>>>As I’ve said, the fact that Romney is Mormon doesn’t bother me in itself.
>>>>But their faith is NOT factually compatible with Christianity, either Catholic or Protestant. Romney’s faith is his business, as long as he’s not a Muslim or a crazy cultist. But his answer to a perfectly reasonable question is distinctly shifty.
And what about the Holy See Executive Order?
I was responding to the article rather than your comment on it.
The Vatican is a secular state as well as the headquarters of the Catholic Church. I believe that diplomatic recognition of the Vatican is usually considered to involve a state-to-state relationship. It doesn't really involve a judgment as to the truth of Catholicism. Numerous Muslim nations have relations with the Vatican, for instance.
On a related matter, it has been a long time since the American government has stood up for Christians overseas. They pretty well ignore persecution of Christians around the world, and it doesn't seem to matter who is president. Bush is certainly better than clinton in that regard, by nature and by instinct. He is pro-life where clinton was pro-abortion and perversion. Yet it can't be said that Bush has done anything more than any of his predecessors to protect the rights of Christians in China, say, or in Sudan.
As a Catholic, I do have problems with the Mormon religion, but I don't think it would be impossible for a Mormon to make a decent president. But as I've said, I also have problems with Mitt Romney. I think he's a flip flopper, that he's evasive, and that he cannot be trusted on some of the important issues.