In Part 1, I responded to Fr. Altman's video, "You Cannot Be Catholic and a Democrat." I received a good number of comments objecting to my analysis, so in this post I will be responding to those objections. I'm going to respond to the first few here, and then the rest in a future post. The comments I'm responding to will be in blockquotes and italicized.

Someone called "The truth" said:

Fr. Altman is on fire with God's love and word. Those that find his words harsh may find it easier to examine and criticize his speech than to examine their own conscience.

Why is it that everyone that disagrees with you or with Fr. Altman must have a panged conscience? Mine is clear. His words were easy to criticize because they were so wrong.

No one ever said the truth would be easy or that to follow God would be without challenges. The people that Fr. Altman mentions are those that are following the culture and disregarding God's word. An impostor is a person who claims to be someone they're not. These priests and religious leaders are supposed to be leading us on a path to heaven. By following the whims of the culture rather than God's word?! If that is not an impostor or a pretender than i don't know what satisfies as an example.

I'm not criticizing him because he's delivering "hard truths." I'm criticizing him because he's wrong. Everything he said about Fr. Martin was wrong:

• "Premeir speaker at the DNC"? Wrong
• "Spouting off for the Democrats"? Wrong
• "Prancing up onto the Democrat's national stage"? Wrong.

I would even contend that Fr. Martin is not "hyper confusion-spreading." I haven't meticulously researched everything Fr. Martin has ever said or written, but my sense of his message is that it's all about acknowledging that individuals with a same-sex attraction still have gifts to offer to the Church, and these people should not be marginalized or bullied simply for having that attraction. The sin is not in being tempted in that way, the sin is in acting on it. I'm not sure what is so "hyper confusion-spreading" about that message.

Also, I know what an imposter is. Fr. Altman said that every Catholic who voted for Obama was an "imposter", and that's just an absurd statement. They were real Catholics, made so by their baptism, they just disagreed with Fr. Altman on who to vote for.

I am concerned with how lightly you take the revelations of Our Lady of Fatima. Her revelation came 33 years to the day of Pope Leo XIII composing the St. Michael prayer after having a vision of the devil destroying the church from within.

I don't take it lightly, I'm just not obsessed with it like a certain segment of Catholics seem to be, and I rebuke the use of Mary and her appearances to give false arguments rhetorical flourish. "Mary warned us of this!" DUH-DUH-DUHHHHH. I'm just not going to fall for it.

The path this world has been following has lead us to where we are today. If you cannot see how our country and world are on the brink of communism, I'm not sure what else to share with you to help open your eyes.

I think all this "brink of communism" talk is a scare tactic used to emotionally manipulate people into voting Republican. Our country is not "on the brink of communism." Obama didn't usher that in, like everyone thought he would, and Biden won't either. And, supposing we were, doesn't that mean it happened under Trump's watch? Wouldn't that be his fault?

It is so sad to read this bashing of Fr. Altman, especially on a website that purports itself as Catholic. You criticize him for name calling and harshness, yet your writing is filled with sarcasm, you highlight insignificant pieces to prove your point and fail to give evidence that does exist to support everything he is saying.

My blog "purports to be Catholic" because it is. Show me where I departed from Catholic teaching, if you're so sure I don't deserve the title of "Catholic."

I'll own the sarcasm. Take this as a lesson in what happens when one follows Fr. Altman's example! ;-)

What did I highlight that was "insignificant"? My intent was to respond to all the errors I found, not just a couple of them or only the "big" ones.

Finally, you indict me for "failing to give evidence to support everything he is saying." It's his job to support his statements, not mine. I'm not going to do his work for him! ... and I should hardly be expected to.

Fr. Altman's words are so desperately needed these days to bring us closer to God. There are much darker days ahead and we need leaders like him who are not afraid to speak against the culture and the problems within our own church. May God continue to bless Fr. Altman!

I'm not real sure how name-calling and outright falsehood and lies are what is so "desperately needed" right now. You think people were "brought closer to God" by this video? I think it just riled up the alt-right against "the enemy" that is the ... dreaded Democrat. *GASP*

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Someone called "Saddened" said:

I am saddened by your attempt at an astute critique of the words of this servant of the Lord, Fr. Altman. Your piece is another example of how those within the church will be the reason for its demise.

Prove it.

If you truly were following God's word, you would not be threatened by the truth that Fr. Altman is preaching.

I'm not threatened by the truth. I love it. It's my love of the truth that compelled me to point out his errors. Show me where I said something that wasn't true.

Remember the words in the Bible-- Isaiah 5:20, “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness…"

Show me where I called evil good or good evil.

Heed these words before you publish another piece admonishing the truth that Fr. Altman is trying to make known. Those who have an open heart and are willing to recognize their own erroneous ways can acknowledge his words as things to aspire to and repent from. They do not put blame on Fr. Altman for any poor decisions they have made in their own life.

Yea, as if everyone who disagrees with him must have a closed heart and a lack of humility. It couldn't possibly be because he's wrong.

Also, where did I blame Fr. Altman for my own poor decisions? I'm not even a Democrat, I just happen to think his arguments are wrong.

I pray that Fr. Altman continues to preach without fear.

Me too, I'd just rather he fearlessly preach the truth, instead of blatant falsehoods that take a 1-second Google search to refute (Example: "Ok Google, what is D.A.C.A.?")

You can't stand before God and say you didn't know better. Fr. Altman is making sure of that so that you can change your ways now and not be deceived by those who claim to be church leaders but whose actions will lead us astray if we follow them.

I think that creating guilt and shame in the hearts of people where there shouldn't be any is a serious sin, and I'm not going to stand by and allow him to do it to people.

- - - - - - - - - -

Someone called "Unknown" said:

As a Catholic I will vote for life and to protect it that should be very important to save and protect God's children. As a Catholic we have a duty to vote to save a child or the elderly. If you choose to vote otherwise I believe you are going against your faith and you will answer to God. Remember maybe you didn't dothe actually act of killing a baby butor have an abortion if you voted for someone that does you are just as guilty because you knownly know that person is committing murder. Though Shault not kill.

I agree that we should vote for life and to protect life. But, I think you missed that part of my post where I quoted Ratzinger:

“A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia. 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.” (“Worthiness to Receive Communion: General Principles”)

What this means is that a vote for a Democrat is not always a vote for abortion, specifically when you're not voting for the Democrat because of his permissiveness on the abortion issue. "Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship" from the USCCB says the same thing:

"35. There may be times when a Catholic who rejects a candidate’s unacceptable position even on policies promoting an intrinsically evil act may reasonably decide to vote for that candidate for other morally grave reasons. Voting in this way would be permissible only for truly grave moral reasons, not to advance narrow interests or partisan preferences or to ignore a fundamental moral evil."

Now, we can debate what "proportionate reasons" (Ratzinger) or "other morally grave reasons" (USCCB) might be. But, then we fall into the area of prudential judgment. The Church does not tell us who to vote for. She reminds us what we believe about moral issues, and then it's up to us to decide, based on a fully formed conscience guided by the Magisterium, how to apply that understanding to particular situations, and two people of equally good faith can disagree on how best to do that.

- - - - - - - - - -

Someone called George K. said:

The list the critic provided for the Democratic Party and what they are for in accordance with Catholic tenants left out the most important stance -- PRO-CHOICE. This is not one of the tenants the Democrat platform has in common with Catholic teaching.

Yea, I know. It wasn't a list of everything on the platform. I was responding to Fr. Altman's ridiculous claim that the Democratic Party platform "absolutely is against everything the Catholic Church teaches." That is so clearly not true, and to prove my point I listed the issues on their platform that do coincide with Catholic teaching.

For a "practicing" Catholic to vote for a party that is pro-choice is inconceivable. How can a "practicing" Catholic go into a polling booth and mark his/her ballet for a party that condones murder of the most innocent?

I explained how, by quoting Ratzinger. Also see my earlier quote from the USCCB in this post. It's not inconceivable. In fact, Ratzinger and the bishops provide the paramters within which it is actually possible.

God creates life and no man has the authority to end it. Simply put, cutting through a intelligent and intuitive arguments the author presents, the bottom line is a "practicing" Catholic's stance on abortion. If you are a Democrat and vote for the Democratic ticket, you are in effect condoning abortion.

Not true, according to Ratzinger and the USCCB.

Personally I would not want to respond to God's question on my judgment day when He asks me why did you vote for abortion? If very Catholic voted agains aboriton, President Trump would win 50 out of 50 states. I will vote early and often if I could.

A vote explicitly and directly for abortion is a grave sin, as I said in my post. My point is that a vote for a Democrat is not always and necessarily an explicit and direct vote for abortion. I'm glad to know you're willing to commit voter fraud, though!

Pax Christi,
phatcatholic