If confession is good for the soul, it must be a real tonic for Newt Gingrich. The former Speaker, married three times and drummed out of political power after 84 ethics violations were filed against him later became a Catholic. He joins a list of celebrities drawn to Rome's bosom at a time when average Catholics are walking away.
Gingrich was once cited in a Vanity Fair profile for having extra-marital sex in a car parked in his neighbor's driveway. ("Bless me Father for I have sinned...")
This took place during an era when Newt also made headlines for asking his first wife for a divorce while she was in a hospital with cancer, and when he was promoting "basic family values." (" O my God I am heartily sorry for having offended Thee..."
Gingrich isn't the first randy Catholic convert. Pamela Churchill Harriman whom British journalist Max Hastings described as, " a world expert on rich men's bedroom ceilings" also turned to the Vatican. She went on to become US Ambassador to France and is always described as a "courtesan" (because there are no "sluts" in the diplomatic corps.)
Harriman, daughter-in-law of Winston Churchill, had an impressive list of bedmates. While married to Randolph Churchill she liaised with diplomat Averill Harriman (later, her third husband,) journalist Edward R. Murrow; and publisher John Hay "Jock" Whitney. Her post-divorce lovers included Prince Aly Khan, Gianni Agnelli, Ted Kennedy, and Baron Elie de Rothschild -- most married at the time.
Harriman converted to Catholicism in the 1950's hoping to marry Italian FIAT industrialist Agnelli. She had an abortion during her affair with Agnelli who was not particularly religious. He eventually married Marella Caracciolo, a half-American beauty and member of one of Naples' most noble families who became pregnant by Agnelli while he was also bedding Harriman.
Playwright Oscar Wilde converted to Catholicism and so did former Canadian First Lady/Mick Jagger groupie Margaret Trudeau-- despite front-page scandals that included breaking at least half of the commandments. ("..For these and all my other sins, I ask pardon and a penance...")
One wonders if celebrity converts get the same penance of "Two Our Fathers and two Hail Mary's" the rest of us got for disobeying our parents or telling dirty jokes. If so, a lot of Catholics will feel unfairly treated.
Many Catholics are already expressing their "upset" by walking out the doors. In 2009, Catholics accounted for 22% of the nation's population: in 1965 it was 24%.
CARA, Georgetown University's Catholic data service notes that those figures also include immigrant influxes of mainly Catholic Latinos. The number of diocesan priests also dropped from approximately 36K to 28K, so the number of parishes with no pastor went from 549 in 1965 to 3400 in 2009.
Worldwide, the numbers reflect a similar trend with Catholics at 17% of the world's population in 2009 as opposed to 18% in 1969. In the US and globally only 35-40% of people who call themselves "Catholic" say they attend Mass.
In the interim, famous people like Newt Gingrich, Pamela Harriman, John Wayne, Oscar Wilde, Bob Hope, Margaret Trudeau and a host of other notables not known as particularly "pious" went to "denounce Satan" at Rome's baptismal font, leaving past (often public) scandals at the door.
This is the beauty of forgiveness. Yet many of them continued in less-than-Catholic behavior after their conversions. So, despite (or because of) their money and fame, they are sinners like the rest of us-- but with impunity.
They are often buried with full Catholic "honors" while, in the Bronx, or Atlanta, Baton Rouge or Sacramento, an average Catholic layperson is denied the sacraments, refused the opportunity to be a godparent, and even publicly denounced for "sins" less grave than those of celebrity converts. The average Catholic is singled out for "not paying your weekly budget" or "being divorced and remarried" or "being gay or lesbian" or "being pro-choice."
Of course the "average" sinner can't fork over the kinds of "charitable contributions" a Harriman, Gingrich, or Kennedy can. They can't afford to buy a marriage annulment, subsidize a Catholic hospital wing or convince enough rich folks to join them in insuring the Catholic Charities goal is met.
So, in the Church as elsewhere access to money and power defines who will be "saved" and who "lost." Hopefully, at the pearly gates, there will be another more widely-embracing standard for those who want to believe in such things.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
escrito por nada
Wren Dancer
FusunA
Leepin Larry
Out on a limb
Miguela Holt y Roybal
Salon.com
Comments
The false elite knows which "side of the bread" has "the butter."
r
Thanks for reading/rating!
Rated.
I'm hoping for a companion piece on Why Celebrities Try Mormonism, so we can talk about Glenn Beck and Gladys Knight.
Just wonderin'
People have been walking out the doors for centuries, this didn't start in the 1960s. This is why we have Protestants of every shape, size and configuration -- snake handlers, holy rollers, Episcopalians who use more smells and bells than Catholics, penticostals, Methodists (free and United).... And in addition to all those variations on Christianity, there are plenty of other interesting religions in the world -- Buddhism is quite popular and very welcoming of former Catholics in the United States (I know this since I lived in a Zen Buddhist Temple while practicing Orthodox Catholicism for nearly six months. Very nice, those buddhists who practice daily -- and also very at peace with their decision to leave the Catholic Church.
I hope the rest of you who are still angry with the fact that some of us like the Church's Doctrine which has been quite consistant for centuries will make some peace with your own spiritual path and get a life. Or, if you chose to be an Agnostic or Athist, all the power to you. But must you incessentantly criticize the Catholic Church? Really, it gets so utterly monotonous.
Krista, you are very funny, thanks. Also thanks to Alan, noah, Libmomrn, Alan, FusunA, Shiela and the rest of you who took the time to read and rate.
Newcomers Jerry, David, Tim, Toth...Welcome!
i never understood why they have a pontiff as the head. the bible says jesus is the head. just like the anglican chrch. they have the queen as the head. no need for either of them to be the head of a church.
Sadly, for those who are devoutly Catholic- as with the peons of the feudal system- the true value of their faith is obscured in the money making power pyramid that they will likely not participate in.
Of course, one could easily compare this to political parties versus political ideals, and maybe time again for a revolution of ideas.
But why? Is the idea that famous people shouldn't convert to Catholicism? That the spiritual lives of famous people are jokes? That no one should convert because over the last 40 years church membership has declined by 1 percent worldwide?
As with many of the anti-Catholic posts on OS the "facts" are carefully screened so as to put the church and Catholics in a bad light. Famous converts are opportunists, ordinary Catholics are dupes, and the church itself is an evil institution. Any positives are carefully and intentionally excluded.
And why the OS management thinks that anti-Catholic hit pieces are appropriate for the cover is a mystery to me.
When I finally left my abusive and womanizing husband I had no intention of remarrying. I loved teaching at a Catholic school and did so for 26 years. But when I actually fell in love and became engaged years after my divorce I was faced with getting an annulment or being dismissed. Since I had done an exemplary job I resigned rather than participate in something I believed to be arbitrary and man-made. (I never left God out of the loop in my first marriage or my subsequent divorce.) I found it interesting that annulments seemed to vary greatly in price and the duration of procurement time. I am a person of great faith, but never felt valued or respected as a woman in the context of the male-dominated Roman church. Now we attend an Episcopal church that includes a greatly diverse population. Although small, we are a loving, open, and accepting family unit. To me, faith should be mirrored in one's actions a la Francis of Assisi's words: " Go forth and teach the Gospel...and if necessary, use words."
Your writing always makes me think! Thanks again! ;-)
My point is -- become a Protestant or a Hindu or an Athiest... get happy with your own spiritual life or lack of spirituality in your life and get over the fact that the majority of people who really practice the Catholic faith LOVE the Church and its seven sacraments and the fact that priests are men and nuns are women. We like it this way. We don't want it to change. But we would be super happy for you if you found your peace with some other venue.
God bless you, Mary Ann Sorintino and all the other haters of the Vatican and Orthodox Roman Catholicism.
I cannot imagine such a biased column being selected for the cover of any respectable magazine. But what's even worse are many of the hateful comments that have followed.
Honestly -- it makes me consider leaving OS altogether and I know of other Catholics who are fine writers who have gone into hiding in this community for this very reason.
Get over it, people -- Some people LOVE the Church just as it is. And for those of you who don't -- there are plenty of other venues for you to worship or to exercise community.
Why must you spew hatred toward traditional Catholics and our leaders?
How thankful I am that I and my daughter don't need to use sex to succeed.
Is Harriman better or worse than the millions of frustrated women of her times who used Valium to bridge the gap between their ambitions and capabilities and the roles allowed for them?
Apart from that, is it any surprise that the most rich and powerful church in the world acts as if the most important things are money and power? I always maintained that the objection of the organized religion is power over masses, an not fickle things like morality, brotherly love, charity, forgiveness...
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/31/gingrich-gets-a-new-religion/
And what's with this current meme of: I like it therefore no one should ever criticize it? While there are good people doing good things in the name of the cc, there are also bad people doing bad things under its protection. The church was one of the most positive influences in my childhood - at least the tiny, progressive part of it that touched me. That doesn't mean I can't recognize what's wrong with it, grow away from it, or even come to the conclusion that it's a fundamentally destructive force in the world, grown even worse with the election of the current pope (though whether that's cause or effect, I'm not qualified to say.)
The term "orthodox catholic" honestly makes my skin crawl and my saying so doesn't affect anyone else's right or ability or freedom to practice it nor do I expect it to. By the same token, I don't need your imprimatur to state my opinions publicly. I'd advise everyone who's so terribly thin skinned about criticism or their religious choices to avoid Mary Ann's little part of OS. She's not one to just shut up and obey.
Rated, of course.
I found this doing a simple online search for: nicole kidman catholic
"Born in Hawaii to Australian parents, Kidman grew up Catholic in Australia and was taught by the Sisters of Mercy.
"In 1990, she married Cruise and dabbled for years with Scientology. Unlike Cruise, who renounced his own Catholicism, Kidman's attraction to Scientology seems never to have undermined her core beliefs, though she spiritually wandered, describing herself by 1999 as 'a mishmash of religions... a little Buddhism, a little Scientology,' and finally conceding, 'I was raised Catholic and a big part of me is still a Catholic girl.'"
It would seem that anyone reporting her as a convert would be in error.
They are often buried with full Catholic "honors" while, in the Bronx, or Atlanta, Baton Rouge or Sacramento, an average Catholic layperson is denied the sacraments, refused the opportunity to be a godparent, and even publicly denounced for "sins" less grave than those of celebrity converts. The average Catholic is singled out for "not paying your weekly budget" or "being divorced and remarried" or "being gay or lesbian" or "being pro-choice."
Of course the "average" sinner can't fork over the kinds of "charitable contributions" a Harriman, Gingrich, Kidman or Kennedy can. They can't afford to buy a marriage annulment, subsidize a Catholic hospital wing or convince enough rich folks to join them in insuring the Catholic Charities goal is met.
Not paying your weekly budget? What is that? As a lifelong Catholic, that's not a term I'm familiar with. If you're insinuating that the CC expects it's members to donate money, they don't. Not that they don't like or solicit donations - but the people in our parish that donate and the ones who choose not to are treated no differently, except for that sometimes donors are listed in a pamphlet. I've probably donated less than $100.00 over the past 20 years and I have no problem getting sacraments, having my kids baptized, being welcomed at church, etc.
People don't get denied sacraments for being gay. If you've read anything about the Church, you would know that it accepts people who are homosexuals.
If you're pro-choice, you're not Catholic anyway. Why would you want to accept the sacraments of a church that you share totally opposite views on life with? The value of human life is one of the biggest tenets of the CC - if you can't get on board with it, do you really expect the Church to say, "That's cool?!"
And who are you to say which sins are more grave than others?
You can't "buy" an annulment. If you have proof that any rich person has recently purchased one, please share the information with us.
Why would anyone begrudge a wealthy person giving money to the hospital to improve services?
Your anti-Catholic rant is particularly annoying to me this time because my uncle (age 62) recently died after a short battle with cancer. Born and raised a Catholic, he left the church at 18. He defined himself as agnostic and was extremely critical of the rest of the family who maintained the faith. He raised his kids without religion, had a vasectomy, and encouraged his wife to abort when she thought she might be pregnant with a late-in-life baby (false alarm.) He was a good man, but obviously nowhere near Catholic. And he was not wealthy at all - in fact, his medical bills put his family in financial crisis.
Near the end of his battle with cancer, he decided that if his mom (my grandma) wanted him to have a Catholic funeral, that would be okay. His wife didn't care either way, and my uncle knew it would bring comfort to his elderly mother if her son had Catholic funeral and burial in a Catholic cemetery. And it happened - no problem. Not a dime was exchanged for this "favor." The local parish was happy to welcome my uncle "home" after 40+ years. He did not rejoin The Church on his death bed. He did not accept Jesus. My grandma (who has no more clout than any other parishoner) called her church when my uncle slipped into a coma, and the priest was at the home within 30 minutes to offer the sacrament of Anointing of the Sick. A few days later, his funeral was held in the church, by a priest. Knowing that the immediate family was not Catholic, the priest warmly suggested that everyone in attendance participate in the funeral in a way they felt comfortable with - he wanted to make sure everyone felt welcome.
It was as nice as can be, and so respectful of my uncle who would not have wanted it portrayed as though he were an active Catholic. The priest continued to check in on my aunt for several months, just asking if there was anything he or the church could do for her (I'm sure you'd suspect nefarious motives, though.)
On top of that, a few years ago my own son was baptized along with his cousin - who was born out of wedlock to my semi-Catholic sister and a non Catholic father. Again, no problem making this happen.
Your outdated and one-sided views on how rigid and uncaring The Church is just don't ring true to those of us who are currently active in the faith. And it's pretty gross how easily you spread these semi-truths and outright lies to make The Church look bad. I realize you have an axe to grind, but at least be honest. This just makes you look ignorant and pissed off.
Also, I've never once heard of a U.S. Catholic in the post-Vatican II church being refused a sacrament for "not paying your weekly budget" or for "being pro-choice" or "being gay and lesbian." Not saying it doesn't happen, just that I've never heard of it. (have heard of divorce/remarried people being refused communion, but never the other sacraments)
Anyone out there arguing over the validity of this statement is living under a rock. I can list multiple individuals in different parts of the US who have been denied annulments (due to inability to come up with the cost) - something that never seems to happen to rich parishoners who were married for years, had multiple children, etc. I live in the most conservative diocese in the country and I can also list numerous couples who have married outside the church because one or the other of them were not RC and the priests wouldn't marry them unless they converted. Anyone who commented here and says there isn't hypocrisy in the catholic church is turning a blind eye.
The percentage of people identifying themselves as Catholic, either worldwide or within the US, may not have in itself anything to do with an exodus from the church; Catholics may simply have been overtaken as a percentage of the population by those professing other faiths, or none at all.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with criticizing the Catholic church or any other institution. The issue is the form of the criticism and the fairness or the lack thereof.
The post in question has nothing fair or balanced about it. There isn't a single positive comment in the entire piece. The "facts" are carefully selected in order to put the church in the worst possible light. Some of the "facts" aren't even true. Other "facts" are nothing more than negative speculation. It exhibits a hostility toward the church that borders on bigotry. It's like reading an article about Japan written by someone who hates Japan.
That said, it's a free country, and this writer is free to write anything she wants, and those who share her opinions are free to enjoy and celebrate her obvious contempt for the church.
But what baffles me is why such a post is thought to be appropriate for the cover. While many good posts are passed over, this one is intentionally featured on the cover. The posts on the cover form the public face of Open Salon. And I have to wonder if posts such as this are really how OS wants to be known.
Those who want to know more about annulments for sale can read Shiela Kennedy's book (ex wife of former Mass. Congressman Joe Kennedy)
Others curious about my perspective should read
http://open.salon.com/blog/mary_ann_sorrentino/2010/01/01/pro-choice_is_pro-life_because_women_are_people_too
Stellaa- Of course anyone is entitled to convert, I am just tryong to shine a light on the politics of money and power - present in the Church as elsewhere
I suggest PattyJane, Diamonds and Rust, Mishima666 etc. consider an OPEN CALL on what topics ARE appropriate for the OS cover and which topics aren't
Everyone else, thanks for the reads, rates and comments
How about we just start with people who write pieces that are true? That would seriously help a lot. Multiple people here have pointed out that your conspiracy theories don't match up with current reality, and you choose to ignore them because you don't have any actual, credible evidence to support your assertions.
Referring us to a book by Sheila Kennedy as "proof" that annulments are purchased on some Vatican black market? I have only three letters: LOL!
And, really, your abortion argument is just pointless. You stopped being Catholic the moment you decided to be pro-choice, and especially when you decided to do work that helped women procure abortions. Why is it hard for you to accept that your views are not compatible with Catholicism? The onus isn't on them to become more liberal with regard to abortion to suit your opinions and career opportunities.
Look, your post is basically a kind of rant. As a rant it's pretty good, and well-written. But it's a rant nonetheless.
As a rant it is neither helpful nor informative. There's no real analysis here, just ridicule and speculation.
For example, you say that Catholics are "walking out the doors." Ok, fair enough. But let's compare the Catholic church with another church.
On Open Salon one of the main problems with the Catholic church is that it's not the Episcopal church. If you want abortion, same-sex marriage, and female and gay priests, the Episcopal church has it all, and more! The Episcopal church is basically hand-tailored for Open Salon. So how is the Episcopal church doing? Here are the numbers:
1965 Estimates
Population of the United States: 194,302,963
Episcopal church members: 3,615,643
Percent of population: 1.86%
2009 Estimates
Population of the United States: 305,529,237
Episcopal church members: 2,116,749
Percent of population: .69%
Episcopal church membership:
Unadjusted for population: - 41%
Adjusted for population: -62.9%
Now compare that to
Catholic church membership, 1965 - 2009:
Unadjusted for population: +44%
Adjusted for population: -8.3%
In other words, in absolute numbers there are fewer Episcopalians and MORE Catholics today than in 1965. Adjusted for population, both have experienced a decline in membership, but the decline in the Episcopal church is more than 7 times as great.
If you think Catholics are "walking out the door," then Episcopalians are flying out the door in jet aircraft with the afterburners turned on.
But reading your post we'd never know that. You try to make it look like the Catholic church is on its last legs. But compared to the Episcopal church -- with all of the things that OS members would approve of -- the Catholic church is doing pretty good. In recent decades the Episcopal church loses around 1 percent of people per year. If the trend continues there won't be an Episcopal church a half-century from now.
These are the kinds of things we discover when we do just a little fact finding and analysis, and the kinds of things that we don't discover in a rant. So you tell me what should be on the cover: rant, or analysis?
R
Now they take the money and the people who have it. After all there are a lot of bills to pay --- all those multi-million dollar settlements to the victims of sexual abuse for one.