Gingrich, Media Bias and the Mainstream Media as Morality Police

YouTube Preview Image

Gingrich turned the tables effectively on John King of CNN last night at the final debate prior to the South Carolina primary on Saturday.  Here is the transcript:

JOHN KING: And just as speaker Gingrich surged into contention here in South Carolina, a direct fresh character attack on the Speaker.

And Mr Speaker, I want to start with that this evening.

As you know, your ex-wife gave an interview to ABC News and another interview with The Washington Post. And this story has now gone viral on the internet.

In it, she says that you came to her in 1999, at a time when you were having an affair. She says you asked her, sir, to enter into an open marriage.

Would you like to take some time to respond to that?

GINGRICH: No, but I will.

(APPLAUSE)

GINGRICH: I think the destructive, vicious, negative nature of much of the news media makes it harder to govern this country, harder to attract decent people to run for public office. And I am appalled that you would begin a presidential debate on a topic like that.

(APPLAUSE)

KING: Is that all you want to say, sir?

GINGRICH: Let me finish.

KING: Please.

GINGRICH: Every person in here knows personal pain. Every person in here has had someone close to them go through painful things. To take an ex-wife and make it two days before the primary a significant question for a presidential campaign is as close to despicable as anything I can imagine.

(APPLAUSE)

My – my two daughters – my two daughters wrote the head of ABC and made the point that it was wrong, that they should pull it, and I am frankly astounded that CNN would take trash like that and use it to open a presidential debate.

(APPLAUSE)

KING: As you noted, Mr Speaker, this story did not come from our network. As you also know, it is a subject of conversation on the campaign. I’m not – I get your point. I take your point.

GINGRICH: John, John, it was repeated by your network. You chose to start the debate with it. Don’t try to blame somebody else. You and your staff chose to start this debate with it.

(APPLAUSE)

Let me be quite clear. Let me be quite clear. The story is false. Every personal friend I have who knew us in that period said the story was false. We offered several of them to ABC to prove it was false. They weren’t interested because they would like to attack any Republican. They’re attacking the governor. They’re attacking me. I’m sure they’ll presently get around to Senator Santorum and Congressman Paul.

I am tired of the elite media protecting Barack Obama by attacking Republicans.

(APPLAUSE)

 

I find it difficult to take the media seriously as an arbiter of public or private morality.  If they like a politician they will do their level best to protect him.  They were forced, kicking and screaming, to give the John Edwards love child scandal any coverage, and that nasty piece of private and public corruption was left to the National Enquirer to explore initially, solely because Edwards was a liberal with a D after his name.  Republicans understand that this game has been rigged against them for several generations and they are beyond tired of it.  Newt touched a raw nerve in regard to this, and that is why he got the standing ovation.

As to the substance of the story, he has long admitted to cheating on his first two wives.  Marianne, the aggrieved Newt wife 2 who gave the interview, happily cheated with Gingrich while he was married to Newt wife 1.  Whatever damage this has caused to him has already been factored in by any voter who isn’t comatose.   Personally, I find Newt’s behavior in his first two marriages to be despicable, and I still find him preferable to Romney and light years better than Obama.

 

Here is some background on the story.  Marianne Gingrich did not come to ABC to tell her story.  They sought her out beginning in November of last year, when Newt was riding high in the polls and it was assumed that he might well be the Republican nominee.  The initial contact was made allegedly about an FBI investigation of Gingrich that was closed in 1997.  They quickly realized that there was nothing to the FBI investigation story, but that Marianne might be willing to go public with her anger over the way Gingrich had ended their marriage by committing adultery.  On January 13 she was interviewed by ABC.

This is typical of most the mainstream media.  If a story can damage a Republican they will spare no effort to get it, even if it is essentially an old story from 14 years ago with little new news in it.  A Democrat scandal however, will usually be greeted with indifference by most of the mainstream media until such time as it gets big enough that they have to cover it.  Bill Clinton when he was in office benefited hugely from this glaring media double standard.  Every sentient Republican understands that almost all of the mainstream media is essentially an arm of the Democrat party.  For generations they have gritted their teeth over this obvious bias and Gingrich understands this.  That is how ABC and CNN inadvertently helped him to win, which I predict will be the result, the South Carolina primary tomorrow.

84 Responses to Gingrich, Media Bias and the Mainstream Media as Morality Police

  • I must be honest. I despise and loathe Barack Hussein Obama and the liberal elite media. They use Gingrich’s second wife to accuse Gingrich of something that they in their diabolical sexual perversion of adultery want legalized and sanctified themselves. Godless satanic hypocrites!

  • It surprises me that the people have not claimed back their aairwaves which are rented to the media to provide a public service. It has seemed to me and noted here that most are extremely biased leaning Left, anti- organised religion, particularly Catholicicism and conservative mainline Christians and anti the GOP. One is offered only the extremes of the self-proclaimed Left and Right while the so-called mainstream media are so off center in their coverage. My suggestion repeated now here is to work toward a system whereby the primetime hours are devoted in some sort of organised way to allow free, fair and unbiased chair-persons to handle debates. Not examples like Mr King who was forced to admit that the blame was not with ABC but his representing CNN to lob this hand-grenade at Mr Gingrich. He showed his presence and character under fire by lobbing it back, to provide a reasonable and thorough answer, including his daughters’ testimony to ABC. That kind of grace under fire is what leaders are made of. The audience reaction shows they were on the side of fairness. Good for the Republic and efforts to use the First Amendent to swing elections.

  • My understanding of the Catholic faith is that you do not enter heaven by being a “nice person”. You need to be sanctified and in the grace of our Lord. Even with this knowledge Our Lord can do what he pleases and His name is “Mercy”. Newt deserves mercy as Our Lord has given us. He deserves respect because he is very knowledgable, experienced and will have to take on Obama, Washington elites and our enemies here in the USA and in the world. He is not afraid to fight. If he were a coward like many politicians, he would never have entered this race. His sins of the past are not relevant anymore and certainly not our business because he has said he repented. We as
    Catholics need to remember that. If you do not agree with his policies, fine then don’t vote for him. But remember who We really are. Jesus told the people regarding stoning a woman, “You who are without sin cast the first stone.” St. Paul killed Christian women and children and Jesus chose him to bring the gentiles into the fold. Just a reminder as I have to do daily with my own sins. God Bless.

  • Some more thoughts on the PACs (ABC, NBC, CNN etc.) providing tens of millions of dollars of free attack ads on Republicans:

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/01/a_gop_candidates_bitter_ex-wife_receives_more_coverage_than_a_video_of_obama_dining_with_terrorist_s.html

  • Whatever the media bias may be, I was far more concerned with his response than his “original” sin–Speaker Gingrich admitting his fault instead of blaming CNN and the Democrats and then moving on would have served his cause much better. We know his former wife was doing this to attempt to destroy him, and as you stated, Donald, it was a good story for ABC and CNN to push forward, but he knew it was coming in any case and “no excuses” would have been far more humble and easier to hear for many of us.

    The sheer amount of anger he showed caused me to wonder about his repentance, frankly. And character does count. And I say that simply as an opinion, I leave the judging to God of course. I hope he truly has repented and had embraced his Catholicism as he seems to have.

    What I believe he needed to do was look and sound sorry that he hurt her, clearly say so, which he has in the past at less “unhinged” moments, and then let the debate go on from there.

    So why do so many people think that was his “finest moment?” To me it was one of his weakest. I would contend that people think so because we have a whole generation raised on reality shows and Jerry Springer. Very sadly people love this stuff. Media, public, Democrats, and Republicans. We have always enjoyed scandal.

  • Stipulated:

    1. Bracketing out Fox News and some radio networks, about 85% of the national press corps favors the Democratic Party (and from that it is a reasonable wager that about 70% are strongly oriented thereto and 35% or so have a nexus of political views which resemble those of Victor Navasky).

    2. Some of these are unscrupulous and some have no talent whatsoever for impartial judgement.

    ___

    Now can we please get hold of the vaudvillian’s cane and get Dr. Gingrich off the stage? He is poisonous.

  • God….to head the Jewish people and lead them out of Egypt….picked an ex-murderer, Moses
    who you’ll remember killed an Egyptian for assaulting an Israelite. God punished that murderer, Moses, with 40 years of shepherding sheep. Then God made that murderer a leader. God did a similar thing with the new people of God. He chose the violent Peter of the Gethsemane ear incident and made him a leader after mortifying Peter much quicker than He did with Moses.
    I feel that Peter was trying to split the man’s head at Gethsemane, the man moved in the nick of time and only lost an ear. Within hours Peter would be mortified by his denying Christ despite his rash courage at Gethsemane. Moses was punished for 40 years….Peter in moments. We all wonder. Is Newt like Peter? Has he been mortified deeply but quickly by God….or did he go through the motions. His anger at John King last night helps us trust him a bit more that he might be Peter because Newt is angry at the mega theme of media timing embarassments prior
    to a republican debate
    Mitt gained points in how, unlike Santorum,.he did not make it easy for the moderator to continue to legitimize the question in a follow up moment…Mitt just said no….ask me aboutthe issues. Santorum got suckered immediately. Paul helped Ginrich’s point but then ended with saying how long he was married. Mitt and Ginrich won as being those who perfectly resisted John King who increased by his perseverance his negative image as huckster. CNN has become news-entertainment-celebrity culture. CBS, ABC etc. have become news entertainment-recipes-celebrity culture. CNN will stay out of recipes and cooking spots….to maintain faux gravitas.

  • I would agree with you Art if the alternative were not Romney. Although Santorum is my candidate he just has not caught fire yet, and I am beginning to doubt that he will unless Gingrich drops out, and after last night’s performance by Newt I do not see that happening soon.

  • We have a couple of generations of broken marriages. With the state of marriage in this country, do we really need a leader who has broken his vows 2 times? Gingrich is well spoken and knows his stuff, but his history says he doesn’t know much about commitment. We need someone who can lead by consistency and persistence; I know, our present leader does this to the detriment of the country, but how about having someone who plays by the Constitution and doesn’t play by Saul Alinsky? Having Newt fight for the solidity of marriage is like having the fox in the hen house.

  • “Having Newt fight for the solidity of marriage is like having the fox in the hen house.”

    I doubt if that would be one of his Presidential duties elm, and considering some of the prior occupants of the White House I can understand why.

  • Art, it’s not that 85% of the media favors Obama and the left-wing agitprop.

    It’s that eighty-five percent of the lap dog media swears to Obama’s lies.

    So exactly what do Gingrich’s private, decades old sins have to do with the sky-rocketing prices of gasoline and Big Macs, and no jobs?

  • Newt has acknowledged his wrong. He does not have to “grovel” before the public. Only before God. We do not know what transpired between him and his ex-wives.
    I question more Marianne’s motive after all these years. This was an opportunity for vengeance. That seems more apparent. I do sympathize with her, as that happened to me. But I learned a long time ago, I had to let the resentment go. This was not a show of her good sense and her “character” to tear him apart at this time. My opinion only.
    With the stupidity of many of our politicians we have had in office, plus President’s who openly committed adultery, I hardly think that Newt’s conduct 20 yrs ago, should be a problem. He has much to offer. Some people cannot forgive. We as Catholics better. I am just saying that if this is the only reason to not vote him in, a self-examination may be in order. I can’t see another candidate up there that has a “chance” of beating Obama. That is the real goal. The other candidates are “nice”, but not strong enough in my opinion. Not experienced enough. Remember, he was not Catholic at that time. When you convert to Catholicism, your past life is remembered no more. In God’s eyes this marriage is their first. Just saying…………….

  • By the way, if the measure of a man’s committment to marriage would make a better President…..Ron Paul stated he has been married 54 years. Would you want him to be President??? We would be speaking in middle east “tongues”. Just saying again…….

  • 430 – A person exits the confessional pure, not flawless. I forgive Newt, and rejoice at the prospect of his attaining Heaven, but that’s not the same thing as trusting him.

  • Pinky – What exactly do you think he did that was so detrimental to our country that you would not trust him? Just because his marriages? That does not make sense. He did many good things during his years as Speaker. If he made mistakes, so what. Remember, the country’s well being did not hinge on “Newt Gingrich” only. There has been corruption all through our politically history by many. Well, we have to trust somebody. If past mistakes of humans is the only measure for some, then I guess life is going to be very hard for many to trust anyone. You certainly are entitled to make your choice. Just my thoughts. I was told by a Priest that when I walk out of the confessional those sins are gone and remembered no more. I have to let them go too or else I would not be trusting the Lord. We get a new lease on life every time we go to confession. Everyone is flawed including the other candidates and neighbors and family. We do have to trust someone. I do understand sometimes caution is in order in life with people, but we are talking very difficult times and a very important election. To me perfect character with these candidates won’t go far with Obama. I could be wrong, but I would not trust Santorum or Romney to beat Obama. Newt knows about his marriages better than anyone else what he did. I don’t think many can handle his intelligence. Of course he will need a congress as every President can’t do it all alone. Well……Obama has at times. Oh well.

  • Pinky: What did Newt do to you?

    Media Bias: Adultery, fornication, infidelity, promiscuity were not newsworthy in 1992 and 2008. For those people, sodomy is a basic human right.

    Professor Jacobson: “On the two key inflammatory statements made against Newt, ABC News presented the statements without challenging his accuser based on readily available public information casting doubt on her version of events. We can debate the propriety of running an interview with a bitter ex-spouse at a critical juncture in a campaign. What is not open to debate is that ABC News used Marianne Gingrich for its own purpose of trying to damage one of the top contenders for the Republican nomination.” Instapundit: “It’s as if they’re just dutiful apparatchiks or something.”

    Work the curse of the drinking class!

  • 430 – Praise God, we are all cleansed by Jesus through the sacraments of Baptism and Confession. No argument there. And really, not much of an argument about the rest, either. We each can judge the candidates by our own prudential criteria. And I’m not saying that we shouldn’t trust Gingrich. I’m saying only that we aren’t required to trust him.

  • Pinky – Well taken, but we all need to think about this election and who can beat Obama. With all the problems we face here and abroad, including the loss of family values and morals, we better pay real good attention and try to elect a candidate with our intelligence rather than emotions. I also believe Newt would fight to end Roe Vs. Wade, Gay Marriage, repeal Obamacare and stop the persecution of our Christian faith in USA and maybe abroad. Santorum and Romney (maybe) would too. But they can’t beat Obama as far as I see now. Again I may be wrong. Time will tell. God Bless.

  • Some seemon here (1) to forget that a condition for forgiveness as Matthew tells us “when you go to the altar and remember (a hurt done to you) go seek reconciliation with that person, then come back with your worhip offering. IF Mr Gingrich get an annulment as one would presume, there is a process for both parties to exchange views, and each may respond if each wishes. One cannot either way presume that he made some form of apology or offer to do so, especially since he was becoming Catholic. (2) I remind all on here again that Mr Gingrich continued to explain that – not only was the allegation against his conduct out publicly already but he said his daughters and others who knew the circumstances could have added balance or even repudiated his ex-wife’s ABC story so soon before the SC causus. Reminded me of the accuser of S Court Justice Clarence Thomas to ignore all his precious court appointments but came forward at the Supreme Court. The People for the “American” (?) Way spent a lot of money- I seem to recall four million dollars- to “Bork” Mr Bork whose too many opinions sank him along with the Leftists, lled by the TV producer Norman Lear founder of PFTAW who usedde sit-oms to promote the anti- moral sexula agenda of those simpler days. The abortion question seemed to be their fear. I listened until 2-3 AM the last night of the trestimony and was very impressed to hear the testimony of a professor who rode with them to the airport when he had delivered a lecture at the accuser’s university and they were very animated. Get them with cash or sex if you cannot assassinate them with a rifle. Thank God they lost second time around. i anxiously await the next POTUS to see if 44’s two “pro-abort choosers” get a third added to tip the scales 5-4 IF he wins.

  • Newt has acknowledged his wrong. He does not have to “grovel” before the public.

    Who the heck are you supposed to be quoting, here, CATHOLIC430? That goes past red herring and well into the Wookie defense….

  • (amusingly, on a post that is defending Newt from unequal targeting)

  • If the Republicans nominate Gingrich, there will be a “gender gap” of at least 25 points. As I said on someone else’s site today, I know otherwise impeccably conservative women who cannot stand the man, or at a minimum trust him as far as he can be spat.

    Though I enjoy seeing him rochambeau the media as much as the next person who despises the MSM, that’s not an argument for electability.

  • Dale, It didn’t matter in 1992 or 2008.

    You ain’t seen nothing. This vale of tears can be a lot worse.

  • Foxfire -I don’t understand what you mean by my post. You sound insulting here. You may disagree with what I say, but you seem to have an edge to your tone. What is red herring and wookie defense? I am trying to give my opinion as everyone else. I do not think Newt Gingrich should have to “grovel” before the public debates on TV regarding his personal past (20 years?). This is an election that is important. He owned up to his past. That should be enough for Catholics to understand. But you don’t have to vote for him if you don’t want to. This is between him, his wife and God. They have been at him about this, which he knew they would. I am not defending his past life, but it’s not relevant now. I don’t know what you did not understand. There is no quote, it’s my own opinion.

  • You sound insulting here.

    And more good, red herring….

    What is red herring and wookie defense?

    It means that you are trying to distract attention and turn a discussion to a subject that you prefer. Donald mentioned one before, and the other is the internet cousin.

    The topic of the post is “Media bias and the morality police.” I’d imagine it took a while to write and format, not counting any time thinking about it and polishing some reasoning.

    You respond by implying that it is about how Newt needs to abase himself to overcome the weight of his past– quotes in that context imply that you are quoting someone, generally in the same stream of conversation that the statement is made– and imply that anyone caring about Newt cheating on multiple wives is defying Jesus.

    This is a topic that you should be able to jump right on board with– the topic of people actually singling out Newt for attacks on his personal history– and you can’t even keep close to it, or avoid the same accusation you’ve made several times already that taking Newt’s weaknesses into account is stepping into God’s area? (With a side implication that those who don’t agree might not “understand” the way they should as Catholics.)

    And you think that I sound insulting….

  • Foxfier – You are too smart for me. You got me!!! ;) But I will say what I think and feel. Who made you the editor of how posts should be? I have no idea what you mean. I was putting in an opinion and maybe persuade others to look at it in a different way. So what? We are allowed to try to influence each other. This topic is about the Presidency. We as Catholics have to make judgements certainly, but not be judgemental. There have been a lot of judgement on Newt for his marriages. I am talking about using our Catholic Teachings as a guide if this is the only barrier to considering him. I don’t need to use red herrings as you put it. I say what I think and feel and try not to harm anyone or insult anyone. That does not mean that one cannot disagree with me. This is definitely in God’s area when we start using people’s mistakes in life after they have repented. Do we know he did? That’s not my call. He has very good ideas on how to change the way Washington is run. And he is strong enough. This is not written in stone. We don’t know, but it’s all we have. I want Obama out like many others. I think he would be able to do it. By the way, with all due respect, there are so many Catholics that don’t understand the teachings of the church and Christ. I only know what I know and can respond to it. I will always try to bring our faith into areas in a discussion if I feel it appropriate. God Bless.

  • It’s interesting that a lot of the people who are trusting in Newt’s conversion of heart are the same people who most vociferously distrust Romney’s conversion on abortion.

  • I was putting in an opinion and maybe persuade others to look at it in a different way.

    By hijacking posts to say the same thing you’ve said elsewhere on this blog, making the same accusations against those who disagree with you and follow it up with accusations? By arguing against things that aren’t said? (which would be strawman, from Donald’s lovely list.)

    We know what Churchill said about those who can’t change their minds and won’t change their subjects– what is there to say about someone who changes everything to the same subject just to say the same thing over and over?

    But I will say what I think and feel. Who made you the editor of how posts should be?

    I’m someone who is interested in the original topic of the post, rather than reading what you “think and feel” for the umpteenth time.

    Media bias is important and insidious, since it warps the way that reality is portrayed. Examining, evaluating and making arguments for and against aspects of how media bias touches on elections and “politics” (which, sadly, includes things like all humans are human) in general is a very important topic.

    Incidentally, one of the great strengths of the Church is that it is rational, not impulse/emotion based, and it teaches that we can reason out a great deal– one of my favorite gifts from God, really.

  • Paul Z.,

    “It’s interesting that a lot of the people who are trusting in Newt’s conversion of heart are the same people who most vociferously distrust Romney’s conversion on abortion.”

    Newt converted to Catholicism. Romney remains a pagan LDS adherent. That being said, I would not be surprised that the percentage of Mormons who lead moral lives might exceed the percentage of Catholics. Nevertheless, Romney has not converted, and Newt did. Romney simply changed his mind on a subject that he knows he must win in the hearts and minds of conservative Christians which he is demonstrably not.

  • “Pinky: What did Newt do to you?”

    T – I thought that was a well-delivered response and I took it as such, but I’ve been thinking about that question more and more, and I need to answer it seriously.

    He embarrassed me. As a conservative, as a Republican, and as an American, he embarrassed me. He walked out on his first wife, then walked out on his second wife. And that does offend me more than I ever realized. And then – and this may the worst part – he acts huffy when he gets called out on it. And that grates on me. I cheered when he criticized the press for their stupid, liberally-biased questions, and then he uses the same tone to criticize the press for talking about something he doesn’t wanna, just because he doesn’t wanna. And that discredits the entire conservative critique of the media. And that makes me feel like he still doesn’t recognize the difference between the message and himself.

    He reminds me of a problem drinker who’s fallen off the wagon a couple of times, and now gets upset when I check his breath before tossing him my car keys. That’s the same kind of self-importance that derailed a political movement that I believed in. So yes, I expect a little less Pharisee and a little more tax collector from him when the subject of infidelity comes up.

  • Well, well, well…
    If Jesus were here to read all of the hateful comments directed at The President of The USA, and at followers of the Mormon faith, and other, ….as a defense of this Newt Gingrich, he would be astonished to see how his Words have been interpreted.

    As a member of the Roman Catholic Church I have to say it’s really quite perverse, how people that claim to follow the teachings of Christ are so willing to foster hatred and refuse to see the hypocrisy of their actions.

  • Doctor,

    If you voted for that nothing, thank you for ruining my country.

    All that justice and peace stuff is cynical political posturing.

    The government is wrecking the people.

    Today, in St. Louis, your president bragged about forcing religious employers to pay for contraceptive and soon abortions.

  • Pinky,

    “Forgive all injuries.” For our MD obama worshiper: that is one of the Spiritual Works of Mercy.

    I forgive those who harm me.

    Did Newt harm you or is it pride?

    Here’s the drill: repentance, Confession, penance, amendment of life and good works for the greater glory of God Almighty through Jesus Christ in the unity of the Holy Spirit. I Hope (this is one of the Theological virtues) that Newt is on that road, as I hope I am.

    PS: I know the devastation of alcoholism. My brother killed himself with drink, and ruined his family; that killed my father, too. Don’t equate what Newt did with that.

  • The President of the United States is a murderer of unborn babies and a sanctifier of the filth of homosexual sodomy.

    The former governor of Massachusetts is a pagan who believes that Jesus and Lucifer are brothers, God the Father had sexual intercourse with the Virgin Mary, and if he tithes enough to a Mormon Temple, then he himself will be elevated to godhead and put in charge of his own planet after death.

    In earlier times the Church dealt with apostates, heretics and pagans more forcefully than it does today. We’ve gotten better. But remember how St. Peter dealt with Ananias and Sapphira, how St. Paul dealt with the adulterer at the Church in Corinth, and how St. John dealt with Jezebel at Thyatira- what they did would each be classified as that unforgiveable crime of “not nice.”

    Was God “not nice” when He had Sennecharib drag evil King Manasseh by a ring through his nose to a dungeon in Assyria because he murdered babies the way that godless man of sin Obama does? You bet He wasn’t nice. And being God, God does not change one iota. If Obama doesn’t repent, then sadly the same is possible for him. Do we want that? NO! But might it become necessary? YES! So get on your knees and pray for repentance!

    But to today’s liberals who call themselves Catholic, telling such truth in public is hatred but love is giving assent to intrinsic evil. Do you want souls to go to hell? St. Paul handed that incestuous adulterer at Corinth over to Satan for the destruction of his flesh so that his soul would be saved on the last day. 2nd Corinthians chapter 2 records that St. Paul’s efforts were successul – the pervert repented! Better that that happens to Romney and Obama than that they go to hell. How is that unloving? Or do you prefer we love them into hell?

    I despise and loathe liberalism and the doctrine of “be nice and tolerant.” The Saints were anything but nice and tolerant. And so was Jesus.

    PS, Gingrich repented. Period.

  • I will answer to any blog I want unless the owner of this website tells me different. I have not attacked anyone. I have responded to one post personally and that was Pinky. This is my first time on this website. If there is anyone that I have insulted I certainly did not intend to do so. I responded to the ideas in several posts. I can answer the same if I want to. If there are any rules that I am breaking I would appreciate someone else telling me this. It seems only one person is irate with me. If this continues I will call the site myself and complain. This is any open forum. I can repeat certain ideas if I want to. This is America and I have Free Speech. If I don’t like something I read, I will not attack them. I will ignore them. I appreciate feedback, but not condescending posts telling me off.
    God Bless.

  • OK, that is quite enough on this thread about Mormonism. There are any number of grounds to oppose Romney, but Mormonism is not going to be one of them on this blog. Any further comments attacking Romney for his inherited religion will be deleted.

  • Sorry, Donald – that was me. If Romney is the nominee, then I will definitely vote for him. I was trying to make a point with Leon and went too far.

    :-(

    -10 pts for me.

  • … but not condescending posts telling me off.

    Can dish it out, but not take it?

    If you think I’m irate, I’m afraid you’re very sheltered.

    There are rules.
    They’re linked up top, under comments policy. If you can find a number to “call” the site at, I’d be surprised, but I have no fear of you contacting the editors of TAC “to complain” when– horrors!– someone else says what they “think and feel” about you constantly dragging the topic to how sinful it is for anyone to even considers serial adultery to be worthy of consideration.

  • This is typical of most the mainstream media. If a story can damage a Republican they will spare no effort to get it, even if it is essentially an old story from 14 years ago with little new news in it. A Democrat scandal however, will usually be greeted with indifference by most of the mainstream media until such time as it gets big enough that they have to cover it.

    It’s not just a R/D divide– last fall a little boy (IIRC he’s autistic) went missing, and after several days of searching, a guy came forward and asked the police if they’d looked in an area. They had, so he asked if he could do it again, and walked out with the child in no time– the little boy was fine. He checked out as not involved in the kid’s disappearance, but requested that his name be kept private because it wasn’t his doing, the Holy Spirit had come to him and told him where the boy was. I vaguely remember the story, but hadn’t heard anything about the Holy Spirit being involved; a friend from the area mentioned it, because she gets both the “local” paper and reads the national papers. It was mentioned locally, but gradually got dropped the further you got from the town.

    The worldview of the reporters is probably very important– there’s a theory about history that boils down to, well, history gets boiled down so it fits into stories. If stuff shows up already boiled down, you’d better at least know how the cook tends to be so you know how much salt to add!

  • HA!! Now I figured out what the problem is. I linked to this blog and read some posts and was putting in my opinions not realizing that Donald Mcclarey put a topic that we were supposed to reply to. Again this is my first day on this blog. I did not know there was a format to follow. No wonder some may be confused by my posts. I was replying to some posts regarding Newts candidacy and the attacks because of his past marriages and was trying to relate my Catholic faith to certain responses. DONALD MCCLARY I APOLOGIZE FOR NOT FOLLOWING THE FORMAT. Are you the person who leads the topics for people to respond? I am sorry if I caused any upset here.

  • If you’re that new to blogs, email me– foxfier “at” gmail “dot” com — and I’ll try to explain how it works. Think more like a news paper (this is the ‘front page’) where you can comment on the articles than, say, a bulletin board. (which sounds like what you’re talking about)

  • at 7:50pm
    “Well, well, well…
    If Jesus were here…”
    “As a member of the Roman Catholic Church I have to say it’s really quite perverse, how people that claim to follow the teachings of Christ are so willing to foster hatred and refuse to see the hypocrisy of their actions.”

    Is that comment an example of reverse psychology?
    Also, no “ifs” about the fact that Jesus is here, and not just for “members” only.

    When He commissioned His disciples, Jesus said “Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, … , teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.” Matthew 28:20
    See also Mark Ch. 16
    Faith, Hope, and Love for God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

  • Gingrich’s self-righteous indignation doesn’t play well with me. Let me count the ways . . .

    GINGRICH: I think the destructive, vicious, negative nature of much of the news media makes it harder to govern this country, harder to attract decent people to run for public office. And I am appalled that you would begin a presidential debate on a topic like that.

    I know something more destructive, more vicious, and more appalling: serial adultery.

    GINGRICH: Every person in here knows personal pain. Every person in here has had someone close to them go through painful things.

    So that’s what his wife went through: personal pain. Like some kind of disease or accident. Just one of those things that happens, you know? Divorce happens. Adultery happens.And sometimes adultery happens three times.

    To take an ex-wife and make it two days before the primary a significant question for a presidential campaign is as close to despicable as anything I can imagine.

    I know something more despicable: unrepentant adultery combined with self-righteous indignation. The pretense of penitence gave way to the only kind of response that could save Gingrich’s “open” minded libido: deny, deny, counter-accuse.

    Forgiveness is entirely applicable in this situation, whether or not Gingrich really has reformed. He is to be loved with compassion. But love doesn’t refuse to judge character. And Gingrich’s uber-narcissistic character revealed itself with all its grandiose glory last night.

    The only person Gingrich has the right to be appalled at is himself.

  • I know something more despicable: unrepentant adultery combined with self-righteous indignation.

    As has been pointed out, he did repent.

    As much as it may not bother you, I am greatly bothered by rules or standards being selectively applied. As much as Newt’s background makes me slow to trust him– a debt forgiven is made even, not made to have never existed– I wish that he could give the other candidates lessons in how to respond to these gotcha type questions.

  • Bah, “may not bother you relative to everything else,” gotta watch my implications.

  • PS, Gingrich repented. Period.

    I will say this: when I saw Gingrich at the end of mass at the National Shrine in Washington, D.C., he was texting, not singing. But you know, here’s his idea of repentance:

    There’s no question at times of my life, partially driven by how passionately I felt about this country, that I worked far too hard and things happened in my life that were not appropriate.

    Not appropriate? He loved his country too much to love his wives? He worked too hard not to commit adultery over and over again?

    But you know, there is this quote:

    I’ve spent many nights in agonizing tears, Bill, knowing how much my two girls have suffered because of my addiction to lust. I look back on those years, and the only thing that keeps me from giving into despair is my love for God, and my trust in his mercy.

    Now, this quote almost convinces me, except that I just made it up.

  • On the merits of King’s question: it deserved to be asked, and deserved to be asked up front. Why? Because the man is an unquestioned liar, hypocrite, and two-time vow-breaker. It is entirely with his puffed-up ego to request an “open” marriage: especially since it would be far more politically expedient to have a mistress rather than another public scandal. So what if liberals give liberals a pass on sexual ethics: the liberals don’t claim to have repented, and the liberal constituents don’t claim to care. Of course liberals are going to hold conservatives feet to the flames when it comes to perceived hypocrisy. Except in this case, it isn’t perceived.

  • Newt’s repentance is after the scandals, Nate.

    Also, if you listened to his ex-wife, it sounds more like he was complaining she was too clingy. (Probably with good reason, since she was “the other woman” at one point, but it still doesn’t sound like ‘I want to sleep with other people while still married to you’.)

    and the liberal constituents don’t claim to care

    Not true. Those constituents who are publicly catered to care when it’s useful– when it’s not, they don’t.
    Liberals don’t claim to be sexually pure, but they do claim respect for women.

    On the merits of King’s question: it deserved to be asked, and deserved to be asked up front.

    So, accusations– which cannot be proven one way or the other– about a topic that is widely known should be brought up at every excuse, but ONLY if the target is a conservative?

  • “Personally, I find Newt’s behavior in his first two marriages to be despicable, and I still find him preferable to Romney and light years better than Obama.”

    OK, no arguing about tastes, but how exactly do you find a serial adulterer better than Obama, character-wise?

    I mean, why confine yourself to Newt’s marriages while ignoring his affairs?

    And why on earth would you find a treacherous bastard like Gingrich to be more moral than Romney, who at least has stayed with the mother of his children?

    Not to mention Obama, who is also still happily married to the mother of his children?

  • “OK, no arguing about tastes, but how exactly do you find a serial adulterer better than Obama, character-wise?”

    I said that I found him preferable as President. The reasons for that would include:
    1. That Gingrich does not view unborn children as disposable property that can be slain at the whim of the mother, as does Obama.

    2. That Gingrich understands that government spending must be slashed if we are not going to end up in national bankruptcy, unlike Obama.

    3. Gingrich is pledged to repeal ObamaCare.

    4. Gingrich would appoint judges and justices that understand that the Constitution is not a license for them to act as Platonic Guardians and legislate from the bench, unlike Obama.

    The list could go at considerable length, but suffice it to say that I cannot think of any aspect of Obama as President where I would prefer him to Gingrich.

    As to Obama’s character, considering that he has had a lap dog media running interference for him every step of his career, I believe that there are quite a few lacunae in his life that the media has never been eager to fill in. However we do know a few things.

    He and his family for decades attended a Church run by Reverend Wright that seemed to specialize in racial hatred rather than Christianity.

    Obama has been a political associate of William Ayres, an unrepentant member of the Weather underground, and a domestic terrorist responsible for deaths in bombings in the early seventies, including the daughter of a late friend of mine, James Oughten.

    He won his US Senate seat by behind the scenes engineering of the release of damaging divorce information about two of his opponents: Blair Hull in the Democrat primary who was the odds on favorite to win, and Jack Ryan in the general election. Politics is a low business at best, but using information in sealed divorce cases, where none of the parties involved wanted the information released, struck me as bringing politics to an all time low.

    Obama throughout his career has been an outspoken ally of Planned Parenthood, an organization I lovingly refer to as Worse Than Murder, Inc, and I think that is a sign of very bad character indeed.

    http://the-american-catholic.com/2011/06/02/worse-than-murder-inc-can-always-depend-on-obama/

    Obama’s administration has shown, through its policies, a complete disdain for Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular. I would direct you to these posts on this blog:

    http://the-american-catholic.com/2012/01/20/kathleen-sebelius-and-her-hhs-regulations-a-violation-of-religious-liberty-and-inconsistent-with-the-catholic-faith/

    http://the-american-catholic.com/2012/01/20/pope-benedict-religious-freedom-under-threat-in-america/

    If Obama is a man of good character, it is a trait very well concealed.

  • I wonder how many of us have been addicted or still are. The conventional wisdom is Freduian and attributes the root evil to being hurt emtionally in the first five years of life. From that alienation comes addictions to cover for it, medicate for it, and we get Power, which is rooted in the first deadly sin of hubris, excessive pride which is from the dark side of insecurity- then one or two more manifetations such as alcohol, gambling, and various sexual activities. Seeing the various attempts to dismiss, denouce, criticise Newt’s past on here reminds me that not all have dealt with our own demons. IF we have faced, named and dealt with our own demon(s) acknowledged that my sin has been forgiven and Jesus is merciful, we could never say your sin is worse or i cannot forgive you for doing that. Jesus was rather blunt about it, the public sinners of His day would make it to the Kingdom before the tu-tut tut -ers who were sick but did not humbly go to the Hospital where He is the physician. Sexual sins are not in and of themselves the worst kind.

  • In my post the other day I said that Newt has used people in his life as if he viewed them as nothing more than pawns. I would submit that though there is no evidence of adultery in Obama’s life, he has a similar vice, and it is a vice that continues to manifest to this very day. Those unfortunate sad sacks that he trots out at press conferences and State of the Union addresses are nothing more to him than pieces he can use to advance a political agenda.

    An ability keep one’s pants zipped is not the only marker of one’s character.

  • At this point even before the SC caucus, my view of this very long thread is we have said everthing , and repeated it, about all the candidates, repeated all their faults and continued to compare “Evils.” Tennis anyone?

  • Fair enough, Paul. I don’t think anyone is saying that Newt’s errors make Obama virtuous, or even preferable. I think that 430 and especially the MD are getting beaten up not for what they said, but for what a lot of people who say the same things also say. Or, to put that a little more coherently, for sounding like people we might disagree with.

    We all agree on the facts. We all share the same faith (as far as I know). We agree that abortion in America is a great evil, and that three wives doesn’t make you a Mormon.

  • I think that 430 and especially the MD are getting beaten up not for what they said, but for what a lot of people who say the same things also say.

    Where did this happen, specifically? There has been a lot of replying to what people haven’t said, but mostly 430 (accidentally) did it, while Leon dropped one post that was specifically responded to then ignored.

  • Also– cowalker implied that O both more virtuous and preferable to Newt.

  • Foxfier, cowalker didn’t say anything about Obama being preferable to Newt, if you mean preferable as a potential president. T. Shaw called the MD an Obama-worshipper. And I probably said a few obnoxious things, myself. And as to Paul Primavera’s comment about the saints, they weren’t “nice and tolerant”, but they were nice. Nicer than we tend to be on the internet, once a debate gets heated.

  • Pinky- yes, he did imply that O was clearly morally better than Newt, and as he was replying to the statement: Personally, I find Newt’s behavior in his first two marriages to be despicable, and I still find him preferable to Romney and light years better than Obama, that means that he was implying that he was also better president material.

    Yes, Shaw called the MD an Obama-worshiper, probably on the basis of his one comment being a rather out-of-the-blue defense that seemed more like a scan-and-respond than a read-and-respond; perhaps T. Shaw googled Leon’s name and found that he’s got a cottage industry of denouncing conservatives.
    Foonman is a rather unusual name, but he’s on facebook. Doesn’t show up as a doctor anywhere, though, isn’t in the AT&T phone number database, etc, but if you can get google to work for you you’ll get LOTS of “I denounce you” type statements. (Amusing: search for ‘foonman “As a lifelong Republican”‘. Less than a week since he left the party, though there’s years of attacks….)

    And as to Paul Primavera’s comment about the saints, they weren’t “nice and tolerant”, but they were nice.

    Punching people is nice?! (old Saint Nick) Jerome was, as I remember, a really cranky old man, and I seem to remember a lot of saints just wanted to be left the heck alone. St. de Paul, by his own description? I seem to remember that some groups of monks came about because the head holy man wanted to be left alone, and the more harsh hurdles they put in place, the more men came to follow them.

    The saints are to be loving– and frequently, that is ANYTHING but nice!

  • Professor Joseph Campbell on Media Bias: “ABC News offered yesterday a risible lineup of two-timing politicians that omitted Bill Clinton, the philandering 42nd president, but included Thomas Jefferson, about whom the evidence of sexual dalliance is thin at best.”

    Sorry, I just learned Obama gave the Church a year of grace before it must pay for abortions and contraception.

    I now realize it is forbidden to say bad things about President Obama or his virtuous acolytes. I keep forgetting all this is punishment for 400 years of racism.

    I will forthwith STFU.

    There is no evident of Obama being or doing anything. We don’t know the name of his dope dealer. We don’t know the name of the blond he slept with for 18 months. That’s adultery, too.

    Somewhere some Birther found evidence our scourge received college student loans in connection with a program intended for foreign students.

    The whip won’t air his birth certificate because “what the eff does that have to do with punishing you for being racists?”

  • “And as to Paul Primavera’s comment about the saints, they weren’t ‘nice and tolerant’, but they were nice.”

    Saint Paul wrote that he hope that the Judaizers at the Church in Galatia would cut it all off – Galatians 5:12. St. John the Baptist called the Pharisees a brood of vipers – “who warned you to flee the wrath to come?” – Matthew 3:7-12. Say comments like that here at TAC and you could get banned!

  • Buyers’ Remorse Department?: “Almost every employer and insurer in the country forced to provide sterilization and contraceptives, including some abortion-inducing drugs, in their health plans… Never before has the federal government forced individuals and organizations to go out into the marketplace and buy a product that violates their conscience. This shouldn’t happen in a land where free exercise of religion ranks first in the Bill of Rights.” designate-Cardinal Tim Dolan, NYC.

    Not altogether true: Obamacare forces US citizens to buy health insurance.

    The Scourge must think we’re stupid: He says he’ll prohibit the Canada oil pipeline; impose life/death-crisis-solving Obamacare; and force the Church to pay for abortion drugs, etc. after they re-elect punishment for 400 years of racism. Four more years!

  • See, I used to think this way too. You can always find selected quotes that make the saints look combative. But I recently read a biography of St. Joan of Arc – I was expecting her to be an angry, violent anti-Brit. It turns out that she was a compassionate person who prayed for her opponents and begged them to leave the field of battle and go to Confession. Then I read a biography of St. Dominic – surely, he’s got to be a tough one, right? A crusader, the proto-Inquisitor? He won people over by his preaching and simplicity of life. The trait that struck people most about him was his kindness. St. Frances de Sales, a leader of the Counter-Reformation who converted the French Calvinists, of all people, did so by being the warmest guy you’d ever want to meet and never giving up on anyone. And the more I’m reading, the more I find that these great figures of the Church were not heavy-handed.

    We live in a screwed-up time, when polite people won’t stand up for anything. In response to the wishy-washiness of our age, we’ve become convinced that we have to be hard. We (I) want our saints to be tough guys who are right but not good, because that’s something that I know I can be. Well, guess what – we’re supposed to be both. I don’t have the right to be nasty to people online simply because what I’m saying is true. We’re supposed to be right and good, have truth and love. And sometimes love *is* saying the difficult thing, but that doesn’t mean that being a difficult person is a sign of charity.

    And this is something I’ve really been struggling with. I want Father Kolbe to be shooting Nazis with a high-powered rifle. I prefer the ornery Latin Mass crowd to the feel-good Novus Ordo gang. But truth be told, I know that we’re supposed to be as nice as the dippiest liberal and as correct as the most bitter orthodox person. That path is so narrow that I don’t think I can make it sometimes, but it’s the right path.

  • Pinky, for what it’s worth, I found that in teaching inner city high school seniors that a happy intolerance always worked wonders in dealing with misbehavior. If I gave them an inch, they’d take a mile. If I showed the the slightest negativity, they’d escalate.

    A ruthless intolerance of evil, combined with a joyfulness of spirit, is about the hardest thing I’ve ever had to do. Especially when I didn’t feel very joyful, or I didn’t feel like confronting some small infraction. But it kind of sounds a lot like what you’re describing in the saints.

  • We are called to love God with our whole beings and with all our might. Second, we are called to love our neighbors as ourselves.

    That love does not always mean we should be nice.

    One translation of the Old Testament saying is, “Spare the rod, hate the child.”

    The humanists with their blinders on human dignity seem too often to discard the concept of evil and that evil must with charity be resisted.

    Our ardor/zeal must be for the glory of God and for the salvation of souls, our’s and our sisters’ and brothers’. “What has a man gained if he wins the entire World, but has lost his immortal soul.” St. Paul, I think.

    From the Spiritual Works of mercy:

    Admonish the sinner.

    Counsel the doubtful.

    Instruct the ignorant.

    These may require us to be other than “nice.”

    Then, more Spiritual Works:

    Forgive all injuries.

    Pray for the living and the dead.

    Did I miss any?

  • You can always find selected quotes that make the saints look combative.

    When did we go from “nice” to “not combative”?

    And how does being able to find a few saints who don’t strike you as “combative” show that none of them are, in the face of the testimony of the saints themselves?

    Congratulations, you proved that some saints aren’t combative in your view, even when they are famous for leading soldiers into battle– taken with the other evidence offered, there are a wide range of saints. I’ll take saint Maximilian Kolbe and raise you St. Gabriel Possenti, Michael the Archangel and Jesus himself in the Temple.

    Possibly, the root of this entire issue is one of definition– what on earth do you mean when you say “nice”? Generally, it’s used to mean pleasant or agreeable– neither of which describe a saint when faced with the wrong situation; on the other hand, from the way you’re using it, you’re using “nice” to mean “not a total donkey,” part of the time, and the rest of the time it’s not clear what on earth you mean.

    Paul P. clearly used it in the “non-confrontational” sense.

  • These days just plainly call for a return to objective reality.
    The media and Oval Office people are serving. The baffled by b.s. voting public is: either being good so no one shuts them up with insults and name tags or worse; or on to the rules of acquiring public funds for support and care. Hear no, see no, speak no (don’t even say the word…). The rest of the voting public has 75% of 2012 left to not stfu about good and evil, truth and hypocrisy, oaths of office and accountability, budgets and accounting, bailouts and accounting, debt and accounting, money trails and accounting, humor and aspersion, virtues and values, or propaganda and facts.

  • Foxfier – I guess I’m thinking mostly of the virtue of gentleness. And yes, I know that there are times when anger is appropriate.

  • Pinky-
    so, you scolded Paul P. for saying the saints weren’t nice when you meant they sometimes express gentleness?

    You then defend your claim that the saints were (implied, all) nice by pointing out, basically, that they were not the idiot bulls in a china shop that you had imagined them to be? Rather than caricatures, they were… well… holy people? Perhaps ones that express the theological virtues of faith, hope and charity? What made you think that Paul P. did not know that?

    Incidentally, gentleness isn’t a virtue. It’s one of the fruits of the Spirit.

    Here’s from a bit below the one mention of gentleness, the “in brief” explanation of the cardinal virtues:
    1833 Virtue is a habitual and firm disposition to do good.
    1834 The human virtues are stable dispositions of the intellect and the will that govern our acts, order our passions, and guide our conduct in accordance with reason and faith. They can be grouped around the four cardinal virtues: prudence, justice, fortitude, and temperance.
    1835 Prudence disposes the practical reason to discern, in every circumstance, our true good and to choose the right means for achieving it.
    1836 Justice consists in the firm and constant will to give God and neighbor their due.
    1837 Fortitude ensures firmness in difficulties and constancy in the pursuit of the good.
    1838 Temperance moderates the attraction of the pleasures of the senses and provides balance in the use of created goods.

    (Whole big huge quote because I couldn’t find a good spot to make it any more brief. It’s like it was written by experts or something. /joke)

  • I wish to thank and concur with Dr LF. I have quoted St Aaugustine often, we love the sinner but hate the sin. And we have absolutely no business judging the sinner, EXTERNALLY, without knowing the facts or circumstances of the sin- we certainly cannot rely on the media for “truth” and “facts” As to judging the person’s heart – that is always off limits, Jesus has that brief. Now as to saints having faults. Being a saint does not mean the person was faultless. Some had bad tempers, St Jerome who translated the Bible had a notorious temper. Augustine was a sex addict in today’s terms before his conversion, then lived a chaste life and became a bishop. As long as each of us is in this flawed world of sin and grace, we can move forward- Newt can be a faithful husband and it is possible that the very young Mr Obama could eventually become a pro-life citizen. No one of us can guess, Ask St Paul about his striking conversion on the road to Damascus; or the woman in the Roe v Wade case in 1973 who is now for unborn life and a Catholic.

  • Foxfier – Gentleness is a virtue, but not a cardinal virtue.

  • HT-
    We’re not judging the state of the sinner’s soul, we’re trying to figure out if someone is up to a difficult job when he’s got a huge, known weakness that he publicly has admitted to
    . And nobody was talking about if the saints were perfect– Pinky just claimed they were always nice, and we’re trying to get to the bottom of what he(?) means.

    Pinky-
    Again, you’re not being very clear. Are you speaking of “virtue” in the secular sense of “a trait showing good morals,” or in the Catholic sense of “a habitual and firm disposition to do the good”? In the former way, you’re right, in the latter, you’re mistaken, since gentleness is a possible result rather than a cause. (Which is rather cool, when you think of it– our language has been so influenced by the Church that the natural drift of common use is theologically important! That’s even bigger than when I first realized as a little kid that holidays were “holy-days” and that it’s “Christ’s Mass”– not just Christian, but Catholic.)
    Either way, the problem stands– there is a long list of examples of saints not being gentle in the least, following in the footsteps of Jesus in the Temple.

  • The Theological virtues: Faith, Hope and Love. The greatest is Love

    The human virtues: fortitude, justice, prudence, and temperance. Sometimes patience listed as a virtue.

    Moral courage (fortitude) is generally missing but is the most vital human virtue. I think General Patton said that.

  • I was referring to earlier comments about the saints’ foibles and faults.
    AS FOR YOU: What accurate knowledge does any of us have about Newt’s marriages, his former wives’ personaliities, their dynamic together, how emotionally mature he was when married to them- much younger and had a tough role in Congress.
    I am not making excuses but pointing out possible factors one considers when we have not “Walked a mile in the other person’s mocassins.”

  • Get the theology and biblical data straight. there are three theological vrtues; four cardinal virtues, produence justice temperance and forrtitude- cardinal from the Latin for hinge; patience is one of the several fruits of the Holy Spirit listed by St Paul; the gifts of the Holy Spirit are listed in Isaiah, applied to Christ in prophecy and to the confirmed person.

  • HT: Does this mean I don’t get a gold star?

    My little Rosary booklet says for the Fourth Sorrowful Mystery, The Carrying of the Cross, we should desire the Virtue of Patience. That’s where I got that.

  • TShaw, I’ll add this copied from the back page of the St. Gregory Society calendar, with which I was gifted:

    Three Theological Virtues:
    Faith, Hope, Charity (Like you said, Love for God and neighbor)

    Four Cardinal Virtues:
    Prudence, Justice, Fortitude, Temperance

    Seven Gifts of the Holy Spirit:
    Wisdom, Counsel, Knowledge, Understanding, Fortitude, Piety, Fear of the Lord

    Twelve Fruits of the Holy Spirit:
    Charity, Understanding, Peace, Patience, Benignity, Goodness
    Long-suffering, Mildness, Faith, Modesty, Continence, Chastity

    Three Evangelical Counsels:
    Poverty, Chastity, Obedience

    Four Last Things:
    Death, Judgment, Heaven, Hell

    Seven Capital Sins:
    Pride, Lust, Gluttony, Covetousness, Anger, Envy, Sloth

    Four Marks of The Church:
    One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic

    Four Truths Necessary to believe for Salvation:
    1. That God exists.
    2. That there are three Persons in One God.
    3. That the Son of God became man and died for our salvation.
    4. That God rewards the good and punishes the wicked.

    The Spiritual Works of Mercy:
    1. To admonish the sinner
    2. To instruct the ignorant
    3. To counsel the doubtful
    4. To comfort the sorrowful
    5. To bear wrongs patiently
    6. To forgive all injuries
    7. To pray for the living and the dead

    The Corporal Works of Mercy:
    1. To feed the hungry
    2. To give drink to the thirsty
    3. To clothe the naked
    4. To visit the imprisoned
    5. To shelter the homeless
    6. To visit the sick
    7. To bury the dead

    There’s also the Ten Commandments, Eight Beatitudes, Mysteries of the Rosary, and the Precepts of the Church….
    It’s like a syllabus and I wish everyone had this one page reference for the coming 2012 discourse.

  • Patience=Fortitude=Moral Courage=virtuous ways
    Tomayto, tomahto

  • Thanks for putting them all in one convenient list. The Beatutudes from Mt 5 and Luke 4 would fill it out. Commandments for those who are stuck back there without working on the more demanding Beatitudes !

  • Of course you get a gold star for praying the rosary and an added bonus for associating patience with the Crowning with Thorns. Offer the next rosary for the post-ers on several topics who cannot make a point on many blogs without attacking and judging matters of which they do not have all the facts.

  • AS FOR YOU: What accurate knowledge does any of us have about Newt’s marriages, his former wives’ personaliities, their dynamic together, how emotionally mature he was when married to them- much younger and had a tough role in Congress.
    I am not making excuses but pointing out possible factors one considers when we have not “Walked a mile in the other person’s mocassins.”

    Aaaaannndd…. your point is….?
    That has nothing to do with either the conversation up to now, nor with what I actually said.
    Incidentally, while 38 might be considered “much younger” than sixty something, he was only a newbie rep the first time; 50-something isn’t that much younger than sixty-something, though he was a big man in the party for the second breakdown a decade back.

    Kind of ironic that you talk about folks judging without knowing all the facts when you can’t get the known facts right– even as simple as what was said right here!

  • CMR has a good post on the topic of “forgiveness.”

  • Chronological age has little to do with emotional and moral maturity for men ( more SO than women) as I review the world to date. Male menopause can be very devastating to men and their wives and families; human sexuality ” only dies in men three hours after men die ” as the old saw has it. judgment applies to deciding with all the facts available, if we only heard it, read it or saw it on TV from someone else it is hearsay as the Civil Courts rule.

Follow TAC by Clicking on the Buttons Below
Bookmark and Share
Subscribe by eMail

Enter your email:

Recent Comments
Archives
Our Visitors. . .
Our Subscribers. . .