Callista Gingrich set to be named ambassador to the Vatican

[Reuben_J]

80 million Catholics in the U.S.

Does one have to be related to a politician to be in this “not many Americans” pool?

That’s why I asked for the qualification of an American ambassador to the Vatican because I am not sure what the criteria should be.

It seems being a politician’s wife may not necessarily disqualify a candidate, … unless you say so, and if you do, I would like your reason for it.

What I gather from the posts here, the preferred candidate seems to be the one who is impeccable especially not a person who has committed adultery.

That’s why I said most people who fit the resume probably have died (to become saints in heaven). So we just got to do with what we have and there are few to choose from.

Would you like to volunteer?

 

[ToeInTheWater]

What I gather from the posts here, the preferred candidate seems to be the one who is impeccable especially not a person who has committed adultery.

That’s why I said most people who fit the resume probably have died (to become saints in heaven). So we just got to do with what we have and there are few to choose from.

To clarify my own remarks: I don’t want to give the impression that I think adultery is no big deal or that “everyone does it” or that the only people who haven’t done it are immaculate saints who were cloistered in some convent. I am speaking about the tendency to reduce people - especially, when it comes to this topic of sex, especially women - to “sinner” status even years after the sin has taken place.

Speaking of saints, what about Saint Augustine, he kept a mistress for years, yet it seems he was readily forgiven for that.

Now, I certainly used to have a very judgmental attitude toward sexual sinners and adulterers – until I myself was very tempted to do what Callista did, have a affair with a married man. I didn’t fall to the temptation but I certainly don’t feel like I have any right to assume everyone who does so, is some depraved sexual libertine who is incapable of repentance, who should all exile themselves from public life.

Now, if Callista was openly having an affair with a married man right now, I’d certainly understand the Vatican refusing the appointment. Or even if she was still in an invalid marriage and yet boldly talking communion. Then I wouldn’t agree with her, or Newt for that matter, being appointed to the Vatican, much as I agreed with their earlier rejection of an ambassador who was an open practicing homosexual.

I do think it is unfair to be scandalized by a scandal that took place almost two decades ago, and act like Callista can never be allowed to move on from it.

 

[queenofheartscv]

To clarify my own remarks: I don’t want to give the impression that I think adultery is no big deal or that “everyone does it” or that the only people who haven’t done it are immaculate saints who were cloistered in some convent. I am speaking about the tendency to reduce people - especially, when it comes to this topic of sex, especially women - to “sinner” status even years after the sin has taken place.

Speaking of saints, what about Saint Augustine, he kept a mistress for years, yet it seems he was readily forgiven for that.

Now, I certainly used to have a very judgmental attitude toward sexual sinners and adulterers – until I myself was very tempted to do what Callista did, have a affair with a married man. I didn’t fall to the temptation but I certainly don’t feel like I have any right to assume everyone who does so, is some depraved sexual libertine who is incapable of repentance, who should all exile themselves from public life.

Now, if Callista was openly having an affair with a married man right now, I’d certainly understand the Vatican refusing the appointment. Or even if she was still in an invalid marriage and yet boldly talking communion. Then I wouldn’t agree with her, or Newt for that matter, being appointed to the Vatican, much as I agreed with their earlier rejection of an ambassador who was an open practicing homosexual.

I do think it is unfair to be scandalized by a scandal that took place almost two decades ago, and act like Callista can never be allowed to move on from it.

Well said!

 

[Reuben_J]

To clarify my own remarks: I don’t want to give the impression that I think adultery is no big deal or that “everyone does it” or that the only people who haven’t done it are immaculate saints who were cloistered in some convent. I am speaking about the tendency to reduce people - especially, when it comes to this topic of sex, especially women - to “sinner” status even years after the sin has taken place.

Speaking of saints, what about Saint Augustine, he kept a mistress for years, yet it seems he was readily forgiven for that.

Now, I certainly used to have a very judgmental attitude toward sexual sinners and adulterers – until I myself was very tempted to do what Callista did, have a affair with a married man. I didn’t fall to the temptation but I certainly don’t feel like I have any right to assume everyone who does so, is some depraved sexual libertine who is incapable of repentance, who should all exile themselves from public life.

Well said and thanks for sharing your experience.

Now, if Callista was openly having an affair with a married man right now, I’d certainly understand the Vatican refusing the appointment. Or even if she was still in an invalid marriage and yet boldly talking communion. Then I wouldn’t agree with her, or Newt for that matter, being appointed to the Vatican, much as I agreed with their earlier rejection of an ambassador who was an open practicing homosexual.

I do think it is unfair to be scandalized by a scandal that took place almost two decades ago, and act like Callista can never be allowed to move on from it.

Due to the number of posts in this section of CAF I may not be updated enough by unable to read them but I thank you for defending Callista which is pretty much my own position as well – a Christian perspective of not judging and that all can be made right with God.

Still on the criteria of ambassador to the Vatican – I would think as it is a diplomatic relation between two sovereign nations, it is their prerogative to select their candidate for the ambassadorial post respectively.

While the host nation may have the right to refuse an ambassador allocated to them, it would usually only be in rare cases. For that reason, whom the President chooses to be ambassador, is really his prerogative, an issue that is plainly petty for us to criticise on.

 

[gnjsdad]

Speaking of saints, what about Saint Augustine, he kept a mistress for years, yet it seems he was readily forgiven for that.

St Augustine laid bare, for all the world to see for all time, the depravity of his early life by penning his Confessions.

How else would we have known about this?

The point is NOT whether this person or that is an adulterer/libertine/fornicator, etc. We are ALL, as I have said, sinners. We all are tempted and we all give in to our weaknesses at some point. We are all burdened with fallen human nature. I also know how easy it could be to fall into the trap of condemning someone for sins which we ourselves are not prone to commit. That, indeed, smacks of a lack of charity.

No one is asking Mrs Gingrich to write her own version of Confessions.

I hope ideology isn’t a determining factor here. I hope this isn’t based on the notion that she and Newt Gingrich are perceived as “conservatives” and that thus publicly known deplorable behavior can be excused or overlooked or explained away. She and Newt carried on a 6 year affair while he was married. This is publicly known. It indicates at least a cold, callous indifference on both their parts to the effect of this on Mr Gingrich’s then wife and family. It wasn’t a moment-of-weakness type of thing.

When some future Democratic president nominates, for instance, Andrew Cuomo, to be the next US ambassador to the Vatican, will the same “who are you to judge; you mustn’t play God; you don’t know what’s really in their heart” sentiments be heard?

Catholicity has a public, social dimension which MUST come into play when we are dealing with a job that requires regular contact with the Holy See.

 

[ProVobis]

That’s why I asked for the qualification of an American ambassador to the Vatican because I am not sure what the criteria should be.

It seems being a politician’s wife may not necessarily disqualify a candidate, … unless you say so, and if you do, I would like your reason for it.

What I gather from the posts here, the preferred candidate seems to be the one who is impeccable especially not a person who has committed adultery.

That’s why I said most people who fit the resume probably have died (to become saints in heaven). So we just got to do with what we have and there are few to choose from.

Would you like to volunteer?

Unfortunately I’ve become too much of a political junkie to volunteer for a religious vocation.

 

[ToeInTheWater]

St Augustine laid bare, for all the world to see for all time, the depravity of his early life by penning his Confessions.

How else would we have known about this?

The point is NOT whether this person or that is an adulterer/libertine/fornicator, etc. We are ALL, as I have said, sinners. We all are tempted and we all give in to our weaknesses at some point. We are all burdened with fallen human nature. I also know how easy it could be to fall into the trap of condemning someone for sins which we ourselves are not prone to commit. That, indeed, smacks of a lack of charity.

No one is asking Mrs Gingrich to write her own version of Confessions.

So what ARE you asking her to do? Simply withdraw her name from the nomination? Or stage some kind of press conference in which she begs forgiveness for her sins? Even if she were to do it, I’m sure her critics would question her sincerity as well. I can think of a lot of cheating politicians staging such conferences in the past, and most of them did nothing to convince me of their sincerity. Or, do you want her to leave Newt and become a nun in a convent somewhere to “prove” she is truly repentant?

I hope ideology isn’t a determining factor here. I hope this isn’t based on the notion that she and Newt Gingrich are perceived as “conservatives” and that thus publicly known deplorable behavior can be excused.When some future Democratic president nominates, for instance, Andrew Cuomo, to be the next US ambassador to the Vatican, will the same “who are you to judge; you mustn’t play God; you don’t know what’s really in their heart” sentiments be heard?

Forgiveness for sins is different from excusing them. If the Gingiches were engaged in adultery right now, as opposed to nearly 20 years ago, then I’d certainly object to this nomination. But they are currently in a valid Catholic marriage. Maybe you think this “isn’t fair” and that the Church should have refused to convalidate the marriage because it was based on adultery. But that’s not the standard other Catholics in their position are held to. The Church also doesn’t require anyone to reverse sterilization procedures, or refuse to baptize babies conceived through IVF. All such sinners are allowed to “benefit” from their sin the same way the Gingriches have.

Now, maybe you think politicians should be held to a higher standard and I agree to some extent, but Callista Gingrich is now right with the Church. If Andrew Cuomo and Sandra Lee get their 1st marriages annulled and marry in the Church, then I actually would cut them the same slack. If John Edwards repented of and confessed all his sins and became Catholic, I’d think the same.

Catholicity has a public, social dimension which MUST come into play when we are dealing with a job that requires regular contact with the Holy See.

And one of those dimensions is to show people, even powerful politicians and their wives, forgiveness of sins. Not to say “some sins are so horrible you must keep paying for them for decades afterward”!

 

[gnjsdad]

So what ARE you asking her to do? Simply withdraw her name from the nomination?

Interestingly, she has threatened to do just that, according to the news article, most likely in a fit of pique that the whole process is taking too long.

I would like her to make some public statement acknowledging the wrongness of her past conduct, that she has learned to be persistent in her firm resolve to move away from it, and her hope to be worthy of this important assignment. That’s all. Is that too much to ask?

 

[ToeInTheWater]

Interestingly, she has threatened to do just that, according to the news article, most likely in a fit of pique that the whole process is taking too long.

I would like her to make some public statement acknowledging the wrongness of her past conduct, that she has learned to be persistent in her firm resolve to move away from it, and her hope to be worthy of this important assignment. That’s all. Is that too much to ask?

If this is what you’d expect of any other candidate, then I’d get it. But as I noted before, even if she were to do it, I’m sure her critics would question her sincerity as well. I can imagine plenty of eye-rolling taking place as she states she is “learned to be persistent in her firm resolve to move away from it” with Newt at her side. Unless you think she has regular temptations to have sex with married men, not just one particular one.

I just get the feeling you are falling into the trap of seeing women as Good or Bad, Madonnas or Whores. And that since Callista had an affair with a married man then she must be an inherently Bad Girl. Even your statements about her “threatening” to reject the offer in a “fit of pique” given me the impression you have judged her as a Bad Person, Period. Quite presumptuous to decide that when you don’t actually know her as a person.

 

[mary_bobo]

It’s hard to believe the level of judgmentalism going on here. Admittedly she did wrong, but we, as Catholics, are not to judge. That is in God’s hands.

 

[ToeInTheWater]

It’s hard to believe the level of judgmentalism going on here. Admittedly she did wrong, but we, as Catholics, are not to judge. That is in God’s hands.

Somehow I doubt the Vatican would even think of protesting this assignment on the grounds that, I guess, “This woman was a manifest public sinning adulteress 18 years ago!”

I mean, how did Jesus Himself deal with the woman “caught in adultery, in the very act?” Did he state “well to be merciful I won’t stone you to death, but you must still go to the public square and express public remorse for your sins, THEN I will forgive you, not before”. No, not at all. And AFAIK that particular adulteress didn’t even tell Jesus that she was sorry. Yet He refused to condemn her.

And since some people are speculating that the only reason people are going easy on Callista is because they agree with her politics, I think it’s also legit for me to speculate, that people wouldn’t be quite as scandalized if Callista was a male Congressional staffer who had an affair with a Congresswoman and eventually married her.

 

[Leo2014]

And since some people are speculating that the only reason people are going easy on Callista is because they agree with her politics, I think it’s also legit for me to speculate, that people wouldn’t be quite as scandalized if Callista was a male Congressional staffer who had an affair with a Congresswoman and eventually married her.

First, we are all judgmental all the time, just take a look at the comments on this forum. I am not speculating - it is apparent! Yes, among those comments, it is apparent that if the subject is within your political persuasion; you will be more forgiving of any transgressions. Just analyze your own remarks.

The commitment to stand by your moral convictions requires you at times to be judgmental. It means that we must also adhere to the standard. We must be an example for others to follow; especially if we are going to be placed in a position of responsibility.

Unfortunately, we have overly used the “don’t judge” clause as a justification for our apathy. Standing by ones principals is hard; one must also pray to not let condemnation overcome our convictions. We do not want to convey to our Interlocutors a message that is merely condeming. But we do want to send a message of conviction and of the reasoning’s to adhere to those higher standard.

An example; the problem I see is that if a person is conservative; we hold them in higher esteem. Therefore, eradicating or at lease defending any concerns that are apparent conflicts to our moral standard. Hence, call a “spade a spade”, otherwise you discredit your argument.

In regards to Callista; is there no one else that would be more qualified for the position? I don’t know what the criteria’s are for the job, but a candidate that adheres to high moral convictions should receive greater consideration than one that has stumbled.

 

[ToeInTheWater]

First, we are all judgmental all the time, just take a look at the comments on this forum. I am not speculating - it is apparent! Yes, among those comments, it is apparent that if the subject is within your political persuasion; you will be more forgiving of any transgressions. Just analyze your own remarks.

I stated I’d be willing to hold Andrew Cuomo and even John Edwards to the same standards. Now, I did point out that if Cuomo and his girlfriend took steps to regularize their relationship and marry in the Church, then his current situation, that is considered adulterous, would not be a barrier. I stated that because that is exactly what the Gingriches did. If they were still in an objective state of public adultery today, then I’d find the nomination inappropriate.

As for John Edwards, I mentioned his conversion to Catholicism, as I do think it reasonable for an ambassador to the Vatican to be Catholic, and Cuomo is a Catholic already. I also mentioned repentance and confession, because AFAIK if someone wants to convert to being Catholic, confession is required.

It seems many people are assuming “no way Callista can have repented when she’s still with the guy she committed sin with” but many Catholics in irregular marriages are in a state of adultery or fornication today, do you think none of them are repentant either? Or even Catholics who have children out of wedlock, or just “slip” sexually before marriage with someone. If they wind up marrying the people they committed sin with, is this proof they didn’t repent of the sin?

And since you’re accusing me of going easy on Gingrich just out of partisan politics, let me make a statement that is just as well founded (or not). I do get a feeling some Catholics are making a big deal of being scandalized as a way to prove “Look I’m not actually beholden to the GOP even though I vote for them all the time, I’m an Independent Thinker!” Somewhat like, say, an umpire from a particular state, or maybe with a relative playing for a particular team, tending to rule AGAINST that team more often than not, to prove he’s not biased in their favor.

 

[Leo2014]

It seems many people are assuming “no way Callista can have repented when she’s still with the guy she committed sin with” but many Catholics in irregular marriages are in a state of adultery or fornication today, do you think none of them are repentant either? Or even Catholics who have children out of wedlock, or just “slip” sexually before marriage with someone. If they wind up marrying the people they committed sin with, is this proof they didn’t repent of the sin?

I don’t want to digress into evaluating ones transgressions. However, In the Gospel of Mathew; the Lord states; "I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

Forgiveness is for our personal benefit. We need to come to terms with the feeling of anger or resentment towards someone for an offense, flaw, or mistake. But this does not mean that once we have comes to terms there are no longer restrictions.

Example: If you know someone to have been a pedophiliac. You can come to terms for accepting them. However, I am certain that you will never trust them alone with your child.

Back to Callista, I am just stating that I am certain that there are many with better qualifications. A person that has been a stellar example of someone beyond reproach. Those are the individuals that should be on the top of the list of consideration. Not someone who married her politically connected husband after a scandalous relationship.

I apologize to you if I misunderstood your argument? I understood your point to be; well, if she was a man, than in would not be an issue? I didn’t see this as a sexes issue. Thank you for clarifying.

 

[ToeInTheWater]

Example: If you know someone to have been a pedophiliac. You can come to terms for accepting them. However, I am certain that you will never trust them alone with your child.

So you think that the Vatican accepting this appointment is as foolish as me leaving a child alone with a pedophile?

Back to Callista, I am just stating that I am certain that there are many with better qualifications. A person that has been a stellar example of someone beyond reproach. Those are the individuals that should be on the top of the list of consideration. Not someone who married her politically connected husband after a scandalous relationship.

If your main complaint is “there were better candidates for this position” then that’s certainly a reasonable argument.

What I do have issue is with those (not necessarily yourself), who seem so confident in their ability to read Callista’s heart and assume she is a unrepentant hypocrite, just because she didn’t emulate Jane Shore and do a penance walk through the streets of Washington barefoot in her underwear.

Reference:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Shore

 

[Reuben_J]

Back to Callista, I am just stating that I am certain that there are many with better qualifications. A person that has been a stellar example of someone beyond reproach. Those are the individuals that should be on the top of the list of consideration. Not someone who married her politically connected husband after a scandalous relationship.

.

 

[Leo2014]

So you think that the Vatican accepting this appointment is as foolish as me leaving a child alone with a pedophile?

If your main complaint is “there were better candidates for this position” then that’s certainly a reasonable argument.

Conjecture Counselor!

True, the Vatican has not always made the best of administrative decisions. But I am certain that they have criteria’s that they adhere. This could merely be an administrative position? Therefore, the personal behavior(s) of the individual applying for the position is inconsequential.

However, if this is a position of high profile - than the reputation of the individual should be of great significance.

True, in a perfect world, we should not hold any prejudice. But the reality is that we do. If Callista was to lead a symposium on “family values”; would she have any credibility? Outside of those that know her personally, the remainder of us would form our opinions from what we have read about her…which isn’t very good. Yes, there are those that would testify on her behalf not having been enlighten in any manner other than she carries similar political persuasion.

The comparative that I was attempting to make is; there are actions both you & I find unforgivable. Even if we would come to terms, we would always carry a prejudice at the very least.

In conclusion, a poorly decided appointment is a decision not well considered. In no way can you compare it to leaving a child with a known pedophilic - the two just don’t compare - the latter is criminal.

Yes, I am certain there are better candidates…

 

[ToeInTheWater]

True, in a perfect world, we should not hold any prejudice. But the reality is that we do. If Callista was to lead a symposium on “family values”; would she have any credibility? Outside of those that know her personally, the remainder of us would form our opinions from what we have read about her…which isn’t very good. Yes, there are those that would testify on her behalf not having been enlighten in any manner other than she carries similar political persuasion.

But she has not been nominated for “family values czar”, has she?

As for what we have read about Callista is that (1) she had an affair with a married Newt Gingrich and later married him after he divorced his 2nd wife, (2) did play a large role in his conversion to the Catholic faith and (3) now spends much of her professional life help him to run a media company that has, among many things, actually produced media favorable to the Catholic faith.

Having an affair is certainly not a good thing but (2) seems to be a good thing from a Catholic perspective and (3) certainly seems to be at least potentially good, I’m not saying I agree with all of Gingrich’s political beliefs, but isn’t promoting Catholic faith a good thing?

The comparative that I was attempting to make is; there are actions both you & I find unforgivable. Even if we would come to terms, we would always carry a prejudice at the very least.

In conclusion, a poorly decided appointment is a decision not well considered. In no way can you compare it to leaving a child with a known pedophilic - the two just don’t compare - the latter is criminal.

Well, you’re the one who brought up the comparison in the first place.

It seems you find adultery to be an unforgiveable sin that means everyone who commits it is an “adulterer” who is constantly tempted to have sex with married people who are not married to them, and that once someone commits this kind of sin we can never trust them again. That is certainly how most people see pedophilia.

Well, I just don’t see it that way. But I admit I am biased due to my own history. I was very tempted at one point, to commit the same sin Callista did. However I certainly do NOT suffer from constant temptations to have sex with married men.

Yes, I am certain there are better candidates…

I actually agree with you that there are better qualified candidates. I do not agree that PAST sexual sin is an automatic disqualification for the position of “ambassador to the Vatican”. I’m pretty sure Callista would not be the first one appointed to that position, who has skeletons in the closet when it comes to sexual sin.

 

[Leo2014]

It seems you find adultery to be an unforgiveable sin that means everyone who commits it is an “adulterer” who is constantly tempted to have sex with married people who are not married to them, and that once someone commits this kind of sin we can never trust them again. That is certainly how most people see pedophilia.

Well, I just don’t see it that way. But I admit I am biased due to my own history. I was very tempted at one point, to commit the same sin Callista did. However I certainly do NOT suffer from constant temptations to have sex with married men.

I actually agree with you that there are better qualified candidates. I do not agree that PAST sexual sin is an automatic disqualification for the position of “ambassador to the Vatican”. I’m pretty sure Callista would not be the first one appointed to that position, who has skeletons in the closet when it comes to sexual sin.

Again, Conjecture!

Try not to get caught up with if I accept adultery or not? The point that I am trying to convey is that there are consequences to our actions and yes, some of them you will find not easily forgiven. Sadly, most of us want to feel that when we say; sorry, suddenly all will be forgiven and everything will return to normal. But you know that is not always true.

We all are tempted by sin all the time. But that should not be an endorsement to proceed or to convey a cavalier message of acceptance once it has been executed.

I mention this before, therefore I don’t want to digress into evaluating ones transgressions. However, In the Gospel of Mathew; the Lord states; "I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

In an effort to keep on topic, she is not the best qualified candidate. Again, I mentioned this before; certainly there are more worthy individuals with an impeccable record. In this case, the ends do not justify the means. I am certain her talents would serve well elsewhere.

 

[mary_bobo]

But she has not been nominated for “family values czar”, has she?

As for what we have read about Callista is that (1) she had an affair with a married Newt Gingrich and later married him after he divorced his 2nd wife, (2) did play a large role in his conversion to the Catholic faith and (3) now spends much of her professional life help him to run a media company that has, among many things, actually produced media favorable to the Catholic faith.

Having an affair is certainly not a good thing but (2) seems to be a good thing from a Catholic perspective and (3) certainly seems to be at least potentially good, I’m not saying I agree with all of Gingrich’s political beliefs, but isn’t promoting Catholic faith a good thing?

Well, you’re the one who brought up the comparison in the first place.

It seems you find adultery to be an unforgiveable sin that means everyone who commits it is an “adulterer” who is constantly tempted to have sex with married people who are not married to them, and that once someone commits this kind of sin we can never trust them again. That is certainly how most people see pedophilia.

Well, I just don’t see it that way. But I admit I am biased due to my own history. I was very tempted at one point, to commit the same sin Callista did. However I certainly do NOT suffer from constant temptations to have sex with married men.

I actually agree with you that there are better qualified candidates. I do not agree that PAST sexual sin is an automatic disqualification for the position of “ambassador to the Vatican”. I’m pretty sure Callista would not be the first one appointed to that position, who has skeletons in the closet when it comes to sexual sin.

I have always thought that ambassadorships were plums given to people who are in great favor with the president. If one looks back, there have been many ambassadors who were hardly impressive. Whether we like it or not, the president has the authority to do this. And as for transgressions, the church has recognized Newt’s and Callista’s marriage. Who are we to withhold forgiveness if Mother Church has done so. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.