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

[HumilityAndPatience]

1 hour ago, Aloysius said:

I am very much against the politicization running through Catholicism and have argued against it before, I just don't think it quite fits Leo XIII's definition of Americanism.

This is the point I think is worthy of exploration- my initial views on this is that this heresy is understated and it's tentacles have run deep over the past century

[fides' Jack]

5 hours ago, Aloysius said:

But with Vatican II, the Church has generally made its peace with separated church-state relations.

Separation of Church and State is not a Catholic ideal.

5 hours ago, HumilityAndPatience said:

I agree with you except on the above- the political paradigm of left and right is a false one, to me. They're all on the same team...

Oh, I agree.  Republican or Democrat doesn't matter.

However, true conservatives do not vote Democrat.  They mostly vote Republican.  But there is some room to vote 3rd party.

[Aloysius]

3 hours ago, HumilityAndPatience said:

This is the point I think is worthy of exploration- my initial views on this is that this heresy is understated and it's tentacles have run deep over the past century

as far as whether there are wider tentacles in terms of Americanism, I would say that there is mostly in the sense of the confusion of license for liberty--but that is far less a political problem than it is a moral and cultural one

But generally, I actually think those that use the term Americanism today often conflate it with the idea of just being too into American politics or American political ideologies; and indeed saying someone not being in line with the social teaching of the church constitutes "Americanism" is also a conflation IMO. [that doesn't mean there's not a criticism of people for not being in line with Catholic social teaching, just that this is a different critique and isn't what was meant by Leo with the term Americanism].  All of those things, I don't necessarily think it applies to.  In Leo XIII's own words, accomodating to the particular genius or particular character of a nation's laws or customs is to be expected:

Quote

...in regard to ways of living [the Church] has been accustomed to so yield that, the divine principle of morals being kept intact, she has never neglected to accommodate herself to the character and genius of the nations which she embraces.

adapting to the good parts of the ideals of classical liberalism need not be condemned; and indeed, Gaudium et Spes from Vatican II basically does as much.

even further, Leo points out the things he does not mean to suggest under that phrase "Americanism":

Quote

From the foregoing it is manifest, beloved son, that we are not able to give approval to those views which, in their collective sense, are called by some “Americanism.” But if by this name are to be understood certain endowments of mind which belong to the American people, just as other characteristics belong to various other nations, and if, moreover, by it is designated your political condition and the laws and customs by which you are governed, there is no reason to take exception to the name.

quotes from Testem Benevolentiae [ https://www.papalencyclicals.net/leo13/l13teste.htm  ]

Following that logic, I definitely don't think there's anything wrong with a Catholic being relatively libertarian or relatively conservative or relatively liberal--at least if there's anything wrong with any of those, still none of those are the "heresy" of "Americanism" as Leo defined it, even if they're formed in particular American political ideologies.  Catholic social teaching doesn't demand one particular social, political, or economic system, it simply teaches certain principles, how we work out those principles is a matter of the prudential and pragmatic judgment of different peoples in different places in different ages.  even the prudential judgment of popes often differs, and nothing protects a pope from being fallible in a particular application to a particular prudential application of a principle.

like I said, there are things to criticize about politicized American Catholic politics--but those things are not Leo XIII's idea of what "Americanism" is.  In fact, although he was a very big social teaching pope in terms of Rerum Novarum, he doesn't even reference the Church's social teaching in terms of his criticism of "Americanism" in Testem Benevolentiae--his whole point centers around the aversion of difficult doctrine in order to be liked in the world (even to gain converts by basically not saying the things they wouldn't want to hear), the confusion of license for liberty, and the issue of the church being merely tolerated in her liberty versus having some favor by the state (which as I've said the Church's position is quite different since Vatican II on that regard, I have argued for a hermeneutic of continuity to understand that difference but one cannot deny that Leo's version of criticizing 'Americanism' would never be uttered by a living bishop or pope today, at least not one in regular canonical status and/or full communion ).

beyond that, the only other thing I think I haven't touched on from this idea is that his critique of Americanism was also a critique of free speech--on that he simply says it's wrong to imagine that it's good for people to say what they want as they want; that doesn't necessarily condemn the idea that the government should not forbid people from saying things; again, as with Aquinas's argument for prostitution, just saying it's not good doesn't mean the state should forbid it.  although Leo himself did want a bit more censorship, this was part of his times, and I think it's perfectly valid for us today to have moved beyond wanting speech censored in favor of the American ideal of free speech counteracted by argument and debate of free people--and the Vatican agrees I think, there is no longer an Index of Forbidden Books.

12 minutes ago, fides' Jack said:

Separation of Church and State is not a Catholic ideal.

As I pointed out in that post, any ideal of the Church having, in any way, the favor of the state really only ought to be in the case of an actually evangelized world/society.  Christ did not command us to rule over people to drive them towards him, it's about converting them first and THEN there can be Christendom (ought to be a tolerant Christendom that mimics the way Our Lord allows us free will as well, IMO, which has certainly been an unrealized ideal throughout the history of Christendom as the corruption of secular power has led to atrocity far too many times).  There's been a lot of wailing over the loss of Christendom by people who have refused to accept its loss, but the ultimate realization since Vatican II at least has been that you don't bring back Christendom just by arbitrarily putting Church and state back together again, but by evangelizing people so that the world itself would want to rebuild Christendom, and hopefully better than before without some of the harsher things that went on in the past in terms of violently coercive religion.

[Ash Wednesday]

I think using other people (like Altman and his video) as an excuse to not be in the Church is dishonest for the most part. There are times where the causation can be quite direct, such as victims of molestation or spiritual abuse. But most of the time I think people should just work with their own core disagreements instead of passing the buck and blame on to other people. 

[HumilityAndPatience]

4 hours ago, Aloysius said:

as far as whether there are wider tentacles in terms of Americanism, I would say that there is mostly in the sense of the confusion of license for liberty--but that is far less a political problem than it is a moral and cultural one

I think this is a useful clarification- but I don't think it contradicts my point, which is basically that the errors of Americanism are seeping into the Church (particularly via the politicised false Traditionalism we see today). I.e. the liberalism afflicting the Church which in turn deeply suffers from insubordination. I refer to @fides' Jack's original post and my reply:

Quote

 

  On 11/19/2020 at 8:48 PM, fides' Jack said:

It's interesting that truth and goodness are more easily found in the average American conservative right now than in the hierarchy of the Catholic Church

 

Quote

I think the heresy of Americanism is actually beginning to rear it's head in a way which is floating under many people's radars. 

 

4 hours ago, Aloysius said:

But generally, I actually think those that use the term Americanism today often conflate it with the idea of just being too into American politics or American political ideologies; and indeed saying someone not being in line with the social teaching of the church constitutes "Americanism" is also a conflation IMO

Agreed 

[fides' Jack]

Nevermind - my comment is surely going to be misinterpreted...

Edited November 24, 2020 by fides' Jack

[Kathleen Hamilton]

Finally! Someone with common sense and intelligence! So tired of reading all the support comments and he’s a saint comments when the obvious problems are on display. Thank you!

[Ash Wednesday]

6 hours ago, Kathleen Hamilton said:

Finally! Someone with common sense and intelligence! So tired of reading all the support comments and he’s a saint comments when the obvious problems are on display. Thank you!

Welcome to phatmass, please do not throw blanket insults at everyone's intelligence on here simply because you disagree with them.

[PhuturePriest]

2 hours ago, Ash Wednesday said:

Welcome to phatmass, please do not throw blanket insults at everyone's intelligence on here simply because you disagree with them.

But such comments are entirely in keeping with the tradition of Phatmass' discussions and rhetorical methods.

[Polak]

It looks like Fr Altman is being asked to resign by his bishop.

https://www.ncregister.com/news/controversial-la-crosse-priest-father-altman-to-challenge-bishops-request-to-resign

When Fr Altman made that original viral video, I was thinking, even though it was political and shouldn't have been, there were some fair points in it.

However, since then he seems to be doing nothing but attacking the Church (like certain Catholic commentators out there), even in his sermons. His last sermon was all about how he is being persecuted by the Church hierarchy for speaking the truth and how this might be his last sermon. I've started to feel distaste towards him now. He seems like an attention seeker.

[Ash Wednesday]

I think he has a genuine concern for souls, and I agree with him on some things, such as the gravity of abortion and other non-negotiable issues in politics and the importance of the sacraments. There are things that the Church is very clear about and I think people hunger for boldness and strong father figures in their priests. But some of his remarks on race relations, immigration and covid generally fall along the lines of personal political opinion and are subject to debate. There were some remarks he made about race and lynching I found to be very insensitive. People should not frame certain partisan opinions as being "authentic Catholic truth" and for priests, the line between the two shouldn't be blurred at the pulpit and placed in your parish bulletin. I think the last straw for that bishop was Fr. Altman's bulletin stating that covid vaccines weren't real vaccines at all, but experimental injections received by guinea pigs. 

Even the bishops that rightfully criticize how current vaccines are manufactured and tested still acknowledge them as being vaccines all the same and they've exercised better judgment when discussing them. 

Father Altier got into some issues with his archbishop when discussing the covid pandemic, but I think he handled it well in that he sat down with his archbishop and while he stood by his private opinions, he wisely acknowledged that the pulpit during mass wasn't appropriate for them. 

In any case we need to pray for Father Altman and all of our priests. I've spent too much time running my mouth on here and should spend more time praying for him. I hope that they can come to a resolution on the matter.

[Norseman82]

I have no problems with him pointing out the problems of the Democratic party.  I do, however, think he's letting his politics (his opposition to Wisconsin Gov. Evers) get in the way of scientific fact when he mocks masks.  What next, stating that 2+2=5 simply because your political opponent says 2+2=4?

 

[Ash Wednesday]

And I also think the cult of personality following of him, or any priest or podcaster for that matter, has to stop. I came across an image on twitter where someone photoshopped him and other prominent clergy and turned them into Avengers superheroes. It gave me serious second hand embarrassment. This kind of fame and adulation is just bad for priests and does them no favors. 
 

[chrysostom]

22 hours ago, Norseman82 said:

I have no problems with him pointing out the problems of the Democratic party.  I do, however, think he's letting his politics (his opposition to Wisconsin Gov. Evers) get in the way of scientific fact when he mocks masks.  What next, stating that 2+2=5 simply because your political opponent says 2+2=4?

 

(I don't follow Fr Altman but)

https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/5/19-0994_article

"Although mechanistic studies support the potential effect of hand hygiene or face masks, evidence from 14 randomized controlled trials of these measures did not support a substantial effect on transmission of laboratory-confirmed influenza. We similarly found limited evidence on the effectiveness of improved hygiene and environmental cleaning."

When the only RCTs available (for influenza in this link, but a handful of RCTs have been done for COVID) do not show that mask-wearing is definitely going to help, and "mechanistic probability" - i.e. a hypothesis about particles and fit, etc. - is relied on, then it is simply not scientific fact that universal mask-wearing policies are helpful.

 

[Guest]

Life circumstances secular in nature and the fact that I suffer bipolar, now places me in the ranks of the poor and the marginalized.  I am very grateful for it, although initially it was shock to me leading to depression, now not evident.

Reading this thread for one only, I can understand why probably many out in the pews as it were are confused.  I truly am!  I rejoice too that I have basic knowledge of what The Church teaches and am familiar with probably a fair bit of Scripture, thanks to the Dominican nuns who taught me.

Issues in The Church can become far too complex for ordinary simple Catholics living in the stress and demands of secular life.  I fall back on with happy confidence on asking myself "What would Jesus have me do or say etc."  From my time out here living with the poor and marginalized, I am just so grateful to the OP's that taught me for my ground in Church teaching and in Scripture.  Rather often the poor marginalized have no idea at all.  My concern during my really active younger years as "We have to get Scripture and Church teaching into the ordinary everyday language".  

After reading this thread, my poor aged brain was cross eyed as it were.

Jesus told us "Fools! You read the signs of the times, but cannot read the signs of the times".  And The Church too calls us to be relevant to our times.  What is my time?  To what has He called me -i.e. my environment and I need to discern what it is and what is feasible, or perhaps not.   But prayer covers all without the need of either hand really.

I can only type with difficulty, I am in considerable pain and have to have my right hand firm on the desk, which restricts my normal skill as a fast touch typist. Ah well, The Church teaches than involuntary penance is better than chosen penance(s).

Edited June 4, 2021 by BarbaraTherese