“No, actually I meant exactly what I said.”
Actually, you are on both sides of your own argument.
Get it together, decide what you’re going to whine about, and come back when you aren’t so flustered.
Gingrich isn’t worthy of the presidency due to his continuously variable political temperament. Catholics decided that he could be one of them, but they will see the true political motives after the Convention, if not before - and I feel sorry for those Catholics who must now share their faith and tolerate the political bureaucracy of their church (without complaint) to accommodate someone like Newt.
You wrote:
“Actually, you are on both sides of your own argument.”
No, I am not.
“Get it together, decide what you’re going to whine about, and come back when you aren’t so flustered.”
I have never been flustered online. Why would anyone get flustered posting online. The very concept makes no sense to me.
“Gingrich isn’t worthy of the presidency due to his continuously variable political temperament.”
I understand why someone would conclude that. I would say that I would rather have him than Romney or Obama, however.
“Catholics decided that he could be one of them, but they will see the true political motives after the Convention, if not before - and I feel sorry for those Catholics who must now share their faith and tolerate the political bureaucracy of their church (without complaint) to accommodate someone like Newt.”
No one accomodated Newt. He had to accommodate himself to the Church. Newt is a politician and he may indeed one day cynically use the Church. I see no evidence of him having done that yet.
Remember that the Church is a hospital for sinners, not just only a hall of fame of the saints.
As for Newt’s conversion to the Catholic faith, I say, WELCOME HOME.