Father James Altman: You cannot be Catholic & a Democrat. Period

  • Thread starter Thread starter fide
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Tis_Bearself said:
Fr. Altman also has the problem that the Dem candidate is a practicing Catholic,
Click to expand...
A “practicing Catholic” who officiated at a same-sex wedding and endorses abortion. He may be a saint at home but his public acts are far from Catholic.
 
So I wholeheartedly agree with the title and premise of the thread. I’ve never met a democrat who was a faithful Catholic. However I think on these forums that will be unpopular.
 
So the question becomes, “where do Catholics draw the line?” Is there any belief or political position that is unequivocally unacceptable?
 
MikeInVA said:
So, would it be acceptable to vote for a white supremacist who wants to reduce crime, improve public education, safeguard individual freedoms and lower taxes?
Click to expand...
This is a good question, and I think it’s one that people sometimes find difficult to answer. What if some extremist party rose to prominence, or one of the current parties evolved to embrace extremist policies?

I think part of the problem is that when it comes to abortion, many Catholics, even some of those who claim to be vociferously opposed to it, don’t really comprehend the issue in the way that the Church teaches.

Abortion is taught by the Church to be the murder of an innocent child…right? So in effect, the Democratic party (or any party that supports abortion) supports the legalization of murdering certain innocent children. They don’t see it that way of course, but by the Church’s teaching, this is effectively what they support.

Now, replace the word “child” with any other group of human beings. It could be anything - black people, people with disabilities, Hispanics, immigrants, white people, Christians, Jews, Muslims, whatever.

If the Democratic party (or any other political party) had a party platform, that stated the following:

“We support a path to citizenship for all undocumented immigrants, medicare for all, expansion of Social Security, expanded welfare programs, and the right to murder black people.”

Would it be moral to vote for such a candidate? If all lives are equally sacred (as those who support the “seamless garment” theory are quick to remind us) then it shouldn’t matter whether or not the group being targeted is a child developing in the womb, a certain minority group, or a certain religion, right? So in theory, it shouldn’t matter whether the person or group being targeted is a child in the womb, or a walking and talking human being…right? Is there anyone here who would admit to be willing to vote for a candidate with such a platform?

I just have a feeling that many people, including many Catholics who claim to be anti-abortion, would see this differently than a platform that simply states “they support a woman’s right to an abortion.” The abortion lobby has become so mainstream, abortions have become so common, that people don’t even think about it much, and have become numb to the murder that happens when an abortion takes place. Someone reading this might have an abortion clinic located close by. Maybe it’s been there so long that they don’t think twice about it anymore. Would it be different if the abortion clinic was a death camp for adult humans?

The Guttmacher Institute estimates that 862,320 abortions occurred in 2017 in the U.S. (source). Would Catholics who are truly pro-life vote for a candidate or argue that it is moral to vote for a candidate that supported a policy that led to the murder of 862,320 black people, or hispanics, or Jews, or [insert your minority or group of choice here]? All life is supposed to be equally sacred…right?
 
Last edited:
whatistrue said:
I am talking about verified fact checking, not mere opinion, and the fact that DJT has a new category all to himself where he has repeated 14 blatant lies more than 20 times each, even after being called on it.
Click to expand...
Oh yes. We are all familiar with bogus, partisan “fact checking”.
whatistrue said:
You can’t honestly tell me that the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post are always on the same page editorially, at least not with a straight face.
Click to expand...
I would never say that. The WSJ presents differing points of view. The WaPo always presents the liberal point of view.
whatistrue said:
Trying to get a reporter for Fox fired because she told the truth in a report?
Click to expand...
Two assumptions, neither of which you know to be correct.
whatistrue said:
I look at solid verifiable fact, not liberal or conservative hit pieces.
Click to expand...
Then you’re not watching any of the major channels. The only “verifiable facts” presented on any of them are the little snippets the secondary (or less) reporters present in those little thirty second slots on Fox. Well, I’ll have to admit that Maria Bartiromo, Stuart Varney, Dagen McDowell and Charles Payne are fact based when they’re talking about the market, which is nearly all the time with them.
 
Ridgerunner said:
Oh yes. We are all familiar with bogus, partisan “fact checking”.
Click to expand...
I am very familiar with it, I just don’t pay attention to it. I go for the honest factual fact checking.
Ridgerunner said:
I would never say that. The WSJ presents differing points of view. The WaPo always presents the liberal point of view.
Click to expand...
And yet both are “Mainstream Media” Go figure.
Ridgerunner said:
Two assumptions, neither of which you know to be correct.
Click to expand...
Zero assumptions. Reported facts.
Ridgerunner said:
Then you’re not watching any of the major channels
Click to expand...
True. I don’t get my news from television. Not enough depth or nuance.
 
This seems to me to be besides the point. Fr. Altman made a statement that extends beyond Mr. Biden to Catholics in general. Again, as I mentioned in my original post, I seriously doubt that Fr. Altman is referring to “paperwork”, to those who are simply registered as Democrats, but completely reject the evils the party endorses and promotes in its platform.

Now, once baptized a Catholic, one is always a Catholic. It is a question of whether or not one is a “good” Catholic; I mean actually practicing Catholicism, which is not simply going through the motions (e.g. mass, communion), but embracing all our Church’s teaching on faith and morals. In as much as anyone knowingly, with an informed conscience, embraces abortion, homosexual behavior/“marriage”, transgenderism, etc., one is, by that fact, not actually a practicing Catholic. And I think one could say, in this case, not just failing to practice the faith, but holding positions that are antithetical to the faith. All the teachings of our Church are interconnected, meaning, that holding these positions have profound ramifications for the nature of the human person and the rest of Catholic beliefs.

I wonder if Fr. Altman’s bishop would have a problem with Catholics being members of the American Communist Party or one of the Nazi groups in the US? The profound evils in the Democratic party platform are like the evils these groups espouse.
 
MikeInVA said:
So the question becomes, “where do Catholics draw the line?” Is there any belief or political position that is unequivocally unacceptable?
Click to expand...
For me it has been that abortion is unequivocally unacceptable. But then there are so many loud voices willing to say that my pro life third party vote may as well be for Biden because I’m “taking” a vote from Trump. As a Catholic, I do not owe my vote to President Trump and that’s what these conversations seem to turn into.
 
So the fact checking that DJT claims support his position is ipso facto false? Interesting.

Some people you just can’t reach. Welcome to the Ignore bucket.
 
Tis_Bearself said:
Two of them were my parents. Which is the main reason I remain a democrat.
Click to expand...
I was the same way for a long time, though I was a “true believer” in the Democrat programs for a long time. I finally realized I could not work for the party and remain true to the Church’s teachings. I never became a Repub, but after I left the Dem party got even more twisted.
 
Bearself: “I’ve met quite a few. Two of them were my parents. Which is the main reason I remain a democrat.”

Today’s Democrat party would be unrecognizable to that of past generations of Democrats. That was the testimony of Reagan, who was once Democrat, until “it left me” as he said. Back in those days, this country was truly a workable two-party country, generally speaking capable of compromise because we all had the same objective, just different approaches - but a chasm has developed. The Democrat party has abandoned God in all except name, and become a path into godless socialism, which is itself a path into communism, which is itself a path to the arms of satan and death.
 
Last edited:
I don’t work for the party. I don’t donate to the party. I just stay on the rolls.

If they have some candidate I think is a good candidate for any office, I vote for them. I have voted many times for Democratic senators for my state and congressmen for my district because I felt they genuinely do a good job. However, if I feel the Republican will do a better job, or I don’t like the Dem candidate for some reason, I don’t hesitate to vote across party lines.
 
I sometimes feel all these guides to voting are a little patronizing. I’ve been voting just fine since I was 18 without needing help making up my mind. Part of being an adult is being able to make a decision and own it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top