Mitt Romney ftw!

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.

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

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

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.

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

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 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

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.

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

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.

http://news.mywebpal.com/news_tool_v2.cfm?show=localnews&pnpID=730&NewsID=863321&CategoryID=16718&on=1

I hope you’ll tackle it.