Romney's Religion

This interesting Newsweek profile of Mitt Romney gives a couple of great examples of exactly how hesitant he is to discuss his Mormon background in an honest way:

Nothing is more politically vexing or personally crucial for Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney than the story of his faith. Raised in a devout Mormon family by parents who were both principled and powerful, Romney has downplayed both his religion and his own family history. Instead, he has talked up his résumé as a private-sector "turnaround artist" who reversed the fortunes of troubled companies and the faltering Salt Lake City Olympics and now can come to his party's—and country's—rescue. Mindful of the sway of evangelical Christians over the GOP base, he has positioned himself as the candidate with conservative principles and strong faith, even adopting evangelical language in calling Jesus Christ his "personal savior" (vernacular not generally used by members of the Mormon Church). But when he's pressed on the particulars of his own religious practice, his answers grow terse and he is quick to repeat that his values are rooted in "the Judeo-Christian tradition." [. . .]

Romney's biography is fully Mormon. When asked by NEWSWEEK if he has done baptisms for the dead—in which Mormons find the names of dead people of all faiths and baptize them, as an LDS spokesperson says, to "open the door" to the highest heaven—he looked slightly startled and answered, "I have in my life, but I haven't recently."

I'm not sure this is really such a sound approach. I always felt that Joe Lieberman (despite whatever else one might say about him) made a good run at being the first non-Christian on a national ticket precisely because he was so very clearly a practicing Orthodox Jew that it cleared the air. Romney, by acting weird and secretive, seems to be re-enforcing the idea that his faith is weird.

Comments

He can act this way and have people think Mormonism is weird, or he can discuss it openly and remove all doubt that it is indeed weird.

Posted by Doug | October 14, 2007 5:51 PM

All faith is weird. And the public square gets more and more faithy, all the various flavors of weirdness potentiate each other. So, Romney wears strange underwear. Your point?

Posted by lambert strether | October 14, 2007 5:55 PM

The Lieberman example might not be helpful. Most Christians are more comfortable with Judaism than with Mormonism. That doesn't make a lot of sense, but still.

Posted by Neil | October 14, 2007 6:00 PM

He can act this way and have people think Mormonism is weird, or he can discuss it openly and remove all doubt that it is indeed weird.

Christianity, on the other hand, isn't weird at all. Now pass me that cup with Jesus' blood in it, would you.

Posted by Mixner | October 14, 2007 6:01 PM

Steve Benen's post at TPM quoting JFK's famous speech on his Catholicism is excellent and at least partially explains the difference between the JFK/Lieberman approach to their respective religions and Romney.

Posted by Led | October 14, 2007 6:03 PM

judaism is weird, but has so much time on its side that we've gotten used to it. mormonism is ultra-weird, and is, in the grand scheme of things, not much older than scientology. in fact mormonism is pretty similar to scientology: the outlandishness and in in the way it was invented and propagated.

what we really need is a big TV interview where he's asked if he really truly genuinely believes in the golden plates and angel moroni. more than that, he needs to answer whether he believes in the central notion that LDS-ers hold: that their religion is the 'restoration' of true biblical practices, and thus is a coulterian 'perfection' of judaism and christianity.

if he answers honestly, as a mormon, we could be pretty sure that dobson et al will to start a third party whether giuliani or romney get the nom. calloo callay!

Posted by lucretius | October 14, 2007 6:13 PM

Mixner: Weird is in the eye of the beholder -- it's a relative concept that in this context means "unfamiliar" or "out of the ordinary." So although beliefs of more mainstream religions may be equally improbable, in the U.S. in 2007 they are not as weird as Mormon beliefs.

Posted by Led | October 14, 2007 6:18 PM

Now pass me that cup with Jesus' blood in it, would you.

If JFK were running for office today, he'd face the question, "Have you ever been a blood drinker?" Come to think of it, Romney's people are probably considering having someone ask Giuliani that same question.

Posted by RSA | October 14, 2007 6:25 PM

People that are strongly religious aren't comfortable with any religion that came about after the one that they suscribe to. Every religion says that there are flaws in all the religions that came before it, and that the new religion is the closest to perfection. The simple chronology makes people uncomfortable with the newer faiths, regardless of how close they resemble those that came before them, or how much the newer faith pays homage to the beliefs of the older faiths.

Hence the reluctance of Judaism to embrace Christianity or Islam, and Christain hostility toward Islam and Mormonism, for example, despite Christianity's foundation on Judaism, Islam's belief in the Virgin Birth, or Mormonism being a direct offshoot of Christianity.

It all has to do with chronology, or at least, this is the predominant factor when considering why one religion is more hostile to another than vice versa.

Posted by Dismayed Liberal | October 14, 2007 6:28 PM

Weird,
1. involving or suggesting the supernatural; unearthly or uncanny: a weird sound; weird lights.
2. fantastic; bizarre: a weird getup.

I'd say those definitions apply about equally to Mormon teachings and, say, Catholic teachings.

Posted by Mixner | October 14, 2007 6:30 PM

I mean that in a theological sense, not, I must stress, in the way members of one religion treat members of another faith.

I think it's more than fair to say that in the case of Judaism and Christianity, for instance, actual physical hostility has gone the other way through history.

Posted by Dismayed Liberal | October 14, 2007 6:31 PM

Why in the world would you even think you get an accurate picture of Mitt Romney from the Newsweek article? It was obviously a smear piece. By the way, try reading Mitt Romney's letter to the editor at Newsweek, to get his take on it. Kinda balances it out a little.

Posted by David Glick | October 14, 2007 6:37 PM

Frankly, I'm neither an expert on Mormonism nor religious myself, but from what I've casually read about Mormonism on the Internet (prompted by Romney's candidacy) I think he's in a pretty tough position---a "damned if you do and damned if you don't" sort of thing.

For example, I think it's been alleged that according to the standard tenets of Mormonism, the G-d of the Old Testament was once just an ordinary mortal man, who because he was a good family man and strictly followed Mormonism was eventually elevated into becoming the G-d of our own universe. Similarly, if Romney remains a good Mormon, he (together with his wife and the rest of his family) may eventually reign as G-ds of their own new universes.

If this claim is correct, then I could see lots of ordinary religious Christians (and Muslims and Jews) having considerable concerns about someone holding this belief system.

I apologize in advance to any Mormons who think that I fallen for a vicious anti-Mormon hoax or have otherwise garbled their teachings in some horrible manner...

Posted by RKU | October 14, 2007 6:41 PM

It's spelled "God."

Posted by Mixner | October 14, 2007 6:45 PM

Judiasm and Christianity have been around a long, long time. They also have been the subjects of intense secular examination and research as to their historical factual evidence.

Romney could not survive the ridicule his religion would be met with if its historical backgound and founding documents were subject to as rigorous a secular examination. The history of Mormanism is still fresh enough that its silliness cannot be hidden behind a vail of ignorance for long.

Posted by ken | October 14, 2007 6:56 PM

Mixner: What dictionary did you use? Merriam Webster gives (1) related to supernatural and then:

2 : of strange or extraordinary character.

Strange means foreign or unfamiliar. Incidentially, Merriam also defines "bizarre" as "strikingly out of the ordinary." Face it, these are relative concepts that depend on the observer.

Posted by Led | October 14, 2007 6:57 PM

Romney is weird all around. A secretive religion and flip flops aplenty will do that.

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by matt | October 14, 2007 7:58 PM

RKU hits the nail on the head.

"As man is, God once was. As God is, man will become."

Posted by Marshall | October 14, 2007 7:59 PM

Mormons have some odd ideas, so do Catholics and the Evangelical Fundies that believe literally in Noah's Ark and the 5,000 year old Earth. So do Jews and Hindus, and Muslims for that matter...with Jew's recent history of their secular progressive variant going with Communism like spaghetti goes with meatballs..

No matter...

We elect leaders - or should without the recent religious litmus tests imposed because of abortion politics - based on how well we think they would lead us first, their political priorities and stands on issues 2nd, with their life story 3rd showing us by how they led their lives how they might lead us, and their private religious lives - ideally - last.

Rudy Giuliani's personal life is a trainwreck, but people that like him like his stand on issues and think he is a strong leader. Hillary's messy personal life is blamed on her being a helpless victim of her husband's predations - though her female ages 18-54 demographic - that want a woman, and love her stances on issues and policies has yet to explain how that boosts her leadership strengths.

Newsweek just did a smear job on Romney. They are good at smear jobs. The ones they did on Noble Algore in 2000 and Howard Dean in 2004 are classics of the genre. They could have easily gone after any other candidate other than Lieberman, who has the immunity amulet the MSM holds to on criticising Jewish matters, on "private beliefs" matters.

Posted by Chris Ford | October 14, 2007 8:04 PM

I believe Mark Twain spoke most eloquently to this when he said:

It is better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than to open it and remove all doubt.

And yes the inference is valid. I do think 'religious folks' are stupid.

Posted by A.Citizen | October 14, 2007 8:10 PM

That's hardly fair; Religion gets it's hooks in people before their minds have developed any defenses against obvious idiocy, and by the time they have those defenses, is too deeply dug in for most people of any intelligence to break free from. It's got no more to do with how smart you are, than a computer infected from a boot disk reflects badly on it's clock speed.

Religion gets to use your own intelligence against you!

And if that weren't enough, religion seems to have co-evolved with the human brain, we're mentally adapted to think in religious ways.

It's true that some people manage to free themselves from this mental plague. Speaking as one of them, it's probably no accident that such people tend to be more than a bit off in one respect or another.

Posted by Brett Bellmore | October 14, 2007 8:41 PM

Having grown up a fundamental Christian in the South, I can report that the standard story for most of us was that Mormonism is a 'cult'. In 'TrainingUnion' and BibleCamp we learned ways to 'witness' to Mormons. Their faith was (and I guess still is) thought of as a heresy. They had to leave their religion if they wanted to be 'saved'.

This is the basic understanding of the majority of the 'values voters' that Romney has positioned himself as the candidate for. This isn't going to work.

Probably some of the Christian Right--an outlying small group--could be convinced to vote for Mitt. But the majority will not given the opposition of Dobson and the SouthernBaptist's Land to the Romney candidacy.

It's amazing that no one was groomed for years to be the 'base's' candidate. If ol' Fred doesn't win them over they have no choice except a 3d party or voting with their fannies by sitting it out.

Posted by JohnMcC | October 14, 2007 8:44 PM

Yeah, it's fair to say that all religions have some irrational elements, but that's largely because religion itself is irrational. I don't say that as a perjorative, as I myself am a Christian, and if the world is irrational, then it seems more ridiculous to believe that it can be explained by some simple, elegant equation than that there are supernatural forces at work. That is, of course, if you believe the world is irrational.

What bothers me about Mormonism isn't so much how new it is (or that it came after mine) but just how transparent and silly this particular fraud is. Nobody can deny that Judaism, Christianity, and Islam at least have elements of truth to their stories, while Mormonism doesn't even seem to pass that test. On the contrary, it seems to be a religion based around male fantasies: you can have as many wives as you want, and when you die, you get to be a God. It even extends to their rituals--did you know that non-Mormon women who want to marry Mormons have to be bathed by church officials? It's true. It's all bollocks, and I don't really have much respect for the supposed virtue of its adherents, who do all their good deeds not of their own volition, but because the church tells them to.

Then again, I highly doubt Mitt cares about much, other than gaining power. He himself has described his positions as evolving...which is exactly the right term, as they've shifted to where they need to be every time he's run for office. He's the embodiment of why people hate politicians.

Posted by Lev | October 14, 2007 8:46 PM

Jews are not trying to convert people, and so other christians don't view them as compitition, to their church's financial well being...

Remember preachers make money according to how many people go to their church...

Posted by Mike | October 14, 2007 8:50 PM

Posted by JohnMcC | October 14, 2007 8:44 PM

Actually, there were a few Republicans being groomed to be "base" candidates. The only problem was that two of them lost last year, and another one happens to share a name with our beloved current President. That's a nonstarter.

Romney ain't going anywhere. All the pundits talk about his huge leads in Iowa and New Hampshire, but I just don't think that the GOP base has accepted him. Maybe the finance-type Republicans and some pragmatic social conservatives, but I can see him winning Iowa and New Hampshire and not gaining too much momentum. Isn't he in single-digits in South Carolina?

Posted by Jim | October 14, 2007 8:51 PM

Nobody can deny that Judaism, Christianity, and Islam at least have elements of truth to their stories

Really? Please cite ONE objectively verifiable fact in ANY of the sacred scriptures of Judaism, Christianity, or Islam.

Posted by James Gary | October 14, 2007 8:51 PM

Really? Please cite ONE objectively verifiable fact in ANY of the sacred scriptures of Judaism, Christianity, or Islam.

Well, the Roman Empire existed. So did Cyrus the Great. And so did Mohammed.

I'll grant that Joseph Smith existed. But all the empires he claimed existed didn't, and Indians aren't Jewish, and where are the secret plates? At least the other religions aren't precluded if one accepts the common view of history.

Posted by Lev | October 14, 2007 8:54 PM

Most people absorb the general ideas of goodness and niceness current in their societies. If they are raised in a particular religion, they tend to associate that general goodness and niceness with their faith and very rarely have much idea about the specific theological beliefs of the particular sect in which they were raised. (You may remember Cal Thomas savaging Hillary Clinton -- a practising Methodist -- for talking about how her religion teaches her the importance of good works, rank heresy to any serious Protestant. But the non-theologians among us believe that good works are good and that whatever religion we are accustomed to demands that we do good works, and whether they "save" us or not is really beside the point -- as was Thomas's theologically accurate but morally obtuse anathema.)
The Mormon religion, like all religions, is full of weird shit. If Romney seriously believes much of that weird shit, he is too batshit crazy to be President. But on the basis of the skimpy evidence so far, it seems likely that he doesn't. No doubt he participates in and "believes" in some vague Sunday ceremonial way in harmless weird shit like funny underwear (or, for Christians, drinking "blood," or for Jews eschewing some wonderful food). But he seems to be a functionally secular person who adheres to the religion in which he was raised more out of convention than anything else and, accurately or not, attaches his notions of goodness and niceness to that religion.
Does anyone actually know different? Is Romney, like most of us, a practising Conventionalist, or is he a SERIOUS (and, therefore, crazed) Mormon?

Posted by CJColucci | October 14, 2007 9:14 PM

Re: I do think 'religious folks' are stupid.

The saying you quote actually says "fool" not "stupid". And unfortunately you ought have taken its advise too. Arrogance is also a form of folly.

Re: And if that weren't enough, religion seems to have co-evolved with the human brain, we're mentally adapted to think in religious ways.

Um, maybe that means there's something to it then? Can natural selection work through a null set?

Re: Yeah, it's fair to say that all religions have some irrational elements, but that's largely because religion itself is irrational.

True enough, but you should go further: Life itself and the underlying stuff of reality has an element of the irrational woven into it.

Posted by JonF | October 14, 2007 9:28 PM

Well, the Roman Empire existed. So did Cyrus the Great. And so did Mohammed...I'll grant that Joseph Smith existed. But all the empires he claimed existed didn't, and Indians aren't Jewish, and where are the secret plates?

Hm. I'm not sure that if Joseph Smith had put in a little more due diligence, +3 Underwear Of Protection would seem more plausible than believing Jesus rose from the dead, or that the Bible is the divinely inspired word of God.

I have a strong suspicion that all the mystical components of all religions are complete bullsh*t, and I believe that trying to classify some of them as more so than others is an inherently absurd exercise.

Posted by James Gary | October 14, 2007 9:29 PM

All faith is weird. And the public square gets more and more faithy, all the various flavors of weirdness potentiate each other. So, Romney wears strange underwear. Your point?

But people are used to the weirdness of the other mainstream Christian sects. Take that, and now add things like " in 500 B.C. the Americas were populated by a bunch of horse riding, steel wielding Jews, and Native Americans are their descendants."

Posted by gswift | October 14, 2007 9:40 PM

Jews fit into the Christian view of the world, even though we're to be converted ("perfected") at some point. Mormons don't, and besides if one takes the view that Mormonism isn't Christianity (which I don't understand, but it seems to be the Evangelical position) then it's a false Christianity.

Posted by aleks | October 14, 2007 9:58 PM

Ok, if you HAD to chose (act like you believe in and at least go through the motions of practice) between the only two indingenous American religions, Mormanism and Scientology, which one would you chose?

Posted by ken | October 14, 2007 11:16 PM

Christianity, on the other hand, isn't weird at all. Now pass me that cup with Jesus' blood in it, would you.

This is the thing.

I remember being in Bali, and talking with a couple of tourists who had gone to see a Ketchak monkey dance. They were going on and on about these weird rituals, which (OMG!) the Balinese still believe in.

This trended into a general denunciation of Hinduism (Bali's main religion, although adapted), which, of course, involves faith in monsters and supernatural beings, and boy wasn't that weird?

Of course, this was coming from a couple of Catholics who think belief in a Hindi god is very strange, but belief in a virgin birth, resurrection, and a weekly cannabilistic-based service is, like, totally normal.

It's spelled "God."

Shhh. The Giant Flying Spaghetti Monster may be reading...

Posted by McKingford | October 14, 2007 11:52 PM

Ok, if you HAD to chose (act like you believe in and at least go through the motions of practice) between the only two indingenous American religions, Mormanism and Scientology, which one would you chose?

You know, this may actually be a way for Romney to turn a liability (belief in a faith Americans might consider strange [which is strange, considering how bizarre faith is in any event]) into an asset.

Mormonism = American home grown religion. Unlike those imported yurpeen religions...

Posted by McKingford | October 14, 2007 11:58 PM

I have a strong suspicion that all the mystical components of all religions are complete bullsh*t, and I believe that trying to classify some of them as more so than others is an inherently absurd exercise.

Exactly. The Mormon supernatural nonsense is just less popular and less familiar than the Christian supernatural nonsense. If Romney is to be grilled about his religious beliefs, then all the other candidates should be too. I wonder how seriously Hillary really takes the teachings of the Methodist church.

Posted by Mixner | October 15, 2007 12:01 AM

The theological aspects of any religion look strange to any outsider, but I think what Lev was getting at was that the Book of Mormon is set within a historical framework that is completely at odds with conventional history. The same cannot be said about the Bible or the Qur'an.

As to the Mormonism vs. Scientology question, though, it's no contest. I may not believe anything in the Book of Mormon, but the people who follow it are largely benign, and generally good people with whom I disagree on several key points, but are generally honestly working toward making the world a better place. Utah is nice. I'd recommend for everyone visiting SLC to take a tour of the LDS Temple Square.

Scientology, on the other hand, is an outright fraud, not just a false religion but, I believe, an real-live evil organization that exploits weak people for profit and retaliates violently against those who oppose it. There are many religions I do not believe in, yet still do good in this world. Any good accomplished by Scientology is accidental.

Posted by Gabbo | October 15, 2007 2:38 AM

Mormons would be better received if they crafted quality furniture, remained celibate and curbed their proselytizing.

Posted by Council of Quixotic Religions, upstate NY division | October 15, 2007 2:50 AM

It's spelled "God."

Man, you guys just can't hide your contempt for us Jews, can you? Listen, if someone prefers to write "G-d," no one gives a fuck if you like it.

Posted by Steve | October 15, 2007 3:01 AM

Well, clearly you do. I'm a Jew myself, by the way. Just not one who believes in ancient religious nonsense.

Posted by Mixner | October 15, 2007 3:19 AM

The theological aspects of any religion look strange to any outsider, but I think what Lev was getting at was that the Book of Mormon is set within a historical framework that is completely at odds with conventional history. The same cannot be said about the Bible or the Qur'an.

As opposed to being completely at odds with, say, conventional biology, which certainly can be said about the Bible. Tell us about that born-of-a-virgin, resurrection-from-the-dead thingy again, would you.

Scientology, on the other hand, is an outright fraud, not just a false religion but,

They're all false.

I believe, an real-live evil organization that exploits weak people for profit and retaliates violently against those who oppose it.

I don't doubt that scientology does exploit weak people for profit, but I've never seen any credible evidence that it is worse in that regard than, say, Christianity. Have you ever watched an episode of the Benny Hinn Miracle Healing Crusade?

Posted by Mixner | October 15, 2007 3:33 AM

You know what: the US is weird, religion is only part of it. Most people in the US have no idea how weird they are, tragically, they tend to falsely assume that everybody else is weird and they are the epitome of normalcy - that's wrong, just ask the other 6.3 billion.

Posted by novakant | October 15, 2007 3:45 AM

Man, you guys just can't hide your contempt for us Jews, can you? Listen, if someone prefers to write "G-d," no one gives a fuck if you like it.

T-ke it easy, St-ve.

Posted by ajay | October 15, 2007 4:53 AM

MY's post was about Romney not being forthcoming about his religion. The comments on this post have become a shouting match about which religion is more weird/silly/whatever. It seems to me that Romney's pretty smart to keep his mouth shut about his religion. Now only if he could stop pandering to the religious right.

Posted by 2cynicalbyhalf | October 15, 2007 8:28 AM

"I'm a Jew myself, by the way."

Have you ever noted the frequency that Mixner comments on subjects he/she knows little about? With exception of deriding someone's decision not to write the "whole word" (and I'm not to minimize this insult), he spends most of his time mocking Christianity. Are your numerous degrees in theology, Mixner? Which seminaries did you attend that allow you to comment so self-assuredly regarding Catholic orthodoxy?

Now, I'm a "fallen" Catholic, with no desire to remain part of the church. But my mother is a practicing Catholic and like most mothers, she's a saint. I also have a sister who's a Franciscan nun. She has a PhD and is a nurse practitioner. I've little doubt that she is more intelligent than Mixner and is certainly more tolerant and respectful.

I've often been told that intelligence is inversely proportional to religious belief. Perhaps Mixner is the exception that proves the rule.

"The comments on this post have become a shouting match about which religion is more weird/silly/whatever."

What would we do, 2cynical, without you letting us know what we should be talking about? Thank goodness you're here to keep us on track, lest we fail to discuss precisely what you think we should discuss.

Posted by Rihilism | October 15, 2007 10:18 AM

What's weird about making a religion out of the desire to control and have sex with as many different women as possible?

Posted by john o. | October 15, 2007 11:45 AM

Rihilism,

Now, I'm a "fallen" Catholic, with no desire to remain part of the church. But my mother is a practicing Catholic and like most mothers, she's a saint. I also have a sister who's a Franciscan nun.

Does (or did, if she is now old) your practising Catholic mother follow Catholic teaching on contraception? Does she believe that abortion is an "abominable crime" and that it should be banned in all cases? Does she think homosexual sex is an "intrinsic moral evil?" Does she believe, as her religion teaches, that if you've heard the Christian gospel but choose not to become baptized then you cannot be saved? Just wondering.

Posted by Mixner | October 15, 2007 2:24 PM

Not that it's any of your business and I can't speak for her, but based on her statements and actions, I'd have to say yes but by her own choice (and her generation), between the woman and her God, no, and no.

She told me a long, long time ago that she simply could not accept the idea that if someone led a good life, they'd be denied access to Heaven despite not being "saved". And there are plenty of Catholic theologians that support her in this belief so I'd take issue with your description of what her religion "teaches". She was also never foolish enough to think that if she knew a few tenants of another religion that she was well versed in its customs, practices, and beliefs.

I was brought up to "judge not lest" I "be judged". It's an incredibly difficult philosophy to follow when faced with the hypocrisy, prejudice, hatred, and violence one is faced with everyday. I think it's far too easy to wrap the cause of all this strife within "religious belief" and I have little doubt that were we to wake up tomorrow without religion, there'd be just as much anger, hatred, cruelty, selfishness and animosity (of all, places, I think South Park had the best take on this in the episode where religion was banned and people still found reasons to kill each other).

As to weirdness, the universe(s) is about as weird as you can get. Though I like to stay grounded as much as possible in scientific principles, if I spend five minutes watching a documentary on M-Theory, I remember very quickly that nothing has been settled yet and that anything is possible, and perhaps even the flying spaghetti monster may be more real than anyone imagines...

Posted by Rihilism | October 15, 2007 3:21 PM

Anyone who tries to draw an equivalency between mormonism and scientology is either misinformed or being an idiot.

Posted by mpowell | October 15, 2007 4:20 PM

did you know that non-Mormon women who want to marry Mormons have to be bathed by church officials? It's true.

Ridiculous. This is utterly false, I can only imagine you heard a second or third hand retelling of what's involved in the temple ceremonies (which granted do involve washing and anointing, but are performed on men and women both, and are expressly NOT available to non-Mormons).

A nit-pick I know, and I'm no defender of Mormonism, but the truth about the religion is weird enough!

Posted by formermormon | October 15, 2007 4:48 PM

Rihilism,

She told me a long, long time ago that she simply could not accept the idea that if someone led a good life, they'd be denied access to Heaven despite not being "saved".

Well, she's contradicting a basic Catholic teaching right there. The church has never taught that "good works" alone are sufficient to ensure entry to Heaven.

And there are plenty of Catholic theologians that support her in this belief so I'd take issue with your description of what her religion "teaches".

The teachings of the Roman Catholic Church are described in the Catechism, papal encyclicals and other official documents comprising the Magisterium, not the work of dissident theologians.

Posted by Mixner | October 15, 2007 5:31 PM

"Well, she's contradicting a basic Catholic teaching right there."

Welcome to the modern Catholic Church shit for brains. So tell, me, Mixner (because I actually don't know the answer and I'm not foolish to think a rudimentary understanding is sufficient to pass for knowledge), if someone of the Jewish Faith is not Orthodox, does that mean they are not Jewish? Oh, and I'll be sure to let her know that you are worried about the disposition of her soul.

"The church has never taught that "good works" alone are sufficient to ensure entry to Heaven."

Are you sure, Mixner? That doesn't really mesh well with what my parish priest and my weeks spent visiting my sister in the convent taught me (don't you think I may have actually asked someone?), but you're the historian of the Catholic church and I'm sure you know better than I.

"The teachings of the Roman Catholic Church are described in the Catechism, papal encyclicals and other official documents comprising the Magisterium, not the work of dissident theologians.

Sorry, Mixner I didn't see you in Catechism but apparently you're familiar with who is and who isn't a "dissident" theologian. Or with how Catholic Church teachings are actually "implemented and enforced".

It is a common misunderstanding among those with a limited understanding of the Catholic Church to assume a certain "blind following" of Church doctrine or that there isn't and never has been a rich diversity of opinion within the Church or that Canon law is not hotly disputed even when a "consensus" is reached. Instances of actual excommunication are more often do to political reasons rather than any "beliefs" that contradict the teachings of Christ. But Mixner, you're the Vatican expert, so I defer to your informed opinion.

And next time I speak to mom, I'll ask her to pray for you...

Posted by Rihilism | October 15, 2007 7:09 PM

Rihilism,

if someone of the Jewish Faith is not Orthodox, does that mean they are not Jewish?

Not necessarily, no. And your point is...? If the Catholic Church is a good thing, as you seem to think, why does even your mother reject so much of its teaching? It's hard to think of a more basic issue in Christianity than who gets saved and who does not.

Are you sure, Mixner?

Yes, I'm sure. It's right there in the Catholic Catechism. Paragraph 1257:

"Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament."

Posted by Mixner | October 16, 2007 12:38 PM