Funny how that works every time, huh?

The restriction is that a church is not allowed to advocate for any particular candidate.  Saying that one cannot vote for a particular party, whose platform explicitly advocates several agendas in severe conflict with the tenets of one's faith does not do that.   Saying that one must vote for a particular person or party does do that.  Father Altman did the former, not the latter.

*

* Unless you are a democrat in good standing with the party leaders, then they can be named and have the church membership told to vote for them......

Obviously I am only writing about what the law says and not its uneven enforcement.  I agree with you.

When a Catholic politician wants to tout their Catholicity, it is incumbent upon clergy to correct that and explain the Church's position on those publicly known positions of the politician, and especially their party, which do not align with the Faith.

It is also the case that it is morally necessary to explain to people and remind them of their moral obligations. The State may consider itself separated from the Church, but Her members are not (unless they align with the State and get themselves excommunicated by assenting to evil for which said canonical penalty applies, as is the case of Biden, Pelosi, etc.).

There are certain topics which simply will never be seen as "nice" in their explanation (some people use the word charitable, but this is incorrect; charity actually DEMANDS correction whereas niceness is repulsed by the notion of conflict). Niceness is not a virtue in such a context, btw.

False ecumenism is diabolical. Many Bishops and Priests will answer for their silence, and pay for it by screaming in hell for eternity.

Very well said. Can we be friends?

That's what bothers me the most.  More and more priests are being vocal, but not as many as there should be.  I do not understand their silence.  We had a priest suspended here in Indiana last summer for calling Antifa and BLM evil.  Not a single one of his brother priests came out in his defense.  What makes it worse is that most of them agreed with him; they were just afraid of the bishop to say anything publicly.  

To an extent, I understand why they would not seek conflict since they have commitment to their parish (i.e.: if they get suspended, who would hear confessions, etc.), but some fights are worth fighting.  What is the bishop going to do?  Suspend all priests?

I meant the Bishop would agree with who was being reported on, not the reporter. I don't believe I said I thought the Bishop IS the church. I will re-read though.

ETA: I did indeed reference the Church solution and not that of the Bishop. I stand corrected.

We all know feelings are important. And as stated earlier, it IS important how you deliver the message. The planet is full of people that will ignore the truth because they didn't like how it was packaged and presented. To be fair, most of us just tune out what obvious assholes are spouting, so I consider it a universal failing.

On the other side of the argument... if you can't attack the message, attack and subdue the messenger. Father Altman's manner gave them an easy to exercise excuse, but I believe that in the end it wouldn't have mattered. They would have invented evidence to silence him if they had to.

And this is what continues to amaze me. Other people will set aside what are supposed to be strident beliefs to support something as transient as certain politicians. When someone else points the hypocrisy out they are ridiculed for it.

That particular council was on the outs with Father Beeman because the council was very insistent that they were an AREA council not a parish council and they did very little for the parish.  They do have a nice bar in the council hall.

What was unsaid in the article was that in the runup to this incident, Father Beeman had given that council very explicit limitations that, if they wanted to have a Democratic Party politician as the guest of honor, it must be someone below the state level i.e. at a tier of government that had no legislative/executive role in abortion law.

The council ignored his very clear direction and invited McAuliffe anyway.

Mr. Rogers himself could descend on a glorious cloud with Bob Ross and Steve Irwin on his left and right, and give the nicest explanation of the Catholic Faith, moral obligations, etc., and there would be no shortage of pearl clutching, shouts of bigotry, and outright frothing hatred.

Don't kid yourself.

Christ was never very nice in the Gospels, if one actually sits down and looks at how He addressed people. I'm not saying we should go out of our way to do our best impression of St. Jerome (original GrumpyCat, ftw), but you cannot ever be nice enough to keep the demonic from stoking hatred for the truth. Don't even try. It's like trying to debate a 3 year old. Just tell them the what's what and the how to, and let em freak out if they want.

My TLM pastor was very clear in the last year: he's ALWAYS going to tell it like he sees it and I quote, "I'm Mexican, I'm not going anywhere and I'm not scared."

His entire raison d'être is to lead us in spiritual battle. How can he do that as a wimp? What good is a milquetoast sacraments vending machine?

Maybe he should start a true church....

Do it.  


Now.

Implying that conservatism is on the wrong side of what issues exactly?

I don't think he was implying that, but I'll bite:

IMO, the death penalty and trickle down economics.

Insofar as we agree that people are composites of body and soul, I don't see how they are "regular people like you and me."  The sacrament of Holy Orders confers upon priests the power and grace to discharge their duties, which include teaching and preaching.  This is an indelible mark on the soul of a priest; it changes them forever.

Even if they were "regular people like you and me," hundreds of laymen showed up in support of the suspended priest in Indiana.  A Lutheran pastor even showed up to pray the Rosary with Catholics. Yet, not a single priest showed up.  One happened to be there, and when asked to do a blessing for the crowd, he was afraid.  He eventually changed his mind, and gave a blessing from his car lest the bishop see him.  Pathetic.



Why do you feel the need to keep pointing that out?

Doctrine is not a left/right issue; it's an up/down issue. That it can and often does interface w/ secular issues is a given, but those are not foundationally the problem, rather, are a symptom of the problem.

I would not describe myself as a conservative these days. On some things, I think the John Birch Society is too liberal and my position is somewhere to the right of McCarthy. On others, I'm sure I would fall on the "liberal" side of things to many "conservatives". Examples: I fully support the death penalty. We don't have enough executions and the appeals process is a joke which delays justice and hardens hearts of criminals who deserve it for heinous crimes (murder, rape, child molestation, extreme financial crimes like Jon Corzine). BUT, I think our legal system is wrapped around the axle on other things and we need to pursue a path which truly rehabilitates rather than simply punishes crime for which capital punishment is not called. 10-15-20-25 years of someone's life gone, and then dumping them out in worse condition is just going to perpetuate rather than correct social problems. I am not a "their business their rules" kind of guy, either. I hate libertarianism for the indifferentist, cowardly crap it is. Etc.

Jettison the seamless garment mentality. It confuses and flattens issues of sin and social ills, disallowing prioritization in any given location or generation. It's a superb tactic for the Marxists, but it make for skubala moral theology.

Do you think Fr. Altman is using abortion to cement his righteousness while ignoring the broader picture?

True, prone to the same temptations and even subject to more attacks, but with greater responsibility and greater powers and graces.

Edited because I am apparently drunk and used an entirely wrong word.

Concur.  Here's what I posted a couple of months ago in another of Zhukov's threads.

"I think the best possible outcome of this is a public repudiation of Cdl. Bernardin's Seamless Garmentbage, which many in the USCCB seem to treat as inerrant.  That would recognize abortion as the preeminent social evil in our day."

I've been following this closely.
Fr. Altman found himself in the Bishops Cross hair's after 8 women complained they were "offended" when he stated that you cannot be a Catholic and a Demoncrat.
His second run in was after he met with Bishop Callahan regarding the lock down of the churches and the abysmal lack of advocacy to reopen the churches or come up with an alternative that would allow the faithful to
receive the sacraments.
In the mean time, Fr. Altman's Sermons are being televised on you tube. Over the last 11 months he has amassed about a million view and followers between youtube and facebook because his sermons are
so full of truth.  As sanctions started being announced several Catholic outlets aired their concerns and in less than 3 weeks they raised ~ 750K to pay his legal fees.

Bishop Callahan has a track record of SILENCING conservative straight priests.
As a side note: Fr. Altman lives at St. James the Lesser in LaCross WIS where he cares for his two elderly parents.
Bishop Callahan has removed Fr. Altman from his parrish  to include his two beautiful elderly parents.  In his statement he said the Vicar general would assist Fr. Altman in finding housing but no one knows exactly
what that means.

This bishop cited Fr. Altman as not being and effective minister and being divisive and not promoting unity as the reasons for removing his faculties.
In the last 18 month 16 people left the parrish and over 50 families joined!

There is much more to this. But the document itself begs the question... what kind of MAN OF GOD attacks the parents of a loving and devout priest? Who puts 90 year old moms on the street?
Dad is 86. The letter which was delivered to Fr. Altman by Fedex removing his faculties as a priest and forbidding him to preach or say mass except in private, struck Fr. Altman where he is most vulnerable in the coldest,
more heartless way.

THAT IS DEMONIC

I would say the very definition of...

In the sense of fallibility and all of the failings we humans have, you are most certainly correct.

Drunk!!?

No need to apologize.  If anyone needs to apologize, it's me for going to the seamless garbage without awaiting your answer to whether you think Fr. Altman is using abortion to cement his righteousness while ignoring the broader picture.  Do you think he is?

Then I hope you can see why I am confused at your need to keep pointing out that there are others issues we need to care about in addition to abortion.

If (as you agreed):
    a. no one in this thread is using abortion to solidify their righteousness;
    b. Fr. Altman, who is the subject of this discussion, is not using abortion to solidify his righteousness; and,
    c. abortion is the preeminent social issue in our country
Then, why do you feel the need to keep pointing out that some are using abortion to solidify their righteousness?  I have yet to encounter anyone like that, but I'll take your word that you have.  Even so, what does that have to do with Fr. Altman or his unjust suspension?  At best it's confusing noise.  That is why two of us inferred the seamless garment.  It's the looks like a duck, walks like a duck shortcut.


If:
    a. Half of Catholics vote for pro-baby-murdering politicians;
    b. Clergymen in general fail to address this behavior;
    c. Fr. Altman spoke the truth about abortion; and,
    d. Bp. Callahan was wrong to suspend him
Then, why do you feel the need to point out that Fr. Altman is not perfect?  What does that have to do with this unjust suspension?  No one is saying that Fr. Altman is perfect and no one is saying that Bp. Callahan has no redeeming attributes.

Putting this on a separate post for clarity.

The relevant facts about his suspension are that he was first corrected for his tone (while the bishop fully agreed with the message) and then later suspended him for being divisive and ineffective.

Let's look at each of those components:

1. The message.  This is an easy one.  No one in this thread or the even bishop disagrees with it.

2. The tone.  I loosely quoted Fr. Goring saying that Fr. Altman is a little rough around the edges like most prophets we see in Scripture.  I stated earlier that his tone is well within the norms we see in Scripture or lives of the saints.  Some quick examples:
    a. Jesus drives out people with a whip.  Certainly harsher than a harsh word.
    b. Jesus calls people snakes and brood of vipers.
    c. St. Paul tells people to go cut their balls off.
    d. St. Louis de Montfort beat drunkards with his fists for harassing him and the faithful during Mass.
There are plenty of others, but I think that proves the point.  What did Fr. Altman say that is anywhere as harsh as the examples above?

3. The division charge.  
    a. First off, we have to look at the premise of division in a negative context.  Is division always bad?  No.
         i. There was a time when God did not want Jews to marry non-Jews.
         ii. Christ Himself says he came to bring the sword, to divide man from father, daughter from mother, etc.
         iii. He will divide the sheep from goats, wheat from chaff, etc.
    There are plenty of others, but I think this proves the point that division is not always bad.
    b. Was Fr. Altman's message divisive in a good or bad way?  He rebukes sinners and that is not a divisive act.  It is part of his job.  Insofar as he spoke the truth, then I would say that anyone who found it divisive has separated himself from the truth.  Yes, priests should, as St. Paul says, reprove, entreat, rebuke in all patience, which is not say that there is no room for righteous indignation (as already covered above).  If people are offended over being called out for supporting pro-baby-murdering candidates, their blood is on their own heads because Fr. Altman has done his part.  If bishops are embarrassed that a simple parish priest is outdoing them in faithfulness and fervor, let them do more instead of getting offended.

4. The ineffectiveness charge.  I do not have the first-hand information on this claim, but from all I see, his parish is thriving (like most parishes with fearless priests), he went out of his way to provide sacraments to his sheep during the closures, the money coming seems to be above most other parishes in the dioceses, his parishioners love him, millions of people worldwide love him, raised $750k in mere days for his legal defense, even protestants are rallying in his support.  Seems pretty darn effective to me.

If anyone is disagrees with any of these points, I'd like to hear the counterargument.

Catholics, get busy writing your bishops to encourage them

Not a Catholic but I don’t disagree with him. His message wasn’t to non Christians with the intent of sounding harsh and driving people away. His message was to Catholics/Christians rebuking and admonishing them for allowing sin to creep into the church, not living separated lives and supporting politicians and causes that are contrary to God and the scripture. I see nothing wrong with his statement.


A question I do have and this is spurred by the Methodist thread in GD. My understanding(which may be wrong) is that each parish is owned by that local group and not the Vatican or diocese unlike the UMC where it appears they own the local church’s  property. So my question is this. If the Pope, Holy See and college of bishops decide to have a Vatican 3 and embrace full wokeness and change the church doctrine to allow openly gay and trans bishops, female bishops, gay marriage and other wokeness. At what point do local parishes and their priest/ bishop  go independent Catholic? Or do you continue to follow the papacy if they change official church doctrine to something contrary to the scripture?

It's a shame. I'm a Catholic. The church has gone to the devil. I don't go to mass as I'm not giving my money to the non Catholic church

Your summary is spot on.

The two components of Father Altman's actions.... The message and the medium as it were. If in fact we all agree that the Bishop's claims of division and ineffectiveness is in effect baseless, then despite the claims that he (the Bishop) claims to agree with the message I believe it is pretty clear that he does not.
If the Bishop has a history of silencing conservatives in his parishes then I believe it further proves that he does not in fact agree with the message.

7 women complained about the sermon in question. A Bishop with reported history of suppression took that as license to silence the Father. That is my read on it.

There are multiple complex components to your question, but in the context of your Methodist example, the parish is not owned by the priest or parishioners, but by the bishop.  The bishop is sovereign in his diocese.  There are some so-called independent Catholic chapels, but I think that's a rabbithole that leads well outside of the scope of this discussion.




Some individuals (even many I grant) may have gone to the devil, but the Church has not.  This is a great time to be Catholic.  I don't mean to brush off your pain; at least to some extent, I know how you feel.  I just don't think that checking out is the answer.  There are plenty of great parishes, chapels, religious communities, hermits, and even bishops that are fighting the good fight and are well worthy of support.

If an individual parish, priest, or Bishop is acting out of order then that is their sin and their problem. However, if you choose to use that as an excuse not to attend Church, then that sin and that problem is now on you.

One parish, priest, or Bishop is not the Catholic Church, and while there have been some statements or actions from the Vatican that have been disturbing, nothing dogmatic has been stated that could ever make one believe that the RCC is now in the "devil's hands".

I think you are using these types of situations as pretext for you poor Catholic choices, and this is not the best thing to do.

Forgive me in advance, but I think "going" or "not going" is a false dichotomy.  It's far more complicated than that.  You can't just quit.  That's exactly what the demons (for lack of a better term) want and would be handing them power on a silver platter.  

We all get dealt different hands.  You're only judged on how you play the hand you're dealt.  Believe me when I say I understand where you are probably more than most.  I've seen it all.  I'm the last person who will tell you that you have to subject yourself (and more importantly, your family) to any nonsense.  But I will say that you must actively resist, one way or another.

Pennsylvania has Latin Mass communities.  How far are you from one?  Start there.  There are always other options.  Quitting isn't one of these options IMO.

I would like to add, that going to mass is for you and your worship & Communion with God. Not a priest. This is why I love the Ad Orientum of the Latin Mass. We are to mentally place ourselves standing behind The Virgin Mary & St John as they gazed up at Jesus's sacrifice for us. It becomes more about the priest in the NO.

Attached File


Attached File


You don't have to tithe at mass.... no matter how sinful the priest is, it does not change the Eucharist.

If a member of the clergy doesnt have the guts to stand up for gods word even at the gates of hell he should find another vocation.

There is a nation wide group of catholic chuches not under the vatican or diocese.   They go by the pre vatican 2 ways.  They claim saint peters chair is empty.  Beginning to think they are right.

It is not empty. There have been greater controversial popes and times. Arian heresy, protestant heresy, etc....

The SSPX goes by pre Vatican II but still submits to the Vatican.

The sedevaticanists are schism/ heresy.

The problem is it is not just the pope.

The church hierarchy doesnt seem to stand up for the churches own teachings anymore.  I pray all the time that they find a spine and a conscience.

But it doesn't matter so much... as long as you can receive the Sacraments. (Which I understand isn't a guarantee anymore)