This looks like an ad hominem argument. This was a simple question as to whether or not a Church tribunal has ever made a mistake in granting an annulment. I believe that a fairly large percentage of appeals to the Roman Rota have resulted in a decision being overturned. This speaks to the possibility that the decision of a tribunal to grant a marriage annulment is not an infallible decision.
It’s ok hon, he’s a Republican…it doesn’t matter, he has repented and joined the Church. Makes me wonder if John Edwards should give it a try again, only join the Church first.
You see “extreme conservatives eat their own”.So, are you saying that your first instinct is that Cain cheated, so that’s what your going with?
It’s ok hon, he’s a Republican…it doesn’t matter, he has repented and joined the Church. Makes me wonder if John Edwards should give it a try again, only join the Church first.
I understand what you are saying. Some think the Cain scandal was put upon by the Democrats with Obama in tow…you don’t have to think real hard who is behind all these women coming out of the woodwork on Cain. yeah, your first instinct is usually the correct one.
No, not my first instinct, not that I would be surprised…
There can no longer be any wonder why the muslims now outnumber us.And that my dear is why I never vote a straight ticket. I am an independent/moderate. The extremists have taken over politics as we know it and left those with common sense out in the cold. Don’t be too sure the Christian Right will be all over this. Remember they have been with Newt all the way from the beginning and Newt knows where all “their” skeletons are. Keep in mind the “Catholics” were never included in the “Christian Right” movement. We are, and always will be on the fringe, which is fine by me as I prefer my faith to my faith, not the prescribed/ordered faith of the country. If that is what people want, I hear the mid-east is accepting applicants.He’s not getting my vote nor encouragement that he is a catholic. Forget it. Ya take a vow, ya take a vow…ya call yourself Cathlic…This is shame to me. . The protestants will be all over this. Disgrace. I was feeling kind of proud to be Catholic this is a bunch of nonsense…The party of lies courted by the church even if it hurts one of the biggest things She stood for…It seems to be all about money and power anymore…Not what it was meant for. Shame. What a shame.
As far as I understand, Gingrich does not take a policy stance on marriage that is contrary to Church teaching. He is in a valid marriage. He is a confirmed Catholic. He isn’t my first choice, but I would still vote for him in the general election over President Obama who holds many positions contrary to the Church.
Personally, the only difference I’m starting to see in him and Romney is that he seems to be smarter. Romney just looks like a Republican John Edwards, I don’t know why, but he just rubs me that way.
Romney is more business-smart than Gingrich, and Gingrich is more history/book-smart than Romney. Both show good leadership ability. I think Romney rubs you the wrong way because he has a persona that appears fake…like a car salesman who is trying to hard to be your “friend.” Gingrich also rubs a lot of people the wrong way because of smugness.
IMO, President Obama is a very charismatic speaker. Unfortunately, he also appears to be a flip-flopper, he has stated his support, for example, for universal healthcare, but bowed to the insurance companies and let it slide. He talks about respect for life but is the most pro-abortion president ever. He’s an opportunist.I’m glad we had a black president but I wish we had a better one – perhaps that’s some of Mr. Cain’s appeal? But Cain has too many women coming out of the woodwork with accusations. . .Obama is more like Gingrich but without the leadership ability and speaking ability. He is good with a prepared/practiced speech and a TelePrompTer…that’s about it.
Why should these issues be a problem for Gingrich? They were of zero concern as regards Bill Clinton or Teddy Kennedy or John Edwards or a host of other Democrat candidates for various high offices.
With the minor exceptions that he earned his money ethically and he didn’t cheat on his terminally ill wife and produce a love child…among other things.
I was referring to their politics. They both have flip flopped on a number of issues, which doesn’t worry me too much for most politicians. But with Romney and Newt it bothers me a bit that Newt use to back the mandatory purchase while Romney actually implemented it.
That’s a terrible foolish question. You have zero grounds to suspect the Church “made some mistake” and yet you still have the nrve to ask, as though the Church owes some random peon on this website an answer? Get over yourself. When the Church speaks on these matters, we are to accept what they said, regardless of what we believe.
I hope no one wants to print this. LOL. Yes, Gingrich might get that nomination. But millions of conservative Americans are going to be deeply troubled by his personal baggage. Excuses of all sorts are being offered, but three marriages, infidelity, even while assailing Clinton for Monica, being dropped by GOP when House speaker, $500,000 credit at Tiffany's, a well-paid advocate in Congress for Freddie Mac, even boasting that he received $60,000 a speech - these and other skeletons that certainly will emerge from Gingrich's closet will hurt him badly among many who believe in family values. Some will hold their nose and vote for him. Others will sit on their hands or vote third party. A strong third candidate may emerge, as when Bush I ran for reelection and lost because of Perot - and Gore was defeated by Nader. Many may stick with Ron Paul and write in his name.
Do we really want to set before our young people as well as our world a president so compromised by greed, corruption, and personal immorality? Many CAF posters seem to think that his conversion absolves him of all this. Many others may view his conversion as yet another part of his determined scheme to gain power. His ego obviously is huge!
Frankly, Perry has stumbled badly, but he just might win in a national election. Too bad Daniels stayed out of the race. Or, that Pawlenty left early, for that matter.
Mitt is the best equipped candidate, with his business background and his calm and cool demeanor, but like many others I find myself reluctant to elect a Mormon to the White House, especially a man who has been a Mormon bishop. To be born into Mormonism is one thing. To embrace it so completely is something else. Yet, the Constitution does say that there will be no 'religious test' for those who run for office. Mormons are fine people - probably more moral as a group than the rest of us. But they have to believe such stuff that it can make you wonder. On the other hand, there are those who say this about Catholics - or about all Christians for that matter.Obama is a good speaker with a teleprompter. Ever watch him in off-the-cuff remarks? Not good. He seems a little jerky in his delivery either way. But to each his own.
Can you tell me what’s wrong with having an account with Tiffany’s?
His consulting firm was paid fees for services rendered. Too bad they didn’t listen
What is wrong with charging for speeches. Clinton does it. Most speakers I know charge for speaking.
They’re not skeletons any more.
I think the real moral issue is a president who supports and endorses the slaughter of millions of babies, born and unborn, supports SSM, drives our country into TRILLIONS of dollars in debt.