Catholic Online Forum

We have certainly never had a President who was not a monotheist.

Romney is technically not, but he practically is.

Mormons are technically polytheists. They believe that everyone who is a faithful Mormon becomes god of their own planet, and that the god(s) of this planet were once mortals like us.

This has little practical effect on their lives, but is technically what they believe.

Does it matter what religion he is really, practically, virtually or imaginary? What should matter is the fact he pledges to perform his duties in alignment with most Catholic principles. I don't care if he worships rocks provided he does all he can to bring this country back to its Judeo-Christian founding principles, does all he can to stop legalized abortion, stops taxpayer funding of abortion and contraception, honestly tries to rescind the HHS mandate, tries to undo the most onerous portions of Obamacare and does all he can to stop the inane homosexual "marriage" mandate we are facing. I could go on but it would amount to a recitation of the entire Obama "reign" of the past four years.

The Church says little about Mormonism per se other than that its baptism is not valid. Thus they are, technically, not Christians according to the Church.

CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH




RESPONSE TO A 'DUBIUM'
on the validity of baptism conferred by
«The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints»,
called «Mormons»



Question: Wheter the baptism conferred by the community «The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints», called «Mormons» in the vernacular, is valid.

Response: Negative.

The Supreme Pontiff John Paul II, in the Audience granted to the undersigned Cardinal Prefect, approved the present Response, decided in the Sessione Ordinaria of this Congregation, and ordered it published.

From the Offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 5 June 2001.



+ Joseph Cardinal RATZINGER
Prefect




+ Tarcisio BERTONE, S.D.B.
Archbishop emeritus of Vercelli
Secretary

Difference of views: Mormons hold that there is no real Trinity, no original sin, that Christ did not institute baptism

Summing up, we can say: The Baptism of the Catholic Church and that of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints differ essentially, both for what concerns faith in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, in whose name Baptism is conferred, and for what concerns the relationship to Christ who instituted it. As a result of all this, it is understood that the Catholic Church has to consider invalid, that is to say, cannot consider true Baptism, the rite given that name by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latterday Saints.

We have certainly never had a President who was not a monotheist.

Romney is technically not, but he practically is.

Logic will tell you, it raises the chances of Obama getting elected, it is an indirect vote for Obama and it is a no-brainer.

It seems to me that if the bishops thought it was a mortal sin to vote for Obama, they would have said so.

Do you think there are 257 voters in Florida who may not want Obama but don't like Romney either?

Hi All,

It seems to me that if the bishops thought it was a mortal sin to vote for Obama, they would have said so. They are not accustomed to be shy about their opinions.

Those who persist in manifest grave sinIt can be more difficult[4] to determine whether in a particular case all four elements referred to are simultaneously present:

a sin,
which is grave,
which is manifest,
and which is obstinately persevered in.
The action must be a sin in the eyes of the Church, not merely something distasteful or irritating; personal guilt on the part of the person concerned is not required.[12][13][14][15]

The sinful action must be "seriously disruptive of ecclesiastical or moral order".[12]

To be manifest, the sin must be known to a large part of the community, a condition more easily met in a rural village than in an anonymous urban parish. Knowledge by the priest alone, in particular through the sacrament of confession, is not a justifying cause for denying Holy Communion.[4] Public withholding of the Eucharist for little-known sins, even grave sins, is not permitted under canon law.[12]

Warning to desist, in the light of canon 916, from the sin before coming to receive Holy Communion is usually,[4] but not necessarily,[16] required to determine the existence of obstinacy.

I'm not sure if it matters, Bob.

Would you vote for an atheist with identical views to Romney's? I suspect based on the above you would, so to you, it does not matter.

Jeff,

Yes. But politicians are a little different. Pro-abortion "Catholic" politicians are "obstinately persist(ing) in manifest grave sin" within the meaning of Canon 915. The important difference is that Canon 915 does not concern itself with subjective culpability.

Jeff, we do not live in a Theocracy so I try my best to not let a candidate's religion overshadow his/her demonstrated and stated beliefs. It would be wonderful if we could elect a Catholic candidate, oh wait, we did that once, JFK, he was no shining example of Catholic virtue as I remember him. You see, it doesn't matter what a person calls himself, it only matters what a person is. I know many Catholics, myself included, who are not truly representative of the faith just as I know many non-Catholics who put many of us to shame.

It seems to me that if the bishops thought it was a mortal sin to vote for Obama, they would have said so.

In a brief but impassioned letter that will be read at Masses in the Diocese of Peoria on November 3 and 4, Bishop Daniel Jenky emphasized threats to the Church’s religious liberty and stated that “Catholic politicians, bureaucrats, and their electoral supporters who callously enable the destruction of innocent human life in the womb” are “objectively guilty of grave sin.”

Well, Obama did say he took responsibility for the Benghazi incident.

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has accepted all 29 recommendations in a report into a deadly attack on the US consulate in Benghazi, Libya.

The report found that systemic failures at the state department led to insufficient security at the consulate.

But it found no individual official ignored their duties, and the review has not suggested disciplinary action.

The report identified the state department's Bureau of Diplomatic Security and Bureau of Near East Affairs for criticism.

"Systematic failures and leadership and management deficiencies at senior levels within two bureaus of the State Department resulted in a Special Mission security posture that was inadequate for Benghazi and grossly inadequate to deal with the attack that took place," the panel concluded.

The report found a "lack of proactive leadership" among certain senior state department officials.

But it also said there had been "no immediate, specific" intelligence about threats to the mission.