Boston, Massachusetts
As a not-particularly devout Mormon and journalist who has tracked Mitt Romney’s campaign since it began in 1993. My aim is to correct a number of errors in The National Catholic Register’s editorial of 12/11/2007 (Romney vs. JFK http://ncregister.com/site/article/7530/ ) and to set the record straight in a few other areas.
You wrote: “There are reasons a Catholic might wince when Mitt Romney, a Mormon”
“Mormon” is a pejorative that once was considered as mean-spirited as “Papist” would be to a Catholic, or “kike” to Jew. Mormons turned that frown upside down long ago. I often refer to myself as a Mormon. I like the term, frankly. So no harm done. Still, most members would prefer to be called Latter-day Saints. The AP stylebook, as well as ones from The New York Times, and TIME suggest that the correct name be used in first reference: that would be The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Most stylebooks suggest “Latter-day Saints” or “LDS” in second reference. Mormon is an acceptable second reference too, as I noted.
You wrote: “The first reason to wince is the anti-Catholic nature of his religion. Mormons believe that Christ failed in his project to found a church, and that the history of Christendom is the story of “The Great Apostate,” the Catholic Church.”
Actually, the church teaches that Christ succeeded in establishing his church, but, because of persecution and communication lapses, the teachings were changed and, ultimately, the authority to act for God expired with the death of the last apostle. The alleged doctrinal changes and the subsequent withdrawal of the power to act in God’s name are collectively referred to as the “Great Apostasy.” Some Protestant churches point to this period of apostasy as well. Latter-day Saints are unique only that they, like Catholics, believe the power to act for God must be conferred in an unbroken chain linking the newest priesthood holder to Jesus Christ, Himself. Like Catholics, Latter-day Saints proclaim that priesthood power can not be assumed.
You wrote: “More than 1,800 years would pass before the true church was founded: the Church of Latter-Day Saints.”
Latter-day Saints would say the power to act for God and the true church was “restored” in 1830. While they may casually use “founded” and “restored” interchangeably, they really mean “restored.”
You wrote: “The second reason to wince is the political legacy of Mitt Romney. It was on Romney’s watch that the Supreme Court of Massachusetts demanded that the state’s Legislature legalize homosexual “marriage” — among the most damaging usurpations of legislative power by a judicial body in American history. America is a democracy. Here, citizens and their representatives make laws. Yet Gov. Romney ordered state officials to perform “same-sex marriages” because unelected judges — not voters — told him to.”
This is a very, very serious distortion of the truth. I live near Boston. I happen to believe that the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court correctly interpreted the U.S. Constitution and The Massachusetts Constitution when they ruled in favor of the same sex couples who sued to have their domestic arrangements sanctioned by the state. However, Mitt Romney was furious at the order and complained bitterly that the SJC had usurped its authority and was “activist court.” He then attempted and failed to get the matter reversed, then submitted as a referendum to the voters.
Moreover, the LDS Church has been in the vanguard of churches, along with the Roman Catholic Church, opposing same sex marriage and favoring a constitutional amendment defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman. By the way, I happen to think the Marriage Amendment is a really bad idea and unconstitutional. That is of no particular concern. What is of concern is that you have seriously misrepresented Romney’s actual position and the facts surrounding the same sex marriage controversy in my state.
You wrote: “The third reason to wince is because it’s hard to accept Romney’s convictions at face value. He said it best in his speech: “Americans do not respect believers of convenience. Americans tire of those who would jettison their beliefs, even to gain the world.” We tire, for instance, of politicians who give heartfelt speeches lauding abortion rights to win the support of Massachusetts voters, and soon after give heartfelt speeches about the right to life to win the hearts of pro-life Republicans. And, as a Presidential candidate, he continues to press this matter to the fullest.”
I’m not sure what to say about that. As far back as 1993 he was personally opposed to abortion. Like many Catholic politicians (I needn’t name names because they are all well know to you) he believed, however, that women and their physicians had to right to make a choice free of interference from the state. His modest change since then is this: he thinks Roe v. Wade should be reversed and the matter returned to each state legislature.
You wrote: “But then again, we’re used to presidents whose religions consider the Catholic Church illegitimate”
Aren’t we talking about a philosophical difference of opinion, at best? Don’t Catholics proclaim to belong to the only true church? As I recall, recently the LDS church has funneled significant aid resources (cash and goods) through Catholic Charities. As I understand it, this is an on-going and growing relationship. I doubt the LDS church would do business with an organization it believed illegitimate and unreliable.
You wrote: “…we don’t want to complain too loudly when a politician switches to a position that is more pro-family than before.”
I am utterly astonished. As mentioned above. I have tracked Mitt’s political career since it began. I briefly covered his father when he ran for President in 1968 as well. Later I helped cover the campaigns of George McGovern, Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, and Gerald Ford. I can not think of any candidates in the history of the United States who have been more pro family than the Romneys. None. There was no switch involved here. He has consistently been pro family and his church has been as well, aggressively so.
You wrote: ” But ultimately, as several commentators have noted, the God Romney bowed to is the “In God We Trust” civic deity of our currency.”
I don’t know what you’re driving at here but it feels like you are making a very, very cheap accusation that he worships the Almighty Dollar. He certainly has plenty of dollars to bow down to, if he was so inclined. I suspect if you took the time to fully measure the man, including how he has husbanded his resources and used them for the good of the people around him, in his church and personal life, you might discover that he has been as good at sharing his good fortune as he was earning it. It is a tradition of sharing and giving back that Mitt inherited from his father, whom the former President Bush said correctly said was the father of volunteerism in America. No doubt this had something to do with your assessment that Romney’s religion –like John Kennedy’s in 1960—does not render him incapable of leading the United States of America.
Loading ...
19 users commented in " National Catholic Register Errs About Mitt and Mormonism "
Follow-up comment rss or Leave a TrackbackWow! Nice rebuttal. Non-emotional and to the point
RB Scott, I would look forward reading your take on, Jeannie Babb Taylor’s, (Walker County Messenger), assesment of Gov. Romney.
http://news.mywebpal.com/news_tool_v2.cfm?show=localnews&pnpID=730&NewsID=863321&CategoryID=16718&on=1
I hope you’ll tackle it.
Amen to that!
When you get done with Jeannie Babb Taylor’s piece, you could tackle Dr. Don Boys op ed from The Conservative Voice. http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/29861.html But, then again it would probalby be a never ending battle, as there seems to be and endless line of people that hate the, “Latter-day Saints.” Maybe it is because they are such awful neighbors and coworkers.
1. Mormon: If using Mormon is okay, why is it on your list?
2. The Great Apostasy: Good to see agreement here on the necessity for apostolic succession. Peter, Linus, Clement, Sixtus and etc. to Benedict XVI vs. Joseph Smith and the rest up to Gordon Hinckley. May the better claimant win!
3. Founded vs. restored: We reserve “founded” for the founding, in which Christ promised Peter nothing would prevail against the Church. Which is a promise we figure he kept.
4. Romney in Massachusetts: There are three coequal branches of government: Executive, judicial and legislative. Whenever one tries to push into the others’ territory, the others are supposed to not just complain, but say, “Nuh-uh. No you don’t. Not on my watch.” Supreme Courts aren’t infallible bodies, and when they are treated as such, we all suffer. We wind up with policy sins, perhaps — but sins against American democracy, which are far more damaging. In this case, we wound up with a precedent for homosexual “marriage.”
5. Romney flip flop on abortion: Um … http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_w9pquznG4&feature=related or if that doesn’t work, go to YouTube and type in Romney Abortion.
6. LDS and Catholic Charities: I agree. The LDS certainly seems to consider Catholic Charities reliable. But Catholic Charities isn’t the Catholic Church … did you think it is?
7. Astonishment that we think Romney switched on abortion: See No. 5.
8. The civic deity: You’re right, the wording could sound like a cheap shot. It’s not. Our fault. What we mean is, in public civic life, politicians honor God in a kind of generic way, and we’re okay with that. More than okay with it. Romney could be The One. I’ll vote for him if he turns out to be the best candidate running next November.
Can we expect a re-do or perhaps an apology from the editors of the National Catholic Register—I doubt it.
Dear RB Scott,
I don’t know by what standard you consider yourself to be a “not-particularly devout Mormon,” but as one who considers himself to be a “devout but very imperfect Mormon,” I commend you for your high standards of journalistic integrity and thank you for applying your communication skills in defense of truth.
I am happy to call you “Brother Scott.”
hthalljr’gmail’com
I’m executive editor at the National Catholic Register. I apologize for anything we got wrong! For real. See my note above.
Mr. Hoopes, your response to point #2 is still a bit off. LDS doctrine teaches that Joseph smith was ordained by Peter just as, according to Catholic doctrine, Linus was ordained by Peter. So it really does still boil down to whether there was a break in the succession and the need to “restore” it after it was “founded” by Christ (point #3).
Also, your response to point #5 and #7 are a bit askew. In Mr. Romney’s view, the issue is not whether one is pro-life or pro-choice (as he clarifies in that URL you posted) but whether an individual’s personal agency is consider higher than the right of the state to dictate choices for that individual. He has always indicated that his personal beliefs are that abortion is wrong and, so, would not advocate it’s use. However, he feels that a woman’s right to choose — her personal agency — is of a higher level. Allowing the government to prevent that option on behalf of the fetus and inhibit the woman’s personal agency, he feels is incorrect. The only thing he has changed is his feeling that this decision should be considered at the state level rather than the federal level (by Roe vs. Wade).
As one who considers himself a devout latter-day saint, I certainly understand his view and why he feels that way. It is difficult to settle the issue of whether the rights of an unborn child outweight the rights of the mother. Clearly so, given how controversial this topic is! Personally, I tend to side with the unborn child simply because it has no ability to plead its own case.
Dear Tom:
Thanks for your interest in my report.
Below are my responses to your list of questions and statements. First, in the interest of full disclosure, did the National Catholic Register run my piece? Or, does it plan on running the piece soon? I submitted it to you two days before I released it through BNN.
Here are my responses to your list of questions and statements:
1. You asked why “Mormon” on my list of concerns, even though I don’t mind the term? Here’s a response that may resonate: right now a lot of people in America mistakenly think that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints isn’t a Christian denomination. Perhaps using the correct name of the church in first reference, as called for in every stylebook I am familiar with, will help eliminate this confusion.
2. I think Latter-day Saints would, more or less, agree with your “let the better claimant win” taunt. However, they would respectfully correct your layout of the line of authority this way: from Christ to Peter, James and John to Joseph Smith to all current priesthood bearers, including Gordon Bitner Hinckley, the president and prophet of the church.
3. Latter-day Saints use the terms “founded” and “restored” interchangeably, as I noted in the original piece. They are, of course, critically aware of the role Christ played in establishing His church. They hey are also aware when other Christian churches were founded. Latter-day Saints would challenge your interpretation of events and scriptures and point to other scriptures that suggest something quite a different temporary outcome. In short, as we all know: reasonable, sincere people will disagree about politics and, especially, religion.
4. I lived in Connecticut, where the National Catholic Register is based, for 15 years. The government there works about the same as it does or doesn’t, as the case may be, here in Massachusetts. In short, neither the governor of Connecticut nor the governor of Massachusetts have the authority to veto the actions of the Supreme Courts of their respective states. Check the record and you will see, as I noted in the piece, that Romney did quite a bit more than ring his hands in frustration over the SJC’s unilateral decision. In the end, he did not have the constitutional power to reverse the decision.
5. Romney flip-flopped (by the way, I wrote the original story on his flip-flops in November of 2005. It’s available on line or from Sunstone Magazine) on “choice” only. He never, ever asserted that “abortion” is a good, moral solution to an unwanted pregnancy. I happen to think to his approach to matter right back in 1993 was right. He does not agree with me, obviously.
6. I assumed the Roman Catholic Church and Catholic Charities were connected. As I recall, the Catholic Church more or less forced Catholic Charities in Boston and San Francisco to abandon assistance it was providing to gay and lesbian couples seeking to adopt children. Am I wrong about that? Do you mean to suggest that there is no connection whatsoever between Catholic Charities and the church?
7. As noted above, Romney did not switch his personal position on abortion. Romney always personally opposed abortion. He changed his mind only on the matter of “choice.”
8.Actually, yesterday a Mormon friend pointed out the alternative meaning as well that you say was the intended one.
Thanks for responding. I hope I’ve added to your understanding of the matter.
RB Scott
Boston, MA.
p.s. Please feel to correspond with me privately, if you wish rbscott@comcast.net
We should be no more concerned about a candidate’s Mormonism than we should have been concerned about Carter’s Baptist faith. Unless a candidate is out to make the country into an arm of an established religion, it’s irrelavent. Ask him about illegal immigration, the war, taxes, states rights, homeschooling, the second amendment, our role in the United Nations, the North American Union, and what to do about China. Leave his religion alone.
Great rebuttal. To the point and factual. Hooray!
Admittedly, I am a lousy proofreader of my own material. There were several errors in my response yesterday to Tom Hoopes, the executive editor of The National Catholic Register, based in West Haven, Connecticut. I apologize for making those errors, all of which were proofing errors. Below is a cleaned-up version of the response I posted yesterday.
Dear Tom:
Thanks for your interest in my report. Below are my responses to your list of questions and statements. First, in the interest of full disclosure, did the National Catholic Register run my piece? Or, does it plan on running the piece soon? I submitted it to you two days before I released it through BNN.
Thanks for your interest in my report. Here are my responses to your list of questions and statements:
1. You asked why “Mormon” was on my list of concerns, even though I don’t mind the term? Here’s a response that may resonate: right now a lot of people in America mistakenly think that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints isn’t a Christian denomination. Perhaps using the correct name of the church in first reference, as called for in every stylebook I know of, will help eliminate this error and confusion.
2. I think Latter-day Saints would, more or less, agree with your taunt “let the better claimant win.” However, they would respectfully correct your layout of the line of authority this way: from Christ to Peter, James and John to Joseph Smith to all current priesthood bearers, including Gordon Bitner Hinckley, the president and prophet of the church.
3. Latter-day Saints use the terms “founded” and “restored” interchangeably, as I noted in the original piece. They are, of course, critically aware of the role Christ played in establishing His church. They are also aware when other Christian churches were founded. Latter-day Saints would challenge your interpretation of events and scriptures and point to other scriptures that suggest a different, if temporary, outcome. In short, as we all know: reasonable, sincere people will disagree about politics and, especially, religion.
4. I lived in Connecticut, where the National Catholic Register is based, for 15 years. The government there works about the same as it does, or doesn’t as the case may be, here in Massachusetts. In short, neither the governor of Connecticut nor the governor of Massachusetts has the authority to veto the actions of the Supreme Courts of their respective states. Check the record and you will see, as I noted in the piece, that Romney did quite a bit more than wring his hands in frustration over the SJC’s unilateral decision. In the end, he did not have the constitutional authority or power to block or reverse the decision.
5. Romney flip-flopped (by the way, I wrote the original story on his flip-flops in November of 2005, it is available from Sunstone Magazine and on line: I may post this report here later today) on “choice” only. He never, ever asserted that “abortion” is a good, moral solution to an unwanted pregnancy. I happen to think his approach to the matter back in 1993 was the right one. He does not agree with me, obviously.
6. I assumed the Roman Catholic Church and Catholic Charities were connected. As I recall, the Catholic Church more or less forced Catholic Charities in Boston and San Francisco to abandon assistance it was providing to gay and lesbian couples seeking to adopt children. Am I wrong about that? Do you mean to suggest that there is no connection whatsoever between Catholic Charities and the church?
7. As noted above, Romney did not switch his personal position on abortion. Romney always personally opposed abortion. He changed his mind only on the matter of “choice.”
8. Actually, yesterday a Mormon friend pointed out the alternative meaning, the meaning you say was the intended one.
Thanks for responding. I hope I’ve added to your understanding of the matter.
RB Scott
Boston, MA.
p.s. Please feel to correspond with me privately, if you wish rbscott@comcast.net
Thanks …
1. I suppose it would open up a can of worms too big for these comments boxes to address the divinity of Christ and the term Christian. I liked Father Richard John Neuhaus’ comment that Mormon believerss are essentially Christians. I’m a Catholic, by the way, and don’t mind that term, knowing that it doesn’t exclude “Christian.”
2. Sorry if it was a taunt. And yes, let the better claimant win!
3. Yes, we must both be respectful. But no, we can’t “disagree” the way we would over politics. In politics, both sides can be “right” about the fundamental things, and disagree on what judgment should be made. But the tendency to consider religious differences matters where both sides are right is deadly — it isnt just a step toward relativism, it is radical relativism about the very foundation of being, God. This is why Christ prayed before his death that all his followers be “one, as you and I, heavenly Father, are one.” Because, after the Schism and the Reformation, truth itself was torn apart — or I should say Truth Himself, Jesus Christ. We should, as Pope Benedict XVI never tires of saying, always respect the freedom and good will of those we disagree with. But that doesn’t mean we get to both be right.
4. “In the end, he did not have the constitutional authority or power to block or reverse the decision.” In fact, the Supreme Court doesn’t have the constitutional authority to redefine marriage. And that’s a giant, fundamental transgression. The only response by another branch of government has to be radical, to protect democracy. Imagine if Romney had issued an executive order of the same magnitude, pretending he had the authority … the other branches wouldn’t give up, ever!
5. “He flip-flopped on choice only.” Well, think about it. If he was against polluting streams, but supported a company’s right to choose, he wouldn’t be pro-choice, he’d be pro-pollution. If he was personally opposed to setting off firecrackers in residential neighborhoods but supported an individual’s right to choose to do so, he wouldn’t be pro-choice, he would be pro-firecracker. If he was personally opposed to using recreational drugs but supported an individual’s right to choose to do so, he wouldn’t be pro-choice, he would be pro-drugs. He was, alas, pro-abortion. I’m glad he switched.
6. The Church and Catholic Charities of course ave a close relationship, but aren’t one and the same thing. In order to use the name “Catholic” it has to have a close relationship with the Church. In fact, it could continue to operate however it wanted if it were willing to drop that descriptor.
7. As noted above, Romney did switch his position on abortion.
8. It was a bad call to use the currency to point to the civic deity … it opened the door to misinterpretation.
Thanks for responding. I hope I’ve added to your understanding of the matter.
RB Scott
Mr. Hoopes:
So far you have not answered the question that has everything to do with honesty, accuracy and openness: for the benefit of its readers, will the National Catholic Register run the response I submitted to it several days ago?
Second,I respect your right to insist the Roman Catholics have it right as much as I respect a Mormon’s or a Baptist’s right to claim the same thing; or secularist’s, agnostic’s or athiest’s right to throw up his hands in utter disgust at the lot of you!
It’s possible that all of you have got it exactly wrong. Who knows?
As JFK demonstrated back when I was young and strong: religion does not have a place in the political arena. Mixing the two is a dangerous thing, as you are now demonstrating by insisting the Catholics have it right, end of story. This is not church, nor is Jesus Christ about to pay a visit to Vatican City or Temple Square, or, covering all bases, Jerusalem.
Third, as I noted correctly: Romney switched his position on “choice,” not abortion. Firecrackers are against the law in my neighborhood here in Massachusetts, and in my former neighborhood in Westport, Connecticut too. Get caught using them and you will get a citation and fine.
“Abortion,” however, is not against the law in either state, as you know, nor is consumtpion of alcoholic beverages, or birth control pills. Therefore, a Mormon or Catholic may choose for themselves whether to have an abortion, drink booze or use contraceptives. Only their personal principles and consciences dictate, influenced considerably by the belief that they will be held accountable for decisions they make.
Fourth: Thanks for the staight poop on Catholic Charities, although I have been told that the relationship is much tighter than you let on. I have to agree given Cahtolic Charities quick change of direction on whether it would place children with “gay” couples.
The key question remains unaddressed: for the benefit of its readers will the NCR run my piece or a recap of this healthy discussion? I hope so. It’s the American way.
RB Scott
Boston, MA.
Sorry … I meant to answer the submission question privately. No, we don’t plan to run it. I can send you submission guidelines if you like, though!
We’re in agreement about mixing religion and politics, my friend. But one of us HAS to be wrong about who God is and what he founded …
I’m reminded of the old joke Catholics tell. The Pope’s red phone rings — it’s the one (a literary device in the context of this joke, only, lest anyone get the wrong idea) that God uses to call him to chat personally. God says, “Pope Benedict, I’ve got some good news and some bad news.” “Let’s have the good news first,” says the Pope.
“Okay, the good news is that I have decided I’ve had enough of all the divisions among my people. I have decided to gather everyone together into one flock with one shepherd, just as I intended from the start, and I’ve decided to do it today.”
“Why, this is tremendous!” says the Pope, overwhelmed, joy filling his heart. “What could possibly be the bad news?”
“Well, the bad news for you is this,” says God. “I’m calling from Salt Lake City.”
Thanks,
Tom
The discussion ends on a slightly sour note and an old joke. It’s too bad NCR won’t be running the piece. Do send me the guidelines for submitting articles, although this was more like a letter to the editor.
You wrote:”…one of us has to be wrong about who God is and what he founded.” I’m placing my bets on this proposition: most of us will get it about dead wrong, but God will be big about it. That seems to be part of His job description.
In any event, I meant not to argue in favor of one set of religious beliefs over another. If a Mormon writer had gotten Catholicism as wrong as you got Mormonism, I’d have been all over him too. And, so would some way more devout Mormons.
Do send me those guidlines. rbscott@comcast.net
…
RBS
Again: If everyone’s equally right about God, and if God is unknowable, then relativism, here we come!
God wants to meet us. He has gone to great lengths to meet us. He became man to meet us. He founded a Church and gave it the Holy Spirit in order to meet us. He gave us his scriptures, his very life in the sacraments.
We must respect his enormous sacrifice … and throwing up our hands and saying, “Who’s to say what’s true and what isn’t!” doesn’t respect it enough.
I can’t look at a crucifix and not want to understand *exactly* what God wants me to know by it.
Excellent article about an excellent candidate.
Mitt Romney ftw!
Leave A Reply