Archbishop Vigano, Father Altman and others- The Catholic Church and Politics; the false left/right paradigm

[HumilityAndPatience]

Hi All,

As we approach the 2020 US election, there has been a concerted increase in clergy involvement in politics. Father Altman and Archbishop Vigano, among others, have been at the centre of the public eye of much of this.

Whilst I do not disagree that it is important to hold as best an informed opinion on politics as possible, and indeed to vote, I think that recent clergy involvement has been plain wrong- objectively bad practice. I have made a video on this - shared below. As always I invite your comments Phatmass community- agree or disagree!

• In summary the three errors I expand on are:
  • manipulation by a false left/right political paradigm which doesn’t exist
  • ignoring Church guidance for the laity on voting (i.e. proportionate reason)
  • disregarding Church teaching on clergy involvement in politics

Please let me know your thoughts. I think this is an important issue and IMO one side of the argument are running away with this without much challenge.

Peace!

 

[chrysostom]

To preface this, I do not read or listen to Fr. Altman and Vigano.

Since your own personal vote is below the noise floor in a national presidential election, your own personal vote is largely a formal, symbolic act. It is not *practical*.

Insofar as it is a formal act of endorsement for a candidate, I do not see any proportionate reasons to vote for a candidate who formally supports abortion, and I welcome denunciations of those candidates as it is an act of charity towards neighbour.

Even if you disagree with that take on the nature of voting in presidential elections, I still believe very strongly that there is still no proportionate reason to vote for a pro-abortion candidate - ever.

And I don't think it is wrong to call this out or teach it in some manner.

[Anastasia]

HumilityAndPatience

I see a great harm in constant playing with "doing something proportionally only a little bad for the sake of the greater good". To me it feels like a constant injection of a poison into the Body of Christ (and into the world as a consequence), a poison that clouds a sense of what is right. The Body eventually develops a great tolerance to the poison and stops noticing it; this is happening already. 

Also, I find quite deceitful (and distasteful) the usage the depiction of young Jesus clarifying Scriptures to the Temple teachers. I noticed that in your previous video as well. "Jesus backing up" the crucial points of your message looks inappropriate and presumptuous, especially if we recall the Gospel: "For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness?"

Edited November 1, 2020 by Anastasia

[Peace]

1 hour ago, chrysostom said:

Insofar as it is a formal act of endorsement for a candidate, I do not see any proportionate reasons to vote for a candidate who formally supports abortion, and I welcome denunciations of those candidates as it is an act of charity towards neighbour.

Even if you disagree with that take on the nature of voting in presidential elections, I still believe very strongly that there is still no proportionate reason to vote for a pro-abortion candidate - ever.

And I don't think it is wrong to call this out or teach it in some manner.

Hmm. Who did you vote for? Both major party candidates are pro-abortion, although Biden much more so than Trump.

I assume that you voted for some 3rd party candidate who opposes abortion in all circumstances?

Somebody put a "Catholics cannot vote for Biden" flyer on my car today when I was at Mass, quoting Fr. Altman.

I was fairly annoyed by that, although I did not vote for Biden.

A lot of folks take the "I will never vote for a pro-abortion candidate" and try to virtue-signal that they are principled.

But if you really want to stick to that principle, then you have to vote for a candidate who is pro-life under every circumstance.

So if a person votes for Trump, instead of some other third party candidate who is pro-life under any circumstance, in effect he is engaging in the same sort of proportionate reasoning that the faithful Catholic Biden voter employs in making his choice.

5 hours ago, HumilityAndPatience said:

Hi All,

As we approach the 2020 US election, there has been a concerted increase in clergy involvement in politics. Father Altman and Archbishop Vigano, among others, have been at the centre of the public eye of much of this.

Whilst I do not disagree that it is important to hold as best an informed opinion on politics as possible, and indeed to vote, I think that recent clergy involvement has been plain wrong- objectively bad practice. I have made a video on this - shared below. As always I invite your comments Phatmass community- agree or disagree!

• In summary the three errors I expand on are:
  • manipulation by a false left/right political paradigm which doesn’t exist
  • ignoring Church guidance for the laity on voting (i.e. proportionate reason)
  • disregarding Church teaching on clergy involvement in politics

Please let me know your thoughts. I think this is an important issue and IMO one side of the argument are running away with this without much challenge.

Peace!

 

Honesty I don't even think a person should have to watch anything to know that the assertion is false.

58 minutes ago, Anastasia said:

HumilityAndPatience

I see a great harm in constant playing with "doing something proportionally only a little bad for the sake of the greater good".

Well we are almost forced to play that game, unless we want to vote for a candidate with no chance of winning. Both major candidates endorse teachings that are contrary to the Catholic Church, with respect to grave matters that are considered intrinsically evil.

[HumilityAndPatience]

2 hours ago, chrysostom said:

Even if you disagree with that take on the nature of voting in presidential elections, I still believe very strongly that there is still no proportionate reason to vote for a pro-abortion candidate - ever.

Thanks. Do you therefore disagree with the CDF guidance?

1 hour ago, Anastasia said:

see a great harm in constant playing with "doing something proportionally only a little bad for the sake of the greater good". To me it feels like a constant injection of a poison into the Body of Christ (and into the world as a consequence), a poison that clouds a sense of what is right. The Body eventually develops a great tolerance to the poison and stops noticing it; this is happening already. 

I think you might be strawmanning my argument. Do you agree with CDF guidance on proportionate reason?

1 hour ago, Anastasia said:

Also, I find quite deceitful (and distasteful) the usage the depiction of young Jesus clarifying Scriptures to the Temple teachers. I noticed that in your previous video as well. "Jesus backing up" the crucial points of your message looks inappropriate and presumptuous, especially if we recall the Gospel: "For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness?"

Thanks. Point taken. Although I think you are giving me too much "credit". I use that picture mostly as it helps illustrate the key message in my channel- reclaiming Tradition from the Pharisaical Spirit. I made a video on this topic too...

31 minutes ago, Peace said:

Honesty I don't even think a person should have to watch anything to know that the assertion is false.

Neither do I but can you see that it is a widespread error, coming to the surface during this US election season, among Catholics. 

[Peace]

20 minutes ago, HumilityAndPatience said:

Neither do I but can you see that it is a widespread error, coming to the surface during this US election season, among Catholics. 

For some people (and I am not accusing anyone in this forum of it) I think that it is more about advocating for one's political candidate of choice, rather than adhering to a principle.

I recently had a conversation with a friend where that become clear. Essentially, he was a pro-GOP Trump fan, and would vote for Trump even if his and Biden's position with respect to abortion was identical.

Some folks essentially try to use the abortion issue as a shaming tactic to pressure people into voting for their candidate of choice. If my friend was not trying to persuade me to vote for Trump because of abortion, it would be some other issue that he used, taxes or what have you.

[HumilityAndPatience]

12 minutes ago, Peace said:

For some people (and I am not accusing anyone in this forum of it) I think that it is more about advocating for one's political candidate of choice, rather than adhering to a principle.

I recently had a conversation with a friend where that become clear. Essentially, he was a pro-GOP Trump fan, and would vote for Trump even if his and Biden's position with respect to abortion was identical.

Some folks essentially try to use the abortion issue as a shaming tactic to pressure people into voting for their candidate of choice. If my friend was not trying to persuade me to vote for Trump because of abortion, it would be some other issue that he used, taxes or what have you.

 

Out of interest- what is your take on the false left/right political paradigm I have suggested?

[Credo in Deum]

I enjoyed the video and do not see anything wrong with your conclusions.  I think priests and clergy should address issues and mention a candidates position on the issues, but thats about it.  I don't think any priest should endorse a political side, especially since most of them are moral swamps.  

[Anastasia]

2 hours ago, HumilityAndPatience said:

I think you might be strawmanning my argument. Do you agree with CDF guidance on proportionate reason?

My attitude to “proportional reason” is rather negative now, not because the idea or a proportional reason has no credibility as such but because, being made a rule it becomes the gate for a dangerous compromise and lie.

An Eastern Orthodox approach to those matters is to teach the sound doctrine like “you shall not kill” or “if a man lies with another man like with a woman it is an abomination” and then leave the rest to the Orthodox to think and to act. (I have learnt quite a lot about the differences in the approach of two Churches over the last week; it was very enriching.) So, if some hypothetical Orthodox voted for a pro-abortionist politician and then came to his spiritual father and mentioned it there would be a private exchange made in the light of the truth, “you shall not kill” and also the personality and intentions of one who voted. Hence the teaching of the Church is not compromised, the sense of right and wrong as well. When the Church begins creating the rules about “proportional reason” it can be easily used to excuse just anything, in peoples’ minds and I can see it now. I think it is so because “a proportional reason” being made a rule deals only with an intellect and divorces a mind form a heart. It is usually a heart of a Christian that makes a choice.

In all those towers of logic there is one tendency: an excuse for a sin, in my opinion or dulling the sense of a sin. There is something inherently slippery there. Not so much in the original document but in its interpretations and plays by the others.

As for my comment about the usage of an icon, it is an example of using something great (Our Lord) for something small (your argument), backing it up quite nicely. This is another dangerous tendency in the Church, alas.

I agree with you on the point that the left – right paradigm is often false. For example, I do not understand, how a Christian can be anything but a Socialist (not a Communist!). How a Christian can uphold capitalist values is another enigma for me.

[HumilityAndPatience]

7 hours ago, Credo in Deum said:

I enjoyed the video and do not see anything wrong with your conclusions.  I think priests and clergy should address issues and mention a candidates position on the issues, but thats about it.  I don't think any priest should endorse a political side, especially since most of them are moral swamps.  

Thanks for the feedback. Yes exactly. Father Altman and A.Vigano have crossed a very dangerous line IMO and this isn't being called out enough. 

6 hours ago, Anastasia said:

because, being made a rule it becomes the gate for a dangerous compromise and lie.

Of course. It involves prudential judgement so will be abused, for sure.

6 hours ago, Anastasia said:

In all those towers of logic there is one tendency: an excuse for a sin, in my opinion or dulling the sense of a sin. There is something inherently slippery there. Not so much in the original document but in its interpretations and plays by the others.

I think this distorts the CDF guidance. Yes- it can be abused if interpreted incorrectly. Rather, the guidance acknowledges the realities of the modern world we live in. How realistic is a reversal of the enshrined laws of abortion, gay marriage etc.? Therefore, culpability of a voter must be reduced in the context of a pragmatic approach to navigating the quagmire of geopolitics. 

On geopolitics- the reduction to politics to party politics (rep vs dem) misses the rest of the iceberg. The iceberg houses the infinite machinations of geopolitical manoeuvring. For example- how many voters truly understand the Middle East plays currently taking place?

6 hours ago, Anastasia said:

As for my comment about the usage of an icon, it is an example of using something great (Our Lord) for something small (your argument), backing it up quite nicely.

I dont know- I take your opinion on board in the spirit of iron sharpens iron. But I think this is straining at gnats. The camel- presuming the heart of someone's action. As mentioned, the artwork helps illustrate the main purpose of my channel. Reclaiming Tradition from the Pharisaical Spirit. 

6 hours ago, Anastasia said:

I agree with you on the point that the left – right paradigm is often false. For example, I do not understand, how a Christian can be anything but a Socialist (not a Communist!). How a Christian can uphold capitalist values is another enigma for me.

Agree with you here. But the deeper point I am making on the false left/right paradigm is that behind the curtains, this is all theatrics. What are your views to this proposition?

[Anastasia]

47 minutes ago, HumilityAndPatience said:

How realistic is a reversal of the enshrined laws of abortion, gay marriage etc.? Therefore, culpability of a voter must be reduced in the context of a pragmatic approach to navigating the quagmire of geopolitics. 

The laws have nothing to do with that. Whether the state punishes homosexual acts, indifferent to them or approves them the Church evaluation of them remains the same, as "sin". A Christian voter knows his Church's position and makes up his own mind. As for his culpability, it is decided in privacy, with his confessor. 

51 minutes ago, HumilityAndPatience said:

The camel- presuming the heart of someone's action.

I am speaking about an impression your video makes on someone who is in a Tradition which takes icons/images very seriously, as serious as the words.

The image of the Lord Who is clarifying the Scriptures to the Temple teachers “backs up”/gives a weight your argument. It appears during the discourse twice, in the beginning and closer to the end. You are saying “I hope to present a charitable correction” and the viewer sees Jesus correcting the “clergy”. The message is “I am explaining to you (the viewer) the truth, just like Jesus did”. Who knows the Scriptures/Church issues best? – Obviously Jesus. You who are speaking are effectively “merging” with Him. The Eastern mind sees it as a presumption and an inappropriate use of an image of Our Lord. Such image would be in a place in a documentary about the life of Christ or about Christian art.

[HumilityAndPatience]

1 hour ago, Anastasia said:

The laws have nothing to do with that. Whether the state punishes homosexual acts, indifferent to them or approves them the Church evaluation of them remains the same, as "sin". A Christian voter knows his Church's position and makes up his own mind. As for his culpability, it is decided in privacy, with his confessor. 

My comments were more my proposed exegesis of the CDF guidance on "proportionate reason" in the context of the wider state of the world we live in. So yes- the law of the land is directly relevant to the CDF guidance. Please see the extract from that doc. The morality of the issue is separate to the Church's interactions on the temporal matters of the law- and needs no further assertions from the Church. I.e. homosexual acts are in sin and Gay marriage will never be proposed as legitimate.

 

2 hours ago, Anastasia said:

I am speaking about an impression your video makes on someone who is in a Tradition which takes icons/images very seriously, as serious as the words.

The image of the Lord Who is clarifying the Scriptures to the Temple teachers “backs up”/gives a weight your argument. It appears during the discourse twice, in the beginning and closer to the end. You are saying “I hope to present a charitable correction” and the viewer sees Jesus correcting the “clergy”. The message is “I am explaining to you (the viewer) the truth, just like Jesus did”. Who knows the Scriptures/Church issues best? – Obviously Jesus. You who are speaking are effectively “merging” with Him. The Eastern mind sees it as a presumption and an inappropriate use of an image of Our Lord. Such image would be in a place in a documentary about the life of Christ or about Christian art.

I suppose a positive I will take is that I will be more aware of the sensitivities of some/perspectives of listeners, whilst not allowing scrupulosity to overrun the editing process(!)

But genuinely, as per above, when I use that picture it is in the spirit of the main premise of the channel. I.e. reclaiming Tradition from the clutches of the Pharisaical Spirit 

[fides' Jack]

4 hours ago, nickbor34 said:

It seems to me that the main task is to find a leader who can strike a balance between religion and politics. I recently found an article https://writingbros.com/essay-examples/leadership/ about leadership biases. A leader is a person who knows how to find compromises and he should not divide into left and right.

Ironically, I think that's the position that's been taken by both the right and the left for decades, that being the point of compromise.

I do think there are situations that call for compromise.  

In today's world, the right and the left have moved so far apart that for either side to compromise on even the slightest of issues would be tantamount to treason (by their own beliefs).  So there is very little left to compromise with.

But I disagree with the statement, in general.  A good leader is one who promotes virtue, and true virtue does not compromise with those who are diametrically opposed to what they believe.

At this point there are only two possibilities for our near-ish future: war or a miracle big enough to convert the world.  Maybe we'll see both in our lifetimes.