent and when he goes to sleep I have been clickig over to MSM and what different perspective I have and it has only been six days.

I love to drift off with EWTN on makes for good dreams. : )

[Salvation]

Blessings to Newt! Wow!

[annalex]

My understanding is that past sin, if confessed and absolved, allows a Catholic to receive Holy Communion.

For example, past irregular marriages, divorces, adulteries, or what have you can be absolved in a sacramentaql confession and then the Holy Communion is available.

The issue is persistence in sin, which indicates absence of the purpose of amendment. Typically, that is manifested in continued cohabitation (whether with or without the benefit of a civil marriage) with an apparent wife. Another example, not applicable to Gingrich but applicable to Pelosi who you also mention, is continuing participation in the sin of abortion through political work (having impious opinions about origin of life in itself is probably not a sin). In those cases absolution is invalid even if granted, and it should not be granted.

So if someone is civilly married and the marriage is either regularly consummated or appears to be so — they live together like husband and wife, then in the eye of the Church that is fornication. If either of the civil spouses had been married before, that is also an adultery. Neither of these sins can be absolved unless they physically separate, or somehow make it known that the marriage is without sexual union, a so-called Josephine marriage, or, thirdly, they are able to obtain the necessary annulments and convalidate the union as a sacramental marriage.

Many Catholics feel hurt by the Church because they think the Church excommunicated them for being divorced. That is not so: civil divorce might be even recommended by the Church if there are issues of safety, and whatever past guilt is borne by the spouse wishing to return to Communion can be absolved in a confession. It is always the ongoing problem of lifestyle, such as a civil remarriage outside of the Church following the divorce that bars one from the Holy Communion till such time that the problem is cured.

[Global2010]

I might add that being that EWTN is on all during Lent it has been interesting to the positive reactions of those who provide respite for me/KV.

One of the medical careproviders mentioned that the men on EWTN such as the show the Goal Line (IIRC the title) are REAL Men and handsome....not like the whimpy guys in our community.

I said yeah I noticed that too and well now we know where all the good Men are in society. (tongue in cheek, I know some real good guys in other faiths too)

I also Like FR. Goetchel ??? the fellow with the white beard and aged.

Who is the Bishop(?) from another era (no longer living) that they run old shows of he is Red Caped and he is good in his sermons but he glares into the camara and does a Dracula eyebrow thingy cant help to giggle.

And the shows that take you on visual journeys.

They did one this month (several times) of Peters tomb and the history of it.

Lotsa good learning/teaching stuff.

Cant tell that I am ecstatic about our new tv channel nah.

[Cincinna]

I am very happy for Newt and his family.

I guess this means he will never be POTUS.

[jwparkerjr]

Reagan was long gone before the Republican revolution. It was midway through Clinton’s term. Don’t you recall all the BS about his book deal and how they brow beat him into giving up all the royalties? Or how they got onto his college course about renewing America and filed a hundred or more ethics charges against him? Or the wire tap on his cell phone conversation with a couple of other Republican leaders that was leaked to the press by a Democrat?

From the day he took over as Speaker it was one thing after another. Clinton dissed him because he was made to depart Air Force one via a back staircase while Clinton and his Democrat buddies went down the main exit? Or when CLINTON vetoed a continuing resolution to keep government going and then managed to pin the blame on Gingrich, and the damned Republicans he, and Rush, had gotten into power wouldn’t say a word in his defense. Or the Time, or Newsweek cover, with him as the Grinch (Gingrich) who stole Christmas? Or the press pictures of him in diapers, with a bottle accusing him of being whiner? The list goes on and on.

As I recall he finally came to his senses and told them to stick it where the sun don’t shine, and he went off to make his fortune in the private world.

I know there are those who have absolutely no respect for him whatsoever, and that’s a personal thing, but I was in the news business in the days all this was going on and I have not forgotten how dirty and underhanded it was and how he was left to swing in the breeze by the bastards of GOP.

And it looks like nothing changed to this day.

[ml/nj]

You know I meant to mention his caving on the "book deal," but I forgot. I mentioned the wire tap thing. He just caved. Was it Tip O'Neil who said "Politics ain't beanbag"? Newt dispatched their beloved Speaker (Wright) and he thought they would just quietly slink into obscurity? Come on. Newt isn't that stupid. I have his course BTW. He could have defended it. Instead he seemed embarrassed by it.

Newt fell victim to the disease that Rush speaks about often. He wanted too much to be liked by Inside Washington.

ML/NJ

[jwparkerjr]

I think he did put up a fight at first, but then he found he was all alone. Look at how the Dems gathered around Clinton on the day he was impeached. Had a news conference on the South Lawn and Gore called him the greatest president in history.

Like so much that happened more than a year or two ago people have completely forgotten what the Wright book deal was and just how crooked and illegal it was. Nothing Newt did came even close to that level of pure political corruption that was the Wright book deal or the House post office scandal.

You are certainly correct though, he did indeed fall prey to the siren song of trying to be liked by everyone. Never, ever works. Period. And Rush warned them about that when he addressed the incoming class of the House after the revolution.

Don't get me wrong. I am not suggesting Newt should have any part of what needs to be done now if we are to snatch victory from the jaws of Obama-defeat. He is a brilliant man with some very sharp political instincts, but his time has come and gone. Behind the scenes he could be very helpful, but we need new faces if we hope to save our country at this point.

In fact, I'm not sure the GOP can even rise to the occasion. It might well be time for a completely new organization, one that puts out in plain and simple language what it believes, what it will do if elected and who will do it. I would start by dismissing anyone who was part of the last election cycle and hoped to lead the GOP ticket. In my mind Palin is about the only bright spot in the entire election cycle. Everything else should be tossed in the dust bin of politics, or saved for study by future generations of just how far a party can fall when they stop dancing with the one what brought them to the dance.