We hear old Newt is about to become a card carrying member of the Roman Catholic Church soon. While normally that would not be newsworthy, it has become so, since Mr. Gingrich has been errr, divorced twice and once caught in adultery, which caused the second divorce and led to his current third wife.
Again, this would be no big deal, live and let live, forgiveness is a good thing, at least he’s now seen the light, right?
Except that the Roman Catholic church rather deeply frowns on divorce, and doesn’t agree with it at all. In fact it’s one of those things that it will not tolerate. Well, not quite. Faced with people quietly leaving their ranks for a place of acceptance, the Church has quietly allowed Americans (whose petitions far far top any other country in the world) to obtain “annulments” with ease.
It is always asserted of course, that it is a serious process, carefully examined, blah, blah, blah. They point to the fact that not all are granted. But suspiciously, that seems not to be true if you are well, rich and famous. I think theirs are mostly granted. No doubt I’ll get some nasty comments if anyone can prove that not true.
I recall many a moon ago when Jackie Gleason was unable to get a divorce from his wife to marry his long time love. Catholics just weren’t able to do that. Sometime after Vatican II, it seems to have changed.
Christopher Buckley, son of the conservative William F., suggests that there is something unseemly about all this. The hypocrisy is well, obvious. It takes away from the Church’s credibility.
Not that I have a axe to grind about Mr. Gingrich and his marital issues or the Church he wishes to attend. I’m of the opinion that no church has the right to deny sacraments to a person. It smacks of thinking that one is God after all.
I’m just wondering how the extreme right wing of the Church will respond to this. I have an idea. Mostly they will claim that “we are all sinners, and Mr. Gingrich has ‘come home to the true Church’ and has taken all the steps required to bring himself into communion with Mother Church.” Still, it plays a bit thin don’t you think?
If you have rules, but then have a hole big enough to drive a truck through, I mean, is that really a rule? No doubt the church proudly can take you along a twisting road of logic that makes it all so properly arrived at, but again, it’s just a tad to hard to swallow. Logic is logic, but logic doesn’t always signify correct, ethical, moral, or anything else. Syllogisms are made for just that kind of insane result. Logic but stupid.
Again, I’d not mention it, but for the fact that these same holier than thou types are consistently demanding that Pelosi, Kennedy, Kerry, and a slew of other Democrats who are also Roman Catholic need to be thrown out on their ear. Old Archbishop Burke, carried to Rome, apparently in some attempt to muzzle him, has recently called again for refusing them communion, only to immediately retract his “interview.” Apparently the Vatican, while not wanting publicly to rebuke Burke, wants him to shaddup anyhow.
They are nearly hysterical that Notre Dame has invited the President to speak at commencement this year, an old tradition which has included every modern president. Horror of horrors, Barack will taint the hallowed Catholic halls of higher education with his moderate take on stem cell research and abortion rights. No mind that it is an institution of higher learning and learning means a fair exchange of ideas. No matter. To the wacko right religious, learning means only what is approved by Mother Church.
I’m just saying, that given all this, the Church would do well to be a bit more sympathetic in its pronouncements. Given the recent slew of gaffes by Benedict, and this liberal annulment policy, it seems they might be a little less sanctimonious and a bit more humble.
It’s nice to know, given my own Church’s difficulties at the moment, that another is facing it’s own moral issues. I’m just saying. . . .