I point this out since Mr. Gingrich's previous marriages occurred before he sought admittance to the Roman Catholic church, isn't this the fact of the matter?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't this aspect absolve the Catholic church from criticisms based upon the church having some sort of double-standard concerning marriage (and divorce) issues, at least in the case of Mr. Gingrich?
I'm trying to be fair here.
Nyer;
Otherwise I don't see all that much "bashing" of the church going on here, for other than the possibly unfounded criticism pertaining to Gingrich's previous, non-"Catholic", not-happening-in-the-Church marriages, most of the rest of it is aimed at Gingrich himself. If the "poping" comment burns you up, remember that he did put it in context, regardless of how you twisted that into insult, yourself.
Remember also, Buckley didn't come as some dreaded, evil, "heretical", "schismatic" "blaspheming", bound-for-an-eternity-in-hell protestant, bent upon the destruction of the Catholic church --- but as one of those dreaded, evil, bound-for-an-eternity-in-hell lapsed Catholics.
We could all properly fault Buckley's article for being gossipy.
But if I'm correct, then Buckley's article might serve to give opportunity for one (in the Magisterium?) to help teach a wider audience where it is the Catholic church does stand on such issues (even in this instance in particular?).
Certainly I'm not the only one (other than the Lord?) who has noticed had the idea jump out at them, that just maybe the Catholic church cannot be legitimately faulted for accepting Gingrich into membership, due to this previous, and admitted "sin" problem of his?
As to this "bashing" you seem to be often troubled over ----
Remember, when you are the Lord's, no weapon formed against you shall prosper...even though it's difficult to see this truth many times. Christ outwardly looked or appeared to have lost, when He was crucified. Of course we all now know that He didn't lose anything, but gained more than "the entire world" that Satan previously had offered Him.
Perhaps one should not allow themselves to hold too closely, enmity towards Buckley himself, or hold that Buckley himself should be bashed --- harshly punished (because he deserves it!), even if he is wrong in his form and content of criticism.
He's a self-admitted lapsed Catholic, after all.
Do you want him to come back to your church, or not?
If not, there probably are some Evangelicals out there who would be more than willing to assist him in building and maintaining a relationship with the Lord through Christ, thus allowing him to gain peace & rest for his soul, for a time in this present world, and for all eternity once we are all gone from "here".
Good observations. I’m assuming that the Church considers Mr. Gingrich’s current marriage legitimate (the details being beyond my competence). Otherwise, the local authorities would not be admitting such a high-profile candidate. A nowhere parish, where a liberal bishop isn’t watching, might confirm a convert with a dubious marriage status, but not somebody who’s all over the news like this.
If Christianity didn’t accept sinners, whom are they going to take? Not St. Peter or St. Paul, or St. Augustine or St. Francis.
And, as you point out, Christopher Buckley is, as a sinner acting unworthily of his heritage, Just Like Us. Richard Wurmbrand, the great Lutheran pastor, translated the “golden rule” as “Love your neighbor, because he’s just like you.” I’d have put a few redneck expletives in there, but I think the point is clear without them.