Posted on 01/21/2012 6:43:43 AM PST by tomkat
It's 0930 EST and there's nothing in the sidebar that looks like a live thread for the SC primary . . .
Proud to say that I cast my vote for Newt today. Turnout was pretty light in my precinct.
I know what I did. When I posted I meant to put to “all” Sorry about that.
The SC thread has almost 650 so far
250 don’t count...they were on the Catholic church..kinda.
Only 250? Seemed more like 600
LOL
I didnt think Id be laughing this year
Ben,
I am not Catholic and do not accept the infallible magisterium. However, I appreciate your effort to be consistent with your church’s principles. I was wondering what you thought of the following commentary on the “alleged” Gingrich marriages:
http://gkupsidedown.blogspot.com/2012/01/newts-three-marriages.html
While I was disappointed to find no clues about the actual annulment process as it happened to Newt, I was intrigued by the following “elements” provided for Catholic annulment:
“For the marriage to be valid the criteria are quite simple.
1. the marriage must be between a a man and a woman
2. They must both be free to marry (in other words, not married to someone already or not having some other impediment)
3. They must enter the marriage covenant with a full understanding of marriage and
4. They must do so with a completely free act of consent.
5. They must be capable of consummating the marriage and be willing to have children.”
We agree that marriage #2 would be annullable based on item #2, as Marianne was arguably not free to remarry, nor really was Newt, at least not until and unless marriage #1, to Jackie, was first annulled.
But what about marriage #1, to Jackie? We would agree that if Jackie were still alive, that marriage would be presumed valid until proven otherwise. And she apparently is still alive, contrary to the “deathbed” mythology we’ve all heard. Yet there is a hard fact here. Newt was in fact married to Callista in a Catholic setting, was he not? Therefore one of two possibilities prevails: Either the Church failed to annul marriage #1 yet violated their own principle by conducting marriage #3 anyway, or they *did* annul it and marriage #3 occurred only because it satisfied Church law as an authentic first marriage. I find it unlikely that the Church would so utterly fail to do due diligence before conducting marriage #3. Therefore, while it is not hard evidence, there is, in the simple fact of marriage #3, a strong inference that a decree of nullity *must* have been issued against both prior relationships.
So, for the sake of argument, and in full recognition that I am running solely on the fumes of mere logic and not proven fact, what would have been the basis for annulling the first marriage? Based on the elements presented above, I would think the tribunal would have carefully considered elements 3 & 4, and could have reasonably concluded that the circumstances of the first marriage warranted annulment.
IIRC, Gingrich began his relationship with Jackie while 16. Although I am not sure where this happened, 16 is an age which in many secular jurisdictions is grounds for statutory rape. Involving a minor in sex is considered rape precisely because the law does not regard a person that young as capable of giving consent, and sex without consent is rape. Therefore, although he was a few years older when they actually married, the nature of the relationship raises serious questions about the degree to which there was consent. As the Church may use greater discretion than the secular law in making such a determination, a finding of the tribunal (or the priest) that the circumstances were coercive rather than consensual, especially with the impending pregnancy, would not be at all surprising.
But even if valid consent was assumed, the alleged marriage could still be annulled on the basis of element #3, the lack of possession of a full understanding of marriage. Now as an attorney I found this one particularly disturbing, because I can point to a whole lot of people I consider married who don’t fully grasp marriage. This seems like one of those exceptions that could consume the rule entirely. And in context of the Gingrich relationship with Jackie, it would be a very easy case to make. The Church provides premarital training which theoretically provides that full understanding. But Gingrich did not have any such Catholic training when he married Jackie. He had sufficient courage and ethical substance to offer her marriage, but he can easily claim his understanding of the marriage covenant was woefully incomplete at the time he undertook it.
Bottom line, I infer from marriage #3 he probably is annulled from both previous marriages (i.e., the Church may treat them as if they never happened), and that the grounds for annulment of marriage #1 were based on either lack of full consent or lack of full understanding of marriage, or both.
Again, I am no expert on Church law, so please feel free to offer further insights, better authorities, etc. And I will keep my eyes open for documentation of the actual annulment proceedings, which will obviously trump all my fine theorizing, if we can find them.
Peace,
SR
Earlier this morning, many were concerned over the “light” turnout, but remember, most of us have to work who call themselves Conservatives. But we will show........We WILL show!.......
Romney is a snake.
I could SMELL him all the way from Ohio!
Your country salutes you
:)
That’s a good question. Wish I had thought of it.
Please let me know if you want ON or OFF my Viking Kitty/ZOT ping list!. . . don't be shy.
Common now! Show some respect for snakes!
At least Newt's not seeking votes from dead voters, Co-non!
also it is probably not raining etc anymore so more may come out to vote now...
“15 years ago today Newt was the 1st Speaker in history reprimanded for ethics violations. How will Newt answer this? It’s worrisome.”
No its not. This old news that had been out in the public domain for years. Nice try Karl.
Interesting. So she sees a hot young stylist and chooses the older lady helmet style on her own. I wonder why. To make her look 20 years older, possibly? I had a great boss (black female) in the 80s who wore her hair like the 1960s Supremes, teased up and flipped. She was smart and a good person but we couldn’t figure out the ancient hairdo.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.