Bishop Lessard used to say that priests are not in private practice. I think this would also apply to the laity too under their bishop’s pastoral care.
Thus, I look forward to other brave bishops, like the one from LaCrosse, to reprimand and censure those under their pastoral care like Fr. James Martin, Fr. Michael Pfleger and President Joseph Biden.
61 comments:
I’ve heard of him but don’t know what he did to deserve this.
Father Martin is under the protective umbrella of Jesuit Provincials, and essentially immune to any bishop who might slap him down. And good luck getting a bishop to slap down another bishop who publically backs Martin, as several have done.
You are wasting your cheerleading on the bishops who slap down orthodox priests, as that is akin to cheering on a socialist purge of academia in vain hopes it will also get rid of organized crime.
Heroic? Maybe, maybe not.
The bishop of LaCrosse and so many of our other bishops seriously need to pay closer attention to this phenomenon, because, in many ways, THEY HAVE BROUGHT THIS UPON THEMSELVES.
Am I stating the obvious when I say that the preaching of priests like Fr. Altmann inspires a huge segment of the Church who look at the mediocrity that pervades our hierarchy and the hypocrisy of their actions and can't help but ask--no WAIL, "WHAT THEY HECK HAPPENED TO OUR CHURCH?"
While I KNOW a priest cannot openly and publicly defy his bishop, there reaches a certain point where Catholics see the enemy--pro abortion pols, homosexual priests, priests who promote homosexuality, liturgical deviants, bishops who utterly ignored Humanae Vitae and Summorum Pontificum, popes and bishops bowing before pagan idols--Catholics look at this mess and they are angry. There would be something wrong with them if they were not angry. Christianity is spiritual warfare and you don't practice warfare by giving succor to the enemy.
Did Altmann screw up? Probably. But his bishop is also treading a PR tightrope that could backfire upon him in a huge way, especially if Altmann becomes the next Savonarola. Many of us have tolerated heterodox priests in our parishes for years and nearly wept when a young, orthodox priest brings his enthusiasm to a Church that has been corrupted by compromise and the double-minded pastors and bishops destroy these young priests--priests we've prayed and waited for--and take them away from us so we can get more polyesterized, Geritol Catholicism that stands for nothing.
This is not going to end well and this bishop had better be darned careful that he doesn't drive away more Catholics. If we're such an "inclusive" Church, we'd better stop limiting that "inclusion" to the Church's enemies and treating her defenders like they are the problem.
Altmann's popularity is a warning to bishops everywhere that the stench of corruption has sickened the flock.
What he did is to stand up for Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Faith, yes yes I know I will be bombarded here as an Rad Trad but at this point we have no choice. As Father Altman said last year one cannot be a Roman Catholic and a member of the Democrat Party!!! He has the full support of Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano, which I would rather have than any modernist Bishop. And yes Archbishop Vigano is still in hiding from Rome, they have a target on his back and don't tell me they don't. Remember all you Traditionalist's we HAVE NOT CHANGED the Novus Ordo changed, we believe what YOU believed in prior to The Second Vatican Council, always always remember that!!!
What he did is to stand up for Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Faith, yes yes I know I will be bombarded here as an Rad Trad but at this point we have no choice. As Father Altman said last year one cannot be a Roman Catholic and a member of the Democrat Party!!! He has the full support of Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano, which I would rather have than any modernist Bishop. And yes Archbishop Vigano is still in hiding from Rome, they have a target on his back and don't tell me they don't. Remember all you Traditionalist's we HAVE NOT CHANGED the Novus Ordo changed, we believe what YOU believed in prior to The Second Vatican Council, always always remember that!!!
I' have heard Father Altman, at length, and although he may be aggressive in some of his statements, I believe this is an example of unequal justice and a double standard that is used against traditional minded priests vs. others who are truly renegades not against their respective bishops but against the teachings of the Church like "Father Ruff" whom you give way too much credit and coverage. Ruff should be thrown out ASAP and Father Altman given a promotion if justice where fair. The big difference in these matters is that good priests object to false demands made upon them by their renegade bishops while characters like Pfleger are apostates to the Faith and they remain secure. I think Altman's problems first surfaced because of his accurate teaching that true Catholics should not associate themselves with a political party that promotes evil ideology. This might be tough for people to hear but it happens to be the truth. So you seem to be in favor of punishing priests who have the courage to speak the truth. I'm disappointed in you Father. When is the last time "priests" like Ruff received this kind of harsh treatment? Can you name one? This seems to be a punishment that has only been used as a last resort against the filthy swine who were caught with their little members out of their pants not for priests who might question the authority especially if they are on the left or as you say, heterodox. I encourage you to rethink your adulation for "courageous bishops". That statement makes me vomit in this case. When I asked for coverage of the canceled priests issue this not what I had in mind. You should find yourself in greater agreement with Father Altman and other canceled priests rather than in the company of a guy like Ruff. I know where I stand and it ain’t with Ruff and Company. I’ll happily contribute money to all of these decent priests canceled by their corrupt bishops without reservation and encourage others to do the same! Can you please tell what you know about the bishop in LaCrosse that causes you to be so impressed with him? I’m curious.
Imagine this scenario:
A few weeks after Pentecost, word has reached Herod and Pontius Pilate about Peter’s fiery public sermon. Herod sends for Peter and meets with him privately for a couple of hours. After their meeting, Peter publicly announces that he is having a good dialogue with Herod and even appears at a couple of events with Herod and Herodius, greatly offending the young Christians who are aware this is an adulterous relationship. Herod arranges a meeting with Pilate, who also tells Peter that he too wants to “dialogue” with him.
Meanwhile, another of the apostles—an unnamed apostle for now—was also invited by Pilate and compromised himself by partaking in a Roman orgy. Almost all the Christians know about this, but Peter and the other apostles are remaining silent and giving him a pass. This other apostle, meanwhile has started telling his flock that we need to be more “patient” and “tolerant” with the Romans and that Jesus didn’t come for “perfect people”
One apostle, Paul, is having none of this. He has publicly criticized the other apostles for tolerating the false teachings and incontinence of this unnamed apostle, and the rest of the apostles have responded by ignoring him. Privately, he is criticized for being a “fanatic” and “too rigid”. In fact, no apostle in Jerusalem with permit any priest ordained by Paul to offer Mass locally, because they are “not in communion” with the “True Church”. Meanwhile, Peter continues to dialogue with the Jewish and Roman governments. Pilate has also announced that because of the good work Peter and his apostles do for the poor, they no longer have to pay taxes. However, Paul and all of his priests DO have to pay taxes, because they have been designated as a “hate group” since they won’t tolerate the sins so rampant in the Roman culture and preach against them.
Jesus decides to come back at this point.
What do you think He is going to do? WHO do you think he is going to rebuke?
Bishops should reprimand the renegades that the public supports as well as the ones that they don't.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bSuYuIdeT1M
I strongly recommend that everyone here look at the video above and pray fervently for the LaCrosse Bishop and Fr. Altmann. There are two sides to every story.
Not that I am defending Altman, as seems he went off the rails with his internet fame, has been appealing to mass media rather than own local, and firmly and publically defied his bishop. Not even Martin is dumb enough to openly defy direct orders of a provincial. He would have been far better served by playing suave word games same as Martin.
I watched a video clip of Fr. Altmann speaking very candidly. One of the things he said was that he and the other priests who have been cancelled were NOT going to leave the Church, but that the dissident bishops who push all the falsehoods and befriend the pols are the ones who are leaving.
I remember thinking, "That's really cocky. How can you dare to say that?"
But I thought about it. If you reject what the Church teaches, you have, in effect, left the Church. So many of the bishops we heap honors upon and many of the bishops who cancel these priests are indeed ALREADY outside the Church.
And what of Fr. Altmann? Has he too left the Church because of his defiance to a bishop who cannot tolerate truth? I don't know, but I find it hard to believe that a priest is required to obey disobedience. I don't know a whole lot about the bishop of LaCrosse, but I looked at the diocese's Facebook page and saw at least TWO posts with a "Prayer for Vocations". Not surprisingly, posting comments was NOT permitted.
Of course not! How can a diocese credibly ask its people to pray for more priests and then when the priests come, they are cast out and treated like criminals?
Again, many of us in parishes put up with mediocre to horrible priests for decades and we patiently pray for an end to it. A new priest finally comes along who preaches the truth and either the pastor or the bishop breaks our heart and removes the priest. How much longer do they think we are going to keep taking that?
And these poor young priests--they often have to hide their orthodoxy throughout their seminary training. They have to sit in silence while the homosexual circuit party rages around them in the dorms, knowing that if they speak up, it is all over. When are they finally free to proclaim the truth and truly fulfill their vocations?
The truth sets us free. Who is the enemy of the truth? Where do we see opposition to the truth? That should tell us all we need to know.
So 50 years ago Father Altman would have been a normal Catholic priest upholding the Faith. This is America like the world upside down.
To be crystal-clear: I am not going to weigh in on the merits of the bishop's decision, or on Father Altman's character, because I am in no position to do either.
Let me just focus in on very specific points.
First, above, we have the following claim attributed to Father Altman: "As Father Altman said last year one cannot be a Roman Catholic and a member of the Democrat Party."
Well, let's analyze this statement. It is actually false. And before you get all upset, let's deal with this actual statement, rather than whatever other ideas you are mentally associating with it. The statement, again, is: "one cannot be a Roman Catholic and a member of the Democrat Party."
The reason this is false is because there is -- to my knowledge -- no requirement to endorse any particular belief if you choose to call yourself a "member" of the Democratic Party. How, precisely, does one even become a "member" of the Democratic Party? Do you simply call yourself a Democrat? Do you ask for the Democratic ballot in a primary election? Do you fill out some form somewhere? Do you show up at a meeting and participate in some ritual?
If you are going to come back and insist on the truth of the statement, which I assert is false, then answer the question I just posed, and be prepared to defend your answer, or we are all wasting our time. The reason precision matters is because saying that someone is not a Catholic is very serious business, so if you can't be precise, if you can't really defend a gut feeling, then you don't get to read someone out of the Catholic Church. Of course, when someone online says such a thing, it doesn't matter so much; but when a priest publicly says so (if indeed he did), then it's very serious indeed.
In Ohio, where I live, you become a Democrat or a Republican by asking for a primary ballot. To be clear: I am not a Democrat, although I did ask for such a ballot way, way back in 1980. But supposing I were to ask for such a ballot: please explain how requesting that ballot, in itself, is a mortal sin? Answer: it is not.
Now, I can guess what people think this statement means -- what they really mean by it: that giving formal, i.e., intentional, support to any of several beliefs (which we can specify later) with which the Democratic Party has allied itself, is gravely sinful and cannot be reconciled with the Catholic Faith. AH! Now that statement can be defended! But that's not the statement attributed to Father Altman.
To take it one more step: prudence might suggest focusing on the problematic beliefs themselves, rather than focusing on the label "Democrat/Democratic" -- this would be prudent because then we don't get derailed into a tit-for-tat about what's bad about both parties and who is "worse." Then we might even reword this statement one more time:
"There are several prominent ideas being advanced in current politics that many Catholics (either voters or office-holders) adhere to -- yet they are endorsements of gravely immoral things and they cannot be reconciled with the Catholic Faith. Those include..."
And guess what? The bishops themselves have made such statements over and over. It is very hard to believe that any priest would get in trouble if he repeated and even restated, with greater piquancy, these latter statements. In my preaching, I try, as do other priests. But it's not nearly as exciting as declaring every member of a huge political party bad Catholics.
FYI, if you respond and expect me to respond to your response, add some "nom de plume" to your post so I can distinguish you from any other anonymous poster. If not, no response from me.
Momentarily setting aside the issue of obedience to one’s ordinary, which IS BINDING on EVERY cleric, this does seem to be a rather one-way situation, as notoriously heterodox and/or heretical clergy are allowed to go on, and on, and on, and on misleading the flock with seeming impunity. I’ve often said if Francis Cardinal George (+RIP) couldn’t end Pfleger’s “Reign of Error” at St. Sabina’s in Chicago, then nobody could (or ever would).
Pray for our clergy...deacons, priests, and especially bishops!
Gaudete in Domino Semper!
So Father James Martin S. J. can openly support gay and lesbian causes which goes against the teachings of the Catholic Church and he’s held up on a pedestal, and Father Altman upholds Church teaching is considered the enemy, come on guys this is ridiculous, and you wonder why the Catholic Church is crumbling right before your very eyes wake up!
I was at a Mass in huge city, the Mass offered by a very well known orthodox and traditional priest, just before presidential election time, and he did it right, in his homily.
He simply did his duty by in-forming Catholic conscience of the flock by going point by point on major issues as to what the Church teaches on those various issues, and then told the flock to make their informed choice based on how well candidates would align with those teachings after running through both party platform planks.
He did NOT endorse any party or candidate, neither did he attack either candidate, and especially he did not attack voters on either side by saying they were traitors to the religion.
That priest still has his job and good standing even in the heart of progressive-land and still is able to teach and preach the truth and still do great good.
Outspoken firebrands generally neuter themselves by going and burning one bridge too far and destroy any good they might have done or could have done.
Fr. Altman is a political hot potato. Too bad because as long as the official Catholic leaders insist on wandering in the present modernist theological wilderness (Vatican 2) the larger culture will not receive the necessary warning to reform itself.
A large amount of super cooled water requires the insertion just a very small ice crystal and, then as if by magic, in a blink of an eye, the dish turns into and icy-watery slur. Fr Altman or some one like him might represents that small ice-crystal.
PS. The bishops when speaking out must be specific, name names not just give a general tut-tut
Father Fox,
Is it better when I'm forced to sin or if I do it according to my own free will? Maybe I feel pressured into publicly being Democrat, which the Party does have 48 million official members, because I'm a public school teacher and if I don't declare myself as a Democrat I might be considered a white supremacist and risk losing my job. In this case I don't think Father Altman is condemning the person. But I believe that if you are one of 48 million official members because you closely align yourself with the party's platform on abortion on demand, transgenderism, gay pride and that white people are bad then this does create some problems for the person who chooses this with their own free will.
You should have an opinion on the bishop’s decision because that’s what this is all about. Even if I accept your premise that Father Altman is wrong about the fine line he crossed the more important thing is to determine if what the bishop has done is an abuse of authority. It’s more important to know if the bishop is taking his action for disobedience or is it because he doesn’t like that a priest is teaching orthodoxy.
Maybe we need shock treatment for some of the people in the pews? After all you took a Democrat ballot in 1980 and maybe someone gave you a little shock treatment to get you thinking clearly? Whatever we’re doing now doesn’t seem to be working because too many Catholics think it is morally equivalent to support abortion on demand because they feel virtuous by supporting an ideology that thinks you fight poverty and access to healthcare by giving away someone else’s money.
The political statement that I find more offensive is the one where a cleric takes a sacrilegious political image of Christ and places it in a respectful and prominent place in a Cathedral in Rome. He got it as a gift from a Communist dictator. That’s the guy I want to relegate to his private room and force him to say Mass for himself for the remainder of his life.
Fr. Altman presented as Catholic teaching that which is not Catholic teaching.
"At this moment, allow me to respond to what has become somewhat of an intense, often belligerent reaction to a recent, and simply-stated truth: You cannot be Catholic and be a Democrat." This is not Catholic teaching.
"Here's a memo for clueless, baptized Catholics out there: You cannot be Catholic and be a Democrat. Period." This is not Catholic teaching.
Regarding the Covid-19 vaccine, the newsletter of Altman's church said it is “diabolical for anyone to virtue-signal/shame/compel you to take such an experimental drug, making you nothing other than a guinea pig. People who recommend the vaccine are “lying to your face.” Not only is this not Catholic teaching, it is erroneous in fact.
Fr. Altman posted in his church; "Dear family, the covid-19 injection is not a vaccine, PERIOD. It is not an injection of the lesser version of the illness, but rather an experimental use of a genetic altering substance that modifies your body, you temple of the Holy Spirit." Not only is this not Catholic teaching, it is erroneous in fact.
Fr. Altman has defied his bishop's legitimate authority, violating the sacred promise he made at his ordination to give respect and obedience to his bishop and their successors.
Fr. Altman has made his own bed and must accept the consequences.
In my opinion, this is why these Bishops are joining forces...because so many of these orthodox priests ARE teaching the truth for which the Catholic Church stands for. Since Vatican two, so much of our faith has been watered down to social causes. I believe this is a watershed moment here and now.We as Catholics should be prepared for the fallout of what is coming. We should be ready to stand up & behind our committed priests, as we are being attacked from inside & outside the Church. There are evil forces aligned against her.
Father Kavanagh,
Yet you vote for a political party that promotes itself and raises money as the standard bearer for women who desire to kill their unborn and demanded that the abortion mills remain open during the pandemic and that taxpayers support them. You have no credibility on moral issues compared to a priest like Father Altman. The sicker side of your party placed a banner “God Bless Abortions” on a statue of Christ in Arkansas. Quite frankly I do not understand how you dare approach the Altar
Michael A:
I am sorry, but if you intend your comment to be a response to my argument, you haven't responded at all to the actual argument I made.
When you talk to good priests like Fr. Fox and Fr. McDonald, and most of the other priests I've known in my lifetime, they will always tell you that their bishop takes their role very seriously and tell us what a virtuous man that bishop is. And I WANT to believe them. I have no doubt that in some cases, these bishops ARE good and virtuous men. So I am not writing this to contradict these good priests.
But then I have to look at the evidence. In spite of what, hopefully, is a cadre of good bishops in our Church, it's looking more and more like the larger body of bishops doesn't quite fit such a virtuous profile. We KNOW that "good bishops" KNEW--they KNEW what McCarrick was and they remained silent. And silence IS complicity when that kind of thing is going on.
And we see the bigger picture: A pope who mocks "proselytizing" as "nonsense" and just wants to "accompany" and "dialogue" with every enemy of the Church. Five decades of managed decline. Zealous efforts made to virtually ERASE or denounce the history and tradition (big and little "t") of the Church. Cardinals who don't want that "Old Mass' because it represents that "old outdated theology" and we sure as heck aren't going to tolerate THAT. Young priests bringing back Tradition? OUT! Catholics who practice traditional devotions and want to cultivate traditional piety? OUT!
The enemy just didn't get in the gates, folks. The enemies have infiltrated the authority structure. We know what to do when the Church is attacked from without, but we are in a real mess now, because we cannot leave the Church, but we cannot continue to let those in charge destroy it from within.
And they are more emboldened now than ever.
What Father Altman should have said is that you cannot be a Catholic faithful to the truth if you VOTE for or contribute a campaign contribution to a candidate who supports and is a member of a political party whose platform differs with Church teaching on a number of fundamental moral issues such as abortion,euthanasia,fetal stem cell research, and transgenderism..
How many priests spoke out against the Nazi party in Germany as it rose to power but were ignored and dismissed?
How many have been imprisoned and put to death for speaking out against Communism in those countries where that ideology rose to power and took control.
Can anyone argue that it is OK for a Catholic to belong to or subscribe to the philosophies of such parties or a candidate who runs on a platform aligned with a group such as the KKK?.
Let me say that I support the Bishop of Lacrosse in doing what he did. With Father Altman there were issues of temperament, demeanor, and delivery and him not being someone best suited to deliver the truths of the Faith out across the Internet as is someone such as Father Robert Altier and others like him. But beneath the surface of the galvanic and volatile Father Altman are issues which the Church and its leaders have not emphasized enough to the faithful as to their impact on the salvation of souls and the harm that has been done to society and the Body of Christ.
We know what we must do and that is to pray,fast ,and offer sacrifices for the conversion of those who have strayed from the Faith and to pray for our bishops and priests as well.
Well said TM 8:45 PM. An old saying I heard in one of my classes: Organizations tend to perpetuate themselves. Our collage of Bishops are selected often not for their sanctity, intellect, or other ordinary manly qualities. Why? Because
homosexual Cardinals and bishops will mentor and promote kindred souls. The McCarrick affair gives us a rich if depressing illustration of the clerical cesspool composition. The coverup continues because the corrupt are still dominate vital leadership positions in our American dioceses: North, Central and South.
So, "Bishop" Altman tells us that we cannot be Roman Catholic and a "member" of the Democratic party. Well, what exactly is being a "member" of the party? Someone who holds a position in the party? Someone who contributes money? Someone who votes in the Democratic primary, whether often or infrequently? If the reverend is saying that one can never vote for a Democrat, then he is way out there and there will be no sympathy from me. Sometimes if one lives in a heavily Democratic area, your choice as a moderate or conservative Republican is to vote in the primary for the candidate doing the least damage. Two examples of that were in 2002 and 2006 respectively, when voters in Georgia's Democratic primary ousted the controversial Cynthia McKinney, who represented the DeKalb-based 4th District. The only way to defeat her was the Democratic primary---no Republican could win her district then or as it exists now. Her replacement was hardly less liberal in either case, but lets face reality, a lot of times areas are dominated by one party or the other and sometimes you have to vote in the less than perfect party to have any say. Lets heap praise for West Virginia Democrat Joe Manchin who is helping to at least hold up a lot of the radical Biden agenda. As for the Reverend, glad I am not in his parish.
Father Fox,
Let me try again another way. According to you it's hard to actually be a Democrat party member and there are no real determining factors that qualify one as such. If this is the case then why care about Father Altman's assertion because it's meaningless and therefore he shouldn't be punished by the bishop, because his instruction applies to no one? Is it not fair for me to draw this conclusion based on your logic?
Your second line of reasoning suggested that I might call myself a Democrat, but if I reject most of the party's moral teachings I'm free to claim membership in the party and the Church. Do you know if their is one idiot out there that falls into this category?
If on the other hand when many of the 48 million party members that the Democrats claim to have work in campaigns, are delegates to conventions, contribute money to scumbags and argue that the party's platform is an honorable document then these people fall under Father Altman's definition and I would agree with him that they are no longer in communion with the Church. If I spend time promoting and defending evil with no intention of repentance then that pretty much seals the deal - no Communion. Isn't this what the bishops recently discussed and voted on? It's just that Father Altman has his yes mean yes and his no mean no compared to the bishops who will accomplish little because they'll create an unenforceable document.
Regarding Fr Fox's comment re party membership, in Britain one joins a political party by filling in a form and paying a subscription. This gives one a say in internal party matters, principally in electing the party leader. Most electors have no formal party affiliation (although they usually have an allegiance to a particular party).
In a General Election voters choose an individual to represent them in Parliament, and until 1974 there were no party names on the ballot paper, but in that year some joker changed his name by deed poll to that of the Prime Minister (ERG Heath) and stood against him in his Bexley constituency.
In practice, however, most people vote along party lines, but voting for a particular candidate does not amount to endorsing the policies of his or her party.
In 2013 David Cameron brought in same-sex 'marriage' although a majority of Conservative MP's opposed it. At this time I was canvassed by the Conservative candidate in a local election. I asked him his opinion on the issue. He replied: 'I think it's a nonsense'. He got my vote.
"What Father Altman should have said is that you cannot be a Catholic faithful to the truth if you VOTE for or contribute a campaign contribution to a candidate who supports and is a member of a political party whose platform differs with Church teaching on a number of fundamental moral issues such as abortion, euthanasia, fetal stem cell research, and transgenderism."
This, again, is not the teaching of the Catholic Church.
Expressing the Church's teaching, then Cardinal Ratzinger wrote: "A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation with evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stance on abortion or euthanasia. When a Catholic does not share the candidate’s stance in favor of abortion or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.”
Obedience to the Bishop cannot extend to supporting criminality nor teaching heresy or deliberately not teaching the faith to please a faithless superior. Yet we read about criminality in sexual matters, stealing funds, and Lord only knows what else. Fr. Altman gets attention not just because he is a charismatic speaker but also because he very clearly describes how faithless bishops can get away with faithless behavior. A simple Catholic such as this commenter is confronted with the priest-bishops relationship as nothing more than a feudal obligation that a ruthless, evil, or negligent superior can exploit at will. If priests protest unjust situations they can be sent to a psychiatrist or if he is a tough cookie and the bishop is in a good mood invited to go for a 30 day retreat. But this situation is so well known now that I apologize for boring you with it.
Fr. Altman raised important issues which must be corrected for the good of the Faith and the sooner the better. He offended against his oath of obedience. I propose he did it in self defense and in defense of the Church. He is likely to loose in this matter. However he is not the only one.
I remember listening to a pre-election homily one time from a priest. I'll qualify my remarks by saying that this priest was one of the two or three worst priests I'd ever known of. He did EXACTLY what some people here have suggested: He presented the POLICIES without presenting the party. I particularly remember him saying, "I would vote for the candidates who support a just wage. I would vote for a candidate who helps immigrants. I would vote for a candidate who helps the poor. I would..." and he went on and on to outline all the the Democratic Party's talking points without mentioning the Democratic Party that he was almost explicitly endorsing. He also conveniently left out anything about abortion or gay rights. He knew what "played in Peoria". It was a disgusting experience.
Unfortunately decades of "Roosevelt Democratic We're for the Working Man" inculturation and popular perceptions about "good social works" have dumbed down some Catholics to the point that you have to spell it out for them and get them to confront the lies they've told themselves. I think Fr. Altmann knew this and I give him credit for having the courage to speak up. I just fear that he has been a bit TOO courageous at this point and is signing his own excommunication papers. Nothing would delight the USCCB more than to see this man drummed out of the Church.
Michael said:
Let me try again another way. According to you it's hard to actually be a Democrat party member and there are no real determining factors that qualify one as such. If this is the case then why care about Father Altman's assertion because it's meaningless and therefore he shouldn't be punished by the bishop, because his instruction applies to no one? Is it not fair for me to draw this conclusion based on your logic?
No. May I suggest you re-read what I wrote: It is false to say that one cannot be Catholic and a Democrat. This is a false statement. How do I know?
I will pay you $100 when you produce any decree of the Church -- that says this. Nowhere is membership in the Democratic Party deemed, simply by joining it, a mortal sin.
Let me repeat, I am not a Democrat, so I can't speak for the mindset of those who call themselves Democrats, and what their *intention* is. I highlight "intention" because morality is all bound up with that. If I join the Democratic Party because I think, gosh, now I can kill more babies, well then, yes that is certainly a mortal sin. On the other hand, if I join the Democratic Party because I want to feed hungry people, that is certainly NOT a mortal sin. Again, "joining" the Democratic Party, whatever that means, in itself is not a mortal sin. You think it is? Show me a decree of the Church that says so. If you can't show me, then you pay ME $100. Hint: no such decree exists.
Many people "belong" to the Democratic Party, in Ohio and other places, simply by voting in that primary. In many places, the election happens in the Democratic Primary -- for example, the race for Mayor of New York. In such places, you may not have any prolife candidates; you may only have shades of bad. Is it a mortal sin to vote for the least-bad? Who may, in this case, be a Democrat? You may think so, but the Church has not said so. So here is a clear case where someone might (a) be registered as a Democrat; (b) vote for a Democrat; and (c) vote for a Democrat who is really bad on a key issue; however, is judged by the voter to be the least-bad alternative.
Michael said:
Your second line of reasoning suggested that I might call myself a Democrat, but if I reject most of the party's moral teachings I'm free to claim membership in the party and the Church. Do you know if their is one idiot out there that falls into this category?
I don't know them personally, but there are people who call themselves Democrats for Life. They say they oppose abortion and they want to get the Democratic Party to change its position on this very important issue. I would not call them "idiots." Whatever you may think of their efforts, I am not prepared to say that their efforts to change the Democratic Party to be more pro-life makes them guilty of mortal sin. Do you think so?
If not, then here is yet another example of how the statement attributed to Father Altman was false.
If on the other hand when many of the 48 million party members that the Democrats claim to have work in campaigns, are delegates to conventions, contribute money to scumbags and argue that the party's platform is an honorable document then these people fall under Father Altman's definition and I would agree with him that they are no longer in communion with the Church. If I spend time promoting and defending evil with no intention of repentance then that pretty much seals the deal - no Communion. Isn't this what the bishops recently discussed and voted on? It's just that Father Altman has his yes mean yes and his no mean no compared to the bishops who will accomplish little because they'll create an unenforceable document.
Father Fox,
I’m not the person who quoted Father Altman and I think you’re being pedantic about claiming that he has written a new rule that is to be followed to the letter. I’m familiar with what he said but I do not believe that he has created a new Catholic decree that says if you’re a Democrat you can’t be Catholic. In general, this statement is more correct than not, but you avoided the definition of party membership that I said I believe is consistent with holding people culpable for their support of a party that promotes evil. As I stated, if you read the party platform and you endorse it then this is a mortal sin and on that basis I claim my $100 reward.
As far as people who think they can be Democrats on the premise of false economic promises I believe they are idiots because government anti-poverty programs have been an abysmal failure. And for those that you say are fighting to change that party, they are bigger idiots because their efforts for nearly 100 years have created a party that looks and smells more like a communist/socialist operation than a party for worker rights and civil liberties. They know that they are complicit in promoting the overall party doctrine and the vast majority of them are in agreement with it. It would be much better for them to take an economics course so they understand the law of supply and demand and how competition works in a market rather than to be delusional about convincing a party that believes in post birth abortion to change its ways.
This story is much bigger than just Father Altman. It is destroying the vocations of 100s of good and decent priests who are willing and worthy laborers. People should go to canceledpriests.org and familiarize themselves with the many priests that are being put into a Soviet style internal exile. To encourage disciplinary action against traditional priests because they dare to adhere to Catholic doctrine vs. obedience to modernist bishops is foolish at best. I'm hopeful that the Coalition for Canceled Priests organization will grow and will begin to offer Mass and Confession in defiance of their respective bishops. This is no longer about what liturgical practices are appealing, this is about the fundamental dogma of the Faith. Trying to split hairs about whether a priest has crossed a certain line and pushed his bishop too far is a silly argument. The body of evidence is in plain sight and the truth belongs to the priests who have been treated unjustly. I hope Bishop Malloy is monitoring the collection basket at Holy Cross Church where it appears that contributions have shrunk by 35-40% since he ousted Father James Parker who is the only man or priest I've met that I believe is on the path to sainthood and many share this opinion.
Father Fox, I know you and Father McDonald are good priests, that’s why I’m more hurt by your thoughts on this subject. Good priests deserve your help and support not your criticism.
Michael said:
"I’m not the person who quoted Father Altman and I think you’re being pedantic about claiming that he has written a new rule that is to be followed to the letter. I’m familiar with what he said but I do not believe that he has created a new Catholic decree that says if you’re a Democrat you can’t be Catholic."
Look, I am sorry to keep repeating myself, but I suggest you go back, again, and actually READ WHAT I SAID!
Namely:
"To be crystal-clear: I am not going to weigh in on the merits of the bishop's decision, or on Father Altman's character, because I am in no position to do either."
So, I'm sorry you are upset about Father Altman's troubles but I am not responsible for them. And to emphasize, again, all I am doing is analyzing something attributed to him.
To say that a statement is FALSE, if it IS false, is hardly being pedantic. And I've shown that the statement is false, and you have had many opportunities to rebut me, and have not done so.
Let me state it this way. As a priest myself, who stands up in the pulpit, who sits in the confessional, and who speaks for God every single day, I take EXTREMELY SERIOUSLY the business of accusing ANYONE of mortal sin. For a priest to say that doing X means you aren't Catholic is really saying X equals mortal sin. That is extremely serious business. Don't you agree?
Or do you think it is OK for a priest -- any priest, including me, myself -- to be fast-and-loose in accusing other people of being bad Catholics? I really don't think you *are* OK with that, and you shouldn't be OK with that.
You can say all day long that, Oh, I'm sure what Father Altman (if he said the quote above) *really meant was*...but Father Altman is a big boy. He has a responsibility to be careful when accusing anyone of mortal sin. Same for me! Same for you and everyone, don't you think?
It's not that hard to get this right. Instead of making sweeping statements that are false -- you can't be a Democrat and be a Catholic -- why not just get it right: you can't endorse grave moral evil (examples A, B, C, etc.) and be in communion with the Church?
You know why this isn't merely being "pedantic"? Because when you say it WRONG, you mislead people. You alienate people who might have been with you, and you DISTRACT from the really worthwhile point that is buried beneath the slopply language. What results is a distracting argument about who is worse, the Democrats or the Republicans (and don't forget the Libertarians and Socialists and Greens), and that is not preaching the Gospel.
Expressing the Church's teaching, then Cardinal Ratzinger wrote: "A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation with evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stance on abortion or euthanasia. When a Catholic does not share the candidate’s stance in favor of abortion or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.”
Well, the situation we find ourselves in is that all too many Catholics do vote for a candidate knowing that the candidate supports abortion, euthanasia etc, and again, too many precisely because of this.
"When a Catholic does not share the candidate’s stance in favor of abortion or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.”
Ah... there's the rub: PROPORTIONATE reasons.
That's the camels nose under the tent that enabled many to support Naziism, Communism, and racism.
Yes, I do understand there are situations where a Catholic can vote for a candidate who is the lesser of two (or how many other candidates are running). But that was not the situation in the most recent U.S. presidential election and in certain critical House and Senate elections. You see, a political candidate is one who aspires to an office where he or she will wield power and influence. It is not a case of having convictions or philosophies as if it is no different than having a liking for a particular genre of art or literature.
Power is philosophy and conviction in action.
We see the damage someone such as President Biden can do and how much more he might do if he can convince enough Senators to go along with his nefarious plans. Many of these Senators in opposition to the President hold positions which are in line with Church teaching on the hierarchy of importance of issues(life being first) and most are not Catholic.
Our current President is the most prominent Catholic in this country. Unfortunately, philosophically and all too appropriately, the face of the modern Church in America.
He, and the country an our Church, needs our prayers.
Oremus - Your assumption seems to be that in voting for a less-than-ideal candidate after having determined there are "proportionate reasons" for doing so, these reasons must be in the category of "the lesser or two evils."
I don't agree that that is the Church's (or Ratzinger's) reasoning.
Also, you say, "That's the camels nose under the tent that enabled many to support Naziism, Communism, and racism." That seems to assume that those who voted for Nazi, Communist, or racist candidates dod so because they supported the candidate's Nazi, Communist, and/or racist beliefs. That may or may not have been the case.
I suspect many Catholic who voted for Biden did so WITHOUT supporting his stand on abortion. That is allowable per Ratzinger and the Church.
Many saw massive damage done by Trump, his allies, and his supporters and their "nefarious" plans. You may or may not agree, but that judgment is left to the conscience of the individual.
Father Fox,
As I said I believe the statement is generally correct and when you join up with hookers and thieves you need to be careful that they don't rub off on you. I don't need Father Altman to give me further explanation about what he meant or didn't mean. I didn't hear the interview he gave where he said his statement, but I believe that he would provide appropriate clarification for those who need it. Even the rule Thou shall not kill has exceptions to it, but God didn't footnote the commandment at least I'm not aware of it, but I don’ t hold it against Him. Maybe you can cut Altman some slack?
I understand the gravity of saying someone is committing a mortal sin and many people have written in this thread better than I can about the positions being promoted by leftist politicians that are mortal sins and those who support them are culpable either through willful ignorance or informed endorsement. I don’t think it is being fast and loose to conclude that Democrats support nearly every disgusting moral behavior there is. An occasional observer of American politics knows this. That’s why my reaction to Father Altman’s statement is that it rings true. The bishops have finally been shamed into addressing the subject because the beliefs coming from leftist politicians are so outrageous, they can no longer pretend not to notice.
You worry about offending or alienating people but I'm also concerned about priests who are for all intents and purposes excommunicated by being stripped of their priestly duties and don't you think that a bishop had better have good reason for doing so before he takes this action? I think you do; I know I do.
Anonymous K at 3:01PM,
Massive damage by Trump? You mean like minorities having their lowest unemployment rate in history? Rising wages for the first time in 20 years? No hot wars? Protecting religious liberties? Do you even think for yourself or just look at the DNC’s morning talking points?
Michael --
I've spent a lot of words here, so I think maybe you should cut *me* some slack regarding how you characterize what I said.
"You worry about offending and alienating people" -- that's not exactly what I said. If offense cannot be helped, then so be it. My point was about the problem with "saying it WRONG." Close is fine with hand grenades, but that's not a good approach to take in persuasion. Please explain the merits of someone being alienated when -- again -- the point is WRONG?
And if you're wondering why I even addressed this, here's why. We have people saying, golly, whatever did Father Altman do that might have caused problems? If he said what he's quoted as saying, then I can fully understand his bishop saying, that's wrong. If -- I say if, because I don't know the facts -- IF he refused to accept correction from his bishop on such a point, then that, too, is a problem.
I don't know the whole story here, so that's why I don't weigh in on the outcome. But if you think I, as a priest, lack appreciation for the problem of bishops overreacting, why would you think that? Virtually all my homilies are published online, and I try my best to lay things out in full; but yes, I also try to do so in a way that is persuasive, not sloppy and therefore, needlessly offensive.
Father Fox,,
Thank you for your reply. My mistake is to not have listened for myself to what Father Altman said. Here is the link, it is about 10 minutes long and he didn't simply blurt out the line we have been discussing. Is he aggressive, yes and might there be some showmanship, yes. However it is a professionally produced video presentation. I enjoyed his explanation for his problems with the Democrats and how prelates embrace them while having criticism for Trump. The lecture/sermon was recorded in August 2020. I think you'll agree that he didn't make a blanket statement but offers some reasoning to it and you should agree that what he says can't be characterized as false. People may disagree with him, but it is his opinion. His most explosive comments were the warnings he gives people knowingly aligning with a godless party /ideology that they risk the fires of hell. I appreciate your comments and I wish you were here in my diocese, but I'm not sure my bishop would think the same which is the difficulty I'm having. God bless you and thank you for your vocation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-7eoTN2vNM
There are those in our day who rationalize and justify their decisions with reasons for doing what they do that are truly not proportionate to the alternative except to their own corrupted judgement, and not in light of the discernment of the good and the true coming from a properly informed conscience through right reason applied to the teachings of the Church. A faulty conscience will not provide good guidance. We see the grave harm that can come or potentially come from such people and we see that in the policies and political actions of our current Catholic President who supports and enables all manner of evils such as abortion, fetal stem cell research, transgenderism, and Critical Race Theory which we can see even now is sowing seeds of division and discord. I pray that people who are now in darkness will come to see and know and understand the true and the good that is in what our Church teaches and not be seduced by that which is in opposition to that which God desires.
It is for us to consider and pray for such people with a Christian love and not for us to to loathe, despise, or detest them, since this does no good and only fosters further discord and division. We should also regularly pray for those in positions of power and influence such as our political leaders, the Holy Father, and all bishops and priests since fervent prayer is one sure thing that can bring about what is necessary for the promotion of the good and true that is so needed in our world today.
Michael A,
We have corrupt bishops and priests masquerading as Catholics but Father Fox is not one of them. He is orthodox, articulate, and practical. Please visit his blog Bonfire of the Vanities and you will come to appreciate him.
George - It seems you are saying that if a person, following his/her conscience, chooses a candidate that you, in conscience, consider unacceptable, that you conclude that this is indicative that the other person's conscience is poorly formed or corrupted, that their conscientious decision making is faulty.
Am I understanding your position correctly?
Michael:
I have to state, again, that the evaluation I offered in my comments here were NOT -- NOT -- NOT! -- about Father Altman! Further, perhaps you missed my repeated additional comment that I don't know and am not commenting on what HE, Father Altman, said! Your last comment illustrates why I was so careful: I never heard what he actually said, so how can I fairly comment on that?
So all along -- and I said this before -- I was commenting on a particular sentence, which I quoted above. That may, or may not, have been what Father Altman said.
Maybe that seemed like needless precision, but perhaps it is clear now why I took that approach. My comments would only apply to Father Altman, if indeed he said what I quoted (and which many people claimed he said).
So, with that, I stand by my prior statements, because they were directed to the sentence I quoted.
Father Fox,
Understood. I rejected your idea from the outset because I didn't accept the quote as the be all end all. I believed there had to be more to it than just the one line and as you know I wanted to argue a broader scope - my stubbornness. We now have the complete context of what was said and even though we might argue with him about style and delivery, I recognize his message as true. If I had to choose to describe someone as brave in this story it would be Father Altman and not his bishop. But, that's my argument with Father McDonald. With all sincerity I thank you for answering God's call. I don't think you priests hear this enough. People are fortunate to have you as their Shepherd. I lost mine in a similar way as what has occurred with Father Altman and it is painful. Christ's peace to you!
Michael:
Thank you for your very generous comments.
Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh:
I apologize for not responding sooner.
I think where a person, especially a Catholic, disagrees on fundamental moral issues, and not just disagrees, but is in a position of power and influence where the person can enable, and provide through legislation or executive order,the funding and implementation of moral evils, then a very serious problem exists. this is especially true with moral issues such as abortion,euthanasia, and fetal stem cell and other research, which in the order of hierarchy of importance, take precedence.
I make judgements in accordance with and in light of what the Church teaches on matters of morals and ethics, good and evil,right and wrong. The teachings of the Catholic Church are the sure and true guide for our conscience.
Being a Catholic true to our Faith means we are a people whose faith is in a living God, who is the Author of Life and in whom we "live and move and have our being". Human life was created by God in His image and likeness and so no human being has the right to take away the life of another except in self-defense or in the defense of society. A just society is also one where each human being is treated justly and fairly in consideration and acknowledgement of their status as being made in the image of God.
How we vote should be an affirmation and proclamation of our respect for human life, especially in its most vulnerable stages.
"The Gospel of Life must be proclaimed, and human life defended, in all places and all at times. The arena for moral responsibility includes not only the halls of government, but the voting booth as well. Laws that permit abortion, euthanasia and assisted suicide are profoundly unjust, and we should work peacefully and tirelessly to oppose and change them." (From Living the Gospel of Life: A challenge to American Catholics)
With internet search and other tools we have available to us, it is not difficult to find which candidates support the kind of just laws and policies which we and Catholics should and must support.
In the end we may not get the person we want in position of power, but we can always pray that the person, whoever he or she may be, will do what is right and just in exercising the responsibilities of their office. And we can and should take issue with them when they do things which are not right and just. I don't waste time in re-running elections and pondering what might have been. People get elected, people make decisions to vote a certain way and that's that. God is the only one who can judge us spiritually on our decisions.
We do have a responsibility as Catholics, both corporately and individually,whether in leadership positions or common citizens, to promote the common good in whatever way that can be done, and to always pray for those in positions of power and responsibility.
George - Thank you for your response.
I am thinking, though, of the decision made by the voter, not the candidate and his/her positions.
If a voter chooses to vote for a candidate who positions include some which do not comport with the teaching of the Church, does that choice indicate that the voter's conscience is malformed or his/her reasoning faulty?
I would argue that the answer is no.
The Church wisely, in my opinion, leaves the ultimate question, that is, "Do I vote for A or B?" to the individual. The voter may, in good, if not entirely comfortable, conscience, vote for the candidate whose positions are morally questionable if the voter does not agree with these positions, but determines there are sufficient (proportionate) reasons for doing so.
Fr K,
You've convinced me!
Billy Clutterbuck's little brother Jimbo Clutterbuck, aged 13.
And so the purge continues across the nation from diocese to diocese, orthodox and loyal priests are being removed left and right from their parishes by their bishops. father Altman is just one example because he is a high-profile priest, the whole thing stinks to high heaven and his diabolical nature. The left knows that the Traditional Latin Mass will never be destroyed, but the bishops and those in Rome are trying to do just that, Our Lord will never let it happen. Many more Orthodox and traditional priests will soon be on the chopping block, this is only the beginning my friends, you have not seen anything yet!!!!!
Father Kavanaugh:
It may be too late for this, but here goes.
I think this statement is essentially correct:
The Church wisely, in my opinion, leaves the ultimate question, that is, "Do I vote for A or B?" to the individual. The voter may, in good, if not entirely comfortable, conscience, vote for the candidate whose positions are morally questionable if the voter does not agree with these positions, but determines there are sufficient (proportionate) reasons for doing so.
However, it doesn't follow that this statement (which you offered first) is just as correct:
If a voter chooses to vote for a candidate who positions include some which do not comport with the teaching of the Church, does that choice indicate that the voter's conscience is malformed or his/her reasoning faulty?
I would argue that the answer is no.
At some point, that position obviously becomes untenable. If a candidate runs on a platform, say, of restoring Jim Crow, for example, what would be the circumstances that make that decision not indicate a "malformed" conscience or "reasoning faculty"?
Many more examples could be supplied.
The point I think Father Altman was probably trying to make, in whatever exact form his comments about the Democratic party actually took, was this: that at some point, the voter cannot plead innocent ignorance.
And one way to understand what Father Altman might have said about the Democrats is that he was trying to sound the alarm before they crossed the point of no return.
In any case, without getting into a debate about the Democratic Party, the main point I wanted to make was that your defense of the voter who votes "wrong" breaks down at some point.
Fr. MARTIN Fox - Your response raises three questions for me. You say, "At some point, that position obviously becomes untenable" and "...the main point I wanted to make was that your defense of the voter who votes "wrong" breaks down at some point."
Question 1 - At what point?
Question 2 - How does one know when that point has been reached?
Question 3 - Who makes the determination of when that point has been reached?
I am not going to try parse Altman's words in order to determine what I think may have been the point he was trying to make. We do have the exact words as quoted in his YouTube broadcasts and that is what I will respond to. As far as I am concerned, these statements can't be seen apart from and should be understood in light of the other assertions he has made that reflect, not Church teaching or practice, but his own preferences and biases.
This has been a fascinating discussion! Thank you good Fathers for being so generous with your time and words here. These thoughts should surely guide our thinking, and hence our voting behaviors, not to mention how we judge others’ words and behaviors.
—a silent minority
Father Kavanaugh said:
Fr. MARTIN Fox - Your response raises three questions for me. You say, "At some point, that position obviously becomes untenable" and "...the main point I wanted to make was that your defense of the voter who votes "wrong" breaks down at some point."
Question 1 - At what point?
Question 2 - How does one know when that point has been reached?
Question 3 - Who makes the determination of when that point has been reached?
I am not going to try parse Altman's words in order to determine what I think may have been the point he was trying to make. We do have the exact words as quoted in his YouTube broadcasts and that is what I will respond to. As far as I am concerned, these statements can't be seen apart from and should be understood in light of the other assertions he has made that reflect, not Church teaching or practice, but his own preferences and biases.
I am glad to clarify: I am not asking you to "parse [Fr.] Altman's words," so we can dispense with that.
Also, I am glad to let you off the hook from answering the three questions. So that also makes it much easier. Let me focus on what I thought was the clear emphasis of my prior comment:
Do you concede that *at some point* it becomes untenable to maintain a voter's choice for a candidate whose positions "do not comport with the teaching of the Church" does not, by that vote, indicate a the "voter's conscience is malformed or [that] his/her reasoning [is] faulty?
I really don't see how you can fail to concede this, but it's up to you.
Are you prepared to say that there is *no* foreseeable situation in which the party and platform to which a candidate allies him/herself is so manifestly contrary to Catholic teaching, that the voter cannot fail to have a malformed conscience? It seems quite obvious to me, and I think to lots of other people, that such a situation can arise, and actually has, in the last century or so. You cannot imagine it, really?
There's no point in even trying to answer the 3 questions you posed, if you deny the situation can even, ever, arise. But if you concede that it *can* arise, then the answer to your 3 questions can and will be guided by the Magisterium. See, that isn't hard, is it?
My mother grew up with fascism in Italy having been born in 1919 and only permanently departing Italy in 1956. The Fascist party like all political parties did some good things. But the evil they accomplished negated all of it. The Democrat party is the party of death and that ideology will eventually go down in history with the other political ideologies of the same ilk. And God have mercy on any priests complicit it it ideology. From Wikipedia: Fascist Italy (1922–1943)
Language
Watch
Edit
This article is about the Kingdom of Italy under era of the Fascist regime. For the puppet state of Nazi Germany from 1943–1945, see Italian Social Republic.
Fascist Italy (Italian: Italia Fascista) was the era of National Fascist Party government from 1922 to 1943 with Benito Mussolini as Prime Minister of the Kingdom of Italy. The Italian Fascists imposed totalitarian rule and crushed political and intellectual opposition, while promoting economic modernization, traditional social values and a rapprochement with the Roman Catholic Church. According to Payne (1996), "[the] Fascist government passed through several relatively distinct phases". The first phase (1922–1925) was nominally a continuation of the parliamentary system, albeit with a "legally-organized executive dictatorship". The second phase (1925–1929) was "the construction of the Fascist dictatorship proper". The third phase (1929–1934) was with less activism.[clarification needed] The fourth phase (1935–1940) was characterized by an aggressive foreign policy: the Second Italo-Ethiopian War, which was launched from Eritrea and Somaliland; confrontations with the League of Nations, leading to sanctions; growing economic autarky; invasion of Albania; and the signing of the Pact of Steel. The fifth phase (1940–1943) was World War II itself which ended in military defeat, while the sixth and final phase (1943–1945) was the rump Salò Government under German control.[2]
Kingdom of Italy
Regno d'Italia
1922–1943
Fr. MARTIN Fox - I will gladly answer your questions after you have answered mine. Saying, "...the answer to your 3 questions can and will be guided by the Magisterium" is insufficient.
My comment on parsing Altman's words in response to your doing do.
You said, "The point I think Father Altman was probably trying to make, IN WHATEVER EXACT FORM HIS COMMENTS ABOUT THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY ACTUALLY TOOK (caps mine), was this: that at some point, the voter cannot plead innocent ignorance."
We have that exact form in the videos posted by him on YouTube. There is not reason to speculate what that form might have been.
Father Kavanaugh:
Oh, for heaven's sake, I don't know why you insist on this jousting and evasion.
I don't know how many times I have to say that I am not interested in parsing, or defending, or prosecuting, Father Altman's comments. I think you do not have plausible ignorance in this thread of my having said so over and over. I'm rather interested in the broader principles involved.
Since you don't want to answer my question, then I absolve you of any responsibility for doing so. I might also point out I asked you first, so courtesy would suggest my question has priority, but don't worry about it.
Meanwhile, I will restate my own answer, because I don't see any difficulty in doing so:
Yes, at *some* point, a voter cannot in good conscience vote for a candidate who associates with a party or platform, when that party/platform is SO deviant from Catholic moral teaching. That seems obvious to me, and to others. Why you are resistant to affirming this common sense observation I cannot fathom.
And, at this point, my involvement in this thread concludes. I won't be responding further.
Fr. MARTIN Fox -
As for your absolution, it is not needed. I commented on your posts by choice, not because I had any obligation to do so.
As for "evading and resisting," I don't know why you won't answer the three questions I posed. I also am rather interested in the broader principles involved, particularly the primacy of the conscience of the individual. That's why I asked them.
You say you're not interested in parsing Altman's words, but that is exactly what you did when you said, "The point I think Father Altman was probably trying to make,..." and "And one way to understand what Father Altman might have said about the Democrats..."
I'll go with WHAT he said, not what I think he might have been TRYING to say or what he MIGHT have said.
The point where the line is crossed can be done in a very objective way. You take the moral issues that are at stake at you assign to them a level of importance so that abortion might count for a 33% weight, gay marriage is 25%, transgenderism is 25% capital punishment is 10% and social justice through squandering other people's money is 7%. If the party and/or candidate fails the scoring system then you have no right to support them. I think these percentages are actually pretty close to what should be used and under the scoring system Nancy Pelosi, Bernie Sanders, Joe Biden and Sandy Cortez would each score 17%, which is generous.
Post a Comment