MAYBE FATHER ALTMAN AND DR. TAYLOR MARSHALL’S ETHOS IS TOO MASCULINE FOR A FEMINIZED POST VATICAN II CHURCH? OR ARE THEY OFF THE RAILS?
Does this interview help or hinder Fr. Altman’s precarious situation?
20 comments:
Anonymous
said...
Marshall is about as shallow as they get.
Dr. Jeff Mirius, begins his review of Marshall's book "Infiltration: The Plot to Destroy the Church From Within" thus: "To my great sadness, Sophia Institute Press has just published Taylor R. Marshall’s Infiltration: The Plot to Destroy the Church from Within. The publisher is offering it under its “CRISIS Publications” imprint, designed to address problems “with clarity, cogency, and force” through books that are “destined to become all-time classics.” Infiltration is certainly an all-time classic…in the category of conspiracy theories."
Mirius goes on to write: "I mentioned the profound lack of understanding of the complexity of the issues which such writers seem so easily to diagnose as good or evil, while attributing the evil to a plot. In the pages of Infiltration we find profound misunderstandings and gross oversimplifications of just about everything."
Mirius refers to Marshall's book as "Infiltration: An idiot’s guide to the problems of the Church."
Fr Altman is my hero. His bishop sounds like he will sacrifice him, make him even a bigger hero. At the end of time guess which of them gets into the wedding feast of the Lamb? And which of them will be cast out into the outer darkness?
Uh-Oh! Fr. Altman, it seems, has competition from Anonymous 5:40. Now this one think it's his duty to determine who gets into heaven. This ought to get good. Popcorn, anyone?
Anon 6:55/4:46 Concerned about your eternal destiny are you? You are quite right. You are not alone. Yet, what you write sounds so squishy, so uncertain, so knowing but not very kind.
Cardinal Ratzinger (in 1984) said the following;
"It is because the Church is Christ in the world that we are bound to say that there is no salvation outside the Church, because there is no salvation outside Christ. It is because the Church is Christ in the world that we are bound to say that it is without spot or wrinkle. However, in using the Mystical Body to continue His work of salvation Our Lord knew that the effectiveness with which it would perform this task would depend upon the zeal and sanctity of its human members. All Catholics are truly members of the Mystical Body, united with Jesus, its Divine Head, and with each other. But because we are human we are imperfect, and this imperfection can affect even those members in the highest positions, not excluding the Pope himself."
So, now, I am sure, Fr. Altman would not contradict the Pope Emeritus' 1984 argument, thus he remains a Catholic in good standing. Although your bishop might like you attitude, ultimately, cynical posturing, or finessing the gospel message might lead to a less desirable destination.
Yes, he may get "corrected" but at the end, Fr. Altman and others like him, will be helped where it matters.
Did you actually watch the entire interview? I have my doubts since you didn't address it, save for what appears to be a brief throwaway sentence at the very end, and you didn't exhibit any familiarity with anything in the actual interview. Rather you went full ad hominem at Taylor Marshall. Why didn't you address substance rather than making a personal attack as you did? Does Fr. Altman have a point or not?
Karen, either you are a man or a woman with various ideologies that makes you suffer from rage and anger or can't distinguish between what it means for an institution to have a masculine or feminine ethos. Thus, I did not post your comments as I didn't want to embarrass you. I would recommend you read the book "Men are from Mars; Women are from Venus". This should equipped you to make better comments on this topic in the future.
I know Taylor Marshall personally and actually helped edit his first book. Like many converts, he gave up an entire career as an Episcopal priest to become a lay Catholic. He's very learned, has a PhD in philosophy from the University of Dallas (St. Thomas Aquinas), and was very encouraging to me to trust God to grow our family. In fact, I nearly took a job as the principal at his children's school.
That said, I had mostly ignored him over the last 5 years while he's built a kind of media empire. However, I know he does most of that because he's trying to generate an income for a large family without the stability of his previous income as a priest. His children fiction books are excellent, as they are some of my children's favorites, and they've been translated in multiple languages.
Over the last few months, I have returned to watch some of his videos to see if he has gone off the rails as some claim. What I find is someone extremely consistent with the man I met almost 12 years ago: thoughtful, a family man, and very devout. He is also a Texan which explains some of the machismo that more delicate audiences might find off-putting. He always wore boots even if he was wearing a suit. He grew up in West Texas and went to Texas A&M for his undergraduate which is kind of like the boy scouts on steroids. He adamantly opposes schism and promotes praying the rosary daily as if it were his only mission in life.
I think people can disagree with his style and disagree with even some of his interpretations of things, and his book Infiltration could press some points too far, but I think I'm sympathetic to the notion that the house might be burning and most prelats and priests have been fine to ignore it for going on 50 years. Men without chests as CS Lewis coined.
I had read Mirus's hot take on Infiltration, but I've listened to Taylor give an explanation for the major premise, and I don't think anyone has rebutted that premise. As your pictures in previous posts show, something got through the filters and has disfigured the water (Infiltration). I do think there is a place for dissent that doesn't spur schism and is consistent with history, the Tradition of the Church, and the authoritative Magisterium.
No, I did not watch the whole interview nor did I comment on Altman. I've heard his Your Can't Vote Democrat or you Go To Hell talk, I've heard Altman say that lynching was just capital punishment carried out by a mob, that systemic racism doesn't exist, and other non-astute comments. So I was not inclined to listen to an interview of him by a person whose scholarship I do not put any stock in. That opinion comes from hearing other recorded talks by Marshall.
My post, after I comment that Marshall is shallow, are from Dr. Jeff Mirius's review of Marshall's book. The link's posted, so if you want to you can read it and/or Marshall's book.
The big problem is the words used, we are not to "condemn" to hell anyone. HOWEVER, it is the duty of every Catholic, whether layman, priest or bishop to point out, to discern, to CONDEMN behavior or associations that will lead one to hell. Who am I to judge, what a cop out, takes no backbone and keeps all your friends happy makes no enemies, keeps the collection coming, we are called to judge and reprimand, not to condemn the person to hell but to point out strongly that they are on their way. The blessed mother has been presented a lap full of dead babies, and I'm afraid that her son's judgement will be certain and swift. So vote democrat, bon voyage
No Anonymous @ 12:30p, Fr. Altman did not defend lynching nor did he minimize it but quite clearly condemned it, while using it to make the point abortion kills far more than lynchings ever did, yet its grave harms are ignored. You cherry picked his comments. Other commentators did the same in a transparent attempt to smear him. You should try to do better.
Fr McD: “ Karen, either you are a man or a woman with various ideologies that makes you suffer from rage and anger or can't distinguish between what it means for an institution to have a masculine or feminine ethos. Thus, I did not post your comments as I didn't want to embarrass you. I would recommend you read the book "Men are from Mars; Women are from Venus". This should equipped you to make better comments on this topic in the future.”
How patronising! ...and quoting over-simplified pop psychology nonsense as evidence to dismiss Karen’s viewpoint as well.
Romulus Augustus here, to the white liberals here who still believe or want to believe that the BLM movement is about saving black lives, you are either blind or a Marxist-Leninist yourself. The BLM movement was founded by three black LESBIAN MARXIST-LENINIST'S bent on the destruction of the nuclear family, Western civilization, and Christianity, please go ahead and read their website it's there for all to see! But I know you won't because you are blind or share their goal of the total destruction of The Untied States of America, come November if Biden wins you will NEVER recognize this country ever again, start calling each other COMRADE. The warning is fair and you have the choice God willing you make the right one.
"From 1882 to 1968 – so we’re talking a period of 86 years – there were 4,743 lynchings in the United States. Of those 3,346 were black, and I did not know this, but 1,297 were white. And the top three causes . . . Of the top three causes for these lynchings homicides and rapes were behind it all. So it was capital punishment. Carried out by a mob, never a good thing. But any such thing is terrible – one is terrible – How quickly we ignore that comparison of 3,346 lynchings over a period of 86 years, how quickly we ignore the fact that 3,000 blacks also owned 20,000 slaves and that 360,000 – compare 3,346 to 360,000 white men who died to end slavery. We never hear about that."
He equates lynching to capital punishment. It is not in any way equivalent.
He wrongly, wrongly, states that homicide and rape "were behind it all." Utter nonsense.
Emmett Till was "lynched" by a white mob in Mississippi in 1955. What was his "capital crime?" He was accused of flirting with or whistling at a white woman in a grocery store. Carolyn Bryant, his accuser, recanted much of her testimony in 2008.
In September 1955 an all white jury found Till's murderers not guilty of kidnapping and murder. In 1956, protected by double jeopardy laws, they admitted in a LOOK magazine interview that they had killed Till.
The same story could be told over and over about blacks and poor whites who were killed not for committing capital crimes, but because they were hated and despised and unable to protect themselves against mobs.
Fr. Altman is wrong. It is not murder and rape that were "behind it all."
His statistics about blacks owning slaves and white men dying to end slavery (a highly suspect statement) have nothing whatsoever to do with the grotesque history of racism and lynching. He is attempting to support is assertion with data that is wholly unrelated to his premise.
"His statistics about blacks owning slaves and white men dying to end slavery (a highly suspect statement)"
A highly suspect statement? Over 300,000 soldiers died fighting for the North in the Civil war. Was each and everyone of them personally fighting to end slavery? Certainly not. But they fought for the side in the war for which the end result was to end slavery.
At one time in this country (and in a number others) the common method of capital punishment was hanging. Quite a few of these were spectacles attended by a public gathering. Both the legal system and the public at large accepted this method of capital punishment
There were lynchings that were the result of a mob taking the law into its own hands. There was an incident in the area where I live where a black man had killed a sheriffs deputy. This was back in the 1920's. The man was put aboard a train under guard to be taken to another city. A mob loaded into vehicles and caught up with the train in a close by town where it had stopped to take on passengers. The promptly boarded it and removed the man and then lynched him. Of course what the mob did was absolutely wrong. This kind of thing did occur though. How frequently I don't know.
20 comments:
Marshall is about as shallow as they get.
Dr. Jeff Mirius, begins his review of Marshall's book "Infiltration: The Plot to Destroy the Church From Within" thus: "To my great sadness, Sophia Institute Press has just published Taylor R. Marshall’s Infiltration: The Plot to Destroy the Church from Within. The publisher is offering it under its “CRISIS Publications” imprint, designed to address problems “with clarity, cogency, and force” through books that are “destined to become all-time classics.” Infiltration is certainly an all-time classic…in the category of conspiracy theories."
Mirius goes on to write: "I mentioned the profound lack of understanding of the complexity of the issues which such writers seem so easily to diagnose as good or evil, while attributing the evil to a plot. In the pages of Infiltration we find profound misunderstandings and gross oversimplifications of just about everything."
Mirius refers to Marshall's book as "Infiltration: An idiot’s guide to the problems of the Church."
https://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/infiltration-idiots-guide-to-problems-church/
No, the interview does not help Altman. It was destined not to.
Fr Altman is my hero. His bishop sounds like he will sacrifice him, make him even a bigger hero. At the end of time guess which of them gets into the wedding feast of the Lamb? And which of them will be cast out into the outer darkness?
Uh-Oh! Fr. Altman, it seems, has competition from Anonymous 5:40. Now this one think it's his duty to determine who gets into heaven. This ought to get good. Popcorn, anyone?
Anon 6:55/4:46
Concerned about your eternal destiny are you? You are quite right. You are not alone. Yet, what you write sounds so squishy, so uncertain, so knowing but not very kind.
Cardinal Ratzinger (in 1984) said the following;
"It is because the Church is Christ in the world that we are bound to say that there is no salvation outside the Church, because there is no salvation outside Christ. It is because the Church is Christ in the world that we are bound to say that it is without spot or wrinkle. However, in using the Mystical Body to continue His work of salvation Our Lord knew that the effectiveness with which it would perform this task would depend upon the zeal and sanctity of its human members. All Catholics are truly members of the Mystical Body, united with Jesus, its Divine Head, and with each other. But because we are human we are imperfect, and this imperfection can affect even those members in the highest positions, not excluding the Pope himself."
So, now, I am sure, Fr. Altman would not contradict the Pope Emeritus' 1984 argument, thus he remains a Catholic in good standing. Although your bishop might like you attitude, ultimately, cynical posturing, or finessing the gospel message might lead to a less desirable destination.
Yes, he may get "corrected" but at the end, Fr. Altman and others like him, will be helped where it matters.
your headline says it all
TOO MASCULINE FOR A FEMINIZED POST VATICAN II CHURCH
to quote Yes Prime Minster, Bishop's Gambit
PM : What if I recommend a Rook by mistake
Aid :and some times you end up with a Queen
Anonymous @ 446-
Did you actually watch the entire interview? I have my doubts since you didn't address it, save for what appears to be a brief throwaway sentence at the very end, and you didn't exhibit any familiarity with anything in the actual interview. Rather you went full ad hominem at Taylor Marshall. Why didn't you address substance rather than making a personal attack as you did? Does Fr. Altman have a point or not?
Anonymous K frequently goes ad hominem while accusing others of doing so. It’s just who he is
Karen, either you are a man or a woman with various ideologies that makes you suffer from rage and anger or can't distinguish between what it means for an institution to have a masculine or feminine ethos. Thus, I did not post your comments as I didn't want to embarrass you. I would recommend you read the book "Men are from Mars; Women are from Venus". This should equipped you to make better comments on this topic in the future.
I know Taylor Marshall personally and actually helped edit his first book. Like many converts, he gave up an entire career as an Episcopal priest to become a lay Catholic. He's very learned, has a PhD in philosophy from the University of Dallas (St. Thomas Aquinas), and was very encouraging to me to trust God to grow our family. In fact, I nearly took a job as the principal at his children's school.
That said, I had mostly ignored him over the last 5 years while he's built a kind of media empire. However, I know he does most of that because he's trying to generate an income for a large family without the stability of his previous income as a priest. His children fiction books are excellent, as they are some of my children's favorites, and they've been translated in multiple languages.
Over the last few months, I have returned to watch some of his videos to see if he has gone off the rails as some claim. What I find is someone extremely consistent with the man I met almost 12 years ago: thoughtful, a family man, and very devout. He is also a Texan which explains some of the machismo that more delicate audiences might find off-putting. He always wore boots even if he was wearing a suit. He grew up in West Texas and went to Texas A&M for his undergraduate which is kind of like the boy scouts on steroids. He adamantly opposes schism and promotes praying the rosary daily as if it were his only mission in life.
I think people can disagree with his style and disagree with even some of his interpretations of things, and his book Infiltration could press some points too far, but I think I'm sympathetic to the notion that the house might be burning and most prelats and priests have been fine to ignore it for going on 50 years. Men without chests as CS Lewis coined.
I had read Mirus's hot take on Infiltration, but I've listened to Taylor give an explanation for the major premise, and I don't think anyone has rebutted that premise. As your pictures in previous posts show, something got through the filters and has disfigured the water (Infiltration). I do think there is a place for dissent that doesn't spur schism and is consistent with history, the Tradition of the Church, and the authoritative Magisterium.
Nancy Pelosi, She’s no more Catholic than the Dalai Lama. Perfect!
Anon 10:21
No, I did not watch the whole interview nor did I comment on Altman. I've heard his Your Can't Vote Democrat or you Go To Hell talk, I've heard Altman say that lynching was just capital punishment carried out by a mob, that systemic racism doesn't exist, and other non-astute comments. So I was not inclined to listen to an interview of him by a person whose scholarship I do not put any stock in. That opinion comes from hearing other recorded talks by Marshall.
My post, after I comment that Marshall is shallow, are from Dr. Jeff Mirius's review of Marshall's book. The link's posted, so if you want to you can read it and/or Marshall's book.
Systemic racism exists in the Democratic Party and Dem run cities. After all, slow joe biden says if you don’t vote for him, you ain’t Black
The big problem is the words used, we are not to "condemn" to hell anyone. HOWEVER, it is the duty of every Catholic, whether layman, priest or bishop to point out, to discern, to CONDEMN behavior or associations that will lead one to hell. Who am I to judge, what a cop out, takes no backbone and keeps all your friends happy makes no enemies, keeps the collection coming, we are called to judge and reprimand, not to condemn the person to hell but to point out strongly that they are on their way. The blessed mother has been presented a lap full of dead babies, and I'm afraid that her son's judgement will be certain and swift. So vote democrat, bon voyage
No Anonymous @ 12:30p, Fr. Altman did not defend lynching nor did he minimize it but quite clearly condemned it, while using it to make the point abortion kills far more than lynchings ever did, yet its grave harms are ignored. You cherry picked his comments. Other commentators did the same in a transparent attempt to smear him. You should try to do better.
Fr McD: “ Karen, either you are a man or a woman with various ideologies that makes you suffer from rage and anger or can't distinguish between what it means for an institution to have a masculine or feminine ethos. Thus, I did not post your comments as I didn't want to embarrass you. I would recommend you read the book "Men are from Mars; Women are from Venus". This should equipped you to make better comments on this topic in the future.”
How patronising!
...and quoting over-simplified pop psychology nonsense as evidence to dismiss Karen’s viewpoint as well.
Romulus Augustus here, to the white liberals here who still believe or want to believe that the BLM movement is about saving black lives, you are either blind or a Marxist-Leninist yourself. The BLM movement was founded by three black LESBIAN MARXIST-LENINIST'S bent on the destruction of the nuclear family, Western civilization, and Christianity, please go ahead and read their website it's there for all to see! But I know you won't because you are blind or share their goal of the total destruction of The Untied States of America, come November if Biden wins you will NEVER recognize this country ever again, start calling each other COMRADE. The warning is fair and you have the choice God willing you make the right one.
Anonymous 9:37 -
Fr. Altman's words:
"From 1882 to 1968 – so we’re talking a period of 86 years – there were 4,743 lynchings in the United States. Of those 3,346 were black, and I did not know this, but 1,297 were white. And the top three causes . . . Of the top three causes for these lynchings homicides and rapes were behind it all. So it was capital punishment. Carried out by a mob, never a good thing.
But any such thing is terrible – one is terrible – How quickly we ignore that comparison of 3,346 lynchings over a period of 86 years, how quickly we ignore the fact that 3,000 blacks also owned 20,000 slaves and that 360,000 – compare 3,346 to 360,000 white men who died to end slavery. We never hear about that."
He equates lynching to capital punishment. It is not in any way equivalent.
He wrongly, wrongly, states that homicide and rape "were behind it all." Utter nonsense.
Emmett Till was "lynched" by a white mob in Mississippi in 1955. What was his "capital crime?" He was accused of flirting with or whistling at a white woman in a grocery store. Carolyn Bryant, his accuser, recanted much of her testimony in 2008.
In September 1955 an all white jury found Till's murderers not guilty of kidnapping and murder. In 1956, protected by double jeopardy laws, they admitted in a LOOK magazine interview that they had killed Till.
The same story could be told over and over about blacks and poor whites who were killed not for committing capital crimes, but because they were hated and despised and unable to protect themselves against mobs.
Fr. Altman is wrong. It is not murder and rape that were "behind it all."
His statistics about blacks owning slaves and white men dying to end slavery (a highly suspect statement) have nothing whatsoever to do with the grotesque history of racism and lynching. He is attempting to support is assertion with data that is wholly unrelated to his premise.
"His statistics about blacks owning slaves and white men dying to end slavery (a highly suspect statement)"
A highly suspect statement? Over 300,000 soldiers died fighting for the North in the Civil war. Was each and everyone of them personally fighting to end slavery? Certainly not. But they fought for the side in the war for which the end result was to end slavery.
At one time in this country (and in a number others) the common method of capital punishment was hanging. Quite a few of these were spectacles attended by a public gathering. Both the legal system and the public at large accepted this method of capital punishment
There were lynchings that were the result of a mob taking the law into its own hands. There was an incident in the area where I live where a black man had killed a sheriffs deputy. This was back in the 1920's. The man was put aboard a train under guard to be taken to another city. A mob loaded into vehicles and caught up with the train in a close by town where it had stopped to take on passengers. The promptly boarded it and removed the man and then lynched him. Of course what the mob did was absolutely wrong. This kind of thing did occur though. How frequently I don't know.
Post a Comment