When Gov. Romney gives his speech tomorrow, there are certain things that he must say. And there are certain things that he cannot say. The problem is that he cannot do both.
The reason? Mormonism is not Catholicism.
When JFK gave his famous faith speech in 1960, he was doing so as a member of a broadly accepted Christian religion. Yes he had to address the anti-Catholic sentiment that came from certain religious parts of American society, but more than that he was saying he would not be taking orders from the Pope. He said that wasn’t going to happen and that his private faith and his public office were two separate and distinct things.
What Mitt Romney is trying to do is something radically different whether he realizes it or not.
What Mitt Romney is trying to do is to legitimate a tiny religion in a political context. No speech can ever accomplish that end.
In 1960, nearly 30% of Americans were Catholic. Today fewer than 2% of American are Mormon. More importantly, the fundamental tenets of Mormonism are not compatible with 2,000 years of Christian theology. This is NOT a statement of religious intolerance, it is a statement of theological fact. Mormon theology is in opposition to such basic Christian creeds like the Apostles Creed and the Nicene Creed. Mormonism uses the language of Christianity but it is not a Christian religion.
It isn’t even close. And in church after church this coming Sunday morning, pastors will be giving sermons talking about Mormonism – not because they have any stake in the outcome of the primary battle but because they will want to help their congregations understand the theological realities of this political debate. They will talk about Joseph Smith and about Kolob and Oliblish and, yes, special Mormon undergarments.
That is Mitt Romney’s problem. His faith is his problem.
Mormonism does not have the historic roots of Judaism, Christianity, or Islam. It does not have the historic roots of Hinduism or Buddhism. It is a faith that is younger than America. Americans are deeply, deeply suspicious about it.
And Mitt Romney cannot and will not talk about his faith in such details as to convince Americans it is a mainstream faith.
I wish that he make it a moot issue because the core of his message – I hope – will be a statement about the important separation of our faith from our politics…. to protect faith. We have crossed a fearsome line in American public life where a person’s ability to be a surrogate pastor-in-chief matters almost as much as their ability to be an effective commander-in-chief.
We are spending way too much time talking about theological nuances when we should be talking about legal and political and financial nuances. We are a country in a little bit of a stink right now and what we need are effective and impressive (but mostly effective) administrators in elective office. We don’t need to know much about their thoughts on this or that theological issue.
Mitt Romney isn’t giving his “JFK faith speech” tomorrow because his situation is as different as Mormonism is from Catholicism.
posted December 5, 2007 at 11:23 am
If I understand Mormon theology correctly, Romney believes he can become a god. That’s what most politicians believe too, isn’t it?
posted December 5, 2007 at 1:32 pm
The reason we’re in a stink is that Romney has to answer for his faith and not the idiocy he’s echoing about doubling Guantanamo Bay, immigration “amnesty” and the dismissal of Habeas Corpus. The only problem I have with his Mormon religion is there’s no hell to tell him to go to.
We might just as well be buying snake oil.
Great point, Canucklehead.
posted December 5, 2007 at 2:56 pm
I’m looking forward to this speech and the reaction to it.
It was the Religious Right’s political choice to make common cause with relatively occultic religious groups, generally as long as they have a façade of conservative-type Christianity. Now the chickens are coming home to roost.
The Mormons are perhaps the most respectable of the lot, but in the shadows there are also the Unification Church and weak relationships with a number of others undoubtedly beyond the pale of Christianity.
Another serious contrast to JFK is that Romney’s present Party denies the validity of church/state separation doctrine. They’ll get right to reinventing that particular wheel after the speech, I’m sure.
posted December 5, 2007 at 5:14 pm
David:
Catholics may have been 30% of the population in 1960, but it was a politically repressed 30%. Conventional wisdom (rightly, since it had never happened) said that a Catholic could never be elected President. And of course, JFK is still the only one even today.
Memories of the discrimination against Al Smith in 1928 and even James Blaine’s “rum, Romanism and rebellion” campaign in 1884 run long in American Catholic memories. How ironic, then, that the Catholic hierarchy so conspired against the Kerry campaign (a man who, while his reputation is that of someone clueless in faith, in fact spoke passionately and deeply about his Jesuit education) that President Bush won a majority of Catholic votes AGAINST A CATHOLIC CANDIDATE. And if the Catholic hierarchy hadn’t done this, frankly, the Iraq War they claim is an evil, unjust war would be over by now under President Kerry.
Sorry to keep mentioning your friendly competitor blog today, but I think Romney has to make the speech Rod Dreher wants him to make (which is not dissimilar to your ideas) — that whatever religious belief brings one to a place of sincere and effective advocacy of family values and the American Dream, on behalf of **all** Americans, should be accepted or at least tolerated by the Republican electorate.
(I could make a lot of arguments against Mitt Romney, but “family values,” traditionally the touchstone of GOP voters, is certainly not one of them.)
posted December 6, 2007 at 9:10 pm
Romney gave an incredibly moving and sincere speech. He is the real deal. No other candidate can hold a candle to him in character, intellect or drive. I am convinced that he is the best hope for America’s future.