A Catholic website for the modern reader
Church and State
Q 1:: Regarding your blog on the Pledge of Allegiance, I am not sure I understand the real issue in having "under God" in the Pledge. Since those two words can pertain to any God, what does it hurt? I don't think it is religion specific. For those that choose to have it removed or not hear it, can't they do as the Jehovah Witnesses and leave the room or sit down? I have never thought of the pledge as being right or left. Maybe having those words in the Pledge, as well as the wording on the currency or the words in the courtroom are mere comfort for some. Is that really wrong? It doesn't appear to be pushing an agenda. A 1: As I attempted to identify in my blog, the history around the addition of the words "under God" in the pledge as well as designating "In god we trust" as the official motto of the United States were themselves pushing an agenda. In both cases, the agenda was in part anti-communist. That was even more explicitly the case regarding the designation of the official motto. As I stated in the blog you mention, the United States was never in danger of being taken over by communists. In the case of the pledge I also noted that choosing whether or not to recite it demands an active participation. In the case of students, to suggest that they leave the room or sit down and remain speechless, is asking too much of youth. Kids tend to be among the cruelest members of our society, in part because they are trying to figure out who they are themselves. There is tremendous pressure placed on each other to conform. Leaving the room would place them in an unacceptable risk of ridicule on the part of their classmates. It also places them in the position of not pledging to a flag and country that they may very well support, because the pledge also demands they acknowledge and profess faith in a God whom they may not believe in. The Constitution does not so much set these two values in opposition to each other as it prevents them from intruding on each other
Q 2: I came across a video that my aunt sent me. It is a presentation by Fr. James Altman in which he states that you can't be a faithful Catholic and vote Democratic at the same time. It seems to be getting a lot of polarizing attention. I have always admired your wise examination and different take on things. You have always inspired me to step back and approach what I am reading, watching or listening to…differently. As I watched this video I was curious what your reaction would be.
A 2: It was not easy to watch the video of Fr. James Altman, primarily because it was manipulative and deceptive, and most people would not have the theological knowledge to refute it. Nonetheless, I decided to link it in this answer hoping that it would help others recognize Altman's manipulation. Here is the link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-7eoTN2vNM I don't know how long it will remain accessible, but if it is taken down at least this answer will remain.
This was little more than a diatribe by Altman lacking in substance and accuracy both of the Catholic faith and political science. Logic stands as a foundation of both philosophy and theology. And it is sorely lacking in Altman's presentation. He speaks as a person who is disconnected from any sense of reality or truth. Like many ideologues he possesses and extremely narrow perspective. And he has an axe to grind, demonstrated in the way he attacks other priests—the ones who actually think and know something of theology.
Let's begin with the faith. He quotes the Baltimore Catechism but it is important to note that the catechism is not synonymous with the Catholic Faith. Like other catechisms it was an attempt to explain the faith through questions and answers. One of the problems with the catechism approach is that it does not identify a hierarchy of truth. The format implies that all questions and answers are of equal importance. Not even Church doctrine does that. Some elements of the faith are clearly more important than others.
Altman was correct, however, in his reference to the fourth question in the Baltimore Catechism, which asks, "What must we do to gain the happiness of heaven?" The answer states that "We must know, love and serve God in this world." But Altman is quite slippery and he equivocates on the connection between knowledge and love. He says, almost gleefully, that he does not love anyone in Borneo because he does not know anyone in Borneo. That is a touch sophomoric and quite contrary to the Catholic Faith. It is contrary to what we are called to be and do as Catholic Christians. We are called to love everyone. But more than that, we are called to see God in everyone and love them accordingly. We actually love God by loving our neighbor. That is Jesus's point when he is asked what the greatest commandment is, and answers with two. He equates love of neighbor with love of God.
It is striking to me that Altman chose not to actually quote the Gospels once in his rant, other than the aforementioned misquote. Had he done so he might have recalled Jesus specifically challenging us on the idea of love. We cannot love the God we do not see if we do not love the neighbor whom we do see. Forget the people of Borneo. Altman clearly does not love others. At the very least he more selective than either Jesus or the Catholic Faith countenance.
There is really one issue that drives Altman—abortion. Contrary to what he says, the platform of the Democratic Party is not anti-Catholic. As a bishop once said to me, "The only thing that Catholic Church and the Republican Party have in common is the issue of abortion. On every other life issue, we are at odds." The problem with one issue politics is that there is no room for approaching the totality of Gospel values. As for abortion, it is important, but it is not the most important issue. There is no consistency in demanding that a child be brought into the world, and then set about to subject that child to systemic poverty, disease and death.
People like Altman are not pro-life. They are pro-birth. After that, they don't care. There are a host of life issues that Altman, Trump and the Republican Party have chosen to ignore. Issues of health, poverty, capital punishment, climate change, along with tangential issues like equality and voting rights, which allow for self-determination. Even on the issue of immigration, the teaching of the Catholic Church is that people have a right to immigrate. But Altman deliberately uses inflammatory speech to rile up hatred. He equates DACA recipients with illegal aliens and criminals. In doing so he demonstrates a gross lack of legal knowledge. DACA recipients were brought to the United States as children. They are not criminals.
Altman appears to be a man in distress who is driven by extreme ideology. For example, he says climate change is a hoax. By now we should all be beyond that absurdity. While it might be possible to debate just how much human activity contributes to climate change, the reality of a changing climate is not up for debate. Statistics do not lie. People do.
Another example of his irrational ideology is the equating of the Black Lives Matter movement with Marxism. He would have done well to study a little history. Equality and rights are the bedrock of democracy. It would not be a bad idea for Altman to read the Declaration of Independence, which by my calculation predates the development of Marxist theories by about seventy years.
As I said, Altman is a one issue person. And to be honest, he is not well versed in the Catholic Faith, despite his being a priest. At the very least he seems incapable of integrating the various and complex teachings of the church. The truth is, that whatever one's position is on the legality of abortion (and it is up for debate), the Catholic Faith is much broader than that one issue. Altman's faith is so loosely grounded that, even if the Democratic Party were to become adamantly opposed to abortion, he would remain a Republican despite the host of issues on which the Democratic Party is in sync with the Catholic Church—issues on which the Republican Party is at odds with the church.
That is the unfortunate result of people who are so obsessed with one issue. And it is at least a partial indication of the deterioration of his mind. If that last statement seems harsh, I am merely reflecting his own animus back at him.
Yes. You can be a Catholic and a Democrat. Period..