Chris Matthews Says Evangelicals See Catholics (and Mormons) as Cultists. Is He Right or Wrong?

I was loaded for bear when I heard a clip (on the radio) of Chris Matthews saying, what sounded to me, that Catholics and Mormons were “cultists.” However, as I examined the clip further on my own, and heard it in context, I discovered that his comment, while still bigoted, had to be understood differently.

In effect Mr. Matthews was saying that southern Evangelicals consider Catholics and Mormons to be cultists and, despite that, they are willing to hold their nose and vote for “cultists” since they dislike President Obama even more. Thus Mr. Matthews did in fact make a bigoted comment, but he directed it against Evangelicals, whose views he simplifies, demonizes and caricatures. The video below contains his comments. And here are some brief written excerpts of what he said. Remember, he is saying what he thinks are the views of Southern Evangelicals:

It’s a bit garbled but to summarize, Mr. Matthews is saying, in effect, that the hopelessly bigoted Republican Evangelicals in the South are obviously prejudiced against both Mormons and Catholics, but they’re willing to put aside their concerns, for the moment, just to ensure that the candidate they chose is most likely to defeat President Obama.

It is clear that this is a prejudicial rant, it is uncalled for and simplistic. Evangelicals, where ever they live are more diverse and sophisticated than Mr. Matthews presumes. However I do have a couple of questions to pose about his claims, especially about how you think Evangelicals regard Catholics and Mormons.

First, I wonder if there has not been a great easing of tensions at many levels between Catholics and Evangelicals. What do you think?

I recall, as a youngster, that Evangelicals, (we often called them “Fundamentalists in those days), would quite publicly vilify Catholicism with terms such as popery, whore of Babylon, cult, Mary worshipers, etc. It would be almost unthinkable in those days (60s and 70s) for Catholics and Evangelicals to meet on common ground, except perhaps to debate the “errors” of Catholicism.

But I think there is a lot less of this today. To be sure, we still have very significant theological differences, and these do still cause some tension. However, I think the dialogue today is much more respectful between Catholics and Evangelicals. Our commonalities on Abortion and the moral issues have a lot to do with this. We have learned to work together and have grown in mutual respect.

I have personally come to appreciate the zeal for faith that many Evangelicals I have known have. Further, they have a fine tradition of good biblical preaching and a love for Scripture that is admirable. Differences in interpretation of Scripture are not minimal, but ultimately there is a lot of common ground on the premise that Scripture is the inspired and infallible Word of God in matters of faith and morals, and that it cannot be set aside for any purpose.

The steady stream of converts to Catholicism also shows greater openness and respect from the Evangelical side. They too have come to know, trust and respect us based on our work together in pro-life action and a shared vision on the moral issues of our day. We, as the Church are enriched by the gifts they bring with them from their Evangelical roots.

At least this is how I see it. While not not denying that some anti-Catholic bigotry still exists in pockets of the Evangelical community, I don’t see it as strong and widespread as Chris Matthews does. What do you think, do most Evangelicals see us as “cultists” or not?

Second, regarding Mormons the situation is less serene. I do hear a lot of strongly negative things said of Mormons by both Catholics and Evangelicals. And the word “cult” is often used.

Frankly I have concerns about using the word “cult” in reference to Mormons. First of all “cult,” as used in American English, does not really express the Catholic understanding. When the word “cult” is used in official Church documents, it is usually meant in a positive manner, (e.g. the “cult of the Saints”). “Cult” or cultus in the Catholic lexicon refers to religious devotion of some sort. The modern use of the word “cult” among Americans is strongly pejorative and not particularly helpful, especially where Mormonism is concerned.

To be clear, I do think that Mormonism is a false religion, or at least a heretical offshoot of Christianity, which has departed so far from the Christian faith as to no longer be considered Christian. However the use of the word cult may not help advance trust or engender a true or fair consideration of Mormons.

I want to say that I am no expert on Mormonism, but I have come to discover that neither are many of the critics I have heard. I have a Catholic acquaintance who is a former Mormon, and I often run some of the crazier things I hear past him. And though he is a clear critic of the Mormonism he left, for theological reasons, he often smiles at some of the wilder things. As for Mormons getting their own planet, he thinks this is blown out of proportion since it is not an official teaching of theirs, but a speculation of certain Mormons of how to interpret Jesus’ words In my Father’s House there are many mansions - Jn 14:2. According to him, most Mormons would simply conclude they don’t know what this means exactly, perhaps a house, a planet, but most just say they don’t know, except that somehow they will one day reign with Christ. As to the claim that they think they will become gods, here too, though a critic of Mormon theology on the Trinity and many other things, he thinks this claim is unfair, and a caricature of their belief that they will share one day in the divine nature. But this is a standard Christian belief too, (e.g. 2 Peter 1:4).

Now I can hear some of you now, “Boy, Msgr. Pope really has the wool pulled over his eyes and doesn’t seem to know that this is a dangerous cult.” Again let me say, I don’t really know much about Mormonism. But what I am saying is that if we are going to criticize it, let’s make sure we are fair and accurate.

As Catholics we know how many have distorted notions of our beliefs and practices, whether now or in the past. No matter how many times we say we don’t worship Mary, some still think we do, etc. Lets just be careful not to engage in the same things toward Mormons and lets be careful that we are critiquing real Mormonism, not just a straw man.

Back to Chris Matthew’s point. Is he right that Evangelicals (and many Catholics for that matter) see Mormons as cultists? If they vote for Mitt Romney, do they see themselves as having to hold their nose and vote for a devout member of a cult?

Frankly, while I disagree with Mr. Matthews on most Evangelicals seeing Catholics as cultist, I think he may be right on their attitudes toward Mormons. And, I would add that I think most Catholics see them that way too.

For the reasons stated, I would like to see us avoid the use of the word cult in reference to Mormons. Candid discussion of our theological differences is essential, and will become more so if Mr. Romney gets the nomination. Faithful Catholics will need clear teaching on the errors of Mormonism. But it will also be true that many on the political left will distort and exaggerate Mormon beliefs for their own political reasons. I hope we will be careful to avoid spreading false and exaggerated claims. Lets critique true Mormonism, not the secular and political left’s notions of it.

Chris Matthews cartoonishly says that Evangelicals consider Mormons (and us) to be cultists. I would like to think he is wrong on both counts and is in fact himself the bigot. And yet I cannot wholly say that the world “cult” is not often used by both Protestants and Catholics in discussions of Mormonism.

What do you think? Do Evangelicals still widely consider us a cult? Do you think Mormons are a cult? Or do you think we should find other ways of describing our differences. Is Chris Matthews right about southern Evangelicals? Or is he bigoted and wrong?

::Sigh:: It's never going to end, is it?

First of all, I voted for Rick Santorum in my state's primary. I would have been equally happy to vote for Gingrich had Santorum not been available. And my very Fundamentalist Protestant county, the only county in my part of the state with no Catholic church, went solidly for Santorum. It's sad to see Catholics, who depend on Fundamentalist Protestants to vote for their own candidates, continue to fire the guns of Singapore at those "awful" Fundamentalists. If Blacks are still stuck in 1954, it seems American Catholics are still stuck in 1928.

What do Fundamentalist Protestants have to do to get you to stop vilifying them? You complain about how Jews don't trust chr*stians, yet you continue to treat Fundamentalist Protestants as the greatest danger in existence, because htey might, you know, leave a flyer under your windshield wiper!!!! Heavens! What kind of sub-human neanderthals are these?

Honestly, I want to know . . . what is it you want from the people that produced me? You don't want to convert them because they're an embarrassment to you and you don't think they're "smart enough" to join the Catholic Church. So what do you want? Maybe you want to turn them all into mainline liberal Protestants? Would that make you happy? Who would vote for Santorum then??? (Although from one of the posts to the original article, Santorum might wind up being excommunicated if he doesn't kiss a copy of Origin of the Species pretty soon. Maybe he's not smart enough to be Catholic either.

I point out once again the utter hypocrisy of pretending that only Protestants can be bigots. Honestly, do you really want to go there? Do you? Or maybe it's because American Catholicism is an immigrant urban Democrat religion that makes it impossible for American Catholics to be bigots (you know, like Blacks can't be racists)? Honestly, this "victim card" being played by the church of Francisco Franco is getting a little old.

I ask again, what do you want Fundamentalist Protestants to do? You don't want them in your fine, upstanding intellectuals' religion, so what is it then? Do you want them to cease to exist? Or perhaps remain ever on the periphery, "acknowledging" a religion they will never be allowed to join (you know, because they're not smart enough)?

There was actually a time I thought Catholics and Fundamentalist Protestants were friends. Then I joined the Catholic Church, which at the time was in a period of anti-Fundamentalist hysteria. Every magazine, paper, and book available in the church foyer was chock-full of articles screaming "don't interpret the first eleven chapters of Genesis literally!" And then there were silly horror stories about how much Fundamentalists allegedly "hated" Catholics. I had listened to Fundamentalist preachers on radio and television my entire life and heard the Catholic Church mentioned maybe one time, but the Catholic media were convinced that at every Fundamentalist service there was nothing but attacks on rosary beads and "the whore of Rome." Why didn't I ever hear all this stuff???

So Fundamentalists, it seems, are inherently bigoted. Even when they don't try to convert anyone (and some Fundamentalists, like Primitive Baptists, are opposed to trying to convert anyone) they are metaphysically "bigots" simply by virtue of who they are! Is it genes and chromosomes? If so, then simply eliminate them. Honestly, that would be less cruel than the 100% constant total attacks and ridicule they have to endure from every single quarter! Believe it or not, when the voices all say the same things, it doesn't really matter whether they come from northeastern humanists or Catholic FReepers. At least these things from liberals don't constitute a stab in the back.

You think my anti-Catholicism is groundless. But I joined the Catholic Church. That Church claims to be "unchanging" and "universal" when it is neither. Everything the "church fathers" taught on the first eleven chapters of Genesis has been thrown out with the garbage (because it was embarrassing and they were "men of their time") while everything they taught that is hard or difficult for Fundamentalists to understand is brandished like a weapon. How is dismissing the fathers' as ignorant pre-scientific yobs and changing their teaching an example of an "unchanging" religion? And it is most assuredly not the church of all peoples, because the intellectuals who run it (like liberal and leftist intellectuals) cannot find room in their hearts for simple rednecks while celebrating every exotic illiterate country in the world. We get the picture, guys: you don't like us!!! You can quite screaming it now. We don't belong in the intellectuals' bosoms along with such worthy peoples as Sudanese escaped slaves, Mohawk "lilies," French little flowers, Aztec peasants, Mayan "cargo" workers, Filipinos, and all the other members of the human race. Maybe you (along with the liberals) don't view us as human at all? Why else would both ideologies go to such lengths to ridicule and demonize one solitary people while embracing everyone else so you can "celebrate diversity?"

How do Fundamentalist Protestants avoid bigotry? Is it bigotry for them to merely have their own religious beliefs? They're "not smart enough" to share yours, so what are they supposed to do . . . believe absolutely nothing? Would that make you happy? Fundamentalist Protestantism disagrees with Catholicism because it's a different religion than Catholicism. Religions that are different are going to disagree! It's the way these things work! If you're so smart why haven't you figured that out?

Maybe you want them to all show up for mass every week and sit in the back so they can hear about what awful, inherently un-Catholic people they are? That sounds like something John Calvin would do. I guess the acorn doesn't fall far from the tree.

This may get pulled, and it may get me suspended (and I've said it before anyway), but if I had managed to remain in the Catholic Church till I came here, I would have left anyway on meeting most of you Catholic FReepers. There is in you no sympathy, no milk of human kindness, no understanding for one solitary people out of all the earth. You adopt totem poles but the Hebrew Bible has to go. You insist that the events of Genesis 1-11 are uniquely impossible while accepting every other miracle you can even so much as hear about (the acceptance of but one destroys your precious "uniformity of nature"). You laugh at Fundamentalists for their anti-nomianism and "faith only" while your own "saints" ranted and railed against the G-d-breathed Hebrew ceremonial as "fulfilled" and something to be replaced by a Roman calendar created by pagans. And you don't get it. You literally can't see your hypocrisy in each and every instance. You love everyone but "rednecks," you accept every miracle except for the ones in those chapters, and you simultaneously condemn Biblical ceremonial while ridiculing those who aren't comfortable with post-Biblical ceremonial. If you would just use that logic you're all supposedly so skilled at, you'd see that that last one is a clear violation of logic by itself.

You think you're very good at winning arguments here. But I have seen you win precious few of them. I have seen you ridicule, insult (sometimes ethno-culturally), and boast of your superior intellects, and above all, label any and all disagreement as "bigotry." If I were still in the Church when I met you lot, I'd have been so ashamed I would have left at once. You call yourselves "conservatives," but you sound just like a Harvard intellectual putting down the hicks.

And all this after Fundamentalist Protestants have enthusiastically voted for Catholic candidates again and again. Still they're not good enough for you. I honestly believe that you can't be satisfied. Your demands can't be met because you don't have any. All you have is contempt for your fellow countrymen, fellow conservatives, and alleged co-religionists.

And to top it all off, if a sincere Catholic ever does come here who actually believes Catholic doctrine is supposed to be as unchanging as it claims to be, you gang up on him and run him off as a "Protestant" and "anti-Catholic." I believe such people's term for you is "Neo-Catholic."

You occasionally publish articles condemning Freemasonry for its rationalism, but your Church is far to the left of American Freemasonry in its attitudes. Indeed, your anti-Masonic articles clash sharply with your otherwise ultra-modern, ultra-"tolerant," ultra-rationalist, ultra-intellectual poses. The only things I can see about Freemasonry that you would object to would be either it being too "Biblically literalist" or else allegedly wanting to rebuild Solomon's Temple! (Is that why you are so suspicious of the Hebrew Bible? You think it's the "rationalist bible" of Freemasonry? On what grounds do the followers of Raymond Brown (which is what most of you are) to accuse anyone of rationalism!

Dear Fundamentalist Protestants, please continue to vote for Ric Santorum and every other worthy Catholic who runs for office, regardless of what their Church thinks of you. This is called "nobility" and obviously you have a lot more of it than some people (and the True G-d, unlike the Catholic/chr*stian "gxd," will see and understand). And finally, I beg you to do something I know you're far too stubborn to ever do: give the claims of Torah (Noachism and Orthodox Judaism) a hearing. I know you believe your religion is a "restoration" of "primitive chr*stianity" but it is not. These people who continually defame you are indeed the true representatives of that faith. G-d help you.

G-d help us all!

—Mary had no other children.—

There is no evidence to make such a ridiculous claim. You can claim that the word for “brother” is the same for “cousin”. Does that mean that, therefore, the word mean’t cousin when used in the bible? No. And the scripture to which you refer is not the only reference to Jesus brother(s).

There is plenty of evidence in the bible that whould cause a reasonable person to say Jesus probably had brothers. There is not one shred of evidence that would cause one to say Jesus could not have had any brothers.

—Aren’t you familiar with the Ark of Old Covenant and how the person who touched it died instantly?

Well, Mary is the Ark (in her womb) of the New Covenant — Jesus Christ. I believe that anyone who would have tried to touch her in the way you are thinking (sexually) would have died instantly.—

Did God tell them not to touch the ark? Yes. Did God tell them not to touch Mary? No. They are two completely different things. People died for touching the ark because they were expressly told not to. Joseph was told not to have sex with Mary while she carried Jesus. It is very, VERY clear. He was not told to NEVER have sex with her.

You, or whoever helped form your opinion on this, are being too smart by half. You are reading information between the lines that is not there while ignoring what is in the lines themselves. You are literally suggesting that there is some magical “unspoken” reason that people died when touching the ark while ignoring God expressly said NOT to do it, and you are saying that a person could touch Mary all they wanted but not in “that way” because of some magical power of God, while he gave no instruction to not do it.

See the difference?

—Read about St. Joseph and how he and the Blessed Virgin Mary lived celibate lives.—

It’s not in there. Nowhere. It is also not relevant. Whether Joseph or Mary had sex after Jesus’ birth is no more relevant to us than the frequency of their bowel movements. They were a married couple and all that that implies. Read about it in 1 Corinthians, or the old testament for that matter.

Arguing whether or not Mary had sex with her husband AFTER Jesus’ birth is like arguing the color of the donkey Jesus rode. It is irrelevant to Christianity.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Somebody's been lurking on FreeRepublic, LOL!