Skip to comments.Gingrich Represents New Political Era for Catholics [ecumenical}
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. Weigels 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 ...
Did Meghan McCain tell you to ask that? It’s between Gingrish and his wife and the Catholic Church. NOYB
Look for an answer here:
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:
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.
I think I see part of the problem. The regulations/rules of the Catholic Church alwaya have to do with the spiritual circumstances of those concerned. Thus, your question seemed very personal and intrusive, asking for information that is alwsys confidential even if not a matter for the confessional. Perhaps I missed the point of your question, but I think you may have missed the “point” of the Church, whose first concern is always the spiritual welfare of the parties involved, including children.
“So, my question is: did Newt and Callista Gingrich get married by a priest in the Catholic Church? If so, how?”
I don’t understand what is personal and intrusive about asking if ANYONE was married by a priest in a church. That is actually a matter of public record, available for $2 or so in the office of vital records of whatever jurisdiction the couple was married in. EVERY marriage license I’ve ever seen is signed by the officiant and two witnesses, then registered in a civil office.
As a matter of fact, simply by googling, I just learned that the Gingriches were NOT married in a Catholic Church and were, in fact, married across the street from where I once lived (and where my mother suggested my wedding be held, not approving of the venue I had chosen). I am going to assume that, given his divorce, a Catholic priest did not officiate. None of that surprises me or is out of character with what I do know about the Catholic Church and its rules and regulations.
But, if the ‘point’ of the Church’s regulations is the spiritual welfare of the parties, why would it decline membership to one who seeks salvation there? That is what I just don’t get, and probably never will.
FYI: I just saw this posted on another thread. Whether true or not I have no way of knowing. But if true it would spell the difference between Gingrichs situation and my brother in laws. As mentioned initially, there was no way, absolutely no way, his first wife would allow an annulment.
Even the Catholic church granted an annulment on this first marriage ...”
From what I’ve read, his first wife ASKED for the divorce.
Please re-read my response. There’s more to the original story than you are presenting.
Catholic priests can not instruct ministers of other faiths to annul marriages, and would not care if they did. When you are confirmed into the Catholic faith, ALL previous sins are forgiven by Christ. Your sister was never married, as far as the Church was concerned.
But as I understand it, a divorce, whoever asked for or may have caused it, would be irrelevant to the Catholic Church. They have to get a church annulment. So far as I know the Catholic Church is the only Christian denomination that even has annulments, tho some states annul marriages civilly. The latter could, I suppose, be converted to a Church annulment, or certainly give grounds for a Church annulment.
The church annulment process is fairly controversial, I know. But I am pretty sure both parties have to agree to it or it’s a no go. Or, at best, pretty ugly, much like so many civil divorces. That was the situation my brother in law faced, the refusal of #1 to agree, ever, to an annulment. Apparently Mrs. Gingrich I agreed to the annulment as well as civil divorce of their marriage. And therein lies the difference.
I understand that the Church never recognized the civilly legal marriage of my sister and her husband. That’s why he was told during the conversion process he was “in the eyes of the Church living in sin.”
He was told that to proceed he’d have to get a church annulment of his first marriage, which was NEVER going to happen. Perhaps another alternative would have been to get a legal civil divorce from my sister or, he’d still have been ‘living in sin in the eyes of the Church.’ Barring that, it wouldn’t be a “past” sin that was to be forgiven. Ergo, under the circumstances, no conversion could go forward.
So far as I know, no other Christian denomination even has an annulment process. That’s strictly Catholic. So there was no asking of another minister to annul his/her church’s marriage. It was his first wife who absolutely refused to agree to a Catholic Church annulment. 25 years after the fact, despite having remarried civilly herself, she was still not accepting the legal divorce, so with that mindset, you can see that an annulment was absolutely out of the question.
I really don’t know what my brother in law would have done about converting had my sister not died. It was a tough spot to be in for him. So, assuming Mrs. Gingrich I did agree to the Church annulment, he was just awfully lucky.
Listen I sympathize with your story to a point, but i still think you either don’t have the whole story or you are leaving something out. In either case, I made a decision last year not to bother with religious discussions on this website. I have no doubt that your motives are entirely pure, but experience tells me that we will inevitably be joined by trolls who just want to attack Catholicism.
If you are sincerely interested in getting an answer to your question, I welcome you visit your local parish, and ask a priest. He will be happy to answer you. If that is too much trouble, look up any Catholic Church online, call the rectory, and tell them you have a non-urgent matter that you wish to discuss with a priest. Again, you will have your answer in less than five minutes.
Good luck, God bless you, and Merry Christmas.
I quit reading the Catholic and Mormon threads on here a few years ago. They’re waaaay too ugly. Tho I did often find them very informative. Was once even admonished by the RelAdm for calling an anti-Catholic bigot an anti-Catholic bigot. What attracted me to this thread was the political end and in my mind it raised a question that I ventured to ask, and which has now been answered as it got ‘noodled’ out. Thank you for your contribution to that.
I wish you and yours a blessed and very Merry Christmas. (And GO NEWT!)
Mrs. G. #1 asked for the divorce. If there was an annulment, her testimony was required
Was once even admonished by the RelAdm for calling an anti-Catholic bigot an anti-Catholic bigot.
"Your winnings sir..."
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.