Recent Catholic convert and likely Republican presidential contender Newt Gingrich is profiled in the latest issue of Esquire magazine, with his second (of three) wife giving her first interview since the couple’s very public and very dramatic divorce.
It’s the kind of salaciously sensational writing that appeals to politicos who long for TMZ and People with a political bent (much like Game Change, the off-the-record filled tome following the 2008 election). So taken with a grain of salt, the article offers an interesting glimpse at the man who wants to take on President Obama.
Marianne Gingrich says that Newt proposed to her while his first wife lay in hospital recovering from surgery, never telling her that he was still married (he supposedly proposed to his current wife while still married to Marianne). Marianne claims that Gingrich is an empty man who is guided not by principles, but by a continuous lust for power. Yet she concedes that he is good at what he does, despite his shortcomings.
First, this is really old news. I heard this years ago.
Second, Newt converted after this divorcing his wife not before. So I am not sure how that makes him a hypocrite.
Third, needlessly spreading stories to ruin someones reputation can be sinful.
Forth, we need to learn the difference between people who make mistakes and people who preach mistakes. We all sin. What is to be feared is when people start preaching sin. Whatever sins any politician has committed doesn’t make them morally equivalent to the pro-choice crowd.
Unless we see otherwise, we should believe Mr. Gingrich’s conversion, that he made a valid confession, that he received absolution with the required act of contrition, and that he now lives in the light of the Gospel. If he proves otherwise, then we are free to criticize, jumping in with both feet.
We can agree or we can disagree on politics, but let us try to admit the converts. The Church is bigger than politics.
I have often voted Republican but I would never vote for Newt. He talks a good line, is intellligent in some areas, a somewhat persuasive speaker, but he has failed seriously so many times morally that he doesn’t deserve to be president. As I recall even Congress censured or in some way punished him for something. I forget the details.
And don’t give me the baloney that becoming a Catholic makes everything okay now. That, to me, is just additional evidence that he is a hypocrite. Being Catholic obviously doesn’t guarantee a thing. Look at many in Congress. And our old buddy, pious Mel.
He constantly beats the ‘family values’ drum. He does so in a manner that denigrates democrats and all those on the left. He lead the impeachment of a president of the united states for doing something the he has often done himself.
How is that not the very definition of a hypocrite?
You’re right. I’m willing to listen to his policy ideas as I am with just about anyone, but he cannot be trusted with positions of power. Sadly, this applies to most people these days…
You might be mistaken when using the press to make judgements about who or what a man is. Historically the “character” stories and judgements that the press gives about people is incorrect at times as well as viciously innaccurate when it chooses to be . For example, Lincoln was demonized by the press and Hitler was idolized. As a young man, Lincoln himself had published some nasty articles attacking the character of James Sheilds under assumed names and nearly wound up in a duel over it. Abe used his genius to save the day but swore he would never use the press (or anything else) to attack the honor of another person again. I doubt that anyone else in the press today would do the same thing!
You may have what seem like “facts” from Newt’s (or anyone elses) family or associates but in this day and age, you can’t swear by them. Newt’s character as a politician should be taken from his record whether you like him or not. Little has been said about that here.
I don’t think it follows, though, that one is forbidden from holding certain values, and promoting certain policies, despite personal failures to live up to those values. I won’t bash Newt for his love life, or Gore for his big house - because their personal conduct is a diversion from discussing the merits of their beliefs.
He lead the impeachment of a president of the united states for doing something the he has often done himself.
Newt has a cigar fetish, too?
How is that not the very definition of a hypocrite?
DISCLAIMER: Catholic Answers has turned over the archive to Catholic-Questions.org and no longer owns, manages, or moderates the forums. For additional apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.
