www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall WOW: Romney's religion speech

Andrea;

I don't get the point. I am neither pro- nor anti-Romney,
but I certainly would not be anti- because he's LDS. Should he
be elected president, in what way would his religion possibly
compromise him? A great many prominent politicans who claim to
be Christians take positions that as a Catholic I must condemn.
I doubt I would have as many issues with one who is a faithful
Mormon, in spite of the fact that I cannot recognize a person of
that creed as a Christian.

Edmac

Edmac

I am not anti-Romney because he is LDS. I have concerns that although he claims no Mormon church official will exert undue influence on him, he covenanted to giving everything he is blessed with which would include the Presidency to the LDS church. Because of his promise in his temple, would he work for the furtherence of Mormon beliefs? I don't know. Mitt Romney himself claims he believes what his church teaches, and that is what it teaches. I don't know though, maybe he doesn't really take the temple as seriously as other Mormons and the LDS "Prophet" really would have no effect on him. As I said, it's something that concerns us, that's all.

Andrea;

What would it be in Romney's power to do (assuming he was
elected) that could benefit the LDS Church in any special way?
What could a believing Catholic president do that would
specially benefit the Catholic Church? Just about nothing.
Our political system doesn't allow it.

Edmac

I can't answer that question. I would assume that if the followers of Arius had a valid baptism then they would not need to be baptized again when seeking reconciliation with the Church and if they had an invalid baptism then they would need to be baptized.

I leave your question unanswered to someone who can respond definitively.

Terry

Those are two really good, and distinct, points.

(1) If Romney takes that oath literally, how would he give eveything --including the presidency-- over to his church ?

(2) If he doesn't take it literally, that raises the question of what that means in terms of character. Is he just exercising prudence in the face of hyperbole in that oath? Or is it that he is a flip-flopper? I don't know. But, his changing positions on abortion --coinciding with his political campaigns--has given me pause about Mr. Romney.

Now that I've had some hours to let it digest, I think the speech was excellent caliber, but I still have some serious questions about the man who gave it.

-- John


issue of whether he is a flip-flopper

Roman Cahtolics shoudl never sit as president, it was once said.


Not only where htye a Non-Christain cult, whose beleifs where strange, but they follwoed orders from a Forigner.


I am shocked that so many use Romeny's Mormon faith agaisnt him. He is not goign to unduely favour mormonism, the President of the United States doens't even have the power to faovur oen thign over the other, in ters of religion, and a man shoudl be judged for his job base dupon his own moral Charecter,convicitons, and ability.


Mormosn can be hoenst, hard working, decent human beigns, and apply the same moral ethic as any Chistian would.


His theoogy is heretical yes, but we do not select prsidents base dupon their theology.

"His theology is heretical yes, but we do not select presidents based upon their theology."

Are there any presidents who could have passed for a theologian?

Terry

Jefferson, evem thoguh he as both a Traiter to he crown and a Heretic, did do deep theological papers.


So did Adams, and I do beleive if Huckabee is elected this woudl be one too.

I am a bit torn. Whilst all the other candidates, are, at the best, heretics or functionally agnostics, Romney is a member of a non Christian cult. The essence of his speech is morally compatible with my beliefs, but the is still the specter of the LDS cult. This will take some thought.

Alexandr

Lance,

For what it's worth I completely disagree with this statement. In fact, I believe exactly the opposite though my beliefs won't make a bit of difference to the American commonweal.

"Personally, I believe in the separation of Church & state; no good has come out of history from the Church enjoying too much influence and power in civil politics."

I believe that Christendom was the greatest period of Western Civilization. I believe that since its demise nearly 500 years ago we have been living on borrowed time swimming in increasing levels of decadence.

CDL

I don't know whether Arians were baptized in the name of the Trinity once they converted. I'm surprised that I don't know. I'll do some research. But since Arians by definition do not believe in the Trinity I would be surprised if they were not baptized upon conversion.

CDL

I`m not sure how much I would agree with that but I have heard other Catholics express this view. It`s an interesting thought though and there were some great things about the period of Christendom.

Wouldn't some have recieved valid baptisms?

ACTUALY most of th eproblems that occured because of the unity of Chruch and STtae happend post-reformation, when State Churches formed.

Prior tot his, the Church (Singular) was a moral authority distinct from the King and Counsil, but with real power over sovciety. This period saw stanility that, though not perfect or constant, was certianly more than naythign in the period after the eformaiton. The State Churhces emerged after this, and where direclty controled by the State, and whwre essentialy arms of the State.

So, one coudl say State interferance with, and domenance of, the Churhc has caused problems, more than simly CHurh cinvovlement int he affairs of the world.

Dear Carson,

I do not disagree with the greatness of Western Christendom and I have been promoting Dinesh D'Souza's book, what is so great about Christianity?

I don't believe in any theocracy; I believe in democracy. I believe that there should be no religious tests for president. If you think so, than you should work for a change the constitution to bar Mormons or whoever else you think might be unfit, from running for president.

I also disagree Carson, that Christendom was always so perfect. One of the reasons why people in Europe turned against religion is that they got sick of religious wars and killing each other.

The Catholic Church now believes in religious freedom and democracy. Yes, Pope Benedict decries secularism, and we need to recover religious and moral values; I agree with him and honor him for that. But Benedict also seeks to enlist the support of Muslims in the fight against secularism.

Restoring values to public society should not be predicated on the privilaging any one sect or Church with power over society, even if it is the True Church. I think humanity is better off not having state power to persecute heretics, that is much better I would never want to go back to time when the state did persecute and execute heretics. Who gets to say who the heretic is? We cannot go back to the middle ages.

I do not want a Catholic State, an Orthodox State, A Protestant State or a Muslim state. The Founding father were right in not establishing a national church or religion.

I agree with something Martin Luther said: if the Turk is the best doctor, he is the one I want operating on me. If the most qualified person for president is a Mormon, a Muslim or Jew, I will vote for him or her over a Christian, if he has the best credentials, and if I think he/she is most capable of leading the country.

Blessings,

Lance