James Martin, SJ’s Enemies List

OMM says, 'When it comes to hypocrisy, Fr. James Martin, SJ, never lets me down', and boy does she rip a strip of hide off him!

From One Mad Mom

When it comes to hypocrisy, Fr. James Martin, SJ, never lets me down. He’s basically using the same party line as the Democrats. “Let’s have peace and unity AFTER we crush our enemies.” Here you find him making his enemies list, just like any good little socialist. “It’s Trump’s fault. It’s the faithful Catholics’ fault. It’s the pro-lifers’ fault. And mostly it’s anyone who would dare to oppose him – especially by name. Might Fr. James Martin take the redwood tree out of his own eye?

How Catholic Leaders Helped Give Rise to Violence at the U.S. Capitol

James Martin, S.J.

January 12, 2021

At the end of last August, the Rev. James Altman, the pastor of St. James the Less Parish in La Crosse, Wis., uploaded a video to YouTube that has been viewed over 1.2 million times. The video’s title voiced what an increasing number of Catholic bishops and priests were saying in the run-up to the presidential election: “You Cannot be a Catholic and a Democrat.”

“Their party platform absolutely is against everything the Catholic Church teaches,” said Father Altman, as music from Beethoven’s Symphony No. 7 swelled in the background. “So just quit pretending that you’re Catholic and vote Democrat. Repent of your support of that party and its platform or face the fires of hell.”

(Full disclosure: Father Altman referred to me as a “hyper-confusion spreading heretic” in the same video.)”

Oh, believe me, we know. You’ve only written a thousand things on how mean Fr. Altman was to you. Got it. I love how “full disclosure” has become an attempt to justify an article written in retaliation for something said about you. It must have hit close to home because you just can’t seem to let it go.  How many times are you going to rehash the same article, tweet, or blog post you’ve made?

“Incorrect moral reasoning”

Let’s see what the King of Immoral Reasoning has to say on this. Can’t wait.

There are traditional restrictions on Catholic clergy endorsing political candidates. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ document on voting, “Faithful Citizenship,” states that the church should refrain from endorsing parties or candidates. As Pope Francis has said, the church is called “to form consciences, not to replace them.” More bluntly, a Vatican directive from 1994 says that a priest “ought to refrain from actively engaging himself in politics.”

Errrrrk! Stop right there. I shall once again point out that Fr. Martin, LGBTQSJ, rarely cites Church teachings. He wants you to just trust what he’s telling you is true. First of all, Fr. Altman never told me to vote for Trump. He just said I’d be a fool to vote for Biden. He was forming consciences. Fr. Martin’s forming of consciences goes something like this: “What does your conscience tell you? Great, go with that.” He never attempts to form consciences around Church teachings. He attempts to deform them at every turn. 

Next, let me cite that Church document he quoted. Feel free to give it a read instead of letting Father Martin cherry pick it for you (emphasis mine). 

33. Political and Social Obligation.

The priest, as servant of the universal Church, cannot tie himself to any historical contingency, and therefore must be above any political party. He cannot take an active role in political parties or labour unions, unless, according to the judgement of the ecclesiastical authority, the rights of the Church and the defence of common good require it.(97) In fact, even if these are good things in themselves, they are nevertheless foreign to the clerical state since they can constitute a grave danger of division in the ecclesial communion.(98)

Like Jesus (cf Jn 6:15 ff.), the priest “ought to refrain from actively engaging himself in politics, as it often happens, in order to be a central point of spiritual fraternity”.(99) All the faithful, therefore, must always be able to approach the priest without feeling inhibited for any reason.

The priest will remember that “it does not fall on the shoulders of the Pastors of the Church to intervene directly in political activities and in social organisations. This task, in fact, forms part of the lay faithful vocation, in which they work by their own initiative together with their fellow citizens”. (100) Nevertheless, he will not be absent “in the effort to form in them an upright conscience”.(101)

The reduction of his mission to temporal tasks, of a purely social or political nature, is foreign to his ministry, and does not constitute a triumph but rather a grave loss to the Church’s evangelical fruitfulness.

Now that you know the content, Fr. Martin is now going to change tactics and talk about tone. Forget the content. Let’s just look at the tone.

The response of the local bishop to Father Altman’s video, however, was mixed. Bishop William Patrick Callahan released a written statement saying that while the tone was so “angry and judgmental” that it caused scandal, he understood “the undeniable truth that motivates [Father Altman’s] message.” He added that penalties might be applied if Father Altman did not respond to the bishop’s “fraternal correction.”

In response, Father Altman simply doubled down, in a follow-up video titled “Liberal Catholics are Wolves in Sheep’s Clothing.” Later, he compared the tactics of people on the “left” to those of Nazis in one video interview and ratcheted up his comments on the LifeSite News show “Mother Miriam Live,” in an episode titled “If you vote for Biden you’re voting for the murder of babies.

Much to Fr. Martin’s chagrin, Fr. Altman wasn’t cancelled. In fact, he’s bigger than he was before, and there hasn’t been another peep from Bishop Callahan. As the bishop stated, Father Altman was dead right in his concerns, his delivery was just a little harsh. Maybe the bishop has reconsidered the dire circumstances or maybe they found some common ground?

A few weeks later, the Rev. Ed Meeks, the pastor of Christ the King Church in Towson, Md., preached a homily, also uploaded to YouTube, under the title “Staring into the Abyss,” in which he declared the Democratic Party the “party of death.”

Father Meeks’s video, which has received over two million views, was warmly commended by Bishop Joseph Strickland, of Tyler, Tex., who tweeted it out to his 40,000 followers with the message “Every Catholic should listen to this wise and faithful priest.” Earlier, Bishop Strickland had endorsed Father Altman’s video as well, tweeting, “As the Bishop of Tyler I endorse Fr Altman’s statement in this video. My shame is that it has taken me so long. Thank you Fr Altman for your COURAGE. If you love Jesus & His Church & this nation…pleases [sic] HEED THIS MESSAGE.” Father Altman later appeared as a guest on the premiere episode of “The Bishop Strickland Show” on LifeSite News.”

And? It IS the party of death! They’re always promoting pro-abortion and pro-euthanasia legislation. Who didn’t want to quash partial birth abortion? Let’s see. It wasn’t the Republicans.

Both videos focused on abortion. If a candidate was pro-choice, the priests said, then a Catholic could never vote for him or her because abortion is an intrinsic evil. Bishop Thomas Daly of Spokane summed up this approach in one interview by asking, “If abortion is intrinsically evil…how can Catholics vote for a candidate like Biden?”

This, however, does not adequately reflect church teaching, which leaves the final choice on voting to an individual’s formed conscience, recognizing that there are many important issues that a voter might have to consider. As the U.S.C.C.B. states in “Faithful Citizenship”:

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.

While you try to give them cover with your “seamless garment” schtick, they’re the ones who are leading this country into the blatant disregard for ALL human life. You want homelessness, poverty, drug addiction to get better? Stop helping them to devalue innocent human life. This is the root of all of our problems.

One “morally grave reason” would be if the pro-life candidate were unhinged, unfit to govern or somehow posed a threat to the republic—as President Trump confirmed he was by inciting a mob that attacked the U.S. Capitol, causing a stunningly violent riot that left five people dead.

Sorry. I must have missed your condemnation of all those who incited the Antifa/BLM riots of the last, well, almost 7 years. Let me explain something to you: encouraging people to challenge a VERY faulty election by marching to the Capitol is not anything close to what the Democrats have done ALL YEAR LONG. At every turn, your precious Democrats have stoked racial division, hatred of police, hatred of half the country, etc. Your people literally ran to have meet and greets with Jacob Blake, a man who is anything but a saint. And before anyone suggests I think that’s reason to shoot someone, don’t. I do, however, think that the limited info the officers had at the time was cause for shooting someone who was refusing to follow commands. Maybe Father Martin thinks it peachy to think that officers have to put themselves in jeopardy, but I don’t. And if you want to know a bit about Jacob Blake that should have made Democratic politicians pause for a second before trying to create a martyr of a racial attack by police, here: https://nypost.com/2020/08/28/this-is-why-jacob-blake-had-a-warrant-out-for-his-arrest/ and https://www.cbsnews.com/news/jacob-blake-shooting-kenosha-wisconsin-officer-charging-decision-live-stream-today-2021-01-05/  and https://www.fox6now.com/video/886994 (explicit warning on the articles). Despite this, the shooting was all about race, according to the Democrats. So, please, Fr. Martin, when you talk about Trump inciting violence, remember all your Democratic friends who just can’t wait to pit police against minorities. It’s disgusting.

Despite clear restrictions on political endorsements and the church’s longstanding teaching on conscience, the statements from Fathers Altman and Meeks and Bishop Strickland were part of a pattern of similar commentary from members of the clergy. Most did not make the news, as they were heard in homilies and read in parish bulletins. But they were no less effective in communicating the message that the election was an almost apocalyptic battle between good and evil.

Last time I checked, not one of them said you needed to vote for Trump. They compared the two candidates records. Joe Biden’s was an abysmal 47 year-long record right up to flopping on partial-birth abortion. It’s quite funny that you bring conscience into this at all since you don’t appear to have one. OK, maybe you do, but it’s very deformed. I won’t say ill-formed because I’m pretty sure you know the Church teachings, you just choose to ignore them and entice others to do the same. So, kudos to these prelates you mention who decided they didn’t want the blood of the children on their consciences.

In the weeks before the election, I received Facebook messages from many Catholics struggling to make sense of pastors who cast the election in such terms or condemned Democrats outright, either from the pulpit or in private conversations. Many felt not only attacked for their political views but alienated from their own parishes.

So, rather than listen to what was being said by their pastors, those that contacted you chose to consider themselves martyrs. Let me explain something to you. These people separated themselves from the Church. The idea that pastors are not supposed to teach morality because it makes someone feel bad is ridiculous. These people condemned themselves in the same fashion as Judas. They could conform to Church teachings and repent if it weren’t for priests like you running around telling them that they’re completely good with their deformed consciences. Sorry, Father. You’re not supposed to follow your ill-formed or deformed conscience. You’re supposed to take a dose of humility and form your conscience around Church teachings. If you get it wrong, only then can you say following your conscience was the way to go. Trying to follow Church teachings to the best of your understanding and getting it wrong versus actively choosing not to follow Church teachings are two VERY different things. The pastors on Fr. Martin’s enemies list are trying to make sure you understand this.

“How do I deal with my church life when my pastor says I am not a Catholic because I am a Biden supporter?” wrote one. “Father, I am struggling, I cannot vote for Donald Trump for many reasons. I’m being told if I vote for Joe Biden it’s a mortal sin. Can you please help me understand?” “Monsignor came to our house to chat about why our family left right after the divisive homily and why we were planning to leave the parish. This was the homily where he endorsed a political candidate and called anyone who voted for Biden a sinner or a pawn of the devil.”

Again, these pastors were educating their flock. And, interestingly enough, Fr. Martin doesn’t mention one instance of any of these pastors saying their flock had to vote for Trump. They simply explained why Catholics could not in good conscience vote for Biden. These are two different things. If you hear their teaching on the issue and you still choose to vote for Biden, you kind of are a pawn of the devil. Sorry. Instead of being so offended, you might want to think about the fact that Father so and so could very well be correct.

Some provided links to homilies or letters that were posted online. The Rev. Kevin Cusick, the pastor of St. Francis de Sales Parish in Benedict, Md., wrote: “Joe Biden is not a practicing Catholic. And practicing Catholics cannot vote for Biden for president in good conscience.” The Rev. David Miller, the pastor of St. Dorothy’s Parish in North Carolina, said in a homily posted to YouTube that if “[Mr. Biden] dies the way he is now, unrepentant for his years of denying Christ…before repentance…you and I know where he will go: He will be damned to hell for all eternity.”

This approach was not confined to the local level. Cardinal Raymond Burke, the former Archbishop of St. Louis and a former Vatican official, had called the Democrats the “party of death” in 2008. This past autumn, he was a guest on EWTN’s show “The World Over,” where he was interviewed by Raymond Arroyo, speaking of Mr. Biden as involved in a “grave, immoral evil that is the source of scandal.”

Perhaps the most frequent promoter of these arguments was Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, the former Vatican nuncio to the United States and one of Pope Francis’ most relentless critics. Mr. Biden, he said, is “a puppet manipulated by the elite, a puppet in the hands of people thirsty for power and willing to do anything to expand it.” Archbishop Viganò predicted that the election of Mr. Biden would usher in a near-Satanic age characterized by “ecumenism, Malthusian environmentalism, pansexualism and immigrationism.”

I realize that hell is a tough concept for you but, uh, what part of this isn’t true? Biden is a heretic. He might have been a bad Catholic for his views on abortion, breaking up someone’s marriage, etc., but he definitely crossed over into heretic range when he attempted to marry two men. I don’t want to see Biden carry those things to the grave without repentance and confession any more than I’d want myself to die with mortal sin on my conscience. These pastors are all exercising charity, but you prefer to let people just sit in sin. Not really sure how you sleep at night. I think of your friend who has been a practicing homosexual for decades and “married” to his guy and you tell him what? Follow your conscience? You all ain’t getting any younger and the proverbial bus could hit you tomorrow. So, you can go ahead and condemn these priests for actually trying to help these people form their consciences, or you can just have their consciences on your hands by helping them to deform theirs.

I offer this lengthy list to show that these were not isolated incidents. Rather, they were part of a pattern of messages from bishops and priests casting the election not only in terms of pure good versus pure evil but in apocalyptic language.

Right, these are not isolated instances. That should give one pause, except you tell them not to worry about it. Good luck with that.

Even after the election, such commentary continued. In late December, the Rev. Jeffrey Kirby, pastor of Our Lady of Grace in Lancaster, S.C., preached a homily on how to survive the “evil” Biden administration. Taking an even more extreme step, the Rev. John Zuhlsdorf, who lives in Madison, Wis., and blogs as “Father Z,” conducted an exorcism, broadcast on YouTube, over those who were involved in counting votes, who he said had engaged in “fraud,” “sin,” “lying,” “cheating” and “stealing” and who “put their souls in terrible mortal peril,” as well as over “demonic influence.”

“This morning during the 8:30 AM Mass,” someone wrote me just last week, a priest “stated from the pulpit that…if you voted for Joe Biden you weren’t a real Christian.”

OK, I’m going to cut you some slack on the very last sentence even though you didn’t name the priest. If you have to be accurate, you’d have to say that Biden is a bad Christian, a Christian in word only, a heretic, etc. And, to add some clarity for readers, there’s a difference between those who sin, even repeatedly, but confess that they are wrong (which isn’t good either) and those who embrace their sin. To give you a little illustration of what I’m saying, let’s consider drug addicts. There are addicts who admit their problem, get themselves into rehab, fall off the wagon, and try again, and there are those who never admit their problem and just keep on getting high. Which do you think has a better chance of living? You ALL know it’s the former and not the latter.

For his part, Father Altman spoke out the day after the riots with another priest, the Rev. Richard Heilman, in a video titled “Rebellion to Tyrants is Obedience to God,” in which he expressed his rage against left-wing “Nazis.”

Oh, please, people. Notice Fr. Martin didn’t put the link. Watch the video. https://youtu.be/g_9cte6htZU While I feel there are some inaccuracies based on falling for faulty intial reporting on who was who, their point about being played like a fiddle is correct. Personally, I have always said the problem “our side” is going to have are the secular people who are not rooted in God. If God is not in the forefront of goal, you will get episodes like the Capitol riot.

Where does this kind of dualistic and often apocalyptic language lead? It can, of course, lead to some Catholics voting for Donald Trump over Joe Biden. But it can also lead to anger at pastors, division in parishes, alienation from the church, hatred of candidates and elected officials, contempt for people who belong to one party, rage over election results, despair in the future of the country and, ultimately, to violence. For if the “party of death” gains power, then one must resist, by any means necessary.

Such dualistic thinking was strongly critiqued by Pope Francis in his address to the Joint Session of Congress in 2015, in the very building that would be vandalized: “[T]here is another temptation which we must especially guard against: the simplistic reductionism which sees only good or evil; or, if you will, the righteous and sinners. The contemporary world, with its open wounds which affect so many of our brothers and sisters, demands that we confront every form of polarization which would divide it into these two camps.”

Dualistic? You want to define that one for clarity? Of course not. I’ve got to laugh about your repeated use of “apocalyptic language.” You know who else used that? Uh, Christ. That might just be the failure of you priests today. You act like the world will go on forever. For some, today is the day. Remember the thief in the night and keeping your lamps ready for the bridegroom? We should be acting as if every day is the last. You’re the one causing division in our Church world with your refusal to talk about sin, hell, etc., to our brothers and sisters. You act as if this isn’t the loving thing. I’ve said it before: telling my kids not to touch the hot stove IS loving. Purposely withholding that information from them would be evil. Think about that, Father. Personally, I love my kids.

One could argue that lay Catholic commentators should be allowed to condemn whomever they want and endorse whomever they please, no matter how hateful their language. It is a free country.

Hyperbolic much? “You are going to hell” is far different from “put their souls in terrible mortal peril.” (BTW, the latter is a direct quote you made from the members of your enemies list. Gotta love how you switch up the actual quotes.) Telling someone they are putting their souls in mortal peril is the loving thing to do. Ironically, isn’t that the point of your article? You’re telling to priests to take responsibility (albeit not for something they’re actually responsible for.) Why? And why in the @#$%* don’t you do it for your friend who has been engaging in sodomy for decades???

But when it comes to priests and bishops, it is not a free church. Nor should it be. There are many good reasons why Catholic clergy do not endorse candidates. Some that are often adduced: The church should never be aligned with one or another party since it limits its freedom and even corrupts it; bishops and pastors should never endorse one candidate because it will split dioceses and parishes; and the church should never endorse because it could jeopardize its tax-exempt status.

For myself, I offered a prayer at the Democratic National Convention but would have been happy to have offered the same prayer, word for word, at the Republican convention, if I had been asked. And I did not endorse either candidate. The traditional restrictions on clergy are sensible guidelines.

Please. The whole “Who, me? I just offered a little prayer.” schtick is getting old. You weren’t chosen because they thought you were impartial. You were chosen because they thought you were the useful idiot that you are. You sympathize with the Democratic party and support their agendas despite the murder of over a million babies a year. They know you have influence over ignorant people and can muddle the seamless garment and well-formed conscience issue. In short, you can win them votes. To act like that’s not why people are chosen to do whatever for conventions is duplicitous.

These seemingly theoretical reasons were displaced with the eruption of mob violence in Washington, egged on by the supposedly pro-life candidate, which led to the vandalizing of a hallowed national symbol, the interruption of the election process, physical danger posed to legislators and law officers, and worse, the death of five people. Can anyone doubt that the moral calculus proposed by some Christian leaders, including Catholic priests and bishops, framed in the language of pure good versus pure evil, contributed to the presence of so many rioters brandishing overtly Christian symbols as they carried out their violence?

Uh, yes. Talk about judgmental. Don’t you just love how Fr. Martin constantly tells us we can’t judge souls when we’re judging actions, yet he can somehow divine the interior thoughts of Christian leaders? Hypocritical much? Why, yes, very much so. Do you ever notice how often he does EXACTLY what he accuses others of doing? And vandalizing hallowed national symbols? I don’t remember you getting to incensed about this as it happened all year long. Toppling of St. Junipero Serra statues, vandalism of St. Patrick’s, burning of St. John’s, etc., etc., etc. Whose fault was that? Oh, of course, your enemies list members.

Thus, the more important reason to avoid that kind of moral language is this: When casting an election in terms of pure evil and pure good, when saying that voting for one candidate will cause someone to go to hell or when demonizing candidates as monsters, one runs the risk of people drawing the conclusion that fighting against this, by any means necessary, is an absolute moral imperative. If one party is the “party of death,” then eradicating it is a triumph for life.

Oh, I would love to eradicate the “party of death” and stop its overshadowing evil, but since heaven is not on earth, I can only hope we can stem it and beg God to withhold his hand of judgment.

Personal vilification

Uh, have you read your own article? Oh. My. Goodness.

This faulty moral reasoning—you will go to hell if you vote for Mr. Biden, you commit a mortal sin by not voting for President Trump, the Democrats are the party of death—was exacerbated by widespread personal vilification of candidates from Catholic leaders.

Bishop Richard Stika of Knoxville, Tenn., tweeted this about Mr. Biden and his “sidekick,” Senator Kamala Harris: “[I] don’t understand how Mr. Biden can claim to be a good and faithful Catholic as he denies so much of Church teaching, especially on the absolute child abuse and human rights violations of the most innocent, the not yet born,” followed by “And he also praises his sidekick who has shown time and time again in senate [sic] hearings that she is an anti-Catholic bigot….”

A list of quotes does not a condemnation make. How exactly is Bishop Stika wrong here? Biden chose an extreme pro-abortion, Catholic bashing babe as his running mate. Truth bomb. And, BTW, Bishop Stika, we don’t always agree but you nailed it here, so thank you.

“Why is it that the supporters of this goddamn loser Biden and his morally corrupt, America-hating, God hating Democrat party can’t say a goddamn thing in support of their loser candidate without using the word Trump? What the hell do you have to say for yourselves losers?” the Rev. Frank Pavone, the national director of Priests for Life, wrote in a tweet that has since been deleted.

I’m not going to defend this one, really, due to language, and knowing Fr. Pavone, I don’t think he really would, either. He deleted the Tweet and stepped down when asked to do so. Still not wrong in the overarching message, though. Nobody could seem to muster a defense of Biden without mentioning “orange man bad.”

Personal vilification from members of the clergy inevitably gives rise to a lack of respect from the faithful, making it easier for those in the pews to revile government and civic leaders. Why respect someone who is a “puppet,” “bound for hell,” not a “good and faithful Catholic” or “a walking and talking scandal,” as another priest said? If bishops, the pre-eminent teachers in their dioceses, treat people with such contempt, then one should not be surprised when the faithful take their lead and, in turn, treat their institutions as something to be taken, razed, destroyed—because they are destroying institutions run by evil men and their “sidekicks.”

Um, can I just ask where “bound for hell” came from? No quote containing that, so it would be rather disingenuous to suggest one. Nice trick to slide that one in there, Father. Here’s the thing, faithful Catholics tend to follow the teachings of the Catholic Church. We know that nobody can condemn anyone’s soul. The most we can do is exactly what Fr. Z and so many other have done, which is to warn people that their actions put their souls in terrible mortal peril. Actions can most certainly be judged and, right or wrong, you do it all the stinking time, as with this article. Again, you are literally doing the same thing you are condemning. Bravo.

Bishops and priests need to understand the real-life effects of such contemptuous and even dehumanizing language. Catholic bishops and priests are meant to teach morality, but they are not meant to judge others (as Jesus said clearly) or to treat people with such bitter contempt. The real-world effect of this kind of language was revealed at the Capitol on Jan. 6.

Dehumanizing and contemptuous?! “You have a soul, don’t lose it!” hardly qualifies. In fact, just the opposite. If those that broke into the Capitol had given it one thought, that wouldn’t have happened.

Jesus is My Savior. Trump is My President.

For many people who were encouraged in such dualistic thinking by their pastors, then, the choice was obvious. Storming the U.S. Capitol and, as we now know, planning to abduct or harm lawmakers, was a fight for life, for morality—for God.

Are you honestly suggesting the “enemies list” and the tens of thousands of people marching from the Ellipse to the Capitol had that in mind? Please. If you want to condemn the violence, I’m all with you, but I didn’t see you divining what was in the minds of the rioters ALL OVER THE country ALL YEAR LONG. Some of them actually told us their plans repeatedly on Twitter, Facebook, Tik Tok, etc.  How about you strongly condemn that, too, and with the same repetition we normally get from you. I mean, I do.

This is why it was not surprising to see a surfeit of Christian signs and symbols as rioters overwhelmed the barricades and burst through the doors of the Capitol: “Jesus Saves,” “God, Guns and Trump,” “You Need Jesus” and “Jesus is My Savior. Trump is My President.” Or why aides to Senator Mitch McConnell heard a woman praying outside their barricaded door, at the height of the panic, for the “evil of Congress to be brought to an end.”

Oooh! Praying lady is scary. Wanton destruction, looting and violence is bad, bad, bad, but bringing up the one person who might have not been doing that but praying? Seriously?

The invasion of the U.S. Capitol was seen by many rioters not simply as a political act but a religious one, in great part thanks to the moral framework fostered by too many Christian leaders. Christians in the mob probably did not consider themselves criminals as much as prophets. One journalist reported the scene: “‘Give it up if you believe in Jesus!’ a man yelled near me. People cheered. ‘Give it up if you believe in Donald Trump!’ Louder cheer.”

The only person trying to frame it as a religious act is you. Unless the reporter was inside, you are confusing the two masses of people. Let’s say nobody rushed in the Capitol and people spent the day cheering and praying the Rosary. Would you be saying a word right now? My guess? Yes. Somehow that would be wrong, too. It’s been reported BY THE CAPITIOL POLICE that there were two groups, one that showed up at 1PM and one that showed up at almost 2PM. https://archive.is/1PO6b 

Those who broke windows, trampled on journalists, terrified legislators and destroyed property likely felt they were doing something holy. Why wouldn’t they? This was a fight against evil. After all, that is what a cardinal, a small number of bishops and many more priests, aligning with self-appointed social media champions of “real Catholicism,” had been telling them for months. They heard it from the pulpit, they read it in parish bulletins and they saw it on social media.

Uh, no. They taught Catholics Catholic responsibility on voting and they NEVER suggested violence. You act as if you cannot preach on morality and responsibility without it becoming violent, or violence that does occur is your responsibility. This is why so many people make the Nazi reference. What the Dutch and German bishops did, even though Catholics were killed in droves after, was most certainly the right thing to do and was not their fault or responsibility. “Not to oppose error is to approve it, and not to defend Truth is to suppress it; and, indeed, to neglect to confound evil men — when we can do it –is no less a sin than to encourage them. ~Pope St. Felix” This is opposite of what you and your buddies have been doing for your entire priesthoods. If you want to blame anyone for the situation we are in today, look in the mirror. You’ve ignored or condoned error so many times you’ve created the evil that needs to be opposed. You’re responsible for men in women’s restrooms, child porn, human trafficking, suicide, devaluing of human life etc., all because, hey, people just have to follow their consciences and “love is love” and all of the other deformed slogans.

By their fruits

To be clear, there were obvious moral questions in this election: abortion, economic justice, racism, migrants and refugees, care for the poor, care for the environment. But one side focused primarily on the single issue of abortion, which became the litmus test for all moral decision making and the way to declare if a candidate or a party was evil.

Let me enlighten you, Father. Because you’ve downplayed abortion and tried to put it on the same moral plane as prudential judgments on how to handle all of the litany of problems in this world, YOU have degraded and devalued human life. Why should ANYONE care for the poor when we destroy the most vulnerable?  

The moral evaluation of candidates for public office is never that simple, even if the moral nature of some specific public policy positions is straightforward. The evaluation of candidates often does involve questions of good and evil, but they are questions about policies and prudential judgments about the effect of electing a candidate, not absolute rules and not summary condemnations of a candidate’s moral goodness.

Prudential judgments come AFTER the intrinsic evil topics. THAT is Church teaching and that’s what your entire enemies list has said.

Thanks to many bishops and priests, however, those nuanced views, as well the rich tradition on the primacy of the formed conscience and the degrees of “moral cooperation” were lost; the lack of any real action against priests and bishops promoting false dichotomies meant that people assumed simplistic bromides were “church teaching”; and the ability of so many apocalyptic voices to command a public stage through a coordinated effort by the far-right media gave these views a bigger megaphone.

The mistake for which Catholic leaders should be corrected, the mistake for which the church now needs to repent, is not simply casting this election in terms of good and evil; it is pretending that real questions of good and evil could be simplified to the point where violent responses, even acts of domestic terrorism, become thinkable and then are carried out.

Says the guy who make simplistic statements about conscience in almost everything he writes. Pointing out good and evil is NEVER wrong. What’s wrong is acting as if evil only exists if you follow Church teachings.

As such, an alarming number of Catholic clergy contributed to an environment that led to the fatal riots at the U.S. Capitol. Ironically, priests and bishops who count themselves as pro-life helped spawn a hate-filled environment that led to mayhem, violence and, ultimately, death.

This is overreaching even for you, but I suppose now you feel emboldened. You’re caught up in the wave of “destroy your enemy” mentality for which you feign repulsion. So, when the continued and escalated persecution of the Church arises, let’s talk again. Even better, let me know how you feel about that when you get to the afterlife.