Reason 1: I do not trust him and regard his bluster about “representing traditional family values” to be repellent.
I don’t believe the falsehood he’s told (and gotten his daughter to tell for him)—namely, that the story of his demanding his wife talk about divorce while she was in hospital recovering from cancer surgery is false.
The fact is, his first wife documented the story in the WaPo on January 3, 1985:
He walked out in the spring of 1980 and I returned to Georgia. By September, I went into the hospital for my third surgery. The two girls came to see me, and said Daddy is downstairs and could he come up? When he got there, he wanted to discuss the terms of the divorce while I was recovering from the surgery … To say I gave up a lot for the marriage is the understatement of the year.”
Sorry, but I believe the adult who was there, not the child who suddenly comes out with a new story just as daddy is gearing up to run for Prez—thirty years later. Not that I blame the daughter for defending her dad. It’s what children—particularly children of documented manipulators—often wind up being maneuvered into doing. Would Gingrich really do something that despicably low through his daughter? Well, this is the man then went on to cheat on his second wife—all while pontificating about Clinton’s equally repellent behavior. So yeah, I think that’s exactly what is going on here. I believe his betrayed wife, not the man who betrayed her.
Reason 2. Speaking of Clinton, who can forget him sporting that big ol’ Bible when he was in the thick of his post-Lewinsky lip-biting contrition tour, all while continuing to deny, deny, deny. That’s but one reason I think the argument, “But Newt’s a pious-talking Catholic now! So he deserves the presidency and denying it to him is unforgiveness for sins committed 30 years ago!” is astonishingly bad theology, not to mention incredibly bad prudence. Yet I’ve been told again and again that I must support Newt or I am not forgiving of his pre-Catholic sins—and besides look at him emit pieties about the Eucharist for devout contraception and torture supporter Sean Hannity!
Yeah. And Joe Biden says the Rosary and Nancy Pelosi is “devout”. All public Christians are “devout” (the most overused word in religion reportage). Any politician who wants to court votes will yak about his devoutness for the camera. Heck, even Obama does that with a rather transparent air of, “Dear post-Christian fanbase: We both know I have to say this rubbish to get elected. But we also both know I’m not serious. As soon as the interview is over I will resume my normal posture as a post-Christian secularist.”
In short, so what if Gingrich emits pieties? Sure, there is such a thing as a conversion from Saul to St. Paul. But on the other hand, anybody can say “Lord, Lord”. The question is: do they do what Christ commands? I’m willing to grant that Gingrich is, in some sense yet to be determined, a Catholic, much as I do for Biden and Pelosi. Bully for them. May the grace of God do them all good and bring them to a deeper knowledge of their sin and need for grace and forgiveness. I wish them well and hope for their salvation.
But their allowing themselves to be identified as Catholic is not grounds for electing any of them to high office, particularly when, unlike St. Paul, they give me no particular reason to believe they are willing to obey the Church when it conflicts with their hunger for power. Simon Magus was a convert too—and wished to be known as “The Great Power” (Acts 8:10). Now Newt looks for all the world like he is doing much the same thing. Since his conversion, what I have seen from him is grotesque chutzpah as he has denied his despicable treatment of his ex-wife and even tried to paint serial adultery as a consequence of his intense love of country.
“There’s no question that at times in my life, partially driven by how passionately I felt about this country, that I worked far too hard, and that things happened in my life that were not appropriate.”
For the sake of argument, let’s completely check our brains at the door and believe this disgusting excuse for his double treason toward his family. What conclusion should we draw from it? My conclusion is, “For the sake of his soul, never let this man near power again just as I would never reassign a pedophile priest to work with children again.” But according to Newt, the solution to the corrupting effects of power that, by his own admission, led to his downfall is to make him the most powerful man on earth. And if that were not enough, he then sets himself up as the Paladin of Traditional Values, instead of going about in sackcloth and ashes and saying that he has absolutely no right to preach to anybody else about such matters.
Gross. No thanks. Given his track record, I think if you believe him I would like to also interest you in a purchase of the Brooklyn Bridge. I remember the Gingrich conservatives who said of the phonily contrite Bill Clinton, “If a man will lie to and betray his own wife, why should you think he will tell the truth to his constituents?” I believed them then and I believe them now that they no longer believe that elementary piece of logic when it’s their guy grabbing for the brass ring of power.
Reason 3. Speaking of saying “Lord, Lord” while refusing to obey Christ, note that Gingrich, out of one side of his mouth, utters sugary pieties about the peace the Eucharist gives him, while, out of the other side of his mouth, he has simultaneously dissented from Holy Church and betrayed his prolife base by declaring that human life begins at implantation , thereby allowing him to “reach out” to the health care industry’s booming abortifacient money, as well as all those fiscal conservative/social liberal Republicans who wish that prolifers would just disappear. It also, conveniently, leaves him wide open to giving full-throated support to embryonic stem cell research since, after all, the millions of manufactured human beings that will be created and cannibalized should that industry finally take off will never have been implanted before they go to their doom. Newt knows this, but is willing to sacrifice them, as he is willing to sacrifice so much else that is right, in order to have power. Given my audience, I don’t think I need to elaborate too much on what a typically Gingrichian betrayal that is since it is highly unlikely that conservative Catholics will follow him into dissent from Holy Church on this point. Register readers are not too likely to say, “Gee! He’s got a point! The Church needs to back off on the whole ‘life begins at conception’ thing.”
However, given that polls consistently show that conservative Catholics dissent from Holy Church by supporting the grave intrinsic evil of torture in percentages larger than the average American, I do have to spend a few trillion more electrons and point out that Gingrich is among these open dissenters from Church and has just solidified the now-rigid orthodoxy of the GOP as the Party of Torture in direct defiance of Holy Church:
Waterboarding is by every technical rule not torture. [Applause] Waterboarding is actually something we’ve done with our own pilots in order to get them used to the idea to what interrogation is like. It’s not — I’m not saying it’s not bad, and it’s not difficult, it’s not frightening. I’m just saying that under the normal rules internationally it’s not torture.
I think the right balance is that a prisoner can only be waterboarded at the direction of the president in a circumstance which the information was of such great importance that we thought it was worth the risk of doing it and I do that frankly only out of concern for world opinion. But we do not want to be known as a country that capriciously mistreats human beings.
He deploys many of the standard long-exploded lies and sophistries documented here. Per standard torture apologist methodology, he narrows discussion to only that species of torture that is terror drowning (for which “waterboarding” is the euphemism) and neglects to mention the beatings, suffocation and freezing with which we have murdered prisoners. He never notes the fact that no court has ever found waterboarding not to be torture in any country signatory to the Geneva Conventions or the UN Convention on Torture signed by pantywaist liberal Ronald Reagan. He ignores several federal court opinions defining waterboarding as torture. He ignores the Japanese military leaders executed following World War II for waterboarding. The most highly paid “historian” in the history of the world ignores the 1926 Mississippi Supreme Court case which regarded it as torture. He ignores its prominent inclusion in the Cambodian Museum of Torture, commemorating Khmer Rouge barbarism. And, of course, it goes without saying that he is proud to ignore the UN Rapporteur on it, as all red-blooded “conservative” torture apologists do:
I don’t think there is any question, any serious question. I mean it’s a question of severity. If you think that waterboarding is not severe mistreatment you don’t really know what waterboarding is. … I mean if you then redefine upwards the severity standard to say that it’s only severe if it’s organ failure or death, then you know you’re really very clearly distorting the sense of the words and you know words have to be interpreted in treaty language, they have to be interpreted in their plain meaning and their plain meaning couldn’t be more clear in the case of waterboarding.
In short, for Gingrich to say of terror drowning that “under the normal rules internationally it’s not torture” is a complete and utter lie, believable only to the sophists and liars who now dominate the torture apologetics wing of the Thing the Used to Be Conservatism. If Gingrich cared about the teaching of the Church, he would listen to the Magisterium which says that torture is grave and intrinsically immoral and worthy of the fires of hell. He would pay attention to Pope Benedict XVI when he says that the prohibition against torture may never be contravened. If he cared about the safety of the country, he would listen to the professional interrogators who warn, again and again, that torture is not only wrong, but stupid, counter-productive, and positively harmful to American intelligence efforts. But since Gingrich cares about power and getting the votes of pro-torture “conservative” armchair interrogators who get their information about interrogation from watching 24 and not from people who actually know about interrogation, he argues for torture, not out of Eucharistic piety nor patriotic love of country, but out of a hunger for power. And in that reckless pursuit of power, he poses a danger to bodies (of unborn children and torture victims) and souls (of the many Catholics who may follow him in his rejection of the teaching of Holy Church on one or even two matters of grave intrinsic evil worthy of the everlasting fires of hell)
To be sure, not all conservatives believe his banana oil. Many conservatives reject his loopholing for abortifacients (though many also wish the whole issue would go away). Some, to their honor, speak out against torture (though not many). But the fact that Gingrich is now the applauded front runner (and that the whole Republican field except Paul and Huntsman are solidly in favor of torture along with Newt) tells you all you need to know about the pathetic and shameful state of the GOP. And about their blind shortsightedness. Speaking of which…
Reason 4: Every day it becomes more evident that we are witnessing our Ruling Class’ rush to transform the US into the Soviet States of America. That sounds shocking, but consider the combination of
a)our senatorial elite’s stunning declaration of war on the civil rights of the populace last week. Do read this link if you read nothing else, since the Senate just passed a bill which would give Caesar the power to completely gut habeas corpus for any American citizen, arrest us without charge, and imprison us forever without counsel, merely on the executive’s unilateral assertion that the accused was a terror threat or might know something about a “terror” threat. Obama says he will veto this despotic law that repeals nearly a thousand years of Anglo-American law back to Magna Carta, but given that he immediately followed this assurance up with the claim that he can kill any citizen he chooses without evidence, arrest, trial, judge, jury or verdict—and that the Supreme Court cannot stop him I will not be a bit surprised if he signs it;
b)the growth of Caesar’s overt anti-Catholic and anti-Christian policy;
c)the growth of police state tactics; and
d)the clear evidence that the real dynamic threatening us is not GOP vs. Dem or liberal vs. conservative, but Big Caesar (Dem and GOP) and Big Mammon in incestuous hostility against the populace.
Given this, what continues to amaze me is how fantastically short-sighted “conservative” Catholic enthusiasm for all this is. Given that Newt Gingrich is (next to Obama) just about the biggest grossest poster child there is for this incestuous wedding of Hudge and Gudge, as well as for the police state tactic of torture to enforce it, I think a vote for this man is utter folly.
But “conservatives” (who cheered as the GOP led the bipartisan charge for the passage SB 1867) persist in the delusion that turning the US into a police state will not endanger them and that opposition to this cowardly gutting of our most fundamental rights back to Magna Carta can only be motivated by a love for al Quaida and communists. Only smelly hippies and librul reporters will be treated like enemies of the State. Prolifers and religious people won’t. Nor is it possible that the state could declare you, a completely innocent person, to be a terrorist and strip you of your rights as a citizen and disappear you while a pliant media declares you an enemy of the state. That will only happen to Bad Guys.
So, for instance, organs of “conservative” opinion like the Washington Times frame the passage of a Kafkaesque bill which makes it possible for a despotic Executive to unilaterally strip any American citizen of his rights, arrest him without charge, deny him counsel, and throw him in prison forever this way: “Senate defies Obama veto threat in terrorist custody vote”.
See how it works? Instead of alerting us to the radically anti-American nature of this despotic law, the headline paints the story as brave “conservatives” leading the charge against “terror” while the Hated Liberal Prez wants to make us vulnerable to evildoers tunneling under our homes! Yay! We’re having our most fundamental rights completely stripped away—for safety! If you don’t cheer for that, you love al Quaeda and hate America! Meanwhile, the bill, which Obama promised to veto, but which he appears likely to sign, gives… wait for it… Obama and all future God Kings, I mean Presidents, the power to declare you a terrorist on his say-so alone and toss you—an American citizen—in Gitmo forever without trial or appeal if he feels like it. Gingrich’s contribution to this appalling move by our elites: in addition to jailing you forever without charge, due process or appeal, the President should be able to torture you too, if he feels like it. Notice who the winners are if, God forbid, this bill becomes law: not Dem vs. Republican or liberal vs. conservative, but Ruling Elite vs. Populace. It is we the people who now stand naked before the onslaught of a state that utterly strips us of the protection of law against Big Brother.
In short, righties who trust our “conservative” elites to guard the American tradition of ordered liberty and accountable government are as much suckers as the lefty Obama worshippers who are now puzzling at how Obama’s incestuous relationship with Big Mammon could possibly have resulted in him granting himself the power to launch more wars and murder American citizens without trial. Having seriously believed he would defeat dreaded conservatives and not make common cause with the rest of the Ruling Class, lefties are now wondering why he isn’t springing to their defense when the riot squads pepper spray peaceful protestors but is instead very much in bed with Big Mammon. The difference is, the supposedly clueless protestors have at least figured out that their hero cares nothing about them and is part of the bipartisan Ruling Elite of Big Mammon and Big Caesar, while a huge number of “conservatives” still believe that a man like Newt Gingrich—the very archetype and child of this incestuous union—regards them as something besides people to exploit in his selfish hunger for power. Speaking of which…
Reason 5: Take it away, Ron Paul!
The man is indeed “the very essence of the Washington insider”. If we are to judge from his actions and not his rhetoric (and, as responsible voters, that is precisely what we are to do), he is a friend only to Big Caesar and Big Mammon. If he has twice betrayed his own family and never come clean about it but continued to deny his despicable treatment of his first wife in her illness, if his entire career in office and out is riddled with lies and betrayals (as it is) why on earth would any sane voter imagine for a second he is not lying to us now? To trust him is, as his two ex-wives learned the hard way, the height of folly. For a voter to now trust him is absurd. To insist that one must vote for him out of fealty to the Catholic faith is, while not quite blasphemous I suppose, one of the dumbest things a Catholic could possibly say. I will no sooner vote for this perfidious man than I will vote for Obama. Indeed, Obama can at least boast a stable marital history.
How has it come to this that such a man is the front runner for the party that claims to represent family values, respect for the Judeo-Christian tradition and respect for the rule of law? When I see some good fruit, I will begin to trust him. Till then, the clear and obvious teaching of Jesus is to remember that bad fruit comes from bad trees.
Comments
Post a Comment
Super post, Mr. Shea. You do a wonderful job of supporting your points with links.
I think your take on all the politicians involved is quite correct.
Doesn’t this quote pretty well sum it up as far as Gingrich goes?
“. . . . things happened in my life that were not appropriate.”
Uh yes, that totally sounds like your deciding to be unfaithful to your first wife. It “happened.” You walked away from a valid marriage and engaged in a false marriage with another woman. And then you were unfaithful to her too. Not appropriate. And it was imposed on you from outside yourself? Erm, what is going on? And why should we, the voters, expect that no more inappropriate things would “happen” to your life while you were president?
While I agree with your reservations about Mr. Gingrich, I do think I would vote for him if it came down to him vs. Obama. However, I plan to vote for Ron Paul in the primary. I don’t agree with Rep. Paul’s every position, but he’s an honest man, and in this field of candidates, that’s something.
Minus the dissertation*—yeah. Who christened this guy Our Last, Best Hope? As of what, like, Wednesday? I can’t take that seriously. But then, we’re discussing the possibility of President Newt. Say that with a straight face and no Monty Python gags.
* just ribbing a little ;)
I think you let this post run far afield in reason 4. While I agree with much of what you say, it began to sound too much like a rant for my taste. I don’t like the National Defense Authorization Act, but I think this could more effectively be addressed in a separate post and left there, since it only tangentially relates to Newt (who, unless, I’m mistaken, has not spoken publicly on the bill).
Bravo !! I share all of these concerns but the capacity to put them into a cogent form to communicate to others is an ability I don’t have. When I was young, I took freedoms for granted…as if nothing could come into our society and take them from us….I didnt see it coming that fear and obsessions with the delusion of “safety and security” would lead to a stampede of us giving up or freedoms so willingly.
We inherited a free country from our ancestors and will pass down a police state to our children and them tell them it was for their own good, we did it to keep them safe because we love them so.
All of this to justify a vote for Barrack Obama.
Mr. Shea spends more time on “torture” of a few radical Islamic “masterminds”, plotting and attempting to commit mass killings of Christians and Jews than he does on abortion.
I suspect this says a lot about the writer.
Just vote for Mr. Abortion (Obama) and be done with it.
I don’t support Gingrich, but reading this article was disappointing. I’m inclined to think that the issue for 2012 is to choose the lesser of the evils, and at this time Obama, Biden and Pelosi are the greater evils.
That’s not to say Gingrich is harmless or Shea’s objections are invalid. Rather I think that we need to draw the line in opposing the greatest evils first.
If a Republican be elected in 2012, we will still have to oppose whatever evils he or she brings forward. But let’s recognize who is promoting the greatest evils now and fight that battle first.
Come on, Mark, tell us how you REALLY feel!
Your liberal bias is flagrant. Your observations are not charitable to say the least. Where are you when Pelosi blurbs her pious “I am a devout Catholic” rhetoric? I believe Newt, I would vote for Newt and if he needs my forgiveness, I forgive Newt; but I suspect he’s already gottern absolution from Christ.
God Bless you, Mr. Shea. But I don’t buy your analysis.
While I would have preferred this lengthy post delivered in smaller doses so as to better digest its weight and worth - I fully agree!!
We have many friends who are shocked at our lack of support for Newt but we stand firm. We do not know how it will all pan out but we won’t be putting our names under his for all of the again, lengthy points you make!
May I ask who we should vote for instead? I’m not being snarky - that’s an honest question. Would you suggest Ron Paul, or Rick Santorum, or Mitt Romney, or simply anyone other than Newt or Obama?
It would be impossible to address many of your points - many because they are based almost entirely on your personal emotion and others because of your apparent absolute refusal to accept anything that contradicts them. I always had respect for your views on religious issues and read/listened to them. However, your disjointed and I must say primarily emotional reactions to these very political issues make your other views suspect. Emotion joined to reason is an appropriate combination but you seem to be relying almost exclusively on emotion. In the future, I think I will just have to pass on articles bylined by you, Mr. Shea.
Don’t forget that Gingrich (along with Romney) publicly stated during one of the debates his support for the President arrogating to himself the power to order the killing of an American citizen without trial or conviction, and even had the effrontery to claim that supersecret advisors advising the President in supersecret meetings satisfied the requirements of independent judicial review.
I assume that Mr Shea, the writer of this article, has made no mistakes in his life. We do know what Mr Obama and his administration are pushing. If you want four more years of abortion advocation, infringement of religious rights for medical personnel and facilities, disregard of DOMA, millions to special interests and those that raise funds for Obama, selective enforcement of laws and Chicago style of politics, vote for Abama. I prefer a change even though a candidate may have erred in the past.
All of this to justify a vote for Barrack Obama.
I’m not going to vote for Obama. Did you not read my piece?
Why do you hate grandma, apple pie and America, Mark!?!?!? :-P
If you don’t tow the Republican line, I’ll have Sean Hannity revoke your ‘Great American’ card!
Help me out with a problem, Mark: In Ethics Class (Catholic Universities still have them), we learned that the only way you can vote for an evil man is because the alternative is more evil. Straight math says Mr. Gingrich’s policies will kill fewer innocent than Mr. Obama’s. On the other hand, we all know about Mr. Obama; Mr. Gingrich appears to be a more insidious liar and so has the potential to decieve - and harm - more people. Do we vote as a block to remove Obama, do we vote Obama to prevent Gingrich, do we vote our consciences and possibly enable an evil?
“Much vague and sentimental journalism has been poured out to the effect that Christianity is akin to democracy, and most of it is scarcely strong or clear enough to refute the fact that the two things have often quarreled. The real ground upon which Christianity and democracy are one is very much deeper. The one specially and peculiarly un-Christian idea is the idea of Carlyle—the idea that the man should rule who feels that he can rule. Whatever else is Christian, this is heathen. If our faith comments on government at all, its comment must be this—that the man should rule who does NOT think he can rule. Carlyle’s hero may say, ‘I will be king,’ but the Christian saint must say, ‘Nolo episcopari.’ If the great paradox of Christianity means anything, it means this—that we must take the crown in our hands, and go hunting in dry places and dark corners of the Earth until we find the one man who feels himself unfit to wear it. Carlyle was quite wrong; we have not got to crown the exceptional man who knows he can rule. Rather, we must crown the much more exceptional man who knows he can’t” (—GKC, The Eternal Revolution, Orthodoxy)
Using this as a general guide, we’ve just eliminated everyone in the field. Electing saints ain’t easy.
Men do not need so much to be instructed as reminded, Samuel Johnson averred, so allow a note of thanks, Mr. Shea, for your tireless efforts on behalf of what is, after all, but minimal decency.
In 2008 anti-republican liberals used the FAITHFUL CITIZENSHIP voting document as the basis for the subtle “Catholics are not single-issue voters” ploy to deflate the impact of the intrinsic evil of abortion and the fact that the Democrats, as the ultimate purveyors of abortion, had become the Party Of Death. And in another not so subtle ploy, they emphasized, with the Democrats nominating an apparent black man, that racism too was intrinsically evil. The Democrat Party-of-Death status has now been undeniably verified by what Obama and his cronies have done. The Catholic liberals can no longer ignore abortion and rely on the “racism is intrinsically evil” gambit to prevent people from voting for a Republican, because Obama, his legislation-avoiding executive orders, and his policies promote the racist/genocidal abortions of blacks in America. Worse for the liberals, now they would have to sell “Catholics are not four issue voters,” because Obama and his cadre have attacked, and have used the power of the office of President to attack, the institution of sacramental marriage as a marriage between one man and one woman; and they are pursuing policies that enlist the full power of the federal government to deny religious liberty to Catholics. The unavoidable necessary conclusion that a Catholic with a well-formed conscience cannot vote for any Democrat does NOT entail the further conclusion that such a Catholic must vote for a republican. In true Alinsky mode, go ahead and ridicule “Pres Newt,” but if you reelect Obama, and he then is beholden to no one and is not running for reelection in 2016, in immortal prescient words, YOU AIN’T SEEN NUTHIN’ YET.
I will most likely voting for Rick Santorum in the Primary (if he is still in the race, since KY doesn’t vote till the end of May). However, if it comes down to Obama vs Newt then I will vote for Newt all day. We have had three years of assult on our religiuos liberties under this adminastration. Every Catholic that voted for this man should repent and if they elect him again say goodbye to this country as we know it.
I think that the next election will be like the last few, unfortunately, choosing the lesser of two evils. I doubt a truly good and worthy candidate will be available for us to vote for. If it comes between Newt and Obama, I have to vote for Newt. Continuing with the present administration would be detrimental to the life of our nation.
If Gingrich is the nominee and you do not vote for him, that means you are giving a vote to Obama essentially.
I do not trust Newt and never have and your article makes it very clear why he cannot be trusted. Thank you.
Article: Why I Will No More Vote for Gingrich Than Obama
Mr. Shea, in your opinion, who is the lesser of the two evils?
While Mr. Gingrich is not a saint by any standards, President Obama, as an Illinois senator, voted that a child who survives an abortion should not receive medical attention, according to extensive research by the National Right to Life Committee, http://www.nrlc.org/obamabaipa/WhitePaperAugust282008.html.
Thank you for your thoughts, and God bless you.
Why am I NOT surpised that the writer of this post spews vehemently twisted facts of Newt Gingrich, and in a fantastical sort of way, trying to sound all scholarly, just in the end to of COURSE be a supporter of RON PAUL.
Considering how the PAULbots conduct themselves, it only has turned me off decisively from such a candidate, and those who want to nominate him only scare me.
Oh, and by the way, I am a traditional latin mass catholic. I must be a serious sinner headed straight for hell by wanting to support Newt, right?
Despite the fact that he has a 98.6% lifetime prolife rating from the national right to life committee, has consistently promoted prolife legislation, and signed the Susan B. Anthony pledge for pro-life leadership.
By the way, RON PAUL has been DISMISSED as a viable choice for the The Family Leader to endorse, based on his lack of standing up for supporting prolife efforts at the national level!
Compare this to Newet’s publicly published promise already to sign at least 2 prolife executive orders his first few hours in office!
Also, Newt worked in the house and senate to OPPOSE cap and trade.
He OPPOSED the DREAM Act and he OPPOSES amnesty. He is for a REALISTIC solution to deal with illegal immigration, which is: FIRST, control the border within 1 YEAR. THEN, ship all illegals back with no ties to this country. SECOND, have a better guest worker program. THIRD, allow local communities to help deal with families who have had children grow up here, along with many other criteria.
And on the SECOND AMENDMENT: Newt has been long recognized as a strong defender of the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms. Newt is a recipient of the National Rifle Association’s Defender of the Second Amendment Award. His legislative voting record was consistently scored by the NRA as either an A or A+ all 20 years that he served in Congress. Furthermore, Newt is the only candidate in the GOP race who has spoken out about the threat to the second amendment from the United Nations and other global governance organizations, and on the first day, he will instruct the Department of Justice and State Department to defend American sovereignty and block all international treaties that infringe on Second Amendment rights.
And lastly, about his personal life:
You can NO MORE HOLD HIS WIFE"S STORY TO BE TRUE THAN HIS DAUGHTER’S. You CANNOT presume one to be true over the other. Likely, no one will ever know for sure which one is true.
Also, his first wife was much older and who knows how she ended up marrying him? She had been his high school teacher! Maybe she had persuaded him into it for all we know.
What’s really important anyway, is that the CHURCH has taken care of his marriage situation. To convert, he had to go to confession and be cleansed of past sin.
And I understand your concern about letting him have power again, but from what I can see, his wife Callista has had a TREMENDOUS impact on his life and stability. They have worked in the past 10-15 yrs to make documentaries about the exceptionalism of America, and also on John Paul II. I CANNOT believe he just did all that over 10-15 yrs out of callous, political motiviation. And you cannot go and hear him speak in person and believe that.
Children are often the best barometer of a person’s genuineness, and I have heard multiple stories already of children who have heard him on tv or met him in person, who without hesitation see him as the next president and believe he is sincere in his care for this country.
For more answers on the attacks on Newt, go to: www.newt.org/answers
I cannot help when watching Ron Paul, that he comes off has snobbish, and whiny. He WOULD NOT be able to get the American people rally behind him, and he could not get people to believe him if he tried to education them about our country.
We need a true LEADER, and a conservative one.
I am disappointed to see the National Catholic Register allowing one of their writers to BASH a conservative candidate, who is also a Catholic Convert, just for the sake of promoting their gushing support for Ron Paul.
Mark, right now Gingrich will get my vote. His Catholic Conversion should be respected until proven otherwise. I agree that many in the Catholic Church do not respect all of the teachings. Perhaps the Church needs to get tough with members who publicly distort the Church’s position or choose not to follow it. I personally would like to see Pelosi, Kerry and other Catholics called to heel for their positions on Abortion (and in Pelosi’s case excommunicated). Pelosi’s Bishop has spoken to her privately and counseled her publicly. Her response: The Catholic Church is hung up on “conscience” issues that don’t bother her.
In your blog you point out that Government/Mammon collective threatens the faith. I agree. At least, Gingrich is for smaller Government. His position on torture bothers me (if he supports it, which I assume from your blog) and I am bothered that he will not give a full-throated defense of the unborn (re. implantation vs. conception). But, when one compares this to Pelosi-Kerry and their attacks on the unborn—Newt’s sin here is far less. Has his Bishop counseled him on this?
Where are you when Pelosi blurbs her pious “I am a devout Catholic” rhetoric?
Where are you when I write about not buying Pelosi’s “devout” schtick in this very piece?
I agree with you Mark, do not trust a man who kicks a sick person when they are down, He finds no favor with me even if he did become a Catholic. THe Republican still scramble to find a good candidate and so far they are batting ZERO!!!!! It is depressing, right now it will be Fat Boy Newt or Dumb boy Romney—super losers, no thanks!
no obama… if hes the only man on earth, the only male available, i would vote for santa claus
Vitriol causes frothing at the mouth…
Please excuse the above sloppy post—I am ion a rush…
You all are missing the obvious choice this election.
You should choose a party platform that promises plenty of fish, and even plenty of GOLD! This coming November, (while they may demand some mixin’ later on) put your vote behind the Innsmouth Party for real change. Father Dagon / Mother Hydra 2012!
Ia-R’lyeh! Cthulhu fhtagn!
(at this point it makes about as much sense as anything else)
I support Rick Santorum, but short of a miracle there is no way he is going to be the nominee. Come November 2012, I will vote for the Republican nominee whoever he or she is rather than Obama, the “abortion president.”
I have a lot of problems with Gingrich, but he is, as is said above, the lesser of two evils.
Mark,
Thank you for your contributions to balanced and Catholic centered political discourse. Posts like your are what really getting me thinking about my decisions (such as voiting) which I intially think are “right” only to be brought back to Catholic Social teaching.
AMDG
My previous post cannot be considered spam… that is, unless Mr. Shea is afraid to have some facts checked about Newt Gingrich….
Mr. Shea,
Yes. I read your piece and I can assure you my comprehension level is fine.
You are attempting to find the perfect in an imperfect world. Inside of that you are attempting to find perfection in politics, which is corruption.
My point about you voting for Obama, is that you make the Obama equivocation. It is not about Gingrich’s flaws, it is about him being the best man standing.
Gingrich
Romney
Obama…
What is to decide?
Pit the biggest hypocrit against the child murderer-in-chief—- and I’ll take the “hypocrit” any day of the week.
though I don’t like torture one bit, the lesser of two evils will be torture for criminal masterminds, than torture to babies in the womb. my 2 cents.
Gingrich embraced the catholic faith last Easter, correct? Does that NOT include RCIA trainig, acceptance, and confession followed by forgiveness? What did Christ tell the woman caught in adultery? He did NOT say, “Oh well, too bad. Look what you did 10, 20 30 years ago.” Gingrich is a very smart guy. To embrace the Catholic faith is an incredible decision on his part. I have to believe that at age 68 he has found “the way”. We are supposed to be about forgiveness. Your column rejects that whole concept.
I agree with Larry… Newt converted, presumably after making things right with God in our faith. Why does something he did in 1980(!) have relevance now? I know I’ve changed alot since then - converted to pro-life, reverted to my Catholic faith, repaired other moral faults - hasn’t Mr. Shea?
Ted Kennedy did far worse in his life than Gingrich, including causing the scandalous death of a woman, not his wife, in Chappaquick, but he was given the full Rite of Christian Burial in our church, presumably because he’d confessed and repented. I’ll vote for Gingriach in the general election vs. the apostate Obama.
Love you Mark Shea, but I will vote for him. He has made many mistakes, and even though you don’t think so, he has acknowledged them.
GO NEWT!
For the record, Gingrich has released a statement stating that his position that life begins at conception and that he supports legislation “that would define personhood as beginning at conception.”
http://www.catholicvote.org/discuss/index.php?p=23718
I don’t pretend to explain the apparent contradiction with his interview on ABC News, any more than I can explain his support for keeping abortion legal in cases of rape and incest (see his response to the NRLC questionnaire on his website; otherwise his answers are 100% pro-life.)
What bitter writings Bitter fruit from a bitter tree? David was a murderer. From his loins came Jesus. Paul enjoyed the killing of Steven yet God changed him. Augustine had a child by his live-in girl friend. What happened to his child? God sure used him. Holy Mother Church received Newt with open arms and forgiveness and heard his confession. I get the impression, Mark, that you were born a Saint.
Mark, you forgot to include the disclaimer at the end:
“I’m Mitt Romney and I approve this message” ;)
Typical of this left-wing liberal, wind bag ! He & others like him are the reason that the muslim-communist was elected in the first place. He is only free to write this drivel because of our strong military. If water-boarding saved but one soldiers life then it was worth it. Surely the National Catholic Register can employ better people that this !!!!!
Looks like all the foxes are in a dither this morning. And dang, I was heartbroken to find out that the “endorsement” by Herman Cain for Newt wasn’t a done deal. But what if Cain endorsed Newt. How would the foxes howl that away in this combox or their favorite foxes on Lupine News Network finesse that kind of an awkward scenario?
Sigh, I guessed it had to be too good to be (enjoyably) true. It’s Monday after all. Given the quality of this year’s Republican debate class (with The Donald sitting in as a sub teacher soon LOL) who knows there’ll be for the rest of us in the predominately 99 percent portion of the population to laugh about. Stay tuned, folks, just stay tuned. But don’t buy Godfather pizza. The politics of excusing away more supply side baloney is enough to give anybody a month of monday’s worth of indigestion.
Mark, in the past you have dismeissed the “lesser of two evils” argument. But the bishops seem to have endorsed the “lesser of two evils argument” in Faithful Citizenship: “When all condidates hold a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, the conscientious voter faces a dilemma. The voter may take the extraordinary step of not voting for any candidate or, after careful deliberation, may decide to vote for the candidate deemed less likely to advance such a morally flawed position and more likely to pursue other authentic human goods” (par. 36)
What do you think, Mark? Obama supports the intrinsic evil of abortion and Gingrich supports the intrinsic evil of torture. Dare we ask which candidate’s policies will cause the least harm? The bishops seem to be saying that we not only can, but should, do just such a thing. Why heap scorn on those who are only trying, in all seriousness, to think through the issues in the way the bishops recommend. The bishops say that refraining from voting is an “extraordinary step”, which means we should probably choose one candidate or another. But all the candidates are, in one way or another, morally objectionable.
I will not vote for Gingrich in the priamry, but I will vote for him in the general, if he is the nominee. I believe he will do less harm than Obama, and I refuse to balm my conscience by voting for someone who has no chance of winning (Ron Paul).
Obama is the worst president ever. His lack of love for core Christain values is a disgrace. Newt, even with limitations, will still appoint prolifers onto the Supreme court and oppose gay marriage. So it is very damaging to the cause of truth to say that you would not vote for him in a race against Obama.
Mr. Shea,
I share some of your concerns. However, I wish you had you spent some time contrasting Speaker Gingrich’s negatives with the other voter choices among the current crop of GOP candidates. After reading your article, all I can conclude is that Mr. Gingrich likely represents the least objectionable viable candidate of the lot.
“What’s really important anyway, is that the CHURCH has taken care of his marriage situation. To convert, he had to go to confession and be cleansed of past sin”.
Yes; but does he still cohabit with his current woman?
It was HST who asked “if a man will not keep his word to his wife, to whom will he keep it?”.
Dumb does not mean stupid; it means mute.
You appear to believe that the U.S. is God’s country and that all will be well. All is never well in this world. This stance is a remnant from the Puritan founders.
Try THE CITY OF GOD. Note the resemblances to the Empire of that period.
Right on, Mark! It’s time for all of us Catholics to wake up from this game they’ve been playing on us for years. “Lesser of two evils” doesn’t work. I’m not asking for perfection, I am just asking for the bare minimum of a candidate who does not support an intrinsic evil like torture, embryo experiments and assassination.
I am appalled that he is the front runner, though I also must admit he is the most qualified among the repub candidates for the job; the next closest, whoever that turns out to be, is in third place. Having said that, I do not at ALL support him as a person.
But remember: A vote for a third party candidate OR leaving the space blank virtually hands the election to Obama. The USCCB is very clear: We cannot vote for a candidate who promotes evil, say as in promoting “choice” (which at lest Gingrich does not). It also makes clear, though, that we may choose the lesser of two evils, an option that is not relevant when there are more than two choices.
BUT there are only two now. And one of them, Obama, is the most stridently anti-Catholic/Christian, pro-abortion, pro-gay president in our history. And that is not even counting his failed leadership and economic scandals. Gingrich, for all his ways we do not approve of, is clearly NONE of that.
Great Post Mr. Shea…I thought I had lost all sanity and had descended into Alice-in-Wonderland. I tell people not to listen to gingrich’s smooth talking but to check the PATTERN of his actions. He got flak for saying that abortions are okay before implantation and so he reversed his remarks and LifeNews seems to be praising him for that. Newt is so self-absorbed, so deceitful that it’s scary. And he is pulling the wool over everyone’s eyes. I find myself wishing with all my heart that there would be a child in his crowd of admirers who would cry out in a loud voice while pointing at newt and declaring: “The emperor has no clothes on!” - newt has clothed himself in lies and misinformation and is wearing a mask of a benevolent grandfather but he is extremely dangerous and delusional. He is the one who writes notes to himself about how he will save mankind and about the fact that since he is so brilliant: ‘people don’t care what I do only about what I say.” and in fact, he seems to be right about this.And I don’t understand his current wife…she was singing in the Choir of the Immaculate Conception in Washington, saying she was a practicing Catholic all the while engaged in adulterous behavior with gingrich for 6 years…!!! this is a seriously sick pattern of behavior and I don’t understand why people say character doesn’t matter…it does matter - it matters above all else. A brilliant politician without character or morals or core principles will destroy himself and his country and his family without any regret. Newt’s massive ego and total self absorbtion does not leave room for truth because he must and will do anything that pleases him, that feeds his massive ego. Beware giving this man more power…if you love your family and your country - then beware!!!
I’m sorry, Mr. Shea, but I’m embarrassed that we are part of the same faith.
Your comments are not only uncharitable, but intentionally biting and highly, highly illogical. As has been noted by several comments above, it’s disappointing that the Register would even allow you to post the sort of vitriolic hate that you clearly revel in.
As many have also noted, your “I’ll take someone with next to no visible virtue rather than someone whose virtue I am allowed to critique” line of thinking so rather akin to the ways in which children think. Young ones.
Further, Mr. Gingrich corrected his misstatement about the implantation/conception issue here: http://www.catholicvote.org/discuss/index.php?p=23718
Perhaps you should read and pray a little more before you decide to throw up all over a convert in the future.
Gee Mark, you’d really hate me too if you knew my past. And my husband just converted to Catholicism this spring. What a horrible man he is too. If it comes down to Acorn O vs. Gingrinch, you’ll have to go with Mr. Abortion because he has no past.
Thanks Mark!!! I find you spot on and will be voting a fairly clear conscience this time around. No more holding my nose and voting for the lesser of two evils as though there’s only two party candidates. Those two parties may have a monopoly scheme going on, but I am refusing to participate anymore. The rest of you need to catch up. We’ll be waiting for you all if we get more of the same from either of the two parties next election. Until then, reread what Mark wrote here. He really is spot on!
Mark, knowing who Obama is, and what he stands for, and what he can do, in my view you and all Catholics have a moral obligation to vote against him.
That is, no matter who is the Republicans candidate.
MARK, ONE NEEDS TO USE DISCERNMENT. People do change. I believe you use bad judgement.
It breaks my heart to have to agree with you about not voting for Obama or Gingrich.
I find it impossible to believe that a convert of Gingrich’s intellectual ability could come out of his probably private RCIA class not knowing that life begins when the sperm unites with the egg.
Until he offered his theory about implantation as the moment life begins, I was going to hold my nose and vote for him, even though every time I see his wife singing in the Basilica choir her hairdo makes me think of nuclear war.
Drafting Jeb Bush may be the answer. He could debate Obama. And I’m afraid that drafting Christie or Ryan would lead to a loss.
http://www.lifenews.com/2011/12/05/gingrich-restates-pro-life-views-says-life-begins-at-conception/
“he narrows discussion to only that species of torture that is terror drowning (for which “waterboarding” is the euphemism) and neglects to mention the beatings, suffocation and freezing with which we have murdered prisoners.” are you implying that Gingrich and the other GOP candidates would support these other forms of torture?
Just to let you know, I’m not a huge fan of Gingrich myself, but how do you countenance the King David objection? He committed adultery AND murder. I mean can’t God use a repentant sinner? Of course, he has to recognize his wrongdoing, but shouldn’t we give him the benefit of the doubt and let this become a debate about whose policies are most in line with God’s law and the common good?
Wow….. I zone out reading this article because it immediately turns into a rant full of emotional anger, bitterness, and indulgent self righteousness. It is not calm presentation of facts and ideas. It lacks charity towards past sins of an individual. It seems to indulge in gossip…...how do you know what happened in the hospital….it’s a he said, she said. On what basis do you extend the benefit of the doubt towards one party or another? Do you know them personally or were you there in the hospital room with them. A little more grace please.
I have doubts about all the presidential candidates. When you find the perfect candidate please let us know with the same enthusiasm that you use teardown the imperfect ones. However, when Christ returns I doubt there will be an election. Blessed be God forever!
Waiting on the gen election, but would NEVER vote for Obummer. Ron Paul looks and sounds like a Muslim and Chi-Com lover and that scares the hell out of me and my family.
Ron Paul seems to be an honest guy, but would lose in a fist fight. (Our world still has lots of them; heck Obummer gets black eyed all the time.)
Mark, you have a very low threshold of tolerance for rotten fish (or a very high one, I’m not sure). But if you’re looking for a candidate with impeccable personal integrity, you better leave the republican field altogether and go donkey.
From what we know about Pres. Obama, he’s an exemplary choice. Married only once, with two bright young daughters and an engaging wife - he makes the republicans resemble, well, the McCains. And aside and apart from the content thing, Mr. Obama is as single-minded and dedicated as any US president since McKinley.
What’s more, the man is the picture of integrity. Ask his clients at PPF, or LGBT Alliance or Goldman Sachs. No one is truer blue than Obama. His only disadvantage is that he is a child of divorce, who nevertheless rose up to reach the highest office in the land. (He’s a good writer too, and prolific!)
You could take issue with his views, but reasonable people disagree all the time. Wasn’t that the point of his ND speech? What’s really needed in a president is someone who can inspire the nation, deliver on really big reforms like healthcare (despite enormous institutional resistance), and make this country a fairer, better place.
It’s no wonder those repubs are all stumbling over themselves. Not only are they pagan, womanizing, depraved neo-Christians. But they haven’t even figured out where the goal line is in their scrum.
very vitriolic and bitter, indeed
Although I agree with the viewpoints, with this sort of thinking, it’s going to be Ross Perot electing Clinton all over again. 4 more years for Obama.
Obama supports abortion at any age: late term and partial birth abortions right up to death panel murder of the elderly. Yeah, swell guy.
Why don’t you tell us how you really feel???? Mr. Shea, I can truly relate to the nature of the post. Personally, I thought the “conversion” was just a political ploy anyway. But, as one of the comments alluded to earlier, your bias is obvious, and to me, almost excessive.
One thought I have (for free discourse is essential) is that most politicians use double-speak. Yes, you caught him with his hand in the cookie jar. But what is important here is this: does your livelihood come from a 501(c)3 organization? If so, then you have crossed the line in some form or fashion. I am all for political speech but the IRS is sees things in a different light. Tread lightly but leave the big stick behind (torture you know).
Arthur Henry’s comment nailed it.
Hello again Mr Shea,
I think you bring up some valid points. It is hard to trust him looking at his record and we must be prudent. But putting prudence aside, 1,2, and 5 seem to be matters of opinion. I do not buy into the supporting of evil, even if it happens to be lesser. But that does not mean that 1,2, and 5 are in any way binding. It is possible to hope that his conversion did make a difference and that he may very well be starting on the right path, though obviously with his waterboarding support, no fully there.
4, it seems, has little to do with Mr Gingrich himself, so I won’t include my comments here (though I’m very disappointed in the senate for passing that bill- especially Senator Marco Rubio).
It seems to come down to number 3: where life begins and waterboarding.
Mr Gingrich’s statements about implantation (though apparently corrected later) raise a huge red flag and make you wonder whether or not I’m just being had (especially in light of 1,2, and 5).
As for waterboarding, this seems to be the deciding factor. Newt seems to have changed his opinion recently from being unsure if waterboarding is torture, to being sure that it is not. This, I believe, is morally wrong and I would be forced to not vote for him. I say would, because I’ve often heard arguments that, for instance, you can vote for a pro-abort as long as that position which the candidate is applying for has nothing to do with abortion. I see a slight similarity (though you can argue prudence here as well) in Mr Gingrich’s support for waterboarding; as you have said and linked to, the CIA and many other people found waterboarding to be far more trouble than it’s worth and by their own admission, it is highly improbable that they will go down that path again.
So, in conclusion, I think this comes down to a matter of weighing prudence, trust, and hope. I still don’t know where I stand, but I do not believe that, knowing what we know, a vote for Gingrich is an absolute moral wrong. I believe that it is a matter of personal judgement.
I’d love to hear your thoughts on my analysis. I am aware that the reasoning may be flawed and I value you’re opinion, especially in matters of such grave importance.
Like many others, I both agree & disagree: Agree that Gingrich would not be in my Top 10 List of People I Know Who Would Make a Good President. But, in my opinion, he outranks Obama. As a previous comment asserted, it appears that the US bishops would rather that we all have a *moral obligation* to at least vote for *somebody*, even if it means the lesser of two evils. And to me, Gingrich falls into that category.
You gave us a list of the shortcomings of Newt, of which there are many. I’m not a particular fan of his. But you didn’t articulate why you would not vote for a mostly pro-life Catholic (based on decades of Congressional votes) for the most most pro abortion President in the history of the Republic. We don’t even know if Newt will be the Republican nominee. Why are so so quick to rush out this attack on Newt and make such an extreme statement?
The sort of vitriol only spouted among Republicans who are Paulbot fanatics. They are a race apart. This hate-filled rant should not have been allowed by the Register.
Gingrich cannot win against “O” BECAUSE of all his baggage. So the idea that he will be the R nominee is absurd. He alone believes that. Dems would love to see him as the nominee BECAUSE he is easily beaten. His arrogance & hubris will defeat him in the end. As a R conservative Catholic I could never vote for a man such as he and there are many like me who will not vote for Newt.
My bet is on Romney - a Mormon who has NO personal or political baggage. Check him out - he IS more conservative than Newt ever was. Check out both of their histories. Romney is a man of solid family values; pro life based on conviction; whom I believe will be a great POTUS like Lincoln who as a faith filled believer in our Creator, will preserve the nation under the Constitution and under our Creator.
I stopped listening to what might have been well formed reason when your rants abandoned reason all together. I live in part of the country that is primarly non-Catholic. We have had learned from our separated brethern that Catholics can learn from them. Specifically that we are all sinners in need of God’s mercey. Converts can make the best evangelizers. But apparently you know what’s in a person’s heart, don’t you Mr. Shea? And now you proceed to scandilize someone who says the right thing, but you simply don’t beleive them. I refer you to the 1983 Code of Canon Law, CAN 220, “No on e is permitted to harm illegitimatley the good reputation which a personpossessses nor to injur the right of any person to protect his or her own privacy.” In fact Book II, Section I, Title I deals with the idea of Christian Obligations and Rights of All the Christian Faithful. This was introduced for the first time in Canon Law after Vatican II. When a priest absolves you of your sins, he must have good reason to deny it. How in God’s name can you read not only his heart, but his daughters’ and command everyone else to declare him a lair.
Mr. Gingerich has done some very bad things in his life. But if he says the right thing and is willing to do so in the face of public scrutiny, who appointed you a King David to slay him?
You know a conscience is not an oracle. We have an objective human nature that can only be perfected by grace. We can be receiptive to allowing grace to work in us. But we have to rely on eternal law to guide us. If he says he has changed, and it espousing approapriate doctrine, what else can we go on? Disordered passions of your personal judgment?
well he’s better than Obama
herp derp
don’t blame me, I voted for Kodos
Mark,
With all due respect, you’re not convincing me. I can’t see how voting for Newt would be just as evil as Obama. I have to go with the lesser of two evils if that’s the only practical option. Even though you wouldn’t be literally voting for Obama if you didn’t vote for Newt, it seems to me that’s what it amounts to. Loved your book, By What Authority?
So what you are saying is… you don’t believe in conversion, unless it’s your conversion.
I am infuriated by the fastidious, hair-splitting, how-many-angels-on-a-pinhead thinking of people like Mark Shea. If he can’t see the critical differences between a ruthless, hard core, secular leftist like Barack Obama and a flawed, imperfect but repentent and basically decent Newt Gingrich—God help our country.
Kimberly Walters ought to replace Mark Shea as the blogger here. Her post was without personal passion and succinct, a word Shea should look up in the dictionary.
So I guess you don’t believe in conversion, unless it’s your conversion.
I agree with most of your assessment (although I don’t know yet how I’ll vote if Newt gets the nomination). But this is unfair:
“(Gingrich) even tried to paint serial adultery as a consequence of his intense love of country.”
No, that’s how he was quoted in most of the news media, but that wasn’t at all what he was blaming his adultery on. He was saying that he put his work ahead of his family life, and screwed up his priorities thereby. It’s still inexcusable, but not nearly as egregious as the out-of-context quote made it sound.
Much like your principle of subtracting 40 IQ points when the media talk about Catholicism, it’s a good idea, when the media quote a conservative as saying something really appalling, to ask yourself, “Did he really mean that they way it sounds in edited form?” More often than not, he didn’t.
Mr. Shea,
If you could write in a candidates name, who would you write in?
Score on reasoning.
Miss on tone (again.)
Newt is nebulous but have you seen his wife? Helmet-head blonde barbie on steroids. Her hair alone could climb Mt. Everest with not a wisp out of place. Never should she be Mrs. Prez. If we’re not already the laughing stock of the world…with her in the White House, we would be ridiculed beyond measure. And this is the woman Newt traded “up” for??
And Mr. Shea, if the choice is Obama or Gingrich? Then what do you do? I did not read your entire article as the first few sentences seemed to me written by a self-ritious person that has limited capability of putting themselves in another’s shoes and having Christian love in their heart.
I will vote for Newt because his is more pro-life than Obama (which is not hard to do). However, Newt cannot call himself a Catholic because he doesn’t accept the Church’s teachings. He seems a little “cafeteria-like” to me (with his comment on when life begins).
It’s funny how the pro-Gingrich crowd has to trip all over themselves with contradictions to support him, when there is a candidate that is ideologically sound, has been married to the same woman for 54 years, is 100% pro-life, anti-torture, and is an Air Force veteran who wants to bring our troops home.
That man is Ron Paul, and he has my vote in 2012.
The growth of “Caesar’s overt anti-Catholic policy is far liklier under Dems than Republicans. Tips the balance for me.
Not that anybody’s listening, but to recap: I fully grant that Gingrich is a Catholic convert. I can’t read his heart. What I can read are his words and actions. They persuade me that while he should certainly be allowed to approach the altar (his bishop, after all, says it’s fine) he should not be allowed to approach the presidency and cannot be trusted. This is not “judgmentalism”. This is called “prudence”. Every voter exercises it (which is why nobody is wringing hankies and weeping over the bitter “judgmentalism” of saying Obama should not be voted for either.
Nor is it perfectionism to demand that a candidate for president should not ask me to endorse grave and intrinsic evil. The fact that so many Catholics are willing to regard the fear of hell as fussy tells you all you need to know about the corrupting effect of American political discourse on the Faith.
Finally, as I have said before, since it looks highly unlike that the GOP will nominate either of the two candidates who do not ask me to support grave sins worthy of the everlasting fires of hell, I will either vote for a third party candidate who does not ask this or I will move down the ballot and vote for the next office.
Mark - who meets your criteria? Please share with us the candidate that best represents you and the reasons.
Wow, Mr. Shea, you don’t pull any punches! But I believe that you are completely correct, especially in your analysis of the erosion of our rights. The things that are going on in this country, on right and left alike, are not merely reminiscent of, but are actually in some cases identical to, the tactics used by the Nazis and the Communists…and we know where all that went.
You should write a book or take on any other activity that will get the word out more. If Glenn Beck can sell lots of books, so could you - and what you have to say would be a great benefit to the NY Times Bestseller crowd who don’t read this blog. Since you rightly abhor torture, the lefties might even give you a chance!
I am sure you will be pilloried by some folks for your opinions, but you are right on track with the Faith, and if the Hannity crowd doesn’t like it, it’s too bad—-go read your catechism y’all!! I think many of us Catholics are fools for believing that the political conservatives in power now are any more our friends than anyone else.
As for me, I don’t know if I will be able to bring myself to vote in the upcoming election…I think with all due respect that the non-Obama candidates are nuts! (What do you think of Santorum?)
Gingrich may have had a real conversion, and may be very sincere, but I don’t think he can be trusted to do the right thing on some very important points.
We Catholics need to be careful about trusting the rich elites in this nation. History and current events show that when push comes to shove, they do not hesitate to vote for their interests against the common good.
PS - not that Obama is an option - absolutely not - to vote for him is to directly support our own coming-and-already-here oppression - but can we really vote for any of these others either! Yikes!
I’d be interested to hear Mark’s response to the bishops (as quoted by Carl Sommer above) which seems to allows for voting for a candidate who supports intrinsic evil.
Hi Sam:
I discuss this here. Also in the comboxes. Let readers note that I offer no judgment at all of how *you* choose to vote. I simply make clear what I will (not) do and why.
Mark, I think you are wrong about Newt. I too was once a Protestant and behaved some what like Newt but have
made an about face leading an entirely different life. Every thing you bring up is from the past have a little faith.
Good, Shea, don’t. I’ll cancel your vote.
Michele Bachmann is a great choice. If men can overcome their aversion to a woman being in power, she would be a great president.
Oh, to be such a “Catholic” purist as Mark Shea that I would be able to allow my vote against Gingrich, if he were to be the GOP presidential nominee, to have the power of one more vote for Obama. To have such a clear conscience surely must be a blessing. Perhaps his saintliness and my mere humanness is the reason reading his messages are becoming so trying to me.
To Kimberly Walters:You said,“Ron Paul has been dismissed as a viable
choice for the Family Leader to endorse,based on his lack of standing up for supporing pro life efforts at the national level.”
Miss Walters, you have not done your home work.
Dr. Paul has authored legislation that seeks to define life as beginning at conception, H.R. 1094.
He is the prime sponsor of H.R. 300, which would negate the effect of Roe vs. Wade by removing the ability of federal courts to interfere with state legislation to protect life.
Dr. Paul also authored H.R. 1095 which prevents federal funds to be used
for so-called “population control.”
Dr. Paul quotes:
“I believe beyond a doubt that a fetus is a human life deserving of legal protection, and that the right to life is the foundation of any moral society.”
“Reaffirming the importance of the sanctity of life is crucial for the continuation of a civilized society.”
Miss W. You owe Dr. Paul a written apology.
You are such a good Catholic I’m sure that you realize that calumny is a
serious sin.
You also spoke of the Family Leader (whatever that is). Dr.Paul has been married to the same woman for 54 years, has 5 children, 18 grandchildren and 3 great grandchildren. There is not a hint of scandal in the entire family.
May God have mercy on those who speak ill of a honest and loyal man like Dr. Paul.
Two quotes from the Word of God come to mind: “Let him who is without sin cast the first stone,” (John 8:1-11), and, “Judge not, lest you be judged.” (Matthew 7:1-5)
As others have already noted, many of us have had turbulent pasts, but with the grace of God who has converted our hearts, we have sought forgiveness for our manifest sins in the sacrament of Confession, and we have set our hands to the plough. Please God that no one judge me because of my past; rather, permit them to see me as I am now with the grace of Him who not only forgives, but forgets.
Mark,
Although I have been a regular reader of your blog and STILL believe in your sincerity, pheeewww…!!! I can feel the heat of this post sitting in my den…!!!
Mark…please don’t quit your ‘day job’...stay out of politics…!!!
By voting for a third party candidate, you effectively vote for Obama. I would vote for Bill Clinton before I would vote for Obama.
Don’t forget one of the chief duties of the next president…to nominate members to the Supreme Court…!!!
If no one else was on the ballot but Obama, I would write in YOUR name, but I would NOT vote for a third party candidate nor would I sustain from voting…!!!
Be an apologist for Jesus and His Church, but please stay out of this type of political rhetoric, particularly on this valuable blog…!!!
God Bless…!!!
Thanks, Fran
Please tell me why my contribution to this ridiculous debate is spam since it is composed of facts about Ron Paul’s support of the prolife cause since Miss Walters claimed he did not stand up for pro-life at the national level. I cannot stand by when a good family man and loyal American like Dr. Paul is misjudged. To lie about a man without an ounce of scandal in his life is calumny which is a serious sin. A good Latin Mass like Miss Walters should know that.
I’m willing to believe Newt is a flawed man, and he is not my top choice (though miles ahead of Obama). Nevertheless, I read a really touching book of his where he and one of his wives (current?) defended our nation’s religious past in a series of photos and vignettes (“Rediscovering God in America: Reflections on the Role of Faith in Our Nation’s History and Future”). I’m sure that cost him mainstream clout to stand up for his beliefs. The tone was very humble both to God and to the giants of our American history. This was several years ago (2006) before the idea of him running for anything was ridiculous. I feel that anyone who could author something that touching and prominent must have some good in him.
Please consider voting for him if he wins the nomination. We can’t take Obama.
Somebody above stated they were a R conservative but would vote for Romney.
If you’re a conservative, he’d be last on the list lol.
Hi Mark! Up to your old liberal bias again! I would not expect you would be voting for a Repub no matter who it might be…certainly not Newt! Just to set the record straight: it was Mrs Gingrich who sought the divorce, not Newt, and her surgery was for a non-cancerous tumor! That old saw about the hospital scene has made the liberal rounds now for decades and truth be told the former Mrs G.is alive and well and accordingly bears no ill will towards the father of her daughters. I am not going to defend Newt to you…can’t change a leopards spots…but he at the moment is the only one who seems to be talking the talk and walking the walk of family values as well as Catholic ones regarding pro-life and other consequential issues. If it comes down to Newt vs Obama quess you will just stay home, huh? Your privilege and right! Some of us feel we owe our future more than that and will exercise our right to vote…for Newt is the only man right now on the scene that offers any hope of clearing up the mess we are in…he did it before and has the capability of repeating that performance. As for the rest of your worries, I would dismiss them with the belief that the man has repented publically and redemption is a reality we need to uphold! Sometimes we just have to go with our gut! This man comes across as a force unlike any other to turn this country around asap! Could luck in the voting booth!
Mr. Shea, electing saints ain’t easy, you are right. Neither is electing saints the purpose of voting. If Chesterton was right [of course he was] then his idea is completely incompatible with American democracy. Note: you live under American democracy. Develop some other criteria than Chesterton’s for casting your vote. Failure to do so is not only imprudent, but, I believe, an abdication of your responsibility.
I have read your columns for many years and in one respect at least you always fiddle the same tune: you emphasize that what are in your view mortal flaws in men make them unfit to do any good. It is as if you feel that voting for such a man makes you a partaker of his mortal sin. That would be the case only if you were voting for him because you agreed with his sin. But since you do not agree with it, you can still use this tool which civil society gives you—a vote—to put in power the better man, according to your understanding of what is better. You should use it. You can pound the guy at the same time for what you think is wrong about him if you want to, and if you feel it is the right thing to do. But if one guy believes in what you think is torture, abortion, and divorce-on-demand, and hangs out with communists; and the other just believes in torture and cheated on his wives, why not vote for the second guy, if one of the two is inevitably going to rule over your country?
Don’t be deceived! Mark Shea is one of the 53% of catholics who voted for Obama in 2008. His every post denies it and then admits it. “Me thinks the gentleman does protest too much”.
Mark,
Just as a brotherly(fatherly) aside, Slander, which is defamation even if true, is much worse than calumny…!!!
Know your sins…!!!
I would be more shocked to see Obama in a Confessional line than Newt…!!!
Unfortunately for all of us, the likeability of candidates has only recently made the news…I personally don’t think that any of the front runners are as ‘likeable’ to prospective voters as is Obama…I cannot explain this phenomenon…
If I were to list MY favorites based on conscience it would be Santorum, Bachman, Paul, Gingrich, then Romney…
If however, I would rate according to electability…it would be Romney, Paul, Gingrich, Bachman, Santorum…
Be prepared to see the remaining time until elections in 2012 full of apologetics supporting Obama and his reelection…follow the money and political machinery…!!!
Thanks, Fran
We don’t usually agree on politics, but I completely agree with you here. I’m a Conservative and I have to admit Newt is a flawed person. He is completely dysfunctional, both in his personal life and political world. He is incapable of management and that’s a thumbs down for a president. I hope to god he’s not nominated.
Wow! Well, I gotta say I am really very surprised to find this very strong opinion and emotion against a GOP candidate in an article found on a Catholic site!! I am not a catholic I just happened upon this article as it was a link on another piece I was reading. What I wanted to say was that it seems to me a good number of voters in our country are not happy with any of the choices we have this election, regardless of which side or party you affiliate yourself with. Honestly, when I first saw that Newt was running I dismissed him as a viable candidate due to his despicable behavior on many levels. He is simply an unethical, liar and womanizer, who feels the law does not apply to him. I find his “conversion” highly suspect and a very convenient way for him to be suddenly cleansed of so many wrongs it would take pages to list them all! The US needs to get the money out of politics so that we could maybe get some real, honest, decent individuals who have knowledge of finance and management as well as personal integrity running for the highest office in our country. Peace be with you all :)
TonyC:
You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor. I swear before Almighty God that I have never voted for a pro-abort pol (including Obama) and will never do so. You should go to confession for telling that lie. For my part, I forgive you.
Thirst for Truth…yes, his first wife did file for a divorce…why would she not since her husband had been having affairs and had already asked wife number two to marry him…just as he asked wife number three to marry him while he was still married to wife number two..his current wife/former mistress Callista claimed she was a practicing Catholic, singing in the Choir at the Immaculate in Washington while she was having a 6 year adulterous affair with Newt…and she wants to sit in the White House as first lady of the land…? Perhaps God has forgiven them - but newt has been just as unfaithful to conservative values as he was to his wives. I hadn’t thought of Jeb Bush until another commenter mentioned him but he would be a wonderful candidate. gingrich says he’s sure he himself will be the nominee..I don’t think so.
Given the choice between Gingrich or Obama, Gingrich gets my vote. There are glaring, huge differences between those two. Gingrich is not perfect; (he doesn’t know yet when life begins), but I’m sure he would be totally against partial-birth abortions and right now, at this point in history, that has to be a start. Obama has been abominable on life issues. Anybody but Obama for me.
Mr. Mark Shea,
You are on point!! It is a hard point to get across to people, who feel that taking Obama out of Office and replacing him with somebody else that is not him is the right thing to do. That logic really is childish and dangerous.
After months of tossing and turning, I also decided that I would not be pandered too anymore. I now understand the movement a little bit more, and I am armed with all the proof I need, to not vote for the false options I have been presented.
With all shame, I will say that I eviscerated my house mate in 2008 for even thinking about not voting for Senator McCain because of what I labelled silly arguments. I have since come to understand that McCain and Obama are the same, and Newt Gingrich and the other candidates for office are the same. Obama is the face of neo-conservatism. With him in office, why vote him out to replace him with somebody who might turn out to be worse? That is the question.
On the other hand, if Ron Paul makes it, I’ll be casting my vote for him. He is a classic conservative and practices what he preaches. Even his opponents in congress agree that Ron Paul is honorable—a man of his word.
He is the only Congressman who thought it worthy to pen a letter to JPII and read it on the floor of the house, the day following his death. The letter commended the pro-life work of the late pope. It was beautiful.
His latest ad is a real piece of work:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=MXCZVmQ74OA
Made me want to go out and ax a tree down.
Phil
Why would the Register publish a column from such a liberal nut, I have family millitary who’ve been waterboarded and they will tell you to call that torture is just stupid, and the 3 people who were waterboarded resulted in preventing several terrioust attacks likley saving thousands of lives.It’s inconceivable to put waterboarding (which no one has ever been injured from) on the same level as abortion which has killed millions.
The issue for any voter in a general election is not what sins a candidate may or may not have committed. It is not how orthodox he is in his beliefs. It is what he would do in office, as compared to what his opponent would do in office. This column does not address this question. Therefore it is useless. And if Mr. Shea thinks he has given anybody a good reason to refrain from voting for Newt Gingrich if he is the Republican nominee, he is sadly mistaken.
Mark Shea,
Let us take out an ad on the New York Times. We will run with this article. Every Catholic should read it.
History is on our side, and so are the great popes who wrote about the evils of secret societies and groups of people who are plotting to rob the human body, and then soul (Bilderbergers and CFR’s).
The Patriot Act has turned us into enemy combatants. I get very angry when Catholics complain about the nuns, 84 year old women and little 3 year old Bobby getting severely patted down by TSA. Don’t you all understand that it is the Patriot Act that enables this to happen in America?!!!
Think of the famous dialogue between Thomas More and his son-in-law, Roper:
Margaret More: Father, that man’s bad.
Sir Thomas More: There’s no law against that.
William Roper: There is: God’s law.
Sir Thomas More: Then God can arrest him
William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
William Roper: Yes, I’d cut down every law in England to do that!
Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned ‘round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all
being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man’s laws, not God’s! And if you cut them down, and you’re just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake!
So, we cheer these rendition laws and S.S type laws for the false sense of security. What will happen in the end is that pro-lifers and others will be lumped into the wide definition of domestic terrorists. It is not unimaginable.
Phil
Mr. Shea. Try reading this article. It may help exain on how and why Newt has grown as a politician and a person, though the years.
http://www.crisismagazine.com/2011/newt-keeps-pitching-the-america-of-his-imagination
Robert,
Water-boarding is torture. It is that simple. I too was at a loss 2 years ago. I thought I would turn into a liberal if I said it was torture, but I still am very conservative, and it has been a year plus since I became sober in my views.
The truth is that I sought it out for myself. I didn’t let Fox News or 24 tell me what to think. I simply looked into Catholic definition.
Secondarily, when politicians use a phrase like, Enhanced Interrogation, what they are doing is using clever speak called semantics. It is what liberals do when they say, “it’s just a glob of cells” instead of saying “It is human life.
When somebody is constantly tickled, even after they have yelled, “STOP!!”, that is torture. Torture doesn’t have anything to do with the extraction of blood or with bodily duress.
And, for the record, Ron Paul has the most support from Military (active and inactive) than all the Republicans combined.
There’s no way anybody who calls themselves Catholic can vote for President Pro-Abortion Obama. No Way! Please ABSTAIN from voting for Obama to save one’s soul from possible judgement of a serious sin, IMO.
The more I read about Gingrich and his conversion, the more I can’t help wondering just how DUMBED DOWN OUR STANDARDS HAVE BEEN REDUCED TO JUST SO WE CAN SAY, “LOOK, WE GOT A FORMER SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE, LOOK, A COUPLE OF BIG SHOT REPORTERS AND TALKING HEADS,” ETC.
Hell, I’ve forgotten more than Gingrich will have ever been expected to learn and truly accept. WHich in some ways says a lot more the for standards cradle Catholics of pre-Vatican II days were expected to master, viz-a-viz celeb converts.
Mark,
Who do you think would run a better nation? Do you think Obama is more competent or Gingrinch? John Paul II said competency comes first, before religion or moral character. Do you want me to get the quote?
I believe Gingrich’s marriages were annulled before he joined the Catholic Church. Are you going to double-guess the authority of the bishops now?
You have to go back 25 years to get something? Boy, is this desperate.
But, of course, you will ignore that the first act of Obama was to sign overseas funding for abortion, and focus on Gingrich and unkindness? Is not abortion the greatest unkindness?
Testimony from people who know Gingrich is that he has changed behind the scenes. But, I guess St. Paul had his detractors as well.
I guess when the priest says the words of absolution, memos and committee documents still remain. We should forget the act of grace in reconciliation, and focus on Congressional committees and act of unkindness BEFORE a person converts.
Your rant sickens me. Go tell it to your confessor.
Yan, the Chesterton quote was posted by me (Mark T.), not Mr. Shea. It was meant to make the point we both made: We are not electing saints and we are not electing a king. However, Chesterton’s point, I think, is that it is not the academic aristocrat who should govern, nor is it the untrustworthy plutocrat, but rather the common man. Since no society is so ideal, what are we, as defenders of the Catholic faith, to do?
The commonest man in the race is Ron Paul. But not only is he unelectable, his libertarian leanings are largely not compatible with Catholic teaching. Santorum and Bachman are laudable but probably unelectable. Romney is just too slick, and his acceptance of Mormonism, in my view, makes me question his judgment. Newt is the untrustworthy plutocrat. Catholics voting their faith are stuck. My former favorites were non-candidate Bobby Jindal (Catholic convert) and former-candidate Thad McCotter (strong Catholic). But everyone listed above is miles ahead of the academic aristocrat, socialist progressive, immoral, anti-life, anti-family, and thoroughly anti-Catholic man presently occupying the White House.
America, as designed, is slowly dying. It’s not necessarily dying a natural death, but being killed by Bigness—flawed notions of progress and flawed notions of wealth. In this field of candidates, Ron Paul is the only man whose views can “save” a dying country. I’d be shocked if he got the nomination, (and he’s too old to beat Obama), so that will probably leave Newt or Romney. If it’s Romney, that takes Obamacare off the list of debatable issues (just as Cain would have taken the race card off the Dem’s attacking points). If it’s Newt, perhaps his good judgment in converting to the One, True Faith, will steer him to do what needs to be done—even if it’s just debating Obama into the ground and keeping him from a second term. Conservatives don’t have a true saint in the race. Liberals think they do; but their “exceptional man who knows he can rule,” if crowned again, will put America in its grave.
How bout voting for the right candidate and not “Most likely to succeed” or “Not Obama”? The only reason we have two political parties is because people are mystically convinced it can’t be any other way.
Gingrich is not being offered as a candidate for canonization.The most faithful,Catholic candidate would likely be Santorum.We are at war on several fronts simultaneously.Islamists,Radical Environmentalism,Multi-Culturalism,Relativism, Atheistic Totalitarianism, Atheistic Humanism,and a radical Homosexual agenda are confronting us and the world.When there are so many targets,why did you choose Gingrich? Do you support Ron Paul?Are you trying to set the stage for a third party candidate?What is your solution?
“Any politician who wants to court votes will yak about his devoutness for the camera.”
And, any hack, so-called Catholic writer who wants to court readers, eh, Mr. Shea?
Also, when did you acquire the power to bind and loose? You have no power to decree that those of us who have no problem with E.I.T.s are going to the lake of fire.
To make some sort of moral equivalence between those who don’t think waterboarding is torture and those who support sticking scissors into an unborn baby’s head, or, leaving a baby that survives abortion to die, like O’Bama, San Fran Gran Nan Pelosi, or Ted “the Swimmer” Kennedy, is ridiculous.
It is a calumny to call us supporters of torture. You need to confess your whole column to a priest, post haste!
Finally, please, do not vote. This is why the country is in the poor shape it is in, because of people like you, ignorant people, who think they are competent to vote.
For those who are interested in what the debate was all about concerning the Senate bill about detaining American citizens (who are also unlawful enemy combatants,) see Andrew McCarthy’s article, at National Review Online:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/284698/rand-paul-libertarian-extremist-andrew-c-mccarthy?pg=1
p.s. I’m no Gingrich supporter, but, if he’s the nominee, I’ll probably vote for him over President Downgrade.
p.p.s You could have given my some props for the “smelly hippy” line, don’t ya’ think?
Better Newt than Obama.
Dear Mark: Ok. So we know who you are against. Would you mind telling us who you are for? (Someone who is actually running, please?). Often we are forced to choose between the lesser of two “evils,” and Newt is much lesser than Obama in my opinion. What good would you do by not voting? It may salve your conscience, but, if the effect of your non-vote is four more years of Obama, then abortion will continue, DOMA will go away, death panels, etc. No candidate is perfect, so tell us Mark, which candidate is the least evil in your mind?
Dear Mark: Remember, conversion is a PROCESS, not an event. On occasion, it is an event, as in the conversion of St. Paul; but, that is the exception, not the rule! For a politician, wanting to be President, it’s a public process, as in the case of Herman Cain, and so many, many others; but again, it’s not normally that way. What we are witnessing is the conversion of Newt Gingrich. Praise God!
Mark, It’s no wonder 50% of the Catholics voted for Obama when people
like you write blogs like this one. Why don’t you write a scathing blog
about Obama or all the other baby killer democrates out there!
Mr Shea, to compare Newt with a pedophile was blatantly unfair and borders on stupid. If Newt wins the primary, we have no choice as Catholics to vote for him. Obama is chipping away at our religious liberties and forcing me to help pay for the evils he believes in by my tax dollars. It doesn’t get any worse than that. Whoever wins the primary will get my vote. I do believe in redemption and Newt is unfairly judged by you because you just don’t believe him. Newt is a scholar and a brilliant historian. At least he can give a speech without reading it as he goes along. By not voting for Newt, if he wins the primary, you are voting for Obama weather you like it or not. From your column, it seems your trying to get Obama reelected because that is exactly what will happen if people listen to you. Which is worse, voting for a man who believes in water boarding of terrorist suspects, or for a man who has no regard for innocent life who is in favor of extermination of those lives by the millions?
BT
As soon as you referred to Reagan as a pantywaist ... I realized I had been duped. What i believed to be a thoughtful piece was really just a tirade.
Yeah. And that St. Paul guy? That whole “conversion” thing was just an act. So what if Saul said he changed on the way to Damascus? I’m not buying it for a second! Those letters to the Romans, Corintians, etc.? Just clever ruses. There is NO WAY that God can act in a sinful man’s life and convert him. You’re completely right!
Jesus forgiving the adultress? Yep. He was duped. Jesus cured the centurion’s daughter. What a sucker. The good thief on the cross? Just faking, I guess.
You tell ‘em Mr. Shea! Cast that first stone! Remove that speck from your brother’s eye! You’re the guy to do it!
Kay:
I was speaking tongue in cheek. My point is that most conservatives now vehemently reject what Reagan, to his great credit, signed.
How can anyone listen to your “screaming”?
1. We are not electing someone to sainthood; nor is the former Speaker running for Pope.
2. A student of history is one who studies what came before, an intelligent person LEARNS from the past.
3. I will NOT vote for “Ross Perot”.
4. Mistakes WILL be made but I would rather see someone who is humble and open to change his life and his course.
5. Reality? Voters make decisions based on soundbites and fallacies. God help us; we will get the country we deserve. Yes God help us; He is the only one Who can.
Ahh. I lost the tongue-in-cheekiness .... I was so busy clicking off to read all your links ... and - poof - there went two hours of my life ... I got a little distracted from the point of the article which was apparently “Newt=Bad.” Mark I get your points. I have been in the same boat thinking, how can we find this guy acceptable when he represents some of exactly what we objected to in “other” guys of the past ... especially on personal decisions/morality issues. But there is no candidate that fits Catholic teaching. I look to life issues (which Newt has since your post modified his implantation means life speak) ... So what then? Throw out your support of the semi-unelectable (which frankly I think Newt is) and give it to the even more unelectable (Ron Paul). Because the most electable guy in the GOP might as well be the sitting POTUS. So, Mr. Shea, what is the solution? I want to vote prudently with my conscience as my guide. Yet still make my vote worthwhile, which at this time of the political season, it is. What now?
Hmm.. judging by the comments of late, it seems like a crowd showed up from CNN - “Catholics for Newt Now!!”
..but for Newt?
BRAVO MARK SHEA!!! If only our Bishops demostrated half the moral resolve and astute political insight. Thank you for being courageous in a nation that loves cowardice.
Look Catholics, just Ron Paul it up already: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oxtT2SdZ8ZU. Stop falling for all of the fake, cynical “moralists” of the GOP, and actually support with your money and effort a guy who has actually been a man of his word. You don’t have to agree with everything Ron Paul believes, but pretty much everything he stands for can only BENEFIT Catholics and the Church at this point. For St. Peter’s sake, one of his platform pieces is home-schooling: http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/homeschooling/. Do you know of another candidate who is this solid?
I take Newt at his word that he is a changed man. I would not like to be held responsible for my past sins. If I were, I would certainly go to hell. But redemption is ours Mark, through the blood of Jesus. If Gingrich has asked for forgiveness and has received it from our Lord Himself, who are we to hold him to his past mistakes. I love Santorum too and even Bachman. But I will support Gingrich because he can defeat Rosemary’s Baby and he has asked us to forgive him.
I am leaning away from voting for Newt, but there is the issue of his conversion. Does anyone know if this has dramatically altered his world view? He remains a member of the Council on Foreign Relations which scares the heck out of me. Anyone who knows what is really going on in the world would see this membership as a major impediment to voting for him. The CFR is the establishment that has been seeking worldwide dominance for quite some time. I would be interested in any insight anyone has into the last two year of Newts political life and world view.
Once more for those who cannot read: The issue is not whether Gingrich is a “real” Catholic. I grant that he is. I even grant that Pelosi and Biden are. If their bishops say they can approach the altar, it’s not my job to say otherwise. The issue is whether it is prudent to trust Gingrich (or Pelosi or Biden) with high office whatever their religious affiliation is. Gingrich (and Biden and Pelosi) make it clear to any who will look at their words and deeds that merely because they are Catholic is not a reason to trust them. What astounds me is that when I say “Judging a tree by its fruits, I would not trust Gingrich, Pelosi, or Biden with high office” the response of many readers here is either, “Oh yeah! Well why don’t you talk about Pelosi?” or else “Pelosi and Biden are bad and nobody should vote for them” followed immediately by “How dare you sit in judgment of Newt by saying he’s bad and nobody should ever vote for him? Who made you almighty God?” Apparently the watchword is “prudence and common sense discernment for me, but not for thee.”
Also, “Muslim communist”? Really? Do people even think before writing such gibbering nonsense? What’s next? Married bachelors? Towering dwarfs? How on earth can somebody be Muslim who believe in atheistic dialectical materialism?
BRAVO MARK SHEA!!! If only our Bishops demostrated half the moral resolve and astute political insight. Thank you for being courageous in a nation that loves cowardice.
For the love of God, will people *stop* with this “My new favorite folk hero gives me license to heap contempt on the bishops of Holy Church” schtick? The bishops have, in my book, demonstrated some rather remarkable resolve by refusing to the Church’s teaching get co-opted by ideologues from either side of the aisle. We owe them our gratitude, I think.
Kay:
I will have a post up tonight that will talk about what I make of voting as a moral act. I frankly think that it matters far more what voting does to us as we vote than the fantastically small impact it has on the outcome of a national election. In other words, I think it more important we completely rethink what the act of voting is than that we spend a lot of time strategizing about how our grain of sand is going to alter the Sahara or our drop of water is going to change the Pacific. We don’t have power to change the outcome of a national election. But we do have the power to radically change the kind of person we are. The problem with our national political conversation is that almost all of it is focused on saying that you need to embrace grave sin in order “get something accomplished”. I think, instead, the main thing a vote can accomplish is “refuse to embrace grave sin”.
As usual, you are right on the mark, Mark. Thank you for bringing forth all of the points you mention; I do not know what disturbs me most about Gingrich, but I do know that, since his support of torture is not a past, pre-Catholic sin, I could not vote for him on that point alone. We must not become the enemy we purport to oppose. A philosophy of fear and pre-emptive injustice is opposed in every way to our Catholic faith, no matter who expounds it.
Gingrich has his shortcomings, which he appears to try and address day by day, but Obama has a vacant moral conscience that is nothing short of diabolical. To try and compare the two shows an incredible lack of discernment between right and wrong.
As such, I will not be purchasing Mark Shea’s books any longer…
You sure are blustery, Mark.
Mark—Maybe my conscience is just not quite so fine-tuned as yours, but when I judge Gingrich’s public record against that of an Obama or a Pelosi or a Biden I have absolutely no qualms about giving my whole-hearted support to him. In fact, I think Newt is far above any of the current crop of candidates, including the self-righteous and self-important hypocrite Ron Paul.
Although not a Catholic, I appreciate your insight and analysis of all these points and agree with all of them, even #4, which requires a lot of foresight in order to see the damage that Newt can do as pres. As with most of the campaigns in recent history, excepting Reagan, it will be a case of the lesser of two evils for many voters if it is obama vs Gingrich. I continue to support Rick Santorum.
The left right paradigm is a sham. Both parties have sold out to the international banks and corporations. We need someone who will refuse the influence of those working towards greatly reduced sovereign. If one is pro-life then they will vote against a member of this establishment which it is the farthest thing from pro-life. What I want to know is if the Newt after his conversion, has changed sides, or if he has retained his very dangerous, One World Order and new age world view.
Ugh. Really, Mr. Shea? Obama vs. Gingrich is a toss up for you? I only read a few of the responses…. I concur with those that disagree with your irresponsible, somewhat vitriolic and nonsensical position. Do you KNOW the causes Obama champions? Ugh. Yet Gingrich’s position on waterboarding took that much space in your rant, er, column? How does that issue compare with, lets say, partial birth abortion? Myopic observations, Mr. Shea. Ugh.
The bishops say that refraining from voting is an “extraordinary step”, which means we should probably choose one candidate or another.
No, it seems the Bishops say that refraining from voting, OR voting for the candidate deemed less likely to advance an immoral position is an extraordinary step. There was the whole “OR” thing in that statement.
There also seems to be a great need for remedial arithmatic in this country. How does not voting for anyone = voting for Obama? Last I checked, 0 did not equal 1.
Mark. (Specifically in your response to me.) I may be choking this out .. but I mean it: In many ways you’re right. (No tongue in cheek.) I will look forward to your post on the moral implications of voting.
I know how little impact my vote has in the presidential election. And that’s a pill that seems to get harder to swallow. But I find it hard to believe at this stage of the primary game that it’s completely useless. (And I mean vote/support.)
Don’t we make a difference when we seek and support whatever fragments of the truth we can find in politics? I mean a big T truth. If I just go in a little closet and vote for my own sake (to save my own soul), verses casting a vote for someone who may have the ability to save (for example) the the most vulnerable among us and/or work for a greater good (e.g., someone who can actually impact some of the issues that speak the truth) how can there ever be a change? Here all along, I’ve believed that isn’t all about me BUT that I could still through my witness and action help change things for the better. So, which is it?
I’m sure my view is sophomoric. Sheesh. I’ll look forward to your next post. I’ve got to get back to work.
Funny thing. I remember Mr. Shea making this same argument in 2008 when it was McCain vs. Obama. No “lesser of two evils” for him. The Democrats must have danced with joy that night, because his rhetoric allowed untold numbers of Catholics to stand by with their hands in their pockets while America elected the most pro-abortion, anti-Catholic president in history. Three years is a lot less than 30 years, but like Mr. Shea himself, I do not and will not forget. I hope God forgives him for the small part he had in that tragedy. I see he hasn’t learned much since then.
Oh come on. I’m shocked that I’m the one having to say this since I consider myself a VERY traditional Catholic. While I recognize prudence is needed when one says that he has repented for his sins, however, i find this post incredibly uncharitable.
I wonder what Mr. Shea would have thought of St. Paul had Mr. Shea lived in the first century. Gosh I cant believe im even drawing parallels between St. Paul and Mr. Gingrich but in all seriousness, let’s give him a chance to be a repentant sinner. it’s almost as if Mr. Shea has become judge and jury on Mr. Gingrich’s character.
Let’s all take a step back, take a breath, and not rush to conclusions considering this man says he has repented for his sins, received absolution from Holy Mother Church, and is trying to live a moral life. If that’s good enough for God it’s good enough for me.
I was over on EWTN’s news site, and I happen to see a headline of Bishop Wenski of Miami saying that ‘Obama Didn’t Keep His Promises’. I’d like to say to him [insert a little sarcasm here], ‘Your Excellency, you just found out about this?’
THEN WHY DID OVER FIFTY PERCENT OF CATHOLICS VOTE FOR OBAMA IN THE FIRST PLACE?
I did not vote for Obama-I knew he would not be good for this country; and now we are paying for it!
Are there no real LEADERS out there? Or are we just left with professional politicians who promise a lot when they campaign, and deliver very little once they get into office?
I fear what may happen if Obama gets re-elected to another term.
Mary Immaculate, our Patroness, please help and protect us!
Could someone please tell me why there is a moral obligation to vote for a candidate from a major party for president? Is this in the Catechism somewhere? Can I vote for a third party candidate? A write-in candidate? Refrain from voting at all?
Many commenters here seem to buy what I call the “Great Principle” (GP): namely:
NOT VOTING = VOTING FOR OBAMA
From this it follows that:
(a) One is morally obliged to vote for a candidate who has a “chance” of winning, otherwise your vote is really for the candidate that you are not voting for (?). Similarly, deciding not to vote for Gingrich means that you thinks Gingrich and Obama are somehow morally equivalent.
(b) Catholics are morally obliged to vote for the Republican candidate - even though he supports intrinsically evil things (i.e. things that no Catholic can support) - since Obama supports many *more* intrinsically evil things. Maybe the intrinsically evil things that the Republicans support aren’t as intrinsically evil as those Obama supports?
(c) Mark (and anyone else who refuses to go along with the GP) will really only vote for someone who is “perfect” or a “saint.” In the “real world,” the only criteria for president is (1) the person is not in jail and (2) he opposes abortion (well, most of the time). No one is permitted to make a judgment about a person’s fitness for office based on past words and actions - this would be equivalent to condemning his soul to hell forever, or even not believing in the reality of grace, forgiveness, and redemption.
The only problem with the Great Principle (besides the fact that it makes no sense - can someone please explain the logic of “not voting = voting”?)
is that the consequences are simply not true. Which makes you think that the GP is simply not true, too.
Mark, your classification (and the general understanding) of Newt as a Catholic is entirely unfounded. Sure, he’s baptized and all, but has he done anything really to distinguish himself as a Catholic thinker or leader? His Catholicism amounts to washing up dead on the banks of the Tiber.
Now if he had advanced a Catholic agenda in the face of withering public opposition, he could be classified as a “Catholic Politician.” If he had sacrificed his person or position on behalf of the little ones of the Lord, he might even be considered a Saint. But as it is, he’s just a “Blair, Tony” type of Catholic.
He has yet to wake up and realize: “Hey, I’m a Catholic. What does that mean?”
Actually, not voting makes it easier for Gingrich to win - he would need fewer votes to get a majority. Instead of needing 51% of X, he would only need 51% of x-1. In other words, not voting is simply that - not voting. It is not the same as voting for the opposition, which would make it more difficult for the preferred candidate to win. He would then need not only 51% of x, he would also need an additional “+1” than he would without the vote for the other candidate. So please, let’s stop with the moronic “not voting = voting for the other candidate”. It is demonstrably false.
cy:
At which point does Mark say Newt vs. Obama is a ‘tossup’?
It is absolutely stunning, the sheer number of things people come up with to fill the spaces between his words.
sigh… by the comments on this blog it seems as though bank led tyranny will be coming to our country. Please look inot the plans of the global elite and what canidates are ‘owned’ by them before you vote. I do not know if Newt is owned by them still, but I am trying to find that answer.
Just learned on here that GOD died and asked you to decide who tells the Truth in public life. Disgraceful piece of lousy scribbling. Stick with legitimate journalism. The US citizenry can listen, learn and read and study the candidates without help from you blasting Mr Romney first for being Mormon and now Mr. Gingrich for divorcing. So glad God did not ask your opinion on King David’s fitness for his Kindship after murdering Bathsheba’s hubby when she was PG. OR Jesus reinstating St Peter and the ten who abandoned HIM on Calvary and told Pete to stay on hs Chair.
No. God lives and tells me to be wise as a serpent and innocent as dove. Using the sense God gave a goose, I conclude that merely because Newt is Catholic does not mean he is trustworthy or qualified to be President. I think you have me confused with Jimmy Akin since I’ve never commented on Romney’s Mormonism and disagree with Jimmy that it should have any particular influence on whether to vote for him. I would vote for a Zoroastrian if I thought him a person of reasonable character and one likely to enact good public policies. My problem with Romney is the problem most people have with him: his sole core believe is “I should be President” and his is quite willing to betray all other “convictions” in pursuit of that goal. The really amazing thing is that the anger over making prudential assessments of Gingrich’s equally duplicitous track record is reserved solely for critics of Gingrich. It’s open season on Romney’s wildly inconsistent record (as it should be) while questioning Gingrich’s record is not “prudent and responsible voting” but setting oneself up as GOD.
Fascinating.
Gosh I cant believe im even drawing parallels between St. Paul and Mr. Gingrich
Neither can I. Particularly since I address your poiont in the piece. Did you just skim it?
We MUST remember that the STATE has separated itself from the CHURCH officially. (Separation of Church and State via ACLU through the US Supreme Court - see: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/church-state/decisions.html)
Therefore, our dual citizenship as citizens of the Kingdom of God through holy Baptism and citizens of the United States of America has been put into serious conflict. The enmity between the woman and the serpent and between their seeds are to be taken very seriously. (Genesis 3:15) http://bible.cc/genesis/3-15.htm—Please notice that all Christian Bibles AGREE on this point.
BOTH political Parties are held in tow by the Separation decision and are two sides of the same New World Order coin. Do not be deceived. Voting for the lesser of two evils has returned the same results every election… we voted in an evil. Secret Societies (condemned by the Catholic Church) are in charge.
Pope Blessed John Paul II said that the red dragon of Rev./Apoc. 12 is Communism. Our Lady of Fatima predicted that Russia would spread her errors throughout the whole world. Well, it’s here. After the USSR went bankrupt and collapsed, the brutal murderers of over two hundred million men, women and children were not rounded up and put on trial for war crimes as were the Nazi leaders. They simply declared themselves to be Socialists and embraced Capitalism. They had infiltrated every form of institution and have been working to destroy the Church and her Culture of Life everywhere and are well entrenched. BETTER RED THAN DEAD was the outcry from colleges, the press and other media alike during the time of the Vietnam conflict. Congress and the President gave way to the pressure and withdrew our troops. The Communists march through South Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia murdering up to six million innocent people… with no outcry from the press or college campuses. When our service men returned home they were treated as butchering murderers. *** Fifty thousand of them committed suicide. ***
The U.S. Constitution is based upon the Declaration of Independence but both are being ignored by the powers that be… http://www.declarationproject.com/principles.php … first the Declaration and then the Constitution.
The answer is in the hands of the People not the two political Parties that have been in charge during the downfall of America. As America goes, so goes the world. If we turn back to God so will the world. If we continue serving mammon, we can expect worldwide bankruptcy, wars, famine and a world ruler from hell. Pray the holy Rosary. Frequent the Sacraments; love God and neighbor.
“Seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness….” (Matt. 6:33)
Mark, who then should we vote for?????? I was devastated about the implantation comment but would Mitt change his mind again about abortion??? What say you?
Oh and like Ron Paul but I’m sorry I don’t think anyone else has a chance! We have to get rid of Obama that’s all there is to it!!
Here we go again with conservative and liberal catholic, there is no such thing for me, I AM A CATHOLIC PERIOD, I really don’t know where this comes from. If Newt says he is pro life and is a cahtolic in good standing, I will vote for him, and if he goes against that if he is elected then shame on him and not me. Anybody is a lot better then Obama, that man scares me to death.
As someone who lives in his back yard, I say elect Rep. Chris Smith of NJ: quiet champion of the permanent underclass. Dogged defender of the poorest of the poor. Republican victor in a blatantly blue state.
I repeat: CHRIS SMITH OF NJ!
Get behind it!!!
Mr. Shea, an interesting piece you wrote. I would like to see you include more facts in your article. You have mentioned numerous things of his past, but what about the work he has done over the last few years? What is your take on the Catholic movies he has produced, like “Nine Days that Changed the World,” and “Rediscovering God in America?” What research have you done on his contributions to society and the Church?
I’ll vote for Newt over Obama. He’s the lesser of two evils. I voted for Ross Perot once and Clinton got elected. Won’t do that again. I did a lot of terrible things like Newt in my past too and have repented. I’d prefer to vote for someone like Rick Santorium but I doubt he’d win the nomination. I can’t figure out why a good guy like him doesn’t get the support from conservatives. It’s like the media is telling all of us who should be the nominee.
A favorite bumper-sticker on conservative cars in America asks people to ‘Pray for Obama: Psalm 109:8’. The Bible verse reads: ‘Let his days be few; and let another take his office.’
Olivia,
If it turns out that Newt is indeed still an establishment man, then there is Ron Paul. If everyone who said they would vote for him but don’t think he has a chance actually did vote for him, then he’d be the man. Not perfect, but he is a man of character that is not owned by the establishment, is stanchly prolife, would work to break the stranglehold the banks and coporations have on the government of this nation and he takes his oath to uphold the constitution extremely seriously.
He’s the smartest candidate, most qualified and in spite of his many personal mistakes and faults, many of which I have also made, he will make a better president than Mitt Romney or Ron Paul. Rick S has no chance. Find me a politician at that level that satisfies your piety and I will find you a competitor who received a speeding ticket at the Indy 500
This is how Obama will be re-elected and continue the advance of the abortion industry.
President Carter is probaly one of the best Christians and was one of, if not the worst presidents this country ever had. Yes I want an ethical person in the office, but the job of the president may need some ruthlessness and spine. Newt has it
A blog comment does not adequately express my gratitude for this article, but there you have it: THANKS!
Rick,
I wish the abortion industry was the worst problem we were facing. Unfortunately, we are actually facing the lose of our national sovereignty. If you vote for an establishment man they are owned by the same international mega banks and corporations, no matter the party and I assure you the tyranny that they will impose will be far worse than the terrible evils of the obortion industry.
Really? Who cares about what you “think” or how you will vote. Tell it to God & explain yourself to Him. None of the candidates are perfect or even 100% Pro-life, which will make it very difficult to pick the “right” one next year. Who knows, the big “o” might pull one of his executive orders forbidding elections as long as he is dictator. May God have mercy on all of us. +JMJ+
I hope Newt Gingrich wins the presidency and proves you wrong.
BTW, what about Christian repentance and forgiveness? Seems like you fall short of that when it’s a Republican candidate!
Just glad Palin is not running. The top of Shea’s head might have blown off.
Mr. Shea,
Umm, why did you erase your praise of Mr. Helgoth’s comment? Because of his paranoia of the international bankers or his mentioning of the Council on Foreign Relations? Or, was it because I highlighted these inconvenient facts?
Is this why you also deleted my comment? Did you learn this from Joseph Stalin? Just erase inconvenient history?
Or, was it because I asked if you were a Paul-bot?
Erasing comments is not a very fair and balanced practice, nor, is it very professional.
God Bless!
http://caucuses.desmoinesregister.com/2011/11/28/iowa-christian-conservatives-split-on-gingrichs-right-to-life-record/
It looks like Mr. Gingrich still thinks it’s OK to kill unborn children if he doesn’t like who the father is, i.e., rape and incest and the almost non-existent life of the mother. If this is still his abortion position, his position is in direction opposition to the official teaching of his new faith, the Catholic Church. If this is indeed the case, we will be hearing alot more about this pro-abortion position from Mr. Gingrich.
“Gingrich still supports abortions in the cases of rape, incest and danger to the life of the mother. “He would allow for the three exceptions,” campaign spokesman R.C. Hammond said Monday”
Mark: Your comments re: Newt Gingrich, to this observer, appear extreme. To juxtapose his Catholic beliefs with those of Biden and Pelosi smacks of political vitriol that might come out of the DNC or the White House itself . . . Something akin to comparing Archbishop Weakland to Bishop Sheen - Both “Princes of the Church, but oh so different. You hold him to his past rhetoric and assign the worst of human behavior to him even though he has repented and is the best kind of Catholic, a converted Catholic. Are there regretful things in your past that you have confessed and sought redemption for? I trust, like most of us, the answer is yes. So many posts both for and anti Gingrich. The problem with the anti Gingrich writings, including yours, is that his old transgressions, some real, some exaggerated are seen as unforgivable. You and your fellow Gingrich haters will simply assure much of the Catholic vote for the most anti-Catholic president - perhaps in reality the true Anti Christ -in our history.
I like Gingrich, but if his abortion beliefs are what I stated above, he’s got some tall explaining to do. Politicians that adopt this stance of “exceptions” are not pro-life. That also includes Perry, Romney, and Huntsman, who also believe in selective abortion. Santorum, Bachman, and Paul are 100% pro-life. They all believe that all life is sacred and a gift from God, no matter how that life was conceived.
@MamaKelly: Interesting that you mentioned one of Newt’s films, the one about Poland and JPII, given Gingrich’s pro-union busting ideas. Nice juxtaposition. But this is small stuff compared to his having to get around his reputation as the BIGGEST ethics violator in Congressional history, and that was in his starring role as Mr. Speakah. LOL. But just when I thought he might give us a break from laughing so hard, he goes out and names his Secretary of State pick, John Bolton, today before a very appreciative audience of hardline pro-Israel supporters.
Nothing like jumping the gun to introduce one of the most incendiary picks any presidential candidate could’ve picked to be our top diplomat.
Can’t wait to see who his top cop will be. Is that sheriff down in Phoenix have a law degree? Hope not.
LOL ALERT! LOL ALERT! LOL ALERT! Oh, this is too much, too good and too damn funny already!
By Labor Day, Gingrich’s campaign will find itself schleping so much baggage it’ll be chartering out one of those ancient Russian versions of our C5As just to get from one city to another. If it had to resort to a land-based caravan, just imagine the number of miles worth of interstate highway space it’d be forced to lug all the goodies of his past around.
Too much, way too much. LOL!
Nick:
I erased my comment because I decided it was too brief and likely to create confusion and send an already chaotic conversation further out into space. I erased your comment (and somebody else’s I think) because once my comment was gone your responses made no sense. I will have a blog up on Friday that will elaborate on the point I was agreeing with Mr. Helgoth on. Not “international bankers” but rather the fact that the danger we face, I think, is not so much Left vs. Right anymore but Ruling Elites vs. the Populace.
And please: don’t be grandiose. Invoking Stalin is ridiculous. You have no civil right to comment here. You are a guest. If I decide to delete something you write, I have a perfect right to do so because it’s my blog. The first amendment guarantees you the right to free speech. It doesn’t guarantee you the right to use my comboxes to exercise it. If you want to express your views, by all means set up a blog and I will link you and refer people to it.
Yes, it does get better and funnier. Why even Dick Morris, that paragon of manly virtue, blabs all about the real strategy for Gingrich to succeed in this sham of a pre-primary dog n’ pony tour of endless “debates” before even the first official vote is cast. Forget Iowa Newt, Dick sez ya can lock it all up on Fox, and he said it all on Fox, too. How convenient was that?
Not one to allow himself to be upstaged in the buffoonery business, Steve Doocey opined on the value of Fox’ stage furniture insofar as it relates to presidential politics. Yep, this from the guy with the political IQ of a lawn chair. Enjoy folks: http://www.mediaite.com/tv/dick-morris-on-newt-gingrichs-success-you-dont-win-iowa-in-iowa-you-win-it-on-fox-news/
Barack Obama’s smile must be getting wider by the moment every time some goofball on Fox opens his big mouth.
Mr. Shea,
I don’t think grandiose is the right word. I would say that I was being bellicose.
I used Stalin for the reason I stated. I was referring to Stalin’s proclivity to airbrush people out of photographs, after they were deemed enemies of the state. That’s all.
I didn’t cry, “Censorship” or, “You violated my rights.” Straw man. You have every right to delete my comments. I just wanted to know the reason.
The reason should be a good one, though, if you consider yourself a professional, don’t you think? Cursing or repugnant comments, for example.
I accept your explanation, and, look forward to the article.
God Bless!
While we are here pontificating on Gingrich’s relative merits, Obama is pushing the homosexual agenda on the rest of the world IN OUR NAME, and writing out sodomy and bestiality from military regulations. Heaven help us - the 2012 vote cannot come fast enough!
Quo Vadis? Ad Perditionem et Subito!
Shift gears and talk about apocalyptic visions and you earn the appellation “extremist, fundamentalist kook.” But can you see the contortions decent people have to perform even to justify voting?
That’s one definition of hell: having to act with no good alternatives. I wonder when Catholics start having recourse to the Buddhist alternative: self-immolation on the steps of Congress. It’s already been done by high Catholic clerics in God-forsaken Muslimia.
Look beyond Obama, beyond Newt, beyond politics…
Your article helped me see clearer the beauty of contrition, and my need to repent… to make no excuses for my shortcomings, to be merciless in bringing into the light of confession my many sins. Thank you.
from Bill Foley
I am really surprised that this Catholic paper allowed such an article to be printed.
The primary is one thing; the general election is another. I do not trust Newt; therefore, I am going to vote for someone else in the primary—anybody but Romney. However, I will vote for Newt in the general election because Obama has the spirit of the Anti-Christ.
Moreover, a Muslim Communist, Mark, is not such a contradiction. I suggest that you read Andrew McCarthy’s book about the alliance of the left and Islam in America. I cannot remember the title, but if you look up Andrew McCarthy in you public library, you should be able to check out the book.
By the way, I know Newt from his days as a history professor at West Georgia College, and I am a registered Independent.
Also as an aside, I would urge all of you to look up a recent interview with Ann Barnhardt concerning the Chicago Mercantile and Corzine’s outfit. It is the most spine-chilling thing that I have read—I read it yesterday. The evil politicians and high-finance people are leading us to a Weimar Republic
WOW, this is a TOUGH one! In recent weeks as I have watched Newt come to the top of the pack of ‘wolves in sheep’s clothing’, I knew he was coming with a lot of Baggage. Then I heard him when he talked about torture and waterboarding… I immediately thought… that stance is not very ‘catholic’. There have been a few other little glimpses of ‘danger’ that I have heard him utter as well. I like to think that ... maybe he just isn’t all “UP ON” the teachings of the Catholic Church and still needs a little more ‘conversion’. I know I had to do some of that, the first couple of years after I came back to the Catholic Chruch—after 25 years away. Mr. Shea… I think that Newt is our only hope right now. MOREOVER, as I believe there are good priests and bad priests… God can, and does work miracles through these ‘unclean vessels’ that we humans are. I say… PRAY FOR CONVERSION FOR Mr. Newt. He is on the right track… moving to the Catholic Faith… PRAY God keeps working IN and THROUGH him. I am afraid that as imperfect a man that he is… I see the alternatives are even worse. PRAYER is our ONLY HOPE!
So, Mark, who would you vote for? Romney, who I just heard tell the Des Moines Register that he is against abortion except in cases of rape, incest and life of mother - the standard canard of status quo politicians (where has Mitt been for the last 38 years since Roe v Wade/Doe v Bolton)? Or maybe, Paul or Huntsman, your run-of-the-mill bury-your-head-in-the-sand libertarians who say do whatever you want just leave me out of it? Or maybe a third party conservative, you know, seal the election for Obama by stealing the vote from the Republican nominee whoever that might end up being? I see Newt as someone who will give us the best bang for our buck to overturn the current administration’s socialist-leaning, eugenics-minded, secular humanist agenda.
Exceptions to abortion means you are for selective abortion. No way in the world these self-serving politicians should be allowed get away with calling themselves pro-life if they believe in murdering a child if they don’t like who the father is. Rape, incest and “life of the mother” exceptions still means you do not value life. You are not pro-life. In the eyes of the Lord all life is sacred from the moment of conception to natural death. The Romneys, Bushes, Perrys, Huntsman, and the rest of these so-called pro-lifers might be fooling some with their pro-abortion stance, but committed Catholics who do not play this evil game of deciding who lives and dies. Is this still Gingrich’s stance? It was for years. Like I said above if it is still his beliefs he is in direct opposition to the teachings of the Catholic Church.
Charles, I appreciate your comment regarding Newt’s statement about implantation. I do not hesitate to state unequivocally that human life begins at conception (so calling me “not prolife” was a bite premature - since you don’t me, I didn’t take offense). To the extent that Newt maintains this implantation notion, it harms his chances among faithful Catholics. Granted! However, the comparison I raised was not whether Jesus or Pope Benedict was running against Obama or Newt, but the rest of the Republican field. Its going to be Newt or Mitt against Obama. I went to both Newt’s and Mitt’s websights under the solutions section to see where in the platform the prolife and related issues falls for them. Newt weighs in on family, marriage, abortion, conscience rights. Mitts mentions none of these. His whole message “It’s the economy, stupid!” Newt’s a thinking man and a correctable Catholic. Romney, not so much.
Is it permissible to comment on my own comment? Two things. First, after rereading Charles’ comment I realize he wasn’t calling me “not prolife” sorry Charles. Second I just read a news report from EWTN where Newt clarified his position on Dec 5th “Life begins at conception and deserves protection no matter how conceived” Go,Newt!
TonyRI,
Thank you very much for clarifying Mr. Gingrich’s stance on abortion. He’s got my vote, and I can now say I wholeheartedly
support him 100%. Thanks again and Merry Christmas to you and yours.
http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/gingrich-human-life-begins-at-conception/
Mark, I don’t think it prudent to vote for a third party candidate. If too many do that, it could mean another Obama term. Also, here’s a National Review article that you might want to read, if you haven’t already. In it, his ex-wife, according to his daughter, says that she mishandled the situation and was often misquoted by WaPo.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/285635/my-father-newt-gingrich-robert-costa?pg=2
I am not really enthusiastic about Gingrich but, if the choice was between him and Obama, I would choose him. When I look at what we have now and the direction this president is leading the country, I CANNOT in good conscience vote to continue along this path. My candidate of choice is whoever is running against Obama.
I can identify with Mr. Gingrich because I also came into the Catholic Church late in life. I was 57 years old when I was baptised and accepted into the Church on Easter Eve 2008. And if New Gingrich is anything like me he is a work in progress in his new faith. Not a day goes by I don’t learn something new. I was raised Southern baptist and it’s hard to break old habits, but with the grace of God I will keep on trying each and every day I have left on this earth. Obama has been a disaster for this country and I feel whether it’s Mr. Gingrich or any of the other candidates, they would be a 1000 times better than than he is.
Dear Mark,
I have so enjoyed your writings and for the most part have agreed with you and have appreciated your ability to “verify”.
However today, I am mystified by your complete and utter unwillingness to “practice” what our faith teaches: “forgiveness”.
I am thankful that as a convert I had a priest that said to me: “Suzan you think that the church won’t allow you to become a catholic because of your abortions, even though you are heartily sorry for having not just 1 but 2?” At that point I cried and Father Terry gave me my first taste of reconciliation. That was in 1997. Today I have been blessed to have been reconciled with God for the many many sins I commit, some on a daily basis-such as my anger after reading this!
I am thankful that I didn’t come to you and ask you to be my sponsor when going through RCIA - you would have turned your toes up at that!
I have learned to see that I am not a saint and when I look to put someone in office I make darn sure that they believe in the dignity of the human person which means to me that they hold life all life to be sacred - without that basis we have someone like Obama in office and I will not vote for that. Period. Ever. I know what abortion is and I know what life is and I know what forgiveness is.
God Bless you and I am praying.
Suzie:
As I said in the piece, this has nothing to do with unforgiveness. It has to do with prudence. I’m perfectly willing to grant that Gingich’s sins are forgiven. However, given that he continues to be dishonest about them, as well as dishonest about much else, I feel under no obligation to trust him as a voter. I’m not asking for a saint. I’m asking for minimal decency. A pol who tells me (after becoming a Catholic) that his reason for his serial adultery is his close proximity to immense power is a pol who is telling me “I can’t be trusted with power”. When he endorses torture, the lawless murder of American citizens, and lives a life of corruptioh and graft (after becoming Catholic) and then tells us life begins at implantation (signaling his willingness to support ESCR) and only “clarifies” when the base screams, I have to ask “Was he lying the first time or the second time he spoke?”
It is rubbish to call any of this “unforgiveness”. It is common sense and prudence. If his bishop welcomes him to the table, then so do I. I simply don’t trust him with political power any more than I believe that mere exposure to the sacraments magically makes a pedophile priest safe to trust with my child.
Rick Santorum, lifelong Catholic, professes to be all that is good and decent about the Catholic faith. BUT, Mr. Santorum has never saw a war he didn’t like or a form of torture he didn’t endorse. The last time I checked Pat Buchanan was not running for president. There are not perfect candidates, but I feel Mr. Gingrich is our best hope from getting four more years of Obama, who has been at war with Christianity since day one in office.
Mr. Porter, who annointed you to be the judge of another man’s faith or his sincerity when it comes to treating Christianity; regardless whether or not the man is an elected public official?
What are YOUR credentials? I don’t judge your faith, but I do question your civic and political judgment? Has it ever dawned on you and all the other “conservatives” willing to pile on this man for his supposed animus against Christianity, that what you’re accomplishing is simply continuing to the further downward spiral of cynicism and disrespect for our public officials?
President Obama’s Christian views aren’t those of a Catholic, but they don’t square with other Protestants, and other Protestants’ views about Christianity don’t square with him. Guess what, Mr. Porter: that’s been the condition between our presidents ever since 1789.
We can always count on conservatives to speak of Washington and other Founding Fathers in such hushed reverential terms. Wasn’t George Washington a Mason, and a BIG TIME MASON, too? Nary a word is said about GW or even some of the other presidents, some of whom, were the biggest duds to ever occupy the office, but…since they were supposedly good church men, well, all’s forgiven. Right?
Again, who the hell annointed you to be President Obama’s (not) so grand inquisitor?
I’ll give you a hint if you’re having trouble with this question. You’ll find the answer in a mirror.
Thank you Mark for your clarification. However all but one item happened “before” his conversion. The one item of course is his response to taking the life of american born terrorist Anwar Al (can’t spell the rest). You and I can disagree on that statement.
Again thank you for your clarification. And if you would like I can give you websites that will refute each of the websites you used. It is a “he said/she said” thing.
Respectfully,
Suzie
Hi Suzie:
Actually, everything that concerns me is post-conversion behavior. It is after his conversion that he has called his first wife a liar about his atrocious behavior at her hospital bed. It is after his conversion that he gave his grotesque excuse for serial adultery as being due to his loving America too much. It was after his conversion that he then added “and so you should make me the most powerful man on earth” and ran for President. It is after his conversion that he tried to justify (instead of apologizing for) taking 1.6 million from Freddie Mac. It’s after his conversion he has endorsed torture and murder of American citizens without due process. It’s after his conversion he has said life begins at implantation (thus signaling his openness to ESCR and abortifacients) and then immediately reversed himself in order to get the conservative Catholic vote. All this has been done after he became Catholic. It’s fine to say we can’t judge his soul. Perfectly true. But we are bound to judge his fruits as Jesus commands us to do. His fruits are very bad. Trusting him is folly.
Again, who the hell annointed you to be President Obama’s (not) so grand inquisitor?
Sir, I am a one issue voter and any human that believes in murdering unborn children ON DEMAND is not fit to lead this country. Obama has absolutely nothing in common with the vast majority of Christians in this country, who do not believe in murdering their own.
“By Their Fruits You Will Know Them” ~ Matthew 7: 15-20
Charles:
You apparently cannot read. I will not be voting for Obama for precisely the reason you cite. I also will not be voting for Newt Gingrich. I will be voting as a Catholic. I am commanded to be wise as a snake and innocent as a dove. That means paying attention to the fact that Newt Gingrich is deeply untrustworthy. If you believe that making elementary moral judgments about supporting grave intrinsic evil is acting as a “grand inquisitor” then you apparently do not understand the Church’s teaching. If you cannot grasp that “not voting for Obama” is not the same moral act as “voting for Obama” then you apparently do not grasp what voting is.
Sounds like Mark wants Gingrich (or any other candidate for that matter) to wear a “seamless garment” when it comes to human life issues. You get a politician to publicly acknowledge that human life begins at conception, that rape and incest are unacceptable excuses for killing the unborn; however, if he thinks, in the interest of national security, that ruffing up suspected terrorist is okay, then he not an acceptable candidate. I’ll say it again, Gingrich is not running against Jesus or the Pope - who, by the way, could not be elected POTUS because one was born in Judea and the other, in Germany. Charles, don’t let Mark browbeat you. Rash judgement and detraction are still banned by the 8th commandment, Mark.
Good article from Brent Bozell.
Newt versus the Ruling Class.
http://townhall.com/columnists/brentbozell/2011/12/14/newt_versus_the_ruling_class/page/2
Mark, I was just reading your post on 12/6 in which you queried, “Muslim communists? Really!” It’s not that Muslim=Communist. It’s that Islamist (radical extremists) interests are collaborating (you know, being “useful idiots”) with Communists to take over long oppressed Middle
Eastern countries like recently Eqypt et al. The thing is the Communists don’t realize yet that they are the actual “useful idiots” this time! Unfortunately for them, by the time they open their eyes, they’ll probably find themselves looking up at a scimitar on its way down to the chopping block.
Tony:
No. I think that torturing people (some of them innocent, and dozens of them tortured to death) is not “roughing up a few terrorists” but is a princlple we should not establish in law as so many people like you are eager to defend. I’ve never understood why “consistent application of Church teaching” (which you deride as “seamless garment”) is a problem. But then I do not subcribe to the heretical notion that opposition to abortion taketh away the sins of the world. I think Jesus takes away the world’s sins. If you want to continue to delude yourself that grave intrinsic evils are okay when your tribe does them, knock yourself out. But do at least familiarize yourself with the concept of “bullying”. When somebody baselessly declares that a person is a “grand inquisitor for Obama” and the accused presents evidence to show that lie is false, that’s not “bullying”. Nor is it violating the eighth commandment. It is the person who tells the lie that I am an Obama supporter who is violating the eighth commandment. You should repent of making excuses for that lie and go to confession.
Finally, re: the ridiculous “Obama the Muslim Communist” nonsense. So Obama’s communist half of his brain is a useful idiot being exploited by the Muslim half of his brain without the communist’s half’s knowledge? And when the time comes his Muslim side is going to suddenly chop off half his head? Makes perfect sense to me. Thanks for bringing to note of sober discourse to a thread sorely lacking it.
Bye, Mark. I’ll pray for you.
Thanks, Tony. I can always use prayers.
@Charles Porter: “one issue voter.” Can’t deny that. But don’t you think the unborn need more than voters with a single issue perspective when there are so many ways we can demonstrate our committment to being fully PROLIFE from conception to (preferably) death in old age by natural causes alone, (minus of course, an earlier death in old age needlessly advanced due to a cut-back in funding for VITAL fuel assistance and elderly nutrition programs?
Otherwise, no wonder the people supporting Roe are able to get away with reminding the political arena, that the “so-called prolife” activists love fetuses but hate kids, and poorer elderly folks.
I am fully pro-life. That’s why I do not support the democratic party.
Lead by the most pro-abortion president in American history.
How Obama’s War on Catholics is Also a War on the Unborn!
http://www.priestsforlife.org/alert/index1.aspx?id=24
“............Obamacare is an atrocity because it requires health insurance plans to PAY FOR ABORTION! That means YOU would be paying for abortion coverage whether you want to or not every time you pay your insurance premium.
This alone is unconscionable. But as you know, the abortion industry desperately WANTS and NEEDS Obamacare because it would flood their coffers with untold millions of dollars—paid by you and me, of course – at a time when the entire abortion industry is in danger of closing down because of the work of so many good pro-lifers like you.
It’s true. The number of abortion mills in America keeps shrinking – almost on a daily basis. They’re feeling the onslaught of heavy fines, lawsuits, new regulations, criminal investigations, as well as convictions and prison sentences for the baby butchers.
Bottom line? The abortion industry is hurting – BIG TIME.
And that’s why they NEED Obamacare. It will keep them afloat. It will be a source of unrestricted funding for abortion – the likes of which we’ve never seen. It will make the federal government’s subsidies to Planned Parenthood (a million dollars a day) look like chicken feed…....
Well now it is 1/11/2012, the Iowa and NH primaries are over, Iowa Romney won both,Santourm came in second ,Ron Paul close third, NH Romney won Ron Paul second, Huntsman third, Both races newt lost big time. Newt claimed forgiveness, redemption and a changed man. But the evangelicals didn’t buy it. Newt lost and left a defeated man without any delegates, but he became the same old Newt, in his last departing speech he was an angry old man who was filled with hate and vengeance.He vowed if he was going down to bring down another Republican, Romney, This guy is an egotistical maniac, poor loser, and angry individual with a vendetta. Hopefully this guy will be out of the race ,going home.
Well I will gladly vote for Newt. You know what I am a sinner to of which is why Christ came and died for. Forgiveness is a requirement in Christianity. So I guess we would just cancel each other out then.
Forgiveness is a requirement. Voting a scoundrel into the most powerful office on earth is not a requirement, merely fashionable.
If Gingrich become the Republican candidate, I will vote for him because “anyone but Obama”.
Mark. I think you are just a little shy of a full deck. Anyone not voting for president is a defacto vote for Obama. While Obama supporters may not be very smart they are dedicated. It would be different if there was a choice of none of the above. Then at least folks could really see just how much of a problem there is in Washington and our country.
Give it a rest with the man’s marriage. You’re descending to the level of that magazine mentioned by John King on CNN. Is that really where you want to be? Who cares who choose to believe? I believe I’ll take a shower now, YUCK. Not a lot of charity here, Mark. Very sad! If I hadn’t been planning to vote for Gingrich this column would have persuaded me.
Newt Gingrich may very well be our next president, especially if he picks the right running mate at the convention. Only the devil’s ability to waste the Rockefeller Republicans’ and the Soros “progressive” warchests - and the willingness of Christians to engage in unwarranted detraction - can prevent it.
If the GOP is foolish enough to nominate Gingrich it will be a dream come true for the Dems, who are on their knees praying that he be the nominee. The utter folly of trusting this man is exceeded only by the utter folly of imagining that only Liberal Conspiracies can explain opposition to him.
As deplorable as Newt’s actions were when he dumped Wife No. 1 because she had cancer and Wife No. 2 because she had MS, and went to Wife No. 1’s hospital room to discuss the divorce, these pale in comparison to some of Newt’s other despicable acts. For example, back in the late 1970s, Newt told Kip Carter that Wife No. 1 (Jackie) wasn’t “young enough or pretty enough to be the wife of a president,” adding, “and besides, she has cancer.” But believe it or not, this still wasn’t the worst! After dumping his first wife and two daughters, Newt defied a court order and failed to pay alimony and child support. People in Carrollton, Georgia, still remember donating to an emergency collection at the First Baptist Church to buy groceries and pay the utility bill for Jackie and the children. And while his wife and children back in Georgia were literally going without food and in danger of having their utilities disconnected, this sorry excuse for a human being was tooling around Washington in a chauffeur-driven car carrying on with Marianne! For this worthless piece of lying, cheating, hypocritical scum to even breathe the word “family” is a shame and disgrace and anyone who believes him, or believes he is now a devout Catholic, is so stupid he (or she) should have their voting privileges revoked!
Jan. 24, 2012-I wonder why TonyRI keeps posting over and over and over again his comment about gingrich…I keep getting notices about ‘new’ comments but they’re all from TonyRI…same old, same old…anyone else having this problem?
Jan. 12th…Mark, TonyRI is sending out tons of e-mails - the same one he wrote above…regarding your article. They are cc’d to a lot of people with the National Catholic Register as sender….how did this happen? He wants gingrich to be president but he shouldn’t be fore feeding his comments by using the National Catholic Register…it’s the exact same comment over and over and over…can you have it stopped? He may just want people to discontinue receiving comments to they don’t read your article…
Jan. 12th….I just received about 20 more of TonyRI’s comments and I notice he is sending them to different people with each e-mail so he has hacked into the e-mail addresses of the National Catholic Register…
Do you consider abortion a form of torture? Do the Pew people? Does Think Progress? Are these people against China’s one-child policy?
Just how many millions of people are dying because of waterboarding? Your rage at conservative Catholics on this issue is a little out of proportion. Way out of proportion, as a matter of fact.
The lack of charity towards Newt and to fellow Catholics who disagree with you - my brothers were waterboarded in the military as part of their training - is very, very sad.
Try channeling G.K.Chesterton. Are you trying to convert conservative Catholics? You’ve only succeeded in persuading me that you’re hypocritical. Reserve your vitriol for abortion-supporting, liberal Democrats who claim to be Catholic, please. Ephesians 4:15-16
How dare you point out Newt’s defects!!! How dare we criticize ANYONE, even Obama. After all, we have to remove the plank from our own eye to judge anyone, even Obama. Oh Mr. Shea- I hope you see the error of your ways. We simply cannot judge anyone at this point. Why can’t you just off your brain and suspend your critical thinking and just vote for Newt?! Is it really that hard to turn off your conscience!?!?! The charitable and christian thing is to turn off you brain and placate yourself with Newt’s platitudes. Just ignore Matthew 10:16. It is charitable to be a sucker. GO NEWTIE!!!!
When you’re voting for the lesser of two evils, you are still choosing evil. Why choose evil at all? I won’t be voting.
Newt is FAR from perfect, but Newt vs. Obama is a no-brainer: Newt. Then there’s Newt vs. Romney, a Mormon who created the template used for Obama care and was pro-abortion until recently. Another no-brainer: Newt again. Of course, if it were Newt vs. Santorum, I’d pick Santorum. But it does not look like Santorum will be our candidate. So, as is usual in life, we have to pick the lesser of more than a few evils. Sorry, Mr. Shea: Newt it is.
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.