CNA Staff, Sep 9, 2020 / 03:32 pm MT (CNA).-
After a Wisconsin priest said in a viral video that no Catholic can
be a Democrat, the priest’s bishop will attempt fraternal correction,
and said Wednesday the priest has inflicted a “wound” upon the Church. A
Texas bishop, however, has doubled down on his support for the priest.
“I am applying Gospel principles to the correction of Fr. Altman. ‘If
your brother does something wrong to you, go to him. Talk alone to him
and tell him what he has done. If he listens to you, you have kept your
brother as a friend. But if he does not listen to you, take one or two
others with you to talk to him.’ (Mt 18:15-16).”
“I have begun this process, not in the bright light of the public
arena, but as the Gospel dictates, in private,” Bishop William Callahan
of La Crosse said in a Sept. 9 statement.
“Canon law indicates that before penalties are imposed, we need to
ensure that fraternal correction, rebuke or other means of pastoral
solicitude will not be sufficient to repair the scandal,” the bishop
added, in reference to canon 1341 of the Church’s Code of Canon Law.
Fr. James Altmann, a priest of La Crosse, gained attention after an Aug. 30 video was published on YouTube, in which the priest said that “You can not be Catholic and be a Democrat. Period.”
In the ten-minute video, which has been viewed on YouTube more than
400,000 times, the priest said that he had “crunched the numbers,” and
“I came up with a pretty close approximation of how many Catholics voted
for Obama in 2008 and 2012. Zero.”
“There will be 60 million aborted babies standing at the gates of
heaven barring your Democrat entrance," Altman added, while criticizing
the Democratic platform’s commitment to legal protection for abortion.
The priest also decried the “climate change hoax,” and lamented "DACA- which means criminal illegal aliens,” he said.
He also criticized Archbishop Wilton Gregory, and praised President Donald Trump as “one of the best pro-life presidents.”
While the Catholic Church condemns support for the legal protection
of abortion, it does not prohibit membership in the Democratic Party,
and in recent months, some bishops have recognized the voices of
pro-life Democrats advocating for changes to their party’s platform on
the issue of abortion.
The priest’s video gained even more attention after Tyler, Texas Bishop Joseph Strickland “endorsed” it over the weekend.
“As the Bishop of Tyler I endorse Fr Altman’s statement in this
video. My shame is that it has taken me so long. Thank you Fr Altman
for your COURAGE. If you love Jesus & His Church & this
nation...pleases HEED THIS MESSAGE,” Strickland tweeted Sept. 5.
Strickland did not respond to questions regarding the video from CNA,
but did email a statement Wednesday afternoon, in which the bishop
reiterated on his support for Altman's video.
“I support Fr. James Altman's video because I believe, not only
Catholic Christians, but ALL God's people must ask themselves some tough
questions each time they prepare to cast their vote in any local,
state, or national election.
“Voting is not an easy task nor one to be taken lightly. On the
contrary; it requires research, prayer, and discernment. We must ask
ourselves- Do we believe in God. Do we as a nation believe in
God?” Strickland wrote, adding that Catholics must also ask themselves
if they believe in God's commandment's and in Catholic Tradition.
“Are we willing to acknowledge our sins and seek repentance and
reparation as individuals and as a nation? Are we casting our vote
through the lens of Jesus Christ and his Teachings?”
“If my
support of Father Altman can prompt meaningful conversations and
prayerful discernment about these questions, then I am at least beginning to fulfill my role as a pastor of souls and a disciple of Jesus Christ,” Strickland added.
For his part, Callahan noted that Altman has become a symbolic figure
in a fractured conversation about Catholicism and partisanship in
America.
Callahan emphasized that he understands “the undeniable truth that
motivates his message. When we approach issues that are contradictory to
the Faith and teachings of Jesus Christ and the Catholic Church,
particularly on abortion and other life issues, we should invite
dialogue and heart-felt conversion to the truth. Our approach must never
seek to divide, isolate and condemn.”
“That being said it is not only the underlying truth that needs to be
evaluated but also the manner of delivery and the tone of his message.
Unfortunately, the tone Fr. Altman offers comes off as angry and
judgmental, lacking any charity and in a way that causes scandal both in
the Church and in society. His generalization and condemnation of
entire groups of people is completely inappropriate and not in keeping
with our values or the life of virtue,” the bishop insisted.
Altman is the pastor of St. James the Less Parish in La Crosse. He
was ordained a priest in 2008, and had worked as an attorney before
entering seminary. At a previous parish, St. Peter and Paul, the priest was criticized after a cemetery care fund was reportedly drained, and upkeep at the cemetery declined. The La Crosse diocese did not respond to questions from CNA about the cemetery fund.
Callahan's statement recognized that many Catholics are looking to him for clarity.
“The amount of calls and emails we are receiving at the Diocesan
offices show how divisive he is. I am being pressured by both sides for a
comment; one side holds him up as a hero or a prophet, the other side
condemns him and vilifies him and demands I silence him,” the bishop
wrote.
“Most people expect a decisive move from me, one way or another. Many
suggest immediate penalties that will utterly silence him; others call
for complete and unwavering support of his views. Canonical penalties
are not far away if my attempts at fraternal correction do not work.”
“I pray that Fr. Altman’s heart and eyes might be open to the error
of his ways and that he might take steps to correct his behavior and
heal the wound he has inflicted on the Body of Christ.”
Ed. note: This report was updated shortly after publication, when Strickland emailed comments to CNA.
25 comments:
I would leave party designations out of it and simply say that if a candidate for office, regardless of party, supports in word OR deed, the taking of a life AT ANY STAGE, he or she cannot have the vote of a Catholic. To my thinking, there is a hierarchy to be followed here:
1. Pro-life or pro murder....including the death penalty...which I admittedly struggle with
2, 3, 4 etc: Everything else on the "social justice continuum"
Had Father Altman suggested this he might not be in hot water.
"While the Catholic Church condemns support for the legal protection of abortion, it does not prohibit membership in the Democratic Party..."
If the Church can prohibit its faithful from membership in fraternal organizations like the Freemasons because their naturalistic philosphy counters the teachings of the Church and encourages various errors like Indifferentism and Syncretism (to name but two), then I think it's time for the faithful to ask the question: How can the Church NOT prohibit membership in a political party that espouses and even encourages abortion and every type of sinful sexuality at the expense of the family? If anything the Freemasons are seeing their goals fulfilled by the tepidity of our bishops and the advancement of a Godless society in the political realm.
While I can appreciate that the Bishop of La Crosse is in the hot seat...well, it's his JOB to be a shepherd and take the heat when he or one of his priests takes an unpopular public position, especially in an age when we can call a pro-abortion man who has officiated at homosexual "weddings" a "devout Catholic". I'm sorry, but my respect for Bishop Callahan is diminished by this craven display of being a "company man" or, to paraphrase Lloyd Bensen: "Bisbhop Callahan, you're no Raymond Burke!"
We are too far down the road of perdition to endure any more moral ambiguity. Love him or hate him, the president seems to recognize that the "mainstream" of the US Catholic Church, as represented by the USCCB isn't really the mainstream at all. I would venture to guess that the Church is so fractured at this point that there IS no "mainstream". So we see Trump reaching out to disenfrancished Catholics and siding with "unrespected" bishops like Vigano and Strickland. And Vigano is right: We are living with a parallel Church within the Church, that uses its facilities and controls the authority structure, but operates like an anti-Church advancing a perfidious agenda.
Normally, I would agree that a bishop should not stick his nose in the business of another diocese, but these are not normal times. The "mainstream" of Catholic leadership is castrated. We are in such darkness that if we don't have some bold leader speak the truth, the stones will start shouting. Kudos to the Bishop of Tyler.
A history professor said it is morally ok to kill “fascists.” The Abortion Party is full of “nice” people. Wouldn’t you want your child to enroll at thst “university?”
Do you remember when St. Nicholas punched another bishop? When does obedience equal acquiescing to heresy? If one doesn't take Luther's position, is there a place for dissent but without the sin of schism?
Opinion: I understand the bishop’s response to a priest saying that a person can’t be a Catholic and a Democrat. I think if that priest reworded his statement to say that the democratic platform and the majority of its supporting members are anti-Catholic, the priest would have been correct. I understood when proclaimed life long Democrat Cardinal Dolan said “the Democrat’s have abandoned us.” I could also understand pro-life Democrat’s abandoning that party to effect a change in their anti-Catholic politics.
Perhaps Fr. Altman's approach was not the ideal however, the Church needs to unequivocally proclaim truth not picking and choosing. After the "corrections" and/or penalties are handed out, the hierarchy will continue wondering why so many Catholics are tepid? Hopefully, should it come to this, Mark Thomas' "Gift from God" will govern benevolently. A frustrating amount of precious time is wasted within our Church on matters such as these. Equip priests to proclaim truth (e.g. the best way to do so), don't penalize those who act bravely.
The Democratic Party has evolved so far from its traditional base of workers seeking to protect their interests and better their lives that it has become unrecognizable. Again, the approach aside, the conversation started by Fr. Altman and supported by Bishop Strickland has merit from the perspective of how we act and with who outside of the physical Church's walls.
Sounds like +Callahan is upwardly mobile on the USCCB ladder. We would not be where we are today--spiritually, societally, and politically had our bishops been true men of Faith these past several decades. Michael Voris is right!
Former Vice President Joe Biden on Friday told a black radio host that if the host can’t decide whether to vote for Biden or Trump, then he “ain’t black.”
Fr. James Altmann on You-Tube told Catholics that if they can’t decide whether to vote for Biden or Trump, then they “ain’t Catholic .”
Biden often mentions his Catholic faith as does Pelosi and AOC. If the priest is simply reminding Catholics what Catholics are, how does that go against the bishop? I do understand separation of Church and State, but the rant wasn’t given in Church. It was given on social media, which often is considered personal opinion and not that of the Diocese or Church
This why the church must answer this question, about the tax exempt status of churches, do you preach truth and the faith or worry about tax exempt status, The tax status has been used to shut up the Catholic Church since it's inception, the Catholic Church has a lot of assets and income, be a pity to loose it wouldn't it
Do the Bishops love god or money, inquiring minds would like to know, seems "they" would squelch the truth for money looks bad to a lot of us "pew sitters"
AND at the risk of being run out on a rail, Bishops have long failed the flock by not unequivocally calling politicians out when they publicly choose to stray. Recently, Cupich again gave everyone a pass from the pulpit. We may all find Michael Voris uncomfortable and distasteful from time to time but on this point I believe Church Militant is right on the mark.
I just finished listening to Fr. Altman's reflection. It sounds fairly orthodox to me. Unfortunately, Fr.'s orthodoxy will perhaps lead him to martyrdom within the Church BY THE VERY PEOPLE who SHOULD be saying these things and calling out those among their confreres who do not.
I wonder if in a different time and circumstance if our own commentary would not result in our respective censures.
Those that act like money changers in the Temple should not, in turn, wonder why so many Catholics are tepid.
One thing that causes trouble is when someone makes too sweeping a statement, such as: "one may never vote for a candidate who believes X..."
Why can't you make such a sweeping statement? Because the Church -- and basic reason -- can anticipate situations where a candidate who is described by the statement above, is opposed by someone who is significantly worse.
So, for example, we've had plenty of candidates of one party who claim to be pro-life, but in fact support abortion in some cases, or who support research that involves the destruction of embryonic human life. So the "may never vote for" dictum would seem to rule out voting for such candidates -- except that they were frequently opposed by candidates who supported legal abortion 100% of the time, plus euthanasia, plus redefining marriage.
Moreover, there are lots of things that can legitimately disqualify a candidate, beyond the well-known issues of abortion and redefining marriage. If you had a candidate who was 100% prolife, but who embezzled millions of tax dollars, do you think that person is disqualified? I would. What about a candidate who really is a racist and really does advocate fascist ideas? What if you learned that candidate -- right on abortion -- had abused his spouse?
I dread to think of it, and so do you, but -- I can think of possible, extreme scenarios where the choice is SO bad, that a pro-abortion candidate might seem to be the less-bad choice.
So let me go back to the original formulation and re-state it. No Catholic can vote for a candidate because that candidate supports legal abortion, etc. Reasons for voting for such a candidate despite his or her endorsement of grave moral evil need to be pretty serious reasons. Archbishop Chaput used to say it like this: when you arrive at your judgment day, if you meet aborted babies, would your explanation for your vote pass muster with them?
I will add that no one can ever be said to have an obligation to vote for any candidate or legislation, and that includes, as a subordinate point, that no one is obliged to vote for a "lesser" candidate; but with the right intentions and right reason, one MAY do so. I've run into this buzz saw in elections past when friends told me, oh, you HAVE HAVE HAVE to vote for So-and-so, in order to stop Such-and-such; and my answer is no. All you can really say is that if you cast a vote -- for or against -- for unworthy reasons -- then that really can be a sin, and potentially, a mortal sin.
It's really tempting to make sweeping statements about the morality of people, but it always gets one in trouble, because morality isn't just about the nature of the act, but the subjective intention, and the circumstances. Better to stick to sweeping statements about acts and don't mix them up.
Romulus Augustus here, I completely agree with ByzRC this could have all been avoided if the Bishops were doing there job as Roman Catholic bishops over the years and stop worrying about losing members because they don’t want to hear about Church teaching it’s that simple and now Father Altman Bishop Strickland are going to take the hit naturally. And you wonder why the fastest growing religion is ex-Catholics!!!
As the age old saying goes, it's not what one says, it's how one says it.
If specific parties weren't mentioned this could have been avoided.
The platform of a particular party does not necessarily imply that a person within the party will uphold said platform.
Politics and most policies are a matter of prudential judgement. But there are principles that should always be upheld.
The above said, I find it very difficult to think the policies of prudential judgement outweigh the abomination that is Abortion/Euthanasia.
Isn't it ironic...?
Bishops and priests stop preaching unpopular truths after Vatcian II, because they fear offending people and losing members.
The Catholic Church has been bleeding members since the end of Vatican II.
Why hasn't the management figured out the obvious and simple solution to this problem?
In the book "Stories of Padre Pio"(by Madame Katharina Tangeri pgs. 63-64) a confirmed socialist went to him for confession for the first time. He confessed to Padre Pio that he no longer believed in socialism and Padre then gave him absolution. In a subsequent confession, just after an election was held, he told Padre Pio that he did not vote for the Socialist candidate. "for whom did you vote then?". The man replied "for nobody" and related how he couldn't bring himself to vote for the alternative candidate. "Then you can look for absolution elsewhere".
In the book "Padre Pio the True Story (Bernard Ruffin pgs. 271-272) it is related how Padre Pio would go to vote despite the "huge crowds" which converged around him and others with him, and the reporters and photographers "who fought to get to him". In the election which abolished the monarchy by popular vote, Padre Pio "expressed satisfaction" at the result. When there was an election for delegates to the Italian assembly he urged people to vote for the Christian Democrats," who won an absolute majority over the Communists". Marxists then blamed Padre Pio for there defeat, claiming that his "very presence" took votes from them.
Two years later, prior to another election, Padre Pio wrote to Italian premier Alcide De Gasperi to express his support for the Christian Democratic Party. His friend Padre Agostino noted in his diary that Padre Pio was "lining up victory on the side of law and order" in urging all pilgrims to vote for the Christian Democrats.
Having read a lot about him, I can't see where Padre Pio would ever have given his political views in the way Father Altman has. Not that he would have disagreed with Father Altman's opinion of the Democrat party. But he had is own way of doing things which was very effective while being both circumspect and deferential to Church authority. Then again, those were different times.
Perhaps if Father Altman had said, " I, as a Catholic, cannot be a member of the Democrat party". And then given the reasons why.
“Perhaps if Father Altman had said, " I, as a Catholic, cannot be a member of the Democrat party". And then given the reasons why.”
Indeed, George, good suggestion with a great recent priestly saint’s historical perspective.
How about Father Altman just being a MAN a PRIEST who is just fed up with NO Bishops acting like bishops and teaching the Catholic Faith instead of worrying who they will lose or offend. Pope Benedict XVI said he would rather have a Church with a few believers than have a Church with many who don't believe at all, these were Benedict's words.
In my comment above, the fourth sentence in the second paragraph was supposed to read in part, "Marxists then blamed Padre Pio for < their > defeat"...
Sophia here: I agree with much that has been said above regarding the role of Bishops which ought to be true shepherds of the sheep and not abandon them when they see wolves coming-John 10:12.
The EWTN documentary, "Wolf in Sheep's Clothing", narrated by Fr. Pacwa, S.J. exposes how members of the Catholic clergy aligned themselves with (the wolf) Saul Alinsky, who eschewed formal membership in the Communist Party and was the author of "Rules for Radicals" which he dedicated to Lucifer. They even went so far as to bankroll some of his efforts because he was "for the poor" despite the fact that his means were absolutely ruthless. In fact the very first Catholic Campaign for Human Development (CCHD) fundraiser was authorized in Chicago with the help of Monsignor Egan on behalf of Saul Alinsky. That documentary is also the story of today except that we are so much further down that path that we are not just dealing with wolves in sheep's clothing but we are facing the catastrophe of wolves in shepherds' clothing!
There is no question that the Democrat Party's policies are radically pro-abortion, physician assisted suicide, radically supportive of gay marriage and transgenderism, radically pro-embryonic and fetal cell research, and radically anti-Religious Freedom, particularly Christianity. Nonetheless there are Bishops (shepherds) who are unwilling to boldly and unequivocally remind the faithful (their sheep) that these policies are intrinsically (by their very nature)evil and therefore against Church and Biblical teaching and that is precisely why they cannot in good conscience vote in support of these policies.
The choices in this particular election are absolutely crystal clear! Both parties are populated with sinners but only one party's policies are intrinsically evil!
May God have Mercy on us!
Sophia here: I agree with much that has been said above regarding the role of Bishops which ought to be true shepherds of the sheep and not abandon them when they see wolves coming-John 10:12.
The EWTN documentary, "Wolf in Sheep's Clothing", narrated by Fr. Pacwa, S.J. exposes how members of the Catholic clergy aligned themselves with (the wolf) Saul Alinsky, who eschewed formal membership in the Communist Party and was the author of "Rules for Radicals" which he dedicated to Lucifer. They even went so far as to bankroll some of his efforts because he was "for the poor" despite the fact that his means were absolutely ruthless. In fact the very first Catholic Campaign for Human Development (CCHD) fundraiser was authorized in Chicago with the help of Monsignor Egan on behalf of Saul Alinsky. That documentary is also the story of today except that we are so much further down that path that we are not just dealing with wolves in sheep's clothing but we are facing the catastrophe of wolves in shepherds' clothing!
There is no question that the Democrat Party's policies are radically pro-abortion, physician assisted suicide, radically supportive of gay marriage and transgenderism, radically pro-embryonic and fetal cell research, and radically anti-Religious Freedom, particularly Christianity. Nonetheless there are Bishops (shepherds) who are unwilling to boldly and unequivocally remind the faithful (their sheep) that these policies are intrinsically (by their very nature)evil and therefore against Church and Biblical teaching and that is precisely why they cannot in good conscience vote in support of these policies.
The choices in this particular election are absolutely crystal clear! Both parties are populated with sinners but only one party's policies are intrinsically evil!
May God have Mercy on us!
In 1931 Pius XI issued the encyclical 'Quadragesimo Anno' which developed the teaching of Rerum Novarum and stressed the importance of 'subsidiarity' in Catholic social teaching. For the State to assume responsibility for functions properly belonging to individuals and smmaller groups constituted a social evil. John Paul II reiterated this teaching in 'Centesimus Annus' (1991).
Pope Pius had before him the example of Mussolini's 'corporate State' but his strictures could equally apply to the 'welfare State' espoused by the British Labour Party. With a general election pending, the hierarchies of England and Scotland reassured Catholics (most of whom were working-class) that they could in conscience vote Labour.
In the 1980s the bishops (both Catholic and Anglican) were critical of Margaret Thatcher's economic liberalism, opposition to Trade Union militancy, and support for the nuclear deterrent, but they stopped short of advising their flocks whom to vote for. Apart from anything else, they must have been aware that many working-class voters supported Thatcher who won large parliamentary majorities in 1983 and 1987.
The Padre Pio confession story is clearly fanciful. Even if not voting Christian Democrat could be regarded as sinful the man had confessed it and so would not be denied absolution. And what happened to the seal of the confessional?
John, I did have second thoughts on including that first paragraph. Discretion does not always overule impulse.
In the books and writings I have read on the life of Padre Pio, there are accounts of people who told of being denied absolution and would relate how he had the gift of reading souls. There are numerous accounts of people telling of their experiences in the confessional. If there is the fanciful in some of that, I believe there is truth also, since it seemed to me that the authors of these books were making a sincere effort to find and write what was factual.
One thing that was surprising to me was how important he considered voting to be and he made every effort to vote despite the difficulties he encountered doing so. And it was not just in voting, but in who one voted for. In looking back at some of what had transpired in the times he lived in, one can understand why.
A loose canon...or cannon?
Has the Church ever made a declaration that certain people are in Hell? Stalin? Chairman Mao? Idi Amin? Hitler? If not, then what right does this priest have to say that Catholics who voted for Obama will end up there? A loose cannon (as opposed to canon!)....
Post a Comment