Excellent.  You will certainly be attacked for bringing this up.  Huckaby mentioned it, and was roundly attacked for doing so.  Mormonism is not Christian, nor is it monotheistic; something which, as you point out, very few seem to understand.

If its between a Mormon and the guy who is there now, give me the Mormon.

I’m not persuaded that Christians need to vote against an LDS member simply to catechize the nation.

I voted against Obama, but not because of who his daddy is—and prior to the last election, I was encouraged to vote against him precisely because of that reason.

I may well vote against Romney, but not because of his religion.

I will continue to cast my vote based on the candidate’s stand on the issues.

Ditto, Kevin. I won’t vote for the Mormon in a primary. But if he makes it into the general election, he’ll be running against someone who does far more damage to Christianity than any Mormon, and who also claims to be a Christian.

Brave, brave man Jimmy!  I will stay-tuned…and will have to think about this further.  I’m fairly sure I agree.

I do not believe that your fears are well founded. I am reminded of those who feared that Kennedy would take orders from the Pope.

Unfortunately, Mormonism is much more mainstream than you are implying. Americans are very confused on Christianity already.

On the other hand, if a candidate is a Mormon, and his or her positions are consistent with their church I would be much more inclined to vote for that candidate than a Catholic who supports abortion, contraception, and homosexual marriage. In this case, at least the Mormon is consistent and I have a better feel for their real intent and beliefs.

If the Republicans nominate a ham sandwich in 2012, I’m going to vote for the ham sandwich (with relish) over the disaster who is currently in the White House.

The masses are massively suggestible. Putting a Mormon in the White House would considerably enhance the LDS church’s profile and would be a boon to their already aggressive evangelistic and PR-related efforts. Many more people would leave Christianity for a sub-Christian sect, our nation’s Christian cultural heritage would be further eroded, and countless souls might go to Hell instead of Heaven. (Note that I am NOT saying that all Mormons go to Hell.) That is worth taking as seriously as the war of inches on life issues and such. Catholics are used to having “heretics” in the White House but they have always been at least nominally Christian, baptized in the name of the Holy Trinity. We should not gloss over the significance of this precedent.

@ Robert: A ham sandwich would be considerably less problematic than a Mormon. A ham sandwich would not raise the difficulties Jimmy points out.

@ John Thrippleton (edit - sorry, not Robert): The JFK analogy is flawed. Jimmy’s concerns have nothing to do with how Romney’s religious affiliation would affect his policy decisions.

I consider myself a faithful Catholic, however, I strongly disagree with your statements that electing a Mormon “would deal a huge blow” or “cause grave damage” to the American public’s already shaky understanding of what Christianity is.  Perhaps the opposite would be true… It might be an opportunity to discuss and better understand the differences between our faiths, and to respect those differences.  Or maybe most people wouldn’t be interested either way.  I would have no problem at all with voting for a Mormon.

@ Bill J: Hailing the election of a Mormon in the White House as an “opportunity to discuss and better understand the differences between our faiths” reminds me of those Christians who hailed The Da Vinci Code as an opportunity to discuss and better understand different ideas and beliefs about Jesus. The problem with this theory is that many more people will be affected by The Da Vinci Code than by any of the discussion, and a Romney presidency would do more to raise Mormonism’s stature than any subsequent discussion would to counter it. (Who has the bully pulpit? Think about it.) In the second place, how would having a Mormon in the White House make it any easier to discuss or understand anything? Why not just discuss it now?

Mormons hold many wonderful values. But that does not qualify one to be President, even if he or she is a good person. There are deeper, more fundamental issues. Maybe an exception would be in order if the other candidates are clearly incompetent, like Mr. Obama. Hope it doesn’t come to that.

I’m not convinced that electing a polytheist who claims to be Christian (and thinks he is one) is more harmful than re-electing a materialist who claims to be Christian.  If anything, this “Mormon moment”, if it should come, creates an opportunity to teach about the central doctrine of Christianity.

Two quick questions for Steve:

Should it matter to the voter whether a presidential candidate has been baptized? I gather that Eisenhower is the only president who has ever been baptized in office, and that was because it came up during the campaign that he had never been baptized and he said he’d get around to it whenever he had the time to do so (i.e. after the election). Prior to that, he had been raised Jehovah’s Witness, though if he ever adhered to that belief himself, he had obviously ditched it by the time he joined the military; he and his wife were married by a Presbyterian.

Also, would any of your concerns re: aggressive evangelism and sub-Christian beliefs be applicable if the candidate were, say, Muslim? Islam does regard Jesus as one of its prophets, after all.

Okay, seriously then, there are just more important things to worry about right now.

For one thing, it’s not at all clear that the “conversions” that Mormons claim during their kids’ two-year missions are real or whether they remain “converted” for any length of time at all. Calmly reminding waverers about the facts is nearly always more than sufficient to keep them in a religion that at least acknowledges the Nicene Creed.  I grew up with Mormons and I just cannot bring myself to condemn them, even though, like everybody else, I find their proselytizing irritating.  Mormons in the small town in which I grew up helped our local Catholic Church build our parish center because the majority of Catholics in town were too poor (or something) to contribute ANYTHING to the goal. Mormon families recognized the need for our town in hard economic times to build infrastructure like this.  So thank goodness for the Mormons for helping us as Catholics in this case.

Secondly, instead of throwing stones, we need to get our OWN house in order:  Catholic orthodoxy will win out in the end and why isn’t there emphasis on restoring Catholic orthodoxy?  Our bishops are *silent* about the *Catholic* politicians in Washington and they encourage liberal adventurism in most dioceses with which *I* am familiar. You want to bash somebody, bash the staff at your local chancery.

Interesting…what if the choice is a pro-life but Mormon vs christian but pro-abortion?

I’m an ex-LDS Catholic. When I was LDS I thought of myself as a Christian. I believed Christ died for my sins. I believed he was God. I believed in the three persons of the Holy Trinity (although Mormons call it the “Godhead”). Now that I’m Catholic I don’t feel like I’m praying to a different Jesus or a different Father. I better understand the reality of who they are, that’s all. The only people who would ever care to make the distinction about whether Mormons meet the strict definition of “Christian” are theologians and apologists. Having a Mormon in the White House would not make a bit of difference to the average person. Mormons already have wide acceptance, they’re well respected, and I would vote for a Mormon in a heartbeat if they met my criteria on policy.

@ Todd Shaffer: When you were LDS, did you believe that what you are, God once was—and what God is, you might become? That should matter infinitely to every Christian in the world, not just theologians and apologists.

Voting for a Pro life Mormon vs pro abortion “Christian”?

This article reminds of fundamentalist protestants who claim Catholics are not Christian. I think you’re doing more “damage” to Christianity than the Mormon.

“A Christian should try to be a good Christian, a Muslim should try to be a good Muslim, a Hindu should try to be a good Hindu.” - Mother Teresa

To even have to choose between a polytheist and abortionist is proof that such a country has lost its way, stumbling blind.  that country does not have long.

Most people don’t even realize that Mormons believe in multiple gods because they never talk about it and don’t like bringing it up. I think as long it doesn’t become a widely known issue I don’t think it would hurt all that much.

In the midst of this valid, and much needed conversation, I just need to ask - is “mainstreamize” a word? :-)

Being President is a policy job, not (primarily) a theological one. I just don’t buy that most Americans take our Presidents as theological guides to any substantial extent, except as that theology is directly manifest in policy.

The implication, for me, is that a Mormon candidate with policy positions that are basically in line with natural law is a better fit *for the position of POTUS* than a candidate who is nominally Catholic but whose policy is radically at odds with natural law.  That doesn’t mean I think the Mormon is necessarily more likely to get to Heaven; it means that the job of the civil government is to enforce the natural law, not the revealed one.

Peace,
—Peter

@ Cindy:
 

“A Christian should try to be a good Christian, a Muslim should try to be a good Muslim, a Hindu should try to be a good Hindu.”

 
All right. But a Hindu should not claim to be a good Muslim, a Muslim should not claim to be a good Buddhist—and a Mormon should not claim to be a good Christian.

I agree with you. Thanks for being courageous enough to address this issue. Presidential elections aside, the primer on Mormonism as wannabe-Christianity is eye opening for me, since I don’t know much about it. Always a pleasure to read your writings, thanks again!

Thank you for so clearly articulating why Romney as a candidate makes me uncomfortable.  I wouldn’t vote for Romney in the primary…  I would have to say that given the choice between Romney and Obama, I’d vote for Romney before sitting out the election.  I agree that it does great damage to Christianity to claim one is a Christian when they’re not—but I don’t see much difference here between Mormons claiming to be Christian vs. the likes of Pelosi or Biden claiming to be Catholic.  And, in fact, I think the latter does more damage to the understanding of “what Christianity *is*.”

“a Mormon should not claim to be a good Christian.”

Why shouldn’t they if they believe that’s what they are?  You make it sound like the individual member of the LDS church is deliberately misrepresenting himself.  Most aren’t any more aware of the theological differences between themselves and creedal Christians than your average creedal Christian is.

I think a much more charitable way to put this is:  “When Mormons call themselves Christians, they mean by the word ‘Christian’ something quite different from what we mean.”  We must be firm in repeating this designation, and there is nothing uncharitable about it.

@Steven Greydanus: When I was LDS I tried to live as a good Christian would. I didn’t speculate on the nature of God and I didn’t think about becoming a god. I understand the concern but frankly I think it’s a tempest in a teapot. Was there a sudden surge in Catholic conversions when Kennedy was elected? I imagine at that time there were some Protestant groups worrying about Kennedy making the “cult” of Catholicism acceptable to most Americans. Bottom Line, Big Picture: We have far more in common with the LDS people and the LDS Church than we do with the culture at large. A devout LDS POTUS would be a good thing for America in my book.

What issues would you rank ahead a candidate’s religion, or after it?  What if he was pretty much a Jack-Mormon (or I guess we could call him a MINO)?  To say that one belongs to a religion, but only superficially, doesn’t seem to reflect well on one’s integrity either - look at Biden, Pelosi, Sebelius, etc.  I have to think that the damage these Catholics have done to our culture in promoting and legitimizing social evils are leading more people to hell than the potential increase of Catholics being led away from the faith due to an increased positive view of Mormonism.

@ bearing: Fair point, that was overly glib of me. What I should say is that Muslims should not let a Hindu get away with claiming to be a good Muslim, and Christians should not let a Mormon get away with being a good Christian. Mormons representing themselves as good Christians represents an identity challenge to Christians that Christians should resist.

This surprises me greatly, Jimmy.

Perhaps you and Christopher Hitchens (who made the same point about Mormons in his book “God is Not Great”) could make charts of acceptable Presidential belief systems. 

This is the United States of America.  I am Catholic and I’ll be voting for who I think is the best person for the job, Mormon or not.

@ Todd Shaffer: My Mormon friends and contacts over the years have told me that “What we are God once was, and what God is we may become” is as defining a statement of the essence of Mormon faith as anything. If you didn’t think about that, what did you think about in terms of your ultimate destiny? Isn’t one’s ultimate destiny of central importance to everyone?

@ JohnE: JFK becoming President was actually a culmination of a long process of Catholic mainstreaming from the 1920s to the 1960s. In the 1960s, though, the Church’s efforts to engage the world took something of a left turn, and the Church’s confident witness to the world was muted by other factors. The situation with LDS outreach efforts today is quite different.

@Steven: Regarding JFK, as the first Catholic President I think he actually did great damage to the idea that you can be both a good Catholic and a good President.  He legitimized compartmentalizing your faith.  See Archbishop Chaput’s talk where he says of Kennedy,
“His Houston remarks profoundly undermined the place not just of Catholics, but of all religious believers, in America’s public life and political conversation.  Today, half a century later, we’re paying for the damage.” ( http://www.archden.org/index.cfm/ID/3489 )

I’m still more concerned with the real and demonstrated threat of professed Catholic and Christian politicians who support gay marriage, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, and abortion, than the potential threat that may come with a more positive view of Mormonism, if that more positive view were to even actually occur to a significant degree.  I may be wrong, but I guess I’m just not convinced yet that it’s more of a threat.

If what we are, God once was, the universe as we know it could not have been created, because what we are is incapable of creating from nothing a universe that gives rise to film reviews.

I’m gonna have to disagree with Jimmy. At one point in America’s history, it was a commonly held fact that Catholic politicians would take orders straight from the Vatican, and that Catholics were not Christian anyway, because they worshipped Mary and thought they were saved by works.
I can understand the danger represented by Mormonism. But Mormon doctrine is astonishingly malleable, and perhaps it’s not too far fetched that polytheism will be gradually abandoned.
Besides this, how far are we willing to take this sentiment of the danger of a respectable Mormonism? Are Mormon senators too highly placed? Should Mormons be restricted to anonymous, thankless roles?
Plenty of Atheists point out the wackiness of Christian dogmas like the Incarnation or the atonement, and conclude that Christians are unfit to hold office.
No, we have to grit our teeth and let a man with patently false beliefs have the same opportunity as anyone else.

@ JohnE: I agree with your first paragraph. As for your third paragraph, I certainly wouldn’t vote for such a Catholic politician. There does come a point at which I would refuse to vote for the lesser of two evils, and this could well be that point.

@ Charles E Flynn: Amen!

@ Harry: No, we don’t “have” to do any such thing.

@Steven: I just see this as an issue of religious tolerance, something we’re bound to by moral and civil law. Perhaps I misunderstand your view. If Mormonism ceased claiming to be Christian, would you then consider voting for a Mormon president? Or do you dislike Mormonsim gaining any sort of credibility? Also, do you think that the historically precarious position of Catholics in the US has any relation to the position of Mormonism?

On the other hand, 4 years of a Moron in office might provide a great opportunity to evangelize!  Just like I’ve had to explain basic economics over and over again for the last 2+ years.

I see where you’re coming from but we abandoned the Confessional State a long time ago, and it’s hard to imagine anything more American than Mormonism. In fact, it abandoned—made a one eighty on—one of its core tenants just to get Utah statehood.
I see wrapping myself in the American flag and turning up my nose at a mormon candidate akin to the Protestants who oppose gay marriage. Heck, 500 years ago, you folks put it under the state and said it wasn’t a sacrament. It was only a matter of time.

To me, it was far more damaging for the Church in the US when Kennedy was elected and claimed his faith would be subordinated..

The problem isn’t Mormons who want to be president nor sodomites who want to play house. The problem is the USA.

Yes, ABORTION is the biggest political issue of our time. It would still be the biggest even if Holocaust deniers were vying for office.

@SDG-I love reading your theology and philosophy but when do you find time to watch movies?

People, people.  We are not choosing someone to lead the Holy Roman Empire.  This is the United State and the seeds for this were sewn in the Founding!
http://tinyurl.com/PuritansEmpireReview

I don’t like idea of being led by a Mormon any more than having a Unitarian or Atheist (now!) in office.  But, we’ve had both.  Since when is belief the test?
The Devil isn’t a polytheist and He believes everything Catholics do.

I was raised in Mormonism, and am now Catholic. This article is absolutely correct. First off.. Mitt Romney is a “flipper”. He is inconsistent on the issue of abortion. That in and of itself, should be reason enough to rule him out. Based on what I was taught, from birth, and know about the Mormon church… I could not, in good conscience, vote for a Mormon.. and certainly not Mitt Romney.

2 Cor. 11:3-4

“But I am afraid that as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, your thoughts will be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ. For if some one comes and preaches another Jesus than the one we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or if you accept a different gospel from the one you accepted, you submit to it readily enough.”

It’s clear Mormons are not Christian, since they “accept a different gospel.” The cover of The Book of Mormon even says it, “Another Testament of Jesus Christ.”

I’ll vote on the issues (abortion being the most serious, imo). I want someone with common sense and competence as well.
I’m unlikely to vote for Romney, but it’s not because he’s Mormon

I have four words: principle of double effect. Voting is (in and of itself) morally neutral, I wouldn’t be voting for the Mormon TO promote the LDS church, and the good that could be achieved by casting my vote for a mormon sure outweighs the possible harm of doing nothing and risking a pro-abortion candidate getting into office. I’m surprised an apologist like Jimmy doesn’t see this.

I add that to baptize, you must intend to perform the baptism that Jesus instituted—as opposed to, say, the baptism of John.

Mormons don’t believe that Jesus instituted anything new.

I admit that I would vote for the pro-life Mormon over our current resident of the WH, but I would work very hard to make sure I didn’t have to make that choice but putting another candidate up against our abortionist-in-chief.

A.M.D.G.

This is very interesting.  The guy who claims to be Christian but denies the fundamental doctrine of Christianity versus the guy who loves abortion and driving our economy into the ground.  Who loses?  You… the home viewer.  I pray it doesn’t come to that.  It is my hope that Romney will not be the GOP nominee.  I’d like to see a genuine conservative in there.

I understand that Mormonism could potentially confuse people even more about Christianity . .  but seriously, choosing not to vote between the pro-life Mormon and pro-choice whatever?? Isn’t that like being faced with the choice of letting a baby live and die and saying, “I don’t care”?

@ Alex, I’m sure Jimmy knows the principle of double effect very well.  But the principle must not be abused.  If the evil, unintended effect is sufficiently bad compared to the good, intended effect, then the act is still immoral despite the evil second effect not being willed.  Jimmy evidently believes that the harm done to the public’s understanding of Christianity would be a sufficiently grave evil to outweigh the other candidate’s position on abortion (and everything else bad about him).  Or that the relative gravity of the evils is too close to choose between.  Or again, that both options are so bad that he feels that even the lesser evil is too evil to give a vote, that more would be accomplished if faithful Catholics sat out the election in protest than settling for the less terrible candidate.

@J.R. Stoodley: My comment probably could have been worded less harshly. I just find it hard to equate the speculative effects of having a Mormon president with the number of babies being aborted daily.

An excellent analysis.  Thanks for clarifying my thinking on this. 

Most comments disagreeing with you simply don’t address the point - that the election of a Mormon president would promote a popular view that the Church of LDS is a legitimate mainstream Christian denomination, despite the fact that it doesn’t believe in the One True God. 

As to the suggestion that this would provide an opportunity to debate polytheism - who are they kidding?  Any attempts to this would be condemned as raising religious sectarianism and as not judging the President on the basis of his political agenda.

@Alex, I do too, at least at an immediate gut emotion level.  The more I reflect on it though, the more I’m unsure.  The two evils are so difficult to compare, and the actual effects of having a Mormon president on people’s spiritual lives (and the actual effects of having this president for another four years for that matter) are so uncertain (or I’m so uncertain about it, anyway) that it’s difficult to judge which would be worse.  Also Romney’s inconsistent past with regard to life erodes that side of the argument at least a little.  I think if Romney ends up the Republican nominee I’ll be undecided for some time during the race and slowly try to better form my conscience concerning the problem, both regarding which is the lesser evil and whether this is the breaking point at which I could no longer vote even for that lesser evil.

@ Alex:
 

“I just find it hard to equate the speculative effects of having a Mormon president with the number of babies being aborted daily.”

 
False comparison. Weighing “the speculative effects of having a Mormon president” against the total “number of babies being aborted daily” implies that the entire weight of the abortion holocaust rests directly on the outcome of a single presidential election, and that a Romney presidency might reduce the number of babies being aborted daily to zero.

A more valid comparison would be between the effects of a Mormon presidency (on American religious culture and Mormon recruitment efforts) and the plausible effects on abortion law and abortion rates of one presidency versus another. Too often the latter is a war of inches, with small adjustments here and there and limited effect on the actual status of abortion in law and practice.

Certainly Obama has expanded abortion, and Romney could reasonably be expected to be better here (though how much better is certainly open to question). OTOH, I think it is also reasonable to conclude, as Jimmy has argued, that a Mormon presidency would be a boon to the Mormon PR effort and that this could have a real effect on Mormon recruitment, and souls could be lost for all eternity in this way. I think a double-effect comparison of outcomes in this regard is daunting if not impossible, and I think there is a real moral case for refusing to vote for either major candidate in this hypothetical race.

What about a person who was baptized Christian, but later became a Deist? That was the case with Thomas Jefferson.
I find it very frustrating to be given a choice between candidates such as Romney and McCain in the primaries. I would love to have a candidate that would actually DO something about abortion—and not just by inches. I don’t see that ever happening, which is very discouraging. I would have to hold my nose to vote for Romney, but I would do it against Obama. BTW, does the Church actually say there is a point, which you speak of, at which we should sit out an election, rather than vote for the lesser of two evils?

Folks, Romney is not pro life. Oh he says he is now but he has flip floors so many times on this. He is no different than obama on many issues..,

Great article. Joseph Smith created a counterfeit Jesus with the intention to deceive. What could be worse? The polytheist tag comes up short in that that gods Mormons worship are men who become gods.

A more valid comparison would be between the effects of a Mormon presidency (on American religious culture and Mormon recruitment efforts) and the plausible effects on abortion law and abortion rates of one presidency versus another.

Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/blog/should-america-elect-a-polytheist-who-claims-to-be-christian#ixzz1U9crbNLK

What culture?!?  American culture gave birth to Mormonism and fostered it as no other could

“A Christian should try to be a good Christian, a Muslim should try to be a good Muslim, a Hindu should try to be a good Hindu.” - Mother Teresa

Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/blog/should-america-elect-a-polytheist-who-claims-to-be-christian/#ixzz1U9doKSho

Thank God the saintly woman had someone like Fr. Hardon, SJ to reign her in once in a while.

@Will: “Folks, Romney is not pro life. Oh he says he is now but he has flip floors so many times on this. He is no different than obama on many issues..”

I was ringing the bell about Romney back in 2006, regarding this very same “political switch”: http://rightteachings.wordpress.com/2006/02/03/stem-cell-research-and-trust-in-princes/

Voting pro-life has made a definitive difference already in this state and this country.

That said, we must also keep the following in mind when reading the article that Mitt Romney Discusses Abortion Change: “Better to take refuge in the LORD than to put one’s trust in princes,” (Psalm 118:9) and “I put no trust in princes, in mere mortals powerless to save.” (Psalm 146:3)  The article states that Mitt Romney has supposedly changed his stance on abortion from pro-abortion to pro-life.  The reason for this change, he claims, is as a result of his own research into embryonic stem cells and cloning (getting back to where we started, with the first article).  However, the circumstances suggest caution should be exercised:

  He is currently in the process of seeking the Republican nomination for President in 2008.  This change may be more of a realization of the political realities of getting nominated by the conservatives in the party.  (This is likely to be the fatal flaw of former NYC mayor Rudy Giuliani’s campaign for the nomination.)
  Gov. Romney’s change of heart came amid a vote on a hot-button item that he was sure to lose anyway.  He chose to veto a Massachusetts bill funding ESCR.  However, since the original vote was by a “veto-proof” super-majority, vetoing this bill could be seen as an attempt to curry favor with the conservatives/pro-lifers in the party.

I realize that people do change their minds/hearts, but I also realize that people have been known to do anything in order to get elected.  Therefore, we must pray that God will continue to bless us with truly pro-life people who seek to do God’s will.  It is only through trust in God, and not politicians who claim to be pro-life, that we will be able to change this nation to a culture of life.

As far as I’m concerned, the determination of how to vote is entirely about my beliefs regarding what the candidate will do as an officeholder, not what he believes about the nature of God.

The Kennedy analogy is imperfect, but nevertheless useful. We can only _wish_ that JFK had taken his policy orders from the Pope. A substantial plurality of serious protestants, upon examination of the social direction of the country since 1960, would even agree. Even the most virulently anti-Catholic among them didn’t _imagine_ that his professed Catholicism could change America as radically and harmfully as his family’s prominence has changed American _Catholicism_.

I do not plan to vote for Mitt Romney, and indeed plan to work rather hard to ensure he is not the Republican nominee in 2012. But his being a Mormon has as little to do with that as Obama’s being black has to do with my determination to unseat him.

“When a candidate’s election (or even nomination) would do grave damage to the American public’s understanding of what Christianity is, a value so important is in play that I personally don’t see how I could vote for such a person.

What do you think?”

Mr. Roomney happens to harbor beliefis in a different variation of the superstitions than you all believe. 
So what? Really - it does not matter and the Constitution is clear on this.  The POTUS is NOT the nation’s spritual leader.

The actual evidence for the Mormon story is about the same as for your bible based supernatural god stories.  BOTH are based on a books written by a man, or men, who claim they got from a god.  The Book of Mormon is just a more recent bunch of gibberish with a clear chain going back to Smith.  I think what makes many uncomfortable about Mormons is that it a home grown cult based on a book written in the 19th century so they can see the arch of its development as a cult - and one that has made it past a few gmerations.  Its is a virtual lab experiement in how to make a religion up out of thin air and get people to buy in and even die for it.
The LDS is very similar to the RCC of the past in terms of organizational skill, finances, recruitment, wealth accumulation, and has some strange rituals to make it interesting.

The Mormons have de-facto control over a US state and have a stable population of members that give enourmous amount of money and steady stream of cradle Mormons.
They are really good at this whole organized religion thing.
Atheists are not your real problem - its competitor sects and other religions taking market share.

That’s odd. Didn’t we just get done electing a polytheist who pretends to be a Christian to the White House?

Jimmy, this is not your best post.

I believe most Americans care less about the polytheism of the LDS church or whether “Gods” convene at Kolob.  They already believe Christianity is silly so it won’t cause that much more harm to the equivalency confusion issue you’re overstating because most Americans probably can’t truly comprehend the difference of the Holy Trinity from the polytheism of Mormonism or Hinduism because 3>1 and they don’t care if 3 means persons or “gods”.  They do know that three means plural and thus “poly” and don’t have the inclination to acquire a Masters of Theology to discern the difference.

You overstate the confusion dangers because Americans are already too dumb to care about polythesim vs. the Holy Trinity. Sadly, but true, Americans are more concerned about secular things, like the economy, and they don’t get religion about Religion unless misapplications of it causes them harm or distress (911).

Americans want a good businessman running the show and put the nation back on track, and should that be Mitt Romney over Barrack Obama, so be it. 

From a Catholic perspective Mitt will likely have only a limited pro-life view as you can expect him to follow the teachings stated in the LDS church manual (downloadable from Wikileaks).  These teachings allows abortion for rape cases, incest cases, and babies who have severe defects.  These exceptions according to LDS teachings really stink, but it is better than Obama’s views on abortion, and better than many pro-abort Catholic politicians.

Given a choice between Obama or pro-abort Catholic and Mitt, I’d vote Mitt.

I see two issues here:
1)  Has Romney claimed to be Christian?  Can anyone give me a link where he says this?  I’ve met Mormons who claim to be Christians, and also those that when pressed, confess that they are not. 

2)  Having someone in such a position of power, whose soul is still in complete darkness, without sanctifying grace, is worrisome to me.  But the same goes for Baptized Christians of any denomination who appear (from the outside) to not be in a state of Grace.  The advantage to electing a Catholic not in a state of Grace, is that there is that easy way for him or her to remedy it (confession).  Still, it would be unreasonable (contrary to reason) to elect a Catholic (such as Pelosi, Sebelius, Cuomo, etc.) who demonstrates a persistent, entrenched, and public refusal to repent.

In 1993 one of my co-religionists (the New Church, so-called “Swedenborgian”) was running for the Missouri legislature on the Republican ticket. The Democraps launched a smear campaign against him for belonging to “a strange church” that “doesn’t believe in normal things”. (Obviously trying to draw on the the-cults-are-coming-to-get-you hysteria around the Waco siege.) Do you consider this OK because we are “Patripassian” heretics and therefore not “real” Christians? (We are in the National Council of Churches, but what do they know?) Or are some deviations from the One True Doctrine of the Trinity more acceptable than others?

  (Funny how I can no longer find the story on the Post-Dispatch web site…. I had to read about in the denominational press in the first place. Of course, our real offense was including Republicans.)

  Oh, and two years ago New York voters elected a polytheist who claims to be a polytheist to the Council. Again, it was the Democrats who made an issue of it. Funny how that keeps happening.

Moot point. Palin is the Republican nominee in a landslide, I should think, of Biblical proportions. And she shall smite Obama with a great smiting.

Isn’t Palin one of those people who has made common cause with Mormons like Glenn Beck in calling the American Constitution “sacred”?  I’m sure Palin doesn’t mean the word “sacred” in quite the same way that Mormons do—and yes, they do believe that the American Constitution is “divinely inspired”—but still, the line between true Christianity and nationalistic idolatry is pretty blurry for some Americans, and Palin is contributing to this confusion in her own way.

1.Tertullian is the one who devised th Trinity formula as we know it today and he did so after becoming a Montanist.  You know, a heretical movement?  It wasn’t until this time that the concept of the trinity was regarded as orthodox. Previous to this the belief was that which the Mormons share in part of a hierarchical structure.  This was the belief of the early Church Fathers and thee Apostles.

2. Show exactly which Biblical passage demonstrates the trinity. All passages in Acts clearly show a distinction between the Father and the Son.  As well, the Gospel shows where Jesus himself makes the distinction. I might point out scriptural evidence that claims we can become gods.  The exegesis need to interprete the trinity with no substancial evidence to support its belief pales in comparison to written script signifying the latter point I’ve made.  Methods of exegesis are being changed for self serving purposes to force our thoughts and beliefs to conform with Tradition.  The inerrancy of Tradition is already disproved by the fact that the concept of the Trinity didn’t take place during the Apostolic period.

3. A Christian is defined by one who beliefs in Jesus as Christ, the Messiah who died for our sins and through him we have salvation.  Mormons believe this just as much as Catholics.

Until points one and two are addressed in a satisfactory manner perhaps point three is the only one we should concern ourselves with.  Whatcha think?

I’m not a Mormon btw just a seeker of Truth who don’t appreciate divisions and accusations when gapping holes in the accusers belief system lie so apparent.

Which is worse - a polytheist or atheist? Discuss

“What about a person who was baptized Christian, but later became a Deist? That was the case with Thomas Jefferson.”

Jefferson all his life remained a communicant and even vestryman of the Episcopal Church. So I guess he was “falsely claiming to be Christian”.

Are Unitarians banned under the Akin Test? What about Lincoln, who was wide considered an “infidel” because he did not belong to any church? (The story of his “conversion” at Gettysburg is regarded by most historians as a load of dingoes’ kidneys.)

A.M.D.G.

http://www.catholic.com/library/Gods_of_the_Mormon_Church.asp

An Atheist believes himself to be god.  A Polytheist in a true sense is merely confused.  Just because there are divine beings doesn’t mean they are God.  Of course the distinctions necessary to elaborate the God(capital G) from gods(small g) would require more time and space than this forum allows

I’m horrified by the prospects of the next presidential election in our country.  No, I will not hold my nose and vote for Mitt Romney, even for the simple fact that he is not Barack Obama. If you delve historically into the platform of the Republican Party, you will find in its origin, the intent to destroy the twin barbarisms of slavery and polygamy.  Today, we are faced with the twin barbarisms of abortion and homosexual marriage, and neither party stands united to destroy them, in fact, on a national level, both support them.  Perhaps, it is time to look at third parties, lest we give ourselves over to barbarism.

Jimmy,  Will Catholic Answers add adherence to the Nicene Creed to its list of non-negotiables on its voting guide?

Having grown up with a mormon family next door (whose daughter to this day is one of my closest friends), I think a practicing mormon in the White House would promote policies much closer to the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church than the election of a Ted Kennedy type catholic.  I wonder how many catholics from nominally catholic families have been drawn out of the Catholic Church and into the protestant or mormon churches based on the actions of the Ted Kennedys, Nancy Pelosis, Joe Bidens, etc. who have or are holding prominent positions in our government.

Mary M.

Besides the probability that no better candidate can be elected, on the abortion issue and the economy too, I think that the discussions of both Mormonism and Christianity/Catholicism would lead to better reasoning and lead more to the latter than the former.  Apologetics front and center!

People have been “confused” about what Christianity is for a long time. Lewis found that his audiences where offended if he said so-and-so was “not Christian” on religious grounds…
“The question of ‘what do you call a Christian?’ has been asked of me again and again. The answer they WISH to receive is ‘A Christian is a decent chap who’s unselfish etc.’”

If theological illiterates like my mother think that Jesus came to tell us to be nice each other (and somehow this frightened the Establishment so much that they killed Him horribly), electing Romney will not make them worse.

Father Frank Pavone says that we are to vote for the lesser of two evils, that this is what the Church tells us in regard to abortion. That is what I have always done. It seems like the lesser isn’t usually very much less, but it’s still less. And I wouldn’t sit out an election unless it is shown that the Church does say that is an option. As far as I know, we are told we have an obligation to vote.

That the election of a Mormon as president would do anything to raise the stature of Mormonism as a mainstream religion rests upon the assumption that the majority of the electorate cares what the President’s conception of metaphysics is. Haven’t presidential elections for the past 50 years demonstrated that this is no longer the case? The fears that Jimmy may have had more substance in the 40s, when people actually cared about doctrine and what it meant for behavior and policy. Nowadays, any religious sentiment is good only as long as it helps to buttress whatever preexisting biases a voter may harbor. Anything that deviates from the voter’s own self-constructed value system is liable to be mocked. That the election of a Mormon president might raise the stature of that religion to that of, say, Catholicism, means that it would be elevated to being a gutter-level aesthetic superstition quite interchangeable with any number of creeds.

Footnote to above: The closest we ever came to having a Swedenborgian president was in 1896, when shipping magnate Arthur Sewall of Maine was nominated for Vice-President on the Bryan ticket. “Populists” objected, not because he was a heretic, but because he was a “plutocrat”, and ran their own ticket with infamous racist and anti-Catholic demagogue Tom Watson (best known as the persecutor of Leo Frank). There is a moral there somewhere, but don’t tell me what.

http://www.aboutcatholics.com/life_in_christ/voting_catholic/
This is a good pamphlet but still doesn’t settle the issue of whether we would ever have the option, as Catholics, of sitting out an election.

I would pick a polytheist who follows sound economic principles and believes and upholds the dignity of human life before I supported a Christian who uses the government to impose economy crippling socialist economic policy and big government regulation any day of the week.

I am an ex-Morman (yes, BYU and all that) who converted to Catholicism many years ago.

I could argue that Mormans are NOT polytheists (they don’t think Jesus and the Holy Ghost are gods), but I’ll simply say that their values are exactly the values this country needs. Strong families, pro-life, anti-gay marriage, education, and much, much more.

That their theology is messed up is a poor reason to not vote for them.

I’m pro-Romney all the way.

Ron Kienzle
Cincinnati, Ohio

@lurker.  Have you read the Bible?  Socialist(ish)economic policy is precisely what Christian economic principles are.  Capitalism a was perversion of Calvin’s(one of many)

@C3

The Bible calls for INDIVIDUALS to be loving and care for the poor. 
Nowhere in the Bible does it call for the government to be used for redistribution of wealth which by its very nature harms the poor.

I seem to remember the parable which Christ told in which the ones who took their talents and doubled them were rewarded.

That is an interesting conundrum. A polytheist pretending to be a Christian vs. a pro-abortionist pretending to be a Christian. Which confuses the message more?

The solution to the dilemma of a Mormon in the White House is to defeat him with a better candidate in the primaries. Why not see to it a woman gets the nomination? If nothing else, that would drive the dems NUTS.

@C3 I understand what you’re saying but you should also read Rerum Novarum, which defends private property and the accumulation of private wealth. State-enforced socialism is inherently unjust because it deprives people of what they work for and their freedom to use it as they see fit. Christianity presumes virtue and charity in the use of private property, which demands the giving of alms and of considering all of one’s wealth as a gift from God to be dedicated to His work (based on the Bible, which does not “require” socialism of Christians). But the discernment of and obedience to God’s will regarding private property belongs to the owner, not the state.

@Lurker

Because there was no welfare office doesn’t mean that their wasn’t an organization that could be considered comparible to the government.  Notice I put (ish) in their.  So that the principles behind socialism, when you strip away all the other nonsense is equality and justice.
Acts 2 42-45
42] And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.
[43] And fear came upon every soul; and many wonders and signs were done through the apostles.
44] And all who believed were together and had all things in common;
[45] and they sold their possessions and goods and distributed them to all, as any had need.

Pay especially close to verse 45.

I’m not saying you need to be forced into anything.  I’m saying If you claim to be a Christian, Catholic or otherwise you need to follow what the Book says.

@Mario, so as not to confuse me with Trotsky.  I’ve read Rerum Novarum.  I believe there are good points in there though I don’t believe they go far enough nor do I believe the Church is doing enough to fight inequality.  I’m not a Communist/Socialist in the traditional sense.  If we talk political spectrum I’m more of a Libertarian Socialist(Anarchist)/Distributist. 

What I am is unimportant, what is important is rectifying problems that the Church has allowed to carry on.  Social aspects, Life, traditional marriage, very good, bravo, two- thumbs up.  Economic equality in OPPERTUNITY, I’m gonna have to send it to Summer School or hold it back a year.

@C3

“they devoted themselves”

“they sold their possessions and goods”

Your own scripture references prove it was done voluntarily and not by government edict.

Furthermore, socialism has failed everywhere it has been tried.  It destroys God-given ingenuity, and is mathematically impossible.

@lurker
Correct, voluntarily.  I don’t think the thread here is wanting me to go of on a tangent and explain to you the variety of socialist thought.  That it is not merely a State run institutionalization.  That the principles behind it transcend this individual strain.  Furthermore take a look at China, not too shabby, take a look at the Scadinavians, pretty good, so lets not pretend that socialism is a total and complete failure. What you are doing is blaming the princples of totalitarianism on socialism.  This would be an unfair judgement.

@lurker

Further, let’s keep it in context.  “they devoted themselves to the Apostles teachings”, what were those? 

From each according to his ability. To each according to his need.  Sounds like a summation of socialism to me.

Lurker:  The parable of the talents and/or minas is *not* an endorsement of capitalism.  Read it again, keeping in mind that the Hebrew Bible (i.e. the Old Testament) forbids the collecting of interest.  (And note how the master, in Luke’s version of the story, bears a striking, bloodthirsty resemblance to the Herods.)  The motto that “to everyone who has, more will be given, but from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away” is arguably just another way of saying “the rich will get richer and the poor will get poorer,” which is generally the sort of thing one does *not* say when one is endorsing capitalism.

You are wrong Jimmy but I don’t think the choice will boil down to that. But for the sake of arguement wouldn’t it be just as bad to vote for a Muslim, Communist, or for a Catholic who thumbs his nose at Catholic doctrine, or any other type of Christian whose expressed moral views are in opposition to Catholic moral teaching or an athiest who disavowes belief in the existence of God. I’m afraid there is just no end to the exceptions if yours is allowed.

Yes, let’s look at China. 

Mao killed 45+ MILLION people.  How’s that socialism working out?

The “Scandinavians” were until recently a homogenous society, and are currently under threat of Radical Islam.  They’re also having problems with a negative population growth rate and increasing

The parable is not an endorsement of capitalism, but does say that whatever talents you have, you should use.  Socialism as it has been designed during the whole of the 20th century has been a corruption of that principle.

Also, government forced socialism removes the charity and virtue from helping the poor and makes it mandatory.  The economic result has always been that when government imposes the redistribution of wealth for the sake of the poor, it creates more poor people.  Currently the U.S., which has spent trillions of dollars in the last four years to help the poor, now has the highest number of people on welfare, food stamps, unemployment, etc., since the last time government spent a bunch of money to help the poor. 

I never got a job from a poor person, and I never met a person who was successful from living on the government dole.

I also wouldn’t vote for a Mormon because their religion is a cult. I wouldn’t want someone who is controlled, like members of cults are, to run our country. How muuch more controlling would they, in turn, be? They don’t really think for themselves either and I would want a president to be able to think for themselves. Obama, himself, doesn’t think for himself, he allows the puppet master, George Soros, to do it for him. Being controlled is very evil.

Lurker, I can see you’re not a stable individual.  I hate to resort to ad hominem but really, the US is spending trilliona on welfare?  Yeah CORPORATE WELFARE.  Mao?  again you are blaming the murderous tendecies of a madman on an economic policy.  What does Scandinavia being attackked by Islam, which all things considered they’re a littlee late in th game as far as that goes have to do with their financial prosperity formed in no small part by their socialist underpinnings?  If you just want to spout off Tea Party nonsense, go ahead, but the fact remains Capitalism is UNCHRISTIAN.  Take Care

Guys, why are we worrying about Mitt Romney being the 2012 GOP candidate? You’re forgetting one person.
MICHELLE BACHMANN.

@C3

Mao created the Chinese system of government, which you claimed was “not too shabby”.  How does the Chinese government treat Catholicism in China?  How is the Catholic Church treated in any socialist country? 

Yes, the government has spent trillions on helping the poor.  Obamacare, mortgage bailouts, stimulus, Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac bailouts.  Before that was the “great society”, “war on poverty” and endless numbers of other programs which claimed to be an end to poverty but in reality only increased it.

You are unable to make a salient point based on merits, so you resort to belittling comments and ad hominem attacks.  Saul Alinsky encouraged the very same thing.

How many Masons have we had as President? Heck this countries founding is steeped in Freemasonry, a Mormon President will be no shocker. The candidates we have to choose from are all awful, we will simply have to guess which one will betray us the least. Suckers!

The founders of this country were mostly non-Catholic, some believing in the Trinity, while others were simply deists.  They all agreed on the rights of free men, the rights of private property, etc..  To think that “these truths” can only be believed by a person who believes in the Trinity is contrary to natural law and the belief that the conscience and moral compass is not instilled from the beginning, but is only gained through belief in God.

Lurker, today’s system in China is anything but Mao, please read up on the reforms that have been taking place since the NIXON adminstration.

Further you’re only demonstrating you’ve no clue what you are saying.  Fannie and Freddie don’t help the poor they help lending institution by providing liquidity.  Please, don’t speak on this again. Further Obamacare while passed has not been implemented.  So, again don’t speak on this.

Please, me “belittling” you by calling you unstable hardly takes away from my complete and total dismantling of your argument.  You’re wrong about China, you’re wrong about where the money is going in America, and you’re wrong about Scandanavia.  You’re just plain wrong.  My points have been made, you’re talking out the backend of a horse.  Nothing that you’ve said has any merit or is based on anything but Tea Party mass delusional ramblings.  Please read something other than NewsMax and watch something other than FoxNews and then post on topics with KNOWLEDGE.

I will vote for a mormon, hell even for an atheist who is pro-life, believes in the consititution, religious freedom and the free markets any day over the anti christ who currently sits in the white house, not to mention the other anti christ catholics like pelosi and biden, sebelius.

@c3

China has one of the worst human rights records in the history of the world.  Their one child policy has created a surplus of 20 Million men because all the women are aborted.  Sterilization is compulsory.  Catholicism is outlawed unless priests and bishops pledge obedience to China over the Church. 

China has complete disregard for nearly every teaching of the Catholic Church concerning the dignity of the human person. 

If this is considered “not too shabby”, then I’d hate to see what you call tyranny.

@Phil - That was my main point, too. Let’s all get on the Bachman Bandwagon and get her into the Whitehouse! Like I said, it would drive the dems absolutely bonkers.

@C3 - Your arguments fail when you bring in state-mandated socialism, for the Bible never endorses that. (Or show us where it does.) State-mandated socialism usurps biblical principles and mandates them, which is inherently unjust. (Saying that is not an endorsement of any other system.) The biblical ideal of “from each/to each” is not socialism simply because it is voluntary. It depends on free enterprise. By free enterprise I mean people disposing of their abilities and assets according to their own judgment. Free enterprise is necessary that there be those who have enough to supply their own needs and the needs of others, too. Even socialist nations realize that, and so none is purely socialist. Their successes (if any) come not from the degree to which they are socialist, but the degree to which they are not, because even their socialist success depend on the non-socialist successes.

More importantly, to take what people have earned, even to give it to others, rather than to let them give it of their own accord, is robbery. So what if the government does it? It is theft. And that ultimately is what socialism is. Theft. Socialism therefore is not a Christian economic system. Extant socialist nations are simply thieves with legal immunity. The Church is right on the money (literally) in Rerum Novarum.

I would so very much appreciate if someone knows whether we as Catholics are permitted to sit out an election, or whether we are required to choose the lesser of two evils. I have not found anything definitive. It seems that this is the action being espoused in the article, and I wonder what the Church has to say about it. As far as I know, we are required as part of good citizenship, to vote when we are afforded the opportunity.

If the image of Christianity is being threatened today by anything it is certainly not Mormonism in any meaningful way.  Christianity/Catholicism is being threatened more by internal strife and evils spawned within, such as the issues of clergy sex scandal, homosexuality,etc than by Mitt Romney’s religion. A Mormon Presidency will not affect the Church or Christianity to the degree these evils have! Much credulity has been lost by these disgusting scandals and we have enormous work to do to reclaim what has been lost. If the Church and the country can survive the Ted Kennedy’s, Mario Cuomo and his son Andrew, Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi and their brand of Catholicism than I would not worry too much about Mitt Romney and his Mormonism. Best we clean up our own “house” before we start in on the faith of others. The country can survive without a Catholic President but we need someone who knows how to lead, and someone who is more centrist than what we have now, who has had executive experience ...and most importantly, professes to be pro-life. I am not in favor of nominating Mitt Romney but he has these qualifications. As pointed out here, almost anyone but the current resident in the White House would be an improvement. While you make interesting assumptions here, I would say over-all much ado about nothing. Mormonism is what it is and I would not say to the average voter it is not a deciding factor.

That “Christians are baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” does not tell me that everyone labeled with the word “Mormon” is necessarily “not a Christian” or “believes in multiple gods.”  Labels do not dictate who someone is or their beliefs, and labeling is often incorrect or misleading.  How many so-called “Christians” wholly uphold the teachings of Christ?  In that regard, one might say that every and any candidate, baptized or not, who “presents himself to the world as a Christian” is a phoney.  They all fall short in many ways.  Thus one can “cast one’s vote for a polytheist who presents himself to the world as a Christian”, or one can cast one’s vote for some other phoney, liar, murderer, adulterer, bigot, etc.  But for all I know, the Mormon will do good in office and end up in heaven and the others do bad and end up in hell.  And if electing a Mormon “would spur Mormon recruitment efforts in numerous ways”, then why should I not also say that electing a phoney, liar, adulterer, bigot, etc. “would spur recruitment of liars, adulterers, phoneys, bigots in numerous ways”?  The reality is that the claim that “it would spur Mormon recruitment efforts in numerous ways” is no more proven or believably true than to say “it would spur antipathy towards Mormons in numerous ways”.  Are you now a registered Democrat because Obama was elected?  I know many people who say they became Democrats after/because George Bush was elected.  Likewise, it’s arguable that anti-abortion recruitment increases “in numerous ways” in response to the election of an abortocrat.  There is that saying that every action has an equal and opposite reaction.  The claim that electing a Mormon “would give the public the idea that Mormons are Christian and that polytheism is somehow compatible with Christianity” ignores the reality that the inevitable ensuing attention to the subject would also bring public attention to the distinctions and distortions.  It might also bring to light whether or not the person really “believes in multiple gods”.  Some Christians deny that there are multiple gods, and other Christians insist that there are.  Mormons, whether they’re elected or not, are no more to blame for confusion than Catholics.  That said, if we polled Catholics at large, perhaps a clever pollster or apologist could show that most Catholics believe in “multiple gods” or really don’t know what they believe.  Who knows what anyone really believes?  Who knows the future?  There simply is no provable genuine humanly rational basis for claiming that electing a Mormon or whoever would have worse results, all things considered, even severely limited to “the American public’s understanding of what Christianity is”, short to long term, than electing a devout Catholic or anyone else.  It is all wild speculation and no one is bound to abide by it.  Even if “grave damage” to “the American public’s [short term] understanding of Christianity” were somehow a foreseeable effect of voting for a particular candidate, that still doesn’t preclude voting for that candidate as a licit option and unintended effect, especially on the road toward a greater good.  And every person can have a different calculus for that, depending on the person’s experiences, education, even their DNA.  There is no requirement that people have to be able to put it on paper and convince other people to agree with them.  As the saying goes, even reasonable people can disagree.

I don’t buy it. Mormons certainly act like better Christians than too many American Christians.

Even keeping in mind the radical difference between Mormons and Christians, I consider the Mormons a stepping stone back to Christianity, not a stepping stone away, for our country. This is a comment more on how far America has fallen than how close Mormons are to being Christian.

I understand the argument but practically speaking . . .  What about the devastating national situation we’re all suffering through, right now?  A United Church of Christ, black liberation theology Christian, in the presidential office right now.  (Not to mention ultra-pro abortion.)  Granted everything is a mess both politically and economically, and in a host of other ways as well, but are you detecting more Christians confused about Christianity as one of the consequences we’re experiencing from this miserable presidency?  Are people queuing up to join the UCC and is black-liberation thriving anywhere but in the dim corners and dark corridors of various exalted higher-education campuses?  If not, why then the “danger, Will Robinson!” warning about Mormons?  I’m not keen on Romney or Huntsmen, but if I were cautioning people about who to watch out for, generic Mormons would not be the first on my list. That is certain.

Romney got elected in Massachusetts where I live. Mormon missionaries went up. However, he did a lousy job running the state and got elected out of office the next election. He isn’t that pro-life, refused to sign petition the birth control bill.
But Michelle Bachmann is going to win (from my fingers to God’s ear), so this is all going to be moot in 2012.

I’m not convinced that anyone looks to the US government for direction in Christian belief and practice. Electing a Mormon may give the Mormons an opening to exploit, but it would also give us the high profile opportunity to expose it for what it is. And given the choice between a Mormon and a “Christian” of political convenience, I’ll take the Mormon.

Jimmy, isn’t the problem with this argument the fact that it assumes that the weight of the abortion issue derives from the number of babies murdered?  Isnt’ that false? 

Abortion and mormonism cannot compare because abortion is an intrinsic evil that can never be sanctioned by anyone anywhere.  Mormonism and theological contention—however fundamental—are not intrinsic evils.

@Lurker
You must keep in context with the discussion.  We were talking economics, not anything other than that.  You’re trying to win an argument that only you are taking part in.
@Mario
I can only reiterate my point so many times.  If you wish to believe despite evidence to the contrary that socialism is as you say and not a theory with as many strains if not more than the variences of economic thought under capitalism than that is your right to do so.  You will be wrong, but that isn’t a sin. 
Further Rerum Noverum contradicts Church teaching in that it leave the decision of giving up to the individual person.  Is not abortion a decision that needs to be made by the individual person?  Yet it fights that, and rightly so.  Is not practicing in homosexuality left up to the decision of the person?  It fights that, birth control?  it fights that. What it doesn’t do is fight for the rights of the economically oppressed.  It aids the worst off to be sure, but it doesn’t do enough to demand—as it does with abortion and marriage—that governments and people do more to aid the economic plight of all people.
What’s next is if we look at the Just War Doctrine, accepted by the Church do not these same principles which the Church gives its blessing to can’t they be applied to the economic realm?  I think they could, to prevent starvation, suffering, sickness, these are evils that shouldn’t bee fought?  The greed of man is somethng that the Church will just actively allow to transpire?  Rather than working on dilligently the promotion of the Distributism it claims to support?  To do away with capitalism?  These are were my arguments lie and you nor anyone else has provided any refutation nor have they or can they fail in and of themselves.

Benjamin Baxter on Saturday, Aug 6, 2011 1:51 AM (EDT)said:I don’t buy it. Mormons certainly act like better Christians than too many American Christians.

It would appear so

  http://wdtprs.com/images2/11_08_04_survey_01.jpg

emarsh on Friday, Aug 5, 2011 4:48 PM (EDT)said :How many Masons have we had as President? Heck this countries (sic) founding is steeped in Freemasonry, a Mormon President will be no shocker. The candidates we have to choose from are all awful, we will simply have to guess which one will betray us the least. Suckers!

Buy that man a cigar!

@C3 - Rerum Novarum “IS” Church teaching, therefore cannot contradict it. YOU contradict Church teaching in saying that prudential judgments are not left up to the individual making the judgment. THAT is the very HEART of Catholic moral doctrine. If that were not so, there would be no moral doctrine to speak of. Therefore, the rest of what you say is meaningless, illogical drivel. Your analogies are false and lame and illogical, yet you propose them. You set yourself above Leo XIII as his judge. These things speak volumes.

I have determined the best ticket, which if it cannot win will nonetheless give us the pleasure of driving the pro-death forces to distraction:

Bachmann-Cain.

(Herman Cain, not the guy from Arizona.)

What does everyone think?

I think there are a lot of Protestants who would say similar things about Catholics and would not vote for Catholics due to similar reasoning. I call those people bigots. This post is, at best, embarrassing for the author and, at worst, gravely scandalous.

While I agree voting for a Mormon is not a good idea, I don’t see how this would be that different from voting for a political candidate who either doesn’t believe in God (thus doesn’t hold to any sort of morality except his own idea of morality) OR says he is Christian (like Obama) but doesn’t practice the Faith (could be through total ignorance, so I won’t judge… but given Obama’s support for abortion and gay marriage to the point of the extreme)??

I still think the pro-life matter is THE most important issue when voting. Sadly, that often means I end up voting for Republicans whom I disagree with on fiscal matters but voting for the pro-abort, pro-gay candidate on the Democrat side would just be plain evil.

We must pray a TRUE Christian enters the race and wins. Our country desperately needs someone following the Truth.

To C3:
Check out:
http://www.catholic.com/library/Gods_of_the_Mormon_Church.asp

excerpt
Joseph Smith, Mormonism’s founder, taught the doctrine of a “plurality of gods”—polytheism—as the bedrock belief of his church. He developed this doctrine over a period of years to reflect his belief that not only are there many gods, but they once were mortal men who had developed in righteousness until they had learned enough and merited godhood.

and
http://www.catholic.com/library/Distinctive_Beliefs_of_Mormon.asp

We are teetering dangerously here on the brink of biotry! Though relatvism has a strong presence in some of the comments here, the whole tone of the article is un-charitibly driven…and seemingly un-Christian in message. As Christians we are obliged to bring Christ to the market-place but when we vote we are allowed to use our own prudential judgment about who would best fulfill the job of leadership. The Church must be most careful when commenting about a candidate’s worthiness of belief lest we fall under the same narrow judgment when a Catholic might present him/herself as a candidate. The golden rule applies. I say this from a point of prudence. Though believing the Church to be truly the Church Jesus founded and we must proclaim, we must show in a pluralistic society such as we live in a certain tolerance of others beliefs. There is a time for everything under the sun…even a time to know when to keep one’s mouth closed and thoughts under control.

Jimmy, thanks.  What you point out is true, and the central issue is overooked by many, which I believe is an issue of integrity.  Many every day Mormons actually believe they are Christian.  When you ask, they tell you “Of course we are Christian because the name of our church is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, and how could we say that if we are not Christians?” This mantra is repeated, almost verbatim, by Mormons all over the country.  It started when Tom Brokaw interviewed the head of the Mormon church, Kimbel I think, during the Salt Lake City olympica and asked Kimbel that question. But those more fully involved and aware know better. So it is an issue of integrity in trying to knowingly hide what you are, claim to be what you know you are not, and proselytizing through falsehood.  This grabs many otherwise intelligent people, just as it did Glen Beck when he recently left Catholicism to become Mormon. And, to answer a previous question above, Romney has claimed to be Christian and gave the same mantra as his answer, during one of his many televised campaign speeches. Which one I do not recall and I did not record it. If he lacks sufficient integrity to be truthful to himself and us in claiming to be what he is, or is not, how can he have the integrity to make the kinds of decisions he would have to make as President?

Governing is largely a technical skill.  I’d rather have a competent Mormon pilot flying the plane than an incompetent Catholic pilot. 

That’s not to say that morality isn’t important, because we don’t want a competent but evil government.  But an incompetent though well-meaning government doesn’t really help us.  I honestly don’t see anything in modern Mormanism that is going to turn the nation toward any more evil than it is already engaged in.

I’m not planning to vote for Mr. Romney in any event.  But his religion doesn’t factor into that decision at all.

While I agree that Mormons are not Christian while claiming to be, I believe that Catholics who publicly and aggressively promote abortion here and in other countries such as Pelosi, Biden, Dodd, Daschle, Kerry, the Kennedys, Sebelius while claiming to be Catholics in good standing and so continue to receive the Eucharist do far more damage and cause far more confusion than any Mormon - I believe there have been other Mormons in high office (Reid is one) - has there been a Mormon President?  I don’t know…I dont like Romney, don’t trust him, but not because he’s a Mormon. I don’t understand how intelligent people can accept the tenets of the Mormon faith…I know Christianity asks us to take things of faith but Mormons teach that God was a human who evolved into being a god…that Jesus is the brother of satan, that Mary conceived Jesus with a human…but I’d rather have a Mormon that Pelosi and her kind…

We are not one nation in belief. Subjective reason has skewed much of what we consider one way. The Mormons are simply one part of that result. But I do agree with Jimmy that belief is so shaky that many would place their hearts on the line for this man. Oh how did we get so skewed!

I hope, if this is a tax exempt organization, that you lose your exempt status.  I would never vote for Obama—-despise his politics and his socialism (too much like the majority of our bishops and archbishops meddling in secular affairs; however, this screed is the same as the drivel printed during Kennedy’s run for office and even further back, in the early part of the 20th century, those who espoused such hatred and vitriol against Al Smith.  The bigotry expressed in this general posting is unbelievable.

I’m inclined to go along with Marty (fourth statement above)

If Nancy Pelosi who is Catholic were to run for President against a Mormon, I would vote for the Mormon because, Pelosi does more damage to Christianity and the CATHOLIC CHRUCH than a Mormon would.

This IS something to pray and think about.  Thank you Jim.

@James Dobbins…What you are saying makes no sense…First you claim that many Mormons honestly believe they are Christians, etc….and yet later you claim these same people have little to no integrity in claiming to be what they are not! What say?! IF a Mormon claims he is a Christian and explains his thinking, whatever you think of this reasoning, if it is what he truly believes (and this would be Mitt Romney according to your statements) how is he being dis-honest? Mis-informed? Yes, according to our faith…but how does this place him in any different position than say a true Buddhist, or Jew or Muslim whose claims about God differ from ours as well?  One can be mis-informed and honest at the same time can they not? Honesty and misinformed are not oxymorons. Anyway, Mitt Romney will not be the candidate for a whole host of reasons beyond his Mormonism so all this is puffery (I will stop short of bigotry) and is nonsense….and could lead to a dangerous way of evaluating our future candidates by judging their level of faith compared to our own which is not what I think you want to do in a pluralistic society such as our own.

I hope, if this is a tax exempt organization, that you lose your exempt status.  I would never vote for Obama—-despise his politics and his socialism (too much like the majority of our bishops and archbishops meddling in secular affairs; however, this screed is the same as the drivel printed during Kennedy’s run for office and even further back, in the early part of the 20th century, those who espoused such hatred and vitriol against Al Smith.  The bigotry expressed in this general posting is unbelievable.

Americanism and Mormonism are made for each other and I find nothing bigoted in what Akin said.  He and the others opposed to a mormon presidency are just operating under the delusion that this is a “christian” country rather than one inimicable to Christendom; and is in fact the wellspring of craziness like mormonism.

@Mario
Outside of personal attacks and assumptions about my presumptions did you actually have any particular specific to refute my posits?  It doesn’t appear that you do.

If responding to posts by spewing nonsense about illogical drivel and parroting tried and true if not worn and weary apolegetics for hypocritical stances that need be addressed is your attempt at countering my argument than there really is nothing more to say.  If however you can actually breakdown for me your specific contention and provide valid reasons for your argument then we may continue.  The ball is in your court.

Furthermore I explained how the Church teachings do contradict themselves in that they approve authority the use of force to combat evil, but then turn and admonish anyone who suggests that authoritative force is used to combat evil when it comes to the realm of economics.

The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:

the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;

If this doesn’t exemplify Capitalism I don’t know what does.

And yet, hardly a peep is spoke of it.

Further still, your stubborn adherence to your ignorance on matters of political science are beginning to bore me.  Socialism as I’ve defined it isn’t the socialism in Rerum Noverum, it is a system which bases its priority on the social aspects of economics not the capital.

You wanna keep living in lala land and watch as each and every worker gets treated like nothing more than a cost of labor, all the while spouting off at the mouth about some document that soft servedly admonishes those people who keep Priest Payday in the lap of luxury, and you’re too ignorant to comprehend what’s transpiring, than I’ll pray the Lord take mercy on your soul.  That’s the least he can do for you…because he sure left you lacking in intelligence

This is among the most disgustingly bigoted and ignorant blogs I have ever read. I am surprised that NCR would publish this or allow it to remain on their website.

To All who want info re Catholic position re elections. Check out saltandlighttv.org/witness interview (09) w/AB Chaput. It’s terrific. His book “Render to Caesar” (‘08) - a US Catholic voter primer, that by ‘09 was in its 11th printing and had gone global. Still available @ Amazon and others.  It should be required reading for every Catholic voter as well as voters in general particularly prior to this next crucial election.

As a Catholic I will vote for Romney if he is the R candidate. The inferences re his flip-flopping on abortion are simply word games. The man changed his position on this issue. Change is a sign of growth. I know that I have changed my position at times based on new info, etc. Haven’t we all. That doesn’t make one a flip-flopper. It makes one human and is a sign of maturity.

W/re to his Mormonism I don’t see this as a fatal flaw. I concur w/others, the primary issue are his ability to govern, his experience in governing, and his knowledge of economics of governing. He has no scandals - political or otherwise.  He is committed to his long term marriage and wife;  to his large and enviable family; to his belief system; to whatever endeavor he has undertaken; and to his country. He has record of success as a businessman; a spouse; a family man; a governor; an international organizer for Olympic Games. He has been consistent throughout his life which has been a good life and a successful one. This man is no flip-flopper.

Most of the other candidates however show their own inconsistencies (flip-flops) re faith (Palin was a baptized Catholic; since then made a few changes, now is a Pentecostal who believes that she is the “anointed” one by the Lord (scary); she failed to complete her oath as Gov of AK by resigning. W/her I could go on. Bachmann has also changed her religious affiliation more recently from to a less restricted form of Lutherism and is tending towards Deist w/her positions. She doesn’t have any record of accomplishment whatsoever. Thus unqualified for POTUS. Pawlenty is a former Catholic who changed his faith because of his wife’s but does have some good qualifications.  Newt is presently Catholic but he has never been consistent in his life - changing wives, beliefs and political positions, to suit his ambition.

The reality is there is no such thing as a “perfect” candidate. Every candidate is flawed in some way and has inconsistencies - AS ALL HUMANS HAVE. And I firmly disagree w/this blogger who pretends to being a discerner of persons. PLZ do yourselves a favor and check out ArchBishop Chaput’ interview indicated herein and his voting primer “Render to Caesar”.

@Mei

I don’t read sites that go on at great lengths to say who is and isn’t Christian.  I read up on things for myself and have conversed with LDS as well.  Thank you though.

@sam Render unto Caesar is a great book indeed.

Another great way to help combat the misunderstanding that polytheism is somehow Christianity would be to actually teach people about the truth of the Trinity. If a Mormon is elected, we can seize that as an opportunity to teach people about the Trinity and other ways in which Mormonism differs from orthodox Christianity. A Mormon in the White House does not need to be a challenge to Christianity, it can be a teaching and evangelizing tool.

I am not concerned about an increase in Mormons if a Mormon is elected, but I do agree that a Mormon being elected would make Mormonism more acceptable. Is that necessarily a bad thing? We are talking about a religion that has long been persecuted in our society.

@C3 - In your prior post, you compared giving to the poor to abortion. A ridiculous thing to do, to say the least, and I’ll show you why. Your failure to see your own mistakes is my paramount criticism, however, and everything else you say has to be taken with the salt of this defect.

Abortion is the intentional killing of an innocent human life. It is therefore always wrong. A woman has the power to choose to procure an abortion, and an abortionist the power to choose to provide one, just like we all have the power to choose to sin. And there may be deliberation about the choice. However, this deliberation is not prudential judgment, a point that eludes you. There is no way prudence can legitimately conclude that abortion is a morally licit choice, because it involves intentionally killing an innocent person. Therefore, unbeknownst to you, the choice of abortion lay outside of prudential judgment. This is basic Catholic moral teaching of which you are apparently unaware.

Giving to the poor on the other hand is essentially different from abortion. Giving to the poor is basically a good thing to do and is enjoined by Scripture and Catholic moral teaching as a duty of the Christian faithful. However, as St. Thomas Aquinas points out in the Summa Theologiae, it can become a sin if it is ordered to a bad end or done under circumstances that render it bad to do. For instance, giving for vainglory, giving to others such that your own child starves to death, or giving to someone who wants the money to do evil with it, would all make giving to others in that moment a sin. Rerum Novarum, drawing on St. Thomas and Sacred Scripture says as much. For these reasons, BASIC Catholic moral teaching, of which you are clearly unaware, consistently asserts that only the person who has the assets to give - the fruit of his labors and the rightful object of his personal use without government interference - knows his own reasons and circumstances in the moment of giving and, therefore, only the giver can exercise prudential judgment in giving, and not the state. The biblical injunction “from each/to each” is not in the spectrum of socialism. It is in the spectrum of charity. Charity is not socialism. Charity is love of God and neighbor, but because love proceeds from the will, no human law can force it out of someone. One can extort money, but not charity, from the heart of a rich person. Therefore, Catholic teaching rightly does not extend to the use of the coercive power of government to make people give.

Therefore, the analogy of abortion to giving to the poor is as I said: False, lame, and illogical. And you fail to see it. So, to quote an earlier post by someone here, “I hate to resort to ad hominem,” but I stand by my statements in my previous posts with the foregoing as proof.

Therefore it should come as no surprise that although there is a similarity between the use of military force and the disposition of personal assets, your assessment of it is flawed in the extreme. The use of the military is like the use of property assets. The Church enjoins the strong to defend the innocent as she does the rich to help the poor. However, in explicit Catholic doctrine, of which you are apparently unaware, only the head of state has the right to exercise prudential judgment as to the deployment of the military, just as it is the right of the property owner to exercise prudential judgment of the disposition of that property. No one has the right to force a nation to commit its military to any cause, and neither does anyone have the right to force a rich person to commit his assets to a particular cause. Or, if such force is used, the results are tyranny and not charity.

Therefore, Church doctrine, of which it is painfully obvious that you are shockingly unaware, is consistent and does not contradict itself. Your assessment that is does is flawed. You cannot see the flaw. You hold to your opinions with a tenacity they do not merit. And you set yourself above popes who speak for the Church. All of this is incontrovertible.

Just because someone says he or she is a Baptized Christian does not mean they will not die as big fat liars. Lying is so common today that we should all vote on what we consider the best rumor. I will vote for anyone who sees that Abortion is most often the most heartless and vicious kind of murder that ever existed or ever will exist - and, most often, the mothers themselves are nothing less than cold hearted murderers who are willing to murder their own innocent little babies - vote for the mammal, it is the best rumor around in this mix of professional liars.

I usually agree with Mr. Akin’s opinions, but in this case, I could not disagree more.  The US Constitution is very clear - there is to be no religious test as a qualification for any office in the United States.  Candidates should be judged by their political views and ideas, not by their religious beliefs.

In addition, it’s uncharitable to keep referring to Mormons as “polytheists” when they don’t view themselves as such.  If we’re going to talk about Mormon theology, we have to talk about it from their point of view.  Otherwise, we’re no different from the folks who call Catholics “cannibals”, “statue worshippers”, “Mary worshippers”, etc.

While the vast majority of Christians use the term “Christian” to describe someone who worships Jesus Christ as a part of the Holy Trinity, it’s really not fair of us to say that Mormons who follow Christ but don’t believe he is one in being with the Father are, for whatever reason, not qualified to call themselves Christian.

Mitt Romney is not my candidate of choice, but if he wins the Republican primaries, I would have no problem voting for him for president - just as long as his political views and ideas remain acceptable to me.

Relativism, smelllativism, let’s compare the murder of innocents to the Mormon religion. Welcome to the world of today - where first world problems dominate the progressive cause! Well done Jimmy.

I would vote for a polytheist if he/she was monogamous, but I would not vote for a monotheist if he/she was polygamous.

That there can’t be a religious test doesn’t mean that voters can’t vote for a candidate based on his religion.

@No Religious Test

Jimmy addressed your point in his article.  It’s a non sequitor to say there should be no religious test and thus candidates should be judged by their political views not their religion.  As Mr. Akin points out, the religious test applies to the government allowing a candidate to run for office regardless of his or her religion, though the ultimate judging of a candidate is done by the voter, whom is not bound by the legal standards for whether a relgious test is given.  In light of the doctrine of the Trinity, Mormons are polytheists, because of what they believe about Jesus and the Holy Spirit, and further because they also believe that there are more than one god as anyone who goes to heaven according to their theology becomes a god him- or herself.  To use the word polytheist to describe a Mormon, in light of Mormonism’s own teaching, would be quite technical, and would not bear the similarity to calling Catholics “Mary-worshippers” or “cannibals” as, in light of true Catholic teaching, these are terms which take a Catholic teaching and add a distortion to it which stems from what is not Catholic teaching in order to come up with label which for the most part are used as perjoratives.  Mr. Akin also addresses this point about calling Mormons polytheists in a few words.  So, we then return to his question: would electing a polytheist who calls himself a Christian be good for America?  To respond to this question in light of the points Mr. Akin makes with the “no religious test response” would be an argument thats takes into account little intellectual honesty.

@Cindy ... AMEN SISTER! Thank you very much for this sentence: “. . . This article reminds of fundamentalist protestants who claim Catholics are not Christian. I think you’re doing more “damage” to Christianity than the Mormon.”
  I slightly differ but only with respect to whether Christianity would be more damaged by Jimmy’s sentiments in this article than Catholicism. This [should] be surprising considering Jimmy’s conversion to Catholicism from Evangelical Protestantism. On the other hand, there are many Protestant converts coming in to the church full of excitement and gratitude for what Catholicism has to offer: The most fulfilled Christian faith of all.
  In fairness to Jimmy, because I don’t believe he was in any way trying to lay on any blanket of triumphalism, but that’s what came out. I’ve done it myself so I’m far from innocent and it’s an easy thing to do. However, unlike Jimmy, who’s astute enough to be as fair and sensitive as possible, (it’s his duty and job, after all) there are many converts and returnees who have taken it upon themselves to point out where everything is wrong and out of joint when they notice that the old-timers aren’t as gung ho as they are.
  Pray tell, how on earth can Romney’s religious views can possibly do more damage to American society than his economic views and “doing for” the nation’s economy what he did for Massachusetts.
  I remember the Romney years well, and how fast he switched his stand on abortion just as he was gearing up for his first run in 08. What a coincidence that the first big test for him was the South Carolina primary. Political timing, packaging will always trump any concern Romney will ever have for any significant moral issue the nation has to deal with should get beat President Obama.
  LOL, trust me on this: No matter what most of you folks think about President’s past, his religious views, stands on abortion, gay rights, ... all the hot button issues; loath Obama’s stands all you want; but compared to the jello-spined Romney when it comes to stating and most importantly, STICKING to his principles ... Obama stands like that monument outside his back patio. Romeny’s interest in keeping his word and stand on key issues last only so long as he believes the polls show any interest in them or himself…if at all by that point.
  Mormonism isn’t a problem: Romneyism is. Funny how nobody goes after Huntsman like the do on Romney. Ever wonder why?

Yes Mormons think they are Christians, but in actuality they are polytheists.  Similarly Catholics wrongly think they are Christians.  In actuality they practice idolatry every Sunday by worshipping a wafer.  America voted for JFK, and he was a liberal womanizer. So Romney could be no worse than any Catholic Kennedy from Massachusetts. Fact is the modern Catholics is so confused because Medieval Scholastic superstition no-longer has the ability to hoodwink modern Americans. Catholicism is ideal for those who are superstitious, love to live in a Medieval fantasy land,  and love the arcana of canon law.

Richard, Mr. Akin is correct that you physically can vote for a candidate based on any criteria you choose, but that doesn’t make it right.  For example, someone may have refused to vote for Barack Obama for president based on prejudice against black people.  As the USCCB wrote in 2008, racism is unacceptable and is not a valid way of forming an opinion.  We cannot vote in favor of racism, nor should our views be based upon racism.  Similarly, if the personal religious dogma of the candidate has nothing to do with how he or she will act as a politician, it should be off limits as well.

You go on to explain why you believe Mormons are polytheists and thus unworthy of a Catholic’s vote.  I repeat: Mormons do not view themselves as polytheists.  Continuing to describe them as “polytheists” is, to be blunt, bigoted.  And I don’t believe that we should allow bigotry to guide how we indend to vote.

As a Protestant a vote for a Catholic idolator is no different than voting for a Mormon polytheist. America is so enraptured with ecumenism that it is incapable of understanding that true Evangelical Protestantism abhors both liberal Protestants, Episcopalians, Mormons, and Catholics.  It believes that all these groups are vehicles of Satan to subvert TRUE Christianity.

Well said Jimmy. The truth may not always be popular but the truth is the truth.

I actually have a different reason for not voting for a mormon for president.  I see mormonism as so fundamentally a sham religion that I would question the common sense and naivete of someone who would hold that faith.  I couldn’t trust my country to them (or at least would prefer not to).

@ by george…Not a single bone of bigotry in your thinking! I really like knowing that you are going to be voting in the next election with all the open-mindedness of an amoeba-cyte! Heil Hitler!!!

@No Religious Test
I hope you can tell the difference between a person, including a person running for President, based on what the color of there skin is, and based on what they believe as a religious tenet and then, in light of what they believe, what they call themselves.  If a man is white but believes he is black, and insists on being called black and that it’s considered bigoted to call him white, he would not get very far in the political arena.  Given that religious views are can be more nuanced and conditional upon upbringing, learning, and intellect, than what the color of one’s skin is, I hope you see the difference between skin color and religious beliefs even further.  What do you think the USCCB would say about the Book of Mormon teaching that dark skin equates to a curse?  (cf. 2 Nephi 5:21, 3 Nephi 2:12-15)  Do you think the USCCB would further tell us whether or not we should vote for someone based on such a belief?  If your response to this would be that the color of one’s skin is different than one’s religious beliefs, I would thank you for your intellectual honesty.  I hope you would see a problem with this Book of Mormon teaching regardless of whether the USCCB ever tells us there’s a problem with it.

The nice thing about teachings of different religions is that they don’t need others to tell them what they teach because they teach it already.  So, too, does Mormonism not need me to say it teaches the existence of more than one god because it already does.  Whether or not I say that Mormonism teaches that God was once a man and was created by another God and that we all, too, will become Gods with our own universes to create and the people we create will also become Gods, Mormonism still teaches these things.  So, it is not necessary for me to explain why I believe Mormonism teaches this - it teaches this whether I believe it teaches this or not.

It would be bigoted for me to not like polytheistic people based on the fact they are polytheists and for me to say we shouldn’t vote for polytheists.  If a Mormon wants to be called a Christian when what he believes goes against the nature of who Christ was and what Christ taught, but doesn’t want to be called a polytheist, it’s absurd and dishonest to pretend that not hurting people’s feelings is more important than accurately representing Mormon theology, especially when it comes to associating Mormon teaching with what is commonly considered Christian teaching, and to ignore the fact that Mormons believe in the existence of more than one god.  It is damaging to the country and to the informed decisions of American voters if the generally understood meanings of these words are believed to apply to a Mormon when they don’t.  If not hurting a Mormon’s feelings is more important to you than the fact that Mormons misrepresent what is commonly understood with regard to the meaning of the word “Christian” and the fact that they believe in the existence of more than one God, so much so that anyone who disagrees not hurting a Mormon’s feelings is more important is bigoted, than I think you are being further intellectually dishonest with regard to the common meaning of bigotry, too, because you are applying to it hyperbolic dimensions that if logically carried out can be applied to anyone for saying anything; either that, or you refuse to accept the fact that Mormonism teaches generally non-Christian and polytheistic tenets, again doing so without it needing me to believe it does.  Take the blinders off.

ThirstForTruth,

Your confuse theology with bigotry.  The God of the Bible cut off the 10 Northern Tribes for idolatry.  This same God will do the same against Mormon polytheists and Catholic wafer-god worshipping idolators.  The problem is that people have exalted ecumenism above proper theology and are incapable of asserting the Wrath of God.  The lake of fire awaits millions of pious Catholic, Mormons, and others who worship false gods.

Richard, Mormons consider themselves to be henotheistic, meaning, they believe that more than one god exists but they only worship the one “Godhead”.  To you, there may be no difference between this and polytheism, but Mormons truly believe that they only worship one God.  Catholics believe that we eat the true flesh and drink the true blood of Jesus Christ.  It doesn’t take a crazy heretic to accuse us of cannibalism.  I would hope that you would extend the same level of charity to Mormons as you do to Protestants.

As for some Mormons equating black skin with a curse, again, I would say that the USCCB would tell us not to support someone who advocates racist policies.  If a Mormon politician says, “I refuse to have any black people in my Adminstration because black people are cursed”, then we don’t need to know any more about his religion.  His policies are based on racism, regardless of the origin of that racism.  If Mitt Romney were to make such an argument, he would reveal that his policies make him an unsuitable candidate for elected office.

Personally I find the belief that God the Father was once a mortal who somehow became God to be the most problematic of all Mormon beliefs, but unless that belief effects what kind of politician they would be, I simply do not care if they choose to have it.  In this discussion, the anti-Mormon-politician side comes across like the folks who blacklist those people who believe in the concept of Intelligent Design.  We are told that these people are “anti-science” and it is strongly implied, if not outright stated, that they are unqualified for political office due to their belief in Intelligent Design.  All of this despite the fact that whether or not someone believes in Intelligent Design has absolutely nothing to do with any political policies whatsoever.  Condemning politicians because they personally believe in Intelligent Design is nothing but bigotry.  It is a religious test.

Better a Mormon than a pro-abortion, pro-gay-marriage, annuled-and-remarried cafeteria “Catholic” or “Christian”!

Great article Jimmy, now all that needs done is for some sensitive Mormon to CRY FOUL!
I will not vote for Mitt Romney as I think privileged has done our country wrong, as I believe in that “participatory democracy” I suppose coming from privilege and this previous presidents penchant for the ego centric I am right, I will never again vote republican or privilege.
Oh I should also state I will be on mission in 2013-2017 in Africa, and on return hope to see unemployment down, health care available for all, death penalty abated in this Country, AIDS cured, and the incessant wars stopped. I have seen, and participated, in too many, when does this beacon of light, get turned on, I have fewer fingers than wars and skirmishes since my birth.
I also think this is meddling into politics.

Most Mormon pols hold to pro-life positions.  Our guys—-Catholic?—-with a few notable exceptions are pro abort and many are pro homo-marriage.
Of course if our bishops had some courage, they could end this by bouncing the likes of Pelosi and Cuomo and Leahy.
Meanwhile, I trust Mormons more on this all important life and death issue.
Kevin Patrick in New York State

Well said, Kevin Patrick of New York State. Enough bigotry in this article and combox to wonder if anyone of any religion could ever be
elected again to public office! Shame on all who look down their noses
at their fellow pilgrims. God would not be pleased one bit! Did he not command ALL to love ALL neighbors…even if they be our enemies, without
exception?  Truth is to be shared and proclaimed ...not hoarded by one religion over the others.

@Mario
I’m gonna make this short and sweet, go back to the post you allude to where you think I was comparing giving to the poor to abortion.  Read it again, reread it.  Do this thrice.  If you haven’t found where your mistake lies and how the foundation of all of your subsiquent posts lie directly on this mistake you’ve made than there really is no more to discuss.
What you clearly don’t understand is that life in the womb or out of the womb is still life.  Abortion, murder, war, and allowing someone to starve to death because you don’t choose to provide for them are all the taking of life.  Thou shall not murder.  It doesn’t matter if it is quick painless and you are unaware or if it is long and a drawn out starvation or denial of healthcare.  Murder is murder.

What you failed to see through the blinding light of your self rightous indignation was my criticism of the Church for pushing certain Church teachings and merely alluding to others whenever a certain type economic system is brought up.
Very rarely do you see the USCCB sitting with Congress as they did with the HC bill to ensure Catholic interests were represented for anything other than marriage or abortion.  This is my criticism.

Again I apoligize if you’ve not the mental faculties to realize the Church community described in Acts was one that was anarcho-communist in nature.  Anarcho-communist is another manifestation—one variation I continue to explain to you—of socialism.  Much like the libetarian socialism that I’ve mentioned now at least twice.  If your loyalty is so divided that you cannot grasp this due to your blind patriotism, that your loyalty to your country will blind you from rational and clear headed thinking I can not help you understand.  I’ve tried, Lord knows I’ve tried.  But please, google it, you will see what I am talkng about and after you go back read 3 times the post that you’re so quick to condemn me for, which is a result of your mistaken impression, on top of the newfound mistake you’ve made with my Just War analogy, it is apparent I cannot use them when communicating with you, I do wonder if simple analogies that I’ve made, that are transparent, if these escape your grasp how could you possible fathom parables?

@ No Religious Test

Thank you for your intellectually honest response which addressed the actual arguments I made.  Your right in saying that I still may not think there is a difference between what Mormons call themselves and what they believe.  My question to a Mormon who makes the distinction you made would be if whether we should not be worshipping the God who made our God and the God that made the God who made our God, and so forth, and even if the same Godhead exists in them all that they are still separate Gods, highlighted by the fact that our God was once a man and so was the God who made him and so forth, there being once a time when each God wasn’t so.

+
Let’s see - we’ve got Mormons who think they are Christian but who are not according to the teaching of the Holy Bible and the Holy Catholic Church; we’ve got Protestant Christians who believe abortion is o.k. and don’t really appear to be Christian but who may in fact be Muslim; we’ve got Catholic Christians who not only believe abortion is o.k. but who push it down our throats and make us pay for it; and a good Catholic Christian candidate that is low on the polls.  What are we to do?  GO CAMPAIGN FOR RICK SANTORUM!

I agree with you completely Jimmy. Having lived in the land of Mormonism in the past I was able to see this religion up close and personal. Your statement, “While they may be very nice people and may even share many values with Christians, Mormons are not Christians” is a truism. As for some claiming a semblance to JFK and a relationship to the Holy Catholic Church, miss a truth of the Mormon tenets, Mormons believe that their church leader is an actual Prophet and speaks to and for God. Will I vote for a Mormon to lead our great country, I can not do so in good faith.

Don`t you have a Catholich you can push into office?
Or you could keep the dude you`ve got there now.
All things considered he is not a bad Christian, in his actions.
He does ofcourse have some shortcomings with regards to his stance on abortions
and he, like so many others, have been deceived into thinking gender-communism (“gender equality”) is a good idea, but apart from that he`s not a bad kid.

Seems like the problem with american politics is that you such narrow view.

I myself am against abortion and gender-communism, and I think women belong in the kitchens. But I am also for raising taxes to help feed the poor, protect the children of the poor, take good care of the elderly and free healthcare for all.

But I wish to see those things done In The Name of God.
I have yet to see a Christian saying “Let us raise taxes in the name of The Lord, because we need the doe to do good to those in need.”

I wish you would forget about the old “righwing/leftwing” thinking in politics and actually read the bible.

Moses was a great government. And that is the kind of man you should be looking for. A man who lives by the Covenant, and enforces it upon those who won`t.

Forget all your !@#$% about “freedom” and “enterprise”.
There is no freedom without the Covenant for anyone.

America could be a great place if you put the covenant into your constitution.
Then you would have true freedom.

The freedom not to get killed, lied to, cheated on by your wife, have your stuff stolen or be disrespected by your kids.

That is true freedom. And then you would be one nation under God.

Make the Covenant your law, and insist that people keep it, no matter what they believe.

And tell the modernists, the feminists, the !@#$% and the idolaters to go f themselves, simply because The Lord said so.

And if they don`t like it, they can take it up with Him directly.

I am constantly amazed at the inconsistancy of values and faith among Catholics. Is there anything we agree on? The other thing that amazes me is the tendency of many Catholics to latch on to a current hero so strongly they hear selectivly and fail to listen to everything they say with a discerning ear.
I see Archbishop Chaput as such a hero in the American Church today. With all of this discussion on the “Christianity” of Mormons, are you aware of the recent history the Archbishop has with them? I wish to draw your attention to an interview he gave in 2007 for a book by Hugh Hewitt (A Mormon in the White House) at this link: (read from the bottom of page 232 to the middle of page 234)
http://books.google.com/books?id=N6_qd-UfgBUC&lpg=PA233&ots=dOf4AFfT1Y&dq=Archbishop Chaput speaks to mormons&pg=PA233#v=onepage&q&f;=false
and… to an award he was given in 2007. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints honored the archbishop for his work to protect traditional marriage and an adoption agency for their efforts to help abused, neglected and abandoned children. Archbishop Chaput and The Adoption Exchange received the 2007 Colorado Family Values Award.
The Family Values Award, which originated in 1991 and was inspired by the renewed emphasis on family issues in the United States, acknowledges community leaders who are “striving to advance standards and values that are consistent with the Mormon Church’s position on the family.”
Elder Steven E. Snow, a Church leader from Salt Lake City, presented the awards to the Colorado recipients and expressed gratitude for “their voices of counsel and warning and for their courage to protect and secure families.”
Archbishop Chaput, in accepting the award, noted: “This award is important to me and to the community because the family is important. It is the foundation stone of society. The stronger a nation’s family life, the stronger a nation’s public life.”
“Catholics and Mormons have the same concerns and similar values rooted in our belief of a loving God. It makes sense to work together and support each other whenever we can, and the Catholics warmly welcome that,” said Archbishop Chaput.
Doesn’t accepting a prestigeous award from the Mormon Church signal an acceptance of them as fellow Christians in the good fight?  Just asking.

This article is so flawed in it’s logic, uncharitable approach, and use of moral relativism that I don’t know how anyone could really take your analysis seriously.

Let me get this straight - you are positing that Catholics should sit out the election rather than vote for a Mormon (Romney) because it would be a moral good (even though this is a sure-fire way to get the current resident of the WH re-elected)? Especially after the sitting President has made it crystal clear he is vehemently pro-abortion and he is determined to see that the government funds plenty of abortions in the future (through Obamacare)? When as an IL Legislator he was the only ‘Yes’ vote on a bill which allowed children born alive, after a botched late-term abortion, to be subsequently murdered by the abortionist!?! And you think that his re-election will not do grave damage to America? I think that has already been successfully demonstrated to anyone who is paying the slightest bit of attention.

Furthermore, you are using the same bigoted argument that many people used when JFK was up for election and also in many states to outlaw the practice of Catholicism when this nation was a colony. How about we (Catholics) remove the timber from our own eye first? If Catholics are confused about the Trinity and other matters of the Christian faith, then we need to step up in our parishes and at home, and do a better job of explaining our beliefs. I think lukewarm Catholics are a much bigger problem than the election of a president who has a different religion. Mormons didn’t invent evangelization!

Your argument that if you only have the choice between a pro-abortion Mormon candidate and a pro-life Mormon candidate it’s okay as a Catholic to vote for one, but that in a national election it “seems different” smacks of moral relativism and is very poor analysis of the issue to begin with.

Your false analogy between the aborting of millions of innocents and a Mormon claiming to be a Christian, when he sincerely believes himself to be a Christian, just doesn’t hold up under any scrutiny. And you are simply begging the question when you argue that it is better to vote for a Hindu because voting for a Mormon will confuse people about the core doctrine of Christianity. Will it? Really! I think you are just displaying your own political bias. Nice try, but anyone who actually thinks that re-electing this president will be anything but a complete disaster for this country is just blind!

Of course a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Mormon)is Christian.  How ridiculous to say otherwise!! A “Christian” is a follower of Christ. A Mormon may be a member of an unusual Christian sect that follows a somewhat unusual theology, but still follows closely to the ideals and beliefs of our blessed Savior. A Buddhist is a follower of Buddha. A Christian including Mormons is a follower of Jesus.
The King James Bible is the most important book in heaven and earth to Mormons.  The Book of Mormon is next in line.

When I hear the Romney advocates invoking the name CHAPUT, I know they’ve really lost it.

Here’s some Chaputian doubletalk

“Can a Catholic in good conscience support a “pro-choice” candidate? The answer is: I can’t and I won’t. But I do know some serious Catholics — people whom I admire — who will. I think their reasoning is mistaken. But at the very least they do sincerely struggle with the abortion issue, and it causes them real pain. And even more importantly: They don’t keep quiet about it; they don’t give up their efforts to end permissive abortion; they keep lobbying their party and their elected representatives to change their pro-abortion views and protect the unborn. Catholics can support “pro-choice” candidates if they support them despite — not because of — their “pro-choice” views. But they also need a compelling proportionate reason to justify it.”

Such as what, your Excellency? Voting against a crazy person like Ron Paul or someone like Tancredo who’d like to enforce the immigration laws?

But what else can we expect from the same bishop who jumpstarted Chris West’s career by writing the intro to his book endorsing sodomy (within marriage) and compared Catholics like justice Scalia for upholding the Church’s traditional teaching on capital punishment.

He accepted and award from the Mormons…..so what?!

When I hear the Romney advocates invoking the name CHAPUT, I know they’ve really lost it.

Here’s some Chaputian doubletalk

“Can a Catholic in good conscience support a “pro-choice” candidate? The answer is: I can’t and I won’t. But I do know some serious Catholics — people whom I admire — who will. I think their reasoning is mistaken. But at the very least they do sincerely struggle with the abortion issue, and it causes them real pain. And even more importantly: They don’t keep quiet about it; they don’t give up their efforts to end permissive abortion; they keep lobbying their party and their elected representatives to change their pro-abortion views and protect the unborn. Catholics can support “pro-choice” candidates if they support them despite — not because of — their “pro-choice” views. But they also need a compelling proportionate reason to justify it.”

Such as what, your Excellency? Voting against a crazy person like Ron Paul or someone like Tancredo who’d like to enforce the immigration laws?

But what else can we expect from the same bishop who jumpstarted Chris West’s career by writing the intro to his book endorsing sodomy (within marriage) and compared Catholics like justice Scalia for upholding the Church’s traditional teaching on capital punishment to members of<u> Catholics for Free Choice</u>.

He accepted and award from the Mormons…..so what?!

We already have in office many who claim to be christian but are practical atheists both in the way they live their lives and discharge the offices to which we the people have elected them.  Perhaps a better way to catechize the nation as to what is authentic Christianity, or at least authentic Catholicism, is to actually and publically excommunicate these public officials who claim to be catholic yet suport the pro-culture-of-death agenda of abortion, contraception and homosexuality.

Do modernistic heterodox rebels even read the Bible? Have they even read John Chapter 6? Have they listened to the Lord’s Words at the Passover Seder before his VICTORY? Do they even know the Old Testament and how it was fulfilled by the HIM? How many modernistic so called “Christians” are still walking away from him, STILL say “who can accept such things”…

As to Romney, he is about as phoney as Obama… The Rebuplicrats can do better than him…

First, there is a constitutional principle that a religious test cannot be required. We are aware of what happened with Al Smith and then JFK where ignorance spawned fear and bigotry. Secondly, why would one question Mr Romney or any non-Christian when the current Leftist agenda led by this President and the Tea Party drivers of the GOP are as far away from the core Christian moral agenda as possible in communitarian justice regarding who pays taxes, where money is spent and what programs deserve support. The GOP is even in some quarters softening on the sexual moral agenda. Thirdly, the Founders regardless of their personal beliefs had some sense of a Creator who gives us rights inalienably but those are erored in legislation,and they were not rooted in Trinitarian Christian teaching but presumed most of it.  Court decisions and foreign policy with our tax money to support their erosion.
Ease up on non-Christians and go after the non-Christian social justice, Consistent Ethic of Life promoters in today’s goverening classes and too many silent citizens who seem to not be alert except tnose who promote an extreme agenda - hating both sin and sinner on the Left and the Right.

Obama believes in only one God—himself! But hey, at least he was baptized properly? Where is the logic in this?

Well, quite a chunk of information to digest.  However, in the end game we have to trust that Christian Americans would be responsible to know their faith…not as a child understands it, but with the understanding of a properly formed adult conscience; this I believe is owed the highest responsibility. What disturbs me a bit is that you would open the door to suggest that confronted with a Mormon or pro-abortion candidate you “might” sit out the election. A low election turnout in 2012 would truly benefit no one, except perhaps our current President, and that truly would be a shame.  While it is interesting to better understand the tenents of the Mormon faith, it should not be confused with the inability of the electorate to make good decisions for the country and the Common Good no matter what the religious or non-religious views of the candidates.

As the head of the Doctrine of the Faith Vatican office the present Pope wrote that one could vote for a candidate who favored abortion as a choice if he/she weighed all the issues and made such a decision in conscience. There are inter=related issues in the Consistent Ethic of Life and a budget that favors the wealthy corporations hurts the creation of jobs and does not have fair taxes for all brackets, uses SS and Medicare and Medicaid to hurt the most vulnerable by reforming those programs unfairly. Not quite simple as is often said.

Thanks for setting the record straight on Chaput

Thanks Tim. I am 100 percent pro the Consistent Ethic of Life but I see the whole picture in a democratic republic, moved back from USA after a lifetime there and living back in Ireland. Canon Law has no requirement that one may not vote for “choice” candidates or be pro-choice. The one canon has excommunication for having, paying for or performing an abortion. There is another canon that says public sinners should refrain from communion but that does not automatically include pro-choice people. Now some bishops publicly say the opposite but the majority seem to favour dialogue and education away from the cameras. They and scholars and ordinary pastors point out that we believe in the Consistent Ethic of Life.It is not easy because the pre-born are innocent and should be protected which is the first and fundamental and basic right. Getting a well-educated and well- formed believing citizenry is key. The polls are showing most people still favour life especially the young who have seen their numbers aborted since 1973. The truth of that decision is now better known- all nine months and the extremists who favour murder aka partial birth which is savagery. The Courts reversed slavery, strenghthened civil rights and will eventually see the insanity of killing our young.

Your concern should a Mormon win the Presidency of “recruitment efforts” that would commence leads to another question: Did this recruitment really happen during all the supposed Christian presidents in the past or would it only occur for minority religious groups?

That a Mormon in office would “confuse the American people” about what the Christian faith teaches about the nature of God leads me, at least, to another question: Is it reasonable to assume that a Mormon President would pontificate about such matters when and if he assumes the Presidency? Have other true or nominal Christian Presidents done that, that is, provoked discussions of Christian truths?
I can’t argue with your assertion that the American people would be confused though. But then, the American people are so confused about so many crucial things (moral issues…life, marriage, etc)that I don’t think it would matter all that much.

It’s a non-issue.  Of the 43 men who have held the office, all but 1 were heretics.

It’s a non-issue.  Of the 43 men who have held the office, all but 1 were heretics.

So simple and so true.  As my theology teacher used to say, Satanism and Methodism will both by you a one way ticket to Hell.  The only difference might be the level.

How about Unitarians—many of whom in our time recognize many “saviours?” Yet their roots are in the traditional American churches that founded Harvard University and, indeed, laid the foundations of our country.
  Let’s stick to political issues in elections and look at where candidates stand today and how they have politically behaved when in office.

Of course a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Mormon)is Christian.  How ridiculous to say otherwise!! A “Christian” is a follower of Christ. A Mormon may be a member of an unusual Christian sect that follows a somewhat unusual theology, but still follows closely to the ideals and beliefs of our blessed Savior.

By that argument, a Muslim is a Christian.  True, he thinks that Jesus is a prophet, not our Savior, but it would—by that logic—be ridiculous to deny him the title Christian on that ground.

Valid BAPTISM makes you a Christian

@LRoy: I, too, am from Massachusetts and I follow politics pretty closely up here. Romney chose not to run for re-election because the egotist had a bad case of Potomac Fever. He put forward his idea of health care now more commonly known by what it should’ve always been referred to by: MassHealth. He got the train going, but he jumped and thankfully the boyos on Beacon Hill not only saved it, but they improved it. It’s not perfect, but it’s a step in the right direction.
  Romney’s religious views bother me less than his egotistic vanity. For crying out loud, the guy’s a walking manniquin; all teeth, good hair and smilies, oh he’s got more smiles to throw around than the Great and General Court has broken promises when it comes to locating gambiling casinos outside of House Speaker DeLeo’s own district covering Revere.
  When it came to job production, a very pro-free enterprise, gung ho for entreprenurial business activity whose entire stint in the governor’s corner office on Beacon Hill was spent while a similarly minded presdident from the same party occupied the Oval Office ... guided the Commonwealth into the distinct position of being 47th when it came to job creation.
  I don’t care if this guy believed the Dali Lama was a genuine Mormon and Buddha was Catholic, save for the fact it’s solidify my gut hunches that he’s far from being all up there as he and his handlers have made himself out to be ... he’s just a colossally STUPID DUD. But a colossally stupid dud who so far managed to squirm his way out of every possible snare awaiting him to explain why he became such a prolifer just before announcing he was bolting Boston for DC on his first attempt at massive ego massaging. How else can anybody explain his sudden Damascus conversion on abortion save for the fact that he needed to get hopping preparing himself for battle in the South Carolina GOP primary?
  As for Michelle Bachman ... sorry fellow Bay Stater ... I’d just as soon mark my X for a ticket of Nancy Pelosi and Martha Coakley than Bachman and whatever sadsack she’d (have to connive) to be on her “team.”

@ Harrison

The burden of proof first rests on the Mormon to show how one can be Christian and polytheistic at the same time before he or she should expect others to accept that they are Christian simply because they say they are a follower of Christ.

Anyone can say they believe what Christ did and taught and that the King James Bible is the most important book to them and so forth, but if they believe in the existence of more than one god, then they are stepping far out of what is commonly understood with regard to the meaning of “Christian”.  Mormons should be ready to show how the what it means to be “Christian” reconciles with polytheism, as it is commonly understood by people that even merely to “follow Christ” has nothing to do with believing in more than one god.  To simply resort back to the “but I follow Christ and so I’m a Christian” response would be to divert the matter from addressing the burden of proof which still rests on the Mormon to first show how being “Christian” reconciles with polytheism.  If this burden of proof is not addressed by the Mormon simply because he or she thinks others should accept them as being Christian simply because the Mormon thinks and says so, it could be intellectually dishonest given the apparent fact that Christians generally aren’t polytheistic, and that such a matter concerning the nature of God(s) cannot be glossed over as just another difference between various denominations.  What also happens if Mormons insist that others should accept they are Christian just because they think or say so, is that what it means to be “Christian” comes to means less and less, since this would make it more and more apparent that anyone can call oneself Christian no matter what he or she believes, and there could be as many different meanings for the word Christian as there are people saying they are Christian just because they think and say so, each person basing his or her own claim to be Christian on his or her own individual understanding of what it means to be Christian.

Good article Mr. Akin. Steven Greydanus’ comment leads to another related issue: If God is “evolving” as he is in Mormon theology how can there be eternal, universal “self-evident” truths such as those relied upon by our Founders? A President who believes truth is mutable is a danger to the Republic in a way that one who believes in objective universal truth though his understanding of it may change, is not.

Well done: A perfect post Tom Griego (on Monday, Aug 8, 2011 9:57 AM (EDT):)

Your comment is the only relevant one here - you cut right to heart of the matter - because he is a believing Mormon, he has a serious logic fault - the same logic fault that Muslims suffer: When push comes to shove, they do not believe in an underlying reality, and opinion begins to replace truth.

Coming from the UK this is all very unfamiliar. We live in a multi-cultural society and so most of us accept our politicians will represent different parts of that society. The main talent I look for in a leader is someone who can pull all those strands together for common good, and someone who will maintain freedom for all of us to practice our faith.

The argument is probably a wash. The damage has already been done. The public is already confused as to what Christianity is. You have Christians and even Catholics saying they are Catholics, yt are pro-homosexual or pro-abortion and make it seem as if it’s all well and good to be a Catholic and support these things and go stick out their hands for Holy Communion…

We are likely still to chose the politician who is against abortion or homosexuality over the politician who is a mormon, because it is still the lesser of two evils and we still have the ability to convert them after the fact so nothing in a sense is lost unlike the murder of children or further legitimizing and encouraging homosexuals in their sin. Though honestly speaking, if you’re going after homosexuals, one should be consistent and go after heterosexuals who contracept, co-habit, have casual sex with one or many partners etc. The reason homosexuals have gotten as far as they have is because they did so on the backs of immoral heterosexuals.

As to the references to Mormons and Christians and Michael last above the real issue is which leader and her/his followers are going to re-claim the authentic Christian-GrecoRoman-Jewish-Mesopotamian cultures we see being eroded daily by our elected leaders and their Courts and parliaments/legislatures.

Someone who adheres to the tenets of Mormonism is already flawed in their thought process. I would wonder if this same thought process would spill over in the decisions a President needs to make.

Many more people would leave Christianity for a sub-Christian sect, our nation’s Christian cultural heritage would be further eroded, and countless souls might go to Hell instead of Heaven.

Steve,

Right now we KNOW that a million and a half (double that if you count fathers, doctors, nurses and those who work in the clinics) souls are in danger of going to hell.  That’s upwards of 2 million souls a year in this country that are going to be lost for SURE, even given those who will repent.  A Mormon in the White House leaves room for a POTENTIAL loss of souls.

For me, there is no question.  I’ll take my chances with the Mormon (IF he/she is pro life) over the certaintly of a pro choice candidate who guarantees the loss of millions of souls, not to mention millions of lives.

Note however, I wish I didn’t have to make that choice.  But, a Mormon in the White House might also give us a chance to go public with the differences and that could actually work in our favor!  Bring the whole thing into the light.  At least if it’s out in the open we can point out the differences between true Christianity and false sects that imitate it.

I do not see the logic of people leaving Christianity for Mormonism if the President were a Mormon. The Grace of God is given to those who are called to Jesus’ Catholic Christian Church. He uses others as the instrument to draw them but ultimately His Holy Spirit is in charge. Mormon missionaries are very successful and admirable for their zeal. However if Christians were formed and transformed by their leaders there would be less slippage as they could see the obvious contradictions between the New Testament and Jesus’ clear teaching therein over against the Mormon version of the Gospels and Paul’s letters and Acts and the rest. Polygamy which was part of Mormonism at its inception and it still haunts the Church today is a clear example of an obvious divide between Jesus of Nazareth the God-Man, born of the Virgin Mary and the concoction offered by Mormon teachingh which says He abandoned His promise to be with His CHURCH at the end of Matthew and decided to break that promise and start all over again with a polygamist sect.

We must pray for a conversion of hearts, then voting for a candidate will be easy.

Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death. Amen.

Just because someone says he or she is a Baptized Christian does not mean they will not die as big fat liars. Lying is so common today that we should all vote on what we consider the best rumor. I will vote for anyone who sees that Abortion is most often the most heartless and vicious kind of murder that ever existed or ever will exist - and, most often, the mothers themselves are nothing less than cold hearted murderers who are willing to murder their own innocent little babies - vote for the mammal, it is the best rumor around in this mix of professional liars. On the other hand, keep in mind that Mormons have an identical theology when it comes to REASON and LOGIC - they both believe that compared to the whims of God, reason and logic can be changed totally - so when a prophet appears and says, “Negros are fallen angels” or “Jews are much more apt to be evil than any other people”, they are most likely going to be believed (but I think the Mormon is a secret agnostic anyway)

Sorry about my post up there, I left out an important word: Just because someone says he or she is a Baptized Christian does not mean they will not die as big fat liars. Lying is so common today that we should all vote on what we consider the best rumor. I will vote for anyone who sees that Abortion is most often the most heartless and vicious kind of murder that ever existed or ever will exist - and, most often, the mothers themselves are nothing less than cold hearted murderers who are willing to murder their own innocent little babies - vote for the mammal, it is the best rumor around in this mix of professional liars. On the other hand, keep in mind that Mormons have an identical theology TO THE MUSLIMS when it comes to REASON and LOGIC - they both believe that compared to the whims of God, reason and logic can be changed totally - so when a prophet appears and says, “Negros are fallen angels” or “Jews are much more apt to be evil than any other people”, they are most likely going to be believed (but I think the Mormon is a secret agnostic anyway)

Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/blog/should-america-elect-a-polytheist-who-claims-to-be-christian/#ixzz1UZARg4dp

I’d vote for the real Christian. Catholic first obviously, Protestants second, that’s it for me.

I think that you need to clarify why it is in your article you refer to Mormons as being “polytheists.” Where did you learn that one? If you wanted someone to learn more about the Catholic Church, where would you recommend they get their information? Something to consider. Anyway,your polytheist claim is a heavy charge full of serious mud-slinging at people, who yes, completely identify themselves as Christians- just not being in line with your Catholic Dogma. It may also be of a surprise to you to learn that many Protestant faiths view the Trinity different from each other and the traditionally held Catholic view, so Mormons are not alone on that one. Aside from this, I serioulsy hope you realize that Mormons are pro-life, too; so what exactly is your point,then? And by this, I mean other than being obviously ignorant of the Mormon faith and a bigot.

@Steven V - Are you Mormon? If so, please let us know what Mormons believe.

Protestants who do not accept the Early Councils’ definition of the clear teaching in the New Testament about the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are heretics, Mormons are also even if they claim to be Christians which is so difficult given the many contradictions between the NT written by JESUS’ contemporaries or their immediate succcesors and the US 19th later strange texts.

@Diego O’ Reilly: Who (or how) do you know who the “real Christian” candidate is when it comes to politics today? Quick glance at his/her religious affiiliation? Well, David and Charles Koch are Christians (and I believe David’s a convert.) But I sure as hell their damn oligarchic notions about governance gaining any more traction. Add the Dutch Reformed Van Andels and DeVos families as well. Moreover, if I even get wind that a candidate—in any party—uses one of the Religious Right’s favorite dog whistles, “pro-life” to snag his voters, while hoping, if not praying, prospective voters won’t see the real record this guy or gal might have when it comes to outsourcing jobs overseas, union-busting, using powerful social issues, such as abortion and gay marriage, as wedge issues to deceive and split the opposition, that candidate’s chances of getting vote are toast.
  Romney’s church believes in establishing social safety nets, but only for their own fellow Mormons; or if it is open, they’re just like so many other evangelical Protestant denominations or individual churches who still have no compunction in using the dispensation of charity as a means of prosyletization.
  If somebody needs a bag of groceries and he walks into a Catholic parish operating a “food pantry” ... he’s treated with dignity (as I would presume in a Mormon or Protestant congregation) ... but there’s no strings attached. Huge difference.

@To all: Please overlook my grammatical errors in the post above. I need governors on my fingers, no matter what party they belong to. Stop, think, then type. Then look it over again. Famous last words.

Promoting the CONSISTENT ETHIC OF lIFE in the electorate is indispensable for that to inform the society, and the Government will follow in the White House, Congress and all State and national Governments worldwide. A long term goal but since JESUS announced it the Church itself has been praying about the Gospel, slowly coming to undedrstand and promote it even as it did not always understand and practice it in official policies and practices.

People already think Christianity is polytheistic. Saying, “In the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit” is enough for many people.

Maybe we should be proactive instead of reactive.

That objection is very old and a big part of Islam’s ignorance against Christianity. It is not easy to discuss anything with closed minds!

http://www.israeltoday.co.il/tabid/178/nid/22903/language/en-US/Default.aspx

@ Steven V.
A polytheist is someone who believes in the existence of more than one God.  Mormons believe that God was once a man and was himself made by another God.  Mormons also believe that another God made the God who made our God, and so forth.  And, that those who go to heaven will also be Gods who can create their own people and universes.  There are quite a few Gods present here, no?
The Mormon explanation for all this is that they worship the one “Godhead”.  OK, has not the “Godhead” been eternally present, without any beginning, in God?  But if God was once a man, then there was a moment when the Godhead did not coexist with him.  And, if there was such a moment, is he really God?  Is not God “without beginning or end”?  (Rev. 1:8, cf. Ps.90:2, Deut. 33:27, 1 Tim. 1:17)  The Mormon response to this is that all our souls have always existed with God.  OK, then with what God did the Godhead coexist for eternity?  Ours, or the one who made him, or the one who made him, or the one before that?  All of them?  If the Godhead which is worshipped has coexisted for eternity with all these Gods, then would it have been worshipped when coexisting with our God when he was still a man?  And, if the Godhead coexists with all the Gods, then why is it and not all the Gods worshipped?  Does not the Godhead proceed from God’s being from all eternity, he who is the great I AM?  But how could this be if God was once a man?  Did the Godhead come before God?  If so, then how could he really be God?  God is the source of all being, even of the presence of the Godhead.  But if the Godhead is subject to God’s existence, then it would have begun at a point in time, when God became God from being a man, and not eternal.  In which case, why would you worship it?  If the Godhead, always existed, and coexisted with each God as he became God, then how is it that this attribute of God existed without the being of God himself, upon whom all being is subject (Rom 11:36), as there needs to be a point in time when each God was not yet God, but the Godhead supposedly still existed?  If each God and the Godhead are mutually codependent, then how still is God dependent upon the existence of something else?  Are we being to picky by making such distinctions between God(s) and the Godhead?  Why do we not say they are simply the same thing?  Because then we would be saying the Godhead came to exist when God became God, and thus worshipping something or someone who is not eternal.  Please also note that I am pairing Mormon teaching up to teaching about God in the Bible, and not strictly with Catholic theology.

So, you see, the Mormon explanation for why Mormons can believe in one God but not be polytheistic is rather untenable and leaves more questions then it does explain anything.  One could even say that one who asks such questions is taking Mormon teaching more seriously than Mormons who use the “Godhead” reasoning to explain how Mormons are not polytheistic.  One can definitely say that people with such questions are taking Mormon teaching more seriously than those who call them bigoted for drawing Mormon theology out to its necessary conclusions.

Catholic theology about the TRINITY is exactly what the New Testament teaches. The early Councils spelled it out in Greek philosophy to make it clear by reason that it was this, not that, including the pre-esistence of the Word who became Flesh in time. It took care of the gobbledegook of earlu heresies and later Islam and USA 19th century Mormonism.

i totally agree. if a Mormon is nominated for national office then it is the duty of every true Christian to vote for the monotheist candidate in the race: Obama.

great article. a proper view of the trinity is waaaaay more important than abortion. i’d also like to know where candidates stand on the question of faith versus works, as well as the problem of evil. the debate last night focused way to much on trivial issues like geopolitics and economic policy.

Ham sandwich with RELISH??YUK!! Try mustard or mayo~~~ you might like it better truly!HA! Have a good week end all!

I just cannot wrap my ahead around voting for someone who is a Mormon. Their beliefs are totally off the mark of Christianity. So far off the mark that it is scary that someone could actually believe what they do.

@palerobber - “a proper view of the trinity is waaaaay more important than abortion”. I totally disagree. As a Catholic, abortion needs to be the number one issue. We can implement change with committed people in office. Thousands of babies are being killed every day in this country and there is no greater evil in this Nation. It needs to end.

Thank you for your intrepid honesty in this matter.  Mr. Romney is a “man of good character” in my opinion, but you have made a convincing case that his polytheistic views are very questionable.  I will think long and hard before considering the endorsement of Mr. Romney’s polytheism, no matter how poised he was at the Iowa debate.

I have no idea who you are, but I do know that you are a bigot. As, apparently, are many of your readers. Good luck with that.

@Charles Teachout: I was one of Romney’s former constituents when he was governor of my commonwealth. Massachusetts was 47th in job creation. How can this man have so much “character” running as a “job creator” and for the so-called other “job-creators” in his caste…regardless of their respective faiths ... if most of the jobs he’s responsible for creating are overseas after all his leveraging and buying out of one company after another prior to becoming governor in Jan 03?
  What constitutes “good character” in anybody’s mind when they hear this man talk about corporations being “persons” in every way short of possessing human flesh, a brain and most imporantly, a soul? Yes, corporations have been given a limited degree of personhood status up until the Citizens United decision in January 2010, perhaps the second worst decision the Court’s rendered in the past fifty or so years, save of course for Roe v. Wade. This artificial “personhood” was granted by the Court years back so they could be more fairly represented in courts, etc. Problem was that over the years, the Corporate America, Inc. flexed its muscles in such manner as to abuse this artificial standing so they could run roughshod over local governments, smaller businesses and with Citizens United, practically overwhelm every election Corporate America decides to back a candidate in primaries and general elections (and ballot petition drives as well) sans any disclosure requirements.) Corporate America, Inc. has also abused its (once tamed and reasonably limited status) by instituting SLAPP suits against any public official or even private citizens writing letters to local newspaper editorial pages protesting XYZ Co’s decision to build a huge megastore on wetlands. What can small towns do to fight these nuisance suits, never mind non-wealthy private citizens? Since Corporate America,Inc., which happens to be one of Romney’s biggest pals, has long sought limits on jury payments in tort cases to $250K, would it be too much to ask why a violation of one’s First Amendment Rights doesn’t merit a single cent more than $250K when even if the company that’s harrassed people into silence for publicly challenging whatever any corporation seeks to do in their hometowns can afford to shrug off a $249,999.99 jury award as “operating costs”?
  And what man of “good character” would have the audacity of insulting the intelligence of the crowd by saying that successful corporations pass down their earnings in the manner he did when the public has long caught on to the common knowledge that for many American corporations ... they make darn sure their money goes to their Benedict Arnold off-shore bank accounts and earn their stockholders whopping dividends thanks to the savings of these Cayman Island “headquarters” and Benedict Arnold bank accounts, never mind their tax breaks for outsourcing their labor to China and India.
  If this is an indicator of what it means to be a man “of good character,” I can only imagine what a rogue would look like in your estimations.

Excellent post Steven, reasoned and factual.
As to the posts about the Trinity and the proper biblical understanding, that is totally irelevant to the office of President, most of whom use war and destruction to “win” and in fact cause more death, unleashed racism and ethnic and religious intolerance and refugees and destroyed homes and businesses. So much for “God is love” and “Love one another” By this “shall all know you are my disciples.”
As to abortion being the highest priority it is factually and emotionlly even if the Ethic of Life is conception to natural death. We also know we have separation of powers and there is little a president can do except stack the S Court as Mr Obama did by voting as a senator against John Roberts and Samuel Alito for the court, both pro-unborn life Catholics. The balance is delicate now, all he needs is another resignation or death and it swings 5-4 for keeping abortion.  The economy re taxes and health care and SS aand Medicare are LIFE issues also. Our focus needs to be on the intelligent use of reason, expose lies and part-truth to form the electorate so we have a conversion as we had for ending slavery and discrimination. We can learn from the minority who oppose marriage and favor abortion without restriction that it is possible to fool and hoodwink the electorate and even the Courts with slogans and partial truth and clever use of language “rights” and “discrimination” for issues where there is absolutely no “right” in the Constituion (abortion). It is not discrimination to deny that man plus man or woman plus woman is equal to marriage. Each citizen has a fundamental right to be free of harassment but that does not cover fakery as in equating marriage to same gender activity in law. The Natural Law which governs our whole legal and ethical system is blown away now, the Trinity and polytheism are non-issues for now.

The major points the OP makes suggest he is either grossly ignorant of Mormon theology and Biblical scripture, or he’s a deceptive liar who is deliberately misrepresenting Mormon theology in a rather lame attempt to “prove” we are not Christians.

What is the definition of “Christian”?  It SHOULD be, one who follows Jesus the Christ—who emulates his life and teachings and ministry.  “By this shall men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another” (John 13:35), thus, one who loves and serves his fellow (wo)man.  The Savior himself declared in Matthew 25 how he will judge each of us, and that judgement has nothing to do with bickering about definitions of Trinity (a word by the way you will NOT find in any Bible).  The separation of “sheep” from “goats”, the saved and the unsaved, is entirely based on how we demonstrate love for one another.  Do we care about the poor, the naked, the homeless, the widows?  Or do we simply pay God lip service?  That’s the important question.  Jesus said, “by their fruits ye shall know them” (Matt 7:20).  We each need to examine the fruits of our own faith, and determine how it is we are walking with God, before we try to condemn others regarding their walk with Him.

What else does the Bible teach about God and our relationship to Him?  This lies at the heart of the discussion here, and about the misapplication of disingenuous labels like “polytheism”.

It’s true that Mormons believe we are literally children of God: “And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together” (Romans 8:17), and “Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High” (Psalm 82:6; John 10:34).  Doesn’t a child grow up to become like his or her parents?  What’s so crazy or weird about that?  “Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect” (Matthew 5:48)

Yet despite this realization, we only worship God the Father and His son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit (as one godhead; 3 individuals, ONE purpose).  The Savior himself makes this doctrine very clear in the Bible, in the 17th Chapter of John:

“21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:

23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast bloved them, as thou hast loved me.”

Mormons don’t worship other gods.  We worship one God the Father, His son Jesus, and the Holy Spirit.  We have no knowledge or interest or concern with any other gods.  To suggest that we do, is utter nonsense.  To insist that we do is a disingenuous and deceptive lie.

As to Mitt Romney, I don’t much care if you vote for him or not (I actually prefer president Obama personally), but at least get the facts straight regarding his religious beliefs.

Then how could there be “bad Christians?”

Doesn’t work.  A Christian is one who is validly baptized.  It ain’t about “following.”  A puppy could follow Jesus

The label of “Christian” should never be applied to an institution, but always rather to an individual.  Jesus said, “if ye love me, keep my commandments”.  He went on to say, “If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father’s commandments, and abide in his love.” (John 15:10)

I’ve known some fellow Latter-Day Saints whom I would not consider disciples of Christ, unfit for the label of Christian, wholly lacking in compassion and charity.  I’ve also known Catholics (and Protestants and others) whom I would deem Christians, as well as those I would not.

I therefore suggest each of us judge accordingly (and let’s start by looking in the mirror first).

For example, if we make, say, abortion the key determining factor in electing our next president, while continuing to ignore the plight of millions of children already born—in regards to hunger, poverty, lack of affordable health care and education—are we not hypocrites?

Thank you Hermit Talker and your post raised up a lot of interesting points that aren’t exactly what politicians want to mess with. And that’s understandable because the media will twist and turn every position a politician states on matters that are best left to theologians and philisophers ... and before you know it, more people are following stories about who said what that was so off the wall as opposed to why it was off the wall (or for that matter, wasn’t.)
  Romney’s been this “are Mormons suitable for the presidency” rodeo before and did what JFK should’ve done a half century ago. He said to get off his back, wheras Kennedy tossed his own hiearchy here and in Rome below his campaign bus when he addressed a group of Baptist ministers in Houston shortly before the election.
  I think Romney is a condescending, boring and very sneaky businessman-turned-old-fashioned Republican money-bags pol who…outside of defending his religious views…is nearly as cluless and tactless as Rick Santorum when it comes to what most voters really care about. Rest assured in this economy, Romney’s past record of union-busting, leveraged buyouts using money he earned the old fashioned way (a nice cushy inheritance from his father and former presidential candidate George Romney and his disgraceful track record when it comes to outsourcing is as thin to run on as Rick Santorum’s moral tirades and tendency to lecture people down in the most insensitive way imaginable. http://thinkprogress.org/health/2011/08/08/290934/santorums-message-to-people-who-cant-afford-health-care-costs-lower-your-cell-phone-bill/
  I seriously believe most Mormons would never tolerate the way Romney treated some of the crowd and a few hecklers at the Iowa State fair last Thursday when he spoke ever so-glowingly about the beneficience of corportations (LOL) and compounded his whopper by referring to either the heckerls or members of the crowd he was addressing as “friends.” (ROLF!)
  At least he didn’t go so far as to say “now children ....”
  With apologies to the late Ann Richards, “Poor ol’ lil’ Mitt, he can’t help it if he was born with a spankin’ brand new nickel-plated Rambler’s bumper in his mouth.”

amusedMormon I like your expanding your concern for life beyond the unborn, we call that the Consistent Ethic of Life as Catholics, or the Seamless Garment, Jesus’  cloak when he was crucified and the soldiers did nut tear it.————FOR all of us judging is a danger as we have no idea what the other is going through, how were they formed and their tomorrow might not be their today as far as their ideas and conduct. Jesus told us about the wheat and weeds growing together untile the end, the good and bad fish sorted out at the end of the fishing trip. Jesus is the only judge

There are issues that Mormon’s are strong in, namely the family.  I’m a bit confused on a lot of their beliefs but it’s same with many protestant relegions.  If Mitt is strongly pro family and pro life (and I have to be convinced still about this) then I can vote for him.

@Blake: Can’t say I’m sorry to do you a favor by breaking some bad news to you when it comes to Romney and I simply hate to see more people fooled by his schtick. This is a guy who’s done nothing for average working families in Massachusetts, a state he couldn’t wait to be a Senator from, (running twice, against Ted Kennedy and John Kerry) and practically getting the few Republican bosses left on Beacon Hill to join him in an intra-party coup long before any primaries or the general election to boot former Governor Jane Swift out of her job. In between his political run ups (for his real goal, the Oval Office) he was too busy buying up companies, only to use them as leverage, firing their employees en masse to impress his banking buddies on Wall Street and Boston’s State Street’s banking cabal. When he wasn’t busting unions, firing people en masse and readying himself for the next political rodeo, he was outsourcing jobs overseas. Massachusetts was 47th when it came to job creation during his reign of complacent misrule. Even MassHealth, which he treats now with arms-length disdain as other wife-cheaters might with an illegitimate child, was vastly improved after he left Boston to run for the White House. Prior to that move, he was hardly the “prolife” former guv he’s cleverly packaging himself off to be. His Damascene change-around had a calendar date with the South Carolina Primary nudging it along as no other reason could in years past.
  Job killing sudden prolife political ham and opportunist. Does that sound like a solid family guy? Maybe it’s best to find out from alot of the families whose lives were turned upside down in one of the most expensive states, only to be followed up by his four years that provided even less hope no thanks to his meager political skills.

My take on the “Mormon Question” is based on “Faith of My Fathers” Mr Romney postulated a number of years back. It would appear he is assigning the polytheism of his father with a preference to say the “Faith of Catholic Fathers.”

I see Romney and now Perry as men of great faith, I don’t agree with either; they are from the same thread, and the “wackos” in that thread have no need for Catholic, regardless where we may roam.

These are single issue politicians, the issue is “life” which I agree but then we fall into the great trap of Evangelical Christians, their way or no other.

The Catholic Church has been under attack for decades in America and it is up to each Catholic the carry that torch, belief forward, or close the doors; from this site that seems not to be the case.

I speak from knowledge of what State and Religion can do when there are within the Community those who believe as published in 2006.
Foreign Affairs is a Conservative Monthly. The “preemptive war” doctrine has usurped Aquinas’ “Just War” theory and like this Protestant idea, they stole from the Catholic belief that a war should be just, that the end of war should have a just result, that war should be avoided if not deliberate by a state.

That is Catholic thought. While the horrific to 9/11 is not a State action as defined by the “Just War” doctrine we should have debated this war differently, as I reject the “preemptive war” doctrine. To me we have been at war or involved in “Conflict” since by birth, are we the new Huguenots, the new Huns that ravage through Countries because, simply put, we can? These are the polemics of the Republican “wackos” These elected officials sign pledges by the unselected to affect Social change. Who is Grover Norquist and why this aversion to tax? We elect and then the elected govern, the tail is running these dogs.

To the Foreign Affairs treatise, from a Henry Kissinger, Russel Mead opines; ““fundamentalists involves three characteristics: a high view of Biblical authority and inspiration; a strong determination to defend the historical Protestant faith against Roman Catholic and modernist, secular, and non-Christian influence; and the conviction that believers should separate themselves from the non-Christian world…

So as with Romney and now with Perry, the new “football Christians” really have no use for the tradition if there is any other, Catholics. remember we are taught young the distrust of Christianity as seem by the Protestant movement, Jerry Falwell RIP, may have awakened some on the moral issues of the day, excuse me he taught me nothing I did not already know. Kids hear these things and mature on their thing, some with limited thinking skills believe. Are we to segregate ourselves again to protect our faith? We are the Catholic Church and our children need to,know the difference as they are becoming muted by the cacophony of “our Lord and Savious” chorus of Fundamentalist in our Government.

Sic Transit Gloria

@ amusedMormon

I am hard pressed to find anyone’s position here stating that Mormons are polytheists because they worship more than one God; polytheism is the belief in the existence of more than one God, or, to use Joseph Smith’s own phrasology, belief in the “the plurality of Gods”, from when he stated:

“I will preach on the plurality of gods. I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see” (King Follett Discourse).

Joseph Smith also stated in the King Follett Discourse:
“God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! That is the great secret. If the veil were rent today, and the great God who upholds all worlds and all things by his power, was to make himself visible—I say, if you were to see him today, you would see him like a man in form—like yourselves in all the person, image, and very form as a man; for Adam was created in the very fashion, image, and likeness of God, and received instruction from, and walked, talked and conversed with him, as one man talks and communes with another”.

So, I don’t think it’s “disingenuous” or even “bigoted” as some have held to says that Mormons are polytheists.  They believe in more than one god, as taught by Joseph Smith himself.  There is no way getting around this.

Further, Mormons are to hold these teachings of Joseph Smith as revealed truth despite the fact that the Book of Mormon teaches:

“I know that God is not a partial God, neither a changeable being; but he is unchangeable from all eternity to all eternity” (Moroni 8:18).

-AND-

“For do we not read that God is the same yesterday, today and forever, and in him there is no variableness, neither shadow of changing? And now, if ye have imagined up unto yourselves a god who doth vary, and in whom there is shadow of changing, then ye have imagined up unto yourselves a god who is not a God of miracles” (Mormon 9:9-10).

So, God was once a man and became God (which requires quite a degree of change, cf. Isaiah 55:8-9, Romans 11:33-34), but he is also the same yesterday, today and forever, and in him there is no variableness.

Second, it must be noted that although you say that Jesus and the Holy Spirit are worshipped by Mormons, you forget to mention that according to Mormon theology they are also considered gods separate from one another and from God the Father.  Jesus Christ according to Mormon theology is merely one of many gods conceived by God and his heavenly wife and then raised among the council of the gods.  Joseph Smith also originally taught that the Holy Spirit was merely the “mind” of God the Father and of Jesus (Journal of Discourses 2:268).  So if they are separate gods but also worshipped by Mormons as you hold, then do you not worship more than one god after all?  So, if we are going to consider whether Mormons are polytheists according to the definition which is suddenly made up by those who say it’s polytheism only to worship more than one god, then, if Mormons worship God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit, who are all separate gods according to Mormon theology, then Mormons are still polytheists according to these same terms presented by Mormons, interestingly enough, when explaining how they are not polytheists.

@Richard

I have demurred from reading the book of Moroni as in Catholicism it is an 1860’s version of a Nationalist bent on a view of Religion.It’s Christianity was not unveiled until recently Explain that phenomena please.

@ Joe McCarthy
The book of Moroni is the last of the books that make up the Book of Mormon.  If you Google “Book of Moroni”, you may find a summary of it on Wikipedia, which seems rather objective.  When you say “it’s” are you referring to Catholicism’s or the Book of Moroni’s?  I’d say there are many other examples going back throughout history exemplifying a Nationalist view of religion.  Sometimes whole nation’s consider themselves a nation inasmuch as they centered around a common religion.  Conversely, sometimes considering oneself a member of a nation rises to the level of a religion. I would be delighted to learn more of what happened in the 1860’s with Catholicism with regard to the development of a Nationalistic view of religion, if I am correct in catching this as of your camparison.  What nation would this have pertained to?  Catholicism was all over the world at the time.

@Richard
The 1860’s in America were defining. Not only did Joseph Smith begin his western sojourn, Indiana history is not kind to the Mormon trek. The Blaine Amendment evolved as a direct attack against the catholic Church, it was not even subtle. Horace Man a notorious anti-Catholic began the Public Schools system and attempted to place a Bible in every classroom, an yet another bizarre religion took root with Seventh Day Adventists. We all have our own histories Richard this is not an attack.

Fundamental/Evangelical Christianity has a propensity to be an “in your face” religion with the “Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” mantra, specifically in the Catholicism is aspire are vulgar and apostate in using the “Lord name in vain” if that rings true.

California adopted the Blaine Amendments, what was deliberately left out? That same mantra, as the John: 13 has been abused and for those few words all left in whatever Bible you choose to follow, there are redemptive passage which contradict the obsession of some over the dogma of others. I wish you the peace of Christ, suffice to say, the history of Catholicism has been under attack for a very long time, the colonial period was famous for their contempt, that would be Protestantism.

Sic Transit Gloria

@ Joe McCarthy

I see.  Thanks for clarifying.  From what you say, there does indeed seem to be a parallel between the Mormon and Catholic Churches in America at that time.

@Richard, Joseph Smith supposedly said and did a lot of things written in various journals, and quoted by others, which may or may not be accurate or true.  I’m certainly familiar with the King Follet discourse, but it is NOT part of the LDS scriptural canon; myself and other LDS regard such statements as speculative. Of course, I’m sure there have never been any leaders of your faith that ever said or did anything speculative or questionable… :)

But as I said earlier, we DO believe and teach that we are Spirit sons and daughters of a loving Heavenly Father.  I won’t make any excuses for such an idea (considering it is Biblical; see also for example Heb. 12:9 and Acts 17:29, etc.), and that at some future day we may become LIKE Him.  What does that mean to you?  We take God at His word.  So what?

The San Diego Chargers or the Dallas Cowboys, as an example, are (or at least should be) ONE…team.  They have a single objective and purpose, but they consist of several individuals with different jobs to do.  As does God’s “team” (godhead).  Just because some faiths hold the Nicene creed equal to scripture, the (rather confusing) concept of a Triune God that emerges from it, as you teach it, is nowhere to be found in scripture, and yet is contradicted by Scripture so frequently that I could be up all night giving you examples.  I could therefore suggest YOUR concept of God and Jesus is the “non-Christian” one, if you want to play that game.  I confess I am very curious what you make of Genesis 1:26—“...let US make man in OUR image…”.  Is God talking to himself here?

Earlier, what I should have written, is that we LDS worship and pray to one God the Father, and to no other.  We follow the example and teachings of His only begotten son, Jesus Christ, and believe that He, the sinless Christ, atoned for our sins, and overcame death, that we too might return to live with God, if we humbly and sincerely strive to live worthy of that sacrifice, to repent of our sins, forgive others, keep his commandments, and of course, by His grace.  We also seek to be worthy of the companionship of the Holy Spirit, whose “still, small voice” can guide and direct our lives, and give us comfort in times of trouble and sorrow, and who can inspire or prompt us to do good and make good choices.

This is what we believe.  I know of no other gods or goddesses beyond mere speculation that they may exist, possibly in some other remote corner of the universe.  If such a belief makes us, in your mind, polytheists, so be it.  I personally think that label is absurd, and highly irrelevant to the idea that this somehow makes us non-Christian.  But I suppose whoever makes up the definition gets to make that call.  Someone could just as easily create the definition that “only red-haired and freckled Irishmen are true Christians”.  The OP’s definition you’re defending here honestly sounds just as arbitrary (and silly).

Of course, I’m sure there have never been any leaders of your faith that ever said or did anything speculative or questionable… :)

Therein lies the problem.  Joseph Smith was not a leader of the Mormon Faith, but it’s FOUNDER, no? 

Jesus Christ is the founder of the Catholic Church.  How far do you think we’d get if we said “We don’t believe everything Jesus said.  After all, leaders often get things wrong.”  Sure, we have had leaders err.  But we aren’t talking about “leaders” here.  We’re talking about the guy who founded the Mormon Faith.  If you can’t trust HIM, what’s the point?

The GENESIS line 3;18 let US make man in OUR image has been understood by the Early Church Teachers (the Fathers) as a hint at the future Revelation of the Trinity, also the three angels who appeared to Abraham are seen as a foreshadowing.
The application of sons and daughters to God is carefully applied as He is God by Nature as is JESUS CHRIST by Nature the Word who became Flesh as the God-Man. Those who are baptized are raised to that same dignity by adoption which as the Eastern Churches like to say “divinised” “deified” but not Divine by nature.

Amused Mormon,

As always it comes down to one question.  On whose authority do you base your beliefs?  We base ours on Jesus Christ.  He founded our Church.  Protestants base their beliefs on themselves and men who broke away from the Church that Jesus instituted. You base your beliefs on one man, a mortal man, with no authority except his own.  It amuses me that non Catholics who believe they are Christian actually believe that it took thousands of years for the “Truth” to be known.  The Truth was revealed when Jesus walked the earth.  It wasn’t revealed 1800 years later to some guy with a magic stone.  Personally?  I’m thinkin’ Mr. Smith took one too many hits on the peyote pipe.

Catholicism teaches that there will be no further public revelation until the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. Therefore, any “revelation” beyond the New Testament is in error. Numbers 8 & 9 taken from the Mormon Articles of Faith state the following: (8) We believe the Bible to be the word of God, as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the ‘Book of Mormon’ to be the word of God. “(9) We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that he will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.

The sanctity of human life is the most important issue to consider in a candidate when voting. It need not be an and/or to other issues such as feeding the poor. There is no greater evil in the United States today than abortion. If we are “serious Catholics” then we vote for the candidate who is pro life. The reason why the current health care bill is so controversial is because it will provide coverage for abortion despite claims to the contrary. We cannot say. “but it will provide health care for poor families” while at the same time it provides for the killing of babies.

How about we stop insulting other Churches and their leaders. Usr reason and logic to deal with doctrnal issues, not texts or interpretations that are otdated or not officially accepted.
THE topic is can a polytheist be President AND are Mormons polytheists in belief and practice?

My comments were not meant as insults.  They are meant to point out that only the Catholic Church rests on the authority of God Himself.  Protestants and Mormons (as well as Christian Scientists and Jehovah Witnesses among others) rely on themselves as their authority.  Therefore, the Trinity and Valid Baptism are key to who can legitimately be called Christians.  On God’s authority, not mens.

As for polytheism:

They believe that Heavenly Father is a loving and exalted man, the Father of our Spirits and the one to whom we worship and pray to often. That he has a plan for us to follow and we need to align our will to his. We can do this by first following the example of his Son (also a God) Jesus Christ and second listening to the Holy Ghost (also a God and third member of the God Head) who the Father has sent that we might not be left alone.

That is straight from the Mormon Website.  Three separate Gods.  Polytheism.

http://mormon.org/faq/nature-of-god/

MK “one too many of the peyote pipe” referring to Mr Smith is an insult as are many others on here referring to different faiths and people. Stick with reason, logic and make your points sisters and brothers please.
Individuals can be fully humman and act morally well, regardless of their faith system or lack of formal faith formation. That is the Unseen Holy Spirit at work who “breathes where He wills ” as Jesus taught; including where we are influenced by the good example of others who cross our paths.

HT,

I’d be the first one to say that all men are capable of morality, regardless of their faith or lack thereof.  I have defended an atheists ability to be virtuous and moral right here on NCR many a time.

My reference to peyote was not out of hand.  Joseph Smith was 14 years old, from a family background of magical practices and rituals and the suddenly had “visions” of angels telling him that the Church had gotten it wrong for 1800 years.  In my mind that speaks of mental illness or drug induced hallucinations.  That IS reason.  We have no divine reason to believe in Joseph Smith or his visions/visitations.  Charles Manson claimed similar things.  So did David Koresh and Jim Jones. 

All I pointed out was that the only authority Joseph Smith stood on was his own and that was dubious at best. 

Here’s reason.  Joseph Smith made claims on no ones authority but his own.  The Mormon website states that they believe in a GODHEAD not a triune God.  That, in my book, is polytheism.  And Joseph’s claims are no greater than any other mortals.  Why is that unreasonable or illogical?

RE-read my posts. We may use logic and reason but not attack the person, we can challenge their teachings and sources- as Catholic Christians we are standing solidly on the entire Tradition of Bible, guidance by the Spirit and the consistent teachings of The Fathers and Councils. Sola Scriptura” - Bible alone is an invention of the Reformation whose leader Luther relied on Augustine’s theology- so much for the Bible alone- and twisted lots of texts, picked up A’s negative views on human sexuality; and was way-off about Faith and works and wanted to dump James who said faith without works is dead. They are ruderless as the mess shows today, who has the Truth and the fullness of the Holy Spirit at the core?

I have reread your comments HT, and I have reread mine.  Other than the peyote crack I don’t see anything else than can be called personal attack, and I explained that that was not a crack at amused Mormon, but an observation on what caused J.Smiths “visions”.  If the source of Joseph Smiths revelations can be questioned then the whole house of cards falls.  I don’t even need to address doctrine or teachings, because the man who started their church is already suspect.  I have attacked J.Smith personally no more or less than you attacked Luther.  I don’t have to go one step further than to say that Jesus, God Himself, instituted the Catholic Church.  He did not say “The gates of Hell will not prevail against her until the Apostles die…and then 1800 years from not we’ll pick it up where we left off”.  He instituted ONE Church.  That’s all we’ve ever needed to know.  No matter WHAT their doctrine says, it’s wrong, because it did not come from God.  It came from a 14 year old boy.  That’s it.  Period.  That’s not an attack on Mormons, it’s an attack on the validity and authority of their church.

@mk, Joseph Smith is not the “founder” of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS), not in the sense you imply.  Christ himself is the founder of our Church.  Joseph Smith was simply a tool or instrument in the hands of God to restore the very Church Jesus Christ established when he lived upon the earth.  We believe it needed to be restored, because what He first established no longer existed after centuries of apostasy, foretold and warned of throughout the New Testament.  Joesph Smith was, I believe, a prophet of God, as was Abraham, Moses, Isaiah, Peter, etc., called of God (he did not call himself).  And, like them, he was also a fallible man.  We have no delusions that he was perfect or infallible.  But the Lord used him, as He uses any and all of His disciples to do His work here on the earth.  He was simply the first in the latter-days of a succession of prophets and apostles that continue to lead today.  I realize, posting on a Catholic Blog, this is heresy to you, but that is our belief.  As I see it, your church fathers replaced the ordained prophet Peter and the 12 Apostles with a Pope and a council of Cardinals (neither of which terms I can find in scripture).  They replaced the clear teachings of the infant church regarding the true nature of God as our Father, with the mass of confusion called the Nicene creed. Instead of enlightenment, the world was plunged into the dark ages; instead we got the Inquisition, the repression of science and knowledge, the murder of those who sought to translate the scriptures, etc.  These hardly seem to be the fruits of the true church.  Thus, in his own due time, Christ came again and restored His Prophet and 12 apostles and his original, unperverted doctrines, and they continue today in the LDS church.  I don’t expect you to accept or believe any of that, but that is what we believe.

Naturally, this is all a moot point if you insist on limiting your arbitrary definition of “Christian” to only those who embrace the unscriptural (and untenable and contradictory) notion of a “triune” God—a concept baffling to any rational being, IMO—taken from a document that was compiled centuries after Christ by a committee of men who laid no claim to revelation, heavily influenced by Hellenistic and pagan ideas, seemingly to broaden the appeal of the early church to the unwashed masses.  Y’all are welcome to that.  That is certainly your prerogative and right, but don’t expect the rest of us to swallow it with any kind of relish.  If God actually cares so much about upholding this rather bizarre accounting of his alleged triune nature, to the extent that he would actually send me to hell simply for failure to comprehend and embrace it, then he is certainly no god worthy of anyone’s worship or devotion, IMO.

On the other hand, the knowledge I have that He is truly the Father of my spirit, who loves and cares for me (like my earthly father does), gives me hope and fuels my faith that life truly has meaning; it allows me to face the trials and tribulations of life with the hope that someday I can return, like the prodigal son that I am, to Him and live forever with Him.  I can thus see his commandments, not as an arbitrary set of rules designed to stifle fun, but as a set of guidelines to help bring us true happiness and joy, as we navigate the pitfalls of mortality.  It also enlightens me to realize that all of my fellow humans are truly brothers and sisters, a perspective that sobers me to the realization that—black, brown, Muslim and Hindu, Atheist and Buddhist, Jew and Gentile, along with all the various and sundry permutations of Christianity—at the end of the day we need to love one another, treat each other with respect and dignity, and strive to get along.  We need to help each other, succor and lift and forgive and empower each other, not tear each other down, nor constantly compete with one another.  We really ARE family.  If such a belief is somehow repellent or unacceptable to you, then I truly feel sorry for you.

AM,

They replaced the clear teachings of the infant church regarding the true nature of God as our Father

How does one know what the “infant church” looked like? 

Jesus Christ instituted the Church using Peter as it’s visible head here on earth.  This is recorded, witnessed and we can see that it was followed in the books following the Gospels, extrabiblical books, and the writings of the Church Fathers.  That is how we know that the authority that the Catholic Church claims to have, is the authority that it was given by God Himself.  Joseph Smith, warts and all, still has no witnesses, no word to go on except his own.  There is no reason to believe that what he claimed was true, unlike the claims of the Catholic Church.  So I ask you again.  How do we know what the “Infant Church” looked like?

AM,

If God actually cares so much about upholding this rather bizarre accounting of his alleged triune nature, to the extent that he would actually send me to hell simply for failure to comprehend and embrace it, then he is certainly no god worthy of anyone’s worship or devotion, IMO.

You realize that that is exactly the argument that atheists use…“If God….blah, blah, blah (insert would kill the ninevites, condemn non believers to hell, condemn those who aren’t baptized, condemn those who think sex outside of marriage is good, ad infinitum”...then He is certainly no God worthy of anyone’s worship or devotion.”

As for the doctrine of the trinity…it is completely scriptural.  The word trinity is not there, no, but the concept surely is.  To say that we are influenced by Greek philosophy is to say nothing at all.  Did God not create the Greeks?  Did He not give them rational minds?  If they came to the Truth through the use of reason, does it make it any less the Truth? 

If you insist (and you do) on believing that God has a physical body and is limited in the same was as those of us on the temporal plane, then of course you could not comprehend the soundness of a Triune God.  But if you understand the concept of “Person” as something other than human,  the Trinity makes perfect sense.  By placing God in a human body, you limit Him.  You contain Him.  He does not live in time and He is not bound by physics.  The artist is not defined by his artwork.  God is Love.  Whom does He love?  The Son.  The ONLY Son.  That Love, created between the Lover and the Beloved creates a third “person”...the Spirit of Love.  To reduce God to 2 separate super humans is a heresy and not a new one either.  You’re not the first to try to humanize God.  You won’t be the last.

There is no “rocket science” test about the fact that Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three Persons but share one Nature. The Greek use of reason was used to spell that out rationally. Anything other than that the Son became a human in time and returned to Heaven after His Ascension as God-Man is outright heresy. JESUS is GOD and His Holy Spirit guided the writing and continues to guide the interpretation of the Bible. Either HE is a fake and liar or Joseph Smith’s re-writing and re-interpretation of the story is wrong. Both cannot be. Unreasonable.

MK I did not “attack” Luther. I showed where he contradicted himself by claiming to teach “Sola Scriptura” Bible alone, no philosophy, no other Authority yet he followed Augustine’s interpretation of Paul and added a very negative Augustian understanding of human nature’s corrupt state and tried to dump James’ letter as “epistle of straw” because the Apostle clearly said faith and worls belong together.
You went after J Smith personally, take on his contradictions of JESUS’ NT and his other questionable teachings which are fair game for scholarly and rational analysis.

I would hope that people would vote for the most qualified candidate regardless of that person’s PERSONAL beliefs.  We’re not electing preachers, we’re electing leaders to manage the day-to-day operations of a massive bureaucracy.

HT,

It is also fair game to take on whether or not he was mentally unstable, young and impressionable, or dabbling in the occult.  All or any of which make him non trustworthy.  I don’t need to take on his teachings as that would validate him.  I won’t even go that far.  As far as I am concerned, attacking his credibility IS fair game.  If he is incredible, so are his claims.  He might have been a very nice person.  I’m not questioning that.  I am questioning his state of mind and lack of authority. 

Luther was questionable on the same grounds.  Muhammed also.  Looking at Jesus, no one could say he acted impulsively, nor could they claim He was unstable.  The same cannot be said of these others.  That is a valid argument. 

Again, I won’t dignify attacking his theology because the man himself is in question.

There is no need to attack the person, called “argumentum ad hominum” jn Logix the worst kind. Stick with the logic and reason and lay off the pop psychology

@mk - Let’s review some basic facts:

Jesus = God.
Jesus has a body.
Thus, God has a body.  Get over it.

Obviously, your own creed has you confused.  I’m not surprised.  40 monkeys pounding on 40 typewriters for 40 days would likely produce something more coherent than that gibberish.  As for me and my house, I’ll stick with scripture.

Most scholars and historians regard Joseph Smith as a genius, whatever else they may think of LDS doctrine.  Your mileage may vary.

We’ve wandered a bit off topic though. At the end of the day, I suspect y’all are barking up the wrong tree.  Catholics have a lot more to worry about from Protestants than they do Mormons.  Republicans generally do seem to prefer WASP’s after all.  I’d be very surprised if Romney (or Huntsman) gets the nod.  Especially with FOX (Faux) news heavily promoting Rick Perry (a Methodist) now.

I can assure Robert (Aug 4th) that many conversions to Mormonism, whom I know personally, are long-term and lifelong. I, myself, was converted from Catholicism over thirty years ago and still feel it was the best decision I ever made. I wonder how much investigation and praying those who decry it have made, as most criticism is misrepresented or stems from misunderstanding, as I see it. I am grateful for my Catholic upbringing in that it gave me a strong belief in, and love for the Godhead,(Our Heavenly Father, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost), which has been reinforced and better understood since I have been a Mormon. If anyone really wants to know, the answers come with sincere prayer, and being humble enough to listen to the Holy Spirit. Intellectualism and the philosophies of man are not enough on their own.

@Margaret - To know Jesus in the most intimate way possible, is to receive Him, body, blood, soul and divinity in Holy Communion. There truly is no greater joy than this and I am sorry that you may not have realized the gift of the Eucharist prior to your conversion to the Mormon Church.

AM,

Jesus = God.
Jesus has a body.
Thus, God has a body.  Get over it.

No one is disputing that Jesus has a body.  Get over yourself.

God the Father and The Holy Spirit have no bodies, and Jesus only took on a body when He stepped out of Eternity and into time.  Yes, Jesus/God, has a human body.  He did that for us.  The dispute is in God the Father having a body…but I think you knew that.  Jesus’ incarnation was never in question.

Neither angels nor demons have bodies either.  There are only two human bodies in the Eternal World.  One is Jesus, and the other we celebrated today.  His mother. 

I don’t care how smart Joseph Smith was.  When it comes to Christian Theology, he was wrong.

MK; The comment about JESUS having a body in light of the many posts about Mormon theology is too glib. The Catholic Christian Church spelled out in its Early Councils the rational explanation of the biblical data about the Trinity,Jesus the Word taking on a human body in time, going back to heaven with that and Mary as Theotokos, Mother of God, in that precise context. Suggesting there are other gods, that they have a body outside of those core biblical roots and teaching is heresy. To deny that the Word did not take Flesh in the womb of the Virgin Mary and to deny that the Father and He and the Holy Spirit are three Persons, sharing one Nature and to deny they are equally one GOD but separate Persons is outright heresy. Mohammed and Joseph Smith cannot have been inspired by GOD since they flat out contradict the inspired Gospel and the rest of the New Testament which were decided in a Council and accepted as inspired by the same Church JESUS promised to be with and sent the Holy Spirit as Teacher and Guide and Parsclete.  Read the BOOK not the pirated editions or fake texts. People are free to believe what they wish but need to defend it against those who use common sense, logic and history-not false data that twists what happened in the 4th century. There are abundant solid texts that absolutely refute that fanciful interpretation.

Maegaret T UK; I can understand how folks can decide to become Mormon the same as Moslems can decide to kill and think they honour Allah- reason and common sense do not always prevail in our decIsions. I do not however understand how one can switch from Catholicism to Mormonism IF you took any serious look at the evidence from the Bible and history.
=====================reply to MK
MY POST ABOVE was a refutation of those who do not accept the GOD made Flesh in Chist as an event in time and I saw your answer as glibin light of the many posts earliier. Your comment that I “get over yourself” was not worthy of this aite- apologies if my lengthy post was directed at you.

To not to vote is the worse thing that you could do.

@Lperry. Amen to that. No doubt many, many Democrats who sat on their hands because they were disappointed with President Obama would agree wholeheartedly now. Elections DO matter. Ever since last Fall, we’ve been treated to some of the most disgusting displays of uncivil behavior by spoiled rich rookie pols acting on behalf of even more spoiled and richer fat-cat backers who have shown no sense of shared civic and social responsibility for paying their fair share of the amount of money it takes to keep up our infrastructure alone. If they want reasonably educated employees, making sure public schools, especially vocational training high schools, have the financial resources necessary to provide the training our future generations need to meet tomorrow’s needs won’t happen if teachers are laid off and programs shut down due to lack of funding ... all because our fatcats are too damn cheap to recognize the damage they’re doing to our economy and nation’s future as a whole.
  On the other hand, those pouting stay-at-home sour-puss Democrats let the cheapskates in the door and look at what’s happened, especially in the House ... and even in the Grand Old Polytheists’ party ... where it’s almost a sure bet that only the most retrograde and cheapest-minded sad-sack excuses for “political leaders” seem to rise as the “cream of the (conservative) crop.”
  The Democrats stayed at home and now Granny’s gonna pay no thanks to the party that’s taken over the House. No less than former Speaker, now House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s opposite counterpart in the God’s Own Parasites (I love that acronym GOP, it has so many possibilities, don’t you think?)... has boldly come right out and promised to break promises with programs that taxpayers paid into and have a legal claim to receive. So much for conservative’s respect for even basic business ethics, such as honoring contracts.
  Never mind the two “polytheists” running for the Republican nomination. Texas’ Rick Perry, a secessionist-minded governor who believes Social Security is unconstitutional and harbors some other wackadoodle notions is likely to get the nomination. Why, he’s singing the tunes the Koch brothers want to hear and that’s what counts in this post-Citizens United decision political environment.
  I’d be a lot more morried about a not-so-closeted secesh-minded traitor-redneck with Blago hair taking the oath of office in 2013 than any Mormon. My Lord, this guy Perry makes W look like what people originally expected from a Yale grad, only to be sadly disabused eight years later.
  Molly Ivins died too early. The nation could use her now.

MY POST ABOVE was a refutation of those who do not accept the GOD made Flesh in Chist as an event in time and I saw your answer as glibin light of the many posts earliier.

That comment was not directed to you.  It was directed to AmusedMormon.  In response to his comment to get over it.  Perhaps you don’t realize that you and I are on the same side?

This is a hard question.  If it was between Romney and Obama I feel that it would be a sin for me to not vote against Obama by voting for Romney.  We have to stop this bloodshed.  If there is a greater chance of Romney appointing pro-life judges to the Supreme Court, then we have to go with him no matter his religion.  I think if Obama won again and I hadn’t voted against him, I couldn’t bear it.  God forgive us all.

Richard Nixon was a mormon. Watergate had nothing to do with religion, how did being a Mormon affect his presidency??

MK Apologies, I knew we were on the same hymn-sheet, misunderstood your et over it comment.=======================
MARGARET M Mr Nixon was a Quaker, no Mormon has ever been elected POTUS, one Cathilic has, the rest were Washington, Anglican, then mainly Deists, most of those former Protestants and most recently Protestants of various shades. I look for a packae of Natural Law policies, which are drawn from the Bible and Reason. lIFE is an inalienable Right, coming from the Creator, as was written by the Founders, a Natural Law. It took the civilization a long time to admit and spell them out. Since the 70s we are slowly stomping them out, still use war and weapons to kill and try to “win” and totally ignore ethnic-religious differences worldwide and are blind to people’s natural desires for liberty from oppression. We used cry “communism” as an excuse to slaughter or enabled slaughter from SE Asia, then C and South America, then in Afghanistan to “get” to the USSR with Afghanistan and Osama Bin Laden’s forces, now see the mess we have created.

\\3. A Christian is defined by one who beliefs in Jesus as Christ, the Messiah who died for our sins and through him we have salvation.  Mormons believe this just as much as Catholics.\\

No, they don’t. They believe they are saved by grace “after all they can do” and tithe, follow all of the Masonic ordinances of the sect’s temples, believe that Jesus is a separate god from the True God (in an even more incorrect way than Arians, if it’s possible), so on.

That’s like saying a Muslim is a Christian because they believe Jesus to be the Messiah. A “Jesus” who is a separate god from the one True God is not Jesus at all, but an idol made by men.

HT,
No problems.

Not only do I have a problem with someone misrepresenting their religious beliefs, I have a problem with a religion which uses the philosophy of the ends justifying the means as a way to determine a course of action.  I object to people who believe it is morally ok to lie to someone or about someone in order to manipulate a situation as long as the result is ‘good’.

Of course there is not a religious ‘test’ when determining someone’s right to be a candidate - but there should be (at least) a MORAL test. Lying in order to achieve something good is a sin.

There is no justification for doing evil to have good come from it in normal circumstances, “end justifying” the means is not defensible for most moral choices. A GI who falls on a grenade to save others, Fr Kolbe who gave his life to save a Jewish father in Auschwitz were not suicides for example. Keeping the truth from someone who is not entitled to it is not always a sin when a greater evil is avoided. Ectopic pregnancies cannot come to erm so removing them is not a moral evil. Delicate discernment is needed of course.

This is a hilarious bit of satire, Jimmy! Keep up the good work!

For a snapshot of how Mormons rule when in political power and how they have divided the state of Arizona… google the tags Arizona, Russell Pearce, Mormon, Nazis, racist, for profit prisons… Mormons are a tribe of double-hearted fascist racists clothed with a veil of religious respectability.

Can you Jimmy or Santiago repeat or give me the date of the humourous post Jimmy. I need it, the site is getting very heavy for me! Thanks

America is not a Christian nation.  It is a nation of diverse people of diverse faiths.  Whether someone is a Christian or not should not be the basis on voting for a candidate for political office.  Our US Constitution says there is no test of religion for those wishing to hold political office.  Christians should not seek to impose Christianity (or any the multiple versions thereof) on the nation.

Who cares if a candidate is a polytheist?  that being said, i would never vote for an observant Mormon for any office.  I think that there would be too much involvement of the Church of LDS in our national affairs.  Catholic politicans have thankfully lerned to ignore the bigotry of Rome.  But Mormons, belonging to a much newer organization, still bow to the will of the Church of LDS.  No thanks to any theocracy in our government, be it Rome, Canterbury, Mecca, or Salt Lake City.

@Lisa: You had a very good post until you started contradicting yourself and surprisingly left out the most significant “capitol city” (if that’s the proper term to use regarding “Rome, Canterbury,” etc.) concerning the religious demographics of American society for the past four centuries: Geneva. Unofficially, this is the largest Calvinist nation on the planet when we consider the impact of Calvinist teachings on social structures and especially economic activity.
  Here’s the contradiction: You said, “Who cares if a candidate is a polytheist?  that being said, i would never vote for an observant Mormon for any office.  I think that there would be too much involvement of the Church of LDS in our national affairs.” If you don’t seem to care if the candidate is a polytheist or not, why then hold that religion against him or her, notwithstanding the fact that after you looked at your voter’s likes/dislikes column before you enter the polling station and decided the polytheist promised to fulfill more of what you’re looking for than the other person? 
  Additionally, why did you feel compelled to throw this gratuitous directed at Rome, or to be more precise, Vatican City? “Catholic politicians have thankfully lerned to ignore the bigotry of Rome.” Having specific rules guided by X church’s ancient teaching traditions and Scripture should not render it worthy of tarring it with “bigotry.” If you don’t approve of the Church’s stands on abortion, women priests, embryonic stem cell research, etc., just say so and be precise in your objections but in the right time and place.
  Mitt Romney’s religious affiliation never interfered with his ability to perform his duties as the Commonwealth of Massachusetts’ Governor. (His political competence and inability to shed his personal political shortcomings are another matter entirely. Likewise, Jon Huntsman’s religious beliefs, as a Mormon, never clouded his judgment as Utah’s governor, nor as President Obama’s first Ambassador to China.
  Given the demonstrably less than stellar first year-roll out of Sen. Rand “Aqua Buddha” Paul (TP-KY) and some of the clearly GOOFY things he’s said since replacing Jim Bunning, I’m not sure the very junior senator from the Bluegrass State has really abandoned “Aqua Buddha” or whatever that nonsense was all about during his college day.

@Lisa - “Catholic politicans have thankfully learned to ignore the bigotry of Rome”. I’m Catholic and I take issue with your bigoted comment. Rome speaks for Christ. It seems to me you just don’t like “Rome” because of what she teaches. The Catholic Church is not bigoted. She speaks the truth because she speaks for God. Sure, let’s follow Obama in the “annihilation” of the United States. He’s well on his way to doing that despite his claims of being Christian since his actions contradict that. People of faith bring with them to public office a sense of the natural law which is needed when leading a nation or enacting laws on the State or local level.

Steven,

I really do not care if a candidate is a polytheist or a monotheist.  But I do object to any religion dictating the decisions that an elected officeholder makes or would make.  That is the problem I see with a Mormon office holder. I think a Mormon would obey Mormon leadership in making political decsions.

Mary Rose,

I do unserstand that Catholic believe that the RCC speaks as the voice of Christ.  However, not everyone believes that.  Many Americans are not Christains (we are Jews, Muslims, Huindus, Buddhists, etc) and so do not believe that Jesus was God or that the RCC speaks for God.  You can believe what you want to believe, but every faith group believes it is right in its tenets of faith.  We live in the USA and no faith group has the right to impose its doctrine on American society.  The RCC seeks at times to impose its will on all Americans.  The RCC’s stand on same-sex marriage is an example of this.Recently, Rome sought to have the New York Legislature legalize discrimination against one group of American citizens in violation of the US Constitution.  This is bigotry and thankfully, it was rejected.  I know that is blunt, but the RCC is not perfect and it has a very long history of persecution.

LK: Glad you spelled out what you meant by bigotry from “Rome.” Do not know or want to know where you live but check how Baptists and Mormons as well as evangelicals try to influence legislation in Congress and State capitols- from booze, to gambling to life in the womb to marriage and same gender unions.
Some logic and background help.
#ONE The Common Law was based on Reason and Natural Law which were cobbled from the OT - 10 Commandments and Exodus - and the moral teachings of the NT over the centuries by the Church and Roman and Greek philosophy and law.  Some were refined as we matured morally so slavery and killing for every OT crime were eliminated or restricted

@Lisa - I was responding to your comment about the Church being bigoted. It is not bigoted when it defends what it believes. The Church has every right to speak out on what it considers immoral or unjust as other group historically have done and continue to do; such as, the ADL, NAACP, etc. You or anyone else has the right to believe what you wish. The Church does not impose its will on anyone but is entitled to be a voice for what she considers an assault on the natural law. “Bigot” seems to be the favorite buzz word of gay activists. If anyone calls the Catholic Church bigoted then that is what they believe God is as well, since the Church speaks for God. It’s irrelevant whether anyone believes that or not.

#TWO; The Founders stated based on the principles above in #1 that Humans are special creations of the Creator with rights from Him that are inalienable - Life being basic to all the rest.  We did not come from some mindless Evolution. I sain mindless, GOD in Intelligence Itself and guided His creation and we wait for Science’s final answers as to where and when we arrived here. Biblical illiterates will be silenced as will science which like them butts into a field not its own to villify faith as they fight science and undermine their cause.

#THREE Did the Founders and their successors fully understand or practice that fundamental principle we are all equal with God-ordained rights? NO! Their divisive stand on slavery, was a sad economic and politically expedient failure. The march to equality for women, blacks and the Native citizens is still developing in law and national consciousness. Your comments about the cruelty from our distant past seems to ignore that US story and the Protestant treatment of Catholics in the US and in Europe also

MM,  when the RCC wansts state and federal legislators to enact laws that discriminate against gay Americans or any group of American citizens that is bigotry.  Discrimination is bigotry.  Supporting discrimination against groups of people is bigotry.  The RCC is most certainly free to believe what it wants to beleive.  But when it wants to impose discrimination on American citizens in violation of the US Consitution that is bigotry.

What makes that different from what the NAACP or the ADL support and have supported is that those groups and their causes were FOR the rights of Americans—social justice What the RCC supports re same-sex marriage is AGAINST the rights of some Americans, social INJUSTICE.  Bigotry is not new to the RCC.  In the 21st century instead of persecuting Jews and Protestants, it seeks to presecute and marginalize gay people.  Some principle, different group of people.

And when bishops and cardinals stop covering up for pedophile priests/criminals, then they can credibly take about morality.  Until then, they have no credibility to talk about any moral issue.  Covering up for criminals who abuse children/minor and support of legalized discrimination against some Americans are two sides of the same social injustice coin.

@Lisa - the ADL consistently lambastes the Catholic Church and many Jewish groups speak out about the prayers the Catholic Church prays,evangelizing to the Jews and if Pope Pius the XII should be canonized.  Who are “they” to interfere in Church prayer, evangelization (not coercion)and Canonization of Saints? Mel Gibson was practically crucified when he released the film the Passion of the Christ which was based on the Gospels. The ADL didn’t like the movie and said it was bigotry.  Please don’t preach to me about being discriminated against. Christians are being discriminated against by atheists and gay activist seeking to impose their will on society. That is the real discrimination. This topic is about electing a polytheist as President and I’ve said all I care to say about gay activism and discrimination.

@mary
“sin if vote for Obama…?” Isn’t the Supreme Court heavily Roman Catholic, which does go to the points of law which allow abortion. Many forget that the law should be changed, tedious it may be. If the law is changed and the Court then decides on current the current law and argument presented,  you could change but they seldom change SCOTUS rulings

MM,  Christians are the majority in the US and are NOT discriminated against.  Just because people push back against Christianity that seeks to impose itself on the rest of us does not mean that Christians are discriminated against.  Christians do not get to play the victim card.  Christians are too often the victimizers of nonChristians.

Jews have every right to push back agains the RCC when the RCC seeks to evangelize Jews.  Jews have made it very clear that such efforts by the RCC are not welcome. The fact that the RCC and other Christians groups have recently signed an agreement to stop using deceptive practices in seeking converts should tell you something. Jews have every right to oppose the canonization of Pius XII whne the RCC will not relaese the record of that pope’s relationship with Nazi Germany.  And it is beyond doubt that the Vatican actively assisted Nazis in escaping from justice after WWII.  Jews have every right to critize Mel Gibson’s depiction of Jews in the Passion of the Christ (as a Jew, I do not agree with the criticism of that movie by the ADL and others).

If the RCC does not want to marry gay couples, that is fine.  But the RCC ahs no right to try to legalize discrimination in the brader American society.

Mary,  the GOP is NOT pro-life.  The GOP is pro-war, pro-death penalty,
pro-gun.  Obama is NOT pro-abortion.  He IS pro-choice.  A big difference.
Roe v. Wade was correctly decided.

Well said above MM. LK you are at it again. Evangelical Protestants condemn homosexuals to hell. Catholics know from the Bible and Natural Law that they are God’s Kids and worthy of respect but marriage is not natural for them and is therefore not a “right.” Drop your other bigoted comments also- the US Catholic bishops went back over 50 years to be totally honest to give example to the whole society to rid it of the rot of child abuse. To this day, Protestant clergy and Jewish rabbis and public school teachers, male and female, married and single are abusing clildren.  It was great that the vulgar jokes and treatment of homosexuals was challenged but now with the help of the ACLU and other actors in the society they are claiming a “right” that is not theirs to claim, marriage, and discriminate and show bigotry toward Faith groups and villify their leaders to show their own lack of decency and respect

MK. More deception. Top law professors say that there is no RIGHT in the US Constitution for abortion, ev en as they agree with it as leftist liberals. Watch the often-suppressed stories about the growing number of mothers and fathers who mourn their abortions and lost babies. Nature kicks back- too much alcohol, drugs, not enouh sleep, over-working AND destroying the body with abortion(s) take their toll. The PP and other pro-abort folks are deceptive and their tricks are exposed thank God, so it will be a while before the full Truth is known, too late for the many destroyed babies and destroyed consciences and mental tormoil from those who have been there. The numbers are clearer than ever- many young people today are pro-unborn life and more adults also - many in part when Mr Obama’s extreme views on abortion and knowing the lie was exposed that R v W was for all of a pregnancy, not just three months and murder of a born baby was advocated by the extreme Left under guise of “partial birth abortion.” Facts and Truth are owed when people with integrity discuss issues.

Hermit,

The right to marry is the right of EVERY American citizen. Thankfully, we do not live in an RC theocracy.  We live in the USA, where the rule of law, not the rule of the Vatican, is supreme.  If you want to live in a theocracy, Vatican City, Saudia Arabia, Iran, etc would proably welcome you.

And to get back to the original topic, not living in a theocracy is why I would not support the candicacy of any observant Mormon.  I do not want to live in a theocracy crafted in Salt Lake City either.

Nonsensical logic LK again. You know nothing of how law is developed, how it was in a PROTESTANT dominated society a “theocracy” in fact when the US destroyed native religions with Government direction and in practice also Catholics were not hired even in public schools up to the 60s, Catholics could not build Churches up until late in the 2th century also.
In the 1850’s convents were burned in NY and JFK had to turn his soul inside out in Texas before the Baptists of Houston to prove that a Catholic could be President - 1960 almost 200 years since the First Amendment and the US Constitution forbade a religious test for elected office. You picked on us ealier about cruelty in earlier centuries when we suffered the same.
YESTERDAY’s bigotry and dicriminatiion are a warning to your lack of reasonable argunent which villifies us and argues for more discriminatory if new examples of bigotry. Right morality is right and wrong is wrong regardless of decisions to the contrary by Courts, Legislatures and extremists of Left and Right wherever.

@Lisa. I’m sure every town and city clerk across the land would find your assertion that marriage is “the right of EVERY American citizen.” And no doubt reading these words would give them plenty of laughs ... and for valid reasons.
  Marriage, even for same-sex couples legally married in their respective states, is a PRIVILEGE. That’s right, not a “right” for “EVERY American.” BTW, I’m surprised that you’d be so “exclusivist” in your definition of rights. What about foreigners living here legally who decide to marry here? I’m willing to bet you didn’t quite mean your words to come out this way, but that’s how they appeared.
  The rights homosexuals recently won in New York, as in Massachusetts, etc., is the right to apply for the privilege of getting married PROVIDED they pass a blood test like everybody else and there are no outstanding legal impediments that’d bar them from proceeding with their marital plans. If the same restrictions guiding the issuance of marriage licenses ... based on concerns for the health of each partner and their “future issue,” i.e. children, were not kept in place for everybody, some heterosexual couples would likely file court papers alleging discrimination, and most likely succeed. But the same general laws and regulations which have long been used to protect heterosexual partners from unwittingly entering into a marriage with a person with an undisclosed STD, also protects homosexual partners from falling into the same trap as well.
  Just for this simple matter of the state’s desire to protect the health of every citizen about to enter into a lifetime legally binding estate ... and marriage requires some “biznez sense” besides all the lovey-dovey stuff, thus marriage is rightfully treated as a “privilege.”
  Lisa, don’t take this directed at you, but one of these days ... and it’ll be as rare as a cloudless warm sunny day in the middle of a New England winter, the vast majority of citizens will finally stop and decide to seriously discern the differences between rights and privileges. Maybe I’m expecting too much. But it’s worth a prayer.

Hermit,

The RCC did a lot to destroy Native American relgions—just ask the Aztec, Inca, and Mayans (oh yeah, they are all gone under the heel of the Spanish Inquisition in the New World). And on the East coast, the Jesuits were not very friendly to the native peoples of Canada.

Hermit, you have your history wrong.  Catholics in the US were permitted to build churches long before the late 20th century.  Ask the folks in Maryland how long Catholics have been around in their state.

The RCC in the USA has not endured suffering anywhere what it inflicted on Native Americans, Jews and others for centuries.  The Inquistion of the RCC in its varous forms and locations lasted 600 yrs.  Please read some history.

And please do not assume anything.  I am an old lawyer who knows a lot about how law is developed.

Allowing gay people to marry is NOT immoral.  Christians want to take one small part of Jewish scripture, ignore its context and true meaning and apply it to a situation that scripture does not even talk about.  And its really great how this one part of scripture is what the RCC wants to make a big social issue—while ignoring the context of the scripture and ignoring everything that scripture forbids. eating shellfish is equally banned in Jewish scripture.

Steven,

Sorry you are wrong about marriage.  The US Supreme Court has long held that marriage is a fundamental right of every American citizen.  It is a RIGHT.  If you don’t agree take it uwp the US Supreme Court.

Back tomorrow,just lost a long reply to you LK. The Supreme Court has not decided IF the right to marry applies to Adam and Steve AND Eve and Maeve so we await that one. You are a lawyer??

Hermit, No the US Supreme has not decided if the right of marriage applies to gay Americans.  It is the battle we are fighting now in individual states, with fight to repeal DOMA, with battle to repeal Prop 8 in California.  But it is a fight we will win under the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause.

Yes, I am an old lawyer.

@Lisa: In states where the partners have met all the state requirements related to health concerns and legal impediments preventing bigamy, fraud, etc. ... yes, I’ll fully agree with you that the right to enter marriage exists.
I’ve worked in the Federal Court system decades ago; was a correctional counselor and a probation/parole officer in two different state corrections systems on both sides of the Mason Dixon Line, but I’m glad to say I’ve seldom come across anybody with such a bitter and bigoted spirit infused with a delusional sense of infallibility on her part.
  Lighten up, lady.

Steven,

It seems you think that if I state the facts, then I am a bigot, delusional, etc If that is what you think, then its not worth my time engaging in any further discussion with you.

@Stephen
I have no dog in this marriage deabte but you brought up a word “inclsion” if that be germain then “exclision” would be a logical conclusion..
There is a SCOTU decsion of “exclusion” which merits “inclsuin” in this debate. Ramirez v University of California found the “Christial Legal Association” violated the Constitution Aricle I, the seaartion of Church and Stae, regardless of how any of us think it pertains. Due to the exclusion of some Christians (Catholics) SCOTUS found the University fo califronai discriminated agianst Catholcis due to the extremsism found in Evangelical Christianity, the answer lies in the details, and ended the 501 C 3 and other remedy.
Perhaps if we look at how the Courts are evolving; we can find “inclusion” and “exclusion” are part of the details. You brought inclusion into a debate on queers and their acceptance, this is a brolen record. Queers marrying is not aaccepted in the Catholic Church period. How did this get into a polyeism debate?
This is o clear, we dither on big issue and refuse to look at broader and much more reasobale approach. The Catholic Church is clear on Her stands, accept or not that is your choice, you were given a “free will” and that sir, no one would wnat to deny you as that would be excluding you and not be very inclusionary of the Roman Catholic Church, the Supreme Court said so!!!!

@Stephen should have been @ Steven I apologize on last posting

Sic Transit Gloria

My only question is, what if it does end up being a choice between a pro-life Mormon and a pro-choice candidate who is a monotheist? Aren’t we obliged to choose the lesser of the two evils? I may be mistaken, but that was the impression I had…

I’m not disagreeing with Mr. Akin here, nor am I agreeing. I’m just putting this out there in the hopes that someone could clarify Church teaching on this subject.

@Dan
It has been said for many years, I believe in One God…” that should answer your question

@Lisa, sniff, sniff ... guess I was the delusional one to think I could even convince you of the basic difference between privileges and rights. I can just envision you now. Barging into a registry of motor vehicles office, demanding to get your license and raising unholy hell at the temerity of the beleagured public servants standing in total shock n’ awe (at YOUR brand of temerity) ... all because they simply reminded you that in order to exercise your (quite conditioned privileges as motor vehicle operator) you first had to take a driving and eye test.
BTW, since you fashion yourself to be such a great interpreter of the law, how come if the Supreme Court said marriage is a right for every citizen, all fifty states still retain their rights to determine what their respective rules on marriage will be? And even if the Supreme Court should throw out any restrictions as to who can marry who, it would never go so far as to throw commonsense out the window and proscribe states from requiring minimal health safety checks (i.e. blood tests) to detect STDs) and computerized cross-reference checks to prevent bigamy.
I don’t honestly know what you might consider a crueler slap in the face of every homosexual in the land seeking to marry: prolonged legal delays through state-by-state battles, or somebody dying from HIV/AIDS contacted from a (bigamist) spouse ...an STD and a legal nightmare that might’ve been caught and stopped cold before they went up the aisle, if only the Court hadn’t also ruled against standard blood and legal impediment tests that have worked for most of us for many many years, thank you.
  Lisa, do yourself a big favor and get out your ladder, and pull your attorney’s shingle down. Because it takes a hell of a lot of both nerve (and some delusion) on your part to think you can get away with trashing two churches, and then proceed to mix the apples of natural inalienable rights, with privileges that imply certain conditions and obligations which have to be met first and foremost.
Sigh, if a man who’s (only) a paralegal can figure this much out, surely a self-admitted “old lawyer” can do likewise. Well, one must always hold out hope, however delusional it might seem in some instances.)

Look, if we want to look at this gay “marriage” issue not from a religious perspective but a physiological perspective it is fair to say that there are differences between men and women not only physiologically but emotionally as well. A man and a woman complement each other unlike two men and two women do. Put into the mix children and you have a disordered combination. Isn’t the overall well being of society important? Aren’t we supposed to aim for a healthy society? There is no way society can be healthy with people of the same sex “marrying”. Society is ordered for the common good of all. One man and one woman can procreate and raise a child in a home that is not subjected to gender confusion. If we give legal status to gay “marriage” we are saying this is good for society. It is not. I don’t want a child raised in a home where one or both are confused about whether they are male or female and further demonstrated by the way they act and dress. This is not healthy and not healthy for the raising of healthy children and therefore not conducive to a healthy society. Just because a group feels they are entitled to something doesn’t make it a right.  Bigamy is not legal despite the fact that some man think he should be entitled to two wives. There are restrictions on the age one can marry unless consent is given. These laws are in place for a reason and it is not a right but a privilege to marry. Laws are passed for the common good of society; not for one person or a group of people. That’s the way society works.

Well spoken Mary Rose, giving all the reasonable Natural Law arguments for marriage which are endorsed by and not"invented” by the Church and Temple and deditated on and honored by saints and martyrs even as flawed human nature fails in many casses to honour the sacredness of human sexuality abd marriage as given for the common good not as private gifts for selfish use.

Hermit,

MK. More deception
Posted by HermitTalishopker on Thursday, Aug 18, 2011 2:34 PM

What are you talking about?  The last comment I made was “No problems”.
And THAT was 2 days ago!

Posted by mk on Wednesday, Aug 17, 2011 7:23 AM (EDT):

HT,
No problems.

It’s like you have some bone to pick with me.  I don’t get it.  Again, we are on the SAME side!

Sorry MK the comment was meant for LK, lawyer to whom I am failing to send messages here-some problem with the word and numbers I type which are correct but they are rejected!

LK;I was amazed that as I outlined the cultural, legal and even Constitutional horrors showered against every group of non White Anglo Saxon Protestants, since they arrived on the East Coast, they were sidetracked by you. Illogically, especially as a lawyer, you go back to your pet peeves about Catholic Christians. You pick on the Spanish in Latin America in earlier centuries. Irrelevant, off message Counselor.

LK; Since you dwell on Catholic cruelty of the past I shall remind you that Protestants from the Germanic nations and the English conducted their own Inquisitions and cruel treatment of Catholics from the Reformation until this day- England’s Monarchs and the Lord Chancellor may not be Catholic or married to one. You recall the bigotry and prejudice against JFK in 1960. I also know despite your denial of towns in the USA where Catholics were not allowed to build a church in the 2oth century and some towns had school board rules to hire only one Catholic a year.
HOW about checking your Pots and Kettles to see if they are blackened too before you hurl your bigoted comments at the Church which is based in Rome since Peter died there and still survives assaults on its teachings and its leaders since that execution. It is humanly flawed as we all are as humans but its strength comes from its Founder.

Hermit, I am definitely NOT off message.  You complained about how RCs were discriminated against in the US in the past.  I merely pointed out that the the RCC has done a lot of discriminating and persecuting of its own, in ways that were far more serious than an discrimination RC faced in the US in the past.

Steven,  the US Suprems has long held that marriage ix a fundamental right for all Americans under the US Constitution.  This means that yes, states may reatin their own rules re marriage, but may NOT interfere with the fundamental right of marriage without a COMPELLING reason to do so.

When the US Supreme Court finds that a right is a fundamental right, governemnt may not interfere with that right unless there is a compelling reason to do so.  “Compelling” is the word the US Supreme Court uses in relation to fundamental rights.

Hermit,

I think you are cnfused about your chronology.  By the late 20th century, there were Catholic churches all over the US.  The 20th century means 1900 -1999.  We are now in the 21st century, which begain on 01/01/2000.

I would think that the definitions of marriage up to this point would BE a compelling reason.  What you are saying is that the government has a right to change the definition of marriage.  Where in the constitution does it protect the right to change the definition of words, especially words that then change the entire concept of a social construct that has been accepted since the beginning of time?  The right to arbitrarily change the definition of words is NOT constitutionally protected!

MK,

The constitutional arguement for gay marriage falls under the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause.  That as American citizens, gay Americans have the right to marry under the laws of the 50 states, because all Americans have equal protection under the law via the 14th Amendment.

And yes, the government does have the right to change the definition of marriage, because it is the government that defines marriage in the US.  The RCC, nor any church defines what marriage is under American law.  And it is American law that controls what marriage is America.  Rome does not define marriage in the USA.

The government changes definitions of things all the time.  A big example is that of “American citizen”.  Prior to the Civil War, black people were defined as 3/5 of a citizen for the purpose of determining how many representatives a state had in the US House of Representatives.  That definition changed with the passage of the post-Civil War Constitutional amendments.  Black Americans become full US citizens.  Native Americans are another example of this.  Native Americans are now defined as citizens of the US AND as citizens of their sovereign tribal nations.

Lisa: The 21st century actually began on 01/01/2001.  Because there is no year 0, the 1st century covered the years 1 to 100, the 2nd century covered the years 101 to 200, and so on, until the 20th century covered the years 1901 to 2000.  The 21st century will cover the years 2001 to 2100.

MK, 

Please read your Bible.  You will see that our 21st century defintion of marriage was not the defintion of marriage in the Jewish scripture (what you call the OT).  Abraham had more than one wife, Jacob had more than one wife, Moses had more than one wife.  In Muslim society today, men may have up to 4 wives, because that is their tradtion.

And yes, the government may change definitiosn.  Government creates defintions under the law and so may change those defintions.

LISA; Excuae me but History is my field, and I taught the Humanities, was in the towns in the Midwest and Florida where Catholics were forbidden to buy land to build churches in the 20th century. Also where blacks went to be away from cruel slave masters in New England and were protected by Spanish Catholics in Florida. St Turibus de Mogrevejo was a Spanish lawyer who became Archbishop of Lima who developed basic rights for the native peoples of Spain’s colonies and began what today has become the declaration of Human Rights. The Popes were instrumental in protecting the dignity of native peoples in the New World while Protestants had no such moral compass and went on abusing their slaves. No one person or institution is perfecteven if the ideal is et before us,  but when you lash out have your facts and history straight. Did you go into Court as a lawyer half-cocked?

Hermit,

It is your hsitory that is half-cocked.  When the Spanish came to the New World, the RCC forced conversion on the Mayans, Incans, Aztecs, using torture and murder and by destroying their cultural artifacts.  Please read some history.  I know its hard for some RC to come to temrs with the FACT that the RCC has a very long history of persecution, torture, murder in Europe and in the New World.  The rCC is a very imperfect instiution.  Some bishops may have made some efforts to do the right thing by native peoples in the New World, but overall the RCC’s track record in this regard is horrible.

As for the 20th century—you said that Catholics were not permitted to build churches in somes places inthe US in the late 20th century.  That is just incorrect.  Maybe int he early part of the century that was true, but NOT by the late 20th century

To return to your Bible lesson LK. JESUS who is regarded as Son of God and also fully human, reversed a lot of the Hebrew Bible/OT for Christians. He said love your enemy, forgive your enemy in his re-interpretation of the minimally demadning 10 Commandments. He also corrected the exception given by Moses and re-established that a properly entered marriage was binding and divorce was wrong. Whether you think He was a crazy man with frazy followers is not important because the Church taught that and marriage today is one man one woman and bigamy is unlawful. I know of course your logic and the Left will eventually let Adam marry Steve and also Maeve and have an Orangutang for the weekend or when his other human partners are selling their bodies for groceries or drugs. Why stop at M and M or W and W for marriage, why not drop the whole moral code and legalise everything, bigamy and trigamy and one “gamy"and two “ander” logic and common sense Rule as other posters have told you.

HT,

Sorry MK the comment was meant for LK, lawyer to whom I am failing to send messages here-some problem with the word and numbers I type which are correct but they are rejected!

Good, because I was starting to get a complex!  ;)such53

LK The FOUNDERS said that certain rights are inalienable because the Creator planted right and wrong in our hearts, the Natural Law. The S Court in its 22 January 1973 Roe v Wade had its mind made up 7-2 before it wrote the decision because they ignored 4000 plus years of Jewish and Christian history and found one obscure philosponher who favoured abortionand hung their hat on him for historic validatio, despite the Hippocratic Oath whichis quite clear about the medical evil of abortion. As I told you already, Professor of Law at Harvard says there is no RIGHT to an abortion in the Constitution but those seven men decided there was against all common sense and ultrasound and medical studies since. The Courts and moral prophetic people cried out against discrimination when earlier Courts decided for slavery and nonpersonhood etc. That is leitimate moral development because common sense and a sense of human dignity reject those old illogical prejudices.
Same for deciding that marriage which is designed by the Creator for sacrifical love of a couple to produce a famiily so abortion and same gender activity will eventually go the way of slaves being property and black men being 5/7 of a white and women not allowed to vote until the 20th century. OH, forgot blacks and whites had separate water fonts and restaurants until 1964. THE 20TH CENTURY can you imagine??

Hermit,

RE the Bible:  Christians believe that Jesus is God.  Nonchristians do not.  Please do not try to impose RC teaching on people who are not RCs or Christians.  So for us Jews, Jewsh scripture is NOT reversed. So what the RCC teaches is for Catholics alone.  What the RCC teaches does NOT apply to anyone who not Catholic.  And the RCC teaches that.  Pope John Paul II, in talking to Catholics/Christians about Jews siad, “Jews are our elder brothers in the covenant that is not broken and that will never be broken.”  There are 3 Abrahamic traditions: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.  All are equal, no one tradition is triumphant over the other 2.  There are 3 Abrahamic traditions in the world today because God wills it.  God likes us Jews.  We are in the world and will reamin in the world because God wills it.  Our Judaism continues, as it has for 5,000 yrs.  It has NOT been reversed by God or the RCC.

Also, what the RCC teaches does NOT control American civil law.

Currently Roe v. Wade is the law in the US.  That is the reality, whether you think it was correctly decided or not.

Hermit,,

Also, Jesus was an observant Jew.  He taught straight from the Torah (the 1st 5 books of what you call the OT.  Thers is nothing in the gospels that is not in the Torah.  Jesus did not teach anything new re our relationship with God.  He talked about Torah in a new way, but he did NOT change Torah.  The 10 commandments are NOT “minimally demanding.  If you think that, you are doing something wrong or do not have an understanding of the decalogue.  And including the 10 commandments there 613 laws in the Torah for Jews.  Now many of them are not applicable today because they concerned the Temple (the 2d Temple was destroyed in 70AD by the Romans).  So with the destruction of the Temple many of the laws of Moses (given to him by God) are no longer applicable.  And of course, Jews do not today abide by any of the laws concerning slavery.

Hermit,  You do know that Brown v. Board of Education was decided in 1954? The old “separate but equal” doctrine became illegal at that time.  Yes, it took time for things to change.  And of course the voting rights were signed into by law by LBJ in 1965 or 1965.

LK You are testing my patience with your wacky logic. You seem to have an unconquerable bias against the Roman Catholic Christian Church and seem to ignore that (1) I point oot how it changed, moral development from the beginning as a flawed human institution which we know from the Bible is guided by the Holy Spirit whose leaders were commissionde by Jesus -Protestants say they are guided by the Bible only but are all over the lot with doctrine and moral teaching. (2) You either ignore or deny that the USA slowly came to understand that blacks are human, hundreds of years after the Pope and the Catholic scholars knew from their own experience after early ignorance and grew to understand from the reports of the missionaries.
(3) Agree that everyone made mistakes and all did cruel and harsh things BUT please see the progress of Catholics and how others trotted way behind us historically we we all moved forward.
You must have never had a class in logic and rational thought
and how you passed the Bar exam or survived against another lawyer beats me IF you displayed the same illogical speech as you write here

Hermit,

I do not have abias against the RCC per se.  I am realist and understand the history of the RCC.  Aside from being a lawyer, I have a BA in History and RC Theology from an RC college. Yes, the RCC has made some progress in some areas, but since JPII there seems to be a lot of backsliding toward the Middle Ages.

And no, I am not being illogical.  you just do not want to hear or admit the facts.  When I talk facts, you just see that as being illogical.

And I was a very successful trial attorney.  I did very well against other attorneys.

@LK - Have you ever read Salvation is from the Jews by Roy Schoeman?
It’s an interesting read of a Jewish Convert to Catholicism.

Jesus said that Salvation is from the Jews and I have also studied the inter-connection between both faiths. I also know that the Code of Hammurabi from Babylon gave us “eye for eye, tooth for tooth” which is in the Bible as is also the Book of Exodus with its moral code. I mention these because it is part of my thesis on here that the Human Family slowly developed its moral understanding but you see only cruelty and failure in the “RCC” and grudingly allowed for the USA to move slowly, The Civil Rights Act was 1964 by the way. I was in a midwestern town when a black family was refused service in a restaurant that summer. I might add that I now live in Ireland next to the border with the North where Mother was raised and am quite familiar with the cruelty, and bigotry and all-out ignorance of those Bible “Christians” all the way to 2O11!

Amy,

I have not read the book.  It sounds like it might be interesting. I will see if Amazon might have it available.

In turn I would recommend Jesus: The Misunderstood Jew by Amy-Jill Levine.  Professor Levine is an Orthodox Jew who is a scholar of the New Testament.  She teaches at Vanderbilt University.  Also,I would recommend Modern Jews Engage the New Testament: Enhancing Jewish Well-Being in a Christian Environment by Rabbi Michael Cook.  Rabbi Cook is the only rabbi in the US to hold a professorial chair in New Testament studies.  He teaches at Hebrew Union College in Cincinnati.  HUC is the seminary for rabbinical students in the Reform movement of Judaism.

Please know that I spent many decades as an RC.  I converted to Judaism because that is the direction in which God led me (and not as rejection of the RCC).

Hermit,

I think that the example of Jesus has inspired many good people to do many good things.  Francis of Assisi is a prime example of that.  Women religious throughout the centuries have dedicated their lives to good works, education and healthcare.  But the RCC as an institution is not good.  A prime example of that is that its culture has led to bishops and cardinals enabling and covering up for pedophile priests at the expense of children.  It is a prime example of the current illness within the RCC as an institution.  Its not a positive to ignore history—those who do are condemned to repeat it, as the saying goes. Its not a positive to whitewash the problems.  Too many RCs today do not know or understand the history of the RCC and that’s a problem.  Yes, progress has been made in some areas, but again, a lot of positive changes made by VaticanII have started to be reversed under JPII and that reversal continues under BXVI.  The RCC is a human institution. You may believe that its hierarchy speaks for God, but pelease do not try to impose that belief on nonCatholics and/or nonChristians.

Did you read my post above that JESUS reversed the Jewish Code, twinned Love of God and Neighbour which is not what the Shema says. Forgiving one’s enemy and turning the other cheek, walking the extra mile- the Roman law obliged a Jewish male to walk an extra mile, Jesus wanted him to take the hatred out and go more. He reversed the Mosaic allowance of divorce and went back to Genesis. His Beatitudes in Matthew 5-7 and Luke 4-6, which includes those teachings above, went beyond the 10 Commandments.Not just do not kill but not even says raca -fool; and not just do not steal but hunger and thirst for justice; He also reversed the law of gheol,  get revenge for family honour by taking insult and persecution.

Did you miss my earlier post that the RC Bishops in the USA decided to go back 50 years and tell of the sex abuse and hoped it would be an example to the whole society to clear out the rot from the abuse which is most prevalent in families, also found in Protestant clergy and Jewish rabbis. The NYT recenlty featured seven rabbis on page 7 but featured a priest on page 1 for abuse of minors. There are still public school coaches and teachers in Florida who had several thousand abuse charges filed in the late 2001’s (forget which year) and they were married, single, male and female.
No one had any understanding of the disease of child and adolescent abuse as was true earlier of alcohol as a disease so who knew how to handle it? Anyone who goes back there and speaks of “cover up” to malign the RCC is looking for more excuses to denigrate the Church-especially in light of the bravery of the bishops in publishing their search results.

Hermit,  Jesus did NOT reverse anything in Judaism.  Please do read the Torah.  DT 6:4-9 which contains this passage:  “Therefore, you shall love the LORD, your God, with your whole heart, and with your whole being, and with your whole strength.” And took this quote from the New American Bible (the RC Bible on the USCCB’s web site)  Jesus said nothing new in that regard.  When asked what the greatest commandment is, Jesus quoted love of God and neighbor as self.  That is straight from Torah.  Jesus taught straight from the Torah.  Really, read Exodus, Numbers, Leviticus and Deutronomy.  All of what Jesus says in the NT is contained in the Torah. Open your mind and see that Jesus taught as an observant Jew.  Even the beatitudes is just a summary of what is already in Torah.

Thirsting for justice comes straight from Jewish scripture:  “Justice, justice shall you pursue.”

Again, please do not seek to impose your beliefs on anyone who is not Catholic/Christians.  Again, there are 3 Abrahamic traditions—all equal in the sight of God.  Judaism is complete and whole unto itself.  Your Jesus did not reverse anything in Judaism.  Jesus is not God—that is our belief.  The messiah has NOT yet come.  That is our belief.  It is as valid, whole and complete , as your belief.

BTW, the Shema is:  Hear, O Israel, the Lord the God is ONE.

And let me refer you to Zechariah 8:22-23 (again from the RCC’s New American Bible): 

“Many peoples and strong nations will come to seek the LORD of hosts in Jerusalem and to implore the favor of the LORD. 23Thus says the LORD of hosts:

In those days ten people from nations of every language will take hold,m yes, will take hold of the cloak of every Judahite and say, “Let us go with you, for we have heard that God is with you.”

That is our belief.  It is as valid, whole and complete as your belief.

Hermit,  I did not miss your post about child sexual abuse in the RCC.  What makes the RCC different than any other situation is the overarching culture and system which led tot he abuse and its cover up.  The bishops are not brave.  The many, many lawsuits, criminal prosecutions of priests, the bankruptcies of some dioceses and the uncovering of the RCC’s secrets by the media have led the bishops to finally be dragged into making some cahnges.  And even that has not stopped the probles—Bishop Finn in Oklahoma and Cardinal Rigali in Philadelphia are but tow recent example os the hierarchy’s ongoing failures to address the problem.

@LK -  I’m always saddened when someone says they were once Christian. What made you decide to convert?

What positive changes made after Vatican II are now being reversed? 

I agree with Hermit’s last post.

Amy,

There is no need to be sad of me.  Judaism is a joyous tradition.  Your sadness means that you may believe that RCism is superior/better tha/triumphant over Judaism.  It is not. And remember Jesus was NOT a Christian or a Catholic.  He was an observant Jew. I am a Jew, because God led on the path to Judaism.  It is God’s will that I am a Jew.  And I am very happy to be part of this 5,000 yr old joyous tradition.

Sorry, you agree with Hermit.  Please note my last post.

How can you serioiusly write that and not see how you are so wrong about Jesus who did as I wrote, you even left out the word NEIGHBOUR from the Hebrew Bible quote whose last word was STRENTH and neighbour was twinned with God in the Chr, Scr (NT) insight. The rest of your references to His Beatitudes in the HS/OT is ludicrous.
====  AS to bashing the RCC’s bishops on abuse of minors did you read my earlier post that they in the USA went back 50 years to show their commitment to rooting out the rot AND give example to others in the sociey where most of it is in the family and within Protestant and Jewish clergy. Florida had several thousand charges by male and female married and single public school teachers in 2005/6 for that year, not past abuse of minors. The NYT recently put an abuse story of seven rabbis on page 7 but one priest’s story on page 1. Anyone who denigrates the Catholic Church without seeing the record recently is a raw bigot. Decades ago no one knew alcohol was a disease not just a moral failure, same for abuse of children and adolesents so talking about “cover up” by those who were not aware of the peril as if not caring is looking for another excuse to bash the Catholic Church

@LK - I am sad because you have renounced Christ. That is a very big deal! As a Christian, “your” 5,000 years of history is also “mine”. I am in no way implying “my” religion is superior. Catholicism teaches that both Testaments are the inspired Word of God. We believe that God has revealed Himself in stages and “final fulfillment” will occur when Jesus comes again at the end of the world. You are correct that Jesus was not a Christian; he was an observant Jew. His followers are Christian. I hope that you do read Roy Schoeman’s book. It is truly fascinating.

Amy,

I am a Jew because God wills it.  Thre are 3 Abrahamic traditions because God wills it.  I have mebraced God’s path for me.  You may believe that Jesus was God, but that is yoru belief.  What will you do when the messiah comes and the messiah is not Jesus????

Hermit,

Please read Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deutronomy.  Everything that Jesus sais in the NT is there, including numerous references to loving one’s neighbor.  And yes, the beatitudes are summation of what is already in the Torah.  It is obvious that you have not read the Bible, outside the NT.  That failure blinds you to what Jesus was teaching.  He was teaching straight from the Torah.  You have no excuse to be ignornat about this.  I have pointed to you to the palces in the Bible where you can these things.

sorry, if you want to put your head in the sand about the culture and systme of the RC that leads to ongoing problems with child sexual abuse.  Please do some reading on this.  the New York tiems, and every other paper in the US chronicles the ongong problems that the cardinals and bishops are failing to address.  Lawsuits, bankrupticies and media coverage are the only reason the hierarchy is being dragged into amking incremental changes.

@LK - “What will you do when the messiah comes and the messiah is not Jesus????”  I’m not worried, but what will you do if He is?

Thanks for your supportive quote Amy, I concur that we as Roman Catholics not only reverence our Jewish roots but read every day from their Sacred Bible at Mass. HOW you can read Exodus which requires the death penalty for a Temple priest’s daughter for getting pregnant and a raped virgin for not crying out in the town to the Beatitudes of Jesus which flatly reject revenge, hatred, and getting one’s olwn back and forgiving the enemy is way beyond my ” pay scale.” I might take a degree in Counselimg and figure out where your anger at the Church Jesus Founded is coming from. I have a theory of course. And your hang-up about sexual abuse but defense of un-natural use of the human sexual organs is also puzzling. Mommies killing their babies is moral also since nine men said so with no Constitutional argumemnts to back them?
  Wonderful trying to reason with you. Bye HermitTalker

Forgot one point LK.
I started reading the Bible, from start to finish at first four or five times, then different books from any Testament all the way through. every day since College in the 50s with very few exceptions. I watch Mass every day now since retirment and attended almost every day for my whole working life. The entire Bible is read every three years now since Vat 11 on Sundays and daily Mass has an OT/HS reading or from Paul or Acts and a daily Gospel portion.

@HermitTalker - Is your entire post directed to me?

@Amy: Why on earth would you say you are not implying that Catholicism is “superior” after opening up a post with this sentence? “I am sad because you have renounced Christ. That is a very big deal! As a Christian, “your” 5,000 years of history is also “mine”. One of the major reasons I came back to Catholicism from an Evangelical church was because I’d reached the end of my patience with all the “before I became a Christian” nonsense uttered by lapsed Catholics ... who became Baptists, or followed some other line of Evangelical Christianity ...
and knew better.
  I’ve crossed swords with Lisa and expressed some unnecessary impatience at times over legal interpretations about the differences between privileges, rights, etc. but there’s a huge wide line ... drawn as if by the widest permanent marker pen one can buy ... between your inadvertently (I pray) patronizing tone taken towards Lisa’s open expression of her devotion to Judaism and wrangling over legal terminology.
  More than a half century ago, Pope John XXIII stopped a Mass on an (old) Vatican Lira to yank out a deliberately provocative line against the Jews contained in the liturgy at that time. (late Fifties.) John Paul II and Benedict XVI have also staken considerable steps towards reconciling 2,000 years worth of unnecessary wounds. Follow their lead.

@Steven - Lisa asked me why I was sad? It’s not patronizing to say that I am sad that Lisa has renounced Christ when I believe that it is! Would you have preferred that I say that I am happy for her? I cannot say that when I believe that Jesus is the Messiah.

You will have to be more specific about what you are referring to about yanking a line out. You may be referring to the phrase “Jews having blood on their hands” at Good Friday services. That wording was removed even though it is biblically correct. There has been much misunderstanding on the part of many Jews on what Christians believe. As Christians we are bound by our Baptism to evangelize. I am not referring to coercion but simply discussing with people who Jesus is. We also cannot change the accounts of the Gospel to make them somehow less painful. The Church has never blamed the Jews for crucifying Christ and the Church has clarified that in recent years. What many Jews do not understand is that it was God’s will that Christ be crucified so that the sins of humanity could be forgiven. That is the Christian’s belief of God’s plan of salvation. The Gospel accounts cannot be “watered down” because some view them as anti-Semitic.

One can only imagine how you’d feel if Jews put in a line like “blood on their hands” concerning the Holocaust and the fact it was instigated by baptized Christians, no matter how lapsed, fallen or depraved they became following their earlier religious formation.
  I’m not one for sackcloth and ashes and decrying myself in “woe is me, woe is us” daily chants and mantras for the past sins of Christianity or western Civilization. On the other hand, nor am I for sanctimoninous displays of proselytization, especially when evangalizing to the Jews is no long even required or desired. They are our spiritual cousins. Let them be.
  The last time I checked, this wasn’t National Sawdust Trail Bible-Thumper Register.

Correction please Amy and Steven. The Good Friday prayer which was removed by John Paul XX111, who died almost 50 years ago was “Let us pray for the treachorous Jews.” That did not apply to Jews post-Jesus’ trial and only then to those who betrayed Him to the Romans. JESUS prayed “Father forgive them they do not know hat they are doing” on the Cross in Luke’s Gospel. We know He died for all our sins which is the Mystery of Faith.
As Amy noted the Second Vatican Council in Nostra Aetate made it clear it is not, and never was Catholic Church teaching that Jews as a people are guilty of Jesus’ death. Great advances have been made since the Council to mend fences, open dialogue, clear out old ignorance and bigoted prejudices with Jews and all faith groups including Christians. Pope John Paul 11 apologised in 2000 to all groups for any bias and prejudice and cruelty by the Church around the world. Benedict XV1 does the same. Sadly, even a museum in Jerusalem today has an anti-Pope Pius X11 piece blaming him for the Holocaust when his record on that was clear and is even more so now.

Further to Pius X11. The NEW YORK TIMES did an editorial in December 1944 to say that POPE PIUS XII was the ONLY world leader to oppose Hitler and the Holocaust. I do not recall his name now, but a Jewish man has made a passion out of translating and digging out every document that shows Pius X11 doing everything possible to help Jews and oppose Hitler and Mussolini in Italy. The Church used convents and monasteries to hide Jewish chlldren and gave them official papers to give them Catholic protection, not baptismal certs as often said.
I toured the Holocaust Museum in Washington DC. One of the most striking memories was to see a ship full of refugees from post WW11 Europe being turned away from New York to travel to Cuba (obviously pre-Castro).

@Steven - “On the other hand, nor am I for sanctimoninous displays of proselytization, especially when evangalizing to the Jews is no long even required or desired. They are our spiritual cousins. Let them be.”

By virtue of our baptism we are called to evangelize; that has not changed! Jesus Himself told his disciples “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, We are called to tell everyone about the Good News of Jesus Christ!  “sanctimoninous displays of proselytization” The Catholic Church does not proselytize; it evangelizes. There is a big difference between the two.

May I invoke a truism from our spiritual-psychological Tradition. Those who dwell on the failings and sins of others betray their own lack of self-confidence and tear others down to boost themselves. That also applies to our institutions including political parties and team rivalry and on this site Churches and other Faith groups. Those who write and preach against the other,  refuse to acknowlege their own group’s failings or harp pn the other’s past failings betray the Truth and their own integrity. Jesis was constantly accused of being the Devil by His critics and of course used a famous image. You see the splinter in your neighbour’s eye and miss the two by four in your own. Fair comment is worthy but destructive lies and overkill betray one’s character

@Amy, I’m not going to get into a parsing contest with you about proselytization vs. evangelization. I’ll even give you the benefit of the doubt (because I’m writing this “on the fly” as I have to get back to my work as a self-employed artist ... weekends off? LOL!) However, please take into context that to whom the message is being given to, and how it’s given, shared, delivered ... however ... no matter how hard we may sincerely try to avoid giving off the impression of trying to “proselytize” to non-Catholics, in the end, and I’ll go so far as to give this “end” a 99 pct. figure ... everything still rests in the eyes, minds and hearts of those we’re attempting to share our Faith with.
  This is where 2,000 years worth of history works most strongly against Catholics (and Protestants and Orthodox Christians) when it comes to our efforts to “evangelize” non-Catholics, particularly Jews and Muslims.
  You would admit there’s a lot of bad blood that we have yet to wipe off our hands and may not be able to fully for centuries to come. Of course, God is Almighty and we must never lose faith that He can change things in an instant. But we all know that’s not how He works. Like most loving parents, God more or less is telling us as each passing day goes by, you make your messes, you clean ‘em up and do so with a repentant heart. Until we clean up our messes and open acknowledge them without the “yeah buts” (and I’m guilty of this in my writings, too) when it comes to dealing with our sordid historical records concerning the Jews and Muslims, (e.g., Holocaust, centuries of pogroms, the Holocaust, even our own State Dept.s sick history of ingrained WASP-fed anti-Semitism which led to the S.S. St. Louis episode mentioned above by HermitTalker prior to our entry in WWII, etc.) and the Crusades, respectively ... do we ever have to be circumspect first.
  That’s okay, however, and it’ll still allow us to demonstrate what Christianity SHOULD represent if we can only remember to follow St. Francis’ advice to “evangelize always, and if necessary, use words.”
  I’m no fan of the GOP’s uber puppet-master Karl Rove, but he deserves a Texas-sized truckload of Kudos for his diss of the Lone Star State’s very goofy, but potentially equally very ugly and dangerous Gov. Rick Perry and any fellow travellers who keep on blabbing on about the U.S. being a “Christian nation” when in fact it was deliberately kept secular at the very beginning by our Founding Fathers, especially James Madison, who wisely remembered his (youthful pre-revolutionary) more-or-less official British history lessons which included some very nasty and religiously “inspired” civil wars concluded shortly before the onset of the French and Indian War, no less.
  If we should ever be so stupid enough to allow the Perry’s and others of his self-righteous ilk to put “Christian nation” into our Constitution, we’re toast; and rightly so. If governors like Perry and SC’s Nikki Haley are willing to say “states rights trumps everything” and speak not to harshly against nullification as she did at a “Red State Blogger” convention in Charleston last week over merely budgetary and health care issues, you haven’t seen anything yet ... and I pray we never do ... if these same yahoos manage to monkey around with the surest safeguard we have against disunion, mass destruction and mass deaths resulting from a religiously “inspired” “civil” war.
  Let’s say even if several states seceded against the Union in their opposition to Roe v. Wade, I’d side with the Union because in the end, the protection of our union in this very volatile nuclear age with so many haters of our nation abroad who also possess nukes ever witness this nation breaking up, what do you think our chances of escaping nuclear blackmail, and/or attack be? Keep in mind that once the missiles leave any silo, there’ll be no stopping them until after as many people have been killed in minutes…if not more so…than have been killed in abortion clinics since January, 1973.
  No matter how much it’s tempting to view the world from our particular perspective, circumspection must always triumph over misguided, (albeit well intentioned at first) attempts to reach out to others ... especially when we haven’t done our homework about ourselves, our record and our tendencies to really mess things up.

Steven and Amy; Very thoughtful piece Steven. I did however wonder if you are being a mite too pessimistic and generalising in your post. As to evangelising we can do what we can in our own milieu, deal with the people were we are as far as our own backgrounds and the others around us. We all carry around baggage so when we mention Jesus, Church, Catholic, Jews or Inquisition or Holocaust we come with different emotions and memories. That is why education is so important and part of that is to examine our own baggage to sort out truth from fancy.  That is one reason I spend time here to present some facts and historic perspective to the discussion and correct outright errors.
As tto the general culture we have lots of progress made in dialogue and reconcilition going on. As you note Steven it will take time but when looks at the progress made since the European nations were at war and now they are in a union that is a marvel. Same in the religious world within Christianity and with the major Faiths. Right now radical Islam and the failed efforts of the Allies to sort out the Middle East with guns and bombs is an interruption but the Spirit of God breathes through the mixture of sin and grace to bring peace and a new stage of working together.
As to evengelisation we do our best, as you quoted Steve,“at all times preach the Gospel, sometimes use words (St Francis)we study, pray, sacrifice, help the poor, work to root out bigotry and take part in groups which advance healing. Then we know the Spirit who breathes where He wills as Jesus said will breathe in His Grace and Peace and rid us of as much sin as we cede to Him!

If you were really brave, you would ask if anyone would vote for an Atheist for president. There are more of us than you think.

I have a vision and dream for the future that is derived from our history. We have seen the savagery of the Celts and the Huns and Goths, the Vikings and Normans changed for the better when they met Christianity. The process is still at work as we get rid of the excesses of the past as we become more civilised. Hitler and Mussolini, later the USSR whose system was based on atheism and assaults on Christianity are gone. Great powers like China and the USA and the UK still use war and invasion to spread their ideologies; China now more by economic conquest and investment and still hates Catholicism that it does not control.
Civilisation and Christianity are often hijacked by countrerfeit versions as evangelcals in the USA as its leaders dismantle the moral code that was forged in the 6000 years of Babylon, Judaism, Roman and Greek wisdom eventually by Catholic Christianity.
Many will harp on Inquisition and Crusades but that makes as much sense as seeing Hitler’s system as typical of Germany or hanging Catholics in the Tower of London as typical of the present UK.

@HermitTalker: Thank you for your comments. I’ll admit you’re right about me being pessimistic. That perhaps comes from reading too much history. It’s not a great remedy for treating depression. (LOL!) But it keeps you from being forever finding yourself surprised at the inability of humans to get along. Sooner or later, we’re bound to find that ever handy tiny thread to pull just a little now, a little more later on and before we know it, there’ll be a nice ball of thread at our feet instead of a tapestry that used to hand on the wall next to us.

Thanks Steven. Loved your imagery of the tapestry. The tapestry turned around as the old story goes makes no sense. But when turned around it all “hangs” together. Faith,  Gift from God, not an intellectual assent, gives us the Grace to make sense of the contorted threads at the back.

Seems as if we lost LK who to me seemed to have beeh caught up in the tangled threads of the back of the tapestry and got lost and confused.
Hi to you Amy also a faithful witness!

@HermitTalker - “....Gift from God, not an intellectual assent, gives us the Grace to make sense of the contorted threads at the back.”  Grace is all!

Thanks Amy. Grace, which gives us the Gift of Faith,of course needs common sense, rational study and getting facts in order including actual history. That is why wwe can often use reason as I do on here, to show how illogical assumptions are refutable!

Hermit, Amy, Steven,

You have not lost me.  I had some traveling to do on Friday and was super busy and away from my computer on Saturday.

Amy, to your question about what would I do if the messiah was Jesus:  if we Jews are wrong, that’s fine.  Jesus was an observant Jew,  he will be understanding.  He was one of us, and knows us well!  And we know via Dt. 7:6-8: “For you are a people sacred to the Lord your God; he has chosen you from the all nations on the of the earth to to be a a people peculiarly his own.  It is not because you are the largest of all nations that the Lord has set his heart on you and chose you, for you are really the smallest of all nations.  It was because the Lord loved you and because of his fidelity to the oath he had sworn to your fathers, that he brought you out from the place of slavery and ransomed you from the hand of Pharaoh, king of Egypt.”

So if Jesus is the messiah, we Jews will be fine. 

The prayer in the Mass re the conversion of the Jews,  yes that is not present in the Novus Ordus.  But once BXVI, allowed more extensive use of the old rite, that prayer is back in use.  Not good.  Because for centuries, prior to Vatican II and Nostra Aetate, the RCC DID blame the Jews for the death of Jesus.  That blame was the source of persecution against Jews from the 4th century on.  James Carroll’s ( An RC scholar) book, Sword of Constantine provides an excellent, comprehensive history of the persecution of Jews by the RCC.  Rome killed Jesus.  Christians believe that the death of Jesus atoned for sin and was ordained by God.  We Jews do not believe Jesus was God.  He was an excellent teacher and Rome killed him.  Messiah is a Jewish concept.  Jesus did not meet the definition of messiah, so he is not the messiah.  Christianity has distorted the Jewish definition of messiah.

And as a teacher, Jesus taught straight from Torah.  All of Jewish scripture (Torah, prophets, psalms, Song of Songs, the Wisdom books, the history, etc) was ancient by the time Jesus lived.  He did was all good preachers do, he made scripture compelling for the people of his time.  The parables are a good example of this.  But that does not mean he preached anything new.  Really, the beatitudes are just summary of what is already present in Torah.

Amy, really do not be sad.  God loves us Jews, as Torah set out.  And God wills 3 Abrahamic traditions for his own reasons.  God led me to Judaism, I follow God’s will in being a Jew.

Welcome back Lisa, hope you were not too busy to attend Temple on the shabat. I wish to repeat what I wrote on here before we met. The offensive anti-Jewish prayer was prayed on Good Friday at a prayer service, not Mass. Removed by John XX111 and when a Pope removes a nasty it is gone. Some Jewish protagonists seem to have started another Bash Momma Church and said that when BXV1 broadened the permission for the old Latin Mass they presumed the offending prayer was also included. No.

@LK: Please tell me why the Catholic Church should be accountable to anyone for their prayers. Does the Church ask any religion to change their prayers because of something that is objectionable from their perspective? The answer to that is, “no”. You say the Romans killed Jesus. The Romans carried out the crucifixion but even Pilot was not sure if it was the right thing to do. He was just carrying out what the crowd asked for. It’s all irrelevant because it was God’s plan. I have no doubt that God loves the Jews for He loves all. As a Jew can you make that claim?  I hope you will pick up the book I recommended. I think you will find it fascinating reading.

~2 lisa: Jesus an observant Jew? Well let’s see. He cured on the sabbath, touched lepers to cure them, raised two dead men and a female child to live, cured a Roman officer’s and a non-Jewish woman’s daughter to life- naughty pagans! He said nice things about the hated separatist Samaritans, and spoke publicly to a Sam.woman one alone at the well,defended his followers for picking grain to eat on the sabbath, and touched other dead bodies the widow’s son and Lazarus, allowed a “public sinner” to wash and dry His feet and ate with other public sinners. There were several categories of those. Sooooooooooo- He ran afoul of the Lay Pharisees who twisted the Law a lot- so observant Jew- well?

#3: My funniest one is about the birth of Jesus. Among the categories of public sinners were shepherds. They were not allowed to worship because their sheep were running all over the farms etc and the shepherd incurred ritual guilt for that, too many for all those months travelling all over. Sooooooooooo- God has these nasty outlaws invited with Angels to worship His Son, born of a Virgin==————————Now you are back to your claim that Jesus taught only what was in the HS/OT. I am breaking my decision to not argue back. However, as you know I taught the Humanities for almost 50 years and have memorised almost the entire Bible as part of that and for spiritual development. PLEASE cite the topic,and chapter and verse in the HS/OT for Jesus’sources for the Beatitudes. Thanks. Shalom.

Hermit,

AS you may know the USCCB is changing the new American Bible’s translation of Isiah to reflect the the Hebrew more accurately.  It will not say “virginn”, the bishops are translating the Hebrew to “young woman.

And yes, Jesus was an observant Jew, he wore his fringes, he went to Temple, etc.  He was NOT a Christain or a Catholic.  He was a Jew.

I attend temple most Fridays and Saturday, and Torah study on Sunday.  So yes, my Saturday, included attendance at temple.  You went to Mass today?

Amy,  The RCC should be accountable when its prayers are blatantly ant-i-Semitic.  Obviously, the Novus Ordus is NOT anti-semitic.  But, the old rite, which is being said does contain ant-semitic prayer that IS said.  If one of the prayers of the Mass contained a racial slur, don’t think Catholic AND nonCatholics would be right to object?

And yes, I think God loves everyone.  It is after all, Genesis, Jewish scripture, that says that men and women are made in the image of God.

Hermit,

Jesus was an excellent Jew because he lived the spirit of the Law of Moses.  In Torah, we are commanded 36 times (some rabbis say 42 times) to welcome the stranger.  That is,to be good, kind, loving, open to non-Jews.  to treat nonJews in the same way we treat other Jews(which hopefully is with love and kindness)

Hermit,

AS I mentioned, the beatitudes are a summary of what is in Torah.  The beatitudes reflect the values of love,mercy, humility,comfort, purity, peace.  All these values are the values of the Torah, that are taught in the Torah, that are explicitly found in the Torah and in all of Jewish scripture—which of course Jesus was familiar with.  Jesus was steeped in the Torah.  Do you honestly think he was teaching something absolutely new???  That he was teaching something that was NOT already part of his Jewish faith/culture???  If you do, then I seriously doubt that you have read or understood Jewish scripture.

Jesus was NOT teaching anything new—he was calling the Jews of his time back to a more faithful observance of the Torah and of Jewish scripture.

@LK - “AS you may know the USCCB is changing the new American Bible’s translation of Isiah to reflect the the Hebrew more accurately.  It will not say “virginn”, the bishops are translating the Hebrew to “young woman.” The USCCB has no power to change anything in the Bible.

When you pray thanking God that you are not a Gentile why have the Jews not changed that prayer because it is an insult to Christians? Modern day Orthodox Jews despise who I am because I am a Christian. Some have even spit upon Christians in Jerusalem.

Jesus challenged the Pharisees because they were hypocrites. He taught something “new” in the sense that He was teaching them what observing God’s law really means; that it is not about keeping laws when you ignore the spirit of the law which is love. Keeping laws are not what God wants when you ignore your neighbor who is hungry or you treat your neighbor as an outcast because he is not like “you”. God doesn’t want sacrifices; what He desires is your love. The Jews were just not getting that.

Hermit,

Please note what I said, I said the bishops are changing the wording to more accurately reflect the Hebrew.  So yes, the bishops do have the right to more accurately translate the language in which some of the scripture were written.  You want an accurate translation of the Greek of the NT, right???  So should the Hebrew of the Jewish scriptures be more accurately translanted

Jews do not thank God that they are not Gentiles.  Where do you come up with this stuff??  We do thank God for making us Jews, which is not quite the same thing. If you want to accurately talk about Judaism, I suggest you sit down with a rabbi from one or more of the Jewish movements (Reform, Conservative, Orthodox, Modern Orthodox Reconstruction, Renewal, Chasadic).  Even the Chasadic movement itself if not monolithic—there are a number of Chasadic sects/movements A rabbi can talk to you about Jewish prayer.

As for Jews today—were not are monolithic.  We do not have an overarching hierarchy that enforces some kind of doctrine/dogma on everyone.  Please do not blame all of us, for the actions of some.  As with Christianity, there are different Jewish movements.  Even among the Orthodox (which I am not), there are different movements.  And culture plays a role also.  It is very different to be an Orthodox Jew In the US, than it is to be Orthodox in Israel (they are called the haredi and are very extreme).  And please remember that from the 4th century CE until the 1960, the RCC was not a particular friend of Judaism.  In the 600 yrs of the Inquisition alone, the RCC tortured, murdered Jews, forced conversions, upon Jews, made Jews live separately from Christians, forced Jews out of many professions, etc.  Its not a happy history. So don’t be surprised when some Jews are not very thrilled with Christians.

Again, Jesus was NOT teaching anything new.  He was calling people back to the the spirit of the Mosaic Law.  And the spirit of that Law is what Moses preached AND is what all the prophets (Isaiah, Jeremiah,Baruch, Ezekiel, Hosea, etc) preached.  It is what is found in Psalms, Proverbs, in the Song of Songs.  Our Torah portion from Deuteronomy this week talks about removing the foreskin from our hearts or circumcision of the heart—this is Moses’ METAPHOR for opening our hearts to God’s love, to loving God and to loving other people.

Hermit,

You may also want to go the USCCB’s web site to understand what translation changes the RC bishops are making to the New American Bible (the Catholic Bible)—which is the Bible they make available on their web site as well (if you do not have a print copy of the NAB.  Accurate translation of the original Hebrew and Greek of the scriptures is important in order to truly understand scripture.  The word “virgin” in Isaiah is a mistranslation and the bishops are seeking to correct it to the more accurate “young woman”.  The current edition of the NAB uses the word “holocaust” a number of times in Jewish scripture to describe a burnt sacrifice.  And while this accurate, the bishops are taking out the word “holocaust” in the new edition of the NAB due to the meaning that “holocaust” has taken on in our post-WWII world.  I believe they are going to substitute it with “burnt offering” or “burnt sacrifice”.

@Thank you HermitTalker and welcome back Lisa. Y’know, for all of you, I’ve got a funny hunch that this post and combox has gone on so long that if we’d posted it at the same time the Mormons started on their first big trek westward, they would’ve reached Salt Lake, established Salt Lake City, Ogden, the Mormon Tabernacle, organize the famous Choir, built their statehouse, establish Brigham Young University, who knows what else, then returned to pull off another full wagon wheels westard-ho! treck back again.
  Mormonism should not be the issue, unless a (Mormon) candidate starts singing the praises of that convicted polygamist who was first bagged in So. Utah, but eventually convicted in Texas, where he now is a long time guest of Rick Perry. It’s also not as if we haven’t elected a non-believer before: Ulysses Grant was no frend of any particular religious body, and perhaps only claimed some affiliation for political reasons. He was far from a friend to Catholicism, even though his close friend, former Confederate General James Longstreet converted to Catholicism and Republicanism. Guess which made him more of a pariah especially in his native state of So. Carolina.
  And let’s not forget our one and only, (St. John) Kennedy who was practically sainted for years following his murder in Dallas, even though he made Bill Clinton’s failings looked venial by comparison. And even after the real story about JFK finally made its way to the public, the denials among liberals, especially Catholic liberals was far too palpable to stomach. “Oh no, not St. John.” Remember what a Quisiling’s speech he gave to the Baptist miniisters he spoke to in Houston a few weeks before his narrow win over Nixon in ‘60.
  Our own, “St. John,” sold out his own magisterium ... and any future Catholic pol to come after him as well.
  I’d watch out for the spineless Catholic moreso than any non-Catholic pols out there. One more JFK and we should ALL be “circling the wagons.”

@Steven
You forgot the first in this faith or belef, that being telecommunication,you have no doubt seen the hugh antenna outside all their houses of worship.
Your missive portends a sympathy voet for and assination, as Kennedy, I do not recall sainyhood bestowed on this man, I am a Catholic and do not like the Kennefy’s, maybe an Irish thins and do not like Mormons, an Indiana thing, too may things get in our way in life and the pseudo sqinhood of a slain President is one, aa is anti-Catholicism an wqually reptusive attitude in the Rising South. Texas can have Jeffs but that perhaps clounds the Mormon mystique polyggmay

better a polytheist rather than a lover of Abortion/murder of innocent babies.

Hal: If the pro-pre-born candidate also wanted to drastically ct SS, Medicare, and Medicaid, and to drop taxes for the very wealthy, add taxes for the middle class, cut all student loan aid and started wars with no clear intent she.he might not get my vote.

lisa: i repeat that I absolutely favoured dropping the old Latin Good Friday prayer - which maybe only the priest could translate - oremus por perfidiis Judaeorum. It was never in a Mass text, so not ever in the Novus Ordo - which is for the Mass and therefore has not been an issue except for the bigots who wish to bash Mama Church. You still bring up the ancient past as far as bias and bigotry is concerned.Give us credit for seeing error, changing it and moving forward.
I am quite aware that for decades we have been reading correct translations of almah, young woman in Isaiah which Matthew used to refer to Mary as virgin. Also “whole burnt offfering” was also translated as “holocaust” which took on a new meaning under Hitler and his insane atheism. The bishops are using those translations for the official texts for worship/liturgy but they were allowed for prayer and study.  I agree getas accurate translation as possible.

Hermit,

The RCC has made progress in many areas. The RCC’s relationships with Jews and Muslims have hit a few bumps recently, but are very good overall.  But JPII and BXVI have moved the RCC backwards once again toward the Middle Ages.  They have rejected Vatican II and now only the most conservative priests become bishops and cardinals.  Its not a positive development for the future growth of the RCC and is certainly not a good move for women. 

Pope BXVI welcomed back into the fold a bishop who is a denier of the holocaust—not a good move.

I do understand that the oremus por perfidiis Judaeorum is NOT part of the Novus Ordus.  But it is still aprt of the Tridentine Mass, which is still said with permission of the Pope and individual dioceses—its a bump in the overall good relationship with Jews—but it should be eliminated all together.

LK; i repeat the Good Friday prayer was never part of the Mass and is therefore not part of the re-written Trent Mass texts, it was in the special Good Friday prayer service and dumped, cut out, expelled, by John XX111 who died 48 years ago.

Islam got angry when the Vatican objected to the burning of a church in Egypt at Christmas 2009 and some Ilamic Uni cut off communication with some Catholic group. Mubarrek was ousted since so the agenda there has changed.

@Lisa Kaiser “They have rejected Vatican II and now only the most conservative priests become bishops and cardinals.” In what way has JPII and PBXI rejected Vatican II? There is no such thing as a conservative priest, bishop or cardinal. “Conservative” or “liberal” are politican terms. All priests, bishops and cardinal are to be faithful to the teachings of the Church. Pope Benedict XVI, thankfully, has seen to it that the teachings of the Church be carried out. Women will never be permitted to be priests. No Pope can ever change this.

RK Pope B XV1 apologised for lifting the excommuncation for a UK bishop who was part of the anti-Vat 11 Lefeverite group. He said he and staff were not aware he had anti-Jewish stuff on the website - denying the Holocaust I think.

Amy Great answer.Lisa, have no idea how you see either Pope reversing Vat 11. The Church’s teachings are biblically rooted and there are as Amy says no political labels attached unless one refers to social issues where one can push the economic-political agenda which officially push the envelope for ultra-conservative folks, often described as “liberal” and sexual topics marriage and abortion as “ultra-coservative.  Bad journalism and biased use of labels.

LK;  The bigoted NYT and other anti-Church media took a line out of its clear context to malign the Pope in his Regensburg talk. He cited a late medieval Byzantine Patriarch who complained about being metaphorically strangled by the Ottomans. The topic was the use of Reason - common sense or philosophy which Islam and Protestantism - offically rejects. Islam proved his point by killing nuns and priests and burning churches.

Hermit Talker! You are wrong if you are counting human life as of primary importance in your voting: Consider: If you put the lives of all the people who are going to be cheated out of their life or happiness by political decisions Not including Abortion/Murder on one side of a scale, and all the persons murdered unjustly by use of an abortion procedure on the other side of the scale, there would be exactly no contest - Abortion kills by murder thousands of times more people than any other act of social injustice - I know that once you have thought about it (as you certainly have if you have read this post) you will agree with me 100%(as would anybody who was fully human). Love, Hal oxoxoxoxxoxo

In reading through the all of the posts above re who is or is not a Christian, who is or is not fit to hold office, let me propose a very simple solution.

In order to forego all the discussion about whether this or that Christian or Mormon is worthy of being the POTUS, the very simple and elegant solution is to elct a Jew!  Now no Jew is currently running to be POTUS, but perhaps someone could be convinced to convert.  I believe Michelle Obama has rabbis in her family, so maybe Barack would be willing to convert witht he help of Michelle’s Jewish relatives.

That would shift the disagreement away from the Christian majority and let us Jews argue about who is or is not a Jew!    Jesus was a Jew, so Christians should not have aproblem with this solution.  LOL!

HAL: I appreciate the courtesy of your reply. However, since we have separationn of powers and the Supreme Court decides abortion issues, the POTUS has the most to say about the economic-well-being agenda. He is of course beholden to Congress which holds the purse, but see back recent decades and the POTUS wields great power and has the Bully Pulpit for media persuasion. I fear Obama’s Supreme Court nominees- both pro-abortion and the balance is delicate. But the numbers are strongly growing pro-life in the womb, and that is very strongly amomg the young who have lost siblings and classmates and co-workers to pay taxes and are more aware from ultra-sound about the savagery of killing our own humankind in the naame of a non-esistent “right.” See Russia and China’s policies to manipulate population and the effect that has on the economy and social life - China aborting girls for one.

LK You enjoy stirring the pot. All we need in the mix are de-sacralised Jews to push the Left further off the reservation.

Hermit,

What in the world is a “de-sacralised Jew”????

Hermit Talker! Hal says, “Yes, so true, BUT unless we can get our hands on God once again so we can torture and murder Him - by far - the greatest evil in the world by a margin of 1000%, is the murder of little innocent babies while they are still in their most holy bed in the middle of their sacramental might, and afterwhich thrown into a filthy dump and buried without any ceremony what so ever - not even named. Even Pets get better, much better. First consideration for an intelligent mammal is the care and honor of the young babies. When a boat is sinking, as is this filthy country, they say “women and children first” but what doesn’t ever have to be said is “Pregnant women first!”. We all know that what I say is true - Don’t ever vote for a person who says outloud that murdering little innocent babies is good - why would you do that?  What is that reason again?  All Love, Hal oxoxoxoxo

SK: A descralised Jew is one who is pracically an atheist who has no basic beliefs in the sacredness of the human person, presumes sexual activity is devoid of Divine guidance and lordship, thinks courts and legislative bodies are deciders of morality. And has illogical reasoning to match. There are desacralised Christians, including Catholics to keep it fair.

HAL: You put words in my mouth and did not read the words I actually did write. Calling the USA a filthy nation is over the top as I read it.  Most pro-choosers are illogical, they want the other to have that choice but not them and the pro-life - unqualified - numbers as I said are higher than ever especially the young.

Well then, Hermit Talker, Then am I to understand that you would never vote for a person who publicly advocates for the murder of innocent little babies when you have the Choice of voting instead for someone for whom Abortion/Murder is disgusting and evil beyond measure? If so, then what is the disagreement between thou and I?  It seems that you agree with everything I said up there and you never ever suggested that it would be better to vote anti-life when the anti-life candidate was a nice guy in other respects? Is that true? Could I have miss read you so badly?  Love, Hal oxoxoxoxxo

Hermit,

The Presidency of the US does not belong to Christians.  One day we will have a Jew as the POTUS or a Muslim or a Hindu or a Buddhist or an atheist. And of course, we have already, over the course of 200+ plus yrs, presidents who were only nominally Christian, who called themselves Christians because it was expected and/or convenient to do so.

As for “de-sacrilized Jews”, I don’t any.  I know Jews who do not go to Temple except for High Holy Days (as some Christians do not go to church except of Easter and/or Christmas). But Jews,a s general rule, have a very very deep respect for life.  Our lives have too often been taken from us as if our lives did not matter.  The Shoah is still within living memory. We hold all life to be precious.  Marriage and family are also held dear by Jews.  You need only to attend a bar mitzvah or bat mitzvah to see this, to be in the midst of Jewish families for any reason, to see this.  We are Jewish in 3 main ways—believing, behaving, belonging.  Even if a Jew is not part of a synagogue, we are all part of a larger community—we treasure and value this community.

i did not say that and would not say that. I am no longer in the USA but was while still there and still am, in favour of the Consistent Ethic of Life. That means studying all the candidates, their platform, their Party’s major ideas. Remember the separation of powers. Work your hiney off to get the culture pro-life and the pols will follow.

Well then, Hermit Talker, Then am I to understand that you would never vote for a person who publicly advocates for the murder of innocent little babies when you have the Choice of voting instead for someone for whom Abortion/Murder is disgusting and evil beyond measure? Your answer up there is vague and impossible to understand - please just say “yes” or “no” to this question, “am I to understand that you would never vote for a person who publicly advocates for the murder of innocent little babies when you have the Choice of voting instead for someone for whom Abortion/Murder is disgusting and evil beyond measure?”  Thank you, Hal who is trying to be your Pal.

@Lisa Kaiser - “But Jews,a s general rule, have a very very deep respect for life” This may be true as it relates to family life but what religion doesn’t? As for a child in the womb I would absolutely disagree with you. Most Jews are Democrats and Democrats are predominently in favor of abortion rights for women. I know someone who is an Orthodox Jew and he has even told me it is not the #1 issue when voting. I was very surprised at that. Jews also do not have restrictions on end of life issues. The Catholic Church teaches that ALL human life from the moment of conception to the moment of natural death is sacred. I am very, very proud of that stand and I am not sure that any other faith (except for possibly the Orthodox Christian) that can make that claim.

Dear Lisa, Nice thinking! Fact is, Jews, in order to be Jews, need to believe that an unborn baby has no soul(no human soul)- it is the same for Muslims - who are, after all, a kind of Jew by virtue of copying, or attempting to copy some aspects of the true Jews (Catholics)

Hal Barton,

As for Jews you are INCoRRECT.  Where do you get this stuff????  Being Jewish has NOTHING to do with belief about a baby’s soul.  I think you must be on some mind-altering drugs, do not know anything about Judaism, or are reading reallly really weird stuff.

Lissa;
I dated a young gal many years ago, her father was Chief of Staff at a Chicago Hospital, and they were Jewish. A question posed was on the Virgin Birth. Here was a physiian posing to a student in study to enter the Society, well versed, I thought, on this belief and the Summa and Augustine Letters etc.
I was challenegd at thay point because of feelings for that girl, we had a great time together and religion as important as we made clear on both side worked well. I get an occassional Christma card she married a gentile. The answer I gave was standard fare, this doctor lookeed a bit stunned. I think I finnessed the concept sufficiently, he accepted my faith I knew his position.
Not all Catholics, some as devout as others think ill of our njewish friends to be sure. This response has taken turns I think the author never expected.
I do not think anyone who has the belief which Romney stated in his lame “Faith of His Fathers” speach years ago did not hold water, he also finnessed his answer; No guts no glory.
Sic Transit Gloria

Amy,

Yes, Jews are predominantly Democrats (about (80%) of us.  But that does NOT mean that Jews have a monolithic opinion about abortion rights.  Jews do not have a monolithic opinion about anyhting! LOL!  Jews are Democrats for a numbe of reasons.  Not the least of which is that these days, the GOP is too far right-wing Christian.  The GOP goes on and on about the US as “Christian nation”, as if nonChristian Americans did not exist, do not matter, are not welcome, or are lesser Americans.  Obvioulsy Israel is of major concern ot Jews.  We support the party that we see as the bigger and better supporter of Israel.  The GOP’s far-right wing’s support of Israel is essentially anti-Semitic.  They read the Book of Revelation literally. They support Israel only because they see it as a necessary object to the “second coming” of Jesus.  they do not support Israel for the sake of Israel itself.

As for end of life issues:  Remeber, we do not have a monolithic tradition.  We do not have a “Vatican” or overarching hierarchy that tries to enforce dogma/doctrine.  We do not believe in intermedaries between God and the individual. Our tradition is 5,000 yrs old.  We have centuries of rabbinic scholarship and commentary, including contemporary scholarship and commentary on every possible moral issue and situation.  We have centuries of rabbinic scholarship and commentary, including contemporary scholarship and commentary, on medical ethics.  We read, we study, we inform our consciences, we confer with our rabbis, we pray, we seek to discern God’s will.  When Jacob wrestled the angel, God changed Jacob’s name to Israel—God wrestler.  Jews may come to different conclusions that RCs about a given situation, but that does NOT mean that our conclusions are immoral or contrary to the will of God.  We are NOT murders, we do not go out and commit wholesale active euthanasia.  We look at our scriptures, our scholarship and commentaries and seek a moral and ethical path.

Please remember the 1980 Vatican Declaration on Euthanasia is still the teaching of the RCC.  You might want to review that.

Amy, Hal Barton,

Jews have a deep and abiding respect for human life.  Our history could not lead us in anything but that direction.  From the 4th century to the time of Vatican II, Christian Europe tried to force us to convert, murdered us, tortured us, made us live separately from Christians, closed many professions to us, expelled us form our homes and our nations.  We were treated as trash.  In more recent times, Christian Germany perpetrated the Shoah.  Again, we were tortured, murdered, experimented on, treated like our lives meant nothing.  The Shoah is still within living memory (there are still living survivors of Hitler’s attempted genocide)  Believe me, Jews have a great understanding of and respect for human life.  In Judaism, the highest good on earth is LIFE.  We do NOT treat life lightly, we do NOT throw away or lives.  To suggest anythin else is error and ignorance.

sorry, Lisa Kaiser, but all you need to do is read the Talmud - Hard to do, but it is full of diamonds! Jews, if they follow their traditions at all, do not believe that an unborn baby has a soul until they take their first breath - same as Muslims, they are very much the same those two. Pork is forbidden etc. I wish you would check out your facts somewhat before you fall into a rage and accuse me of being a dope-fiend. I really tried to make friends with you. I guess I am just a flopped friend, sigh…

Hal Barton,

Yes, the Talmud and contemporary Jewish medical ehtics would say and do say, that a baby is not a person until that baby takes his/her first breath.  But that does NOT mean that Jews do not respect the unborn or do not seek to protect the unborn.  We value ALL life—the unborn and the born.   

And that is NOT the same as you saying “Fact is, Jews, in order to be Jews, need to believe that an unborn baby has no soul(no human soul)”.  You clearly have no understanding of Judaism.  To be a Jew ahs NOTHING to do with any belief about a baby’s soul.  Again, you seem to think that Judaism is some monolithic tradition.  It is NOT.  the Talmud is important to us, but again it is not our “Vatican”. 

And you have a funny way of making friends when you state that Catholics “are the true Jews”.  Catholics are NOT Jews, true or otherwise.  Catholics are Christians.  We Jews are the true Jews.

Lisa Kaiser, why do you pretend to disagree with me when you say, “Yes, the Talmud and contemporary Jewish medical ehtics would say and do say, that a baby is not a person until that baby takes his/her first breath.”,same as the Muslims. But we Catholics can never believe such a thing as you could understand if you ever read the New Testament. And I wonder why you believe that you should be so certain that you are true Jews since the holy scriptures, by direct order of God, require you to be able to produce a genealogy which none of you have been able to do for 2000 years. We Christians, on the other hand, do have ancient and sure documentation as to our genealogical roots, for the New Testament has the genealogy of Jesus, son of David, from Mary, a descendant of Juda, after which God informed us that anyone who accepted Jesus as the first born from the dead in the name of the Father, son, and holy ghost, would be made a son or daughter of God the Father and that we have the certitude that God loves us just as much as HE loves Jesus because, as the New Testament tells us, “By two immutable things by which God cannot lie [the blood and the flesh of Jesus] we have become the true children of God - this same blood and flesh that we eat in remembrance of Jesus and our Mother Mary. We who live in the family of God and invite you to do the same - to be a son of God? How Jewish can you get?

Hal Barton,

What I disgreed with is your statement that Jews in order to be Jews have to beleive that an unborn baby does not have ahuman soul.  NO, that is NOT required inorder for a Jew to be a Jew.  Being as Jew has Nothing to do with any belief about an unborn baby’s soul.

And being Jewsih has nothing to do with genology.  Our tradition is an uninterrupted tradition of 5,000 yrs.  Dt. 7:6-8: “For you are a people holy to the LORD, your God; the LORD, your God, has chosen you from all the peoples on the face of the earth to be a people specially his own.It was not because you are more numerous than all the peoples that the LORD set his heart on you and chose you; for you are really the smallest of all peoples. It was because the LORD loved you and because of his fidelity to the oath he had sworn to your ancestors, that the LORD brought you out with a strong hand and redeemed you from the house of slavery, from the hand of Pharaoh, king of Egypt.”  (this from the New American Bible on the web site of the US Catholic Conference of Bishops)

We are Jews because God says we are Jews, because God has chosen us to be Jews.  We are Jews because God loves us and is faithful to God’s promise to us.

And being Jews has NOTHING to with what the NT says or what the RCC says.  We are Jews—complete, whole, valid, in and among ourselves.  We do not believe Jesus was God, and we do not care that RCs do believe that.  We are all free to believe as we wish and as God leads.  What you say about us has no affect on us—because who we are does NOT depend on the NT or the RCC or on Hal Barton (who seems to be a couple of clowns short of a circus).

There are 3 Abrahamic traditions because God wills it.  All are equal in the sight of God.  None is better than the others, none is triumphant over the others.

As one contemporary rabbi describes Judaism:  We are a consensus of the committed in the Presence of the Living God.

And Hal Barton,  as long as you believe that a first cnetury CE rabbi named Joshua bar Joseph (Jesus in the Greek) was and is God and messiah, you are NOT a Jew.  You are a Christian.  Perhaps the ONE thing that ALL Jews believe is this:  the messiah has NOT arrived.  Messiah is a Jewish concept and Jesus does not meet the defintion.  If you worship Jesus as God, you are NOT a Jew.

@Lisa - Catholics do not interpret the Book of Revelation literally. It is considered apocalyptic writing. With Judaism having no hierarchy how could any Jew ever determine who or what group has the truth? Which of the rabbis got it right in the past or now? Does one become an Orthodox Jew or decide on Reconstructionist Judaism? Everyone cannot be right. Someone has to be wrong. Many Protestants have become Catholic because they wanted to be in a Church that has leadership. Catholics believe in substance today that which was handed down by the Apostles. We do not change on moral issues to “go with the flow” of modern thinkers. That would be totally hypocritical. The Vatican does not force dogma. What it does is provide believers with a guide for living. This guide comes from God. And not having a hierarchy is precisely what is wrong in so many faiths. So many choices; so many different answers. What is your point about the document on Euthanasia? Euthanasia is condemned by the Catholic Church.

Lisa Kaiser - you said quite clearly, “, “Yes, the Talmud and contemporary Jewish medical ehtics would say and do say, that a baby is not a person until that baby takes his/her first breath.” Lisa, can a human be human and not be a person? No, if the baby is a person than that baby is human - and those sayings in the Holy Scriptures you ascribe to only yourself and your family and ancestors, did it ever occur to you that we think with good reason that those passages refer to us and not to you who do not see God as your direct Father, and Jesus Christ as your eldest brother? We have as much right to think so as you do as you have no genealogy as commanded by God to back up your claim and we do. Again, I am sorry you think I am a crazy and ridiculous person, I don’t think that of you - sorry about your feeling towards me.

Dear lisa Kaiser, I am a Jew, and a son of God - there is only one God, and God is a relationship (pure love)The relationship of the Father, Son, Holy Ghost. He offers you daughtership through me.

@Lisa - I find it a bit odd that someone who is Jewish (and at one Catholic) would spend so much on a Catholic blog. Why? Is there something left undone; or is it just an attempt to challenge Catholic teaching?

Amy, I know that RCs do not read the Book of Revelation literally.  You indicated that you did not like that Jews were mainly Democrats, and we are.  I then set out the reasons why we are Democrats.  The far right wing of the GOP seet out their verison of Christianity that excludes, discounts, all nonChristians.  Rick Perry’s rencent prayer rally si a case in point.  The far right wing of the GOP is NOT Catholic, its evangelical and they do read Revelation literally.  This means that they only see Israel as a means to an end—as a means to accomplsih the “second coming” of Jesus.  Because they read Revelation literally.  These are the reasons why Jews will not embrace the GOP in great numbers.  I has nothing to do with support of or opposition to a woman’s right to choose.

Amy, Christians/Catholics may be concerned about who is right or wrong re theology/belief.  But that is not how contemporary Judaism works.  There are various movements—Reform, Conservative, Orthodox, Reconstruction, Modern Orthodox, Chasadic (and subsets of Chasadic).  Each ahs its platform of principles re how scripture is read/interpreted, sprituality, etc.  Our rabbis teach us our trdaition, help us understand scripture, the Talmud, rabbinic commentaries, etc.  Our tradition is 5,000 yrs old.  We know tht God is infinite and unknowable.  No one traditon or faith encompasses God or own THE truth.  Our obligation si to study, pray, seek to live a moral and ethical life.  Our rabbis guide us, but they are NOT a hierarchy.  We are mature adults, we come to God and spirituality on our own terms.  We do not believe in or see the need for hierarchy or any intermeidary between God and the individual.  As one famous rabbi said, “Traidition has a vote, but not a veto.”  In other words, we are asked to know,study, consider our traidition and then make decisions as mature adults.

I referenced the Vatican’s 1980 Declaration on Euthanasia because you said you objected to the idea that Jews ‘had no limits on end of life issues”.  We abide by God’s commandments, by medical ethics. The Vatican’s 1980 Declarations sets out the RCC’s nuanced teaching on euthanasia.  The RCC opposes active euthanasia, but does NOT oppose passive euthanasia.

Hal, you are NOT a Jew.  You are a Christian.  You can call yourself aJew, but that does not make youa Jew.  You can think whatever you like about Jews.  We do not care.  Your opinion re Judaism does not effect us and is worthless to us.

And your comment. “He offers you daughtership through me” is arrogant, silly and untrue.  I am a Jew because God wills it.  There are 3 equal Abrahamic traditions because God wills it. No one tradition is better than or triumphant over the others.  No one tradition owns THE truth—God is not contained by any one faith.

Amy,  I read a number of Catholic blogs beacue the RCC is very large global organization.  What it does affects not just Catholic, but affects nonCatholics as well.  Its good to know what is goingon,what the conversation is.  Do you not read outside the RCC???  Don’t you want to know how and what other people think??  Not everything revolves around the RCC.  I have no interest in challenging Catholic teaching.  But it does amaze me that many contemorary Catholics seem to be very narrow in their viewpoints, in their knowledge base, that theye value blind obidience and do not question, etc.

anyway, I thought the article above was interesting and it has turned into a long conversation.

Hal Barton..Waht is this strange obsession with geneology??  Are you a Mormon???  We Jew have our genelogy and 5,000 yrs of uninterrupted traition.  I will quote again for you Dt 7:6-8:
For you are a people holy to the LORD, your God; the LORD, your God, has chosen you from all the peoples on the face of the earth to be a people specially his own.It was not because you are more numerous than all the peoples that the LORD set his heart on you and chose you; for you are really the smallest of all peoples. It was because the LORD loved you and because of his fidelity to the oath he had sworn to your ancestors, that the LORD brought you out with a strong hand and redeemed you from the house of slavery, from the hand of Pharaoh, king of Egypt.” 

We Jews are God’s people, because God wills it and because God has made a promise to us—one that God has kept and will keep.  That is our geneology.  We do not care if you question that. Question away, it does not change anything about our relationship to God.

If you want me to have a better opinion of you, please stop making arrogant, senseless, uninformed, anti-Semitic comments.

@ Lisa Kaiser - With all due respect, I think you delude yourself as many Protestants do, when they pick and choose and decide for themselves what to believe. You keep referring to 5,000 years of history. Catholics, too have Oral Tradition and as Catholics our beliefs are not Bible alone but Scripture, Trdition and Magisterial teaching. Jews have been Democrats long before the Christian Evangelical movement. Jews have historically been liberal thinkers and I think you would agree that most Jews in the United States are not religious so they do not make their decisions based upon any religious convictions. I am aware of the many movements within Judaism and that the Orthodox Jew is radically different from the Reconstructionist. So, who has it right? You say, “we come to God and spirituality on our own terms.” And, therein is the big difference between you and me in terms of how we live out our religiosity. I don’t come to God on my terms; I come to God on His terms. God is all knowing as you say and he loves each and every one of us but I believe that we have to respond to His ways whether we are Christian or Jew. Of course I disagree with you on who has the Truth. I believe that Christianity is the fulfillment of Judaism. Judaism today is rabbinical. As a Christian I believe Jews are my brothers and sisters in faith. I am quite comfortable entering a synagogue because I recognize the similarities to Catholicism. I can see where Catholics came from. Euthanasia is never used in Catholic terminology so to say that passive euthanasia is acceptable is incorrect.  Euthanasia is the willful taking of a life. Catholics believe in letting go of extraordinary measures of keeping someone alive but food and hydration are always required even if it is artificially transmitted and permitting an individual to die “naturally”. My mother saw Jesus at the food of her bed before she died. I don’t know what your story is but I am a revert to Catholicsm and I know without a doubt He has led me back. There were many mystical manifestations and many roads to walk. Catholics do not follow in blind obedience. That would make us seem very stupid as if we were sheep (which metaphorically we are). The Truth is presented in a very compelling way and God’s grace assists in submitting to the Truth. Submission, humility and obedience are key. We do not tell God what we want to believe; He tells us and because we love so much we follow. God to us is not a dictator but a Loving Father who seeks nothing more than to bring all of His children to Himself. He wants us to be in right relationship with Him and with each other and to be in eternity with Him forever. It really is that simple. As far as reading other material that is not Catholic, I am by nature a very curious person but I don’t spend any time on Jewish commentary. To be honest, Jewish commentary spends a lot of time refuting Christianity.  It’s almost an obsession.

Excelellent piece and from the heart Amy’

LK You are weaving in and out of traffic on here with your lack of logic and clear direction. You seem never to have grasped what it is to have been a Christian when you took your classes at a Catholic College, perhaps you were then Catholic. Claiming that Jesus was an observant Jew in the face of his repeated violations of the ritual purity rules laid down for the faith by the lay Pharisees,forebears of today’s Hasidic Tradition and being brought to trial for claiming to be the I AM of Moses’ encounter with God at Sinai Yahweh/Jehovah or the Ego Eimi of John’s Gospel before the Temple Gatekeepers the High Priests.
One prime example of observant Judaism to run afoul of them and the Sadducees as well.

Amy,

Tis nothing delusional about Judaism.  When Jacob wrestled the angel God cahnged Jacob’s name to Israel—God wrestler. Syes, we seek and question.  But do not call us delusional or put us down for that. 
It is who we are.  We remain God’s people and will forever remain God’s people: 

Dt. 7:6-8: “For you are a people holy to the LORD, your God; the LORD, your God, has chosen you from all the peoples on the face of the earth to be a people specially his own.It was not because you are more numerous than all the peoples that the LORD set his heart on you and chose you; for you are really the smallest of all peoples. It was because the LORD loved you and because of his fidelity to the oath he had sworn to your ancestors, that the LORD brought you out with a strong hand and redeemed you from the house of slavery, from the hand of Pharaoh, king of Egypt.” 

Yes, Jews are liberal and are Democrats—which again has almost nothing to with the abortion issue.  It has a lot to with support for Israel.  And a Jew does not have to be religious to support Israel and to find the far right Protestant evangelical GOP to objectionable.  In the 1950s and 1960s Jews, as Democrats and along with many Democrats, embraced the Civil Rights movement.  Jews were very active in that movement.  And there are photos of rabbis marching along side Martin Luther King, Jr.  I am proud to be a Jew, I am proud to be part of a tradition that questions and seeks. 

You believe what you want.  There are 3 Abrahamic traditions because God wills it.

Please do read the Vatican’s 1980 Declaration on Euthanasia. 

If you think that Jews spend a lot of time refuting Christianity, please remember the history of the RCC with Jews from the 4th century CE to the time of Vatican II—it was not pretty. And please know that evangelicals spenda a lot of time, money & effort trying to convert us.

An excellent Jewish blog is the The Tablet.  The web site is www.tabletmag.com.  Lots of good stuff—politics, culture, religion, books, news, etc.  Another good site is www.myjewishlearning.com

Hermit,

Jeus was an observant ew because he sought to call Jews back to a more faithful, hearfelt, spiritual observance of God’s commandments.  to come back to Dt 6:4.

@ Lisa Kaiser - “Tis nothing delusional about Judaism.” I never said that Judaism was delusional. What I said was “I think you delude yourself as many Protestants do, when they pick and choose and decide for themselves what to believe.” What I meant by that is within the various movements of Judaism and Protestantism you have varying beliefs. People have a tendency to join the group within their religion based upon personal preferences and not God’s preferences. The Jews are the chosen people but when some refused the salvation offered by Christ, salvation was then offered to the Gentiles. St. Paul (once known as Saul) who was a staunch critic of Jesus was given that “assignment” after his conversion. The Jews will always have a special place in God’s heart but now everyone get to partake in God’s goodness and mercy through His Son, Jesus Christ. This is no longer offered solely to the Jews. God reveals Himself in stages (pedagogy) so if there is a focus on what occurred in the Jewish scriptures and everything stops there in is in my estimation and incomplete story of God’s plan for His people. “If you think that Jews spend a lot of time refuting Christianity, please remember the history of the RCC with Jews from the 4th century CE to the time of Vatican II—it was not pretty.” What I meant was Jewish commentary is often about refuting who Jesus is; not about Catholic-Jewish relations. What’s the fear? Obviously there is one. Catholics do not spend their time refuting Judaism or any other religion. I don’t have the time to read an entire document on Euthanasia. If you are trying to get a point across please provide the section of the document so that I can comment. Christians question and seek also. Catholicism is packed full of brilliant philosophers. “There are 3 Abrahamic traditions because God wills it.” Catholics would respond to this as “God permits it; not wills it. There cannot be three truths in these monotheistic religions. Someone has the truth. My response to this would be when Jesus Christ comes at the end of the world all Truth will be revealed.

LK: Not sure I can concur that Jesus only tried to bring His own People to honour the Shema. What about His answer to the man who asked Him about the ranking of the commandments. Jesus added love neighbour as self to Deut 4:4-6 in Mk 12; 28-34 and the last line was they asked no more.
I still await your supposed other Beatitudes teachings from the Hebrew Bible.

AMY; I admire your whole approach. Thanks for helping Lisa and myself and whomever else is still reading us!

Hermit,

The idea, the explict expression of loving our neighbors as oursleves is found throughout the entirety of Jewish scripture.  as are the values of peace, justice, compassion, mercy, humility.  The Beatittudes were nothing new.  Do you really think these values were not partof Judaism before Jesus???  He preached nothing new.  He preached from the entirety of his tradition—Judaism.  And yes, he sought to bring people back to a more faithful observance of Judaism.

You really really need to read Jewish scripture, because it is obvious that you have no knowledge of Jewish scripture.

LK; Now you are being arrogant and presuming my ignorance of the HS.
Give me chapter and verse instead of insult and robot repetition. Please.

Amy,  You are being vary narrow in your understanding/response.

From the 4th century until the Protestant Reformation, there was only the RCC, but even after the Reformation the RCC was active in presecuting Jews. So yes, Jew are not that thrilled with a faith that has over the centureis tried to force us to beleive that Jesus was God.

Sorry if you do not have time to read your church’s documents.  the 1980 Declaration is not long and can be dound on the Vatican’s web site or uyou can just google it. 

Ad again, you are trying to impose your belief system on Judaism.  You may believe that in Christianity some one church owns the the truth.  But its not an “either or” situation.  In Judaism we do not go around saying this that Jewish movement owns the truth. There are many paths to God.  So yes, each of the Abrahamic traditions DOES contain truth.  Not the entire truth—but some part of the the entire truth.  God is too large for any one faith, be it the RCC or any other faith to encompass.  If you see the world in black and white—OK.  But that is NOT how Judaism works.
And my response would be that Jesus is NOT the God nor is Jesus the messiah.  We will have to wait to see who is correct.

Hermit,

You really really do need to read Jewish scripture.  All the ideas of the Beatitutdes are EVERYWHERE in Jewish scripture.  They are found in the narraitves of Genesis. Chronicles, Judge, Pslams, Proverbs in the Song of Songs, in the writings of the prophets,in Job, etc—the stories themselves set out thse values, Moses talks about these values in Exoducs, Numbers and Deutoronomy.  Take some time and read!!!

LK; You say there are many paths to God, JUDAISM is so divided BUT you tell Amy that Jesus is neither God nor Messiah. Did you mean I no longer believe that, if you ever did - or I do not believe that BUT it could be TRUE.
You turned arrogant with me in your last post. Presuming I do not know the HS. How about giving me chapter and verse of your apparently huge treasure of citations about JESUS not teaching anything that is already found in the HS. Work with me IF I know so little, love your neighbour please.Please also stop robot repetition of the same line about that. I would also suggest you lay off the Catholic-Jewish horse. It was Jewish Hierarchs who lied about Jesus and had Him murdered by changing their story for the Romans. There was harmony between Church and Temple and Synagogue until the Temple was destroyed in 70 CE/AD. Then the Jews went after Christians big time. DROP it we are all acknowleding the errors of the past but you see only ours. Jews betrayed their own people under Hitler so study your history and see your irrational arguments on here.

@ Lisa Kaiser: - My comment about Jewish commentary being anti-Christian has nothing whatsover to do with Jews feeling they were persecuted by Christians so please stop going back to that.  As I told you it is about refuting Jesus claim He is the messiah and I again ask you, what’s the fear; why so much preoccupation with what Christians belive; why not just focus on what you believe? Jews are terrified they will become extinct so they need to justify in their own minds and the minds of anyone reading their commentary that Jesus is not the Messiah. 

“In Judaism we do not go around saying this that Jewish movement owns the truth.” Actually if you were to ask an Orthodox Jew if someone who is Jewish but not an Orthodox Jew is considered Jewish, the answer would be, “no”. So the Orthodox Jew clearly believes the truth of Judaism resides with them. I would have to agree. Just like in Christianity, outside of Catholicsm and the Orthodox Christians, things got watered down and can in many cases not even resemble the teachings of Christ and so it is too within Judaism.

Have you ever read St. Paul’s letters and his conversion? You would be hard pressed to refute it. Here is a man who persecuted Christ and then became one of his staunch defenders even accepting death. And then there is St. Stephen being stoned to death for speaking blasphemy. Wouldn’t you say Christians have a great deal to be angry about? We don’t, however, spend our time repeating the same mantra over and over again; poor me a Christian, look what “they” have done to me. No! We live for our faith in the Lord Jesus who gives us everything we need. We live in His love and in His peace.

RK;  Finally have had it with you. Could not give me ONE citation. You name a fictional piece which is the Song
of Songs, two lovers, rather racey and is seen as image of God pursuing the soul. Then Job is a forensic piece where God is on trial and the devil uses Job to catch God out. Neither has a single reference to the theme or any point in the Beatitudes. Amy is right on again. Good retort and challenges your bigoted anti-Catholic rhetoric. You have a serious psycholical problem it seems to me.

Hermit,

It is clear that you do not how to read or comprehend scripture.  Its not about one line or one verse. Its about understanding the entirety of the message,of the theme.  The Songs of Songs is an allegory, is poetry.  It still carries a clear message. And is contained inthe RC bible.  It is not contained in Protestant bibles.

All I can see is read for yourself and try to understand what you are reading.

Amy,  Jews are not terrified about “becoming extinct”.  Where do you this silly stuff????  Jews will never beleive that Jesus is God or the messiah.  Messiah is a Jewish concept and Jesus does not meet the criteria or fit the defintion.

Yes, I have read all of the NT many times.  Paul describes his conversion, he believed it to be true.  I don’t need to refute anything.  Mohammad also describes his conversion—do you believe that?  It is hard to refute.  There are Jews, Christians and Muslims.  No one tradition contains the entire truth of God. 

All movements of Judaism are what they are. None contians the entire truth of God.  Nothing is watered down in any Jewish tradition.

Please read some history before you make remarks like you made in your last post.

@Lisa Kaiser - Jews are most certainly terrified about becoming extinct due to the number of Jews marrying outside of their religion. Look at the Orthodox Jewish community who has child after child. I think it’s pretty obvious.

Jews will believe that Jesus is God. That will bring about the Second Coming of Christ. If they don’t believe in Him before; they’ll believe it when they pass on.

You are in error if you say that no movement in Judaism contains the truth You delude yourself, LK. Nothing is watered down in Judaism? Are you kidding?
Compare what the Reconstructionist Jew has to say against the Orthodox Jew. There is a vast difference! Now, you know that so why play games?

Lisa Kaiser - you said quite clearly, “, “Yes, the Talmud and contemporary Jewish medical ehtics would say and do say, that a baby is not a person until that baby takes his/her first breath.” Lisa, can a human be human and not be a person? No, if the baby is a person than that baby is human. BUT, by not calling that precious baby asleep in her mother’s miraculous womb a PERSON show us who you really are - you are a believer in Planned Parenthood and speak the same vile and untrue language that they do - and that explains why you constantly call me vile names when I try to communicate with you. I don’t think it is me that you hate really - just anybody who would think that the particular form of Jewism that you prefer (certainly not the more orthodox kind) is not the best kind of religion by such a great margin that anyone who would try to suggest otherwise is instantly hated by you and, as in the case of me, called horrible names by you. I’m so sorry you feel that way about me.

Amy,

Jews are Not worried about becoming extinct.  with intermarriage, one spouse often converts.  Its not a problem.  Ortthodox, Jews , like RCs do not beleive in birth control and so often have large families.

And no, no movement within Judaism contains the entire truth of God, because Gos id beyond human understanding.  And no nothing is watered down.  Different movements emphasize different aspects of Judaism. The Orthodox are very into the rigid adherence of rules. Othe movements of Judaism emphasize that Judaism is of the heart, less concerned about the letter of the Law, more concerned about the spirit of the Law.  I am not playing games.

Of course you are free to beleive what you want about Jesus.  And we Jews are free to believe what we believe—the messiah has not come and that the messiah may not be a person but may a “messianic Age’ ushered in by God—a time of total peace, harmoney adn perfect relationships with God.  Catholics beleive the Jews are wrong, Mulsims believe the Catholics are wrong.  Gets us nowwhere.  Let’s just respect what the other believes.

Hal Barton,

Please do not assume what I think or do not think ablut Planned Parenthood.  You are making wild assumptions about my beliefs.  Jews do not have a monolithic opionion on the abortion issue.  Just becasue the Talmud says something does not mean that we all just fall in line with that commentary. 

I ddid not call you vile names. I did characterize some of your comments as arrogant, etc.  Not the same thing as “calling you vile names”. But you are the one, who as a Christian is trying to weirdly assert that you are a Jew.

Lisa Kaiser wrote up there,“Yes, the Talmud and contemporary Jewish medical ehtics would say and do say, that a baby is not a person until that baby takes his/her first breath.” It is what she believes and this belief of her’s is exactly the central faith of Planned Parenthood - the biggest murderer of persons that has ever existed on planet Earth. I so sorry she feels that babies are not persons like you and me and everyone - and I am sorry that she feels that she needs to call me vile names, but I think she has been lied to by Planned Parenthood who has quoted some ancient belief of Jews in order to make her believe that some babies are not persons, and that is why she hates someone like me who would believe that babies are persons - so, she thinks God hates me because I would dare to believe that a baby is always a baby no matter how small and ugly

@Lisa Kaiser - Actually within intermarrying the Jew usually converts. I know that from personal experience. My husband was Jewish and I had nothing to do with it. I love how you phrase things, Orthodox Jews and RC don’t believe in birth control. Actually it’s God that doesn’t believe in birth control.  Ah, not living the letter of the law but the spirit of the law. A phrase used regularly by Catholic liberal thinkers. We are world’s apart but what we can share in common is that God loves us equally.

Amy, Jews are Jews are Jews—certainly in that is true in the Diaspora. We are a community,  a tribe, as well as one of the mjaor reltions of the world.  No, I am not an Orthodox Jew, but becasue we are a community, I have been welcomed in every synagogue/shul I have attended.  I belong to Jewish book clubs and a Rosh chodesh group where we all come from different movements and shuls.  I sometimes study Torah with a local Chasadic community.  I sometimes attend services at a local Modern Orthodox synagogue (where Sephardic and Askenazi Jews, and nonJews all worship together), in Sept I am attending a large dinner with Orthodox women.  for High Holy Days, will prepare at the mikvah of a local Orthodox shul(becaue it is beautiful and I like better than the local Reform mikvah)  I sometimes attend morning minyan at a local Consrvative shul.  Rabbis form various movments come to my shul for weekends throughout the year as part of our scholars-in-residence program.  Our shul hosts a large local Jewish education program called Valley Beit Midrash (House of Study).  It is led by a Modern Orthox rabbi and housed at my Reform shul.  Valley Beit Midrash is a partnerhsip of a number of local shuls from various movements within Judaism—all coming together to promote Jewish study/learning for ALL Jewish adults.  Its very popular and even nonJews attend.  but I do love my Reform shul and our rabbis (love studying with them.  One of the major conversations going in Judaism today is the conversation about post-denominationalism.  We Jews do a lot of mixing together, no matter which movement we belong to.  That is because we all learn much from each other. So the discussion is about whether we need to have separate movements.  Its an ngoing discussion that may not have a clear resolution for decasdes.  But we are talking about how good it is that we all come together in many ways and places.

Gee, Lisa, Don’t you remember when you wrote this? “Hal Barton,
As for Jews you are INCoRRECT.  Where do you get this stuff????  Being Jewish has NOTHING to do with belief about a baby’s soul.  I think you must be on some mind-altering drugs, do not know anything about Judaism, or are reading reallly really weird stuff.” and called me insane and a mentally retarded “clown”? You never admitted you were mistaken and never apologized for you cruel rudeness - I think you should - it would be good for your soul and just knowing that all babies have souls would be good for your soul too. All love, Hal oxoxoxoxoxoxo

Amy,  nothing in the Bible says that God does not believe in birth control.  In Genesis, God says “go forth and multiply.”  Human beings have done that very very well.  Nothing in the Bible says that we should not use our intelligence to thoughtfully plan our families.  Nothing in the Bible says that we have to populate the earth to the point of destroying every other living thing on the earth. 

Conversion goes both ways.  I know many couples where the nonJewish spouse ahs converted to Judaism.  We Jews are not going extinct any time soon!!!

And living the spirit of the Law is what Jesus preached, so you should have no problenm with that. The NT makes clear that Jesus did not always rigidly adhere to the letter of the Law.  And he openly condemned the religious authorites of his time that advocated rigid aherence tot he letter of the Law. I guess Jesus was a a liberal (gasp!) and a very early Reform rabbi!!!

Well, Lisa gives me no answer - I guess she wants to change the subject from what she strongly used to believe. Lisa Kaiser wrote up there,“Yes, the Talmud and contemporary Jewish medical ehtics would say and do say, that a baby is not a person until that baby takes his/her first breath.” So,let it be, let it be - at least this indicates that she perceives something wrong with believing a baby is not a real person yet.

Hal Barton,

I did not call you a clown.  Please re-read my post.  I said you were a couple of clowns short of a circus.  So not the same thing.  And I most certinly did NOT call you mentally retarded.  I did indicate that I thought you might be using mind-altering drugs. Which is not name calling.

And I most certainly did NOT say that babies do not have souls.

Hal Barton,

I did not call you a clown.  Please re-read my post. I said that you were a couple of clowns short of a circus.  Not the same thing as a calling you a clown.  I did NOT cally mentally retarded or insane.  i did express the opinion that you might be using mind-altering drugs.

I did NOT say that babies do not have souls.  I DID say that Jews value ALL life.

Hal Barton,

You are deliberately distorting my posts (or do you just not understand what you read?).

Yes, the Talmud and contemporary Jewish medical ethics would say and do say, that a baby is not a person until that baby takes his/her first breath.

I am merely stating a fact about the Talmud and contemporary Jewish medical ethics.  There is NOTHING in that statement about MY personal belief on that topic.

Dearest Lisa, we are all so happy and joyful to read what you just said up there,“Yes, the Talmud and contemporary Jewish medical ethics would say and do say, that a baby is not a person until that baby takes his/her first breath.
I am merely stating a fact about the Talmud and contemporary Jewish medical ethics.  There is NOTHING in that statement about MY personal belief on that topic.” We believe the same thing and this is why I am no long a Jew - a baby is a baby is a baby and there never was a baby that was not a fully human person and the official line of the Jewish Churches is wrong (as you well know). This is the most important thing any church could teach - that a person should be honored and guarded no matter how small. You believe exactly like the Pope believes about this most important thing, and me - what could be a more important thing to believe? So glad to hear that you are with us 100%. No wonder you like to post here - abortion is murder, babies should be loved not murdered

Hal Barton,

There are no “Jewish churches”.  ther are synagogues—which are independent bodies.  There is no Jeiwsh equivalent of a diocese.  And there is NO “official line”.  The Talmud is commentary, opinion.  And Jews are NOT compelled to accept it.  There is No overarching hierarchy.  Judaism does not have “revealed tradition” or doctrines or dogmas that must be accepted/believed in order to be Jewish.  That is an RC thing, not a Jewish thing.

At last you understand what I posted at least 3 times.  I made an objective statment about the Talmud and contemporary Jewish medical ethics.  End of story.  I did not comment about my beleif on that issue and still have not commented.  Please do not comment on what you think I may or may not believe, because you have no clue.

Lisa Kaiser is keeping it a secret as to whether or not she believes that a baby is a person or not - but she has given herself away clear enough - she is a secret hater of baby murder and that is why she only feels comfortable posting here in Catholicville, for she is thinking completely contrary to every official Rabbi in the world. She believes that a baby is always a baby no matter how small - she feels alone and gets no sympathy or any hint of agreement from the Jewish places she tries to post. It is taking her a long time to admit that she is in 100% agreement with the Pope and nearly everyone on this Catholic site - I know how that feels, we should all pray for her.  She is alone - virtually every Jew in the world believes, against all reason and against the human heart, that a baby is not a human person until they are entirely free from their mothers wombs - a sad and illogical thing to have to think lockstep - no wonder she loves to post here - only here will she find the truth embraced - that most important truth that we should love ALL human persons - even the one still connected to mothers - but we Catholics love Mothers being children of Mary

Hal Barton,

First and foremost, I started to post here because I thought the article about electing a polytheist was interesting. My posting here has NOTHING to with the abortion issue.  You are distorting my posts, putting words in my mouth and saying UNTRUE and OFFENSIVE things about Judaism.

Secondly,  Jews believe that the highest good on earth is LIFE. Jews are fervent believers in the value of all life.  Christian Europe treated our lives like trash for centuries upon centuries.  Christian Germany murdered 6 million Jews in the Shoah. Rabbis and Jews have the highest regard for life.  Many shuls around the world contain the word “chai”—the Hebrew word for life.  When we break bread and share that bread and wine at kiddush (part of our Shabbat services), we say l’chaim (to life).  So please do not go around saying rabbis and Jews believe anything differently than that.

Please stop saying that Jews believe anything in “lockstep”.  Again that is just trying to impose RC culture on Judaism. Probably the only thing Jews believe in “lockstep” is that Jesus is NOT God or the messiah.  Everything else is up for debate!

If you are going to pary for me, say the Shema:  Hear, O Israel, the Lord the God is One. A Pater Noster would be fine. There is nothing offensive to Jews in the Pater Noster.

Lisa Kaiser says, “. Probably the only thing Jews believe in “lockstep” is that Jesus is NOT God or the messiah.  Everything else is up for debate!” Of course, that is not true - whether the Child is a person or not is not up for debate. Poor Lisa wants to believe that it is but anyone can check it out - go ask any Rabbi, but Lisa probably will not do that right away for then she would find out the truth - the only Rabbis she knows about that believe that that innocent little baby is fully a human person are Catholic Rabbis, starting with the Pope. Let go Lisa! Let go. Stop fighting against the truth - Catholics love those babies and Jews do not love them as real persons. It is just the simple truth that anybody can find out Lisa - come on home where you can love the babies without feeling so Different.

Hal Barton,

PLEASE stop acting like an irritating, anti-Semitic, weirdo, whacked out nut job.

ALL Jews value life.  Jews love babies as real persons.  There is NO such thing as a “catholic rabbi”  The pope is NOT a rabbi.  The pope is the bishop of Rome and a foreign monarch.

Why, Lisa! You said up there, “Hal Barton,
PLEASE stop acting like an irritating, anti-Semitic, weirdo, whacked out nut
job.
ALL Jews value life. Jews love babies as real persons. There is NO such
thing as a “catholic rabbi” The pope is NOT a rabbi. The pope is the
bishop of Rome and a foreign monarch.“Why, of course they do Lisa, but they do not admit or allow themselves to realize that an unborn baby is really a baby - to be a baby you have got to be a real person and they universally do not believe that a baby in the mother’s womb can possibly be a real baby - the Talmud calls them “sandals” or just “empty shoes”. But you are just like us, come on home lover of life, lover of innocent babies, person who can see that a baby in the womb is not an empty sandal-but a real person in need of love that should never be denied a burial and denied the dignity of being recognized as a fully human person

I would like to post a moratorium on the discussion whether Jesus is or is not the Messiah.  This is a Catholic blog and please let us all remember that! That being said, Jesus is the Messiah and the Son of God! Anyone who
disagrees with that is free to take their views to a supporting blog where their views will be supported. I am frankly very tired of having to defend Christianity and posts that are patronizing and replete with inaccuracies about who Jesus is. Non Christians seem to love to get on these Catholic blogs and spend their time insulting Christians and the Catholic Church in particular. Why give “them” the opportunity to air their hostilities here? I suggest we get back to the subject matter which is electing a polytheist as President.

AMY: I agree and have already stopped trying to use reason and the actual texts of the Bible on here. However, we rode and beat that polytheist horse into the ground. Same problem there, Mormons do not know what they believe, and abortion is the only topic for some, so no dialogue there. Some posts show the writers are incapable of seeing that the Natural Law and most of what was taken for granted in our legal and constitutional and Common Law tradition has been thrown under the bus. Can we have a whole new topic and drop this one, I am new on here, this is the first topic I wrote about. If not count me out and thanks for your positive thinking on here and to other positive contributors.  Would love to stay in touch with you if we can find a topic/site. Peace Francis (HermitTalker)

Hello Francis (HermitTalker)

I agree that the polytheist subject has probably had enough discussion. I hope to see you on another blog on the National Catholic Register. God’s peace, Francis!

Ok Jimmy ... what does it say that man for man and woman for woman the Mormons did more to defend the traditional family in California than the Catholics did? I will tell you in a Biblical context. They were the son(s) that said no to the Father and went down the road and turned around and came back and did the Fathers will while the Catholic son(s) said yes Father we will do your will and then took a nap in their hammocks. On that final day as part of the Mystery of Salvation there will be, please God, those Mormons who at least followed their conscience’s while some who claim Catholicity who will tremble. The Mormons exist because the Protestants exist and the Protestants exist because of the sins of Catholics some 500 years ago. Pray for the Mormons; but pray more for the Pelosi’s and Cuomo’s and Kennedy’s who have very little excuse for their actions, may God help them.

Hermittalker:

A further comment on the teachings of Jesus.  Yes, hJeus taught stright from the Torah.

The idea of loving God with your whole heart, soul and strenght comes from Dt 6:4-9.  Loving your neighbor as yourslef si found in at least 2 palces in Torah.  Leviticus 19:18:  Take no revenge and cherich no grudge against your fellow countryman.  You shall lover your neighbor as yourself.  I am the Lord.

It appears agsin in Leviticus 19:34:  You shall treat the alien who residew with you no differnetly that the natives born among you.  Have the same love for him as for yourself, for you to were once alients in the land of Egypt.  I am the Lord your God.

If you read the New American Bible and probalby other Catholci Bibles, you will often see noted the source in Jewish scripture of Jesus’ words and actions.  he spoke and acted as an observant Jew so his time, because that is what he was.  An overarching theme in the prophets is that ritual observance, following the letter of the law is NOTHINg if a person does not love God, love his/her neighbor, does not act as a moral and ethical person.

If you read through Exodus, Numbers, Leviticus (try Chapter 19 here as a start) and Deuteronomy, you will see many many times the commandments about compassion, caring for poor, being merciful, having compassion, etc.  Jesus, as preacher of is time, among people who spoke Aramaic, but who did not as a whole read or write Hebrew, made the Torah and the writings of the prophets and other Jewish scriptrue accessible, understandable.

Amy,

sorry you feel that way about nonChristians.  However, I will feel free to comment here as I wish.  The rCC does many many good things and inspires many many good people to do godd thing and live good lives. But when the actions of the RCC go beyond the RCC and when RCs try to impose their beliefs on the of us, treat us as lesser people, then it is right that the RCC be challenged.  Surely the RCC cannot expect the rest of us to just sit back and be pushed around.  The days when the RCC goes unchallenged are over.

The

@Lisa Kaiser - Who is imposing their beliefs on you? This is the United States and we are free to practice any religion or no religion at all. This blog is not meant as a sounding board for you or anyone to refute Catholic teaching. And those of us who are Catholics should not be put in a position to defend our belief in Jesus as you have consistently challenged us to do. I have no objections with anyone who wishes to contribute to a blog based on the subject matter. I do have a problem when someone deliberately takes the discussion in a different direction. You are not interested in discussing a particular subject. You are interested only in bashing Catholicism. I am Catholic and I do not have to defend my belief in Jesus to you or to any non believer. You show your true colors and hostility in your closing sentence. “The days when the RCC goes unchallenged are over.”

Amy,

I have no issue with freedom of religion.  I have no issue with Catholic teaching and my purpose here is NOT to refute Catholic teaching. And interst is NOT in bashing the RCC (but it is NOT a perfect institution)  And my first posts here were actually on the topic of the main article.  And if you re-read my posts, you will see that I repeatedly said that you can believe what you want to believe, but that you should not insist to me or any nonChristisn that your beleif is correct and our belief is incorrect, that we must believe as you believe.  Our belief is as valid, whole and complete as yours.  And as I have said a number of times on this comment thread,  there are 3 Abrahamic traditions, all equal, all equally valid, none better than the others, none triumphant over the others That there are 3 Abrahamic traditions because God wills it. You object to that—so its is you who is trying to impose your beliefs on me.

I and I most certainly did NOT deliberately change the topic of discussion.  Comment threads often go in many directions, just sort of organically.

@ Lisa Kaiser - You have an agenda. End of story.

Amy,

I have NO Agenda.  NOT end of story.  Please do not make assumptions.

AMY; My soul mate on here!
There are ” three” ?  Abrahamic Traditions;
1 The Jewish which rejects the Obserant Jew, Jesus as the Messiah and not the (only begotten ) Son of God.
2 Islam which folllows his first-born son, born of his wife’s slave wo was kicked out when Sarah had a son.
The Christian Church is not actually a third tradition but believes it follows the first one and sees itself as heirs to “Abraham, our father in faith” as we pray in Prayer One, the Roman Canon at Mass. It also sees itself as descendant of Moses’ Covenant, the Kingdom of David and the Prophets who foretold the coming of the Messiah who for Christians is Jesus the Christ. His whole work of dying, rising, going back to His Father and sending the Holy Spirit is re-presented in the sacraments, chief two are baptism and Eucharist/Mass/ Synaxis/ Lord’s Supper. The Church as did Jesus uses material which outwardly signify what the Holy Spirit does inwardly- baptism with water washes and gives new life; bread and wine are fellowship food to nourish but show family friendship: oil is healing and soothing and shows designation for special work, Messiah is the Anointed One, hence His adopted sisters and brothers are anointed in baptism-confirmation-ordination to ministry.
ONE MAJOR PROBLEM for me is how can GOD who is LORD and TRUTH and sent His Spirit to write the Bible through the writers and prophets accept that they are equally valid when 1 and 2 contradict the Christian.
M

Hermit,

Sigh!  More of the same old, same old outmoded RCC triumphalism.  Please read The RCC’s docuemnt Nostra Aetate (Our Time)promulated in 1965.  Which acutally is a pretty nice case for respecting freedom of religion and honoring various faith traditions.

Hermit, you say, “
ONE MAJOR PROBLEM for me is how can GOD who is LORD and TRUTH and sent His Spirit to write the Bible through the writers and prophets accept that they are equally valid when 1 and 2 contradict the Christian”

The obvious answer here is that Christianitydoes NOT encompass the entire truth of God. No one faith tradition encompasses God or the entire truth of God.  Yes, there are e Abrahamic traditions. Each faith tradition is valid and compelte within itself.

Three Abrahamic traditions exist because God wills it. We Jews see that God is true to God’s promise to us in Dt 7:6-8, For you are a people holy to the LORD, your God; the LORD, your God, has chosen you from all the peoples on the face of the earth to be a people specially his own.It was not because you are more numerous than all the peoples that the LORD set his heart on you and chose you; for you are really the smallest of all peoples. It was because the LORD loved you and because of his fidelity to the oath he had sworn to your ancestors, that the LORD brought you out with a strong hand and redeemed you from the house of slavery, from the hand of Pharaoh, king of Egypt.” 

Yes, Hermit you think Christianity id the end all and be all. Islam thinks the same of itself. Judaism says it is one path to God (we reject triumphalism).  We do not seek converts, we do not try to tell people that Judaism is the only truth path to God.  God is all powerful , all knowing, beyond human understanding.  Neither Christianity, nor Islam, nor Judasim conatisn the entire truth of God. 

Your disagreement with that is with affect on Isalm or on Judaism.  In other words, you can advocate your outmoded tiuphalism, but it changes nothing.  Muslims and Jews will continue in our traditions, in our worship of God, in our own way.

@Hermit - Please consider not continuing the dialog with Lisa Kaiser - you’re just feeding into her need to grandstand. If you must, keep telling her, this is a Catholic blog and here we believe that Christianity is the Truth and the Catholic Church contains the fullness of Christianity.

AMY: Seems someone attempted to answer my post to you bu seemed to miss the whole point of it all. Presuming that denying the core teachings of branches of the Hebew Tradition and championing the other one reminds me of the cap that says I AM THEIR LEADER WHICH WAY DID THEY GO?

Hermit,  You are the one who was grandstanding and putting down other faith traditions.  We all have our separate beliefs, but denigrating other traditions because you beleive you hold the entire truth is just unacceptable bigotry in the 21st century.  And denigrating other traditions is NOT what the RCC teaches.

Right Amy. I was seeking some Logic. There is an old saying in the Ozark Mountains one cannot win a urine contest with a skunk

Hermit,

If you were seeking logic, you quite glaringly failed to find it.  And have now descended into nastiness.

AMY; I found an article about the intellectual honesty of “pro-choosers” by Jennifer Folwiler on this Catholic weekly newspaper blog site.See you there. Francis/ HermitTalker.

Listen up you all, and Lisa too - lisa has no more concern about a baby still in the womb than any other pagan - she does not believe that the baby is a real person because she is a Jew - hard for us to imagine, but there are many people like that - here is why: We Catholics do not worship one mighty personality because that personality being perfect would be far above our capacity to understand what that personality really is: Lisa believing that she knows what perfection is, and can grasp it entirely, has worshiped many theoretical divine personalities. But we Catholics, knowing we are far too young to grasp perfection, do not worship God as a Personality, but as a RELATIONSHIP - God is Love - the love between the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. We alone know what we worship and it is that Love we try to be like - that is why the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are are three favorite men whom we love more than our physical life - God is Love,as our Bible clearly states, and that is what we worship - and this is what those who do not worship a divine relationship cannot really understand and why, with our limited human understanding, we can never fall into personality worship like all who are not Christians fall into - the Mormon might be against abortion, but not for the sake of the Child, but just a knee jerk ritual with no real meaning- all who are not trinitarians are polytheists sooner or later.

Hal Barton,

What nastiness you are putting out there.  I don’t “believe that the baby is a real person” because I am Jew???  You are about as close to the old medieval ‘blood libel” as one one possibly get.  Again, Jews, like many Christians and Catholics, are NOT monolithic on their opinions re the abortion issue.  And I have not made any comment on the subject at all.  As a general rule Jews, are ALL ABOUT LIFE.

Hal Barton, you libel me and all Jews with your nasty comment.

And I have absolutely no clue, what you mean by “she has worshiped many theoretical divine personalities”  I worship the God of Abraham, Issac, Jacob, Sarah, Rabecca, Leah, and Rachael. I worship the Lord God who led the Israelites from Egypt with a strong arm and mighty hand.  I pray the great prayer of all Jews, the Shema:  Hear, O Israel, the Lord the God is One.

Listen up you all, and Lisa too - Lisa has no more concern about a baby still in the womb than any other pagan - she does not believe that the baby is a real person because she is a Jew - hard for us to imagine, but there are many people like that - here is why: We Catholics do not worship one mighty personality because that personality being perfect would be far above our capacity to understand what that personality really is: Lisa believing that she knows what perfection is, and can grasp it entirely, has worshiped many theoretical divine personalities. But we Catholics, knowing we are far too young to grasp perfection, do not worship God as a Personality, but as a RELATIONSHIP - God is Love - the love between the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. We alone know what we worship and it is that Love we try to be like - that is why the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are three favorite men whom we love more than our physical life - God is Love, as our Bible clearly states, and that is what we worship - and this is what those who do not worship a divine relationship cannot really understand and why, with our limited human understanding, we can never fall into personality worship like all who are not Christians fall into - the Mormon might be against abortion, but not for the sake of the Child, but just a knee jerk ritual with no real meaning- all who are not Trinitarians are polytheists sooner or later, for each one has their own unique idea as to who God really is, and that theoretical idea will change from day to day – but God is Pure Love, through and through, and we only see God in Jesus Christ and His Sacrifice for us and His trust and Love of Our Spiritual Father who is in heaven desiring us to use our FreeWill to choose to become real and actual sons and daughters of God the Father whom Father will love exactly as much as He loves Jesus Christ, the First Born from the most perfect human that ever lived, Mary!

Lisa, Your congregation are all worshiping many theoretical divine personalities - you all have a completely different notion of who or what God is - and that idea you think is God that you have will change by and by - but see for yourself - you believe, almost uniquely in your congregation, that an unborn baby is a person - yet 99% of the people around you believe that if you kill such a baby, that you have not in fact killed a real baby who is a real suffering person - I mean, obviously, you do not worship the same God as the 99% do. How different can you get? These are two completely different Gods! And, if you stay in the congregation of many different ideas of who God really is, sooner or later you are going to have to agree with your Rabbi, or your congregation, or your relatives on their death beds who are after you to confess that you believe one of their ideas as to what God really is: But we know what God really is - A Relationship of Pure Love, and that we can do and we do do it by loving the Child in the Womb, because Jesus was in the womb as God loving us even then - we Love those yet to be pushed out of the womb babies as you never can because you have got to believe that they are not real persons so you turn your back on them and we never see you at the abortion/murder Clinics because you, lacking understanding of pure love, regard these suffering and beautiful babies as NON PERSONS! Before you can understand God, Lisa, you have to understand love - and you are your kind and the Mormon, don’t - but soon you will come around - you want to, that is why you only post here in Catholicville.

Every person is considered a citizen of the USA in the Constitution. The 1973 decision dodged that and the pro-choice folks also do all they can to use language to deny even the HUMANNESS of the unborn. They used talk about the product of conception or a glob of tissue but the ultrasounds and other scientific tools are losing their shrill. Most Americans from the start after the ‘73 decision were misinformed that the decision was not as absolute as they were told. Today’s youth who miss peers and classmates and siblings due to abortion as well as co-workers to build the society as neighbours and tax payers to pay down the deficit and shore up SS and protection for the vulnerable.

Lisa, you said up there, “First and foremost, I started to post here because I thought the article about electing a polytheist was interesting. My posting here has NOTHING to with the abortion issue.  You are distorting my posts, putting words in my mouth and saying UNTRUE and OFFENSIVE things about Judaism.
Secondly,  Jews believe that the highest good on earth is LIFE
But Lisa, What do you mean by “Life?” You Kill and eat animals, so that can’t be your highest idea of “life”.  So, life then is restricted to Persons, right? A person is not a chicken or a fish. So, aforesaid being true, Jews do not believe that an unborn baby is a person and that is a person’s life that they cannot value. Therefore, here is a very important life (person) that they do not value. Let me ask you Lisa, “Do you value that baby’s life? If so, you are not in agreement with 99% of your congregation are you, and, as such, your congregation is full of thousands of ideas of what and who God is - you are functionally a polytheist.

AMY; I found another column in the daily NCR posting which has an article on “Is BXV1 a Commie”- he is criticised by some commentators. His concern is the sacredness of the human not economics as such.
——————————————————————
Hal; you are being somewhat illogical and irrelevant in some of your posts. That undermines your position and may waste time for you if irrational posts are offered on here also.

Lisa, us Catholics believe, and are required to believe, that God is simple - He is pure love through and through. We Catholics know well what love is and that love is God. We know how to love and we proof it by loving everybody perfectly and equally. We love your unborn baby and stand ready to give up our lives for her, and we will die before we every say that your unborn baby is not a person at all, but just some lower form of life that we can kill and no one dare call it murder - I am not fearful to say it Lisa, Abortion is the Cold Blooded Murder of a totally innocent Baby by the hand of a Murderer, whether that murderer be the baby person’s own mother or the fiendish doctor! Can you say this same thing Lisa? If not, why do you say you love life and that Jews, as a whole, love life? But you are confused by many different notions about who and what God really is or you would call it Murder because what else could it be to a person who loves murdered babies?

Hal; you are being somewhat illogical and irrelevant in some of your posts. That undermines your position and may waste time for you if irrational posts are offered on here also.
YOU KNOW, it is not fair to make a serious accusation against a mans sanity and not back it up with proof - so why did you do it?

Being illogical and irrelevant does not make you insane, Hal. Huge difference. Do you have a pastor or older person who is versed in LOGIC to help you with the points you sincerely wish to make but are not successful.

I don’t know anybody older than I am my son, but the very unmodified definition of insane is to be illogical and irrelevant. I’m a real Crusader, a third order Dominican, and yes, my boy, I do have a pastor (a younger man who shows me respect). Here you again accuse me of being illogical (a Dominican, illogical?)and yet it is just an accusation of calumny which is empty and without any proof at all - no one knows to what you refer. You did it again - there you go again with your typical “when have you stopped beating your wife kind of slander”. “Thanks a lot!

Jimmy, I think your post is full of prejudice and isn’t worthy of being on the NCR website and should be removed. Now I know why we have Bishops as teachers of the faith. You are letting your fears (prejudice) affect your reasoning. Where is your faith that God is with us?  You would allow evil and you promote doing nothing about evil in your blog because you are afraid of the future. Where is your faith that Jesus will be with us? Is that what Jesus would do? If instead of President the job was to be a teacher of the catholic faith a mormon wouldn’t qualify. If Jesus were to tell you the story of the good Samaritan, he might say something like:  A certain unborn child was on a journey in America, and his country promoted abortion and the culture of death and left him half dead.  By chance a pro-choice voter walked by and passed on the other side.  In the same way Jimmy Akin walked by and fearing that he might become unclean if he voted for a mormon, passed by on the other side. A mormon candidate walked by and took pity on the unborn child but he didn’t have a vote to help. A president walked by who didn’t want to burden his children with a baby and made sure the unborn child didn’t live.

Good show Paul B. What if a Mormon didn’t walk by and reached down and picked the aborted baby out of the stainless steel bucket and took her home and nursed her back to health? Would you them vote for the Mormon?

“mainstreamize”?  NCR, you need to get better writers….

I recall Marcie (name?) who used tell her female taacher in Peanuts “That is weird Sir” when I look at so many posts on here. I shall be glad to take a break from Mormons and abortion to continue on the NCR sites about the illogicality of pro “choosers” points. Then I shall escape the robotic comments about Catholic harm 500-600 years ago while ignoring its contributions to University and all education, science,medicine, mathematics, architecture, philospohy, art and farming (monasteries) and care for the most vulnerable. JESUS was betrayed to Pilate and Co by the TEMPLE Hierarchy. Then they wwnt after His followers and went viral after the Temple and City were destroyed in 70 CE/AD. Then the same savage Romans who already killed Peter and Paul the decade before kept up their persecutions. The Greek Church accused Rome’s bishop of being the anti-Christ and they split. Islam was next to wreak havoc and of course they forget that era of their terro. The Protestant reformers tore into not just sbuses but everything good about the Church, including priceles art and architecture. They brought their bigotry to the New World here and sowed mistrust and all sorts of lies about the Catholic Christian family. The French Revolution, the Enlightenment, then on to the Russian Revolution, the USSR and Hitler and on and on to the present day we are #One Target for hate, ignorance and bigotry. Sexual morality, marriage and life in the womb are the new battle grounds.

Hal: Ask your respectful pastor to read and honestly critique your comments about abortion, Romney, the presidency and your strange arguments about baby’s souis, personhood and your efforts to discuss (not the word I want to use) with Lisa who of course as I made clear has her own trouble with reason, logic and even the HS/OT.
I hope to return to check back here.

Hermit talker! Can you win an argument with Thomas Aquinas? Well that is how much chance you have of winning one against me son. Notice that Hal Barton is the name of a real person, that is me! Notice that you are masked and using an alias - a secret name. Abortion is always, unless their are very special circumstances, a pre-mediated murder - and there is no more pre-meditated kind of murder: I’m guessing this is what you have decided to insult me about. Believe me, my Pastor agrees with everything this well informed Dominican says. I suggest you read G.K. Chesterton’s ORTHODOXY - then you will see that I am entirely Catholic and correct in everything I say. But you have some serious problems or you would have dared to point out to me exactly what it is that I have said that you falsely claim contradicts the teaching of the Magisterium. I is not lost on me that you are unable to do that - read that book and be forever happy and in the light. Love, Ancient Hal Barton (my real name) What’s your’s?

@Lisa K: Mea culpa, mea BIG TIME CULPA, and apologies, Lisa. I ran into a person who works in social services and related in general terms my disapgreement with you about rights/privileges relating to marriage ... I present you my head on a platter for she told me our good old commonwealth no longer requires blood tests. And I’m sorry I didn’t get back to you sooner when I noticed you’d mentioned the all important term which clarifies what we strongly disagreed about, yet in reality weren’t all that far apart if I’d only used the right words you did: “compelling interest.”
  Hope this makes your day!
  As for polytheists, atheists, and other “ists” wanting to run for the WH, there’s one very weird Texan Troglodytist with Blago hair (and nothing below it) who’s also a secessionist ... and he just giddyupp’d to the top of a Gallup poll (by double digits, no less!). More surprisingly,  uh well, disturbingly, he makes the last Texas governor/president look both intelligent and as mild as a liberal Episcopalian. Now that’s a Texas-sized “accomplishment.”
  Sigh: LBJ’s dead, Jim Hightower can’t get elected Armadillo in Austin because of his left of far right views, and you now Lloyd Doggett’s going to be “primaried” as well as Sheila Jackson Lee.
  At least Bill Moyer is coming back to PBS for awhile before the trolls and orcs finally drain that bathtub.
  If there’s any “polytheist”  worthy of somebody casting his/her vote for, it’s Jon Huntsman. Maybe boring as watching white paint dry or simply crazy to waste a lot of his family’s dough on a very quixotic quest. But take it from one of that other polytheist’s former constituents, at least Romney would (and MUST) never be given the Beijing post by any thinking president unless he or she wanted to preside over the COMPLETE deindustrialization of what’s left of our manufacturing sector no thanks to Witless Mitt’s Benedict Arnold notions of economic “progress.”

Sorry Hal you are so out of your depth and insulting and baiting to boot. I gave my first name recently in posts to Amy who is a respecful, well-versed Catholic who gets her facts straight and answers negative criticism fairly and calls them as she sees them. Why is my name first or last relevant to you or anyone on here? Work on your understanding of Jewish theology, their divisions and teachings on abortion. Try to understand my posts about personhood and life in the womb as regards the US Constitution and some religious groups. If you want to dialogue with people - dia-logue, means two words not a rambling monologue try to “hear” the other and do not pound the table with your lecture on the sacredness of the pre-born the way you do. State it directly and simply no need to scream” it as you do. Lisa may not appreciate the way you write and bait her. I certainly turned you off as you do not listen. I replied this way to teach you how to discuss matters civilly.

Mysteries “Hermit Talker”:  Again, your weak and unfounded criticisms of the way I communicate are just so much water: Everything I said about how Jews regard the non-personhood of a baby yet in the womb is exactly right on - somehow, you are unable to check these things out. I wish you would try to say something substantial about Hal Barton because my name means something real and I stand responsible for everything I say - but you have said nothing yet - just made vague and very indirect suggestions or the same nature as “When, Hal, did you stop beating your wife”. You even claim you can hear me scream and pound the table. You have no hard logic at all in your profound disappointment in me - and your opinion is based, no doubt, on sometime emotional that happened in your past - perhaps an indirect involvement in and abortion procedure? Whatever, you must try not to see me as a threatening figure - believe me, I’m not.  All my love in Christ, Hal Barton, T.O.P.

Steven,

Thank you for the mea culpa.  I find that communicating well on any comment thread is often difficult and even more difficult to communicate nuance. It seem easier to miscommunicate than to communicate.  Oy!

You seem to have a short memory, Jimmy Akin.  What about the 1960 election, when some Protestants were fearul of Kennedy and his Catholic faith?  You are no better than they were, when you urge people not to back Romney because of his Mormon faith.  America needs to come together and the last thing we need is to vote against candidates because of their religion.

@Lisa Kaiser:  Lisa, you just described Faux News Channel to a “T”! Oy and LOL’s a plenty!

It says in St. James that “Faith without works is dead” What does not need to be said is “Faith without reason is a pretty good working definition of insanity”. Now Faith moves towards God but faith not moving is a very bad sign. Many Pagans are moved by faith and are moving by faith - many Catholics love abortion and say it is from God. A pagan that bends to pick up an aborted child from her plastic wrap in the city dump and breathe life back into that aborted baby gets my vote everytime - and the Catholic who helped throw that baby there? Why bother? They have stopped - their faith is petrified. They will have to complete their course in purgatory. In the meantime, a baby lives who would have died - very good Samaritan indeed!

@Pauk B:

“Let faith be with us” at 62 I have always thought “May grace guide us,”  clear difference in both meaning and tone. The polyeteism is a question of Christianity v Mormonism which does have very peculiar issues. In Mr Romnay’s “Faith of My Fathers” he sought reproachmont with the American electorate without once deploring the radical and bizzare in his faith but stood firmly behing his “Father’s Faith.” My father was a conservative Catholic and his ardent faith I embraced, weekly if not more express out of conviction of faith as it guides me, in every aspect of my life, I attend mass. I wish you the richess of your faith. I will not vote for a polyeteist and I suppose that would mean Romney. Jimmy should follow up, would Americana vote for an extreme Evangelical Christian, say extreme like Tony Perkins, keep that picture, and know in your heart, a vote fot that group, is a disaater to Catholicism for the terms of the election of the windbag from Texas.

Sic Transit Gloria

The Mormon is against Planned Parenthood in a significant way - he does not fall for the Planned Parenthood Euphemism which replaces the word,“Murder” with the word, “Abortion”. Abortion is a wonderful medical procedure which has saved many mothers lives when, if the Pregnancy had proceeded, the mother and the baby would have died. If I murder you with a automatic nailing machine, they do not say that I “nailed” you - they say that I am guilty of murder!  It doesn’t matter what instruments you use to murder a baby, murder is murder - it is the taking of an innocent life - the mother/murderer has the right to her own body, but what does that have to do with the baby’s body?  The baby has a right to be the same as any other person. Just because evil people made a law that say killing a very very very young person is OK, does not make it good - it is the ultimate evil - these mother are most often just cold blooded murderers - worse than the doctor/murderers they hire. If a Polytheist pagan Mormon is running for president against a Christian who believes that abortion can ever be a good thing - I will vote for the Mormon everytime - how about you? Will you vote for a supporter of murdering innocent babies? I don’t think so - this year, we all vote Mormon! Don’t use the false Euphemistic work “abortion” Give the babies dignity, call baby murder what it is and always was and always will be!!!!

Technically, a mis-carriage is a “spontaneous abortion.” The use of “abortion”  to cover a situation where the mother and child will die is not a morally acceptable procedure by the pro-life movement. It is hardly ever needed today with the advances in modern medicine, thank God and the use of the so-called partial birth procedure is never required for the same medical reasons. The medical paper that was misused to make that part of the Supreme Court decision to allow it, pretending it came from the AMA, was offered by the White House official who is now Associate Justice Kagan of the US Supreme Court. Targeting the real enemy and using precise language is necessary to advance worthy causes

Hermit Talker - You are very very wrong if you meant to communicate what you wrote up there, ” The use of
“abortion” to cover a situation where the mother and child will die is not
a morally acceptable procedure by the pro-life movement.” When a woman for a certitude, as in an ectopic pregnancy, will be killed by the presence of a baby in her body, so that there is no hope for either mother of child, then a life saving abortion procedure is allowed. We Cathoics are not savages: Remember, unlike Protestants and Muslims, we believe strongly in reason, logic and science and our human abilities to manage these things.

Sorry you did not specify the procedure. Some ectopic PGS can come to term or be transferred to the womb one presumes with the highly sophisticated procedures today. I do not keep up with all the latest medical advances since I stopped teaching.
The killing of the ectopic pregnancy baby is of course done only to save the mother, a delicate distinction because of the ease with which skme argue that abortion to save a woman’s health - not her life- is argued.

When the mother has an ectopic pregnancy the “procedure” to remove the baby is never referred to as an abortion. It’s what’s called the principal of double effect. The baby could not possibly grow to term because both the baby and the mother would die. The baby is not aborted because it is never the intention to abort a child. The mother’s life is being saved and as a result the baby does not survive.

Hermit TALKER - MY POINT IS THAT ABORTION IS A MEDICAL PROCEDURE THAT CAN BE USED FOR GOOD, LIFE SAVING, PURPOSES AND IT IS UNFAIR TO THE BABIES MURDERED BY ABORTION TO NOT SAY CLEARLY THAT THEIR LIVES WERE NOT ENDED BY A WONDERFUL LIFE SAVING MEDICAL PROCEDURE, BUT, AS AN AX IS A WONDERFUL TOOL THAT CUTS THE WOOD THAT KEEPS MANY FAMILY WARM, WE DO NOT SAY THE BABY WAS PROCESSED BY AX WHEN A BABY IS BEHEADED - WE SAY THE BABY WAS MURDERED BY SOMEONE. SO, MY POINT IS THAT IN ORDER TO HONOR THE BABY WE SHOULD POINT OUT THAT THE BABIES LIFE WAS ENDED BY AN UNNATURAL AND NON-MEDICAL ACT WHICH WAS UNFAIR AND UNNATURAL, AN INNOCENT VICTIM, WHO DESERVES TO BE GIVEN HONOR AND AT LEAST A SYMBOLIC BURIAL TO MAKE UP FOR THE DUMP HE OR SHE WAS DUMPED IN. IT IS VERY EMBARRASSING TO BE MURDERED BY YOUR PARENTS - PLEASE GIVE THESE BABIES SOME HONOR-PLEASE!

Amy, what planet do you live on? It is an abortion and it is called an abortion because it is an abortion - consider: The baby would have grown bigger and matured longer if the Doctor would have allowed it - the pregnancy was interrupted therefore it is an abortion—MY POINT IS THAT ABORTION IS A MEDICAL PROCEDURE THAT CAN BE USED FOR GOOD, LIFE SAVING, PURPOSES AND IT IS UNFAIR TO THE BABIES MURDERED BY ABORTION TO NOT SAY CLEARLY THAT THEIR LIVES WERE NOT ENDED BY A WONDERFUL LIFE SAVING MEDICAL PROCEDURE

You wrote ABORTION above which is why I said sorry you referred to an ectopic pregnancy. However, it is called an abortion, to abort - a flight, a journey is to stop it. I told you a mis-carriage is medically a “spontaneous ” abortion. Whether the abortion is moral or immoral is not the decider of what word we use. Your attempt to educate or correct me is childish and calling me “boy” is more of the same The word is PRINCIPLE a principal heads a school.
I shall check if an ectopic pregnancy can be transferred to the womb, if they can do surgery in the womb on a baby, that is possible perhaps
I shall of course not use you as an expert witness. You could not even see or accept my correction that some Jewish groups are against abortion and birth control which is biblically forbidden. Mr TOP

ABORTION IS NOT MURDER! MURDER IS MURDER! IF THE CANDIDATE HATES MURDER THAT IS CALLED BY ANOTHER NAME, VOTE FOR HIM EVEN IF HE IS A PAGAN FOR HE HAS THE HEART OF A HUMAN - AND DO NOT VOTE FOR THE CHRISTIAN WHO LOVES MURDER WHICH HE CALLS BY ANOTHER NAME! YOU DO NOT DISAGREE WITH ME - SO YOU WILL MOST LIKELY VOTE FOR THE PAGAN IF IT COME TO THAT - HAPPY VOTING THE LESSER OF TWO EVILS.

Hermit Talker - why the unpleasantness and calumny against me? Look what you say, “You could not even see or accept my correction that some Jewish groups are against abortion and birth control which is biblically forbidden. Mr TOP.” Mr. Talker, it is not just some Jewish groups that are against abortion, but virtually all of them are very against it - nevertheless, they all virtually concider that the baby is not a person - abortion is a victimless crime to them - so, how bad can abortion be, they think - they think it is about as bad as masterbation - so are they deterred from murder? NO! That is my clearly made point Mr Question Mark anonymous - as for the T.O.P. it stands for “Third Order Dominican” For these reasons I have put before you, please vote the Pagan who hates baby murder and not for the Christian who has voted in favor of abortion/murder more than any other politician in U.S. History - and you will, I am sure, not that you know you are wrong about me. Love, Hal Barton, T.O.P

@Hal - Here is a link explaining the Principle of Double Effect http://www.cuf.org/faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffid=56

Amy, Yes, they had to do an abortion procedure to save a persons life.  Now let us examine the principle of the lesser of two evils. Here we have Obama as our leader who is the most fervent abortion lover the world has ever seen (if his voting record is a good gauge) He is just dripping with babies blood, and he is a christian (we know this because he promised us it is the truth). Now his most likely opponent is a silly Mormon who believes that the elders of his Church are on par with Jesus Christ and that polytheism thing, and that church of the latter day connection with the Masons and their occultism and etc. However, he hates abortion and stands up in public and says he is 100% against it. Now, which is the lesser of two evils? A person who is made sick to his stomach but the specter of slaughtered Children and stands publicly against it, or Obama who thinks murdering babies is the best thing for the whole world right now and is exporting it everywhere he can force it to go. Don’t answer, you will vote for the Mormon - you were not born yesterday - a polytheist looks like a saint compared to anyone who would love any part of baby murdering. Don’t be afraid to let Jim Know that pure reason wins every time.

Hal: TOP is Third Order of Preachers, Ordo Predicatorum in Latin, the “Dominican” of course comes from their founder Dominic.
Your one post was all caps which is shouting online. Again you totally did not understand the point I made about Jews. There are groups of them who officially, and I am sure others whose branch does not teach, that a baby in the womb is to be protected. They do not argue soul or personhood- the last point is crucial because anyone who is born is a personundeer the US Contitutio. Some like Lisa want them breathing to declare personhood, some want the child declared free of serious defets and others want to wait a while longer. You made an ass of yourself with Lisa by not knowing that and now cannot even understand it when I wrote it yesterday to you.
Quit bragging about being a “rational ” Third Order preacher and get your facts and theology straight. Thanks Francis

@Hal - “Amy, Yes, they had to do an abortion procedure to save a persons life.” Catholics do not perform abortions. If they remove the fallopian tube it was not the willful killing of a child. Please do not refer to as an abortion. Abortion is never permitted.

Yes, T.O.P. is Third Order of Preachers and I am a T.O.P.,i.e, a third order Dominican - what is the problem here? Yes, as I said, the vast majority of Jews believe that a yet to be pushed out of the womb baby is not a person - why accuse me of saying different? My facts and theology are perfect,and your criticisms of me are hysterical and false - here again you are calling me “irrational” and ascribing things to me that I did not say - as for the @#$%$ (which always means swear words which are not otherwise allowed here), well, I am so sorry you feel that way about certain people. I assure you I don’t feel that way about you. It is not nice to accuse a person of irrationality and illogic - And, where Amy, does the Catholic Church state that we may never use the word abortion to describe taking a developing baby out of her mother before the due date? Which, by the way, can be done for other reasons than ectopic pregnancy. I am a T.O.P., Perpetually professed and in good standing. A crusader order. That fought against the albergencians or the “Cathars”.

Sorry giving up one way monologues from you when you seem not to hear me trying to dialogue.  Even questioning my reference to TOP as if an insult! You seem hyper-sensitive. I do wish you well Hal.

Dear Mysterious Hermit Talker, I wonder where I got that impression of your attitude towards me? Do you think it might be because you wrote, “You made an !@#$% of yourself with Lisa by not knowing that and now cannot even understand it when I wrote it yesterday to you.
Quit bragging about being a “rational ” Third Order preacher and get your facts and theology straight. Thanks Francis” {is that St. Francis?} But, all I really want you two to do is vote for the Pagan who is against abortion/murder if the Christian running against him is a lover of murder. I know you have listen to me and that is what you will do.

Hal; You missed my post that I no longer live in the USA where I spent a lifetime studying this stuff and teaching it at every level. I was a Consistent Ethic of Life advocate and voter so you would have been proud. I did post a factual report here that as CDF head the current Pope said that one could vote for a politician who is pro-choice if the package of issues were such to justify that. As I also wrote then I used look at the package and found that there was legitimate room to decide after studying both major parties and plaforms and it was not always an easy choice. Things have taken a huge swing Lefward so I would dismiss Mr Obams outright if the GOP or an independent were more centrist. The Tea Party is so led by the excessively wwealthy backers I would be very scared of them.

Bless you Hermit Talker, but I interpret “vote your conscience on Abortion issues” as “there are such huge liars out there that if you think it is very likely that a candidate is lying, you may vote for the one who loves murdering babies as ‘the lesser of two evils’: Because, it is not possible for me to believe their could possibly be a greater evil (all things considered) than baby murder. If you put all the murdered babies on one side of the scale, and all the other people who were unjustly murdered on the other side there would be no contest - by this measure the greatest evil in the world is Abortion/Murder. But, tell me how you like living out of this abortion crazy country - how did you escape? Can you give me some advice how I might do it too. Love, Hal.

@ Hal Barton - “And, where Amy, does the Catholic Church state that we may never use the word abortion to describe taking a developing baby out of her mother before the due date?” When a fallopian tube is removed we are not committing an abortion. As a result of the removal of the fallopian tube the baby dies. We are not performing an abortion on the baby. As I explained earlier this is the Principle of Double Effect. The Catholic Church never, ever condones abortion so the term “abortion” is not used in connection with any action that falls under the classification of the Principle of Double Effect.

I accidently pushed the do not notify me square that says I do not want to be notified of these posts - how do I get back on?

@Hal - Answer someone’s post and check the box to be notified of follow-up comments.

Steven Greydanus, you are absolutely absurd!
First, you are doing the exact same thing that Protestant ministers did with JFK. The only difference is that they hid behind “policy considerations;” your bigotry is far more transparent.
Second, you are doing something that the Constitution does not do: Make a religious test for office. In effect, you are saying that no Mormon should be elected President. If Romney were Protestant or Jewish, would you be talking this way?
Third, you make the fundamental mistake that a lot of religious conservatives make: Preserving Christianity in the United States means, first and foremost, having the “right” person in the White House (howeer that’s defined). The responsibility for preserving Christianity lies with Christians, especially in clerical leadership. By saying that Romney’s election would drastically affect how Americans view Christianity, you are saying that Christian clergy do not have the primary responsibility for communicating the basics of the faith! That’s not only a cop-out of the highest magnitude; it reflects the sad Catholic predilection for political power and collective control over individual responsibility.
There’s a confessional state that has everything you want, Steven. You know where it is. I suggest you move there.

Jimmy, my comments to Steven apply to you, as well.

People like you two and Mark Shea do more to dissuade people from Christianity, let alone Catholicism, than Romney ever could do.

Word verification: lack61

Boy, I’ll say!

One more thing, gentlemen.
Jesus Himself has the ultimate final word on this matter:
LOVE THY NEIGHBOR!
Then again, that doesn’t fit your pseudo-intellectual, Pharisaical attitudes, now, does it?
Word verification: right17
DAMN right!

Lisa Kaiser, I’m sorry about the way that most of the people on this thread treated you. On another thread, a couple of non-Catholics who tried to challenge (without malice, btw) the Church’s theology concerning Mary were treated the same way.
I spend a lot of time on Catholic blogs (too much, actually). I was baptized and raised a Catholic, and worshipped as such for most of my life.
The snottiness and rudeness with which you were treated are all too common among Catholic bloggers and those who follow them. Such behavior reflects disobedience to Christ’s demands for His followers. It also reflects a deep-seated arrogance and a fundamental sense of entitlement among Catholics concerning their own faith. They believe that mere denominational loyalty and theological correctness will save them. Thus they render Christ’s redeeming blood to no effect.
I’m not sure how you viewed Christianity before you converted to Judaism but I hope you will reconsider Christ’s claims to messianic anointing at some point in your life. His death on the cross redeemed humanity of its sin and his resurrection made eternal life possible for those who embrace his sacrifice as their own. That is the “good news” that all too many churches conceal behind intellectual fashion and institutional arrogance.
May God be with you in all your endeavors, Lisa.

Another former Catholic turned evangelical who flat out denies the New Testament where it suits as do all Evangelioals and mainline Protestants. Lisa was a Catholic also Joseph, and spent a lot of time on here before you go on the scene. to insist relucantly that tne Catholic Church has done some good but Ms Lisa spent most of her time ddwelling on the late Middle Ages and the faults of the Catholic Christian Church today. No real awareness that Jesus - whom she insists is not the Son of God and not the Messiah - gave a new Commandment, love one another as I have loved you and point blank denies that the Beatitudes taught anything new. But she of course knows that Judaism is all over the lot about abortion and seems to be fine with that self-guided Bible study but blasts my beliefs to heck. Amazing how someone can defend the killing of an unborn US female citizen ” because it is legal” when it hass been considered immoral, unnatural,as in against the Natural Law ( Paul in Romans refers to that Law written in our hearts) since way before the Christian era, during the time of the Hebrew Prophets,  but is quite certain that the Jesus whom she rejected at some point is only a “nice man” and insists on that in a blog that started out with the question about whether we could elect Mr Romney. Your final scatter-gun blast at “too many churches” hide behind “intellectual fashion and institutional arrogance.” How arrogant of you. Your namesake Hippolytus was author of Eucharistic Prayer #2 in today’s Catholic Liturgy, dating from the ancient Church of Rome era.  That expresses who Jesus is, and that He is present sacramentaly in the bread and wine as His Body and Blood. It says so in John 6 “chew” not just “eat” my Body and His words at the Last Supper are clear THIS IS MY BODY/BLOOD not a reminder or pretend.  However, the Reformation’s extremists and then the Baptists and the Pentecostals know neither English nor Hebrew nor Greek and more importantly the Hebrew Story line that was completely fulfilled in Jesus and continues in His Church guided by the Holy Spirit John and He is with it until the end of time against the gates of hell which sadly are used by “too many” misguided christian groups to do SATAN’s work. I retired from a lifetime of teaching this and am still learning. PEACE to you also and as Truman said stay out of the too hot kitchen if it is for you.

Joseph:

First of all thank for your kind words.  I am a Jew because God led me on the path to Judaism over the course of about 30 yrs.  My conversion had nothing to do with with RCC and everything to with God.  Did you know the Love Your Neighbor is actually from Hebrew scripture?  It is found in Leviticus 19:18 and again in Leviticus 19:34.

Hal Barton ahs some uninformed ideas about Judaism (i.e. he has absoutley no no clud about Jews and/o Judaism) and he most certainly has uninformed ideas about my ideas re abortion.  I ahve expressed No position because this comment thread is about a lot of things, but it is not about abortion.

Fortunately JPII and BXVI have done a good job in reaching out to Jews and in seeking to engage in respectful dialogue with Jews. Most of the Catholics on this blog have probably heard those postive messages from these popes, but perhaps hae not really taken in the meaning of those messages.

Loved your post HermitTalker -

I notice Lisa doesn’t want to continue to comment about abortion because it doesn’t deal with the topic but she has absolutely no hesitation in pursuing a discussion on how the Popes have reached out to Jews; have not reached out to Jews or how the Catholic Church has persecuted the Jews. This is not about the topic either so her comment makes no sense.

Jesus said” A NEW COMMANDMENT I give you, Love one another as I have loved you.” As a devout observant rabbi we know He knew His LEVITICUS so why did He say His was a new Teaching? It is because He expanded the Divine Revelation to broaden “Neighbour” to include all races and peoples and branches of even the shunned/banned Jews who were public sinners. The full development of that is found in the Beatitudes and the commentary as I have told you Ms Lisa but, NO you repeat the robotic it is all in the HS/OT. You ever recall His saying “You have been told ...”  “But I say..”...
He redefined Love as forgiving the Enemy, do good to those who persecute you, turn the other cheek, walk the extra mile. Told stories about the alienated Samaritans to make the Good one look good while the Temple priest and Levite walked by, obeying their “law” - he may be dead, he may be a Samaritan.
You continue to be stubborn, “have an agenda” as Amy told you. You may have come here to talk about Mr Romney but you have been quite outspoken about your rejection of the Christian Faith in Jesus and attaching His Church unfairly. You quote JP11 and BXV1 re Judaism above. Their teaching goes back to the Vatican 11 document and statements then and since by various Vatican officlials and Catholic-Jewish dialogue. That cuts both ways, tell your Jewish bigots to lay off Pius X11 whom they villify.And you can apologise for your constant criticism of Catholic errors and sins and admit that Judaism is fumbling about basic moral issues as is Mr Joseph’s Evanerlical Protestantism.
“The meaning of the recent Popes messages ” also implies we have the integrity to point out error and ignorance and bigotry when we see it and show we are fully aware of whereof we speak. That is not arrogance or any other of Mr Joseph’s nasty characterisations of his former Church Family.

Amy,  My comments re the popes were in response to a comment made by Joseph and I addressed my comment to him.  I have not commented on abortion.  Hal Barton has commented on abortion and has made broad and mistaken comemnts about Jews, abortion, and what he assumes are my beliefs on that topic.  So my comments were really about Judiasm and NOT abortion.

@Lisa Kaiser - I don’t know why we as Catholics even need to discuss Judaism on this blog. This goes on and on and on with many of these blogs.
The topic at hand is always diverted to Judaism and the persecution of the Jews by Christians and in particular the Catholic Church. The bloggers really need to reel in all of this but I don’t see it happening and I totally disagree with this approach.

Hermit,

I seee you have returned to your fomer nastiness.  Your comments just agains showcase that you have NOT read Jewish scripture. Jesus expanded nothing.  he tought straight from the scriptures of his tradition—Judaism.  there is absolutely nothing new in his social teaching—its all contained in Jewish scripture.  And no, I have NO agenda—that was Amy’s nasty comment and something that’s easier for you to believe apparently.

And the oppostion to Pius XII is NOT bigotry and what’s this weirdness from you, “tell your Jewish bigots to lay off Pius X11 whom they villify.”

Any oppostion to Pius XII is based in fact.  Please read some history.  And I don’t have any “Jewish bigots”.

Amy,  the topic of the orignal article here is polytheism.  So it seem that the discussion is wide open. Obviously, the bloggers here do not confine their articles to RCism.  So its a wide open discussion.

And sorry if you do not wnat to be reminded of the dark history of the RCC or to face the fact of that dark history.

@Lisa Kaiser - What I do not want to be reminded of is your constant attacks against Christianity and the Catholic Church. Who are you to say Jesus expanded on nothing? Why do I or anyone here need to defend this?
As usual you are just using this blog to promote your own bigoted propaganda. Very sad.

@Lisa Kaiser - “Obviously, the bloggers here do not confine
their articles to RCism. So its a wide open discussion.” Why are you turning it into a discussion about Roman Cathoicism????? Please don’t keep repeating the same scripted response over and over again.

Amy,

You said, “I don’t know why we as Catholics even need to discuss Judaism on this blog. This goes on and on and on with many of these blogs.”

so I thought you were complaining that RCism was NOT being discussed.  So now you want to complain if RCism IS discussed????

Again, I have NO agenda—that is your strange comment.  I have been responding to HermitTalker on this point about Jesus and Torah.  Complain to him about the discussion topic.  So you don’t want to talk about RCism, Jesus, Judaism???

Amy,

It is clear that YOUR agenda is just to slam any noncatholic who dares to comment on this blog.  You seem to feel that only Catholics can be talking about topics on this blog.

LISA: YOU once again betray your bigoted ignorance not only about the OLD TESTAMENT which was replaced by JESUS who gave us its fulfillment and replacement BUT now attacking the real record of Pope Pius X11. That assassination of his character and war record was begun by Hochhuth’s The Deputy. You challenge me to face the evil Catholics have done in 2100 plus years while you spread crud about that Pope and suggest we as a Church have done some good! Excuse me if I am tired and fed up with your rubbing this stuff in my nose as you deny facts about the Bible, hint that you have the “insight” about a Pope who has a tree in his honour in the Avenue of the Righteous Gentiles in Jerusalem and was praised by the NYT at Christmas 1944 for being the only world leader who took on Hitler, was praised and thanked by the Chief Rabbi of Rome for saving Jews in the war, ordered all the convents and monasteries opened to hide children who provided official documents of Catholic protection to get them safe passage through to escape.Get your head out of where you have it buried, deal with your serious bias and get over your biblical ignorance and study all of Catholic history.Revisionist history is the hideout of liars.

@Lisa Kasier - I don’t care what religion anyone is who wishes to post. What I do care about is when someone turns this blog into a platform of bigoted propaganda.You constantly have to insert a jab as you did in your recent response to me “And sorry if you do not wnat to be reminded of the dark history of the RCC or to face the fact of that dark history.” How many times do you want to remind “us” about our “dark history”, Lisa? When you’re done with this blog you’ll take the same rant elsewhere.

Amy

You make comments, I and then you act like you have no clue what I am talking about.  and NO, I am not ranting.  I disagree with you on some topics, that is NOT ranting.  And I will comment here for as ling as I want.

Amy: Lisa is worse than bigoted, she is an ignorant bigot, does not even try to learn from efforts to correct her glaring errors, over and over and arrogant, knows it all and twists it all around when challenged.

HermitTalker,

It is you who is biased.  You are talking about YOUR belief when you say that Jesus replaced the “old Testament”.  That is the same old,same old RC triumphalist BS that the Christianity wants to impose on everyone.  Christians believe that Jesus is God.  NonChristians do not.  Judiasm, Islam, buddhism, Hinudism, etc are valid,complete belief systems in and of themselves.  you are free to believe whaqt you want and as a Jew, I am free to beleive what I want.  Your belief is with affect on Jusaism.  We do not care what you believe about our scripture.

I have no interest in “revising history”.  The chief rabbi of Rome does NOT speak for all Jews.  He is not a “pope”.  He speaks for some Orthodox Jews of Italy. that does not make him spokespeson for all Jews around the world.  Judaims doe NOT have a hierarchy, or a “vatican” or anything else that resembels RCism in any way, shope or form.

@Lisa Kaiser - Of course you’ll continue Lisa because you are committed to your bigotry. Disagreeing with me on topics??? I don’t need to defend my beliefs to you on Who Jesus is. This is a Catholic blog and the blog is not devoted to ecumenical “debate” on Christian or Jewish belief but you have turned it into that and more.

HermitTalker,

It is YOU who is an ignorant bigot and who is arrogant.  You have NO clue what you are talking about.

Amy,  Of course a blog comment thread is a debate.  Articles and topics are posted for discussion, for people to mix it up, to disagree, to express any number of opinions on any given topic.  Do you think that everyone is jsut going to agree on everything.  What a boring and narrow viewpoint.  In posting his artcle on Mormons and polytheism, Jimmy Aikin opened this to a discussion of belief and beliefs.  He essentially cahllenged members of the Church of Latter Day Saints of Jesus Christ to defend their beliefs.  So what’s wrong in all of us defending our beliefs?

@Lisa Kaiser - Please, stop the defense mechanism. It’s crystal clear what your agenda is. It’s not a discussion about polytheism or any other subject. And just as I said earlier you continue your rants and the latest is to HermitWalker. You always manage to turn around every single discussion back to attacking Christianity. Here’s your latest…. “That is the same old,same old RC triumphalist BS that the Christianity wants to impose on everyone.” Is this comment really from someone who is interested in dialog? Absolutely not. How dare you make such a hateful comment! Whoever told you that you can’t believe what you wish but my question to you is, why won’t you let “us” believe what we want believe?
You don’t do that.  I think there’s a lot more to your rants than you let on and I think it has to do with the Church’s position on social issues. I think that is where all of this anger is coming from. The Church is not changing, Lisa, not for you and not for anyone. Thank God!

Amy,

I think you may be willfully ignoring what HermitTalker is saying.  His comment “the OLD TESTAMENT which was replaced by JESUS who gave us its fulfillment and replacement”  is the same old same old triupmalism from RCs. He saying that the RCC negates all other faith traditions.  He seeks to impose RCism/Christianity on everyone. 

Again, I am NO being defesinve, I do NOT have an agenda, I am NOT ranting and I am NOT angry.  those are your weird projections and weird reading of my comments. Talk about rants and scripted comments—it is YOU who is engaging in these things.  Please stop saying them. And your comment, “I think there’s a lot more to your rants than you let on and I think it has to do with the Church’s position on social issues”  is just NONSENSE, based on YOUR opinion and certainly NOT based on fact or on anything I have said.

@Lisa Kaiser

HermitTalker is speaking from a Christian perspective. It is you who are challenging him. How is it triumphalism when this is what he believes and what Christians believe?  How is he imposing his beliefs on you? The Christian believes the Old Testament has been fulfilled in the New. No one is asking you to believe it but we are asking you to be respectful of our beliefs as we are of yours. Referring to Christian belief as triumphalism does not speak to respecting another’s belief but intolerance and ignorance.

I shall make this last post and then stop efforts to have rational conversation on here with you Lisa and Joseph comes back.. My saying that Jesus the Christ fulfilled the Hewrew Scriptures/Old Testament is (1) based on the NT, spelled out by Paul in greater detail on Jesus’ post-Resurrection identity as the fullness (pleroma) of Creation and Head of the Church, His Body (2) Not a put-down of Judaism or any Faith and certainly does not “negate” all other faith traditions. Your argument is with the Jews whom Jesus chose on which to build His Church on Earth withh Him as .Lord, and with the Gentiles who joined them and wrote some of the NT and the former devout strict Pharisee rabbi Saul who became an apostle and Christian teacher to his known world.
“Triumphalsim” ? take it up with them. I belong to that group and believe it was founded by Jesus the Messiah/Christ. I resent your way of trying to dig at our Church, and try to push your fake HS/OT teaching on us, write irrationally with Amy also. This whole blog started out with a man whi asked if we could vote for a Mormon, your greatest contributions are to attack Catholicism and its history, deny who Jesus is- and now accuse me of “negating” other Faiths while you do that to mine and call my belief “triumphalism”

Amy,

HermitTalker’s comment “the OLD TESTAMENT which was replaced by JESUS who gave us its fulfillment and replacement” is stated as if this Christian belief is an immutable, objective law of nature.  That is triumphalism. Perhaps you are so enmeshed in your own belief system that you cannot even see how such comments come across to people of other faith traditions.  And again you feel it is OK to be insulting.  I am far from ignorant or intolerant.  And if you think the comments on this blog have been “tolerant” of my beliefs, then you must be lacking in reading comprehension or thinking of another blog.

HermitTalker,

I did not attack RCism or its history.  I merely stated the facts about its history.  If you want to put your head in the sand about it or deny the facts—that is your choice. But it does not change the facts.  My comments on the Jewishs cripture are accurate—again you are so enmeshed in your own beleif system you refuse to see the facts.  I
And it si clear that you have no knowledge of Jewish scripture.  he just deny what I say but have no knowledge of what you are trying to deny.

and again you state that Jesus is God/messiah as if that were some immutalbe, objective laww of nature. That is triumphalism. Which you cannot see, becaue you are so enmeshed in RCism

@ Lisa Kaiser: You participate on a Catholic blog and you have the nerve to tell us that our beliefs are triumphalism. HermitTalker, your post was right on. Read HermitTalker’s last paragraph, Lisa; it is what I have been saying to you. I repeat, this is a Catholic blog. It is not a secular blog devoted to an ecumenical discussion on world religions as you would have it be. We believe in Jesus Christ here.

Amy,

This blog is open to anyone, including me, who wishes to comment.  When RCs seek to state categorically, as if it was the same as a law of nature (gravity, fo example), that Jesus is God, then yes, it is triumphalism.  And again, you are so enmeshed in your own belief/faith culture, that you cannot see the forest for the trees.  You cannot see that other faith traditions are just as valid and complete. And yes, I have said it before—there are 3 Abrahamic traditions because God wills it.  Each is equal to the others, none is better than or triumphant over the others.

If you do not want to talk about other faith traditions, then make that comment to Jimmy Akin who posted the above article about Mormons/“polytheists”. His article above opens the discussion to faith traditions other than RCism.  So Catholic blogs can only post articles on RCism.  There is nothing else to discuss??? Better tell that to Jimmy Aikin and the National Catholic Register. They seemed to have strayed from YOUR narrow path.

And Amy, I can certainly tell that this a an RC blog. Because the overall tenor of the comments reminds me of the Gandhi quote, ” I like your Christ, but I do not like your Christians.  They are so unlike your Christ.”

@Lisa Kaiser - Lisa, give me a break already, if the topic was about how to how to prepare the perfect bowl of chili, you’d somehow bring it around to bashing Christianity.

Amy,

I do not need (or want) to bash Christianity.  Those of you calling yourselves “christians” are doing a great job of it without any assiantance from me.  No faith tradition is perfect and that includea Christianity.  You guys can dish it out but can’t take it?  Jimmy Akin, in the article above, starts out bashing the Church of LDS. So you guys are free to bash or criticize other faith traditions?  But heaven forbid if any one accurately points out that RCism is not perfect???

@Lisa Kaiser - Jimmy, no where in his comments bashed the Mormon Church. He did not accuse them of being ignorant or espousing triumphalism. Nor did he say that Mormon’s seek to force their beliefs on others. He did not say Mormons had a history of anti Catholic behavior. But this is exactly what you have done and continue to do when speaking about Christians in your so-called attempts of dialoging with others. Are you coming from a place of peaceful dialog, Lisa, since you choose to bring up Gandhi? I would be hard pressed to find it.

Amy,

Please re-read Jimmy Akin’s article.  It is very defintely bashing the Mormons.  Here is a quote direct from Jimmy Akin’s article above:
“Casting a vote for a Mormon candidate thus means casting one’s vote for a polytheist who present himself to the world as a Christian…..

But matters seem different when we are talking about national races, such as the presidency. To elect a Mormon to the American presidency would, to my mind, be a disaster…. When a candidate’s election (or even nomination) would do grave damage to the American public’s understanding of what Christianity is, a value so important is in play that I personally don’t see how I could vote for such a person

That seems to be a very critical remark re the Church of LDS. Akin is very directly criticizing the beliefs of Mormons.  So it does seem that RCs can dish it out but cannot take it.  An RC blogger on an RCC site is free to bash/criticize another faith and say that such a faith should disqualify a person from holding a secuar elected office??? But heaven forbid that anyone point out the facts re the RCC’s past and ongoing dark history!! The RCC is just not a perfect or ideal faith tradition.  Sorry if you cannot deal with the facts or see beyond your own narrow vision of things.  Again and again on this comment thread , “Christians” show themselves to be very unlike the Christ they profess to follow.

@ Lisa Kaiser - Your definition of bashing and mine are quite different.
Jimmy was pointing out a fact - Mormons are not Christian because they are polytheists and are presenting themselves as Christian which is an error. Christianity is a monotheistic religion. There you go again, Lisa same old song - “But heaven forbid that anyone point out the facts re the RCC’s past and ongoing dark history!! You just can’t help yourself, Lisa it always comes back to the RCC. Excuse me, but being Christian is an ideal religion. I know the Triune God and love the Triune God and I know the Triune God loves me. Jesus has made the ultimate sacrifice for me and has opened up the gates of heaven for me. It gives me a tremendous amount of peace something which you are lacking.

Lisa

I know you mistook the writers word, which is atypical when in attempts to debunk.

The postulation was the Polytheism of the Mormon faith, if true should a Catholic in good faith vote. The answer, which was posted by Mr Shea was no.

This is an opinion, argumentative, your last response was disingenuous. You have attempted to make a case against the Catholic Church all you have done is bring up what we already acknowledge and in some cases, refuse to place events in time and place.

Catholicism rocks, sorry you have such a negative view, that Lisa, is your loss.

Sic Transit Gloria

Amy,

You either choose not to understand or cannot understand what Jimmy Akin is saying.  Let me again quote from the article”  To elect a Mormon to the American presidency would, to my mind, be a disaster…. When a candidate’s election (or even nomination) would do grave damage to the American public’s understanding of what Christianity is, a value so important is in play that I personally don’t see how I could vote for such a person.”  That is very much basing the Church of LDS.”  You say it is a fact that the Mormons or polytheists and not Christians.  It is very doubtful tha the Mormons would see it this way.  They would say they are Christians.  So what for you is fact is NOT fact from the Mormon viewpoint.  So an RC blogger on an RC site is decidely bashing/criticizina another faith.  Saying it would be a “disaster” to have Mormon as president of the US.  When people said the same thing in 1960 about JFK—RCs understood that as a bashing of their faith.

So again, RCs can dish it out but cannot take it.  Sorry but the darkness of the RCC is ongoing—you do know about the whole pedophile priest thing and the bishops/cardinals who enabled them and covered up their criminal acts. right???  You do know about that???  RCism and/or christianity is not perfect.  I live in Phoenix where the former RC bishop Thomas O’Brien is a convicted felon.  Read that again,  the former RC bishop of Phoenix is a convicted felon.  Not because of the priest sex abuse issue, but because he killed a pedestrian and left the scene.  Yes RCism has inspried many good people do many good and great things.  But you just cannot credibly claim that the RCC is a perfect institution.  And you cannot claim it is OK for Jimmy Akin to call a potential Mormon president a “disaster” and not expect that people will not point out the shortcomings of the RCC.

As a Jew, I will say that Judaism is an ideal faith. God loves me and loves Jews.  Judiasm very definitely gives me peace.  A prominent rabbi has recently described Judiasm as the “consensus of the committed in the Presence of the Living God. God has made covenants and promises to us Jews that remain UNBROKEN,  Dt.7: 6-8: “For you are a people sacred to the Lord your God; he has chosen you from the all nations on the of the earth to to be a a people peculiarly his own.  It is not because you are the largest of all nations that the Lord has set his heart on you and chose you, for you are really the smallest of all nations.  It was because the Lord loved you and because of his fidelity to the oath he had sworn to your fathers, that he brought you out from the place of slavery and ransomed you from the hand of Pharaoh, king of Egypt.”

@Lisa Kaiser “To elect a Mormon to the American presidency would, to my mind, be a disaster.” In what context is this written, Lisa? From the standpoint that it would misrepresent what Christianity is; not because they are bad people. You, however, make personal attacks against the Catholic Church.

Here’s Wikipedia’s description of a Christian: Christianity (from the Ancient Greek word ???????, Khristos, “Christ”, literally “anointed one”) is a monotheistic religion[1] based on the life and teachings of Jesus as presented in canonical gospels and other New Testament writings.[2] Adherents of the Christian faith are known as Christians.

Mormons are not monotheistic, therefore they are not Christians. They have aspects of Christian belief but their belief system is not Christian.

Yes I am very familiar with the pedophilia crisis although I don’t like to refer to what occurred as pedophilia since the majority of the abuse took place with adolescent boys. Pedophilia is sex with prepubescent boys. Men having sex with teenage boys is homosexual sex but you’ll never read that in the NY Times or Newsweek. Either act is vile and totally betrays the vows the priest took and takes advantage of a teenage boy. Do you not believe that this goes on in other religions? Claims by insurance companies backs that up. Do you not believe that it exists in the Orthodox Jewish community but because they live such an insular life it is hidden?  Do you not believe sexual abuse is far greater in the general population than anywhere?  Any cover up is inexcusable but to believe that sexual abuse is a “Catholic problem” is to be disingenuous.

No one has ever said that Catholicism is a perfect institution. It is made up of human beings and human beings fail but the Catholic Church is holy because Christ is the head of the Church and He is holy so it is perfect from that perspective.

God loved the Jews from the beginning and they kept disobeying Him time and time again. They were not faithful to the Covenant He established. He sent His only Son as expiation for the sins of the world. When some Jews rejected Jesus the disciples went to preach to the Gentiles.  God’s love was then offered to all humanity; not just the Jews. You take the story only part of the way. It doesn’t end with the Torah or the Prophets. Catholicism acknowledges the Covenant that God made to the Jewish people. Those that were not Jews are brought in to God’s family as well. To be a Christian is to be a complete Jew.

Sometime ago I suggested to read Salvation is from the Jews. I assume you have never read it.

You are not at peace, Lisa because anyone who was at peace would not spend so much of their time feeling the need to attack someone else.

The short answer is NEVER, never would I vote in good conscience for a Mormon. Romney Vs Obama, I’ll find someone else to vote for or write in a name. A vote for the lessor of two evils is still a vote for evil. Mormonism is evil.

@Lisa Kaiser - You are taking Jimmy’s comment out of context and you know that very well. It would be a “disaster” from the standpoint that a Mormon who identifies himself as Christian, would be a misrepresentation of Christianity. Christianity is monolithic; Mormonism is not. And it is for this very reason that Jimmy made this a topic for discussion. Since Mormons identify themselves as Christian would the American public be influenced by their erroneous identification as Christians? Would non Christians and uninformed Christians begin to believe that Christians become God or inherit their own planet? This truly is a cause for concern for Christians who take their faith seriously. No where is Jimmy attacking Mormons personally or stating they are bad people.

O.k. Lisa, when all else fails bring out the sexual abuse of minors which is the term I prefer to use rather than pedophilia. Pedophilia is the term used involving sex with prepubescent children. This was not the case. Most of the encounters involved adult men having sex with adolescent boys. You can read into that any way you wish. That being said whatever one chooses to call it, it is still evil and any cover up associated with it is evil. But it is important to point out several things. It was a very small percentage of priests. Abuse occurs in all religions and in every area of society. Because the Catholic Church has a hierarchy it is much easier to track abuse. It would be erroneous to state that no other religion or denomination within Christianity has not and does not suffer the same evil consequences. Because other religions are so insular and “protect their own” the “problem” is handled privately. This is not just a “Catholic problem”.

No one ever said that the Catholic Church was perfect. She is made up of humans who are fallible. The Catholic Church is holy because the Church belongs to Christ and He is holy and perfect.

God loved the Jews from the beginning but over and over again they disobeyed and broke the terms of the Covenant. God in His goodness and kindness offered salvation to the gentiles. Jews to this day are precious in God’s eyes but they are no longer the only ones. Relationship with God has now been given to all of humanity and not just the Jewish people. You have to read the entire story, Lisa - it doesn’t end with the Jewish scriptures.

A while back I recommended that you read the book Salvation is from the Jews.I still recommend that you do. It will assist you in understanding why Christians believe as they do.

Amy; You mistyped monolithic for monotheistic earlier and meant polytheistic for Mormonism but typed mono. I recommend your advice to me a while back to you- you have reasonably expressed your beliefs and stated the facts clearly. Peace Francis

@HermitTalker - Thanks for the corrections. It was 6:33 in the AM. :-)

I would recommend staying in bed longer rather than trying to convince some posters to understand and recognise reason.

My point is this:  IF a Mormon blogger had written that it would it would be disaster to elect a RC person as president becasue RCism is not Christianity and becuase to elect such a person would confuse people about Christianity, its not a great leap to think that a lot of RCs would see that as insulting and untrue, would see such comments as a bashing of RCism.  Christians do not own the presidency.  Being a Christian is a criterion to hold elected office.  So I thinkk Jimmy Akin is bashing the Mormons (which is not to say that I am a fan or supporter of the Church of LDS).

As pedophilia maong Orthodox Jews, yes it exists.  That being said, I am not an Orthodox Jew.  And there is a big difference between Judiasm (Orthodox or not) and the RCC. Ther is no overarching hieirarchy in Judaism. No Jewish movement has systematically and deliberately enabled pedophiles or covered up for pedophiles and their criminal acts in the way that the bishops and cardinals have. 

Amy, you are incorrect.  We Jews are indeed still holy to God.  Christians have NOT superseded us in any way. God has made different covenants withe ach of the 3 Abrahamic traditions. god does NOT break covenants and promises.  God does NOT abandon God’s people.  God resides with the Jews, with the Christians and with the Muslims.  to say and beleive otherwise is yes, triumphalism.  God has made covenants and promises to us Jews that remain UNBROKEN,  Dt.7: 6-8: “For you are a people sacred to the Lord your God; he has chosen you from the all nations on the of the earth to to be a a people peculiarly his own.  It is not because you are the largest of all nations that the Lord has set his heart on you and chose you, for you are really the smallest of all nations.  It was because the Lord loved you and because of his fidelity to the oath he had sworn to your fathers, that he brought you out from the place of slavery and ransomed you from the hand of Pharaoh, king of Egypt.”

@ Lisa Kaiser - How can anyone dialogue with you? You pull things out of a hat at will and that make no sense. It’s irrelevant that there is no organized “Jewish movement”. Harboring sex abusers and not reporting it to authorities is inexcusable regardless if it is organized religion or not. What difference does it make that you are not an Orthodox Jew? When did I say that God does not reside with Jews, Christians and Muslims?  When did I say God’s covenant with the Jews is broken? I guarantee you that Orthodox Jews have a very strong dislike for Jews who are not Orthodox and don’t even consider anyone else Jews if they are not Orthodox. So why don’t you argue with them that you are just as much a Jew as they are? Wouldn’t you consider their viewpoint triumphalism?  One would think you would have much more of an issue with that than with the RCC and Christianity. I don’t get it, Lisa, I just don’t get why you are obsessed with RCC and Christianity when you have a firestorm in your own backyard.

Amy, in a post yesterday, you said that Jews were no longer the holy ones.  My response took issue with that.  Also, you are the one who brought up Orthodox Jews to me.  And you are wrong about “a firestorm in my backyard”.  Not even certain what you are talking about.  And you are wrong about Orthodox and other Jews not getting along.  here in the US, we certainly cross paths with each a lot and there is no dislike.  We have different. viewpoints on the theology, but no dislike.  You have no clue about commuities of Jews.

And no, being a Christian is not “being a complete Jew”. Christians are NOT Jews.  Christians have stepped outside of Judaism by claiming that the messiah ahas come.  Christians are complete Christians and have NOTHING to do with Judaism.

We Jews are indeed still holy to God.  Christians have NOT superseded us in any way. God has made different covenants withe ach of the 3 Abrahamic traditions. god does NOT break covenants and promises.  God does NOT abandon God’s people.  God resides with the Jews, with the Christians and with the Muslims.  to say and beleive otherwise is yes, triumphalism.  God has made covenants and promises to us Jews that remain UNBROKEN,  Dt.7: 6-8: “For you are a people sacred to the Lord your God; he has chosen you from the all nations on the of the earth to to be a a people peculiarly his own.  It is not because you are the largest of all nations that the Lord has set his heart on you and chose you, for you are really the smallest of all nations.  It was because the Lord loved you and because of his fidelity to the oath he had sworn to your fathers, that he brought you out from the place of slavery and ransomed you from the hand of Pharaoh, king of Egypt.”

Can someone in here open the window and air out the stink, and filth and irrational beating of the same topics to death to the point of irritation.
I recommend paying a psychiatrist or psychologist as a means of talking out problems some may have with those needing to needle serious people with constant pricking at those peoples’ institutions not to mention feelings
I also recommend Logic 101 classes for those on this or any blog who cannot use reason or common sense and cannot drop a topic when it has been ridden to death.
Love which is recommended by the Hebrew and Christian Holy Books requires that we not be a pain in the lower regions to others

@Lisa Kaiser - I throw in the towel…God’s blessings.

Wow, you people sure have strayed from the question. Perfect example of what happens when there is no one to oversee things, like a Pope would, everyone is left to interpret things on there own. Polytheist in the White house, that was the topic. The fact is that Modern Judaism is EVIL as is Islam as is Mormonism. I am stating fact of course, now can we please steer things back to why a Polytheist claiming to be a Christian would be a disaster? I would rather have more Obama then Romney, the reason being at least I can see the Devils horns! To many ignorant would be duped by the wolf in sheeps clothing.

@Michael - If you’re Catholic, don’t understand how you could support a president who is the most pro abortion president in history.

Amy Would like to share more mutual support in e-mail, if you wish. I offer you culdaffman1939@yahoo.com as a place to make contact. It is not my regular e-mail site but one to preserve privacy. I am older and retired so if you have enough to occupy your time, I would certainly understand. I am on another topic here as I said and on Catholic Answers also. I also have some unfinished writing projects which nag at me for completion…..!!

@ Amy How could you construe my support for Barry with what I said? The devil you see plainly is not as dangerous as the devil you don’t see plainly. Satan, who is much smarter then any of us knows that attacking the front gate, although sometimes needed, will rally more troops to its defense, while digging small tunnels around the back wall and slipping in a few squads can be far more effective. Romney will go far less noticed for what he is and get good people to follow him, he is more dangerous than Barry.

@Michael McKinney - “I would rather have more Obama then Romney, the reason being at least I can see the Devils horns!” You did say this, right?

@ Amy That statement doesn’t mean I support Barry, only that I think he is the lessor of two evils. I would cast my vote for none of the above in a Obama vs Romney scenario.

@ Michael McKinney - Thanks for the clarification.

Michael,

Wow talk about a bigoted response, “The fact is that Modern Judaism is EVIL as is Islam as is Mormonism.”  You clearly know nothing of Judaism or Islam.  Neither is evil.  There are 3 Abrahamic traditions because God wills it.  Each is equal tot he other, none os better than the others and none is triumphant over the others.  And your comment is NOT what the RCC teaches about either Judaism or Islam.  Please review the current (from Vatican II to the present) on thse topics.  Both Pope JPII and BXVI have reached out to Jews in positive and meaningful ways.

HermitTalker,

for you, I would repeat the quote from Gadhi, ” I lke your Christ.  I do not like your Christians, they are so unlike your Christ.”

@lisa Please don’t lecture me on my own faith of which you know very little. The reason the popes reach out to the Jews is to save them from error and lead them to the only true God, Father, Son & Holy Spirit. If you think I’m a bigot because I call a spade a spade—-So be it! The Holy Catholic Church is the stainless bride of Christ and is THE ark of salvation, if non Catholics are to be saved it will be through His graces dispensed through His Church. Jesus is the way, the truth and the life, no one goes to the father EXCEPT through him! You have the free will to accept this FACT or not, the choice is yours and remember the choice is eternal : ) May God give you the Grace to realize your errors and come to the ONE TRUE FAITH, The Catholic Church. I am a little more abrupt than most apologist, I’m just tired of those who beat around the bush! Excepting what I say or not is irrelevant to it’s truthfulness.

@Lisa Kaiser - I do not agree with Michael’s comment although I’m beginning to suspect that you just may have taken on another identify (Michael) post something inflammatory (TROLL ALERT!) and Lisa reappears to refute Michael’s comments and then you bait HermitTalker. Get back to the topic at hand Lisa if there’s anything left of it here.

Michael,

I will lecture on RCism all I want.  I was a RC for decades.  I have 16 yrs of RC education, including a BA in RC theology from an RC college.

And no the popes did not reach out to Jews in to save us “from error.” The popes reached out in respect for our complete and valid tradition.  There is no evagelizing or trying convert the Jews by the popes.  For the 600 yrs of the Inquistion, the RCC tortured and murdered Jews trying to force us to convert.  We are still here as Jews, because God wills it and because God loves us as Jews. We are not in error.  We remain the people of the one true God.  I am also very direct.  You area bigot and know nothing of Judaism and apparently nothing of what YOUR church teaches about other faiths.  Judaism has NOT been superseded by anyhting.  All 3 Abrahamic traditiosn are equal, complet and valid in and of themselves.  The RCC does NOT poseese the truth of God.  Because no one religious tradtion contains the truth of God.  God is beyond all human understanding.  And for us Jews,
God has made covenants and promises to us Jews that remain UNBROKEN,  Dt.7: 6-8: “For you are a people sacred to the Lord your God; he has chosen you from the all nations on the of the earth to to be a a people peculiarly his own.  It is not because you are the largest of all nations that the Lord has set his heart on you and chose you, for you are really the smallest of all nations.  It was because the Lord loved you and because of his fidelity to the oath he had sworn to your fathers, that he brought you out from the place of slavery and ransomed you from the hand of Pharaoh, king of Egypt.”

You are engaging in the outmoded triumphalism that YOUR church rejected via Vatican II.  Please learn something about RCism.  You are apparently very ignorant of its current teachings.

Amy,

I am both pleased and insulted.  Pleased that you do not agree with him and insulted that you think I would stop to calling my own people evil.  No, I am NOT Michael.  How weird that you would think such a thing.  Apparently, bigotry is alive and well among RCs. As the posts from Micahel clearly indicate.  And I will respond to Micahels bigotry and triumphalism as he posts and tries to pass it off as the teachings of the RCC.

Buzz word of the day to say five times fast…..triumphalism. :-(

Amy,

See, I knew you would catch on. I hope you know what it means—that the RCC used to see itself as triumphant over all other faith tradtions (and some RCs still indulge in such outmoded and error-filled thinking) And I hope you know that the RCC has rejected it via Vatican II.

Lisa - the RCC has never needed to reject anything that she has never professed - triumphalism.

You resort to name calling when you have no facts to prove your point, typical liberalism, which is sinful by the way. Vatican II never changed the Churches stance on how it views other inferior religions, it just softened the language a bit and put it in a different perspective, but it NEVER changed any truth. You ladies need to understand what I’ve said and except or deny the validity of it. The Holy Catholic Church is the ONLY way to salvation, Catholicism is what Jesus said it was HIS Church. No bigots here, just facts! Jesus reigns supreme and so does his Holy Catholic Church. If that’s Triumphalism than I guess so! Because Jesus on the Cross IS Triumphant over all!

Amy,

If you really think that, then you know very little of the history of the RCC.  Are you lying about that?  Are you being willfully ignorant of the history of the RCC?  Or do you just not know the history of the RCC?  Until Vatican II, the RCC most decidely professed triumphalism.  that is why the RCC exerted cneturies of effort in persecuting, torturing and murdering Jews.  That is what the 600 yrs of the Inquistion was about, that is what the forced conversions of the Aztecs, Incas, Mayans, and other other native peoples of the New World was about.  Triumphalism is why the RCC tortured and burned Protestants and those it called hertics at the stake.  Please read some history of the RCC.  Please read the the documents of Vatican II on this subject.  Nostra Aetate is good place to start

Roman Catholic scholar James Carroll has an excellent book on the subject of the RCC, its triumphalism and the Jews.  Its called the Sword of Constantine.

Rejection of triumphalism is why Pope JPII decided to apologize to the Jews for the Inquistion and other sins the RCC committed against Jews over the centuries.

Triumphalism is why the RCC, until about 1860, opposed freedom of religion in the nations of Europe.  Triumphalism is why, until Vatican II, the RCC refused to recognize marriages that did not occur in the RCC.

Really, really, please read some history.

Michael,

There are NO “inferior religions”.  The RCC does NOT teach such a thing. There is is only your weird bigotry.  God loves all of us—those of us of the 3 Abrahamic traditions, Hindus, Buddhists, etc.  No relgion is “inferior”.  Each religion possess a part of the truth of God.  Each relgions containa a path to God. The RCC is NOT the only or the “true"ath to God.

@Lisa Kaiser - Show we where the RCC has apologized for triumphalism. I’m speaking about the actual word - not your idea of what triumphalism is.

@ lisa I’m done! I’m shaking the dust from my sandals. Sit in the foul stench of your arrogance and ignorance. Unless you eat the FLESH of the Son of Man you have NO life in you. Unless you’re Baptized(by water, blood or desire) you shall not see God “Face to Face” Those aren’t my words, those are God’s words!  Except or deny it. Remember, your choice is eternal. I’m hoping you choose to be a fulfilled Jew, a COMPLETED Jew. I pray for your soul and those around you.

Please quit using the Roman in front of Catholic, it isn’t correct. It is JUST the Catholic Church. Thanks

@ Lisa Kaiser - Once again you have attempted to divert from the topic at hand. Know one thing, I have no interest in debating with you regarding what you see as RCC triumphalism. I know who I am, what I believe and Who I believe in. I have already told you, the Church is made up of humans; humans are imperfect. This does not, however, negate in any way what the Church is and Who is the Church.

Michael, take it from a fellow Mick, you’re way out of line. I’ve lived in the northeast for most of my adult life and even worked in the Clerk’s Ofc. of Federal District Court of Boston during the infamous busing crisis. I watched and saw ‘em all, Dapper O’Neil, Pixie Palladino, Louise Day Hicks, et al ... and NOT ONE of the “leading lights” against Judge Garrity’s busing order, issued to break up the Irish Catholic-dominated Boston School Committee, not a single one of ‘em, was a non-Catholic. Hell, the Yankees and Jews—especially if they represented a certain red-bricked ancient college in Cambridge—were blamed for everything under the sun according to the ever-so-righteous and correct-thinking Catholics.
  In the interest of “fairness,” the Catholic mob experts in social progress, sometimes led by the Madame Defarge of Charlestown’s projects, none other than the diminuitive (in many more ways than one) Pixie Palladino, there were some Catholics who came in for their share of attacks for being aloof and removed. True, Kennedy who apppointed Garrity to the bench was from Cape Cod and the latter from toney Wellesley. I found Garrity quite cold and aloof compared to other judges. But if your life was threatened every day during the darkest hours (even though you braved taking the T day in and out to work), I’ll bet you, too, Michael, would be very tight-lipped, and let the BIG BIGOTED MOUTHS do the job of demonstrating the wisdom of your decision as each day passed.
  Most of my southern friends and one of my southern relatives said they’ve never seen so much prejudice and rank bigotry as they have in predominately URBANIZED NORTHEASTERN WHITE ETHNIC ENCLAVES FOUND IN BOSTON, NY, AND THAT CITY OF “BROTHERLY LOVE,” PHILADELPHIA.
  When I attended a then-all-male Catholic college outside Miami-Dade, (then Biscayne College, now St. Thomas Univ/Biscayne College), the school was predominately white guys hailing from the mid-Atlantic big cities and white as drywall ‘burbs, with a few of us hailing from New England. It was wonderful preparation for what I was to experience in Boston in the Fall immediately following my graduation in ‘74.
  It was owned and run (as tightly as possible) by the Augustinians who also own Villanova and then Merrimac College up in MA.) A Catholic college where to follow your logic, “Tut tut, why, of course, there’d be no bigotry to find there.” I was no angel in years past, but I sure as hell didn’t hide behind my faith then or now and still believe that just being a Catholic makes it easier for us to stand on both the shakey pulpits of arrogance guys like yourself pile (like the proverbial Tower of Babel) so you can look down your noses at people who aren’t like you and pass on pontifical judgments and justify your own prejudices.
  One of the heroes of that Boston Busing Crisis was the late Cardinal Medeiros who put an instant stop to “white flight” in the Boston Public Schools caused by white parents seeking to put their kids out of “harm’s way” LOL! when in fact he saw plain as day they were only mimicing the mostly white Southern Protestants who suddenly formed one “Christian Academy” after another just coincidently after a Federal judge told school districts in Dixie they HAD TO COMPLY WITH BROWN WITH MORE DELIBERATIVE FOOT DRAGGING, which is EXACTLY WHAT THE WHITE CATHOLICS DID IN ONE OF THOSE EVER SO PROGRESSIVE CITIES IN THE NORTHEAST, BOSTON.
  Ay’ by your arrogance, you make the rest of us look real bad. REAL BAD.

The Catholic Church ever remains the stainless bride of Christ, Truly I am not arrogant in the least but in fact meek and humble, I speak not my words and I am conveying FACT, TRUTH and all that really matters in this world. Except or deny, it’s up to you, it’s called freewill. Praying for your souls.

Michael,

I will continue to use the term Roman Catholic Church becasue that is what YOUR church calls itself.  And because there are other Catholcis aside from Roamn Catholics—all the orthodox catholic churches—Rusian, Greek, Serbian, Coptic, etc.

And yes, Pope JPII apologized for the arrogance of the RCC that led it to kill, torture and presecute Jews from the 4th Century CE to the end of the Inquisition in 1860.

Pope JPII’s apologies:

In the 1994 Apostaolic Letter “Tertio Millenio Adviente:  “Hence it is appropriate that as the second millennium of Christianity draws to a close the Church should become ever more fully conscious of the sinfulness of her children, recalling all those times in history when they departed from the spirit of Christ and His Gospel and, instead of offering to the world the witness of a life inspired by the values of her faith, indulged in ways of thinking and acting which were truly forms of counter-witness and scandal. Although she is holy because of her incorporation into Christ, the Church does not tire of doing penance. Before God and man, she always acknowledges as her own her sinful sons and daughters.”

]Even before he became the Pope, he was a prominent editor and supporter of initiatives like the Letter of Reconciliation of the Polish Bishops to the German Bishops from 1965. As Pope, he officially made public apologies for over 100 of these wrongdoings, including:

The conquest of Mesoamerica by Spain in the name of the Church.
The legal process on the Italian scientist and philosopher Galileo Galilei, himself a devout Catholic, around 1633 (31 October 1992).
Catholics’ involvement with the African slave trade (9 August 1993).
The Church Hierarchy’s role in burnings at the stake and the religious wars that followed the Protestant Reformation (May 1995, in the Czech Republic).
The injustices committed against women, the violation of women’s rights and for the historical denigration of women (10 July 1995, in a letter to “every woman”).
The inactivity and silence of many Catholics during the Holocaust (16 March 1998)
For the execution of Jan Hus in 1415 (18 December 1999 in Prague).
For the sins of Catholics throughout the ages for violating “the rights of ethnic groups and peoples, and [for showing] contempt for their cultures and religious traditions”. (12 March 2000, during a public Mass of Pardons).
For the sins of the Crusader attack on Constantinople in 1204. (4 May 2001, to the Patriarch of Constantinople).

Along with the various apologies noted above, on March 12, 2000 during Mass at St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome wearing the purple vestments of lenten mourning, Pope JPII sought pardon for seven categories of sin: general sins; sins in the service of truth; sins against Christian unity; against the Jews; against respect for love, peace and cultures; against the dignity of women and minorities; and against human rights.

Christans are Christains , you are not a completed Jew.  Only us Jews are Jews.  And we do not care what you about slavation, etc.  Judaism is a complete and valid tradition in and itself. God has made covenants and promises to us Jews that remain UNBROKEN,  Dt.7: 6-8: “For you are a people sacred to the Lord your God; he has chosen you from the all nations on the of the earth to to be a a people peculiarly his own.  It is not because you are the largest of all nations that the Lord has set his heart on you and chose you, for you are really the smallest of all nations.  It was because the Lord loved you and because of his fidelity to the oath he had sworn to your fathers, that he brought you out from the place of slavery and ransomed you from the hand of Pharaoh, king of Egypt.”

Michael,  I will continue to use the term Roman Catholic Church because that is what YOUR church calls itself.  Ther are other Catholic churches—the Orthodox/Eastern rite Catholic churches—some of which are in communion with Rome (the Byzantinefor examples) and some not (Russian, Greek, Coptic, Serbian, etc).. Theya re all Catholic churches and YOUR church recognizes them as such.

And you ae NOT a complet Jew.  You are NOT a Jew.  Only Jews are Jews.  christians are Christians.  We do not care what you think about us becasue our trdition is complete and valid in and of itself.
God has made covenants and promises to us Jews that remain UNBROKEN,  Dt.7: 6-8: “For you are a people sacred to the Lord your God; he has chosen you from the all nations on the of the earth to to be a a people peculiarly his own.  It is not because you are the largest of all nations that the Lord has set his heart on you and chose you, for you are really the smallest of all nations.  It was because the Lord loved you and because of his fidelity to the oath he had sworn to your fathers, that he brought you out from the place of slavery and ransomed you from the hand of Pharaoh, king of Egypt.”

Michael and Amy,

Here are the apolgies of Pope JPII:

March 12, 2000 at Mass at St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome:  Defying warnings from some theologians that the unprecedented apology would undermine the church’s authority, the 79-year-old pontiff asked God to forgive the persecution of the Jews. “We are deeply saddened by the behaviour of those who in the course of history have caused these children of yours to suffer, and asking your forgiveness we wish to commit ourselves to genuine brotherhood.”

Wearing the purple vestments of lenten mourning, the Pope sought pardon for seven categories of sin: general sins; sins in the service of truth; sins against Christian unity; against the Jews; against respect for love, peace and cultures; against the dignity of women and minorities; and against human rights.

Other apologies of Pope JPII:

Pope John Paul II made many apologies. During his long reign as Pope, he apologized to Jews, Galileo, women, victims of the Inquisition, Muslims slaughtered by the Crusaders and almost everyone who had suffered at the hands of the Catholic Church through the years. Even before he became the Pope, he was a prominent editor and supporter of initiatives like the Letter of Reconciliation of the Polish Bishops to the German Bishops from 1965. As Pope, he officially made public apologies for over 100 of these wrongdoings, including:

The conquest of Mesoamerica by Spain in the name of the Church
The legal process on the Italian scientist and philosopher Galileo Galilei, himself a devout Catholic, around 1633 (31 October 1992).
Catholics’ involvement with the African slave trade (9 August 1993).
The Church Hierarchy’s role in burnings at the stake and the religious wars that followed the Protestant Reformation (May 1995, in the Czech Republic).
The injustices committed against women, the violation of women’s rights and for the historical denigration of women (10 July 1995, in a letter to “every woman”).
The inactivity and silence of many Catholics during the Holocaust (16 March 1998)
For the execution of Jan Hus in 1415 (18 December 1999 in Prague).
For the sins of Catholics throughout the ages for violating “the rights of ethnic groups and peoples, and [for showing] contempt for their cultures and religious traditions”. (12 March 2000, during a public Mass of Pardons).
For the sins of the Crusader attack on Constantinople in 1204. (4 May 2001, to the Patriarch of Constantinople).

Michael and Amy:

Here is yet another apology from Pope JPII:

Pope John Paul’s 1994 Apostolic Letter ‘Tertio millennio adveniente’:

“Hence it is appropriate that as the second millennium of Christianity draws to a close the Church should become ever more fully conscious of the sinfulness of her children, recalling all those times in history when they departed from the spirit of Christ and His Gospel and, instead of offering to the world the witness of a life inspired by the values of her faith, indulged in ways of thinking and acting which were truly forms of counter-witness and scandal. Although she is holy because of her incorporation into Christ, the Church does not tire of doing penance. Before God and man, she always acknowledges as her own her sinful sons and daughters.”

All of these sinfula ctions by the RCC arose because it insisted it held the only way to salvation and the the only path to God, that it alone was the true church of God. (triumphalism).  That insistence led it to commit all the sins that Pope JPII apologized for as documented in my rmost recent 3 posts.

Michael and Amy,

Yet another apology made by Pope JPII.  On March 27 at the conclusion of his trip to Israel: standing in solemn solitude, the pope prayed and touched the wide beige stones of the Western Wall, where he deposited a signed plea for God’s forgiveness for centuries of Catholic torment of the Jewish people. It was a searing image that many Israelis said heralded a new era in Jewish-Christian relations.

Sorry left off the year of the Pope’s trip and apology in Israel.  Pope JPII visited Isareal and apologized to Jews in March 2000.

@Steven
Enjoyed your last post on Boston’ was no different in the mid west, there is a catholic identity that strove for their piece of the pie. Not all were rich but accepted those poor boys, who were smarter by years than those of station.

The Catholic identity is often seen as arrogance, in some communities that identity and Catholics are in deed under serious attack. Regardless of your origins the attack needs to be repulsed by all means possible.

Universalism is a heresy that has been around since the foundation of Christianity and is at the root of many of Holy Mother Church’s woes.  It’s a given the Jews are God’s chosen people and the covenants of the OT are valid until the end of time, as God can chose and do whatever He wills and He never lies nor breaks His promises.  God willed to reveal Himself through the Jews, a weak and despised race among men, but favored by God because of the holiness of certain members of their tribe.  But only a fool will claim that all Jews are holy and that all Jews believe in God.  Our Lord’s last covenant until the Day of Wrath is with all of mankind and the trustee of this last covenant His bride, Holy Mother Church.

@Michael McKinney: Michael, I truly stand in awe at such a display of humility, meekness and disdainfulness of pride and arrogance.  “. . . Truly I am not arrogant in the least but in fact meek and humble, ...”
  When that moment arrives when you reach St. Peter’s desk and the Saint hits you with this question, “Is THIS your final summation?” What are you going to say?
  Inquiring minds are anxious to know. It’s been a tough summer, tornadoes, earthquakes, the government deliberately shaken down by one party and a horrible hurricane. Thank you, Michael. After all, everybody needs comic relief.

David,

First of all jews are not a race.  We are a community, we call ourselves a tribe.  But we defintely are not a race.  and I am not claiming that all Jews beleive in God or that all Jews are holy.  that’s not the point.  God’s love of Jews, and of ALL people, is unconditional.  it does not matter if we are holy or even beleive in God, God has made promises to Jews,  to Christians and to Muslims.  And God will keep all those promises and will always love all of us.

@Lisa Kaiser - “Michael,  I will continue to use the term Roman Catholic Church because that is what YOUR church calls itself.” You are wrong. The Catholic Church is not called the Roman Catholic Church. It is simply the Catholic Church and within that there are different rites. The Roman Rite(Latin) is the largest. There are no other Catholic Churches.The Orthodox Church is not aligned with the Catholic Church. Please do not tell us what we are called.

@Steven, Spoken like the true liberal you are, who is need of some Catechesis. First off my final summation won’t be with Saint Peter, so you need to brush up on the Particular Judgement. I’ll answer for my sins which are many to the one true God Jesus Christ and I will receive Heaven, Hell or purgatory. I do have a few friends that may be able pull my bacon out of the fire, I hope so! My Blessed Mother, whom I revere above all of Gods creatures needs utter but a word to her son on my behalf and I’m in! I guess it wasn’t to humble and meek to call my self such and I’m sure my Holy Father St. Francis would not be happy with me. I humbly beg your forgiveness if I have offended you and ask my fellow Catholics to pray for my soul. Other than calling myself meek and humble, I still adhere to all I said previously without hesitation. The Holy Catholic Church IS superior to ALL other faiths and is the ark of salvation. Either be on board or grab a rope hanging overboard, if not you’ll be drowning in the fires of eternal Hell. No one, not a single soul enters heaven without receiving the Grace of the Lord as dispenced through His Holy and unblemished Bride. Except or deny what I say you have freewill. By the way Liberalism is a sin…..

Michael, take it from one Gael to another, forgiven! And I have to admit arrogance runs deep within our island tribe. LOL. Liberalism’s a “sin” you say?! Here comes another pub-clearin’ donnybrook! LOL!

Michael: It behooves us to be careful when we proclaim the uniqueness of the Church. That claim comes from the New Restament and is a gift of faith. We can trace its historic journey, read the evidence of its saints and scholars, including the historic place of the Church of Rome in its theological development,  to show the reasonableness of its claims, but faith, as gift, gets us into it or lack of faith gets us out of it. Despite our past sins and failures, most are attributable to a lack of awareness of the moral damage that was done, most of that coming from the pre-Christian idea that civil unity was necessarily based on theological unity and we inherited that concept which was aggravated by the papal claims to temporal power as well as spiritual. Jesus and His followers for centuries were persecuted and executed because they would not accept the Emperor or his gods as theirs. Greek cities had their own gods, remember Diana of the Ephesians when Paul caused a big stink there.
The interpretation of the Catholic Ghurch’s uniqueness is not a claim that no value or e;ement or the Christian faith or reasonable activity in other faith groups- obvioiusly Protstants took our Bible and made it theirs, Jews have monotheism and the 10 Commandments and ethical norms in common with us, Islam has monotheism also. Sadly their Qu’ran specifically acknowledges the jihad and killing other faith groups even though the honour Mary in a special way and see Jesus as a prophet but not the “only begotten Son of God.”

The Second Vatican Council made all of this clear in a humble, honest house-cleaning, and as noted here JP11 apologised and Popes back to Paul V1 met with and showed respect to various faith groups and that dialogue continues since. Magic wands from Fairy Godmothers work in fairy tales but the real world has sin and flawed views and time is needed to get the Truth and respect for Truth and Reason in charge.
People who dwell on the sins of our past know nothing about the development of history and how ideas are changed over centuries or very suddenly by a movement by one powerful person- such as John XX111 and MLK and LBJ following the two Kennedy brothers and civil rights.
OUR CHURCH’S OFFICIAL NAME is the Catholic Church whose earthly Universal Shepherd is the Bishop of Rome. The name c- lower case- is the name it has had way before the Orthodox or Reformers. There are several Eastern Churches in union with the Bishop of Rome who use the name “C- cap C-atholic in their formal titles. The official documents and other communications are never addressed to the “Roman” Catholic Church as such. The title was - and for somke still is used often as derogatory by Protestants who see “Rome” as the Book of Revelation’s Babylon.
More below…

Therefore when we see references to our “arrogance” or “looking down our noses” that is not and should not be the proper attitude regardless of how Kings and Queens and Lords and Knights or hierarchy talked and acted before or may still do. Harking back to that is baiting and immature and may betray guilt or insecurity. More on that theme:

Reference has been made to the “Vatican ” derogratorily several times in various posts. One advantage of having the Biahop of Rome and his various offices is that he can teach, guide and direct events by TV, radio, worldwide gatherings and meetings with all and sundry.
One disadvantage is that there is no central figure in any other world faith group to apologise for the sins against Catholics. We had a very touching few days in Ireland in May when Elizabeth 11 made the first visit of a British Monarch here since Independence. She went to Croke Park the national field for Irish football and hurling. It was there on a Sunday that her uncle’s troops went in with armoured vehicles during a national game in 1920 and shot up the crowd. She also went to the various memorials where Irish troops had fought alongside British oin every war since they went to the UK and Ausralia and Canada, including of course WW11. As the Queen she said little. did used a phraese in Irish to greet the Irish President at a formal dinner. Bbut that was powerfully symbolic and helped move the peace and reconciliation processes forward. A few protested - they remind me of the little puppies who tear into slippers, just as some do on here, instead of dropping it.
If you recall the film, Ghandi, you may remember the scene where British troops did the same to a square in some Indian city. QE 11 did not apologise for that incident, while upset many.
It would be lovely if there was a system whereby The Chief Rabbi in Jerusalem could apologise for Bernie Madoff whose insane tehieving stole from his friend Eli Weisel’s fund for Holocaust victims. IN defence of Pius X11 I cited the thanks he received from the Chief Rabbi of Rome for his saving so many Jews, and presumably standing up to Hitler and Miussolini. Our little puppy on here missed the point, typically, and irrationally reminded me there is no Jewish Vatican. Duh!
Same for all the European Church leaders who stole the Catholic Cathedrals and killed the clergy and destroyed pricelsss art works. “In Jesus’ Name” one assumes.

Was Paul “careful” when he proclaimed the uniqueness and superiority of His Lord? Was he not imprisoned and eventually beheaded for his zeal for Christ? The list of martyrs is very long as I’m sure most of you know. Why does a Bishop slap (actually a tap) your cheek when you are confirmed? The Catholic faith has been watered down and is in full retreat. parishes in the U.S. are closing in record numbers and I blame LUKEWARM Bishops and laity. My friends, have no doubt that to live an authentic Catholic life in America today is to live a martyr’s life. In order to witness to Christ we must believe in Him so strongly that we are filled with His joy. This joy is, of course, as St.Peter explained, not devoid of pain. Proclaim the Gospel in a loud and clear voice and get ready for what naturally follows.

Mochael,

There are many likely reasons for the clsoing of parishes. The current state of our economy is one.  Lots of unemployed or underemployed mean less funding for faith organizations.  Also, the fallout from the sex abuse scandal continues.  Several dioceses have declared bankruptcy, some have sold real estate to meet the costs of litgation. We are an aging society—as older members die, parishes change and bishops see that it makes sense to consolidate parishes.  And those are probably just the tip of iceberg as to why parishes are clsoing.

HermitTalker,

You are mixing apples and oranges when you speak of Bernie Madaoff.  The RCC as the RCC committed centuries worth of egregious sin and violence against many peoples on a number of continents.  these sins and acts of violnce were committed by the RCC in the name of the RCC.  Things for which Pope JPII apologized for on anumber of occasions.

Bernie Maddoff committed criminal offense as an individual person.  There is no need for Jews as Jews to apologize for his actions.  He did not commit his offense in the name of Judaism. He committed his crimes in his name only.

And I reminded you that there is no “Jewish vatican” because in a number of posts you and others seem to want to superimpose on Judaism the idea of a hierarchy or monolithic organization that is one of the hallmarks of the RCC.

Catholics Please pray with me now.
Mary, Mother of our Redeemer, we want to be faithful to His teaching and never compromise our Faith. But we are weak. Obtain for us from Jesus the strength to live a martyr’s life in the modern world. If it is God’s will we ask for a martyr’s death. Help us, we pray, to face the oppositions from those who reject your Son. Mary, Queen of martyrs, pray for us.

Michael,

There are three (3) Abrahamic traditions because God wills it.  Jews and Muslims are in the world because God wills it.  God made a promise to make nations from the descandenat of Abraham (Isaac and Ishmael).

Each of the Abrahamic tradtions is equal to the others, none is better or triumphant over the other two.  Jews and Muslims have complete and valid traditions of their own. Judaism and Islam are NOT based on the rejection of Jesus as messiah.  Judaism and Islam are traditions with their own independent theology, culture, rites of worship.  These traditions have nothing to with “opposition” or “rejection”.  this is how some RCs shoose to frame the continued existence of Jews and Muslims in the world—instead of seeing the love of God for Jews and Muslims.  And respect for these complete and valid traditions is how JPII approached Jews and Muslims.  Pope JPII did not pray as you want RCs to pray, Michael.  You might want to learn something from JPII.

God has made covenants and promises to us Jews that remain UNBROKEN,  Dt.7: 6-8: “For you are a people sacred to the Lord your God; he has chosen you from the all nations on the of the earth to to be a a people peculiarly his own.  It is not because you are the largest of all nations that the Lord has set his heart on you and chose you, for you are really the smallest of all nations.  It was because the Lord loved you and because of his fidelity to the oath he had sworn to your fathers, that he brought you out from the place of slavery and ransomed you from the hand of Pharaoh, king of Egypt.”

Individual Spanish and Portugese sailors and adventurers were in opposition to their priests when they did harm to their colonialiam people. I told you a lawyer who became bishop wrote what is now the Universal Declaration of Human Rights from Lima Peru to Europe. Those Spanish soldiers ey did not do any of it in the Name of the Pope or Catholic Church. The apologies of JP11 were made anyway even as that was the case. Of course you would trot out your usual litany of Catholic sins and miss the point that it would be sweet if someone in authority could make an apology for Madoff and the Jews who cooperated and made money on the WW11 suffering of Jews in Hitler’s Germany as Madoff did when he stole his dear friend Eli’s money from the survivors of the Shoah.  As usual your inability to understand simple logic got in the way.
—————————————
AS to His Holiness Blessed JP11’S words did not say that Jews and Moslems were equal in Abrahamic Tradtion. He made the obvious logical point that they have similar beliefs as I noted above and deserve to be treated as humans made in God’s image as Genesis says.  No more and no less substantially. You are now repeating your own wrong and illogical concept. God cannot lie or deny Himself so could not inspire Mohammed to write a book that contradited what He did in Jesus and start a new Faith that still persecutes it and kill and burn in HIS NAME. St Paul anguished over the failure of Jews to accept Jesus as Messiah and offered some theories re the future.  That dies not negate that they are God’s daughters and sons but does not place them as most favoured and equal to the two Abrahamic tradiitons, the Christian is the development of the first.
=============LISA you know neither the HS/OT or the NT   nor history nor logic and you are so full of hatred for your former Catholic Church you need to take the next Yom Kippur seriounsly to sit back,  reflect and ask for forgiveness . Meantime please stop writing lies, wrong information and twisted viewpoints on here.

HermitTalker.

It is you who misses the point.  The crimes of bernie Madoff were his crimes, committed in his name.  Even if there WAS a “Jewish Vatican”, that entity would not apologize for the crimes of an individual. Bernie Madoff’s crimes were NOT committed in the name of Judaism.  do you understand how that situation is NOT similar in any way to the Inquistion, the centureis of persecution of Jews, the torture and meurder of native peoples by Franciscan and Jesuit priests—all acts committed in n the name of Catholicism and/or committed at the direct order of various popes over the centuries???  Do you get that????

sorry, HermitTalker.  God did NOT contradict God in any way shpae or form.  In Genesis, God makes specific covenants with Jew and with Muslims (the descendants of the son of Abraham, Ishmael).  Those covenants are in existence and unbroken.  RCism is NOT superior ina ny way to Judaism or Islam.  Becaue God brought all 3 trditions into existence, made covenants with all 3 traditions, wills all 3 traditions to exist.

It is YOU who is illogical and incorrect.  It syou who continues to insist upon the triumphalism that the RCC rejected with Vatican II.

I do NOT hate the RCC, but will call out people like YOU who DO twist its teachings, who post lies and wrong information.  It is obvious that YOU have not knwldege or understanding of Jeiwsh cripture, of history, theology or the teaching of your own church.  It is YOU who should now go to confession.

Again you are displaying your ignorance, arrogance and totally false information on every count and topic. I have shown enough respect for you as a person in trying to give you historic facts and proper biblical data whether you accept its validity you can at least say it is true. One point; Ishmael was rejected as Abe’s covenant-ed son.  Islam changed the biblical record, the record of Genesis is clear.
YOU are not worth discussing with any more. Sad to say that.

HermitTalker,

Again you have shown that you have NOT read Jewish scripture and have no knowledge of Jewish scripture.  Please read Genesis 16:10.  there you will say that God promised Hagar to make her descendants “too numerous to count.  Hagar gave birth to Abraham’s son Ishmael.  And read Geneis 17:5—God promises to make Abraham “the father of a multitde of nations”. So no, Ishmael was NOT rejected by God.

Your issue is that youd do NOT know the facts or th hsitory or the scripture.  It is YOU who is not person worthy to have a discussion with and its YOU who is sadly lacking knowledge.

Here is a link to an article on Modern Judaism, written by my departed friend and mentor, Father John Hardon SJ. A very meaty and long article that might help Catholics in the study of Judaism and how it’s changed.
http://catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0687.html

Michael,

I read through the article.  Its pretty good.  I think Hardon hit all the right notes and all the high points.  My only quibble is that Hardon mentions Reform Judaism’s 1937 platform of principles and stops there.  However, Reform Judaism has updated its platform of principles at least twice, if not 3 times since 1937.  It is a platform of principles—not a catchesim or statment of dogma or doctrine. Thank you for posting the link to the article.  Judaism is an ever evolving tradition—even on the Orthodox side of things.  ther is now a Modern Orthodox movement and even the Orthodox movement here in the US has begun to take slow baby steps to increasing the role of women in synagogue/prayer/liturgical leadership.

Here is a link to an article that I fancy by Peter Kreeft it compares Christianity and Judaism. I think well worth the time if you haven’t already read it.
http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/religions_judiasm.htm
Interested to here your take on this one Lisa.

Michael,

Peter Kreeft article is not bad, but is much less respectful of Judaism that is the Hardon article.  Christians are NOT Jews.  Paul of Taursus can say it all he want, but it does not make it true—he is rationalizing the belief in Jesus as messiah.

And the idea that Christians should seek Jewish converts even when Jews tell Christisna they do not want this from Christians is totally disrpespctful.  The wishes of the Jewish people should be respected in this regard.  The history of the RCC inforcing Jews to convert is awful and the RC should leave Jews alone in this regard. And this idea from Kreeft is also in diagreement with a statement from the RC bishops several years ago that indicates that Jews are NOT to be the subject of RC proselytizing.  Such activities indicated total disrespect for the complete and valid tradition of Judaism.  What Kreeft advocates in this regard is nothing short of spiritual rape.

Kreeft also wrong about why Conservative and Reform Jews do not proselytize.  We do not proselytize because of our history of forced conversion.  We do not see proselytizing to non Jews as a positive.  We do a lot of proselytizing among ourselves—to help all Jews appreciate their faith and heritage.  We also do not proselytize because we see Judaism as one of many many paths to God.

So Hardon’s article was excellent.  Kreeft’s article was good from a Chriatina point of view but show a deep lack of respect for Judaism as a valid and complete tradition in and of itself.

LISA KAISER: My last post definitely this time in order to help the other posters on here who may not know how whereof you write. You cited a Covenant between God and Ishmael ( the presumed other Semite who is claimed as head of Arabs and Islam) I shall use this next quote as proof of my position that you twist, lie and pretend you know the HS/OT. King James Bible in case you twoist this also: Genesis 17;2. GODL I will make MY covenant between ME and YOU.” v 18:  ABE; “Oh that Ishmael might live before You.” Ish. is already born, Abe is curious that at age 99 he could do it again now with Sarai as he did at 86 with Hagar to make Ishmael.  v 19: No Sarah your wife shall bear you a son, and you shall call him Isaac; I will establish with him for an everlasting covenant one with his descendants after him.
v20: As for Ishmael, io have heard you. Behold I have blessed him and will make him fruitful ( see 16;10) ....v 21 But MY COVENANT I will establish with Isaac , whom Sarah shall bear to you at this time next year.”
====
You were a trial lawyer. I bet every judge you argued before and opposing attorney are bald or close to it from tearing their hair out with you AND the janitors had to work overtime to clean up the floor and replace all the toilet tissue after your !@#$% all over the Law Books, and your inability to quote them accurately,  and use logical arguments.

I shall miss arguing with you in some ways but I have a soul to save and a mind to preserve from going bonkers from your editing of Reality.

HermitTalker,

I love getting the last word!  No, you are wrong about scripture.  God made a covenant with Hagar re her descendants.  And by the way, the version of the Bible I was using is the USCCB’s New American (Catholic) Bible.  Which I quoted dorectly from the NAB on the bishops’ web site.  And yes, the RCC teaches that there are 3 Abrahamic traditions.

It is very very sad that you do not know how to read and correctly interpret scripture and very very dad that you do NOT know what YOUR church teaches.

HermitTalker,

Here is the section from Nostra Aetate re Islam/Muslims.  You do know that Nostra Aetate is the an official teaching of YOUR churhc, right????

“The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all- powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth,(5) who has spoken to men; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even His inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God. Though they do not acknowledge Jesus as God, they revere Him as a prophet. They also honor Mary, His virgin Mother; at times they even call on her with devotion. In addition, they await the day of judgment when God will render their deserts to all those who have been raised up from the dead. Finally, they value the moral life and worship God especially through prayer, almsgiving and fasting.

Since in the course of centuries not a few quarrels and hostilities have arisen between Christians and Moslems, this sacred synod urges all to forget the past and to work sincerely for mutual understanding and to preserve as well as to promote together for the benefit of all mankind social justice and moral welfare, as well as peace and freedom.

4. As the sacred synod searches into the mystery of the Church, it remembers the bond that spiritually ties the people of the New Covenant to Abraham’s stock.”

Re-read that last sentence.

So it s you who needs a reality check and needs to learn some logic.

So yes, there are three (3) Abrahamic traditions (descendants of Abraham with whom God has made unbroken promises and covenants).  All three are equal in the sight of God.  Each is equally vaald and compelte in and of itself.  None is better than the others and none is triumphant over the others.

All this arguing, wrangling and counter-wrangling, and there’s one thing we keep forgetting…the two polytheists in the GOP’s list of possible nominees should start referring to themselves as poly-policy view holders.”

@Lisa Kaiser - Stop referring to the RCC - it is simply the Catholic Church with numerous Rites; the largest being the Latin Rite (Roman Catholicism.)Catholicism is growing worldwide. The issue with some parishes has more to do with demographics than anything else. Many parishes were built in the inner city. Many inner cities no longer have a majority Catholic population as the Catholics have moved to suburban locations. It has nothing to do with the economy or the sex abuse scandal.

AMY: Make sure you are drinking plenty of water to use for pee-ing against skunks. I am preparing a letter for Her Majesty QE 11 who is head of the C of E as well as being Queen. I want to tell her that the King James Bible has the word COVENANT missing from Genesis with reference to Hagar and later with God and Abraham re Isaac who gets the covenant . The covenant refers only to Isaac while Ishmael is just promised a large progeny. The Angel refers to him as a “wild man” Perhops the difficulty is the Dictionary some folks use mixing up the word Covenant with being a “Wild Man” who is to have lots of kids and will have 12 princes.
Yours in faithfulness to the COVENANT - New and Eternal promised and provided by Jesus the Christ and renewed at each Eucharist. The Temple was destroyed in 70 Ce/AD so they ccnnot kill lambs and rams and cattle any more. Professor Francis HermitTalker

Wow.  I am not nearly as indefatigable as some: I haven’t the patience to address everything I’ve found objectionable here, which is a lot, and quite frankly is by and large coming from one side.  Based on a large number of ignorant canards insistently perpetuated as “fact” and a very convenient double-standard regarding responsibility, it’s not hard to conclude there is an agenda behind it.
-
On topic.  If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?  If people have no idea that Mormonism is polytheist, or no idea that Christianity is not, are they going to be all that confused by a Mormon president?
-
I know about the Reagan jellybean effect, but somehow I don’t foresee there being a huge run on Mormon conversion.  For starters, there’s still the tainted connotation of polygamy, justified or not.  Second, the drinking of coffee and alcohol are not exactly cuturally insignificant as American pastimes.  Good luck getting large numbers of Americans to abandon Bud and Starbucks.  I know it sounds funny but I’m dead serious.
-
James Dobbins: I agree that this issue is often overlooked.  However, I think a lot of people are simply done expecting public officials to have integrity.  Now we just want them to carry out our will, no more, no less.
-
Donald C White: Relax!  It’s a blog commentary.  It is, by definition, somebody’s opinion.  Nobody is going to lose tax-exempt status over that.
-
George: Really, try to have a clue what you are talking about before it comes out.  We do not “worship a wafer.”  That’s silly.
-
ThirstforTruth: Please don’t confuse things by bringing Godwin’s law into it.  What George has to say is ridiculous enough without comparison.
-
All (because there are so many): The official rules regarding the American presidency are that candidates must be at least 35 years of age and an American citizen.  There is no “religious test.”  The personal comfort level of individual voters does not in any way amount to such a “test” being administered *as a condition for candidacy.*  Can we give it a rest?
-
Lisa, let’s cut to the chase.  Participation in representative democracy is my birthright as an American as it is yours.  I will vote according to what I think is truly the best course for the nation, and will be informed by both natural reason and Catholicism (which are not at all mutually exclusive, but in my opinion complementary!) in the process.  I absolutely have a right as an individual to try to influence the country I live in for the better, respecting the framework of American law and order and being content to work through and within it.  This does not amount to theocracy, and you do not get to tell me that I cannot vote according to my conscience because that is somehow “forcing.”  (Ludicrous.  Granted, I may not always like the outcome, but that’s why there are things like referenda.)  I’m not telling you how to vote either (though one might hope to persuade), unless you purported to be a Catholic in good standing (the case with some of our NY pols), and if that were the case it goes without saying that you ought to care what the Church teaches. 
In short, I refuse to accept disenfranchisement simply because you do not like what I think or my reasons for thinking it.  Clear?

“But it’s possible that other, equally important issues can arise.”
**
Thank God someone has said that - now maybe someone will get round to saying that having an abortion is far from the worst of sins. Trivia like pride, idolatry, satanolatry, apostasy, are ever so slightly more important. The way things are now, one might easily think that the Church is concerned with nothing but abortion, or perhaps with a handful of sexual issues. ISTM that the current obsession with a handful of sexual issues is a form of liberalism, a loss of the transcendent as real as any other. Being opposed to abortion is a waste of time, unless there is a positive theological vision of the good to which it is opposed. Any half-wit can be agin things. Abortion is as nothing compared to the importance of the Two Great Commandments personified in Jesus.

“Should America Elect a Polytheist Who Claims to Be Christian?”

Why not vote for an atheist, a Hindu, a Buddhist, if the candidate is - in what concerns the governance of the State - better qualified than a Catholic or some other Christian ? It is not the purpose of the State to sanctify Christians - that is the function of the Church. The State must be just - it need not be Christian. To say oterwise is erroneous, because it confuses the different societies and the two different ends of man. One end (the good of man in society) is ordered to & subsidiary to the other (the enjoyment of eternal life in Christ); but they remain distinct ends, and distinct goods.  The State is not a department of the Church, any more than the converse is true.
*
Much confusion has arisen among Catholics from adopting a notion of the relations between Church & State which ignores the contribution of natural law in showing - within a Christian vission of reality - how the goods that are the earthly life of man, and the supernatural life of grace bestowed through Christ, are related. This is good neither for our ability to think like Catholics, nor for the human communities of which by God’s Providence we are members. Protestant assumptions about these subjects are not going to give us a Catholic vision.

“Note that I’m not in principle opposed to voting for polytheists. I could see, for example, voting for a pro-life Hindu over a pro-abortion monotheist. But a Hindu does not claim to be a Christian and thus does not risk confusing people about the core doctrine of Christianity the way Mormonism does.”
**
This is an inconsistent position. Either false doctrine about God (or precisely, false dogma AKA heresy; seeing that polytheism is opposed to a dogma, and not to a doctrine only) is bad: in which case, only Catholics should be voted for by Catholics - or, Hindus can be voted for, so holding false doctrine is not an obstacle to being voted for by Catholics: in which case, Mormons are as entitled to Catholic votes as Hindus are.
*
The notion that there are “fundamental doctrines” has never been accepted in Catholicism. It is a 16th-century Lutheran error, associated with the name of the early “ecumenist” (as he would be called today) George Calixtus. It is heretical because it amounts to saying that some dogmas do not demand the assent of faith: to which the answer is, that, as all dogmas are revealed by God the Revealer, all dogmas, though not all fundamental, are all equal in the fact of being true. So though there is a hierarchy among dogmas, all dogmas are of their nature to be believed without doubting, since He Who reveals them all can neither deceive nor be deceived. Papal Infallibility is not fundamental, but is logically dependent on the Incarnation - but both are equally true.

@ manticore

“The notion that there are “fundamental doctrines” has never been accepted in Catholicism. It is a 16th-century Lutheran error…”

It is about time someone just laid the fallacy of the Protestant Reformation where it belongs, Martin Luther was not all wrong, these are not disconnects and are misunderstood by both sides of this great apostasy.

Sic Transit Gloria

@Mansticore - “Thank God someone has said that - now maybe someone will get round to saying that having an abortion is far from the worst of sins.” “Abortion is as nothing compared to the importance of the Two Great Commandments personified in Jesus.” If you believe in the two great commandments you are vehemently opposed to abortion!

Manticore and Joe you both made wrong statements. The CREEDS are fundamental doctrines, as are the seven sacraments, the Bible as inspired by God, Immaculate Conception and Assumption, the Infallibility of the Pope when he invokes the Holy Spirit ex cathedra - very narrowly defined and very rare.  A fundamental doctrine has been there since the begining, testified to,elieved and practiced even if not defined until later. Jesus in John told the apostles the HOLY SPIRIT would come and teach them and in MT would be emmanuel with His Church always - that is still true no matter how many heretics, nutters and ” Latin Mass is the only real text” people come along

To clarify if that is needed. The fundamental Truth of the Christian Faith is that since Jesus as God became one of us, the God-Man,  HE is now identified with every human being. Each human being is made in God’s Image regardless of religion, ethnicity or social status. The Christian shares in the Life of the Trinity when in the state of Grace, so is more ideitified as Another Christ by Baptism.
Each serious violation of one’s own sacred dignity or that of another is practically denying that basic Truth. Abortion is therefore the most morally irersponsible act since it refuses to let the IMAGE OF GOD grow and develop to be what her/his gifts had to offer the world.

As a Seminarian who worked for Governor Romney during the 2008 election, this is a great article that brings forth some points I hadn’t previously considered.

Take it from one of his former albeit GENUINE middle class subjects, oops, I meant constituents, no tears were shed when the man who mistakes companies for human beings, all of a sudden had a very conveniently timed Damascus about-face on abortion just in time to run for the 2008 Republican Presidential Primary in So. Carolina.
  Mitt must be doing some serious praying that NJ’s Governor Chris Christie will offend half the world in his speech on leadership and foreign affairs, defense related matters.
If Christie resorts to his old Bill Parcells’ style of handling the post speech q & a session, Romney and the rest of the sorry spectacle of Republican presidential wannabes will still be left gasping with some hopes of staying alive. Otherwise, Romney and the rest ought to start singing like Dandy Don Meredith, “Good night, the party’s over ... “
  After watching the first forty-five minutes of this morning’s Washington Journal on CSPAN where Republicans “only” were allowed to call in their preferences, what startled me even more than the recent applauding for frying convicted killers, letting an uninsured man croak and booing a gay soldier putting his life on the line for us in Iraq ... was the even stronger sense of blood-curdling vehemence I heard people resorting to in their huzzahs for the latest “conquering hero,” Herman Cain, with lots of nods going for Ron Paul or Gingrich to be the Herminator’s Veep.
  I’m far from being a Republican. (It’s almost as bad as admitting one was born in New Hampshire, moved there and even worse, likes it up there. The Mississippi of New England!) BUT, if I was a Republican, I’d want a much bigger candidate, no pun whatsoever intended, GOT IT GUYS!, Chri Christie is the guy I’d be begging for; even if he has this heavy baggage of “splainin’” the helicopter n’ limo service one afternoon on the Jersey taxpayers’ tab when he caught his son’s ballgame earlier this year. At least Christie wouldn’t be so dumb to call himself middle class if he’d just been quoted as defending the demolition of a home on the Pacific coast so the family could squeeze into a new 12,000 sq. foot replacement model. All it’d take is for Christie to say, “Y’know, I’m the butt of a lotta big guy jokes, but even I would’ve never left myself wide open for the roasting you deserve Mitt, for the palace you’re planning for your bunch.
  Romney up against Christie ... Bring tt on. We deserve some comic relief.

Posted by HermitTalker on Monday, Sep 19, 2011 7:05 AM (EDT):
*
Manticore and Joe you both made wrong statements. The CREEDS are fundamental doctrines, as are the seven sacraments, the Bible as inspired by God, Immaculate Conception and Assumption, the Infallibility of the Pope when he invokes the Holy Spirit ex cathedra - very narrowly defined and very rare.
*
In comparison with the Two Great Commandments,anythimg else is utter c**p. Jesus said something else, and the Creeds are simply nowhere near as important. Nor is orthodoxy, or any of that stuff - for in comparison with what Jesus said *in response to a direct question*, “Which commandment is the greatest”, none of that stuff matters. Jesus doesn’t judge the sheep and the goats by whether they believe in trivia like Church dogmas - belief in that stuff is no guarantee at all that one will not be a paedophile, murderer, rapist, pornographer, Jew-killer, or traitor. Robert Hanssen (remember him ?) was a member of Opus Dei - he was also a spy for many years, with great damage to the US. An orthodoxy that allows one to treat people like dirt is almost as valuable as a pool of vomit.

You seem to confuse the need for orthodoxy, literally correct worship which is where our teaching is expressed and orthopraxis, what we do flowing from our beliefs and worship.  Finding one Opus Dei man who was a traitor to refute the need for right conduct only is as stupid as blaming the Pope for a bishop who drove drunk, or the President of the US for a GI who murdered a civilian in Afghanistan.  Use your common sense or buy some if you ran out please!

@HermitTalker

I misread “fundamental” for “Fundamentalism” which I find offensive as the Protestant extremes use this and sixteen lines of the New testament ie. John 3: 16 as the only reason for their belief.

I would ask you to read, it is available, the article found in FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sept/Oct 2006) “God’s War” a position on Protestantism and Catholicism and understand my position, as I was taught that back in the 1950’s and Vatican II did materially change that dynamic.

There is withing the Fundamental and Evangelical Protestantism a hate for Catholicism. The article was written by Mr Russel Meade from a conservative think tank and exposes these charlatan for what they are, heretics.

I have never stated someone wrong in these blogs, I have the knowledge of what I was educated and assume all have a sense of Catholicism and some very passive, some very extreme, but they all are catholic by the very hospitable responses here. Read God’s War and find what Latin Rite Catholics have known for generations. It was Thomas Jefferson who stated the Revelations was written by a :mad man” and if you believe Jesus Christ will come upon a white horse then perhaps you have missed the point all together.

Today the Texas Schools system has eliminated Jefferson as an influential thinker and substituted Thomas Aquinas, a tough read today as it was when I studied his eloquence back in the late 60’s and early 70’s, there are two superb books on the the “Last Acceptable Prejudice in the United States, Anti Catholicism,” as when politics and these extremes come together they do lose the true meaning of the scriptures we both have studied, we sacrifice our youth in Iraq and Afghanistan based on the Bush comment that he was lead to his decision by God, and his idiot group in fellowship where things are discussed and extremes are found as well as the less than extreme.

These wars are seen as the Crusades to a area of the world we perhaps have no right to be. I believe Catholicism has been so successful is due to the “inch by inch” opposed to the under the gun theology some see as righteous. The youth of today in those remote areas will surely resent and resort to terrorism, and when it happens who do we look, the absolute depravity of domestic and geopolitical decisions begun with Reagan and through Bush II.

I have done extensive reading on the phenomena to more eloquently in liberalization than this rant of sorts. I wish you well Hermit but do take exception to the statements made concerning wrong, These books and articles tell the story some Catholics experience and passively accept while not knowing exactly why that job, or their children education is so much different than my own.

Sic Transit Gloria

Tertullian is the one who devised th Trinity formula

He may have coined the term “Trinity”, but the Trinitarian formula appears in scripture (Mt. 28:20), and was used by other Church fathers such as St. Polycarp, who received direct instruction from the Apostles themselves.

I happened to catch some of this morning’s Washington Journal show on CSPAN where Romney’s faith was up for general discussion and call-ins. OMG, were those Protestants, especially the Evangelicals hard as rusty nails on Mormonism. Romney’s going to have to practically do (in the area of presenting his economic views, etc.) what Obama was teased about being able to do 3 years ago, walk on water, and I don’t mean the Great Salt Lake. (That’d be cheating of course.) All kidding aside, it seems as if the die hard Evangelicals are sharpening their rhetorical knives and ready to throw their lot in with Ron Paul and/or Herman Cain. I sure didn’t need any coffee this a.m. to jolt my eyes n’ ears open! It was brutal to hear the guy and his faith dumped on and I absolutely loath Romney’s political views and flip-flopping, but this was a national mugging…all in the name of the Lord. Mercy!

I am neither American or Catholic but I am appalled at the thought that Americans could elect a Mormon President. Surely anything but a Mormon must be the leader of the Free World.  Mormons believe crass absurdities as invented by the notorious “dowser” Joseph Smith. To be sure, I cannot believe in most of Christianity’s beliefs either, but at least the Bible has a certain credibility in that it is a story based on the history of real ancient peoples of the Middle East. That story is contained in 66 books with various authors for which we have manuscripts. The book of Mormon is complete nonsense invented by a single author at a point in time without manuscript evidence and it requires a belief in magical spectacles comprising of the “Urim and Thumin” by which Joseph Smith claims to have interpreted “Golden Plates” which no one else ever saw. DOH!  Please Americans, at least Obama IS SANE.

I guess it will be the Scientologists and Raelians next.

The personal faith of the POTUSor candidates for the office is absolutely irrelevant. Their understanding of the power of the office and their policies is the test. Are they for destroying the earth, its people, taking its resources without regard for truth, justice, fairness not personal or party or lobbyists’ cash.  Or do they see us all as made in God’s image which dictates the policies.
People seem to forget that Jesus merely reinforced the Natural Law which opposes the immoral, the a-moral, the imposing of wrong ideas as Mr Obama and his cohorts denying the right of conscience even to religious institutions on health care which for the Left includes abortion and insurance for their employees demanding birth control coverage, they will wiggle and wiggle until abortion gets tax dollars also. The majority of the people of the US and the world oppose abortion but the US favours Planned P’hood getting cash here as well as overseas, see how POTUS Obama nixed the Mexico City protocol. The other issues of war versus building peace, getting infrastructure fixed there and overseas, clean water and air and fair trade practice as in Obama’s plan . Health care for all citizens which does not favour insurance companies as in Mr O and drug manufacturers - the latter under “W”  with funding added to the Deficit.  Morality is from our human nature, not dictated from Sinai, Salt Lake City or the Vatican or Supreme Courts anywhere.

Joe Mc Carthy; This by now is an old topic, I re-read some of my most recent posts after my last. I wonder if you saw a post which was not mine and attributed wrong teaching to me. I always make sure my posts are orthodox even if I use some sarcasm in some comments on some posts!

Hermit-I misspoke, thought I corrected myself. Originally read your response “fundamentalism” you wrote “fundamental.” Interesting article on that phenomena and politics, Sept/Oct 2006 Foreign Affairs Magazine, “God’s War” which I believe is a must read. On your point Catholics have long had the correct positions on abortion, queers and war. Where we all gone? Have we sold out to others for temporal gain?

Joe: Every arms from the beginning assumes their gods and later God is on their side. The USA issue now is to re-capture the Idol of the Evangelicals and merge GOD (with their crud purified, keep their good stuff from hatred and bigotry re gays and Mormonism as such) with the Catholic Social Teaching minus the Raymomd Cdl Burke school that abortion is the only issue. It would be and is intrinsically, if the field were less lumpy, but given the world economic mess,  the latest Vatican paper on the source of the unbridled capitalism is practically politically more important. When the extremists are voted out and or sidelined we can reclaim the field for a more civilised Novus Ordo Seclorum, respect all human life,  get God’ Justice into the market and stop blowing the crud out of every perceived enemy globally with money RED CHINA doles out.  Build speed rails so all can commute from rural areas to work where there is work. And all ride said trains to Disney, SeaWorld and the mountains and beaches. Then when the oil companies and car crowd and Congress get the message they can ride around locally in fuel efficient automobiles and SUVs. By which time more efficient planes will be built as recently touted so we can tell extremist Arabs in Saudi and the militant armies to pray five timesa day for their former power and control of the West.

If the Republican candidate is a Mormon and is pro-life, and he is running against a Liberal pro-abortion candidate, we must vote for the Mormon.  Most likely if elected, the Mormon will immediately issue pro-life executive orders such as no abortions on military bases.  He will reverse the current presidents pro-abortion executive orders.  I understand what Jimmy is saying and while a agree to a certain extent, it would be unconscionable to sit back and do nothing and let Obama have four more years to enact more pro-abortion legislation.  It would also be unconscionable to do nothing if you know lives will be saved with the election of a Mormon.  In terms of Jimmy’s concern, we can work to teach the public the truth. But, we cannot let abortion continue!

Romney should be ask too for a birth certificate with his real name on it. A selective service card too. He tried to use President Kennedy as a model yet Kennedy fought harder to try to serve his country military than Romney fought to get out of serving his country. Romney chose to serve a man who was a sexual predator and a child molester, polygamist and polytheist who claimed to be a prophet.

Google is a great search engine. They even show common searches in the dropdown box as you type the search in. For example, one can see that “romney contradicts himself” is a common search. One can also see that “mormons contradict themselves” is a common search. Hmmm… What does this tell us? Could Jesus have been right when he says, “you shall know them by their fruits?”.

One of the fruits of mormonism is clearly that one must contradict oneself; the religion is full of contradictions. Common sense tells us it cannot be true. For one thing, DNA evidence and archaeological anachronisms have proven it false. If you want to believe it you need an elaborate system of illogic to do so—your mind must of necessity be full of contradictions.

I did not read all the long posts…......I dont care who would be running for what.  As a convert… Roman Catholic 76 year old…....I will never vote for anyone who does not believe in the Most Holy Trinity…..I am writing in my husband’s name so say what you will about me…........I am writing in my husband’s name. Whom so ever wins will be either God’s most perfect will or He will just be giving America what we deserve.

Regarding contradictions Mormon doctrine is not alone.  Christian and Catholic doctrine is presumably based on the Bible but there is a lot in that book that cannot be true, claims to factual history that do not stand up under scrutiny.  As a lawyer, I cross examine the Bible and find so many claims are highly questionable.  Too many to account here.  Additionally, Catholic doctrine adds to Biblical based belief with concepts such as purgatory and the immaculate conception of the virgin.  Cosmologically the Bible is wanting.  The first verse is clearly wrong in that it creates a dichotomy between heavens and earth whereas the earth is simply another part of the heavens very similar to other parts.  On stars alone - given that stars are suns. it is impossible for a star to travel over the earth to settle over a village or for a third of the stars of heaven to be cast onto the earth.  Of our own star, an earth where the sun never sets and that was seven times warmer than presently as prophesied by Ezekiel would cease to exist and life would be impossible.

BRIANFORREST: Your knowledge of how to read the Bible, starting with the Book of Genesis and denying the Immaculate Conception and purgatory is sad. Reminds me of the US Supreme Court deciding that a “right” to abortion is found in the text of the Constitution, despite the fact that the Premable acknowledges the Natural Law which gives us inalienable rights given by the Creator, LIFE listed first. GENESIS is not a scientific text as anyone who reads it can see- sunlight created after plants grew, photosynthesis, Duh, and days and nights numbered before the sun and moon created, DITTO DUH. Jesus said some sins will not be forgiven in the next life. Duh #3 and so on. FULL OF GRACE in Greek means MARY could not have been more prepared for being God’s Son’s mother. Join a Catholic Bible study group or read the Catechism of the Catholic Church for your own spiritual growth and avoid more public embarrassment about Faith, Bible and cosmology.
As for whom to vote, the days when public officials actually know, respect and apply the NATURAL LAW are numbered,  Romney’s Mormonism is as irrelevant as is Obama’s “Christianity”  making same-gender unions equal to “marriage” and wanting minors to have abortions without parental consent and forcing a private business owner to pay for immoral practices to which she objects against the First Amendment to freedom from Government-imposed immorality is also a concern.

Lonethinker, I read the bible in the same way that I read anything including people’s names. Accurately! If someone writes their name Bryan, I don’t reply to Brian.  Likewise if the bible claims something literally happened and this is impossible then I say the bible is wrong.  It is of course a nonsense to say the bible said anything since the bible is an arbitrary collection of books put together by the Council of Nicea in 325ad.  Those books say several things and do not always agree.  Take the two accounts of the ‘virgin’ birth of Jesus as an example.  The authors of the gospels claims that they were “eyewitnesses” yet the describe events in ways that disqualify themselves as such.  Were they witnesses of the temptation of Christ?  Were they witnesses to the conversation between Mary and Gabriel?  Could they ever know the content of the prayer in Gethsemanie?  Unlike you, i recognize the bible as a human artifact produced by fallible writers.  I recognise that when Jacob dreams of a ladder set on the earth reaching to the heavens, this reflects his belief in a flat earth with a sky above.  I recognize this theme repeatedly in the bible, where the heavens are referred to ax the dwelling place of God, the earth as his footstool.  I see it again when the disciples claim to see Jesus ascend into heaven with the promise that one day he will descend “in like manner”.  The same cosmological error is reflected in his “coming on the clouds” in the idea of the “dead arising” to “meet him in the air”. 
It bugs me that unquestioning believers, object to my technical examination of the bible describing it as “sad”.  Make up your mind please?  Am I to take the book literally or not?  Or is it only literal when it suits the believers for it to be so?  So if the god of the OT appears inclined towards a little genocide, am I not permitted to observe that this is inconsistent with the John 3:16 claim to his absolute love for mankind?  OH but the OT was the time of law I am told and now we are under grace.  So what?  According to the biblical claim god is changeless.  I the Lord change not.  If god’s morality can change according to whether it is the time of law or of grace then why does he expect our morality to be fixed.

Apologies re Bryan.  I also appreciate your taking time to write back at length, it shows character. The science, cosmology of the Bible is not its field. Theology,  literally, a word about God is, theos-logos. There are two elements in its composition, the Divine and the Human. The human authors used poetry, drama, liturgy and story all combined to give us te final product. Te story of Creation is a revision of a Babylonian Myth- not myth as BS - but sacred story with a plan and purpose. That story had man made of blood and mud, Genesis takes breath, the other essential life element, to replace blood and that plus mud, adamah, gives us God making it into the human made in His image.  The Gospels do not claim to have been written by “eye witnesses” but the apostles were such and replaced Judas with Barnabas using the same criterion. Luke and Mark were disciples, Luke came later, Mark was around - ran naked in tHe Garden and was Peter’s co-worker and wrote the oldest Gospel.  Do not look for wintesses in the police-story sense; Jesus rose in the morning, ascended to heaven that evening from Jerusalem; went to Galilee as he told Mary of Magdala, was in the Upper Room with the apostles locked in on Sunday evening in John 20 but met them fishing Easter morning, re-appointed Peter as Chief Shepherd, and hung around for 40 days according to Acts. Absolutely makes no sense chronologically or logically but does theologically.  God is changeless as far as His being is concerned but he took his people where he met them and brings them along. 1200 or so years from Moses to Jesus and 2000 plus since and we are still learning, not only that he loves all, is against all killing, and we are still trying to read his Bible LITERALLY. Literal is the meaning intended by Him and the Human author, not what a fundamentalist-popularly understood lieralist sees it saying. PEACE

I only used the reference to my name spelling to illustrate a point.  I’m sorry but you seem to be attempting to have a bob each way.  The gospels do claim to be eye witness accounts “what we have seen and heard”.  I know the Greek origins of the word theology but surely “believers” insist the bible is more than theology?  Your argument seems to be swinging towards agreeing with my original assertion which was that the bible is contradictory as one would expect from a “human artifact”.  However, the Church’s assertion was always that the bible was more than myth, more than theology, that it was an accurate and unassailable historical account, that it scientifically described human and cosmological origins and on that assertion the church persecuted science when it possessed the power to do so.  As a child of a family of ultra believers I have studied the bible for 50 odd years and I admire it for its poetry etc.  However, unlike my forebears I do not accept it is “God’s infallible word” and I recognize its human origins.  I am encouraged that you acknowledge the influence of Babylon on Genesis.  Hopefully you will eventually recognize the influence of Egypt on “virgin birth”, Egypt and Greece on “resurrection”, Persia on the “personalized” angels and demons of the gospels.  The fact is that any intelligent reading of the biblical books has to acknowledge that the biblical god “evolves” t meet the historical challenges to the Israeli nation.  Essentially this means that God is always “in man’s image”.

I cannot take time to continue the dialogue with you BF. It would seem you are not allowing for the gradual uneiling of God’s Plan as he led his choisen ones from monotheism out of polytheism by way of promise and hint in the prophets to its culminaton in Jesus the God-Man to the same gradual undesrstanding of the Church from his time to a fuller appreciation of his moral code in the Beatitudes. John and Peter spoke of being witnessesw to what they saw and heard, none of te others inGospel or letters, from Jesus’ calling them and
their being around until Pentecost, Paul the late comer developed the theology of Jesus being the first-born of all and being Head of the Body, the fullness, pleroma of all who are chosen in Him. The system the evangelists chose, the paradigm, was guided by their intelligence and the holy spirit and we have the word of God, Jesus, enfleshed in the words of humans.  God is the same yesterday, today and forever as was said of Jesus in Hebrews but WE learn and evolve in and through and with his grace.

Lonethinker, the plan you speak of, is it the one that has the Messiah coming with his armies to conquer the earth “to put all his enemies under his feet” and to have “all things placed into subjection to him”?
If that is the plan then no I’m not interested in it.  This is not a future that sane people would ever look forward to.  It would not be an improvement to our world but a retrograde step.  I can understand that ancient people, who could never imagine anything other than the rule of kings would prefer the rule of a benevolent king over that of a tyrant, but given the history of the development of the democracy in the UK and the US, how could such a future be something we should eagerly await?
As I said I have been studying the bible all my life.  I have read it from Genesis to Revelation many times over.  I’m very familiar with the writings of Paul.  It is this familiarity, which causes me to question the historical claims of the gospels.  As a lawyer I look for inconsistencies and things that are unlikely given the nature of human beings and it appears illogical to me, given that the epistles were penned before the gospels that if some of the events in the gospels are historically correct there would not be some mention of these in the epistles.  The are other internal problems in the gospels themselves.  If for instance, Mary was visited by the angel and heard promises concerning her son, that “of his kingdom there would be no end” etc. then why after his birth should she “wonder” at the prophesy made by Simeon at the temple?  Also why would she with his brethren at one time in Jesus’ mission be described as wishing to take him away?  It is inconsistent conduct. Likewise, if Lazarus was raised from the dead a few days before the arrest and trial of Jesus in a village not that far from Jerusalem then why was he not present at the cross, not mentioned in the trial etc etc?  Why in the book of Acts, when the signs and wonders performed by Jesus are referred to by Peter and the like, is no mention made of what was surely his greatest miracle - the raising of a dead man, three days after burial?  The stamp of authenticity is missing.

As a lawyer you are quite familiar with te simple texts of the preamble. Constitution and Bill of Rights and Ameemdments and of course every State as its own laws, mostly common law while Louisioana follows te Napoleonic code. Now come - as the legal phrase begins- all these courts at every level, all the way to decide constitutionality in the SCOTUS. God knew how complicated and biased we are and created the Church, giving it the guarantee of the HOLY SPIRIT to tease out all that was revealed in text and spoken in Jesus the WORD. The references to all things under HIS feet were to Death, sin and pain- not the Romans. Join the Church of Jesus OR onsult the CATECHISM of the CC.

The problem is demonstrated in your reply.  You make the words of the books mean what it suits you for them to mean instead of taking them at their face value.  Where it suits you, you interpret the words literally as when you claim that Jesus was miraculously conceived (The term virgin birth is a misnomer as the gospels never suggest that Jesus’ gestation and birth were anything other than conventional).  Where it doesn’t suit you to interpret the words according to their natural implication then you change this.  I understand that as a Catholic you have implicit faith in “the church” but this is unacceptable to me.  The authority for the church is established by the word not the other way.  You must first authenticate the word.  In 325AD the church decided for itself the canon of scripture setting aside texts that are actually quoted in the texts it approved among other anomalies.  The same church claimed to be the infallible repository and authority on truth and tried the likes of Galileo for saying the Earth revolved about the Sun officially maintaining the opposite doctrine until around 1820.

Just lost a longer answer, their software here is frustrating. Your LUKE must be missing the whole Angel-Mary-Joseph-dream dialogue about the conception of Jesus by the power of the Holy Spirit and her title “full of grace” -check the Greek. Galileo was condemned at a time when his predecessor Copernicus seemed to be contradicting the Bible “the sun stood still in the sky” - we have come quantum leaps since then while you are still stuck at Genesis’ science. You seem to have confused the Reformers rejection of some OT books which are cited in the NT canon- we have not made that error. Luther, like the NYT’s tongue in cheek critic “All that fits” is printed, he dropped James and Hebrews because it did not suit his sola fides. Augustine said he believes in the Bible because of the Church, not vice versa, see the mess the reformers made and still make of elementary dogma and now the crazy same-gender unions equal marriage and abortion on demand.  The Bible texts were not decided at Nicea as you wrote yesterday. I re-suggest you get a Catechism of the C C and prayerfully study it. I have already added you in my prayer for your guidance and look forward to welcoming you home soon. PEACE. Francis, shall meet you on hotmail hfbhermitage should you wish- put your name in the subject lest you go to hell, my Junk file with the Nigerian millions offers and two inches added!

I’m stuck in Genesis?  You have to be joking!  You’re the believer.  That is how this discussion began when I said the that the bible was contradictory.  Galileo was not condemned simply upon the work of Copernicus and that does not explain why the the belief in a sun that revolved around the earth remained official Catholic doctrine until the nineteenth century.  No my Luke reads the same as your’s but my reaction to “full of grace” is one big yawn whereas for you it possesses some irrational cosmic significance due to a lifetime’s indoctrination no doubt.  As to my so called confusion - I’m not.  The book of Enoch is cited around 6 times in the NT.  The reference to the archangel not contending with Satan but saying “the Lord rebuke you” is the most notable. You can quote all you like about the angels appearing to Joseph or Mary, but if these events ever happened only Joseph and Mary were present.  None of those who recorded these things was present.  None of the gospel writers.  That comes back to my comment re eye witnesses.  There are none.  According to Luke an angel appeared to Mary.  According to Mathew, an angel appeared to Joseph “in a dream”.  Now if Mathew was giving evidence in Court swearing on a stack of bibles and relating what a person who he had never met saw in a dream, he’d be laughed out of court.  It is totally useless evidence of nothing.  But let’s just decide to agree to disagree.  You’re a believer - I am not.  I will never convince you nor you me.  You have a particular way of reasoning which to me is irrational but it is deeply imbedded in your psyche. You keep going back to words in an ancient book as your proof whereas I see these as no proof.  You are religious - I am not.  I was once but I had a Damascus Road experience and saw the nonsense of it all in a blinding flash.  The scales fell from my eyes.

Sorry to hear of your delusion with the Church because you are not capable in your current mindset of reading the Bible and reject that the literature in it is not based on the Rules of Evidence in the English Common Law tradition and some of the US Supreme Court geniuses.  I apologise if I thought you were hung up in the science of Genesis when the official Church has long since rejected it as a source for anthropology, geography or paleontology or any branch of the physical sciences. There was a revolution in understanding it in the mid-1800s when 20 K clay tablets were found in Iraq/Babylon which threw a huge light in how to understand Myth.  Extreme protestant theology dismissed it all as “Myth” equals BS, the bad fundamentalist-literaist crowd are still trying to save their sacred Books by flying in the facce of science and common sense, Science did the same to reject the Faith message, eventually the slow-pllodding RC Christian scholars and papacy got it right and we are slowly correcting the old-style “literalist2 reading in favour of literal in the proper sense of what was intended to be taught.

See here is the problem.  You reject my test of proof (Evidence) but offer no reasonable alternative except faith in a church that can insist on one thing once and then abandon that insistence when the position becomes clearly untenable. For example insist that the sun revolved around the earth until that becomes so obviously incorrect then change its position. I understand that there is a recent repudiation of the time honored doctrine of limbo. How many other things will the church be forced eventually to admit were mere fancies of its institutional mind?  If I must have faith I prefer to place this in science with its rule of empirical investigation and research into facts.  I apply that same empiricism to the claims of the bible.  The account of Jesus’ birth fail all tests of truth.  Not a single writer who wrote about them was entitled to refer to themselves as a witness to the events. There is no reason to give these accounts any more attention than the accounts contained in a work of fiction.  It has been said that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.  The claims of the NT are extraordinary in every sense of that word.  they are claims to miracles including supernatural conception.  Therefore I demand strong evidence not weak hearsay evidence from someone who could never have been present at the events he purports are true.  That is the only reasonable stance.

@ Bryan Why the rant against faith in God and His Church under this topic?

If I could be certain that Mitt Romney would stay pro-life then I would choose him over a pro-death socialist any day.  However Romney’s history of waffling gives me reason to pause.  Waiting to see who his VP choice is.  Depending on that, I may simply vote third party.

To Mike McKinney.  If you look at the history of my contributions you will see that it did not begin that way but evolved as a response to the rants of the believers who responded to my contribution.  However, obviously every person possessing an Irish surname who is Catholic because of their ethnicity is incapable of looking at their inculcated beliefs objectively and wants this forum limited to people who share their doctrinal obstinacy.  I am sorry for my intrusion and I will leave you all to your insanity.

So sad to see Brian leave with such venom, sorry you lost your earlier faith. Unfortunately, limbo was never a defined doctrine, it was an opinion invented by Augustine in his deep concern to protect baptism as normal way of being united to Jesus in the cultural context of his day- many protestant groups still insist that those who are not baptized by immersion go to hell. The Copernicus-Galileo row as I noted above was over the Church’s inability to separate actual dogma from its cultural expression- the sun stood still in the sky was a line in the Bible and written long before people knew that the earth was round, not to mention the sun-earth rotation. “in all things charity” as the old line about theological discourse goes. It is also good to have all the facts before pronouncing for or against any position, espeically if the teaching or the institution is in the business of being guided by the Holy Spirit- any argument against that has already been hasned out and needs fresh new evidence to refute it. IF available. ANYWAY, back to the topic, Obama is not a practically believing biblical Christian so bring on a Mormon or Orthodox Jew who has a moral compass. In 100 years the electorate will be disucssing whether a Moslem can be elected, and only God knows by then if there will be Christians as candidates- or even if the USA will still be a 50-state Union,

In a year that the Catholic Church faces what is almost an existential threat, joining with a Mormon to stand for religious freedom does not strike me as a bad plan, especially when he just held out his hand with his veep pick.

A Mormon POTUS and a Cathlolic VP, both of whom have solid Natural Law values, the VP who decides the House budget with Natural Law principles, as enunciated by his Church VERSUS a current POTUS and VPOTUS, neither of whom respects the Natural Law politically, and whose Budget plans have done little to solve the debt with Keynesian policies of borrow, dig and borrow more. Not to mention their drone attacks on The Freedom to practice and get the Government out of the business of defining what Religion is???? NO CONTEST

Yeah! Let’s discriminate against candidates for their religion!

So Lonethinker says that limbo was just an Augustinian opinion. In 1982, my daughter was born in a public hospital.  A nice gentle Roman Catholic couple had a daughter at the same time and place.  Their child had a congenital heart condition and there was a chance she would die at any time.  My wife and I were appalled at the anxiety of these poor people who feared that if unluckily she died before a priest could baptize her she would be trapped in Limbo.  How sad that these people suffered such anguish solely because of an opinion.  Reminds me of what Mark Twain said about people who read medical books - “they could die of a misprint”.  it seems to me in matters of religion “misprints” and misunderstandings have had a powerful negative and superstitious influence upon simple people for millenniums.  “The sun stood still” was “written before people knew that the earth was round”.  Oh I agree but I thought the Church’s position was that the bible was “the word of God” and an “omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent” God at that. I am relieved at your admission, lone thinker, that the bible is of no more value than Pickwick Papers.  I have no time for venom and have only pity for those who appear to mindlessly depend on a church to decide their every belief.  Lone Thinking my ass!

Instead of worrying about polytheism, polydeism, etc., perhaps in Romney’s particular case, we should all be worrying about his ... for lack of a better word, polyethicism. The nerve of this guy telling NBC’s Chuck Todd he hopes to get the President to go along with this idea off having a campaign where his past business dealings with Bain Capital will be off-limits. That should tell us right off the bat he’s looking for some kind of mutual etch-a-sketch agreement whereby his past, as a legal officer of a corporation which used government funds to get rolling, not to mention possible funding from the fascist families of El Salvador who were also responsible for funding death squads who killed untold numbers of Salvadorans, including Archibishop Romero during their “civil war” back in the early 80s.
  Boy, does that take a set of dual ethical standards for Romney or anybody with is record to think the nation should just wipe his slate clean and just talk about immediate problems of our time. To give the devil his due, let’s just say the Democrats should take his offer up. Will he then be willing to answer this question? Why shouldn’t a man’s past track record as a legal officer of a corporation (that could also only exist if granted approval by the appropriate governing authority in “State X” provided it met all the minimal standards of liquidity, etc.,) be up for discussion? Isn’t this question a worthy issue for this or any election? Just take out the names, particular charges, counter-charges, etc., and you still have a worthy issue. Jefferson said two centuries ago that when a person voluntarily becomes a public trust.
  What next: a return to pre-submitted questions from the press?
  Romney’s said to have taken a “bold step” in choosing Paul Ryan. (Well, “bold” might be correct if one considers picking a guy who wants to turn the government into a plaything of the late Ayn Rand (whom Ryan adored and assigned one her worst screeds, “Atlas Shrugged” for his staff to read ... “assigned” no less, what nerve!) Romney wasn’t bold. He was chicken. Afraid of his right wingers, so he picked the guy with the most far out right wing retroactive mind when it comes to our social safety net. Yes, I guess it takes some “boldness” to pick a guy who wants to stick it to the middle and lower income classes so the wealthy can get a tax break. (See what happens when an Irish Catholic starts reading Ayn Rand instead of what his Church has studied a lot longer than the embittered scrawny likes of Ayn Rand? Screws ‘em up, big time.)
  Want to see how “bold” these guys are? Just mention the idea of having people making, not sitting on, but actually making a present-day [ne] income of $250k, pay even a smidgen of higher payroll taxes into the Social Security system ... even if it would render the SSA solvent for yet another 75 years ... invariably these cheap chickencrappers head straight for the woods, all the while whining at the top of their lungs that even a smidgen would greatly impair these “job creators”!
  Yes, it takes a set of dual ethical considerations honed by many years of teaching from within one of the most secretive branches of Protestantism to come down the pipe since Luther grabbed his “hardware stuff” to bang his list of beefs on a church door. All the other religious bodies in this country and perhaps the entire realm of Christendom throughout the world have nothing on the “original families” (or whatever they arrogantly think of themselves)when it comes to secrecy and plans for this country.
  Never mind the inner theological constructions of Mormonism, its baptism of the dead, Moroni, its polygamy, etc. Its willingness to tolerate the openly, er, flagrantly, dualistic ethical weltausschaung/zeitgeit (worldview/spirit of the time) of its first (presumed) nominee for president, especially when that worldview and spirit are so outrageously and openly biased in favor of the worst displays of raw dog-eat-dog in-your-face/I’ve got mine, go buzz off “ethics” . . . that alone merits all the pressure every citizen can bear upon Mitt Romney to come clean about.
  Just look at his supposedly “prolife” history.
  Just look at his real record in Massachusetts. Some “job creator.” We were 47th in the nation.
  Just look at his record as a “budget balancer” without raising taxes. What do you call one raised fee after another? He was the king of raised fees . . . all so he could weasel out of being called what he really was, the Emperor King of Taxachusetts. (He made Mike Dukakis look like a piker.)
  Polytheism, polyethicism: Pure Romneyism.

I don’t think, the fact that it is not Catholic makes Mormonism “protestant”.  In my city, most of the converts to the Korean Unification church in the seventies were disenchanted RC kids.  Likewise David Moses’ children of God enjoyed success among the Catholics.  I am sure from the time of Joseph Smith Catholics have been as likely hoodwinked into Mormonism as Protestants and Jews.

Bryan, where did Mormonism arise from: Catholicism? Nope. It is the ultimate Protestant machine denomination in the United States. It wasn’t founded anywhere else and its original leaders were all Americans of white Protestant stock. (And boy oh boy, did these original fathers, the first Mormon boyos of power n’ might, make damn sure it’d stay that way.)
  Despite all their soft-soap about the keeping of individual/family records, what justification do these people arrogate to themselves any presumptive rights to having any record about me or my loved ones?
  Who the hell do those people think they are? Can you imagine the uproar and cries if we had pulled off something like the Mormons with their record-keeping on the population?
  I suppose some Tea Partiers will yuk yuk and say, “Well, at least the records aren’t being kept by Obama’s Kenyans in the town he was born in.”

I am a Christian who is looking for God’s fulfillment to me as His daughter of a promise He gave to all who can believe.  For the things that seem humanly impossible to us in our own strength are made possible to us by the infinite power of God.  In an instant as quick as the twinkle in an eye (which is even faster than the blink of an eye), all who are looking for Jesus’ coming to catch us up out of this corrupt and fallen planet will be caught up to meet the Lord in the air.  Just as a Jewish bridegroom comes and snatches away his bride at a time known only to the groom’s father, so Jesus will come for His Bride at a time when most of Christiandom do not expect Him to come.  And the key to being a member of that Bride is to be making ourselves pure as He is pure.  Purity of doctrine is essential to the Christian faith.  Simplicity of faith, becoming as simple as a little child in obedience to a Father’s command—this is necessary to enter into God’s Kingdom.  The Kingdom of God is coming so soon upon this earth.  At that time all earthly Kingdoms, whether they be democracies or dictatorships—all kingdoms shall be swallowed up and turned over to the King of King and Lord of Lords and THEN and not UNTIL then shall THE government be upon His shoulders.  Methinks God’s adversary and ours, the devil, must have been in control of all earthly governments in the time Jesus walked the earth.  Or, how could he have offered them to Jesus in the temptation of the wilderness?  Methinks these days are so evil that we must be simple as little children.  We must look unto Jesus, the author and the finisher of our faith.  And we simply must ask God to settle in us by the power of His Holy Spirit the answer to this question?  Would Jesus walk into a voting booth and vote for a man to head a country who believes that Satan is the brother of Jesus?  Would Jesus endorse a Mormon?  In the simplicity of this answer in our hearts, I believe we will be kept from falling into and under the power of the antichrist that is coming to the full, where men will be lovers of their own selves, seeking their own earthly well-being, and denying the simplicity of the faith once delivered to the saints. Touch not the unclean thing, but come out of it and be ye separate.  Look up for your redemption draws nigh.  Do not fall under the power of the great apostasy.

You remind me of a conversation I had with a young Catholic in Sydney Australia. Oversimplified understanding of history. He had been taught in his Catholic seminary that the sole explanation for the Reformation in England was Henry VIII’s desire to divorce Catherine of Aragon.  No recognition that that evil man was as much if not more of a threat to true reformers as he was to staunch Catholics.  Henry’s church was English Catholicism which went on to persecute non-conformists such as Baptists.  As a protestant student of Tudor history I have great respect for the Catholic Catherine who was an intelligent and able Queen whereas I consider Henry to be England’s Hitler.  At a time before he sought a divorce, Catherine served ably as regent whilst Henry campaigned in France even commanding troops in a victory over Scotland.  Out of personal expediency, Henry sabotaged the reformation in England as Constantine’s “conversion” had at an earlier stage in my opinion sabotaged the general development of Christendom. That the modern Catholic Church is a more agreeable creature is to a degree attributable to the stand taken by the Monk Luther at Wittenburg. Mormonism’s Joseph Smith was an occultist and dreamer who was convicted of fraud over claims to find treasure with the aid of a “magical” stone which he peered at in the bottom f a hat.  What Joseph Smith believed and the “church” he created is further removed from Protestantism than the later is from the Roman Church.  I agree that it is American, and I as a Protestant New Zealander find the many faiths of America to be as bizarre as you would.  Not only Mormonism but also Scientology and the Raelians.  Only in America could you find a church based upon snake handling.  I consider adherence to Mormonism as a sign of the most appalling foolishness, ignorance, poor education and since I consider the President of the USA is often the leader of the free World, it bothers me that this imbecile Romney might become president.

Hey Annie, do you actually believe that “temptation in the wilderness”? Only one account of the story by a person who could never have been an eye-witness.  Also the story is so totally incompatible with the rest of the NT in that it places Satan in a position of power able to take the “incarnate Son of God” and transport him from the desert to the temple and also to show the child of Galilee “all the kingdoms of the World” none of which he got to see in the time of his Earthly ministry.  The story is as bizarre as the rantings of Joseph Smith.

Steve Barrett, Mormonism is neither Protestant or Catholic.  It is a combination of the tenants of Free Masonry and the occult.  Joseph Smith was arrested for using a crystal ball and acknowledged using peep stones to translate the Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price and Doctrine & Covenants.  Presumably the Romneys, like all good Mormons, wear their holy underwear to ward off evil spirits.   

I thought you had left us BF, but you came back for a Parthian shot, or drone flight or helicopter gunship shoot out at me. I resent your reference to your waste orifice in connection with my penmame on here, surely your parents taught you better than to resort to scatology in human written discourse, if not in ordinary discussion?
My first thought was that your parents must have been fully grown and had you as a mature man because you seem to have not the slightest understanding of Evolution as a MORAL process.  Humans are born with what Jung saw as proto-ideas which were presursor to Myth and eventually came together in purified form as God becoming One of we humans, minus the fantasies of Greek and Roman and more essentially Babylonian Mythology- gods mating with humans and angels begetting human children as hinted in Genesis.  ESSENTIAL TEACHING is that we learn as we grow, and the Holy Spirit guided the whole process which combines human knowledge and ideas which include fantastic- in the literal sense- about Creation (blood and mud in the Enuma Elish, breath and mud in Genesis) Flood story, became Noah and his Zoo)  and brother fights brother, a settled versus nomadic people, grain versus animal sacrifice. God “strained” them as it were and gave us Revelation, salvation history, sacred people loved, sinned and saved bit by bit until JESUS came. AUGUSTINE was so emphatic about baptism, he gave us Limbo, abandoned as a normal teaching, NEVER an official formal teaching- sure I am sorry for the parents whom I saw burying their babies in our unconsecrated part of our pars=ish cemetery, and I am also forgiving and understanding of the heretics who stole our monastic parish church at the Reformation and forced our ancestors to build outside the town-  the same heretical sect did to keep Catholic churches off Main Street, VA- which eventually gave us Thomas Jefferson amd his VA amendment which non-practical Bible-believing “Christian” Barry O is now jettisoning from the First Amendment in favour of immoral health “destruction.”

Lonethinker, you will get no defense from me of the crimes and atrocities perpetuated by Protestants against Catholics and I hope the same applies in reverse,  One problem we have is the propaganda that each side in religious wars employed.  Foxe’s Book of Martyra gave the false impression that following the Reformation only Catholics persecuted Protestants.  However a Gernan Prince was once persuaded to attack his Waldensian subjects by Churchmen who told him that these people were birthed with hair on their bodies and teeth in their mouths.  The Jung hypothesis is interesting but my approach is simpler.  The bible and like writings are a record of human ideas and faith is no good substitute for rational reason.

Lonethinker - your idea of evolving thought is alarmingly reminiscent of the Mormon idea of an evolving God.  If we are just to accept that moral thought evolved, then where will it lead = Does the belief in gods, evolving to a monotheist God, inevitably lead to a belief in “no god”? If so I prefer to short circuit the process.

BF; Thanks for both replies. Humans evolved morally, not God. As to the Jung proto-dream/myth ideas, they are perfectly consistent with a rational as well as Divine Revelation. It was God who made us in God’s image and likeness, also planted His Law in our hearts (Paul in Romans discusses this) hence I have no problem with the Myth images planted by Him to ready us for the Primary Myth- classical understanding, not myth as BS or lies-  Who is Jesus. That assisted all along as well by the Prophetic hints, visions and predictions throughout Hebrew Scriptures’ salvation history. We are slow and dumb from our flawed state and it took God’s Patience 2000 years or so before Jesus to coax, massage, tease, threaten, promise, hold out the carrot as He also used the stick (Exile, persecution and tthe rest) to get the Remnant to accept that the GOD of Sinai came with a penis and had to take a dump every day as the GOD-MAN. Still working on it, so take no umbrage that we as Humans, the Hebrews and the Church as Pilgrim People are slowly catching on to LOVE as GOD’s identity. I am delighted to have the Bishop of Rome as Magister - Teacher- guided by the HS rather than Henry V111’s sexual difficulties, the erratic, anal retentive Luther or Adam Smith’s spectacles or Tom Cruise’s Scientology or Barry O’Bama’s Bible Study as Guide. As we say about Democracy, the Catholic Church is messy, but what is the alternative. We of course love our separated family members, I spent lots of energy as a younger citizen bringing healing and as a professor of the Humanities defending Christianity from attacks and ignorance as well as saving Fundametalists from believing in a Talking Snake and the Moon as a large light and the Sun and Moon created before Night and Day were listed 1-4! REASON and REVELATION as a specialised study, not reading a Library Book of THEOLOGY as ancient history.

Your ideas about knowledge evolving is strangely not dissimilar to my own ideas.  The difference is that I believe the bible is simply an interesting record of mankind’s ideas and I don’t believe in divine revelation.  It seems to me to accept the later one has to place incredible faith in human beings some of whom are “anally retentive”.  A good candidate would appear to be St Paul.  I understand your affection for the Pope as a Catholic but I cannot relate to the whole idea that a person elected by a college of cardinals is automatically the repository of divine revelation under the leading of the Holy Spirit.  You would surely have to concede that some very dodgy characters (Borgias) have been popes?  The idea that God had to slowly coax humans into the knowledge about him seems to be contradicted by the very words of your scriptures.  It is said that the Patriarchs and Moses “knew” God “as a man knows his familiar friend”.  Also St Paul claimed that “the truth about God is self evident being seen in the things her has made” (Romans).  I can see to ancient man, devoid of scientific explanations that would appear to be the case.  The problem with trying to convince people to believe in God is that I have yet to encounter someone who is actually content that you believe in God or a god or gods.  Each insists that you must believe in the God that he/she believes in and this is the god to which he was culturally destined to believe in.  Consequently people raised as Catholic have a Catholic way of thinking, Protestants a protestant way, Jews a Jewish and Mormons a Mormon etc.  And never the twain will meet.

there is an errata in my above.  It shout read “things he has made” not “things her has made”  I was not trying to make any feminist statement.

Howie, I’m cracking up on your reply: it’s great! Come to think about it; what you said about Mittens underwear had me cracking up even more just recalling all his flip-flops: This guy has changed his views more often than he’s changed his underwear. No wonder his campaign stinks! This is going to be one helluva funny campaign just imagining Herman Munster in his foul-ish “holy underwear” standing alongside Eddie Paul Ryan Munster on stage ... too much, way too much.  It’s going to be a tough night for getting enough zzzzz’s. But thanks, I needed it. We all need it! Now what do the Masons think? (Save it for tomorrow; my sides are hurting enough! LOL!)

I am simply too simple to enter into all the reasonings.  I only know One Reliable Historian. And I will trust Him to the end.  One day, each one of us will stand before God—either as Father or Creator.  Those who have related to Him as Heavenly Father through faith in the finished work of Christ Jesus alone for our sins, we will be ushered into an Eternal place of rest and glory where we shall behold the Lamb and His shining face and shall be bathed and leap and run in the True Light that emanates from His being and envelopes every single one of us so that there is in us what there is IN Him now—No darkness.  Those who only know God as the creator, these just simply didn’t come to the right conclusions and surrender all to the Lordship of Christ Jesus.  They, having heard God speak to them and call them to simplicity of faith in what His Spirit wrote to illumine their paths, these simply didn’t mix faith with what they heard.  God shall never be other than He has revealed Himself to be.  And forever shall we be worshipping Him in pure spirit and truth—= and the joy we shall then know can never be known UNTIL then.  I press on and in that I might have an abundant entrance.  I leave the rest of you who are yet in opposition to the faith once delivered to the saints, I leave you to your own minds.  But I pray that God will reveal His full mind to each of you yet, and that the mind of Christ shall be granted permission to enter.  Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who humbled himself.  Today we must simply humble our own intellects and become simply simple.  God is able to do this in all who are willing to ask Him to do it.  I know—for I was once an intellectually unreasonable scholar.  But now, I am born of God.  Halleluia!  And I know in my spirit that my mind shall NEVER comprehend His infinite wisdom.  But I am so very, very, VERY grateful to be a partaker of such infinite mercy and lovingkindness.  Selah

I do not think comments about the candidates’ past views and their sectarian edominations’ various theologies are relevant. I could care less if Obama thinks the pope is the anti-Christ or that Romney may have been taught or actually believes the Catholic Church was coopted by the Constantinian era. I am concerned about their convictions about how to govern; who gets taxed, how do they spend the cash, on uselsss wars and the cozy relationship between military spending and arms and armanents merchants, or who gets a free pass to “re-build” after we destroy the other nation. What government protections are offered to the most vulnerable, the supreme test of any civilisation. Divine-Natural Law principles of justice, not the flawed corrupt ideas of shoot first, then aim, bomb before talking it over, who gets slaughtered in the cause and how many refugees are moved and what nests of ethnic/religious stinging wasps do we disturb. AS for Christianity, I belong to the ancient Tradition that combines human intellect- myths that probe our fears, ask whence we came, deal with sexuality, death and life beyond this one, in drama, liturgy, poetry, imagination- all aspects of Reason GUIDED by a loving Father whose Son necame one of us and established a qohol, an Assembly of those Called Out, ecclesia in Greek, Church in English and keeps it free from dogmatic error, fills the open with Grace to repent and get the Trinity’s Life in Christ and “grows” that- until HE returns. Eliminating any element -Reason in all aspects, Guidance by the Spirit, including what the Bible means,  we get the chaos of Satan’s hienz 57 varieties to the Nth power.

Annie I presume your “reliable historian” must be your god who you consider is the author of your holy book.  However there is nothing in the bible to clearly support the idea of divine authorship.  I know that Christians cite ST Paul’s statement about “all scripture being inspired” but correctly evaluated that verse does not support the presumption that the books that made the canon were god authored. Indeed there is no book that contains an inscription to god and quite the reverse.  We have Psalms “of David” or “of Asaph” or of “the son’s of Korah”.  We have the Proverbs “of Solomon” and the words “of King Lemuel” and the prophesy “which his mother taught him”.  The bible ends with the book of Revelation which makes a difference between what St John saw and the words of the Christ.  This is the pattern from the Prophets where “then the word of the Lord came unto me”.  In Revelation “then the voice spoke unto me and said”.  Preceding this is “I beheld what looked like or sounded like” These are the words of a human not a god. The bible is of course not a book but a collection of books included in the volume by arbitrary decision of the Nicean Council in 325AD.  Embarrassingly a book, excluded by the Council on the grounds that they determined it wasn’t inspired, was quoted as an authority within the books that had been included.  Additionally, these books record incidents incapable of having eyewitnesses.  The angelic conversation with Mary, the temptation of Christ and Jesus’ Gethsemane prayer are a few examples.  Additionally there is a lack of consistency in accounts.  Lazarus is resurrected a few days before the crucifixion in a village near Jerusalem.  He is said to be present when Mary Magdalene washes Christ’s feet and then he disappears from the record. He is not at the cross with his sister.  Neither at the tomb weeping over the man who gave him back his life.  He is not said to be in the upper room and never mentioned in Acts.  In that book we have records of St Peter’s sermon which refers to “the many signs and miracles” of Jesus without mention of his greatest “the resurrection from the dead”.  Finally, we actually know that Luke’s claims about the census said to cause Christ’s birth in Bethlehem is historically wrong.  Added to this the expectation of a second advent is incongruous in a democratic age.  Whilst citizens of a time accustomed only to the absolute rule of kings would obviously consider the arrival of an all conquering benign dictator to be an improvement over their current tyranny; how can this be an improvement over “government of by and for the people”?  There is no more sound reason to rely upon the bible as history than to rely upon the book of Mormon as the same.

why is it a question of Religion, anyway? If the guy is good and a moral man, then let him stand. Polytheist? Atheist? Most of them lip service the crowd any way! right now, if I were an American I would vote for Romney, because he has a good example of Godly living in his Running Mate! Romney, himself? Feh! he cheats on his taxes, or so it is said… Hmmm! Taxes-Public Services-help for the disadvantaged… Both our countries are spiritually bankrupt. We need good people to lead us. Band aid solutions are not necessary. Oremus, OMNES, pro Republica!

BF There is a line in St Augustine who tells us that “Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ.” Pardon me, but your efforts to explain the Bible or scoff at it show that Brian is ignorant all round. If I may invent my own line, “if you do not know the tune, do not even think about singing it” Another great line I enjoyed years ago is “Never teach a pig to sing, it wastes your time and annoys the pig.”

As a Catholic conservative voter, I have been waiting for someone ANYONE to bring up Mitt Romney’s Mormonism. I have been trolling through articles and essays reading about this cult. I can not believe that no one has brought to light what Mormons Believe, their history, and their finances. I believe a person is only as virtuous as their belief system. Mitt Romney lies when he says he is just ‘a christian’. The GOP lies when they say he is just a ‘christian’.
Mitt Romney believes women Mormons must be pulled at Resurrection out of the the grave by their husbands will. Mitt Romney believes that he can become a GOD.
Mitt Romney believe Jesus and the Devil were brothers.
Mitt Romney believes in lying for the Lord.
Mitt Romney’s heaven consists of having his own planet and a banquet of sex with many wives for eternity.
Mitt Romney believes we will be judged by Joseph Smith, Jesus Christ and God the Father in heaven. This is why Joseph Smith character MUST be discussed. If Mitt believes Joseph Smith is on the same level as Jesus- then I question Mitt’s Judgement.

First, everyone has the right to believe what they want. Having said that, the facts as I have come to know them are that:
A)no one “knows” if there is a God/Gods/Creator.
B)of all of the theories available, that of evolution is the most plausable, relying on science and hystorical evidence as a means of inference.
C)everyone votes based upon thier own set of values and beliefs (or at least the smart ones do…others are easily misled and influenced)
D)we are in a constant state of war (religious or otherwise)
E)if we could put aside the greed, hatred, and indiference and focus on the greater good of man and our environmnet, we just may be able be free from fear of violence, hostility, and caos.
F) we should place our focus on the most important aspects of life, such as social and economic welfare, the establishment of equality, and a working political system that serves the true interests of everyone.
G)We don’t have much time…

Mary, thanks!  Your contribution is immaculate! (a weak pun)  That was the point I was trying to make when I began contributing to this blog.