Friday, December 30, 2011

Taking Another Look at Newt Gingrich

Newt Gingrich has been in the cross hairs of the political muckrakers as his stellar performances in the GOP presidential candidate debates boosted his standing to front line status. Peggy Noonan, the Wall Street Journal columnist, a prominent Catholic journalist, published a recent  article in WSJ suggesting she's backing Romney and dismissing Gingrich's chances while barely touching on specifics of why she rules out his candidacy.

On the other hand, public endorsements piling up behind Gingrich are newsworthy:

 Prominent economist Arthur Laffer, the architect of Ronald Reagan’s economic plan, announced yesterday that he is endorsing Newt Gingrich for president. Economist Laffer Endorses Newt Gingrich

Watch Michael Reagan's comments and in depth Newsmax interview with Speaker Gingrich

The Rev. Donald E. Wildmon, founder and chairman of American Family Association (AFA) has endorsed former House Speaker Newt Gingrich for President. Rev. Donald Wildmon Endorses Gingrich

Thoughts on Ms. Noonan's analysis of Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich:
 I believe (and hope) Ms. Noonan looks to Ronald Reagan (her former boss whom she has often written and spoken about admiringly) as the "gold standard" of the modern GOP conservative political leader. Mitt Romney's mushy and shifting views on social issues are disturbing. I believe Peggy Noonan is a faithful Catholic. I also believe Newt Gingrich is a serious Catholic convert. Many of us in the hinterlands of America can identify with Gingrich, the prodigal son, whose past moral lapses are well known.

There, but for the grace of God, go I and the rest of us flawed members of the human race who represent the American voting public. Many of us have had marital problems. Gingrich has made mistakes. He doesn't have much to prove to anybody. His past public life has been laid out and filleted every which way. We either believe he's a penitent who admits his mistakes and look at the rest of his resume for evidence of contrition along with substantive accomplishments or dismiss him as thoroughly flawed, untrustworthy, and unacceptable. We Christians are well aware that the Almighty used the adulterous AND penitent King David to do great things for His kingdom. I don't hear Mitt Romney admitting his mistakes; rather we hear excuses and side steps.

Gingrich had a successful record doing his part as Majority Leader in Congress in advancing the Reagan legacy and  in getting major things done in Congress. He thinks problems and potential solutions through. He's done some really heavy lifting as a conservative GOP leader and his past experience and leadership could make a real difference.

Romney's resume is slim and his mixed record as Governor and as an entrepreneur turning businesses around does not inspire confidence, considering the scope and complexity of the obstacles he's going to come up against as the CEO of the U.S. Gingrich may have a quick tongue and a predilection for controversial sound bites but he certainly gets the attention of the press and his ideas debated and disseminated. I would give more weight to the opinion of widely respected economist (and Reagan economic advisor) Arthur Laffer who earlier this week publicly endorsed Mr. Gingrich's candidacy than to Ms. Noonan's "touchy feely" musings.

I'd like to see Gingrich working on our nation's horrendous economic and financial problems either from the White House as POTUS, as Vice-President, or leading a high level cabinet position. I believe inspite of the baggage Gingrich would bring into the office of the Presidency, we value voters can put more faith in Gingrich in forcefully defending life and marriage, national security, international diplomacy, reduced government intrusion in the lives of Americans and respect for the 10th amendment than we can in Mitt Romney.

Some may scoff at this final analogy but I believe the comparison is apt and timely. Biographers and historians saw in Abraham Lincoln an exemplary virtue, wherein he exhibited at times of severe tribulation a tremendous capacity to grow as a man and as a powerful lonely  leader dealing with almost impossible obstacles. Not many thought Abe was up to the job but he proved them wrong by the end of his presidency. I believe Mr. Gingrich may be a similar figure on the world stage who may possess the character to grow and do great things and not flinch or retreat in the midst of the complexities of domestic and international crises confronting our country. He certainly has the intellectual fire power. Perhaps the zeal and passion he has found in his new sacramental life as a Catholic will reinforce and provide him the strength to deal effectively with the many trials and tribulations he will surely confront as President of the United States.
May God's will be done and  this be our motto: "In God is our trust"


Thursday, December 15, 2011

Bishop Reverses Catholic School Decision to Deny Admission to Child Raised By Homosexuals

An Australian Bishop recently reversed a diocesan school's decision to deny admission to a child raised in a homosexual household. Bishop Kevin Manning of Wilcannia-Forbes explained to the press that “(y)ou can’t discriminate against a child on the grounds that the parents are in a homosexual relationship... You are vesting the sins of the parents on the child - it’s quite wrong.”

In the U.S. Cardinal Sean O'Malley of Boston early this year similarly reversed a decision by a local elementary school that denied admittance to a child in the same circumstances and his office published norms against "discrimination". The Cardinal wrote that “(w)hile there are legitimate reasons that might lead to a decision not to admit a child, I believe all would agree that the good of the child must always be our primary concern”.

However Archbishop Charles Chaput in 2010 before his transfer to Philadelphia earlier this year declared as the Ordinary of Denver that a local Catholic grade school was correct in directing a lesbian couple to enroll two children in their household somewhere else when their relationship came to light. Archbishop Chaput was direct and forthright, clarifying his position in the diocesan paper. He wrote, “Most parents who send their children to Catholic schools want an environment where the Catholic faith is fully taught and practiced.  That simply can’t be done if teachers need to worry about wounding the feelings of their students or about alienating students from their parents".

Archbishop Chaput concluded that when guardians and parents oppose the Church’s teachings the situation puts “unfair stress on the children, who find themselves caught in the middle, and on their teachers, who have an obligation to teach the authentic faith of the Church.” 

What possible motive could a homosexual couple have to put their child in a Catholic school, considering their disordered view of human sexuality is not in accord with Catholic moral doctrine on sexual ethics? I would venture the following possibilities:
  1. They genuinely desire a good education for their child, considering parochial and religious-based private schools are widely known to provide higher academic standards compared to government-run public schools;
  2. They are testing what they perceive is a discriminatory system, expecting the school will deny their child entry which would precipitate on their part a lawsuit and/or appeal to higher authority within the Church hierarchy and civil authorities;
  3. They are executing a planned attack on the Catholic school system and Catholic sexual mores hoping to set ablaze a widespread protest fueled by allies in the media against the Church and Catholic schools. (This attack on  religious schools is not unique. It's quite common in states like California);
  4. They are acting out what active homosexuals share in common - the desire to gain acceptance for their "cause" and what they perceive is an affront to their "civil liberties". Their objective then is to challenge society to accept their sexual deviancy and perversion as moral and good and they do this by causing public scandal, shamelessly depicting themselves as VICTIMS of "homophobic" and patriarchal institutions and an unjust social order. One thing for sure, homosexual activists love drama, street theater, and confrontation.
Perhaps the same sex partners with a child have a genuine desire to give their child the best education possible. Unfortunately their moral values are diametrically opposed to what their child, raised in a homosexual "family", will be exposed to on a regular basis in a religious-based school.

Why expose their child to intense emotional conflict, what social scientists call the anguish of "cognitive dissonance", where the child sees the incompatibility between what he or she learns in a disordered home with a homosexual couple ruling the roost and what is taught at Catholic school about the Creator and the order of creation and nature that is at the root of Judeo-Christian teaching about the dignity of the human person who is made in the image of God?

But then again the homosexual couple's purpose may not be so altruistic.The child could be seen as a tool, a pawn to advance their socio-political cause to turn society upside down to conform to their acceptance of Kinseyian sexuality (pedophile sexologist Alfred Kinsey). This is in keeping with the  homosexual movement's relentless push within civic and private institutions for legalization and religious and social acceptance of sodomy.

What is to be said about a Catholic bishop who cannot defend the Catholic school's refusal to accept a child being reared in a household with active homosexual guardians? Has he counseled the same sex couple to leave the sinful lifestyle of cohabitating homosexuals, imploring them to do what is not only in their own best interest spiritually and biologically but also what is best for the child living in their household? Has he gained their acceptance that the child will receive the same religious instruction in the faith at the school without exception, with the understanding that because the religious education at the school  does not conform to their religious values, then much harm - psychologically, emotionally, and spiritually - would most probably be the outcome for the child?

If the bishop has not made this effort as a shepherd of the Church or if the couple after receiving counseling rejected his advice and in the aftermath, he mandates that his diocesan schools must accept children from homosexual-led homes, then, in this writer's opinion, at the very least, the bishop has made himself a willing "useful idiot" and ally of the homosexual movement and is undermining  the principles and doctrines of the Church.  A serious reading of Mark 9:42 would recommend the Bishop's prudence and fortitude in this matter when considering the scandal caused to the body of Christ and, closer to home, the school community - teachers, administrators, students and their parents. Vatican authorities should be alerted for assistance to correct the scandal in the bishop's diocese.

/S/ Phil Sevilla
December 15th, 2012