Am I the only person who actually DISAGREES with Father Altman's video?

[HumilityAndPatience]

Hi guys...

I have found the response to Father Altman's video quite interesting- particularly in the sense that it's been so difficult to find anyone I actually agree with! Or indeed anyone who will present to me why the below points I put forward are incorrect. 

The VAST majority of Catholics online have exalted Father's message, almost without even questioning it. Knee-jerk support. IMO Father's video contains fundamental errors. 

• The statement itself is plain incorrect. Below is a quote from Ratzinger in 2004 addressing this:
  • "When a Catholic does not share a Candidate’s stand in favour of abortion and /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"
  • Yes- of course... The issue of abortion is the issue which tips the scales the vast majority of the time... when we can see all ends. There is more than meets the eye to this, than just the party policies however
• Trump is just as much part of the establishment as Biden is. They are both demagogues to their voting demographics.
  • So, can we really see all ends? If you look a little deeper, you will see that there may well be proportionate reason to vote against Trump (the rabbit hole here is very deep)
  • Therefore, if someone does vote against Trump- are you in a position to say that they do not have proportionate reason? Can Father Altman see all ends?
• Charity is being discarded in favour of triumphant point-scoring
  • Boldly stating that people "do not love God"
  • Denouncing politicians and state workers as "Godless"
  • And insulting those who are perhaps not yet graced with certain knowledge as “Godless sheeple”
• We cannot see or judge hearts- only actions
  • Catholics who vote Democrat are "Pretenders and Imposters!"
  • Repent of your support for this political party or FACE THE FIRES OF HELL…
  • So, given all of the above, is it appropriate for a Priest to condemn someone to hell for their political decisions?

My views in longer form are in this video. Ultimately, I think this whole episode illustrates why the Church ought to be above politics....Bipartisan. She should not be drawn down into the point-scoring, anger and manoeuvring. This is how hearts are lost... And the swelling of activity in this space (i.e. the staining of Catholicism with politics) is hitting an inflection point...

Also shout out to who pointed me here a while back- you know who you are- thank you (:

[cutenickname]

I am a subscriber. I am also not Catholic. I agree with you. If it is any comfort Altman's bishop and the man I, a Protestant, think is the earthly head  of Christ's Church (the Bishop of Rome) also agree with you.

Offer it up. Pray.

[HumilityAndPatience]

2 minutes ago, cutenickname said:

I am a subscriber. I am also not Catholic. I agree with you. If it is any comfort Altman's bishop and the man I, a Protestant, think is the earthly head  of Christ's Church (the Bishop of Rome) also agree with you.

Offer it up. Pray.

Thanks @cutenickname your encouragement means a lot (: 

Catholic social media can certainly be disheartening but you are right- the hierarchy is what matters, indeed! 

Invitations to pray are always graciously accepted- great suggestion. Peace

[Peace]

Well his own Bishop already publicly reprimanded him, so I don't think there is any need for lay Catholics to publicly disavow him.

Personally I can understand why a person should have qualms about joining a party that has certain things in its platform that are contrary to the Catholic faith. I would not go so far as to say that a Catholic cannot be a Democrat. You would have to vote for Dems in spite of their contrary beliefs, if the person concludes that there are important reasons for doing so. Ultimately that is an analysis that each person makes for himself. I don't think I could find the reasons to justify it myself, at least at this point in time, but its not for me to say that it would be impossible for another person to vote for them, exercising his own judgment.

Edited September 21, 2020 by Peace

[dUSt]

I agree with many of his views, and I generally like to see more boldness from our priests like this, but I also think Fr Altman went overboard and was unnecessarily divisive. He was more right wing republican than Catholic in that video, IMHO.

 

[Ash Wednesday]

I've disagreed with his opinions on some political issues in some of his discussions -- like climate change or coronavirus. But I do agree with him about a lot. I don't know the first thing about being a good priest, but it must be incredibly difficult. We must pray for all of our priests.

Once upon a time it probably was easier for someone to be pro-life and champion Catholic values and remain in the Democratic party. But I think more and more, these people are getting demonized and pushed out of  their own party, and I genuinely feel for them. Times are changing quickly and the left keeps moving the moral goalposts. It's not just traditional family values and sanctity of life that the modern Democratic platform has become particularly hostile towards -- there are also matters of religious freedom as well. It's a nice idea that we could all just be "above politics" and live our lives in peace, but that can't really be the case when politicians, usually Democrat, mandate that Catholic individuals, institutions and groups like Little Sisters of the Poor be forced to cooperate with moral evil, or dictate what sort of values are supposed to be passed on to children in schools. The modern Democrat platform and the left in general is no friend to faithful Catholics and their values in my book. I certainly also find the GOP disappointing in many respects, and their failures are often a catalyst for backlash that turns people to the Democrats. But to me the left's agenda in general has become so particularly evil, they openly support things that I do NOT consider negotiable, and Democrats, especially Catholic Democrats, should be called out for espousing it.

We've hashed out matters of voting on here for years and people like to throw about what I consider to be false equivalencies when it comes to voting, so if people don't want to make the search bubble their friend, there are plenty of other resources online. In a nutshell, if someone honestly cannot stomach a GOP candidate that is otherwise less hostile to life and religious freedom, I'd rather they vote third party. I'd certainly applaud and promote pro-life, pro-values Democrats in that mix as well but sadly they are becoming as common as unicorns.

 

[HumilityAndPatience]

6 hours ago, dUSt said:

I agree with many of his views, and I generally like to see more boldness from our priests like this, but I also think Fr Altman went overboard and was unnecessarily divisive. He was more right wing republican than Catholic in that video, IMHO.

I too agree with many of his views. But in his  video I think those views I agree with are straddled by a couple of big lies. And yes, I agree- I think his secular political passions (perhaps unintentionally) have superseded his Gospel message and indeed Church teaching on remaining bipartisan. 

34 minutes ago, Ash Wednesday said:

I've disagreed with his opinions on some political issues in some of his discussions -- like climate change or coronavirus. But I do agree with him about a lot. I don't know the first thing about being a good priest, but it must be incredibly difficult. We must pray for all of our priests.

Amen.

35 minutes ago, Ash Wednesday said:

But to me the left's agenda in general has become so particularly evil, they openly support things that I do NOT consider negotiable, and Democrats, especially Catholic Democrats, should be called out for espousing it.

With surface level evidence (party polities etc.) I agree with much of what you say. However Father Altman's fundamental message "You cannot be Catholic and a Democrat", simply contradicts Cardinal Ratzinger's teaching mentioned in the OP.

In any case, and I think this is an important question, do you think that Trump is not part of the establishment just as much as Biden is? Do you not think that they are both demagogues to their voting demographics? Perhaps this runs deeper than policies? Might Trump not be as "anti-establishment" as many think? Should one have eyes to see certain underlying detail, might one have "proportionate reason" to vote against him? 

[Ash Wednesday]

12 hours ago, HumilityAndPatience said:

In any case, and I think this is an important question, do you think that Trump is not part of the establishment just as much as Biden is? Do you not think that they are both demagogues to their voting demographics? Perhaps this runs deeper than policies? Might Trump not be as "anti-establishment" as many think? Should one have eyes to see certain underlying detail, might one have "proportionate reason" to vote against him? 

To me it's not really a matter of whether or not someone is establishment. It's a matter of stances and legislation on certain issues that I just don't consider negotiable, also discussed by Pope Benedict when he addressed European Parliament in 2006 (linked on one of the pages below). As I said before if someone really can't bring themselves to vote for Trump, I'd rather they vote 3rd party. I just do not see any proportionate reason that justifies voting for Joe Biden.

I would just implore anyone to just form their conscience according to church teaching, study your candidates and read prayerfully and carefully. We all answer to God with regards to who we vote for.  

https://www.ewtn.com/vote/general-moral-principles.asp
https://www.ewtn.com/vote/specific-moral-issues.asp
https://www.ewtn.com/vote/non-negotiables.asp

Quote

With surface level evidence (party polities etc.) I agree with much of what you say. However Father Altman's fundamental message "You cannot be Catholic and a Democrat", simply contradicts Cardinal Ratzinger's teaching mentioned in the OP.

I think Father Altman is right in calling out the Democratic platform, if he had framed it as the problem of "supporting non-negotiables" as opposed to using the direct wordage of  "Democrat" he might not have gotten as much pushback.  

[cutenickname]

I consider white nationalism to be a non-negotiable. I feel like Trump purposefully or not is crafting a version of the United States where I could be sent to a death camp or shot in the streets by some angry young man.

I do not like Biden. I think abortion is wicked. I will be voting for Joe Biden from fear for my own safety. Don't know what else to say.

[chrysostom]

Voting in mass market national elections at all is an idealistic act insofar as your own individual vote has no impact on the outcome and so is not much more than a formal sign of endorsement of the democratic system which brought us legalized industrial scale abortion as well as a formal endorsement of or a hat-tip to the candidate you vote for.

For that reason I am doubly leery of the idea that there could be proportionate reasons to cast a vote for a candidate who formally supports and openly promises to protect the continuation of the longest mass murder spree in human history.

It would be immoral to formally support the National Socialists. I do not see much difference here.

I am also open to being persuaded that there is also no proportionate reason in the case of voting for the Republican candidate either.

Lest someone object that a proportionate reason would be the practical effects that a vote would have on the outcome, I would reply that a single vote cast will have no effect. It is thus purely an idealistic or formal act.

[HumilityAndPatience]

On 9/21/2020 at 11:36 PM, Ash Wednesday said:

As I said before if someone really can't bring themselves to vote for Trump, I'd rather they vote 3rd party. I just do not see any proportionate reason that justifies voting for Joe Biden.

Ratzinger's quote directly contradicts Father Altman's statement. And I think that, whilst a hypothetical situation, it should be respected- i.e. one might have proportionate reason to vote for a politician who supports abortion. For example, to keep someone else out of office who supports policies whose ends lead to greater evils (I am not speaking in relation to 2020 Trump/Biden). 

A simplified hypothetical example might help to illustrate:

Candidate A is anti-abortion but pro-human cloning, genocide, deposing the Church etc.

Candidate B is pro-abortion but anti-human cloning and all other policies above

Candidate C, D, E are other variations which are better than above but have no chance of making any dent in the election and therefore are wasted votes

Voter therefore deems Candidate B the most meaningful vote to keep Candidate A out of office.

[Anomaly]

4 hours ago, HumilityAndPatience said:

Ratzinger's quote directly contradicts Father Altman's statement. And I think that, whilst a hypothetical situation, it should be respected- i.e. one might have proportionate reason to vote for a politician who supports abortion. For example, to keep someone else out of office who supports policies whose ends lead to greater evils (I am not speaking in relation to 2020 Trump/Biden). 

A simplified hypothetical example might help to illustrate:

Candidate A is anti-abortion but pro-human cloning, genocide, deposing the Church etc.

Candidate B is pro-abortion but anti-human cloning and all other policies above

Candidate C, D, E are other variations which are better than above but have no chance of making any dent in the election and therefore are wasted votes

Voter therefore deems Candidate B the most meaningful vote to keep Candidate A out of office.

Ratzinger merely said that if you vote for a pro-abortion politician for other reasons, not intending to promote abortion, it is “remote material cooperation”.

USCCB clarification instructs a Catholic May choose to vote who is less likely to advance morally flowed agendas.  

Now it is a discussion if letting a Democrat nominate and place another pro-abortion SC Judge that can sit for the next 30+  that will protect 800,000+ abortions a year is proportional to human cloning or questionable military engagements

[Peace]

Honestly I don't think that a vote for a president is likely to have any effect on the number of abortions, that requires one to give it major consideration when voting. Republicans have been trying to get Roe overturned for 50 years now, to no avail. Even if your president is elected, you have no idea whether a liberal judge will retire or pass away while that president is in office. Even if you get a so-called "conservative" judge on the court, it's still basically a craps shoot as to what he/she will actually do in the future when presented with a specific case to rule on. Then in the rare event that Roe is overturned, you still have a majority of states that would have some form of legalized abortion regardless, so you would need need to convince the legislatures in all of those states to change their laws. On top of that, the new methods of abortion that are available today makes it virtually impossible to enforce. I think something like 1/2 of abortions nowadays are done in the privacy of one's home by taking two pills. If we are spending $50 billion dollars a year on the war on drugs, and I can literally walk 1 mile away from the DEA headquarters and buy, weed, crack, heroin, or anything else, how are you going to stop someone from obtaining or taking two pills in her own home?

It's sad but I think the reality is that a vote on a presidential election has about a million to one chance of making a significant dent when it comes to abortion. If someone chooses to vote for Biden because of his stance on some other important issue, I think it can be justified (although I will not be voting for him myself).

Edited September 23, 2020 by Peace

[Ash Wednesday]

12 hours ago, HumilityAndPatience said:

Ratzinger's quote directly contradicts Father Altman's statement. And I think that, whilst a hypothetical situation, it should be respected- i.e. one might have proportionate reason to vote for a politician who supports abortion. For example, to keep someone else out of office who supports policies whose ends lead to greater evils (I am not speaking in relation to 2020 Trump/Biden). 

A simplified hypothetical example might help to illustrate:

Candidate A is anti-abortion but pro-human cloning, genocide, deposing the Church etc.

Candidate B is pro-abortion but anti-human cloning and all other policies above

Candidate C, D, E are other variations which are better than above but have no chance of making any dent in the election and therefore are wasted votes

Voter therefore deems Candidate B the most meaningful vote to keep Candidate A out of office.

I'm well familiar with this and the hypotheticals. I'm American but I'm a dual citizen that also lives and also votes in the U.K. We all know every country, or even within the state you're voting from if it's the United States -- has completely different circumstances. My opinion of Biden and justifiable proportionate reason doesn't have anything to do with Altman's video. 

[HumilityAndPatience]

7 hours ago, Anomaly said:

Now it is a discussion if letting a Democrat nominate and place another pro-abortion SC Judge that can sit for the next 30+  that will protect 800,000+ abortions a year is proportional to human cloning or questionable military engagements

Indeed- it is a hypothetical situation to prove that Father Altman's statement is incorrect. Unless you can see all ends then you cannot make such a definitive statement. That is the wisdom of Ratzinger's advice and why the Church must remain bipartisan. 

21 minutes ago, Ash Wednesday said:

I'm well familiar with this and the hypotheticals. I'm American but I'm a dual citizen that also lives and also votes in the U.K. We all know every country, or even within the state you're voting from if it's the United States -- has completely different circumstances. My opinion of Biden and justifiable proportionate reason doesn't have anything to do with Altman's video. 

I think we agree therefore on a lot. The hypothetical shows why one cannot make a definitive statement such as Father Altman's.

For the record, I am a Catholic (also from the UK)... therefore anti-abortion. But that does not give me a right to propose that "You cannot be Catholic and vote Democrat". I could just as easily propose some reasons why "You cannot be Catholic and vote Republican"- however these reasons are not obvious to the eye. I allude to them in the video.