And yes, I believe that he plans to attempt to run for president in 2012. Does that have anything to do with his conversion? I don’t know.

“By their fruits ye shall know them” –Matt. 7:17

The above quote is good enough guideline for me.

Also Tony Blair is a liberal and recently converted. Is he now some kind of pro-lifer?

But the thrust of the opinion is correct on whether they matter in the larger sense.

In fact, conversions that matter would be (not in order) 1. Chrisopher Hitchens-I think the God he does not believe in is Rome’s and if, as some say, he is a Muggeridge in the making it would be tectonic; 2. Mullah Omar, or Rafsanjani 3) The Queen of England or any monarch of Great Britain 4) the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury; 5)Dan Brown.

Anyone bigger than these?

Newt/Palin in 2012.

I don’t think anyone said it was a “scandal.” I just don’t think we should expect any big changes. I would love it if Newt actually did make a transformation and move away from the wicked ideology of neoconservatism. But it just doesn’t seem to work that way in the real world. See the above examples. After witnessing a decade of ignorance and lies from neoconservative Catholics such as Weigel and Fr. Neuhaus, I think it reasonable to be a skeptic.

Thanks for the op-ed, but lI have to take issue with you and with some of those who commented. A scandal for Newt to convert? You have to be kidding! That’s like going up to Jesus and saying, “You sure you want that tax collector guy to be your apostle, or that vacillating doubting Thomas person, or that on again off again blowhard Peter whom you seem to think can run the place in your absence? The whole point of conversion is to have a second chance. Let’s not judge Newt till he gets a chance to live a Catholic life.

Secondly, why the negativity? Gingrich is not being public about his conversion–why would anyone begrudge him a chance to improve his own spirituality.

Also, abortion, death penalty, and nuclear weapons are not equivalent moral issues, they are apples and oranges. Conservatives who convert to Catholicism can still support the death penalty in some circumstances–that’s Catholic teaching. Abortion is never permissable. Might I hazard the opinion that conservatives are more drawn to Catholicism because each shares a belief in natural law, objective truth and the existence of the Divine–all things that may be present but are not necessary to those who style themselves liberal.

Instead of checking the hypocrisy thermometer everytime a conservative converts, perhaps those of a liberal persuasion should ask why so few liberals feel moved to embrace this ancient faith. The rigid and unflexible monikers so often placed on conservatives are now the walls with which liberals surround themselves. Open mindedness may now be the province–horror of horrors–of those who look towards the right. Just a though.

I don’t think Catholic politicians are challenged much at all. The U.S. Bishops are useless and Rome is too distant to have any significant effect at reigning them in. Moreover, EWTN and the neo-orthodox Catholic magazines will only attack far left/socialist Catholic politicians like Nancy Pelosi, whereas neoconservative liberals such as George Weigel and the late Fr. Neuhaus are held up as defenders of orthodoxy. And since most Catholic lay people know little about their religion, who is left to challenge them?

That is so, I think, because the system is set up such that no national politician has any incentive whatsoever to write outside the narrow lines within which party orthodoxy confines him. It is much easier, and therefore much more common, to read Catholic teaching in terms of one’s partisan commitments rather than the other way around, as Patrick pointed out. That’s a very fair point, and while it is perfectly maddening, there’s no warrant for expecting Gingrich or Brownback or anyone on the national stage to act differently.

A further point I raised was whether newbie Catholic politicians are even *challenged* to reverse these priorities. I really don’t know the answer to that question.

I do grant, by the way, that it is arguably true that Robert Novak’s public/political views altered somewhat after his conversion.

In any case, everyone’s welcome in the church, thank God; we’re all sinners; I make no claim to being a better Catholic than Gingrich will be or anyone else is, etc.

Finally, apropros of allowing the expression of one’s Christian commitments to be confined by one’s partisan commitments, see the controversy re. Obama’s giving the commencement speech at, and getting an honorary law degree from, Notre Dame. However one comes down on that, I do think it a fair point (raised by Sullivan: http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/03/the-double-stan.html) that those who are up in arms about it say nary a word when a Republican politician with views that contradict Catholic teaching is similarly honored.

That being said, charity demands that we not assume this is anything more than it appears to be, a sincere late conversion.

I still wouldn’t vote for him.

Mr. Gingrich is a longstanding and dexterously maneuvering partisan of the only religion that is truly relevant in Washington D.C. : Power and Influence Peddling. Mammon is the deity. Principles are regularly sacrificed in elaborate public display. What else could possibly be expected of a Government whose annual budget is dominated by debt service and military adventurism charmingly referred to as “defense”?

When a Federal politician says “let us pray”, look out because when both your hands are occupied, the government is freed to rifle your pockets at will.