Gingrich Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
MODERATOR REMINDER

It is fair to discuss a politician’s or newsmaker’s position on the issues and their qualifications for office, it is not fair to discuss their spiritual well being. Criticisms of a anyone’s spiritual life or spirituality should be left between that person and their spiritual director or confessor. They are not allowed in the forums. If a politician or newsmaker states that they are a certain religion that is the assumed religion of the politician in this forum, please do not question it.

Do not make judgement calls on if someone is truly repentant if they say they are. None of us are in the position to know.

The rules are here:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=508814
 
americanthinker.com/blog/2011/12/court_files_show_gingrich_lying_about_first_divorce.html

The above is the site you quoted from. I can see the word “blog” in the web address. The article is an opinion piece. Here’s a quote from it:“I don’t understand why Gingrich continues to lie about this issue. The facts are clear; he left his first wife for a younger, prettier woman, and left his second wife for the same reason. We are supposed to believe that since his conversion to Catholicism, he is a different man. I hope for Calista’s sake that is true.”
Yeah, so what.

NYtimes, Forbes. Cnn sometimes has blog in some of its articles too…does that make it not reputable as a site? I posted American thinker only because it had a cleaner breakdown.
I could have posted CNN’s link or any other NEWS source.

the piece cites SOURCES

What you are not paying attention to is it examines actual DIVORCE RECORDS. These are on file These are facts… And these are not anonymous sources. These are first hand sources.

Not to mention Marianne Herself a spouse married for 18 years is not hearsay.

the divorce records already prove that the daughter’s PR piece to rehabilitate their fathers image, in 2009. Again a year coming up to the election had errors and discrepancy.

The daughter’s piece was also an opinion piece, if that’s your qualification.
 
Perhaps I’m not articulating myself as well as I am in my posts.

But my concern is no different , than asking the questions of Father Z
People can convert, grow, change, mature, etc. We should not be Donatists when it comes to other people’s mistakes in life, as if they are perpetually and irremediably damned to hell forever in the court of public opinion. We pray, after all, that people will sincerely convert. We should be pleased when they do.
I have followed Mr. Gingrich over the years and read some of his books with interest. This new development, however, leaves me puzzled.
The former Speaker is fully capable of saying a really dumb thing in the midst of a hundred really smart things. But this leaves me severely puzzled.
Mr. Gingrich is a fairly recent convert to Holy Church. He is a huge fan of Pope John Paul…. I hope not merely for the late Pontiff’s geopolitical achievements.
There is no way that Newt Gingrich does not know that the Catholic Church teaches – what John Paul II made crystal clear – that human life begins at conception, not implantation.
Before I add anything else, let me add one of my major points of consideration for my vote in November 2012: judges.
The overriding point about judges is not “Whom would Mr. Gingrich appoint to the bench?”. The overriding point is “Pres. Obama must be defeated so that he cannot appoint another judge.” If the President’s opponent is, as Mark Levin puts it, a frozen orange juice can, the judges the can would appoint would be better.
I’m just sayin’…
wdtprs.com/blog/2011/12/fr-z-about-and-to-mr-gingrich-implantation-not-conception/

The only difference is , i am just discussing how Marianne’s interview brings up questions…to Gingrich’s character as well as his pride and arrogance.

i.e. his debate answers last night.

I disagree with Father Z’s conclusion about orange can. I used to believe that now I believe this country is doomed.

Gingrich is a member of the body of Christ now. There is no disputing that.
 
Gingrich called his wife Marianne a liar at last night’s debate (“the story is false”) when he pitted his daughter’s account of events against Marianne’s account of events. Either Gingrich is lying or Marianne is lying. It would be good for this issue to be resolved before a potential liar is elected President.

Santorum has a similar problem: Back in 2006, Santorum endorsed the pro-death Arlen Specter over the pro-life Pat Toomey. Santorum attempted to rationalize this betrayal of his pro-life principles by saying that he made a “supreme court nominee deal” with Specter in return for an endorsement. The only problem is that Arlen Specter denies that such a deal ever took place. So, either Santorum is lying or Specter is lying. It would also be good for this issue to be resolved before we elect a potential liar to the office of President.
 
SC Attorney General Investigating Gingrich Smear

S.C. Attorney General Alan Wilson’s office will investigate the two-pronged email assault leveled against former U.S. Speaker Newt Gingrich on the eve of the 2012 South Carolina GOP presidential primary. Sources at the S.C. State Law Enforcement Division (SLED) have also confirmed to FITS that the state’s top law enforcement agency has launched a preliminary inquiry as well.

Less than 24 hours before Palmetto State Republicans went to the polls in the pivotal “First in the South” presidential primary, Gingrich’s campaign was rocked with a pair of fake emails.

The first email took the form of a fake CNN news alert, while the second was a fake “official response” to the news alert ostensibly sent from the Gingrich campaign. The gist of both emails? That Gingrich had been accused 0f (and later acknowledged) pressuring his second wife Marianne Gingrich into have an abortion.

That allegation is not only false, Gingrich’s ex-wife never even made it- although she has alleged that the ex-Speaker asked her if he could have an “open marriage” after revealing a six-year affair with the woman who is now his current wife.

fitsnews.com/2012/01/20/sc-attorney-general-investigating-gingrich-smear/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
 
SC Attorney General Investigating Gingrich Smear

S.C. Attorney General Alan Wilson’s office will investigate the two-pronged email assault leveled against former U.S. Speaker Newt Gingrich on the eve of the 2012 South Carolina GOP presidential primary. Sources at the S.C. State Law Enforcement Division (SLED) have also confirmed to FITS that the state’s top law enforcement agency has launched a preliminary inquiry as well.

Less than 24 hours before Palmetto State Republicans went to the polls in the pivotal “First in the South” presidential primary, Gingrich’s campaign was rocked with a pair of fake emails.

The first email took the form of a fake CNN news alert, while the second was a fake “official response” to the news alert ostensibly sent from the Gingrich campaign. The gist of both emails? That Gingrich had been accused 0f (and later acknowledged) pressuring his second wife Marianne Gingrich into have an abortion.

That allegation is not only false, Gingrich’s ex-wife never even made it- although she has alleged that the ex-Speaker asked her if he could have an “open marriage” after revealing a six-year affair with the woman who is now his current wife.

fitsnews.com/2012/01/20/sc-attorney-general-investigating-gingrich-smear/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
This sounds like a non-story. Why even mention fake emails?

The more important point is the one I raised in the post immediately preceeding this non-story.
 
That’s not what I am doing.

I pointed out the misnomer and to be wary of trivializing sins as mistakes, not that Gingrich is guilty of it. He is probably ignorant…

You are acting defensive for no reason that relates to the Faith, but it is sanctimony on behalf of your partisanship.

I already pointed out this is no different than discussing Joe Biden or any Catholic politician. Even Santorum can be discussed. read my posts and don’t falsely accuse me.

I am no more questioning the sincerity of Gingrich screw ups in the public eyes. When it comes to policy than you guys do to Nancy Pelosi.

I really don’t know how Gingrich repents daily. But i can judge what I see publicly. And from the reports.
His private sins were public scandal. Just like Bill Clinton.

But Gingrich apparently is becoming a special protected class among Republicans.

There’s a difference between pointing , signs of a penitent. I didn’t say it was my business. And signs of someone who goes out and endorses a pro abortionist, gay marriage, moments after he lets everyone know.

First of all Gingrich made his conversion public. More public than tony blair.

So when Tony blair goes out and does something to scandalize the faithful. it’s none of our business.

you are too partisan towards Newt and start attack the poster who is n’t really attacking Newt’ privately. But his public actions. You watch yourself.

I am not acting like a Pharisee. I just am very serious about the faith and have ongoing catechisis, and keep trying to build. Maybe we aren’t at the same point but I am speaking from what I know of the Faith. Saints lives

And there was a time when the Church would make the penitent do public acts…

You are perceiving me to act like a pharisee but I am not.

I am concerned because I believe when you really are embracing Christ you seek first the kingdom of God. Not start preparing your way through poitical machinery, PR rehabilitations. While being caught in not so humble, not Catholic things such as some public dishonesty. For instance his inconsistency.

A priest saidthat it isn’t wise for Gingrich who had as you put it “character flaws” exacerbated by the trappings of Power.

So you are actually in correct. It is an act of charity for me to be wary.

For instance St. Francis tested St. Anthony’s humility by being hard on him.

Why should we voters be so easygoing about our public servants.

Again, above in your quote you are conflating a man’ as if he has no control. Sin is only an addiction, through bad habits. That’s all i meant, you have to root them out. I am no more a pharisee, than wishing Newt if he wanted to be president, would have waited a little longer.

Again it is a sign of the times that sins are now called “mistakes”
a mistake is forgetting to carry the one in math.

a mistake is making a wrong measurement or putting two eggs instead of three.

Sin is an act of the will, and disobedience and defiance of God.
Sin is very serious. And it is a sign of the times that Christians now view sins as “mistakes”

It is no more doubting God’s grace for me to want to see action, and works. Rather than just words.

Just as Christ is no more casting doubt on his saving power, when he mentions that there are those , say “Lord, Lord” with their words, and he rejects them.

A sign of God’s grace working in the soul working with God’s grace would be striving towards humility. Meekness. Which is restraint.

I don’t expect him to act like a Saint, holy person no more than I screw up in cooperating…

However, I know I would never say “life begins at implantation” that is basic. Even Father Z said so.

And I would never promote a pro gay, pro abortionist right after I had a tearful embrace of the Faith and entering Christ’s body months earlier.
I’m late to this--------but my two cents anyway----------
I will back Newt is he ends up being the nominee. We need Obama out of the President’s Office before he turns us into a third-world poor socialist country. And Gingrich IS a tried-and-true conservative.

But, after thinking about this and considering the man’s personality over sevral days, even weeks-----I can honestly say I do not like the man.
He comes off as condescending and lecturing (as if he is still a professor) in his answers-----particualrly in his answers to Juan Williams. They were not racist, BUT they WERE condescending. Same in some of his responses throughout the campaign. He needs to realize not all of us are students of his. :rolleyes:

And YES, he HAS been been given absolution by the Church (as has Calista his wife). But from what is claimed about his first and second wife, he acted very “douchy” (let’s say) towards them. And he has not expressed total (or even some public) acknowledgement about them. Also he had ethics violation investigations up the wazoo back in the day. He also never lived up to the total promise of the Speakership back in the 90’s. Some successes, lots of disappointments.

Jenny Sanford was on CNN one or two hours ago and she declared-----“Newt is a great campaigner, but he is not a great leader.” Time may tell about that----but Jenny is somebody who has been “around the block,” so to speak------so I tend to trust her on that.
He is almost certainly changed and a remorseful man----but I do NOT like his demeanor and attitude. And his arrogance, to be honest. 🤷😊

I will vote for him (again) but that does not mean I like the man. I will not do it gladly. 🤷🤷
 
Does anyone know if Newt Gingrich was granted an annulment by the Catholic Church?

If the answer to the first question is yes, can anyone explain to me how someone who divorced his previous two wives and was living in an adulterous relationship with Callista at the time, could be granted an annulment?
 
Does anyone know if Newt Gingrich was granted an annulment by the Catholic Church?

If the answer to the first question is yes, can anyone explain to me how someone who divorced his previous two wives and was living in an adulterous relationship with Callista at the time, could be granted an annulment?
Previous posters have said. yes, he was granted an annulment.
Which was probably from his first wife… since his second would not be considered valid.
(no annulment from his first when he remarried)

He just converted in 2008 or 09.
 
Previous posters have said. yes, he was granted an annulment.
Which was probably from his first wife… since his second would not be considered valid.
(no annulment from his first when he remarried)

He just converted in 2008 or 09.
“Previous posters have said. yes, he was granted an annulment.”

Any sources, citations?
 
Previous posters have said. yes, he was granted an annulment.
Which was probably from his first wife… since his second would not be considered valid.
(no annulment from his first when he remarried)

He just converted in 2008 or 09.
I think that is about right. 👍👍
 
Go back a couple pages and look.
I did.

I went back as far as page 67 of this thread where there was mention of an interview between Chris Wallace and Cardinal Wuerl. But there was nothing in that post to suggest that Gingrich recieved an annulment.

Also, on page 67 of this thread, there was a link to a Washington Post article that claims Newt Gingrich recieved an annulment. The person who wrote that article is Thomas Peters but he provides no official Catholic source or citation for his claim that Gingrich recieved an annulment.

I also did a quick scan of the internet search engines but can find no direct sources or citations of this claim that Newt Gingrich recieved an annulment.

I will keep mining for information. In the meantime, if you discover a official Catholic source or citation, drop me a line on this thread.
 
I did.

I went back as far as page 67 of this thread where there was mention of an interview between Chris Wallace and Cardinal Wuerl. But there was nothing in that post to suggest that Gingrich recieved an annulment.

Also, on page 67 of this thread, there was a link to a Washington Post article that claims Newt Gingrich recieved an annulment. The person who wrote that article is Thomas Peters but he provides no official Catholic source or citation for his claim that Gingrich recieved an annulment.

I also did a quick scan of the internet search engines but can find no direct sources or citations of this claim that Newt Gingrich recieved an annulment.

I will keep mining for information. In the meantime, if you discover a official Catholic source or citation, drop me a line on this thread.
Why? What is the point?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top