Christopher Buckley, the Obama loving publicity seeking son of the great William F. Buckley, writes a 500 word snicker about Newt Gingrich becoming a Catholic, the Catholic Church, and conversion in general in his piece “The Audacity of Poping” for The Daily Beast.
From the term “poping” to accusing the Church of thinking “like a $700-an-hour K Street lawyer,” the piece only succeeds in being offensive and sad.
Some lowlights of Buckley’s childish rant follow:
BTW: “Poping” in the headline above, which—sorry—I couldn’t resist, is the traditional, British pejorative for “becoming a Catholic.” Did you hear the news? Bertie just Poped! There will be an undercurrent of anti-Catholic bias in the commentary about Mr. Gingrich’s embrace of Rome. As the saying goes, anti-Catholicism is the anti-Semitism of the intellectual class.
Firstly, among much of the “intellectual class” anti-semitism is the anti-semitism of the intellectual class. Anti-Catholicism is just as popular but in no way does it replace anti-semitism.
Buckley admits that the term “poping” is a pejorative but then uses it anyway. Classy. And by using it is he saying he’s a member of the intellectual class? I always wonder about people who have to tell you they’re members of the intellectual class. If Christopher Buckley is a member of the intellectual class his membership is certainly because of his “legacy” status.
As for Mother Church, she’ll come in for drubbing this weekend for seeming two-faced about the sanctity of marriage. As you know, divorce is still not allowed in the Catholic Church. But here insert a large “however”—she is liberal in the granting of annulments.
You see how he shifts blame by saying the Church will come in for a drubbing while he himself is the one doing it. That’s what children do.
Mother Church can be rigid, but at times—bless her—she can think like a $700-an-hour K Street lawyer.
Name calling?
The stated reason for it is that he wishes to worship alongside his wife, who is described on her husband’s Web site as “a devoted Catholic.” To the extent her devotedness is assessed alongside her early relationship with the then-married Mr. Gingrich, it should be borne in mind that to be “devoted” is not the same as being “perfect.”
Then why bring it up? We are all sinners. This is just gossip. This is essentially the old, “She says she’s Catholic but she’s not perfect and therefore all religion is a lie and I don’t have to feel guilty anymore for doing anything I want to do.” Because those with standards will eventually fall short of them, allowing others to call out “hypocrisy” as those without standards often can and will do.
March 28, 2009 at 1:08 pm
Unresolved father-son issues, much?
March 28, 2009 at 1:36 pm
His piece is the nothing but drivel. How sad he must be in real life, we should pray for his “lapsed” soul.
March 28, 2009 at 2:58 pm
So, I take it that you believe the lies that the Catholic Church really believes in the sanctity of marriage?
Guess again.
The Church is a two-faced liar regarding divorce/annulment.
CB’s cynicism regarding this is on the money.
March 28, 2009 at 2:59 pm
I bet his dad is praying for him too.
March 28, 2009 at 3:01 pm
And my cynicism towards anonymous commenters is also on the money.
March 28, 2009 at 3:10 pm
Dear Mike,
Perhaps in some cases, but not in this one.
Your money is on the side of destruction.
March 28, 2009 at 3:50 pm
I think that both Anonymous and Mike are partially right. Note that our Popes have been quite concerned about the carelessness (one might say laxness) in upholding the presumption that the marriage should be considered valid, and the burden of proof is on the ones who desire an annulment. And I think that there is little doubt that people who are well-connected game this system for all that it is worth. OTOH, this does not mean that the Church Herself is hypocritical, but rather that there are some (perhaps many) who are far too willing to go along with this, perhaps out of a mistaken sense of ‘mercy’.
And I would also comment that having Gingrich convert because he wants to worship with his wife should NOT suffice for a reason to enter the Church. Until he holds what the Church definitively teaches, he should NOT be admitted to Communion. Now, God is the one who knows this…but if Gingrich is giving this as his reason for conversion, I think that he should not be allowed to receive the sacraments by which he enters into full communion with the Church.
March 28, 2009 at 4:10 pm
Aaron, I’ll agree with your first point about the carelessness or laxness in practice, but that does not negate the intention of the teaching.
On your second point, people have been led into the family of God for far less substantive reasons than what Gingrich cites. Analogy: The Church in the sacrament of Reconciliation encourages and prefers perfect contrition, but the Church does not withhold absolution for imperfect contrition.
It is known to God and Gingrich deserves our prayers.
March 28, 2009 at 8:03 pm
It is so heart-warming that some in here presume the worst of motives for Newt’s conversion and feel competent to remark on said conversion. Whether his conversion is authentic or not is known by the only person that really needs to know…God Himself.
Furthermore, is not the Church a place of sanctuary for the sinner? Should not the fallen be able to find in the Church a place of forgiveness and a fresh start? Or are we a country club of the perfect? I wonder how much of the malice directed at the church in this occassion has more to do with Newt’s politics than his faith. If that be the case, shame on those who cannot be happy that Newt might well have had a metanoia!! You lot would be better to spend your energy on judgment directing it towards yourself…because if you are wanting to put a face to the older brother in the parable of the Prodigal Son…go look in the mirror. I, though I don’t agree with how he has lived his life in the past, nor agree completely with his politics, am going to presume he is genuine. Is that not to be the attitude of any Catholic towards those who convert? Perhaps it is for lesser motivation, who knows…but it is not my business to sit in judgement…I lack the ability to read souls.
March 28, 2009 at 10:21 pm
Thank you, Father Bill. I’m sure if Mr. Gingrich were Joe the Plumber, Anonymous and friends would not be so worried about the state of his soul.
March 28, 2009 at 10:24 pm
Poor Chris, so bitter about Newt’s happiness.
March 29, 2009 at 5:15 am
I feel I really must say something about annulments (properly: declerations of nullity, hereafter DoN) – what has been said in the comments just won’t do. It is imperative that we understand well what a DoN is and on what basis it is granted. I understand that many serious Catholics read this blog, and we cannot be ashamed of the process of DoN – it is good and just when applicable, though like anything it may well be abused. Also, we need to explain this better to non-Catholics, so that the hypocrisy charge may fall.
I strongly suggest reading Mgr. Cormac Burke on this topic – his credentials are here
http://www.cormacburke.or.ke/cv/1
He is a world expert on the topic and is very readable, and has very many articles on DoN. I propose these two as a starter
http://www.cormacburke.or.ke/node/570
http://www.cormacburke.or.ke/node/571
March 29, 2009 at 7:57 am
Dear Sebastian,
Good call to bring up Monsignor Burke, he was the Ponens in the second instance decision in our marriage case.
His panel upheld the validity of our marriage four years after the American Tribunal found that our marriage was null. Ultimately, with, then, Monsignor Stankiewicz(now dean of the Rota and Bishop) as Ponens, the third instance tribunal concurred with the second instance and upheld the validity of our marriage, almost twelve years after the case
was initiated.
The only decision published in English(that I am aware of), by virtue of it appearing on Monsignor Burke’s site(in French as well, now, at least in part, quite recently) in conclusion, directly contradicted assertions, presented as facts, on the initial libellus, six years before.
The decision to uphold our valid marriage did not matter because to this day, now nineteen years after our divorce, priests and bishops have continued to support my wife and her lover, as they have from before we were divorced.
Our marriage was targeted for destruction by a Catholic priest, now a Pastor, who counseled my wife into divorce, knowing of her burgeoning affair, who ridiculed my desire to work to heal our marriage when I asked him to help, and who, prepared and sponsored the libellus, which he knew was perjured. The Judicial Vicar of the diocese, which three years later issued the first instance decision, was told of three witnesses who could confirm the some of perjury but refused to address it, thus accepting a petition that had no basis in truth.
After successfully having the venue changed, the court in the diocese where our marriage took place and where most of the witnesses lived, decided, via a three judge panel, that, indeed the petition was without merit and said so in writing. Rather than hearing me or seeking my opinion(as is required, I believe, by Canon Law), the case was transferred back to the original diocese. Within one week of this transfer, my pregnant wife married her lover in a civil ceremony, in celebration. She had been assured she would receive a decision declaring the nullity of our marriage.
She did, in spite of the facts of the case.
There is much more left out that I could relate but the truth is that our marriage is valid and does not matter to the Church other than the “Pilate-like” decision it made to find “no evidence” against our marriage and then to leave it to be destroyed, as when Jesus was handed over to be scourged and executed.
Ours is not an isolated case. While it may not be the majority, this is far from a rare exception.
I sought the intercession of countless priests, bishops, cardinals, curial members and even the Pope himself, only to be ignored. There is no way to address, even documentarily substantiated transgressions, much less allegations of wrongdoing that would need serious inquiries. These should be immediately addressed, when alleged. They are not.
The process is not fair. It is not objective. It is not transparent. It is a nightmare one often faces after having been destroyed in civil divorce court and being, wrongfully deprived of one’s home and children, everything promised in marriage vows and being assessed draconian child support and court fees….
It is a barbaric miscarriage of justice forced upon one by the Catholic Church as it falls all over itself to defend the “right” to a nullity investigation, but that same Church will do nothing
to seek reconciliation between spouses or to hold to account those who have unjustly abandoned marriages and done untold, unbelievable damage to their spouses and their own children, or to hold to account those, especially clergy, who are accomplices to these injustices, while knowing that an innocent spouse is being persecuted and children are being destroyed.
Dear NancyP,
Were either Mr. Gingrich or Joe the plumber to be solicitous of my counsel on this subject as it regards divorce and the validity of a marriage, my advice would be to presume the validity of a marriage, to live in accordance with that presumption, and to deal with the particular situation individually.
I am not the judge of either man’s soul.
Don’t be so sure about how I might think.
Dear Mike,
“Aaron, I’ll agree with your first point about the carelessness or laxness in practice, but that does not negate the intention of the teaching.”
I agree, but the laxness needs to be addressed very urgently, far more than it appears to be being taken. What is occurring, at least in a sizable minority of cases, is that cases are simply decided and then abandoned. This is a very serious injustice and a very serious scandal. Lives are being destroyed by this process and the Church could do much more.
With respect to RCIA:
My wife’s, unrepentant to this day, adulterous partner was received into the Catholic Church as he slept with my wife and as the priests and local ordinary knew of the injustices that are involved and have never been addressed, as well as knowing that our marriage was valid.
It is difficult to comprehend how “imperfect” the contrition can be and still be sufficient to receive the sacraments when one has been a co-conspirator in all the crimes that are necessary to steal everything from a husband and father who cannot defend himself, his children or his marriage in the “monkey courts” of no-fault divorce, which the Catholic Church force us into.
I find it “interesting” how the victims of injustice are so easily castigated, while those who persecute them unmercifully and violently unjustly and their clerical accomplices among others, are so easily “forgiven” and defended in the absence of apologies, seeking of forgiveness from victims, restitution or any concern for undoing the harm they continue to do.
To say that such behavior is any kind of contrition is in itself a crime against the innocent victims of these criminals, who have no relief from either prosecution or persecution.
I would not even have thought of going to confession when I did nothing to repent of what I had done, made no attempt at restoring what I had taken or destroyed or committed myself to ceasing the behavior that needed confession in the first place; not even when I used to be a Catholic. I was taught that to do such a thing was sacrilege.
March 29, 2009 at 12:00 pm
Personally, I like the Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholic (until a few centuries ago) approach on the matter.
http://www.oca.org/QAindex-sacramentmarriage.asp?SID=3
It must be recalled that the Eastern practice of divorce and remarriage with a more somber service, acknowledging human failure and weakness, coexisted alongside the Western practice of annulment for an extremely long amount of time. Indeed, the West used to take the same stance, I do believe. Unless I’ve got my history wrong.
I suggest we return to tradition.
March 29, 2009 at 12:06 pm
I just think annulments are a bad innovation that have done more harm than good. I understand the intention behind them, namely safeguarding the sanctity and indissolubility of marriage, but the objecting commenters here are right.
Annulments are handed out by lame-duck courts in a frankly scandalous manner. All they amount to is divorce by a different name. And I too have heard horror stories about the indifference toward adulterers and such, and their no-fault entrance to the sacraments.
March 29, 2009 at 12:23 pm
Here is a detailed introduction to the more ancient opinion: http://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/liturgics/athenagoras_remarriage.htm
And lest you doubt my word on this practice's antiquity and ubiquity, the Coptic and Oriental Orthodox do it too.
http://www.suscopts.org/q&a/index.php?qid=363&catid=322
http://www.suscopts.org/q&a/index.php?catid=116
March 29, 2009 at 12:38 pm
I also think the Catholic Church’s doctrine on annulment borders dangerously close to outright solipsism.
If a marriage breaks down, such as when adultery is committed, it suddenly turns out there was never a true marriage in the first place. What? Sounds parallel to the “Once Saved, Always Saved” nonsense of our Protestant brethren. Apparently, you were always saved, unless you don’t make it. Then, you were never saved in that case.
Hello? Fall from grace? It happens everyday. The reasonable thing is to acknowledge it and call it what it is rather than playing word games with annulment.
I’m sorry guys, I just don’t buy it. I like the older ways. So sue me for being a traditionalist, and advocating mercy and logic regarding this issue.
Now, if we’re talking pragmatics here, do I think the Church should abandon annulment and return to older practices? Yes, but not right now. Maybe in a century or so. There’s just too much confusion at the moment. We shouldn’t add to it.
Besides, annulment isn’t per se a sinful or wicked institution. It’s a valid approach, but it’s a bad, convoluted one radically prone to abuse. I’m not sure why we picked it up in the first place. This particular discipline has a knack at obscuring the very doctrines it purports to defend.
March 29, 2009 at 2:11 pm
Anon, I’m truly sorry to hear about everything surrounding your wife and her lover. That’s really awful and sounds terribly frustrating and painful. I’m sorry, I’m praying for you.
I say welcome home to Newt. I assume his intentions are good and I’m always joyful to see people being brought into the Church.
March 29, 2009 at 3:46 pm
Well, one thing is for sure — Christopher Buckley is the last person in the world to write a piece about another man’s adultery and infidelity. Buckley cheated on his wife and fathered a child with another woman. The child’s mother claims that Buckley now ignores the boy. William F. Buckley (I hope he was bamboozled into this) had the child excluded from his will (said child is to be considered as having “predeceased” gramps). Meanwhile, Chris, still married to his first wife, has a new 28 year-old girl friend. What a guy! All this infomration can be found on Google — court cases, disposition of the will, etc.
Frank Gibbons
March 29, 2009 at 4:04 pm
Dear Anonymous,
I’m so sorry.
You and your children have been greatly wronged by people you should have been able to trust and turn to in time of need.
The only comfort I can give you is that Catholic doctrine should and does support your side, not hers. Unfortuneately, men (even priests) abuse this often. But we are not Catholic because of other Catholics. We are Catholic because of the Church and Christ.
I do not offer this sympathy in a void. I was assaulted by a priest, someone I was supposed to be able to trust, contrary to his vocation and my human dignity. Such things do happen. Even priests are only human and that means fallen.
I can only offer you my prayers. You are in them, as are your children. I will pray also for your wife’s conversion and that of her lover.
Again, I’m sorry.