Newt Gingrich describes importance of faith in political decisions

CNA ^ | Oct 29, 2011 | Michelle Bauman

[markomalley]

Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich said Catholics should pray about the decision of whom to support for public office and then vote according to their consciences.

Gingrich, a convert who entered the Catholic Church in 2009, is running for the Republican presidential nomination.

Gingrich told CNA on Oct. 24 that he believes the single biggest threat to America today is “the attack against the Judeo-Christian tradition and the effort to drive God out of public life and eliminate the understanding that our rights come from our Creator.”

The former speaker explained that he was motivated to run for president by the current political situation in America.

“The United States faces the most serious election since 1860,” he said.

“Our challenges are so great and the consequence of choosing American exceptionalism or class warfare and bureaucratic socialism is so large that as a citizen I felt compelled to run.”

Gingrich explained that his faith would influence his political decisions as president.

“Any leader should seek God's guidance,” he said. “The teachings of the Church inform my thinking about solving earthly problems.”

Gingrich said that he would “listen” to the concerns of those who feel threatened by his views and values.

“In many cases better communications and clarification will eliminate their worries,” he said.

“In some cases they are right to feel threatened because we have incompatible values and fundamentally different visions of the future.”

As speaker of the House, Gingrich had a strongly pro-life voting record.

In his race for GOP presidential candidate, he has signed the Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life Presidential Leadership Pledge.

The pledge asks candidates to commit to nominating federal judges who are dedicated to “applying the original meaning of the Constitution;” selecting “only pro-life appointees for relevant Cabinet and Executive Branch positions;” supporting legislation to “permanently end all taxpayer funding of abortion;” and working toward a law “to protect unborn children who are capable of feeling pain from abortion.”

Gingrich has also expressed support for efforts to defend marriage.

“I helped author the Defense of Marriage Act which the Obama administration should be protecting in court,” he said in a Republican primary debate in Manchester, N.H. on June 13, 2011.

“I think if that fails, you have no choice except a constitutional amendment.”

Gingrich told CNA that Catholic voters who are trying to pick a candidate to support in the upcoming election should pray about their decision and “take seriously the responsibility of citizenship.”

“Pray for America and for our leaders,” he said. “Then vote as your conscience instructs you.”

“If possible become an activist helping America regain its sense of purpose and direction.”

[Gaffer]

“The teachings of the Church inform my thinking about solving earthly problems.”

I guess this is what kept him from dropping his trousers and philandering around on his wife during one of pinnacle moments in moral turpitude debate ala BJ Clinton, huh? It is perfectly fine to tout Newt's academic prowess, his experience in government (at least, that no hindered by his personal failings), and it is okay to talk about solving this nation's problems. However, when "faith", "conversion", responsibilty et al get into the mix and he's held up as an example of such, that's where I draw the line. He was my congressman, and I know exactly what he's capable of.

[livius]

Good. I think that unless a committed Christian is elected in the next election, we’re really going to see major government attacks on the churches in the very near future. Both Gingrich (Catholic) and Perry (Evangelical) have said some good things about this lately. I think either one of them would do a lot to make the government back off.

[don-o]

Looking at my choices, Gingrich is looking better and better to me. What to do about his past moral failings and that silly picture of him on the sofa with Pelosi?

Since the former occurred before his reception into the Church, I would assume sins have been confessed and forgiven. Yet, I see them brought up again and again. Does he need to deal with that head on and if he does, can he win over values voters?

As to the Pelosi association, with Nancy out of power, I think that is very small beer these days.

Bottom line: Could he defeat Obama? Just fantasize Newt debating man to boy (yes, I said boy), with Obama and you got your answer right there.

[don-o]

I guess this is what kept him from dropping his trousers and philandering around on his wife during one of pinnacle moments in moral turpitude debate ala BJ Clinton, huh?

Is there no forgiveness? Ever?

I expect that he's going to need to address his moral failings head on at some point to try to put his past behind him.

[Lady Lucky]

It’d be hard for them to label him as ignorant and ineloquent. Newt would have to go in the evil genius, Lex Luthor pigeonhole.
I like Newt best, he could start on 1/20/13 without needing a crash course and an English-Washington Dictionary.

[Gaffer]

Yes, there is moral forgiveness. Along with forgiveness, I think, some bit of humility and common sense should prevail. It is the height of hypocracy to pontificate about "faith", coincidentally in the path to achieving once-held power thrown away, while not showing real heart-felt regret.

You do this by specifically saying "I screwed up, I was wrong, and I am sorry to have let down my former wife and forsaken my marriage vows" "I am equally sorry about how I failed this country at a time of great moral debate where I could have made a difference."

This man, even today, touts his 'new' wife, Callista, every chance he gets. He showers her with expensive baubles (ala this 1/2 million dollar Tiffany's debt), he abandons his quest for a Mediterranian Cruise with "Callista" dumbfounding his staff, and he arrogantly preaches to the choir. He's a brilliant thinker; however, he is a terrible example of "faith" and he's not learned a thing from the last two decades, in my opinion.

[Venturer]

Newt is starting to look good as compared to the others.

He definitely knows more about Washington than the rest.

[nathanbedford]

We have 40 million dead babies to atone for as a nation. Before we have 40 million more, you might ask yourself whom would you entrust with the fate of the next 40 million babies, the philanderer Gingrich who has has repented but who has always had moral clarity on abortion, or the model husband Mitt Romney who always seems to flip when he should have stayed flopped?

It is all right to voice our moral indignation but at some level it must be leavened with a dose of realism. We have no candidate the side of the cross who is not flawed. That is not a resort to relativism, but a summons to a real world comparison of the relative sins of every mortal candidate to find the best combination of political effectiveness, conservative values, moral character, and electability.

These characteristics must not only be judged against the other candidates but in the context of our time. Are we as a nation in a crisis which requires an extraordinary man or are the 70% of Americans who believe that we are on the wrong track misguided and so we can we do business as usual?

[cripplecreek]

Did he have faith that voters would forget his little sit down with Nancy Pelosi to support the green agenda?

[9YearLurker]

Scoundrel that he is, Newt is increasingly looking like the best option we have.

But yes, his conversion to Catholicism doesn’t seem that different from Chuck Colson’s prison conversion to Christianity. It gives him a ready explanation as to why his past results don’t necessarily determine future performance.

[Coldwater Creek]

Don,

Newt was a public servant when he cheated on and dumped his former wives. When he comes forward in a public manner and asks forgiveness from the public and we know that he has asked forgiveness from God and his wives, then and only then am I required to publicly for Newt.

Sorry for the long sentence. It's early and I am rushing to get to church myself.

[knarf]

There are many dots in my own life that, if perceived with one kind of bias, agenda or viewpoint, I look like I must be pretty evil as an adult ... and if looked at with another bias, agenda or viewpoint, what an accomplished and well rounded man I am.

I've read up on Newt's faults and though despicable, it is what it is and the man can still be a wonderful and excellent president.

I know

Jesus forgave me and came into me with Holy Spirit guidance in 1981 .. that earlier, evil man is still there, but dead as a life governing influence.

I have better friends, influence and reading materiel these days and I cringe when an element of my past (though true) is brought up innocently in conversation.

I just thank The Lord for His goodness and forgiveness.

I WILL say, however ... I don't go out of my way to place myself in a situation where my pas might have dots connected evilly.

[Gaffer]

It gives him a ready explanation as to why his past results don’t necessarily determine future performance

Certainly, you're not implying that his not being a Catholic is the reason for his past failings, are you?

Truthfully, I'd rather set an alcoholic down at a bar and yell "Open Bar" before I'd give him the reigns of power. Blame (not self blame) is not apology, regret, or even contrition. He'll likely be on the ballot here in the Georgia Primary along with Cain and Mittens (Perry will drop out before then). I'll be voting for Cain.

[Chainmail]

I can understand your anger but look at the situation we're in:

We have a deeply entrenched majority of political leaders - in and out of government - who are committed to wrecking everything this country has stood for from our Constitution to our faith to the family to our defense against the forces of evil in this world. Against them, we have only Herman Cain - a nice guy, a sharp leader but with zero governmental leadership experience, we have Michelle Bachmann - a bright, energetic and well-intentioned person but with very little big-world experience, we have Rick Perry who is supposed to be a genuine conservative but has way too many odd nonconservative positions in his past to trust and doesn't seem much brighter than Dubya. I won't count Ron Paul because he's beyond stupid in his foreign policy stuff.

All we really have left out of the potential pool of 300 million people out there left volunteering to lead is Newt. He is very smart, very experienced and a reformed sinner. We know he can put a team together to un-wreck the country. We know he can put emphasis back into the Constitution, our defense and our families. He's our last real connection to Ronald Reagan and I sure wish he'd win.

Saint Paul was a pretty rotten sinner at some point, wasn't he?

[Vaquero]

Monty Python:

“She turned me into a Newt”

Newt Gingrich (on his third wife):

“She turned me into a Catholic”

[9YearLurker]

I can certainly appreciate your choice.

And on the public stage, Newt is a boy scout compared to Perry.

[kjo]

Exactly...before I cast a vote for Newt I want to hear about what he and Nancy were up to on that couch.

Where does he stand on the global warming fraud.

[nathanbedford]

I am sure sure you do not mean to imply that we should identify a conservative position and then insist that scientists conform to it.

That is the way of the Inquisition of Galileo. Conservatives are not Flat- Earthers. As long as there is a legitimate difference of opinion on a scientific issue-and global warming certainly qualifies as that with the majority of scientists still probably in favor of the theory-there can be no conservative position on the science. It is a matter of science, not politics. There can and should be a very conservative position on what to do about the science. If one rejects the science of global warming, the conservative position obviously is not to do anything about it. If one accepts the science of global warming, the conservative position is to apply market principles and solutions rather than statist nostrums.

On April 18, I posted this in connection with Gingrich and the science of global warming:

I think his trespasses across the Green line have been exaggerated. It is not a conservative value to hold science hostage to ideology. In other words, if one is scientifically persuaded to man-made global warming, it is not a breach of conservative ideology to admit it. It is not a conservative maxim that the sun revolves around the earth. I do not hold with global warming, but if someone is so persuaded by science, Gingrich's solution of the free market for the problem is reasonable.

[Gaffer]

First, suggesting Mitt as the only alternative to not voting for Newt is tunnel vision. Secondly, limiting Newt's consideration on abortion-only as an argument is disingenuous. What about his leanings to "comprehensive immigration reform" [amnesty], his walk on the darkside of Global Warming with Nancy, and so on?

True, your comment about moral indignation leavened with a does of realism is worthy of consideration, but just because he can debate [professorially] and intellectually shine, does NOT mean he can rule. He was a great organizer, much like Obama, in getting the GOP House revived; he is a terrible implementor.

I reject the argument that he is the best and thus, the only, alternative for Conservatism and winning the Presidency. I'll take my chances with trust, honor, and open and honest believability. I just don't see this with Newt.