Posted on 12/17/2011 4:58:13 AM PST by Cronos
...Mr. Gingrich represents a new kind of Catholic, one very different from the Kennedys, who were Democrats, political liberals and cradle Catholics shaped by the Irish immigrant church.
..Mr. Gingrich is a culture wars Catholic for whom the church seems a logical home for conservative Republicans Generations removed from the Kennedy years when Catholics predictably voted Democratic, this is a new era in which conservative Catholics and evangelical Protestants have joined forces in what they see as a defining struggle against abortion, same-sex marriage and secularism.
Like many recent converts to the church, Mr. Gingrich is what Catholics call a “John Paul II Catholic,” those inspired by that pope to embrace traditional church teaching, eschewing calls to liberalize or modernize the faith..
Mr. Gingrich has increasingly warned that the United States is threatened by the encroachment of both secularism and Islam, and those who know him say he sees the Catholic Church as a powerful and convincing bulwark against it. The theme of secularism as a threat to Europe is a frequent one for Pope Benedict, who spoke about it in his speech to the American bishops the day Mr. Gingrich was in the crowd at the basilica.
In the speech to the prayer breakfast, Mr. Gingrich cited Mr. Weigel’s book, “The Cube and the Cathedral.” He said that it captured “the crisis of European civilization as militant, government-imposed secularism undermines and weakens Christianity.
Mr. Gingrich said he saw the same process happening in the United States, where “American elites are guided by their desire to emulate the European elites, and as a result, anti-religious values and principles are coming to dominate the academic, news media and judicial class in America.”
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
This Religion Forum thread is labeled “ecumenical” meaning no antagonism is allowed on this thread. Do not refer to another poster as a “troll.”
Maybe yes maybe no. It was my contention that were WAS no "new political era for Catholics," and that this was a construct of the NYT's liberalism. For that you repeatedly tried to bait me into a conversation that stated I had no interest in having. If that's not "trolling," I guess I don't know the meaning of the term after ten years and 30,000 posts.
And let's just say that I find it convenient that our dedicated friendly neighborhood RM suddenly made a appearance here to delete my innocuous posts. The both of you feel free to debate whatever aspects of Catholicism you find objectionable. I won't be participating.
I don’t make the rules, presidio9. Understand them better, and your posts won’t be deleted.
>>>>>The both of you feel free to debate whatever aspects of Catholicism you find objectionable.
The entire Religion Forum routinely debates all the aspects of Catholicism that non-Catholics find objectionable. Catholic comments are typically found to be offensive in some way or another. I see little point in participating during what is supposed to be a season of peace on earth. Some Christians are more equal than others. If you hsve no organized church, and only listen to your private version of the Holy Spirit for correct understanding of Scripture, then you are somehow holier than Catholics and can say whatever you please.
Actually, I have no interest in debating the merits of Catholicism with no Catholics. For what its worth, I don’t believe that you have to be Catholic to get to Heaven, so, by all means, find any fault you like with Catholicism. I won’t waste my time telling you what is wrong with the way you pray either.
My interest in this thread was in correcting an inaccuracy in the Time’s reporting. The person who kept doing something that I am not supposed to correctly identify as trolling has a history of that type of behavior, with myself and others. He also seems to have a history of calling the moderators for help.
I have found that the easiest way to deal with such people is to ignore them.
I agtee.
That is an inaccurate characterization, presidio9. If this reply of yours is deleted as well, it won't be due to any action of mine, it'll be due to continuing the behavior that is not permitted on this type of thread.
I have a Catholic question. Some years back, my brother in law was taking the program to convert to Catholicism. As I recall (it was @ 10 years ago), about halfway thru the program, the priest told him he couldn’t join the Church because he was ‘living in sin’ with my sister to whom he was married civilly, both having been divorced.
Because my brother in law had been married in a church of another religion (from which he was planning to convert) he was still married ‘in the eyes of the Church.’ There was no way #1 would allow an annulment. So he was in a very difficult spot.
As fate would have it, that was my last conversation with my sister, who had the good grace to drop dead a few weeks later, relieving my brother in law of his ‘living in sin,’ and he went forward with the conversion. He subsequently married another woman with whom he is presumably ‘living in sin.’
So, my question is: did Newt and Callista Gingrich get married by a priest in the Catholic Church? If so, how?
Did Meghan McCain tell you to ask that? It’s between Gingrish and his wife and the Catholic Church. NOYB
Excuse me ... but I had a question that I thought a Catholic could answer, based on an experience of a member of my own family. I don’t understand the rules.
AND it IS my business if Gingrich is now a Catholic to know if he was married in the Catholic church and how he managed that if, like my brother in law, he was married/divorced, and was able to convert and marry ‘in the eyes of the church’ without an annulment.
Who are you, the Church Lady?
I re-read your question, and here it is:
As fate would have it, that was my last conversation with my sister, who had the good grace to drop dead a few weeks later, relieving my brother in law of his ‘living in sin,’ and he went forward with the conversion. He subsequently married another woman with whom he is presumably ‘living in sin.’
So, my question is: did Newt and Callista Gingrich get married by a priest in the Catholic Church? If so, how?
If you sincerely want to know, ask your brother in law if he is living in sin. I’m betting you won’t. How does your brother in law have anything to do with Newt and Calista Gingrich’s marriage, anyway?
I doubt this is what actually happened. Perhaps your brother-in-law or sister left something out. Marriage is a Sacrament in Catholicism. As such, the Church does not recognize marriages outside of the faith.
Why would I ask my brother in law if HE thinks he’s ‘living in sin?’ He didn’t think he was ‘living in sin’ with my sister, until he got along in the conversion process and was told he was, at least ‘in the eyes of the church.’ While he is now a Catholic, he’s hardly an authority on all its rules and regulations. So that wouldn’t answer my question, would it?
My question was relating to ‘in the eyes of the church.’ How does one who divorces civilly and remarries civilly ever become released from ‘living in sin’ and become considered married ‘in the eyes of the church?’
If one person who is seeking to convert to the Catholic Church, who’s been married in one (non-Catholic) church, and divorces, and who then remarries civilly, is told that he cannot convert because ‘in the eyes of the church’ he is still married to the person he married in the non-catholic church, and is thus ‘living in sin’ with the woman he married civilly, why would that NOT related to someone in virtually identical circumstances?
My brother in law was allowed to convert ONLY because the woman he was ‘living in sin’ with died. So far as I know, neither of Newt’s former wives has passed away, nor has he gotten either prior marriage annulled. Tho, I suppose, his second marriage wasn’t legitimate ‘in the eyes of the Church’ either. So, once again, the question remains: a) how was Newt admitted to membership in the Catholic Church; and, b) were Newt and Callista Gingrich married in the Catholic Church and, if so, HOW?
I’d like an authoritative answer, not some b!tching because my legitimate question was inferred as an attack on the Gingriches. Or the Church. Whichever. Personally, I have nothing but respect for the Catholic Church (if not all its clergy and members) and am currently supporting Gingrich in the GOP primaries. So you can take that off the table.
I just want to know why my brother in law was to be denied membership in the Church, absent the death of my sister, while someone else with a virtually identical history, i.e., Gingrich, was allowed to convert and possibly married in and recognized as married ‘in the eyes of the church,’ if, in fact, he is.
But what I am still not getting is why the Catholic Church wouldn’t let my brother in law convert, given that at the time he had no option to marry in the church since it still recognized his first marriage that couldn’t be annulled which he’d have done in a New York minute were it possible?
I’m not asking why they wouldn’t marry them, I understand that part, but don’t get the refusal to allow the conversion if he really wanted to become Catholic? It’s not as if an untold number of born-Catholics and other Christians aren’t ‘living in sin.’ I’d think any church would welcome someone who seeks salvation there.
I’m almost sorry I asked, and I thank you for your civil response. It’s bothered me on and off for ten years now, and the similarity of circumstances between these two marital histories and conversions seemed to make it a viable question.
You can always start here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annulment_(Catholic_Church)
Since wikipedia may or may not be accurate, you can always check with a competent marriage tribunal attorney.
And truth be told, we have no way of knowing what the Gingrich’s actual spiritual circumstances are. Presumably, that is between them and the Church. Same with your brother in law.
My question has nothing whatsoever to do with anyone’s spiritual circumstances. It has to do with the regulations/rules of the Catholic Church. I think you’ve missed the point of the question altogether, but thanks for your input.
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.