Loading ...
I’ve been hearing quite a bit lately about Mitt Romney, and since there’s been some buzz about his religious commitments in light of his recent speech on the subject, I thought maybe I’d say a few words of my own about it. I should start off by saying that 1) It doesn’t seem terribly likely at this point that Romney will win the primaries anyway, and 2) even if he does, I’m not going to give him a hearty endorsement, if only because I haven’t been following the coverage of the ‘08 election all that closely. Once every few weeks I feel a spark of interest and read a thing or two, but mainly I’m trying not to bother about it yet. There’s lots of time to go before election day, and if I worry too much about it now, I’ll be sick to death of it all by September. Anyway, the bottom line is that I’m much too ignorant to feel good about endorsing any of the candidates. However, I do feel moderately qualified to speak to the question of Romney’s Mormonism. And my advice is: it shouldn’t be a concern. Catholics have no good reason to be dismayed by the prospect of a Mormon president.
Jimmy Akin recently addressed this topic on his blog, and since he does a good job of articulating the reasons why a Catholic might be concerned about Romney’s Mormonism, I’ll use his piece as a foil. Akin begins by observing that it is in no way unfair or unconstitutional for a voter to consider a candidate’s religion in deciding whether or not to vote for him. In the abstract, I think this is right, and certainly a candidate’s religious beliefs might affect his policy decisions. Indeed, one would hope so, because religious commitments that didn’t affect one’s behavior could hardly be very serious.
But on a practical level, are there any objectionable Mormon beliefs that are likely to be relevant to Romney’s political aims? I’m inclined to think not. Mormons tend to subscribe pretty strongly to traditional morality. Akin notes that Mormons are “soft on abortion”, and there is something to this. The LDS church doesn’t clearly condemn all abortions; though certainly anti-abortion in general, it does leave the door open in certain exceptional cases. And even though the church clearly encourages large families, it doesn’t condemn the use of contraceptives. These are unfortunate deficiencies from an overall moral standpoint, but in the political realm, are they really so important? Unfortunately, the flash point for the abortion debate isn’t the “exceptional cases” over which Mormons and Catholics might disagree. The controversy is about late-term abortions, and abortions of sheer convenience in which nobody was raped and nobody’s life is threatened. On any abortion-related legal question that would actually arise in the next four years, a good Mormon would fall on the right side. As for contraceptives, we’re miles away from even beginning that debate, and if we made it a litmus test for a candidate’s fitness for office, we’d basically be resigning ourselves never to vote at all. On questions of homosexuality, the Mormons are as firm as even a traditional Catholic would wish, and they are very clear about their opposition to gay marriage. On family matters, Romney may not be perfect, but I think he deserves a pass.
Akin further raises a question that has bothered many people: as president, would Romney be beholden to the commands of religious authorities in Salt Lake? We Catholics can easily recognize this concern as one that has also been directed at us. And actually, there are some interesting moral questions to be asked about the obligations of Catholics holding civil office in a secular state. Theoretically Romney could find himself in a similar conundrum, and, as Akin points out, it seems unreasonable for Romney to claim his “Mormon values” as a sign of his decency and trustworthiness, and then to turn around and claim that his religious leaders won’t influence him at all. In Akin’s words:
“This might be an intelligible position if he were an Evangelical Protestant, given what Evangelicalism claims about the nature of church leaders, but Mormonism holds that its highest leaders–its prophet and apostles–speak directly for God in a way that not even the pope is capable of doing. (The pope is held by Catholics to be capable of infallibly clarifying something that God has already revealed, but he is not held to serve as a channel of new divine revelation.)
Further, the Mormon prophet has a history of weighing in on social and political issues, such as whether polygamy should be allowed or disallowed and whether black people should have the same rights or not as white people, and the prophets have gone different ways at different times.
How can Romney intelligibly claim that values but not leaders will influence his decisions when the values flow from the leaders via new divine revelation?”
This seems like a reasonable question in theory. But again, turning to a practical evaluation, I feel confident that it’s not really a problem. What would Romney do if the Mormon prophet called him up to say that he’s just received word from above that the US should invade North Korea? I don’t know… but I’m quite sure we’ll never find out. The Mormon authorities would be thrilled to see one of their own in the White House. They wouldn’t want to spoil the happy hour by meddling and alienating the American public. The very most they might do is gently encourage him to take a hard line on homosexual marriage, but that’s hardly the sort of thing that should bother a Catholic. Mormons may be famous for their advocacy of polygamy and other outlandish ideas… but in the last century or so they’ve pretty much gotten out of the business of unveiling such bizarre novelties. These days they seem excited about the idea of becoming more accepted and mainstream, and they certainly wouldn’t want to waste an opportunity like this by suddenly acting crazy. I understand the concern, but it’s a phantom problem.
But this leads us to what might be the thorniest problem of all: do we really want Mormons to be more accepted and mainstream in our society? Given their very questionable theology, and their aggressive evangelical tactics, might that not be dangerous to Christianity in America? Akin focuses specifically on the question of polytheism (he claims that Mormons are polytheists, and I’ve never really figured out whether or not this classification is fair, but I’ll go with it), and he puts the concern as follows:
“One of the things that is undoubtedly fueling Romney’s campaign is a desire on the part of Mormons to have a Mormon president. That’s understandable. It’s a human desire for any group of people to see one of its own achieve the highest office in the land. It doesn’t have anything to do with wanting to impose their religion on others, but it does have to do–among other things–with achieving a level of social prestige and acceptance as a group.
And this is not to be discounted. No doubt the social acceptance Catholics found in America in recent decades was in part due to the presidency of John F. Kennedy.
And now Mormons want their own Kennedy, and the social acceptance for their religion that will come along with that.
Which is precisely why Christians should be concerned with the idea of a Mormon president.
It would be one thing to elect a polytheist who makes no pretensions of being a Christian, but to elect a polytheist who claims to be a Christian–and, indeed, whose religion claims to be the true form of Christianity–would create enormous confusion about what Christianity is and what it teaches.
For anyone who holds to the historic Christian view of God and man, that alone is reason to feel very, very uncomfortable with the idea of electing a polytheist who claims to be Christian to our nation’s highest office.”
Okay. Mormons undoubtedly have some wacky ideas about the nature of God. The Vatican declares that they are consequently not Christians, and I will comply. It’s also true, of course, that they do claim to be Christians. But it doesn’t necessarily follow that a Mormon in the Oval Office would be a menace.
Consider more carefully Akin’s claim about Kennedy, and his role in helping to legitimize Catholic America. I think it’s probably true that Kennedy helped to do this. In any case, it’s clearly true that Catholics are a more accepted part of American society than they formerly were. But has this been a good thing? At least in the immediate aftermath of this assimilation, the American Church went through some of the darker days in her history. Her unique identity, which was once so strongly stamped into the hearts of American Catholics, seemed all but lost for a time. It seems clear to me that it was only through the vigorous protection of the Holy Spirit that we didn’t sink completely into the morass of Protestant denominations whose approval we so obviously craved.
Is the Holy Spirit protecting Mormonism in the same way? If not, there might be good reason to believe that the “mainstreaming” of Mormonism would prompt a shedding of some of their wackier theological beliefs in favor of more Christian ones. This might seem incredible to some, given how utterly alien Mormon theology appears to be. But for my part, I’m not so sure… as I’ve said in the past, Mormonism isn’t a very theology-oriented religion. If the social climate changed in the right sorts of ways, the Mormons might be in real danger of becoming, well, Christians. For a long time now the Mormons have managed to get along without giving any very serious account of some of the more questionable aspects of their religion (for example, the historical accuracy of the Book of Mormon.) Bringing them into closer contact with the wider Christian society might be a way of putting their feet to the fire. Who knows what might happen then? For people like me, who have a strong interest in seeing the Mormons converted, this is an appealing prospect.
As for the public at large: Akin worries that greater social acceptance of Mormons might lead to “enormous confusion about what Christianity is and what it teaches.” I guess I’m inclined to say that we have plenty of that already. Would the Mormons really make it worse? If I were an apologist, I think I’d see the mainstreaming of Mormonism as a great opportunity, not only to convert Mormons, but to reconvert Catholics. Mormonism is a challenge to orthodox Christian beliefs, but it’s rather an unusual kind of challenge. As I’ve said in the past, it’s very hard to make hard and fast statements, since they don’t have anything quite like a catechism or Magisterial teachings. However, such theological speculations as I’ve often heard from Mormons sometimes remind me of the sorts of pre-Nicene heresies that the Fathers dealt with in the earliest centuries of the Church. They want to know: what is the relationship between the Father and the Son? How could God be one, and yet have three persons? How can the One God also be a man? They make many mistakes in answering these questions, but addressing these sorts of mistakes might give apologists a good platform for reaffirming certain Christian truths that the faithful really need to hear.
I’m not telling anyone to vote for Mitt Romney. But don’t not vote for him because he’s a Mormon. It isn’t crazy to be concerned about certain possible downsides to a Mormon president, but realistically, I think we Catholics would stand to gain a lot more than we’d lose.
St. Louis-Marie de Montfort,
Pope St. Pius X,
St. Joseph,
St. Ambrose of Milan,
St. Thomas Aquinas,
St. Francis (and St. Clare),
St. Catherine of Siena,
St. Alphonsus Ligouri,
St. John Chrysostom,
From what I can tell, it is the theology of Mormonism that I would have an issue with. The morals they hold to not at all. My issue with Romney is NOT the fact he is a Mormon, but, based on his track record in Massachusetts, I really wonder if he is truly pro-life, and I’m very unhappy he did nothing to stop the Gay Marriage initiative . He just rolled on it. Very disappointing, and very telling. I judge the man by his actions, not necessarily his religion. So far I find Romney wanting.
There is no way that I think he is going to receive orders from Salt Lake, nor do I think the Mormons would be so stupid to do so. Actually I would be more concerned if one of our supposed “Catholic” members of congress became president. I mean John Kerry, Teddy Kennedy, or Nancy Pelosi should be ashamed to call themselves Catholic with the way they’ve conducted themselves over the years. Again, I judge them by their actions, and I find them very wanting.
Okay, sure, I’ve left the door open for that possibility. Romney himself may not be a great representative of Mormon values, and that would be a fair reason not to vote for him.
On another quick note: sorry about the formatting problems. My blogging program has been doing some quirky things (it also posted an unfinished draft of a post I’m still working on… sorry to anybody who read that this morning and was confused.) It was too late last night when I put this up, so I only just noticed the glitch, but I’ve fixed it now.
Thanks for the great article. You mentioned that Mormons don’t have a catechism per say. They do have ‘Gospel Principles’ that our taught to all members. The following website does a nice job of comparing those beliefs with true Catholic teaching. It does this fairly I think by linking directly to the mormon beliefs so that one can read what they say ‘from the horse’s mouth’…
http://comparing-views.com/
Although Romney does seem like a good guy I think from watching the debates and news interviews that Huckabee is a solid choice for the Republican primary (and for President). He seems to be a refreshing change in politics at this point and has conservative values Although I don’t particularly agree with his stance on capital punishment — which is that it is necessary today (and also a difficult thing) for certain heinous crimes — I liked his response in a debate about the death penalty when a questioner asked “what would Jesus do” he said “he wouldn’t be running for president” or something like that.
To me Romney’s Mormonism versus Huckabee’s Evangelicalism is not so relevant. What is being stated on political debates and news interviews is. I noticed Huckabee’s refreshing style of debate, obvious conservative moral values, and genuineness long before his surge. I never thought he’d gain such momentum as he has now.
BTW — this morning on “Meet The Press” Romney said he’d like to put abortion rights in the hands of individual states (Sounds like Rudy Giuliani’s view).
After doing some research it is my opinion that the best political action to overturn Roe v. Wade dead in its tracks is to have congress pass the Right to Life Act which defines a human being as a human being before birth. Roe v. Wade decided the pre-born person is not a human being; however, the decision acknowledges that if the pre-born child is indeed a person then the whole Roe v. Wade thing is totally inconsequential. The 14th Amendment assures life to all persons. Hence the Right to Life Act.
Mitt Romney’s belief is to (assuming he won’t change his view back to what it was 2 or so years ago — correct if wrong) have Roe v. Wade overturned and then let the states bicker over having abortions legalized since as he states in “Meet The Press” that the country is not ready to embrace a complete pro-life mindset. Thus, the evil will be minimized but not effectively rooted out. This type of pro-life cause is perhaps one means of attaining the end of abortion but other pro-life organizations such as the “American Life League” believe the Right to Life Act means is the best. I agree. Let’s stop playing around with chipping away if Congress can pass the Right to Life Act no one would give abortionists the opportunity to prey on mothers anymore.
Well, I’m not going to say much about this now, but I think the real question I’d ask you is: how much of what you suggest is actually possible? Do you really think Huckabee could ever win a general election? Is a Right to Live Act actually a possibility in America just now?
Well — Huckabee is leading in Iowa and South Carolina in some polls and is slightly behind in New Hampshire if I remember correctly.
He was recently and is still now under attack because of his surge and lead.
As for the Right to Life Act all I could say is that there are people who support the Right to Life Act. Duncan Hunter and Tancredo (who are also a Republican candidates for president) both support that legislation.
Yes, it is possible since what it states agrees with science and today our laws should reflect that and not ignorance.
He’s leading among Republicans going into the primaries. That certainly doesn’t show that he would be able to win a general election… I’m gravely doubtful.
As for the other, great, if it ever happens. But if it’s not politically feasible, I wouldn’t want to let the better be the enemy of the good.
I assumed your question as to whether Huckabee could win a general election was to compare him and Romney (who I inferred you thought had a better chance). Do I think Huckabee could win — sure.
Also, btw I have no idea if Huckabee supports the Right to Life Act — he hasn’t so far as I know stated the same thing as Romney, however. I feel Romney is trying to placate the pro-choicers to get votes by leaving things up to the states. That is a matter of waiting and seeing. This is of course politics if that is true.
In actuality the Republicans will be running against either Oprah Winfrey (via Barak Obama) or Bill Clinton (via his wife).
C’mon America vote for Chuck Norris (via Huckabee)…
In any case if a devout Catholic was to choose between Romney or Huckabee I would recommend Huckabee at this point. Do you suggest another candidate?
I recommend Ron Paul - he’s pro-life and was against the Iraq war from the beginning, and he’s Republican.
http://catholicsforronpaul.blogspot.com/
http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods83.html
With Ron Paul, I believe a Catholic can choose a candidate who’s not the lesser of two evils. He’s got principle, and although he is not Catholic, he’s the best candidate who is in almost complete agreement with Catholic principles and values.
Ha ha… of course, I’m pretty hawkish by nature, and I supported the Iraq war all the way through, so that’s not such a powerful recommendation for me…
If you really want to know, I’m partial to John McCain. But that’s not a fixed decision, nor an endorsement. I told you, I haven’t read enough about the candidates yet to say anything very informed.
Andrew — I respect your view. Ron Paul is not a real Republican, though. He is more libertarian and will probably run on the independent party if he loses the Republican primary (which he will).
I will contend that Huckabee is very conservative on morals, but not so conservative on other things like immigration, etc. However, Mitt Romney is too much of a politician.
Sorry — Ron Paul is actually a bit of a joke to me when it comes to the Iraq War. He has a good way of whining about it, however (if that’s a good thing).
If someone was really going to vote for a true conservative Republican (and also Catholic) they would vote for Alan Keyes…however, he will not come close to winning.
Let’s face it you will have to vote for either Mitt Romney or Huckabee because those will be the ones who could win it (Giuliani could win but he is not a Catholic person’s choice in my view).
I think McCain could win… he’s much more electable than Huckabee, I’m sure, and I think most analysts’ projections indicate the same. And I don’t really see why a Catholic can’t support him, though obviously there are some objections. Anyway.
I don’t see how Ron Paul is a joke - he voted against the Iraq war from the beginning. And I supported it too at the beginning, but I just don’t see the good it has caused. I don’t think wars do much good anyways in the first place. Yes he describes himself as a pro-life libertarian. However the Republican Party is controlled by the neo-cons, who are just Democrats in Republican clothing.
Alan Keyes is supportable, but yes you’re right, he can’t win. However, Ron Paul has a much better chance. He raised $6 million in one day - December 16th - and it’s all grassroots support. They call it the Ron Paul rEVOLution.
Romney flip flops too much on issues, just like Kerry. Huckabee is a conservative, but has other problem issues that I have. McCain I don’t think is up for the job. And he too has problem issues. And Guiliani - well it’d be a mortal sin to vote for the cross-dresser.
That’s fine if you’re not informed Clara. So get informed.
Clara — McCain is not an authentic pro-lifer and made a rather discourteous comment toward conservative Christians in his last run for President.
If anything back when you wrote McCain was clearly behind in the polls and most would pick either Rudy Guiliani or Mitt Romney. It was only until last week or so (he won New Hampshire — no surprise BTW because he beat Bush there in 2004) that he’s gained momentum. It WILL be short-lived.
Prediction — Huckabee will win South Carolina and will come in the top 3 in Michigan. And also he of course won Iowa already.
PS–recently Huckabee did say at a prayer breakfast with Michigan pastors that he supports legislation to ban abortion entirely and NOT leave it up to the states to decide.
Andrew — I don’t think Paul’s view to evacuate Iraq and all other foreign countries is going to solve the world’s ills but will make thinks worse. Prudence doesn’t always necessitate a 180-degree turn unless something is clearly wrong. The War on Terror is perhaps a new point of discussion for the Just War doctrine; as Father Corapi stated before the original circumstances of the doctrine did not consider preventative measures by rooting out terrorists who pose threats to civilization. In any case neither did he justify the War on Terror.