Susie Madrak at Crooks & Liars makes a compelling case:

A lot of people, especially members of the media, are reluctant to ask questions about Mitt Romney's LDS affiliation. It's frequently compared to religious prejudice against Jack Kennedy's Catholic faith. No big deal, we're so much more enlightened now. End of story, right?

I'm not so sure. The difference is, Jack Kennedy wasn't a Catholic bishop. But if he were, and we knew about the problem of child sexual abuse by Catholic clergy and the extensive coverup by the church hierarchy, wouldn't some enterprising member of the media ask at least a few questions?

Because there is an extensive problem with such abuse in the Mormon church, and Mitt Romney was a bishop. From 1986 to 1994, he was president of the Boston stake, which is similar to a Catholic diocese. "Before that, Romney was bishop, similar to a lay pastor, of congregations in Belmont and Cambridge. Each job included both organizational work and counseling."

The fact that Romney was a bishop is significant for many reasons. It means that Romney was responsible for decision-making in his church, which is certainly something that JFK could never claim. And I think that if a Catholic were running at the top of the ticket in a general election, he or she should definitely be asked about child sexual abuse and the church, regardless of whether he or she was in a position of power in the church. I think it's important to know how a president feels about an organization that supposedly takes such an important role in their lives, especially when that organization is so obviously implicated in wrongdoing.

(Thanks to Slog tipper Michael.)