Some Catholic Hot Takes

Bishop issues decree: ‘Father Altman is no longer allowed to preach’ or celebrate Mass publicly – Deacon Greg Kandra (thedeaconsbench.com)

This has been a long time coming.

From last September: Bishop issues statement on ‘fraternal correction’ of Father James Altman

From May: Bishop asks Father Altman to resign; priest vows fight 

And then this: Diocese of La Crosse statement on Father Altman

Stay tuned.

UPDATE: A priest posted this on Twitter tonight, and it bears repeating:

“Just a reminder: it is a tragedy for the entire Body of Christ when a priest puts himself into such a grave situation that his faculties are removed. This is not a time for gloating, finger pointing, or detraction. The Christian response is to love our brother and pray for him.”

Why do some people support Fr. Altman? I agree with some but not all of what is said in this video.

Let’s be clear: he’s not being suspended because of his personality. It’s because he has created a toxic environment of misinformation, disobedience, and division in the Church. Fr. Casey, OFM @caseyofm Replying to @Miserando1

Woman accused St. Gerard Majella of misconduct. His bishop, St. Alphonsus Liguori forbade the Saint to RECEIVE HOLY COMMUNION! The Saint obeyed his superior. He continued to respect his bishop. The woman later confessed her malicious accusation. Obedience was key to the Saint!

Joseph W. Cunningham@Cunningham1_5h Replying to@cathdad4 and @ProtoApostoli

I like Fr. Jim Altman. Always have, ever since our overlap in seminary. That said, there isn’t a more stupid hill to die on than that of partisan politics, especially in this dumb clown world.-Fr. Josh Miller @FrJoshMiller Jul 8

I hate to say it but the entire Altman thing is a disgrace. He rose to viral fame through a slick, highly-produced video in which he took easy political pot shots that told his target audience exactly what they wanted to hear.

It wasn’t rhetoric designed to persuade. It was rhetoric designed to reinforce people in their existing beliefs. It’s the Taylor Marshall school of content. Just keep feeding people what they want to hear. Play on their fears, throw rocks at their enemies, confirm their suspicions, and so on. It’s formulaic persuasion technique, and people eat it right up.

And if the things he were saying were truly insightful, maybe it would still be OK. But they’re not. And he’s a big mouthed braggart who throws lots of insults at his imagined enemies. They’re all “leftist losers” or “godless vermin” or “pansies” or whatever else. It’s not masculinity, it’s machismo. They’re not the same.

Fr. James Martin

What Martin seeks to do is make disciples of Jesus. But that happens by encountering persons and introducing them to Jesus, not by beginning, “You know what’s wrong with you? You’re the worst! Everything about you is the worst. You disgust Jesus! I shouldn’t even be talking to you, but I am because it’s my duty.” That is the overwhelming message of the Righteous, not just to gays, but to practically everybody.

Here is some further thought from Where Peter Is.

One common criticism of Fr. Martin’s ministry to LGBTQ Catholics, is that he creates “confusion” among his flock. In his writing and public speaking, he chooses not to lead with (or frequently bring up) the Church’s teachings on the morality of same-sex sexual activity. Instead, he focuses on how the Church can show compassion and openness to the LGBTQ community. This criticism has also been leveled against Pope Francis since the early days of his papacy, when comments like “Who am I to judge?” still received “explainers” in mainstream Catholic media. This criticism hasn’t gone away, for neither Martin nor Francis. In fact, the notion that they want to change Church doctrine on sexual morality has become the bedrock assumption animating the reactions of many conservative Catholics to both of them. Complaining of “confusion” about their pastoral approach seems to be another way of expressing disagreement with any Catholic response to LGBTQ issues that does not begin with the articulation of Catholic teaching on sexual morality.

The truth is that many Catholics are unwilling to accept Pope Francis’s pastoral method—and Martin’s. They think that not to give a full-throated defense of God’s design for human sexuality is a sign of weakness and doctrinal dissent. Pope Francis has frequently taught that this kind of rigorism hinders evangelization in our contemporary, polarized, post-Christian culture. Instead he has advocated an approach that begins with an invitation and seeks to “build bridges” to men and women today. This is how Francis says we can prepare fertile soil where the seed of faith can take root.-Pope Francis understands Fr. Martin—Do we? | Where Peter Is

Here are some thoughts from a popular faithful gay and overall great Catholic and a fellow Patheos writer, Eve Tushnet.

“As far as “discussion on the morality of same-sex attraction,” I think straight people wildly underestimate how much of this stuff we’ve all already heard. Some people are down for discussing intensely personal experiences with strangers. (I’m doing it now!) But if I’m in the confessional, I do not need a lecture on Church teaching, which I already accept, or “identifying as gay,” which is not a sin. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve seen someone post a deeply personal, heartfelt discussion of the spiritual struggles they’ve experienced seeking to be faithful to Christ while growing in self-acceptance and unlearning self-hatred… only to have somebody pop up in the comments to inform them that being gay is a sin. The people who brought me into the Church shared their own faith with me, answered my questions, and did not lecture me about what Jesus thinks of my sexual orientation. That approach helped me trust not only these specific Catholics, but the Church as a teacher. In general, if you’re discussing the Catholic sexual ethic with a gay person (or anybody, probably), it’s good to ask yourself what you have done to make yourself trustworthy in this person’s eyes.

Our obedience to Catholic morality is grounded in our trust that this is the Way Jesus teaches, and that He is Love incarnate. Why would we even care what the Church teaches if we didn’t trust that She can help us love? Restoring this trust, which has so often been damaged by Catholics’ misguided actions, is the first step in any attempt to provide moral guidance.”  ‘Gay and Catholic’: A Q&A with writer and speaker Eve Tushnet (catholicnewsagency.com)

You also don’t have to agree with Fr. Martin’s way of doing things just because the pope gave him a personal letter.

So people will call Father Martin heretic or a dissenter without appropriate evidence to back that up. But on the other hand, there are people who refuse to acknowledge the controversies and the problematic things that Father Martin says and the spiritually dangerous conclusions that they can lead people to. Even if Father Martin says I never intended for people to reach this conclusion from what I said, I only said this. That’s what I mean by a slippery tactic. And that Father Martin can say something where people will read it, whether it’s his critics or it’s people who are outright dissenters who want the church to ordain women, to have same-sex, quote unquote same-sex marriage who will read with Father Martin says and take from that the idea that maybe this is all okay or he thinks that it’s okay.
-Trent Horn Exposing Fr. Martin’s Slippery Tactics | Catholic Answers

For further commentary read The Spirituality of Fr. James Martin

Biden and Communion

First off in this section is an opinion I disagree with.50 y

But there is no moral heroism, and certainly not the taking of a self-described prophetic stance, in disciplining a faithful Catholic on the basis of a political position held by very many American Catholics. This is all the more so when the purported prophetic discipline curries the favor of a certain quarter of the Catholic donor class.  One hopes that when the bishops finally vote on this matter at their November meeting, the desire for a false purity through discipline will yield to the Gospel’s message of grace and mercy, a message that can only be truly received by those with a deep sense for the shared sinfulness of the Church.-The New Donatism | Commonweal Magazine

The Following quotes explain why I disagree with the above position. First from Ignatius Press President Mark Brumley who has an opinion on this topic.

Bishops in the United States must decide whether they recognize that prominent public Catholic political support for 62 million abortions over the last ears and ongoing promotion of abortion today, including by the most prominent Catholic politician in the world, the president of the United States, constitutes manifest grave sin and a strong, scandalous counter-witness to the Gospel of Jesus. If so, then denial of the Eucharist is a sound pastoral last resort consistent with the political implications of eucharistic participation for followers of Jesus.

Otherwise, Catholics (and others) will conclude, not unreasonably, either that political advocacy for abortion is not really seriously wrong or that persistent public grave sin has no real consequences when it comes eucharistic participation, because eucharistic communion does not mean much when it comes to Catholic public life. Neither conclusion fits with an authentic Vatican II Catholicism. And surely neither conclusion is one bishops should want to encourage.
–Are some bishops ‘politicizing’ the Eucharist? Yes, in a perfectly sound, pastoral way. | America Magazine

And now Catholic Youtuber Brian Holdsworth

The debate about communion is simple: if you believe it should be available to all, then that’s your position, but it has never been the belief of the Church. The belief that it should be withheld from those who do not believe/practice the faith is not weaponizing it; it’s following scripture/tradition and it is done so in the interest of the individual from which it is being withheld. Scripture says that to receive communion unworthily is to eat and drink damnation (1 Corinthians 11:29). So to not govern its reception would be a major dereliction of duty on the part of the clergy. If you agree that it should be withheld in some instances but not in the case of politicians because that would “politicize the sacraments”, then you are arguing that politicians are a privileged class for whom the rules do not apply. I can’t imagine many people signing on to that.
–Brian HoldsworthJune 19 at 2:07 PM

When anyone knows that they should not go to Communion, but still go, they commit a sacrilege. There must be some reason we are receiving when we shouldn’t. Generally, we want something like appearing as a better Catholic than we are, wanting to avoid awkwardness, out of fear others might think bad of us, or some such end we seek for ourselves: at least that’s what was going in my mind when I did so as a teenager and others have told me was going on in their mind when they received unworthily. This is a weaponization of the Eucharist for our own ends. This applies for any of us who has committed a mortal sin or a person who has created grave public scandal due their positions contrary to the Catholic faith and natural law.

The Eucharist is Jesus himself, so should never be used for other ends. In fact, the Catechism says He is “the source and summit of the Christian life.” (1324) Misusing a person as a means not an end is always bad, but more so when it is a divine person like Jesus Christ.

The Church has canon 916 that suggests such people, even if the issue is not public, abstain from the Eucharist. Canon 915 then instructs those whose actions present public grave scandal for the Church to be denied Communion if they choose not to follow 916 on their own.

Such misuse can be called “weaponizing” the Eucharist. It is using the Eucharist as tool to win in social or political situations

Let’s not weaponize the Eucharist. Let’s protect it from politicians and others presenting public scandal who want to weaponize it for their ends. The Eucharist is God and should be protected. Canons 915 and 916 are law, not suggestions.
-Fr. Matthew P. Schneider LC, Who is Weaponizing the Eucharist? Politicians, Not Bishops (patheos.com)

In the end it is not an easy issue.

Our Catholics, whether conservative liberal or middle-of-the-road, have been through a lot. I always say that being a Catholic in Boston is a contact sport. The secularization of our culture, the loss of a commonly held Christian anthropology, and now the fallout of the sex abuse crisis have left Catholics shaken in their faith, angry at the bishops and mistrustful of leadership in the Church.

The controversy about the denying of Communion to politicians fuels anger on both sides. If we bishops get caught up in this fight, we can easily give the impression that we are divided in our opposition to abortion, and I do not believe that.

We need to show a united stance on behalf of the Gospel of life and all of its ramifications. If we are divided, we will be weakening the Church, and our ability to promote the Gospel of Life will be compromised. Denial of Communion to politicians will be interpreted by most Americans and Catholics as partisan politics that has nothing to do with reverence or piety.-The Pro-Life Vision of Cardinal Sean O’Malley | Mark Wilson (patheos.com)

Still Biden’s stance on abortion is troubling.

Dare We Hope

 “Gregory of Nyssa, in contrast, tries to advance philosophical and theological arguments to prove that the pains of hell cannot be co-eternal with God. His main argument is based on the essential superiority of good over evil; for evil, in its essence, can never be absolute and unlimited. The sinner inevitably reaches a limit when all his evil is done and he cannot go farther, just as the night, after having reached its peak, turns toward the day.  This reasoning corresponds to the example of a physician who allows a boil to mature until it can be lanced. Thus the Incarnation, too, occurred only when evil had reached its climax.  Gregory’s position has never been condemned.”
― Hans Urs von Balthasar, Dare We Hope That All Men Be Saved?: With a Short Discourse on Hell – 2nd Edition

Residential Schools 

Recently some churches in Canada have been set afire by arsonists.

Over the past fortnight, some dozen churches in Canada, many serving indigenous people, were torched. A dozen more, most in non-indigenous contexts, were vandalized. “Burn it all down,” tweeted the director of the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association, to supportive cheers. The chaos ensued after discovery of the remains of hundreds of indigenous youths, buried near the residential schools in which they were enrolled under a policy backed by the Indian Act of 1876. Amendments to this act in 1894 and 1920 made attendance at residential or industrial schools compulsory for those who lacked access to day schools. The last of the former, many of which were operated by the Catholic Church, closed its doors in 1996. Over more than a century, about 140,000 children passed through these schools. Upward of four thousand—perhaps as many as ten thousand—passed away while attending them or expired soon afterward.

How could this be? Who is responsible? Are the religious organizations who operated the residential schools the real culprits, as many suppose? A careful examination shows that supposition to be flawed. The tragedy, and the crimes it involved—crimes some are falsely characterizing as genocide—began with government-mandated violation of parental rights, an error gaining currency again today. The History of Canada’s Residential Schools | Douglas Farrow | First Things

Recently someone come out with an article saying the atrocities at the residential schools where lots of children were found in unmarked graves, was an overall good thing. Some Christians responded.

There is nothing about spreading the gospel that requires the horrors of the residential schools.  Nothing.  And kidnapping and genocide are not the only means of sharing the gospel.  It’s the same kind of argument that says African Americans should be grateful for slavery because at least it exposed them to Christianity (there was, of course, already a rich Christian tradition in Africa, but that’s for a different article).

Can the gospel require great sacrifice on the part of those who receive it? For sure.  I think of my fellow Christians persecuted in many parts of the world right now.  But the sacrifices aren’t supposed to be imposed by the ones bringing the gospel.  I cannot fathom a Jesus who looks at children’s bruised and broken bodies, bleeding private parts, and traumatized minds, then shrugs his shoulders with impatience and says, “Hey, you got in, didn’t you?”

Leary’s article is not a “Christian” perspective on anything.  It is the arguments of an angry conservative hell bent on not losing another round in the culture war — who, yes, happens to believe in a Jesus.  Maybe even my Jesus.  I can’t tell.
Telegrams: A “Christian” Defense of the Indian Residential Schools? Yeah, no thanks … (johnrgram.blogspot.com)

And then there is this commentary on the topic.

I can’t believe I have to write this but… no, the Native graves weren’t good. They were a crime against the cross. They were mortal sin. The children were precious in the eyes of God—even when forgotten, abused, and neglected by the Church. It’s damningly ironic for a conservative organization like the American Conservative that cares so much about anti-abortion policy to publish something so indifferent to the lives of children taken too soon by someone else’s hands.

The Second Vatican Council’s Dignitatis Humanae likewise reads, “The search for truth, however, must be carried out in a manner that is appropriate to the dignity of the human person and his social nature.” The same magisterial document later adds, “Consequently, to establish and strengthen peaceful relations and harmony in the human race, religious freedom must be given effective constitutional protection everywhere and that highest of man’s rights and duties—to lead a religious life with freedom in society—must be respected.” If it’s a Christian responsibility to protect and allow other religions to thrive, the paganism of the Indigenous must be included. The “suffocation of a noble pagan culture” in exchange for the genetic descendants to be “received into the Church of Christ,” contrary to the American Conservative, would not be “worth it” since such religious and cultural suffocation denies others the freedom of religion that they are entitled to according to the teachings of the Church.

St. Maria Goretti

There is some controversy with the feast day of St. Maria Goretti.

Wow. And now some more insightful commentary from the wonderful Deacon Steven Greydanus.

It is possible both to admire and venerate Maria Goretti and also to recognize the limitations and failings of her cultural milieu and their tragic effects in her brief life.

To turn a blind eye to those limitations and failings — to elevate her traditional Catholic cultural world above reproach — goes hand in hand with refusing to acknowledge the blind spots in our own religious milieu. Once we ask what Maria’s culture or upbringing may have failed to impart to her, we may have to ask, “What might our own children not have learned from us?”

Many prefer to focus on the evils of external enemies — the sexual revolution, secularism, pornography, gender ideology, etc. — rather than engage in honest self-criticism. Asking what we may have to learn or how we may have to grow can be difficult; how much easier and more comforting to assume that, since we have the true faith, any criticism of what we think or how we live is criticism of the truth. Ultimately, in the words of Thomas Merton, “what we pretend to be defending as the ‘truth’ is really our own self-esteem.” –Maria Goretti’s silence was tragic, not heroic, and not a model for us – Catholic Herald

Internet Discourse

To end this discussion, here are some helpful reminders for good discussions.  You don’t have to be nasty and overturn tables, slap heretics and chop down pagan trees when dealing with others.

Everyone wants to imitate Jesus in the one time He showed some temper with the whip in the temple. Dude, you are not Jesus. It’s a much safer bet to imitate Him in the other 99% of the Gospels, like when He preached the good news, when He fed His sheep, when he gave over His body, and when He fixed His eyes firmly on the Father and then told us to do the same.
Simcha Fisher, The only thing I will write about the Amazon Synod (October 21, 2019)

The amount of time Jesus went about being angry is rather small compared to everything else he did.

Matthew 23 deals with Jesus being nasty to the leaders of the pharisees.  If Jesus can do it, I can do it as well, right?  This is one chapter.  We have to take it into account but it’s one chapter.  The four gospels contain a total of 89 chapters and in one of them, Jesus is exceptionally harsh.  In the other ones, He is mild, calm, articulate, firm, and even mildly angry.  Still, 1 out of 89 is 1.1% of the time.  Taking the words of 1.1% percent of the gospels and applying them to 80% of your behavior is not following Christ, it’s an excuse to act how you want, when you want.

The same case could be made with St. Paul.  He has one chapter that’s extremely harsh and in the other chapters, there is a range of ways that he articulates his message.

Here are a number of saints who are known for their harshness and even nastiness.  We must remember that saints, being holy men and women are still flawed.  No saint is perfect.

St. Thomas More argued against Luther, Tyndale, and other Protestants quite viciously.  It’s almost painful to read at times.  St. Francis de Sales was the exact opposite.  He was gentle, mild mannered, but firm and spoke the truth when he needed it.
-Allan Ruhl  Nasty Internet Stuff(October 9, 2019)www.allanruhl.com

We don’t want to become a disciple of Christ who is always complaining about the state of the world and bring that into our writings, videos, and social media output.

In Conclusion

As important as it is to have Hot Takes and talk about serious issues. Sometimes in Catholic life we need some Catholic content like this.

And This.