Anyone who followed the history of this blog knows that I'm deeply interested on how faith and culture interact especially in regards to foreign affairs/international relations, politics, economics, etc. Therefore I would like to address several points related to his speech, both in the things he did say and what was not said. If you agree or disagree with me on some or all of my points let me know in the comments. So let's begin.
1. Mormonism is not Christianity, it is an entirely different religion. The official position of the Catholic Church denies the validity of Mormon baptism because of its fundamental errors regarding the Trinity and Christ. From both theological (doctrinal) and historical perspectives Mormons believe fundamentally different things from orthodox Christians in regards to the Trinity, Jesus Christ, and the nature of man. Mormons deny the one essence/one substance of the three persons of the Trinity. Mormons believe Jesus Christ is a created being. From a Christian (or Catholic) perspective, if orthodox Christianity means anything at all, Mormons hold and believe many heretical views from both a Trinitarian and a Christological perspective. Mormons go on and make critical errors regarding their doctrine on man. Mormons deny original sin. Mormons believe that man, you and I, can become Gods like Jesus Christ who will then rule over our own planet like he does here on Earth. Mormons are polytheists in not only on who and what they believe the Holy Trinity are (not is) but on who they believe man can and does become if they are a good Mormon. These are just a few highlights of the radical differences between Christianity and Mormonism. They go to very core of the central beliefs on what Christianity is or is not. Jews and Muslims are closer to Christianity than Mormons. Jews and Muslims are monotheists, Mormons are polytheists. Mormons are pagans. Their beliefs are a mixture of occult/New Thought/New Age beliefs with Freemasonry-like secret rites within their Temples open only to card-carrying (Bishop approved) Mormons. Do not be confused by the similar terminology that Mormons use for they mean radically different things. Always ask Mormons to define their terms. When they do your eyes will be opened to their errors.
2. Fmr. Gov. Mitt Romney is a life-long practicing and active Mormon. He was a Mormon missionary. He has raised his entire family as Mormon. His family has a long lineage within this pagan cult. In this speech he specially said the following:
There are some [who]... would prefer it if I would simply distance myself from my religion, say that it is more a tradition than my personal conviction, or disavow one or another of its precepts. That I will not do. I believe in my Mormon faith and I endeavor to live by it. My faith is the faith of my fathers – I will be true to them and to my beliefs.3. In this speech Fmr. Gov. Mitt Romney also said this.
Some believe that such a confession of my faith will sink my candidacy. If they are right, so be it.
Almost 50 years ago another candidate from Massachusetts explained that he was an American running for President, not a Catholic running for President... Let me assure you that no authorities of my church, or of any other church for that matter, will ever exert influence on presidential decisions. Their authority is theirs, within the province of church affairs, and it ends where the affairs of the nation begin.I categorically reject Romney's position. Let me regress to the errors and impact of JFK before I deal with Fmr. Gov. Mitt Romney's comments above.
As Governor, I tried to do the right as best I knew it, serving the law and answering to the Constitution. I did not confuse the particular teachings of my church with the obligations of the office and of the Constitution – and of course, I would not do so as President. I will put no doctrine of any church above the plain duties of the office and the sovereign authority of the law.
As Catholics we have been dealing with JFK's abandonment of his Catholic faith in the public square for last 40+ years. Consider the Kennedy brothers, Gov. Mauro Cuomo and a host of current political candidates for President like Sen. Joe Biden and former NYC major Rudy Giuliani. They claim to be Catholics but in political office endorse and vote for positions which are clearly contradictory with Church teachings. Either what the Church teaches is true or its not, for example refer to the issue of the sanctity of human life regarding embryonic stem-cell research, abortion and euthanasia. If one believes what the Church teaches is true than you must work towards means (various prudential political or legals acts) which value and recognize those truths. If one publicly claims to be Catholic in a desire to reap the benefits of other Catholics voting for you than you should vote in accordance with or towards what the Church teaches regarding social ethics.
It is clear to me that Fmr. Gov. Mitt Romney "wants his cake and eat it too." He publicly states he is a practicing and active Mormon but will not allow his religious beliefs impact how he governs as President. From an ontological perspective this is impossible. Your personal faith should impact how you live and act publicly. A person's conscience is formed by what your religion teaches, and if it doesn't it should if you truly believe it. As I argued regarding the errors of Islam, I also argue regarding the errors Mormonism. When one's faith teaches errors regarding the fundamental tenets of belief (the Trinity and Jesus Christ) this effects how one thinks about and approaches correctly or incorrectly every other subject under the sun including those of the temporal order.
The position that Fmr. Gov. Mitt Romney advocates here is a false one and should be recognized as such. He is trying to be coy and intentionally deceptive to the American public. If the majority of the Republicans in the primary season and the American public in the general election vote for him to be their President they will be electing a polytheist and a pagan. Constitutionally this is allowed but is it prudent to do so considering the ontological argument above?
4. In all fairness to Fmr. Gov. Mitt Romney I agree with him when he says:
In recent years, the notion of the separation of church and state has been taken by some well beyond its original meaning. They seek to remove from the public domain any acknowledgment of God. Religion is seen as merely a private affair with no place in public life. It is as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America – the religion of secularism. They are wrong.I share his concern about the far reaching impact of secularism on our modern culture but throughout the speech he advocates for what some have referred to as the modern version of a century old heresy of Americanism. This is basically a vague feel-good religion which promotes the supremacy of America and its values. Let me remind Catholics this is a condemned heresy as well.
The founders proscribed the establishment of a state religion, but they did not countenance the elimination of religion from the public square.
So what Fmr. Gov. Mitt Romney offers us is a choice of one of two heresies - that of a polytheist pagan religion of Mormonism or that of Americanism. I for one choose neither.
36 comments:
Cahiers Peguy - Religion and Politics: The case of Governor Romney
I liked Deacon Scott's post in which he noted that Romney's political values are not that great.
I'll say this: that America was built so that the personality of the president would not be a determining factor in how the country is run. But, with the steady centralization of power, it's only a matter of time until the religion of the Chief Executive is as pertinent as the religion of the Roman emperor.
On the other hand, it's a bit unfair to take Romney to task when we wouldn't do so to a crypto-Mormon who is devoted to the 7 Habits of Stephen Covey...
It is important to note what Deacon Scott's post says in regards to Romeny's deep involvement in the Mormon religion.
"Mitt Romney has served as the bishop of a LDS ward (i.e., pastor of a local congregation) and as a Stake President (in charge of several wards) and is a very publicly active and devout believer."
Are we to really believe as Romney would like us to believe that his religious beliefs do not affect how he thinks or acts? Faith is something which is purely private and not public? I reject this argument.
I wish we could discuss this in person but here goes the beginning.
Points 1 and 2 should be irrelevant. Sad that they are made issues by many. One's religion should not matter for public office. What should matter are public policy positions and leadership abilities. If one's faith affects these, then that faith should be brought into the discussion. Romney's faith does not seem to impact any of the decisions a president would have to make. This may need to be elaborated some but I think you get what I am saying.
As for his faith and his family (point 2), that commitment and devotion should be respected no matter how much we disagree with the content of his faith.
As for point 3, that may take a back-and-forth of sorts.
JFK’s “abandonment f his Catholic faith in the public square” does not seem to be the cause of the other politicians’ lack of support for positions which the Church has a clear teaching. There are other reasons for this. JFK is just another symptom of it, not a cause. Otherwise, how would you explain the Catholic politicians who do vote in line with the Church’s positions on these issues.
Having his cake and eating it too? That is an unfair charge. You are conflating two realms which need not be confused: the faith and the moral. Yes, they can be connected but need not, and the Church says so. I am a Catholic and would not allow my religious (not moral) beliefs to guide presidential decisions. I would decide something based on reason, justice, natural law, the Constitution, and so forth, not on a certain creed. There is no issue I have been able to think of which need be based from a faith foundation instead of the one I mentioned: reason, justice, natural law, etc. Abortion is wrong because it is a violation of the moral law, not because it violates some Church law. The rest all follow the same format because they are moral issues, not faith issues (at least in the political realm). These moral matters are not articles of faith which is why many people think the Church has not issued an explicitly infallible statement about them. She need not. Her teaching of them through the natural law is enough. To proclaim a judgment on moral matters on the basis of her infallibility would lead some to think it is only wrong for Catholics (which is not true; it is wrong for everybody) and would also lead people to believe that something needs to be proclaimed with an explicit infallible statement in order to be regarded and believed as wrong. That is dangerous and not the way the Church works. So when you say, “From an ontological perspective this is impossible,” you are voicing an opinion that I think is incorrect and one that is also inconsistent with Church teaching and practice.
Of course, your faith should impact how you live and act publicly. That is not the issue. What you would need to do to discount Romney on the basis of his Mormonism is to find some issue that he would decide on the basis of Mormon belief and not on the basis of reason and so on. There is not one that I know of. Therefore, to continue to critique him on this charge or to discount him as a candidate on this basis sounds a bit uncharitable, unjust, and perhaps even bigoted to me.
There is no fair foundation to accuse him of “trying to be coy and intentionally deceptive …” Unfair. He is being the way many Christians (rooted in and understanding of the moral tradition of primarily Catholic thought over the ages) would be … and should be, especially when trying to explain to non-Christians why they can trust a Christian to be President over Christians and non-Christians in a fair and just way. The same holds true for others.
Your charge of Americanism seems unfair as well. He is not proposing Americanism as some religion or replacement thereof. He is proposing and arguing for a way of public life and political activism that finds a rich tradition in the American drama and one that has brought great good to Americans and to the world, no matter how imperfect it is. America and its foundations are not perfect, but they have proved to be better (politically and thus personally) than any other recent form of government. I worry that you think a government should do more than it is its duty to do and that the only one qualified to help govern a country is an orthodox Catholic. That is not true, is improbable, and runs counter to the understanding the Church has of the temporal order. In politics, perhaps unfortunately, we many times have to settle and we also many times have to do what is prudent instead of ideal.
Lastly, there is no issue in American politics or pertinent to a US President that would require one to be a Christian. Great for the person if he is a Christian, but that is not always great for the country. Consider the many flaws and bad judgments of President Jimmy Carter, a self-proclaimed Christian.
As well, if things stay as they are, then I am voting for Romney. I think he is the best of the field. Not perfect, but the best of the choices we have.
Here are some great articles or posts to read on this topic.
Theology divides Mormons, evangelicals
Mitt the Mormon - Why Romney needs to talk about his faith by Christopher Hitchens
Bishop Romney by Andrew Sullivan
W - I must remind you this is my response to public speech that Romney gave on faith and politics. He personally felt compelled to address this issue therefore everything I have brought up is fair game. Points 1 & 2 are very relevant. Before I move on to points 3 & 4 let us address points 1 & 2 which you completely dodged. Please answer the following questions.
Are Mormons Christian? Yes or no?
Are Mormons polytheists? Yes or no?
Was there any errors in my description of Mormonism that you can identify and explain? If there were none then state so.
Would you agree that Romney has been his entire life and remains today an active Mormon?
Therefore by endorsing and voting for him you are voting for a polytheist? Is this not an objective fact?
About the fairness comment, I was not stating that your discussion is unfair but that certain charges you make are unfair. To me, there is a difference. I will try to restate my point after I think it through again and will return to post it.
A friend emailed me what some commentators around the country had to say about Romney's remarks:
Rush Limbaugh:
“The kind of stuff Romney said today is the kind of stuff I've been dreaming of hearing in a presidential campaign in a long time in terms of what this country is and where we're headed.”
David Brody, Christian Broadcasting Network
“The speech was sweeping, lofty and presidential. He looked natural and spoke passionately. Mitt Romney didn't just look like a President today. He sounded and behaved like one too.”
The Associated Press quotes Dr. James Dobson:
“James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, called Romney's speech 'a magnificent reminder of the role religious faith must play in government and public policy.’ He added, 'Whether it will answer all the questions and concerns of evangelical Christian voters is yet to be determined, but the governor is to be commended for articulating the importance of
our religious heritage as it relates to today.’”
Dr. Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention, who has not
endorsed any candidate, called Governor Romney’s remarks
“magnificent” on CNN.
Fred Barnes, Weekly Standard:
“But there should be no mistake about this: He made the most of the opportunity the speech gave him. It was a very impressive speech.”
Dr. Oran Smith, President of the Palmetto Family Council, on National Review:
“I was the most enthusiastic," Smith said, "because there were several things that resonated with me that only an evangelical would notice. For instance, he talked about the coldness and deadness of religion in Europe. That is something that is talked about in evangelical churches almost every Sunday – somebody will say, 'The mission trip to Wales is starting next week.' Mike Huckabee might say something like that, but
that's not something you would say unless you had a really good
speechwriter or you were very tuned in to evangelicalism.”
Kate O'Beirne, National Review
“I predict it will get rave reviews. Mitt Romney, who sure looked presidential, explained effectively that he is a man of faith who is committed to America's values. He was sure-footed and polished as usual
but appeared today to be fighting back strong emotions when he talked about American exceptionalism.”
First, I am quite surprised you are suggesting Hitchens as a source for a religious-related article. He is a bigot (somewhat self-proclaimed) and thinks any religious faith is a sign of idiocy, including Christian faith. And Andrew Sullivan? Do you reference these guys as trusted authorities on things Christian or just when criticizing someone else? They are not reliable nor disinterested parties on issues related to Romney or conservative politics (esp. Sullivan and his strong dislike of Romney for the governor's fight to keep marriage between a man and a woman).
Secondly, I did not dodge 1 and 2. I addressed them. You just do not agree with or do not like my response. As I said, as long as his Mormon faith does not directly or necessarily influence how he would govern as the President, then it is irrelevant. If it would affect his presidential decisions, then of course it matters. But how would it? That is part of what I was asking above. Can you think of one area where a possible presidential decision would be affected by his Mormon faith? I cannot think of one. Thus, I look at the policies and (conservative) outlook he puts forth.
As for your questions in the comment above:
No, I do not believe that Mormons are Christians.
I do not know if Mormons are polytheists in the way they understand the term. I do not mind granting you that they are. Fine.
I do not know of any errors in your description of Mormonism, but even if I did know of some, I do not think this is relevant.
From what I know, Romney has been his entire life and remains today an active Mormon.
Therefore, yes, by endorsing and voting for him I am voting for a polytheist (as Christians and I am sure many others understand the term). As things stand, this is an objective fact, however much we can claim to make objective facts about another man's religion.
That said, I do not care. I do not care if he is Mormon or not. I do not care if he is a polytheist or a monotheist. (I think I would care if a true atheist were running; hmmm, a conservative atheist vs a believing liberal? food for thought; which would be worse and better for our country? I think the liberal would cause more damage, e.g., Carter) I care about the kind of man he is and to what extent that would affect his decisions as the President. I see no problem with my position, even for a Catholic who tries to be faithful to the Church's teachings and her intentions.
All of your questioning about his Mormon faith seems pointless. Can you submit one issue that a US President would have to deal with that would preclude Romney from the office because of his religious beliefs? To me, that is what matters. And as I said before, I cannot think of one.
Please submit one before questioning me further about dodging any questions.
W. - Thank you for agreeing that I am correct on my points 1 & 2 and thereby conceding these points. Let us review those points. Mormonism is not Christianity but it is a pagan polytheist religion. Fmr. Gov. Mitt Romney is an active practicing Mormon and therefore is a pagan polytheist. Chalk up two wins in the Jones column and two losses for W.
Now let us move onto points 3 & 4. The Catholic Church officially teaches us about the Hierarchy of Truths. The two most important truths are that of the Trinity and of Jesus Christ. These truths are related to how we view God and man. They determine our world and life view. In other words these truths effect everything, absolutely everything. My point on ontology and how one views the world stands.
Now in regards to how a Mormon's religious beliefs can effect their political positions for good or evil. You ask for one example. I shall give it to you and it is the position of the sanctity of human life. Mormons have a Gnostic belief that we are spirit beings who exist before we take our human bodies. Life does not begin at conception for Mormons. This theological or religious belief has a significant impact on how Mormons deal with the abortion issue.
In regards to my point 4 on Americanism. Refer to the links in this post of mine - Slightly to the Left of King Arthur.
Lastly it's obvious that you did not read the articles or posts of Hitchens and Sullivan. Please deal with the actual content of their thought and the link about the significant differences between Mormons and evangelicals. For example refer to Hitchen's charge of blatant racism which is documented fact about Mormonism. Romney should be held accountable for supporting these racist policies long after he had reached adult age and assumed leadership position within this cult. Lastly if you had read Sullivan's piece you would have known that he did not write this post but it actually came from a Mormon reader and it's "spot on." Once again W. please read and deal with the actual content of these pieces.
Frankly, I see little difference between Mormonism and American deism - both promote the self- divinization of the individual (thus, the popularity of 7 Habits).
The most important thing in a political candidate is whether he or she can look at the surprises that come up during their term of office with attention to the broadest factors. So, 1. will they allow realism to take precedence over their ideology? and 2. who are their friends? the presidency is a big job and nobody goes it alone.
David, I'm puzzled by your vehemence. If your point were to warn Christians about the pseudo-Christianity of Mormonism that would be one thing--and I would be happy to help you. But do you really mean to suggest that I should vote only for candidates who publicly profess the Athanasian Creed?
I would like to agree when you say:
"The two most important truths are that of the Trinity and of Jesus Christ. These truths are related to how we view God and man. They determine our world and life view. In other words these truths effect everything, absolutely everything. My point on ontology and how one views the world stands."
Certainly these truths pertain to things that are prior in themselves and thus determine everything, but for most people they tend to be consequences rather than principles. Think of the logic of the Encounter according to Giussani: adherence to an exceptional human reality is the starting point, the account that reality gives of itself (ie, "Christ") follows. The Trinity is the goal of the mystagogical path that begins with baptism. We have to grow into the most important truths before they function in the way you suggest.
A man's actual implicit theology is more determinative than his professed theology. In my experience the bizarre theology of Mormonism is about as relevant for practicing Mormons as the Trinity (that's Jesus, Mary, and Joseph, right?) is for practicing Catholics, maybe even less so. And Catholic piety looks a lot more "polytheistic" than what I've seen of Mormonism. In both Mormon and Catholic practice, I suspect, the core "faith" is often a set of social values, usually focusing on marriage, family, and property, while the theological constructs function as a kind of mythology justifying the practice--if anyone bothers to ask for it. Consequently, I think we are likely to see cosier Catholic-Mormon political alliances in the future.
I've long considered Mormonism as THE American religion, homegrown and well-suited to the American Way (a charming worldly Pelagianism). Maybe this is the Mormon-Catholic Moment for the American Public Square. What do the First Things folks have to say about Romney?
For myself I would be content if I could find a candidate who would allow a reasonably intelligent understanding of the Ten Commandments to determine his positions on public policy. Perhaps Romney is my man.
Here are various responses from all around the country which are both positive and negative.
Mitt Romney Speaks on Faith and Politics
JB (Joel) - I consider you a dear and trusted friend. I deeply value your insight and opinion. Thank you for contribution to this dialog above. Always feel free to correct a brother when you see me straying off the path.
Allow me to add some more commentary and make some distinctions which you, W., and others might find helpful (or not). First to your comments Joel and then back to some issues addressed to W. Orthodoxy precedes orthopraxis. Correct doctrine and belief (orthodoxy) determine correct action (orthopraxis). Truth must always come first. Praxis must be rooted in and grounded by truth.
Liturgy and ethics grew out of Revelation and the natural law instilled in every human heart to know and desire truth. The truth, the Word, is not just some collection of abstract intellectual, academic, or speculative thought though but is a person, our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. The sacraments came to us through this Divine person who took on human flesh.
One cannot though separate orthodoxy from orthopraxis. They are two sides of the same coin. A person is educated to a deeper level of truth subjectively through their own experience but the objective nature of truth remains outside of us. Ultimately objective truth rests in and comes from God, not from man. Truth is not determined by us, by either our desires or affections. Our conscience must be formed by the Church which is rooted in the truths of Sacred Scripture and Tradition. A well-formed conscience then allows us to desire and will to do good and avoid evil.
W. first addressed the following point but then Joel you ask me the following. "Do you really mean to suggest that I should vote only for candidates who publicly profess the Athanasian Creed?" I have never made such a claim that one should vote for "only" such candidates. The million-dollar question that you must ask yourself who are your choices?
My preference is to vote for a person with a well-formed conscience. Personally I feel much more comfortable voting for someone like an Alan Keyes, a Rick Santorum, or a Sam Brownback then a do for others. Sure its theoretically possible that an atheist or a pagan (like Mitt Romney) can know the truth. After all he is human. He has a "religious sense." But is it more likely that a well-formed Christian or Catholic could have better judgement and make better prudential decisions? I think so. After all the Church claims to be an expert in humanity. As Don Gius personally told me, "Americans must stay faithful to the Holy Father and by doing so we will save America." What exactly did he mean by that statement? I suggest we have to look no farther than what the Church teaches about stem-cell research, abortion, euthanasia, war and peace. These are literally life and death issues. Unlike what W. claims above, faith and morals go hand-in-hand. The Church claims infallibility on these two most important topics of our humanity. They cannot and must not be separated. Once again Revelation and the natural law guide us in knowing the truth in these matters. Let us look to and ask the Church how we should judge our reality and then move.
Now allow me to repeat and then add to what I said above. "Now in regards to how a Mormon's religious beliefs can effect their political positions for good or evil. You ask for one example. I shall give it to you and it is the position of the sanctity of human life. Mormons have a Gnostic belief that we are spirit beings who exist before we take our human bodies. Life does not begin at conception for Mormons. This theological or religious belief has a significant impact on how Mormons deal with the abortion issue." Not solely on the abortion issue though but also on how Mormons approach and deal with embroyonic stem-cell research as well. Why does Romney feel so comfortable flip-flopping on the abortion issue? I would suggest to you its rooted in the false or erroneous theology of Mormonism. This bad theology is also why they approve of abortions in cases of rape or incest. Can we trust Romney to make the right decisions on the life issue? I don't think so. Consider his history on this topic, his general pandering to voters on what he thinks they want to hear, and what his professed faith teaches on human life all cause me to question his ability to make a proper judgment on this life and death matter.
I really wish we were discussing this in person. So much clarification and back-and-forth needed.
I will have much more time in a week when I go on Christmas vacation but I had to respond to tonight's comments.
You said, "Unlike what W. claims above, faith and morals go hand-in-hand. The Church claims infallibility on these two most important topics of our humanity. They cannot and must not be separated."
What I said or implied was that the right moral decisions can be made without explicit faith. That is where natural law and reason come in. Thus, in that sense, faith and morals do not necessarily go hand in hand with regard to moral judgments. Otherwise, non-believers could not arrive at the right moral judgments. The Church and common sense both point to the fact that morality does not need explicit faith to conclude correctly on moral matters. There are atheists who are pro-life, etc. Nat Hentoff being one.
The Church does claim infallibility in these areas but has not (and many think will not) made explicitly infallible statements on moral matters. The reason many think is that people would go away thinking such and such is wrong because the Church said so and that the teaching only applied to believers. In order for a moral teaching to be binding on all humans is for that moral teaching to be accessible through the moral, rational life of the human, through reason. Yes, faith can help open us up to issues where we might be closed or blind but the actual moral matter is not strictly speaking an article of faith. It is a matter of reason that all humanity (believers and non-believers) can partake in. The Church teaches this. I am surprised you are suggesting otherwise, unless of course I have misunderstood you, in which case I apologize and take back my remarks.
Another point to consider: the UN Declaration of Human Rights. This document has a great history.
Jacques Maritain and Etienne Gilson were part of those involved in the drafting of the document. Well, afterward, the Catholic Maritain said that during the discussions and debates it became clear to him that consensus could only be had on one level (the practical) and was not going to be found on the more foundational level (the philosophical). Maritain said something to the effect of:
We could not agree on why but we could agree on what or that.
With all those cultures and religious views present, Maritain was saying that they could not all agree on why they were putting forth such rights, only that they could agree on the fact that there were certain rights to be regarded as basic and possessed by all humans.
Hopefully, applying this anecdote to this discussion might help some with another way to understand my comments.
And by the way, "two losses for W."? What is that? I hope you are joking around with me, especially since from the very beginning I never said I disagreed with those statements, just that I did not and still do not think they are relevant. You do, apparently. Fine, we disagree. But "losses"???
I wish I had more time but I still do not see how your points on ontology "still stand." I think you are using a different understanding and application of ontology than I am used to. I am not convinced by your arguments so far.
Exploring the abortion issue might help focus and clarify some of this discussion. However, we should stick to what Romney has said and says about the matter. If you do not believe he has changed on the issue then you are calling him a liar and there is no argument against that. Just a wait and see. Please keep in mind that Chaput has said we should not criticize Romney for his change but welcome it and hope more change to the pro-life position.
I wonder if there is anything Romney could do to convince you of his pro-life convictions. I think you have set the bar too high on most of these issues and are too idealistic in the political realm. Idealism usually fails or leads to mass murder. In the realm of the political, prudence is what is called for in a way that stays true consistent with core principles. Voting for Romney can be a prudent vote that stays in line with core principles. I believe him and like what I know about him.
Your statements about what Mormons believe about conception does not necessarily mean Romney would be a bad choice. I think of those likely to have a chance to win, he is the best option for pro-lifers. Perhaps I can elaborate more on this position when I have the time.
Huckabee has many very bad policies and also does not have a reasonable chance to win the presidency. With the choices out there, it is really only Clinton and Obama on one side and Giuliani and Romney on the other. Huckabee will not last and would get blasted in the general. McCain is a sell-out on many issues and has hurt the process and the conservative movement so much there is little way I could vote for him. Thompson? No way.
W. - You state "I really wish we were discussing this in person. So much clarification and back-and-forth needed." You mean you have a human face and are not just an anonymous ghost who haunts me day and night? I of course know who you are but will not reveal your hidden identity unless of course I receive a very large sum of cash from anyone willing to pay me to do so. In all seriousness I look forward to setting down with you soon over a fine beverage of your choice and discussing these matters and much else at an upcoming event that we should both be at together.
I do not deny humans have a "religious sense," a basic desire to know truth, beauty and goodness. But where and by whom does this come from? From God, the Holy Trinity, of course. I do not deny that humans have a brain or a mind by which they can reason. There is such a thing that some have referred to as "common grace." Natural theology also explores these matters. But where and by whom does our humanity, our mind, our ability to reason, come from? From God, the Holy Trinity, of course. God is the very foundation or reason for our existence, our living. It is b/c of Him that we originate and in Him who we return to. Does everyone or everybody (i.e. Christopher Hitchens) recognize these facts? No of course not but objectively they're still true. Do I deny the ability of non-Christians to reason? Of course not, why else would I link to posts by Hitchens. A blind chicken can still lay eggs. And I must say in regards to Hitchen's critique of Romney that it's a beautiful Eggs Benedict.
Allow me to continue our conversation about the importance of a creed for social order. Every social order rests on a creed, on a concept of life and law, and represents a religion in action. The basic faith of a society means growth in terms of that faith. Now the creeds and councils of the early church, in hammering out definitions of doctrines, were also laying down the foundation of Christendom with them. The life of society is its creed, a dying creed faces desertion or subversion readily. Because of its indifference to its creedal basis in Christianity, Catholicism specifically, Western Civilization (Europe followed by America) is today facing death. Mormonism does not provide the theological backbone of truth which our country needs in a leader today. Look no farther then the issue of the sanctity of human life my friend.
W. - Stay focused. The post is centered on Mitt Romney and Mormonism. It is not about Huckabee, McCain or Thompson. I must say though that many of our Catholic and Christian friends will be offended by your lack of recognition of the reality of what is happening throughout our land. It's called a revolution baby - "The Ron Paul Revolution!" Yeah baby, a political ressourcment, let's return to our sources - those things called the Decl. of Independence and our Constitution along with the thought of our Founding Fathers. Leave aside for the moment that they were practicing and active Freemasons.
Staying focused? Ok, I'll try. However much Ron Paul is getting, I do not think it will be enough. I am glad because I strongly disagree with him on some major issues that are pertinent to our immediate safety as a country. Oh well. Funny you mentioned the Founding Fathers. Did you not know that Jefferson sent the Marines to Libya to battle militant Muslim pirates who were terrorizing our people and interests? Thus, the "sands of Tripoli" reference in the Marines Hymn.
Anyway, ironic that you call for a return to sources written by folks not exactly what we would call orthodox Christians. Hmmm. Isn't it ironic? Don't you think? Perhaps a little too ironic...
Ok, now back to Romney and Mormonism....
I have a little too bit Leo Strauss in me. Theologically it's called concupiscence. I find taking a bath in holy water, oil, and chrism seems to help.
Ok, now back to Romney and Mormonism....
David,
When it comes to politicians, I think we should be a lot more Thomistic and judge them by their tangible effects and not by their explicit ontology or stated intentions. What W. says about the UN Declaration is right on target.
But is it more likely that a well- formed Christian or Catholic could have better judgement and make better prudential decisions?
Sure. But what is a well-formed Christian? Is it someone who's predominately conceptually or creedally orthodox? That's not enough. That's being an ideologue. Has a truly well-formed Christian ever held the presidency?
David, thank you for your willingness to read what I have to write, but please don't put it in the category of fraternal correction. If I disagree with you and you think my arguments over and decide I might be right, that's fine; but I assure you I will also be thinking over what you (and the others) are writing. For my part, I am grateful to be pulled out of my ecclesiastical concerns once in a while to see what real laymen are discussing.
I like what W. said about the UN Declaration. I think that's the postmodern world and we should be damn glad when find that degree of consensus.
I don't like talk of a creedal social order because it seems to lead so quickly to integralism. Christendom may have been good for Europe (and the EU is foolish not to being willing to acknowledge the debt), but it was a disaster for the Church. It's not an experiment I want to try to repeat.
You might look at Blessed Antonio Rosmini's thought, starting with the Five Wounds of the Church. His doctrinal rehabilitation by the CDF (2001) and recent beatification (Nov 18, 2007) suggests that the Church is now ready to give a thorough hearing to what he has to say. I find him interesting on both ontology and social-political topics.
NR - Romney for President
Joel,
First let me begin by saying I have not read Blessed Rosmini's thought. I shall explore it as you suggest.
Without getting too far off the main topic of Romney and Mormonism I would like to continue my line of thought which I began to develop above. It really deserves a post of its own which I hope to do in the near future when time permits. The doctrine of the Trinity had an incalculable impact on Western society. It resolved the old problem of the one and the many - of unity and diversity. Apart from a Trinitarian understanding, cultures would either move toward monolithic unity and totalitarianism or toward fragmentation and chaos. Only in a Christian society with Trinitarian foundations can one find a balance between these forces. A specifically Christian notion of a sovereignly transcendent God establishing separate spheres of social authority laid a foundation for proper social order.
The doctrine of Christ as the God-man was especially important for understanding culture. The Council of Chalcedon (A.D. 451) affirmed that Christ was fully God and fully man, possessing two natures without confusion or separation. World systems that lacked a Chalcedonian formulation would inevitably divinize the state or some exalted ruler. Only in creedal Christian (Catholic) societies, which understood Christ as the only mediator between God and man, could limited governments flourish.
The problems we are now facing in America include being a major proponent of the Culture of Death in more than one way (embryonic stem-cell research, abortion, euthanasia, empire building through war) and that of statism. These two are deeply related and interconnected. I argue, both in the past (referring to the whole Augustinian Thomist vs. Whig Thomist debate on liberalism) and presently that these problems are rooted in our humanist (enlightenment & Masonic) foundations. Authentic liberty and freedom have been preserved in this country by a thread off the memory of our Christian heritage thanks to all our Catholic immigrants (Irish, Italian and currently Hispanic) and our original founders the Pilgrims who were a radical branch of the Puritans who themselves were confessional, deeply rooted in the historic creeds.
Fred - to counter your last question I would ask the following. Has a truly well-formed pagan ever held the presidency? Perhaps Thomas Jefferson. To be sure he was not an orthodox Christian by any stretch of the imagination. I will not give Romney the honor to be compared to such a noble pagan such as Jefferson though until he has earned the right to stand beside such a giant. First he must win the Republican nomination and then beat Hillary. I doubt he will do either.
Moving back to the main topic of Romney and Mormonism don't miss the Deacon's original post - Romney's primary problem is not being LDS
W. suggests an essay worth reading is one by Dennis Prager: "In Politics Values Matter, Not Theology."
Also don't miss David Brooks article in the NYT - Faith vs. the Faithless.
I have to state up-front that I do not plan to vote for Romney. In the first instance, I am not a registered Republican. So, I cannot vote in the primary. I do not see myself voting for Romney even if he gets the Republican nomination. I like Giuliani even less. On the whole, I'd like to see a Republican race between McCain, Paul, and Huckabee. Fred Thompson is a slow-thinking, tongue-tied, lazy candidate who could not cash in on all the excitement he built up by delaying his announcement to run. On the Dem side, I'd like to see a race between Clinton, Richardson, and Obama.
As to the issue of faith and politics, I agree that at the end-of-the-day it is where a candidate stands on issues and why s/he takes that stand that matters, not which faith s/he does or does not practice. Nonetheless, for any person of faith (and all candidates at least claim to be- even Giuliani when it suits him) it is very disingenuous to say that his/her faith commitments will not influence their decisions once in office. U.S. voters are smart enough to ask What kind of faith is that? So, Romney, like Huckabee, a Baptist minister, is scrutinized more on the basis of their faith, this is alright. Notice how nobody ever brings up McCain's faith or Thompson's faith, or Paul's faith. Why? Because they aren't clergy, or the LDS equivalent of clergy.
I have to run, but there is a theology note I want address about Huckabee's NY Times comment.
I reject the notion that one's ethics or values can be separated from their religion or faith. Even atheistic materialism is a religion. It results in values and ethics which lead to death. Look no farther than Stalin or Hitler as evidence. It's one thing for folks to say a person lacks in faith or has nominal faith which results in poor values and ethics. This in many ways can be true but one must also look at the content of their faith. How true is it? A faith riddled with errors will produce poor values and ethics. No one claims that Romney is a nominal Mormon. In truth he is an active member and former leader of this pagan religion. His confusion, or flip-flopping, on many issues but especially on the life issue (abortion, stem-cell research, etc.) in particular is a result of the errors taught within Mormonism on when life begins.
Allow me to more fully develop the theme above on how liberty and freedom have been preserved in this country through the memory of our Christian heritage by our Catholic and Puritan immigrants. The American experiment would not have been possible without the cultural impact of Catholicism and Calvinism in Europe on every sphere of society including on the political/governmental and economic spheres and then the subsequent immigration of these peoples to the Americas.
This memory has been sustained by a living experience through the liturgy, rooted in the confession of faith, the study of the Word and in the reception of the Eucharist. As their communion (communio) with God the Holy Trinity deepened, their understanding and appreciation of liberty and freedom grew. As our communion (communio) with God the Holy Trinity deepens, our understanding and appreciation of liberty and freedom grows. Conversely when the confession of faith as lived through liturgy is weekend or abolished then everything begins to fall apart, to crumble. Social order looses the glue which holds it together. Romney, nor any political candidate, can save us from Hillary or the problems that plague our social disintegration. That which saves society, and saves particular individuals within that society, is God the Holy Trinity. What this country needs is not a Romney Presidency but a revival, another Great Awakening. What this country needs is not Mitt Romney but another Jonathan Edwards.
I am supporting Ron Paul for President, and am a Mormon. Most of my friends are not members of my church, and I often have attended meetings or vacation bible schools with them and their families. I have the utmost respect for all of these people - how they lead their lives, and their devotion to Jesus Christ. However, one experience I had a few years ago serves to illustrate why Mormons believe we are Christian, and why we have trouble understanding why some people do not believe we are Christian. While attending vacation bible school with some friends in Raleigh, North Carolina, the pastor divided the adults into two classes - the "advanced" bible class, and the "beginner" bible class. My wife and I both served Mormon missions as young adults, and though a little leery decided to attend the "advanced" Bible class. It turned out that of the 40-50 adults, 6 people, including us, went to the advanced class. The class over the course of the week turned out not to be about the bible, but about the creeds of the Christian churches.
The first creed discussed was the Apostle's Creed, which states:
=-=-=-=
I believe in God, the Father Almighty, the Creator of heaven and earth,
and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord:
Who was conceived of the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried. He descended into hell.
The third day He arose again from the dead.
He ascended into heaven and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty,
whence He shall come to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic church,
the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body, and life everlasting.
Amen.
=-=-==
The teacher, who was not the pastor, then asked each student around the table what they thought of this creed. One expressed some reservation about Jesus "rising from the dead" and the part about "the resurrection of the body", in that it implied that Christ arose with a body and that there will be a physical resurrection. Another did not believe the portion of the creed that indicated that Christ descended into hell. Another questioned how he could sit at the right hand of God if he was God.
My wife and I were the last ones to speak. Both of us answered that we felt the creed reflected the biblical teachings of Christ and the Apostles correctly, and we believed in the creed 100%.
My point is that many people "cling" to the different beliefs of Mormons from other Christian churches, while ignoring the fact that the core Mormons beliefs match the creeds of the early Christian church closer than the beliefs of their particular sect.
Even the controversy about Mormon belief/disbelief in the Trinity is enlightening. Mormons believe in the Trinity, although not in same way as most other Christian sects teach the Trinity. Mormons believe that the three members of the Trinity can be referred to as one God, as they are one in purpose, and never vary from one another in thought. Indeed, Mormons believe that if you have seen Christ you have seen the Father, because they look, act, think, and do exactly alike. The only difference between the beliefs, which is entire exagerrated, is that most other Christian sects believe the three members of the Trinity are three manifestations of the same being. But if the three are separate beings but think, act, and do as One, isn't the net result the same thing?
There are many beliefs in different sects that outsiders could call "bizarre", but at the core, Christians, including Mormons, believe the same basic things. Some examples of "bizaare things" that are either shared beliefs that Mormons have with other Christians, or are believed and taught by other sects, are:
Transubstantiation - (not a Mormon belief)
Virgin Birth - (a Mormon belief)
Worship of Saints - (not a Mormon belief)
Earth created in 6000 years - (most Mormons don't believe, but no official Church stance)
Infallibility of the Bible - (not a Mormon belief)
Faith Healings - (a Mormon belief)
Prophecy - (a Mormon belief)
Speaking in Tongues - (a Mormon belief)
Jesus casting evil spirits into Pigs - (a Mormon belief)
The LDS do not believe in the Virgin birth, the teaching is that Mary was impregnated through sexual intercourse with God the Father, who, after all, "has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man's" (Doctrine & Covenants 130:22). This is what prophet Brigham Young, who said that his teaching was "as good Scripture as is couched in this Bible", which, given the low regard the LDS have for the Bible, might not be saying much, about the birth of our Lord: "The birth of the Savior was as natural as the births of our children; it was the result of natural action. He partook of flesh and blood--was begotten of his Father, as we were of our fathers." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 8, p. 115).
Worship of saints is not a Catholic belief as worship- latria- is due to God alone. Veneration- dulia- of the saints is a part of Catholic belief. It is de facto the belief of every religious group. Are not Joseph Smith, Jr., Brigham Young, et. al. venerated by the LDS?
"Earth created in 6000 years - (most Mormons don't believe, but no official Church stance)"
LDS take creation accounts from Genesis extremely literally and believe that in The Book Moses, once again found in The Pearl of Great Price, synthesizes the two separate stories found in Genesis. This is true to the point that the LDS not only literally believe in the Garden of Eden, but that it was in Jackson County, Missouri and claim to know of a meeting called by Adam, whom they believe to be a historical person, also recorded in this revelation known as The Book of Moses, which is allegedly the revelation given to Moses that allowed Moses to write Genesis. So, they also believe that the first five books of the Bible were actually written by Moses
One last thing, a Latter-day Saint (LDS) cannot believe the Apostles' Creed 100%. A LDS who is honest and not trying to curry favor with Christians, as Governor Romney is trying to do, would have to bail out as early on as professing belief in one God which, while explicit in the Nicene Creed, is only implicit in the Apostles Creed. In other words, Mormonism is unabashedly polytheistic. One need look no further than the couplet taught by LDS Prophet Lorenzo Snow: ”As man is, God once was; and as God is, man may become” to demonstrate this. Nonetheless, we will look further. Looking to LDS scripture, specifically to Doctrine & Covenants 132:37, we read: "37 Abraham received concubines, and they bore him children; and it was accounted unto him for righteousness, because they were given unto him, and he abode in my law; as Isaac also and Jacob did none other things than that which they were commanded; and because they did none other things than that which they were commanded, they have entered into their exaltation, according to the promises, and sit upon thrones, and are not angels but are gods ". Now, lest there be the disingenuous pointing out that the word "gods" in this passage indicates they are not Gods, I refer you back to the Lorenzo Snow quote and clear teaching of LDS leaders from Joseph Smith, Jr. on.
To revisit the Virgin Birth, the Doctrine & Covenants, section 131, verses 7-8, teaches that "7 There is no such thing as immaterial matter. All spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by purer eyes;
8 We cannot see it; but when our bodies are purified we shall see that it is all matter." Of course, spirit by definition is not material and cannot be matter anymore than apples can be oranges.
"Mormons believe in the Trinity, although not in same way as most other Christian sects teach the Trinity."
Mormons believe in what they call the Godhead, not the Trinity. This is kind of like saying I believe in the roundness of circles, but not in the same way as other people who study geometry. In other words, I believe that circles have squared corners. The LDS teaching is that the Godhead, which consists of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, are separate and distinct persons. The orthodox teaching recognizes the distinction of persons, or hypostases and the oneness of nature, or ousios.
This gets to whole issue of what the LDS mean by God, their doctrine of divinity, which bears no resemblance to that shared among Christians and between Jews, Christians, and Muslims. This brings me to the post I was going to write with regard to Gov. Huckabee's NY Times magazine statement about Jesus and Satan being brothers. According to LDS teaching (let's stick with the Snow couplet), God the Father is not ontologically different from you and me, or from Jesus, the Holy Ghost, or Satan. He was chronologically prior because his intelligence, which is eternal, just as is yours and mine, according to LDS teaching, found most explicitly in Abraham chapter 3 (Pearl of Great Price- all LDS scriptures can be accessed at www.lds.org), was sexually conceived by his God and father and one of his multiple wives and born to material existence (pre-earth or pre-mortal existence), became a human being and was exalted, before you and I. This called is the LDS Plan of Salvation.
I would also point out that whether one is a Catholic or not, the Catholic Church cannot be called a sect.
Based on the last post we can see what Gov. Huckabee was hinting at, that the devil and the Savior are both spiritual (i.e., material) beings born of God the father through sexual intercourse. Therefore, they are brothers rather than one being the Only Son, eternally begotten of the father (keeping in mind that like begets like and what is made is different from its maker) and the other being an angel- a creature- in rebellion.
It also bears noting that Trinity, from the Latin Trinitas, is a Christian neo-logism, coined by Tertullian, an ante-Nicene father of the Church, who himself later fell into error, to encapsulate the orthodox belief in the Trinity. Besides, Mormons assiduously avoid using the word Trinity to describe their doctrine of the Godhead. Once again, we need look no further than the conference talk, given in October, by Elder Jeffery Holland, former president of Brigham Young University, that in a not very convincing manner, tries to refute the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity. The talk is entitled The Only True God and Jesus Christ Whom He Hath Sent and can be read at http://lds.org/conference/talk/display/0,5232,23-1-775-15,00.html
Post a Comment