Catholics to Fr James Altman: ‘We Are Starving Out Here!’

Fr James Altman was removed from his assignment sparking protests from the faithful in unprecedented numbers. Does this signal a growing distrust of some bishops?

I was recently informed by a reader that her parish priest launched into a tirade against her and other parishioners for their dedicated pro-life activity. He reportedly stooped pointing to the ground shouting, “Of all the issues facing the Church and country right now, abortion is way down here!” In another incident, the same priest launched a tirade at a college-student parishioner in the confessional insisting that her involvement in pro-life causes is badly misguided.

Both incidents, and others like them, resulted in letters of concern to the diocesan bishop. Weeks later, the bishop replied that he has instructed the priest to cease allowing his political views to invade his pastoral ministry. Political views?

The last time I looked, the Church’s pro-life position and activity reflect a moral mandate of grave concern and utmost importance. The pro-life centricity of Catholic moral teaching has been clearly articulated by Popes John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and Francis.

I dread writing any criticism of Catholic bishops. In over 600 posts of the last twelve years, only a few have had such content. Pope Francis has recently spoken against clericalism in the form of careerism in the Church, and he has also spoken recently of a concern for the morale of priests. The concern is well placed, but the former very much impacts the latter. Bishops have nearly ultimate authority in their own dioceses, but bishops who aspire to more prestigious positions sometimes find themselves bending to the will of some other bishops with more clout.

Pro-Catholic, Pro-life, Pushed Out

On Friday, May 21, 2021, Father James Altman was instructed by La Crosse, Wisconsin Bishop William Patrick Callahan to resign from his parish over the Bishop’s concern that the volume and tone of his “political” rhetoric has rendered him divisive and ineffective. Father Altman — who until weeks ago had been pastor of Saint James the Lesser Catholic Church in La Crosse — has said some very challenging things in his preaching on the Gospel but nothing he has said to date contradicts Church teaching.

In his now notorious “Memo to the Bishops of the World,” Father Altman called on the U.S. Bishops to stop issuing guidance for the care of our physical health at the expense of care for our souls. He called for the bishops to present faithful and unapologetic adherence to and promotion of Church teaching.

But volume and tone may not have really been at the heart of Bishop Callahan’s expressed concerns. Though unstated, it seems that a small minority of Catholics dismissing Father Altman’s rhetoric as “dabbling in the political” clearly wanted him silenced, and it seems that his bishop obliged. It is also now widely suspected that pressure came from other bishops who were uncomfortable with Father Altman’s growing fame in his homiletic broadsides against abortion, same-sex marriage, transgender ideology, and, most recently, the shuttering of churches, first by politicians and then by some bishops, during the Covid pandemic.

I admit that I have sometimes grimaced at Father Altman’s tone in his fiery homilies, and thought he could be more effective if he lowered the volume just a bit. Nonetheless, in recent posts, I have said some of the very same things he has said. (See, “The Faithful Departed: Bishops Who Bar Catholics from Mass” and “A Year in the Grip of Earthly Powers.” )

I have written about all of these things, but a small voice from the wilderness of prison is a lot easier to ignore than a YouTube video homily gone viral. Some of Father Altman’s more fiery prophetic witness has drawn the attention of faithful Catholics across the continent and around the world. When he announced his imminent removal during a Pentecost homily this year, there were audible gasps from his congregation. Father Altman explained to them,

“For the record, through my efforts at preaching the truth ... somehow the truth has gone viral over the past eleven months and people all over the globe — as far away as Borneo — have written over 4,000 letters and cards — even more than that in emails — all saying the same thing: ‘We are starving out here!’”

— Father James Altman

However, something far more interesting than Father Altman’s reaction to his removal has occurred. A crowd funding page was established online to assist in retaining a canon lawyer to appeal his removal to higher ecclesiastical authorities. A funding goal of $20,000 was set. In less than a week, the fund grew to $250,000. A week later, it rose to $650,000. On the day this is posted, the fund is approaching $700,000 while an online petition garnered nearly 100,000 signatures.

The Church, the Bishops, the Eucharist

Instead of silencing Father Altman, the bishops might ask themselves why so many are listening to him so intently. This is a different sort of Sensus Fidelium — the sense of the faithful — than the Church is accustomed to. The bishops would be wise to listen. The setting aside of this one priest over what has been dismissed as “political” activism may signal a far greater concern about the bishops’ collective ability to discern between moral and political issues.

It seems no mere coincidence that Father James Altman was removed from ministry just in time to accommodate those who want the rhetoric on another development lowered to a mere whisper. You likely already know what has transpired regarding a simultaneous embarrassment among our bishops, but here is the short version.

On the day this is posted, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) is scheduled to meet to discuss what is turning out to be a heavily manipulated agenda. The meeting “may” include “the drafting of a formal statement on the meaning of the Eucharist in the life of the Church” and its application to pro-abortion Catholic politicians who receive the Eucharist. That any of our bishops may actually need such clarity on this is alarming in its own right.

That clarity has recently come from two sources, Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone of San Francisco and Bishop Thomas Olmstead of Phoenix. I recently wrote of Archbishop Cordileone and his defense of religious liberty. Since then he has published, Before I Formed You in the Womb I Knew You: A Pastoral Letter on the Human Dignity of the Unborn, Holy Communion, and Catholics in Public Life.

In my post, some readers challenged me in comments stating that I overlooked the fact that this concern should have been raised by the Bishops “when it really mattered” before the 2020 presidential election. I will get back to that in a future post after the results of the USCCB meeting become public. Suffice it to say that it also really matters now.

I wrote above that clarity on the meaning of the Eucharist “may” be on the agenda because a group of 67 U.S. bishops — representing only 15-percent of the USCCB’s voting members — has lobbied USCCB President Archbishop José Luis Gomez to remove this topic from the agenda. All the bishops are careful not to say it, but this entire discussion is about the controversy of a pro-abortion activist who has presented himself as a devout Catholic and now occupies the White House.

Two of the signatories have since asked to have their names redacted from the letter saying they had not fully been informed of its purpose and were manipulated into signing it. Others have since stated that they never agreed to sign this letter and do not even know how or why their names were added.

The protest letter seems to have been spearheaded by Cardinal Wilton Gregory, Archbishop of Washington, DC, who reportedly composed the letter on his letterhead. He has gone on record to insist that he would not deny the Eucharist to pro-abortion Catholic President Joe Biden. The letter was also signed by Cardinal Joseph Tobin of Newark, Cardinal Sean Patrick O’Malley of Boston, and Cardinal Blase Cupich of Chicago. Cardinals Cupich and Tobin met in Rome with Cardinal Luis F. Ladaria, SJ, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, just prior to the letter being sent to the USCCB President.

As this post was being written, it was just announced that Pope Francis planned to meet or otherwise confer with President Joe Biden on the day before the U.S. Bishops’ meeting. This had raised some alarm among many faithful Catholics who support the bishops’ effort to develop a uniform policy on Communion for Catholic politicians who openly promote abortion, legislate to restrict religious freedom, and support same-sex marriage and transgender ideology. President Biden, who professes to be Catholic, has promoted all of these. He has also stated his intent to repeal the Hyde Amendment which since 1974 has protected taxpayers from forced violations of their consciences by using taxpayer funds to promote and provide abortions.

However, in the eleventh hour, there has been a new development. On June 15, the day before we publish this post, Catholic News Agency issued the following statement: “The President’s entourage had originally requested for Biden to attend Mass with the Pope early in the morning, but the proposal was nixed by the Vatican after considering the impact that Biden receiving Holy Communion from the Pope would have on the discussions the USCCB is planning to have during their meeting starting Wednesday, June 16.”

I suggest reading the rest of the brief CNA article. However, it requires a little reading between the lines. It seems that it was President Biden's Administration that requested the meeting with the Holy Father to take place after the G7 Summit while the President is still in Europe. Once the Vatican agreed to the meeting, it seems that President Biden's entourage made a subsequent request for Biden to attend Mass with the Holy Father. The timing of this leads me and many others to believe that the real objective here was for a photo-op of Biden receiving the Eucharist from the Pope on the eve of the U.S. Bishops' meeting on that very subject.

Vatican officials saw through this and declined to allow the Mass to take place. It seems that the Biden Administration then cancelled the meeting because its real objective had been negated.

The Two Father Jameses

Father Dwight Longenecker has written an intriguing post entitled, “The Tale of Two Fr. Jameses.” He contrasts the activism and public statements of Father James Altman and Father James Martin, SJ, two priests on polar ends of the Catholic theological and political spectrum. He contrasts the two priests thusly:

“Both priests have somewhat of a prophetic voice in the Church — Fr. Altman from the conservative side and Fr. Martin from the liberal. Fr. Altman castigates Catholics who voted for Joe Biden. Fr. Martin openly supports Biden. As such, the two Fr. Jameses are poster boys for the two Catholic Churches in America today. Fr. Altman for the traditional, orthodox, strict version of Catholicism. Fr. Martin for the accommodating, relativistic, and subjective version of Catholicism. Fr. Altman: doctrinal. Fr. Martin: pastoral. Fr. Altman: Rational. Fr. Martin: Sentimental.”

The article is brief, but I have a fundamental disagreement with a part of it. Father Longenecker went on to characterize Father Altman as one who “campaigns against a Catholic hierarchy that is in bed with the Democratic Party” while Father Martin, “in manipulative and disingenuous ways has used his media platform to promote the blessing of same-sex unions and to encourage homosexuality.” Father Longenecker asks an important question:

“Fr. Altman ... has fearlessly upheld the traditional Catholic faith and has never come close to preaching anything contrary to the Gospel. His sin? To be ‘divisive.’ Why, may I ask, has no one suggested that New Ways Ministry and Fr. Martin (who have scandalized thousands of Catholics) are divisive?”

Father Longenecker went on to suggest that the clash between the two churches (left and right) in America today recalls the Jansenist-Jesuit conflict in 18th Century France. As the faith came under attack by Protestantism and the Enlightenment, French Catholics lapsed into Jansenism, a kind of “Catholic Calvinism.” He suggests that Fr. Altman’s style is an example of this Catholic Calvinism. I disagree.

The reason I disagree is laid out in a post of mine entitled, “The Once and Future Catholic Church.” It makes a case for why the traditional stress on Catholic orthodoxy and fidelity is the most pastoral approach a priest can take in a society drifting rapidly toward “Cancel Culture” socialism. Father James Martin seems to not want to rest until American Catholicism breaks from Rome and becomes indistinguishable from the Episcopal church and its determination to tear the Worldwide Anglican Communion asunder.

In these pages recently, priest and canon lawyer, Father Stuart MacDonald, wrote “Bishops, Priests, and Weapons of Mass Destruction.” He wrote of the trajectory from the U.S. Bishops adoption of “zero tolerance” in 2002 to a policy emerging now in which bishops may discipline and remove priests for any vague cause whatsoever. And believe me, it will be the Father Altmans, and not the Father Martins, who are subjected to this policy. It is difficult to believe that Pope Francis has allowed this while at the same time speaking of his concern for the morale of priests.

This policy transforms the Holy Father into an Orwellian Big Brother and our bishops into enforcers of Orwell’s progressive GroupThink. Such a policy is beloved of “Cancel Culture” progressivism. It lends itself to the suppression of rights. It promotes witch hunts, and at its heart it is far more Calvinist than Catholic.

+ + +

Note from Father Gordon MacRae: Please visit our Special Events page. You may also like these related posts:

The Once and Future Catholic Church

Bishops, Priests, and Weapons of Mass Destruction

Joe Biden, Cardinal McCarrick and the Betrayal of Life

From Hong Kong to America Freedom Is under Siege

Is America ready to surrender free speech and other civil rights? A daring escape from Hong Kong and its encroaching Communist Chinese regime should raise alarms.

Just a few weeks before America shuddered in abhorrence over a post-election mob raid at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, something remarkable unfolded in Hong Kong. Two young Danes — Thomas Rohden, age 25, and Anders Storgaard, age 26 — choreographed a young democracy activist’s escape from Hong Kong. It’s a story worthy of a John le Carré novel. The story was first written in The Wall Street Journal as “A Hong Kong Dissident’s Daring Escape” (Jan. 13, 2021) by Editorial Page writer Jillian Kay Melchior, and it’s fascinating.

The two young Danes, in opposite political parties, belong to a group called the Danish China Critical Society. Its purpose is to raise awareness among Danish citizens about human rights abuses in Communist China. After meeting with some Hong Kong pro-democracy activists in Copenhagen last year, they remained in contact with Mr. Ted Rui, age 38, a Hong Kong legislator who has openly dared to protest legislation that threatens free expression for Hong Kong citizens.

Last summer, China imposed a new law on Hong Kong citizens that outlaws any form of dissent. Mr. Hui’s protests resulted in an arrest for which he was out on bail awaiting prosecution. He had begun to notice that he and some of his family were being followed since the arrest. Other members of the Hong Kong freedom movement have been assaulted. Though Mr. Rui had not yet been charged under China’s new dissent law, he knew that its penalty is life in prison.

A little history: Hong Kong island and the Kowloon Peninsula were ceded by China to become a British dependency in 1841 and 1860 respectively. Over the next 150 years, Hong Kong became a global financial center and one of the world’s largest trading ports.

An agreement signed by the British and Chinese governments in 1984 provided for China to resume sovereignty over Kong Kong and the region in 1997. The agreement was that Hong Kong would become a Special Administrative Region with its laws guaranteeing its citizens rights for a period of fifty years. The “One State - Two Systems” agreement remained in place until Beijing began to crack down on Hong Kong’s pro-democracy movement in recent years. The massive pro-democracy protests were sparked by a bill introduced in the Hong Kong legislature giving Beijing arrest and extradition authority in Hong Kong.

After Ted Hui was released on bail, Thomas Rohden and Anders Storgaard concocted a bold plan to host a fake climate change conference in Copenhagen and invite Mr. Hui in an effort to get him and his family to safety. Fearing that his telephone might be monitored, they never told him that the planned conference was not real when they invited him. He had already been considering finding a way to go into exile when the invitation came.

Postponing the exile plan, he told the Danes that Hong Kong courts wanted to review the climate change conference before Mr. Hui could accept the invitation to Copenhagen. The Danes put something together in haste while Mr. Hui booked flights for his wife and two children to go to London. Ted Hui arrived in Copenhagen ready to address climate change without ever even suspecting that the conference was a ruse. He was relieved beyond words that he and his family had escaped Chinese communist tyranny.

Beijing and Hong Kong were not amused. Beijing has asserted that its anti-dissent laws also apply to citizens of other countries who conspire to free Chinese residents. Rohden and Storgaard now must avoid travel to or through any country that has an extradition agreement with Beijing. The most important part of this story is Ted Hui’s reaction to his freedom:

“The message I want to take for the Danish people is not to take freedom for granted. Freedom is very fragile. It can go away in months or weeks. The hand of tyranny can extend very quickly, and can influence the world.”

— Ted Hui

The Rise of Socialism

The United States has just witnessed firsthand the need for a warning like Ted Hui’s, formerly of Hong Kong, that “freedom is very fragile.” Exactly as he has warned, “it can go away in months or weeks.” In the month since the mob attack at the U.S. Capitol, forces in this nation have shamed Americans using progressive ideology and the “cancel culture” pandemic to accept without dissent the open suppression of three foundational civil liberties guaranteed in the First Amendment: freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and religious freedom.

After years of denials by Facebook and Twitter that the platforms suppress conservative points of view, that suppression is now in the open and inflicted without apology. As information technology, these venues have also suppressed freedom of the press. Here is the example that comes most readily to mind: In October, 2020, the New York Post, this nation’s fourth largest daily newspaper, covered on its Front Page a potentially explosive story that has since emerged as both factual and with hard evidence and witnesses that back it up. That story was about the business practices of Hunter Biden, President Biden’s son.

Jack Dorsey, the CEO of Twitter, blocked the story from exposure through social media. Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg did so as well. The rest of the mainstream media, taking their marching orders from Twitter and Facebook, suppressed the story as fraudulent. It was not. The obvious reason for the suppression was the fact that the story emerged a month before an election, but it had little to do with the election. The business practice that was exposed in the story was an allegation that Hunter Biden had received millions in profit from foreign entities through “influence peddling” by selling access to his father during the administration of President Obama.

It was and is an ugly story involving three of the most politically contentious foreign enterprises now faced by President Biden’s administration: China, Russia, and the Ukraine.

My purpose in writing of this is not to denigrate the current president, nor is it to determine truth and falsehood. That is for the Justice Department to do. It turns out that the FBI has been investigating Hunter Biden for many months, and that investigation now includes allegations of multi-million dollar deals within China while his father was vice president. That said, Hunter Biden deserves, and should have, the full spectrum of due process rights afforded to him, but the suppression of news coverage is not one of those rights.

The arrogance of some in the mainstream media being what it is, admissions of culpability are as rare as the unnuanced truth. The story remains suppressed by most of the mainstream news media, but that is changing as the DOJ investigation can no longer be ignored or covered up. Under public pressure, Facebook and Twitter have finally stopped removing the story or suspending the accounts of those sharing it. U.S. foreign policy has been critical of the Chinese Communist government for its suppression of news, but I have been hard pressed to see the difference.

That is the real harm caused by media suppression of this story. Repressive regimes that balk at America’s claim of having a free press all know of it. The mob that attacked Washington all knew of it, and it lent fuel to their insistence that the election was not a free and fair election. Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Congressman Adam Schiff both knew about it even as they dismissed it as “Russian disinformation.”

The greatest harm has been to President Biden himself. This story will not go away. The fact of its pre-election suppression will cause it to expand and fester. It will haunt his term in office for the next year as he is drawn further into it. Freedom of the press has been abdicated in favor of a deeply partisan bias about the news we should be allowed to see and hear. The institution in our society that should act as a bipartisan government oversight for and by the people has openly betrayed that role. Freedom itself will suffer for it. So will we all.

The Assault on Freedom of Speech

The mob that assaulted the Capitol on January 6 — purportedly Trump supporters all — inflicted far more damage on Donald Trump and his presidency than any of his political enemies could accomplish. This mob attack at the heart of democracy was not an example of freedom of expression, but it is one of the core rights of our democracy —freedom of speech — that now suffers for it. And, again, so will we all.

Back in 2016, I wrote a pre-election post entitled, “Wikileaks Found Catholics in the Basket of Deplorables.” That seems almost a reserved and innocent time when compared with the unfathomable chasm between left and right that the four years hence have wrought. I had no frame of reference then for just how relatively fair Mrs. Clinton was being when she relegated a mere half of Trump voters to “a basket of deplorables.” There is now a highly charged and partisan effort to lump all 74 million Trump voters into that basket, keep them there, and silence them.

Blacklists are now emerging among publishers. Simon & Schuster just cancelled a forthcoming book by Senator Josh Hawley entitled, “The Tyranny of Big Tech.” Remember Mike Lindell? He’s the contagiously happy guy who sells pillows and “Dream Sheets” on TV. Exposed now as a Trump campaign donor, several large U.S. retail outlets have ordered his products pulled from their shelves. I could fill pages with similar examples of political suppression.

It is a credit to Hillary Clinton that she only called half of Trump supporters a “basket of deplorables” in 2016. The other half, she said with candid honesty, “are people who feel that the government has let them down, the economy has let them down, nobody cares about them; nobody worries about what happens to their lives and futures ... Those are people we have to understand and empathize with as well.”

President Biden should call upon Democrats to end this blood lust for Republicans who cannot in conscience embrace cancel culture, identity politics, and a partisan disregard for the most inherent civil right of all, the right to life. Our newly elected president did not get off to a good start when he called for unity and healing with the insistence that “We must end this uncivil war that pits red against blue.” It seems clearly to me right now to be rather the other way around.

Catholics Still in the Basket of Deplorables

There have been some unfortunate — scandalous is a better word — examples of the suppression of free speech even among Catholic leaders since the mob scene of January 6. A reader sent me a very troubling article from America magazine by Father James Martin, SJ entitled, “How Catholic Leaders Helped Give Rise to Violence at the U.S. Capitol” (Jan. 12, 2021).

The article is little more than a shameful attempt to use the events of January 6 to score political points against the author’s perceived theological and ideological enemies. I found it to be profoundly sad. Father Martin singled out Father James Altman, Father Ed Meeks, Father John Zuhlsdorf, Father Richard Heilman, Father Kevin Cusick, Bishop Richard Stika, Bishop Joseph E. Strickland, among others, to be examples of “priests and bishops who count themselves as pro-life (but) helped spawn a hate-filled environment that led to mayhem, violence and, ultimately, death.”

These names, and others like them, are the heroes of traditional Catholics and the Catholic pro-life community. They are deeply respected for speaking openly and with fidelity to Church teaching about the Holocaust of our time, the infanticide of 60 million aborted Americans who have no free speech rights of their own. By denigrating and accusing them so duplicitously, Father Martin scored some ideological points, but only within his own tribe — far left Catholics who would likely be far more comfortable in the U.S. Episcopal church. Frankly, no one else would even be reading America.

In his unfortunate America article, Father James Martin contributes to the atmosphere of tribalism that has so separated Americans in recent years. And clearly, he separates Catholics along the same sad partisan lines.

President Joe Biden’s greatest challenge may not be the conversion of Republicans to more progressive ideologies. It may well be the conversion of the progressive left to the tolerance and unity he rightly calls for. Trump is gone. The Democrats control the House and the White House and have the deciding tie-breaker vote in the Senate. But Portland, Seattle, and other-Democrat controlled cities are still rioting, as they did all last summer. CNN blamed it all on Donald Trump then, and is still calling these “peaceful protests.”

Portland, Oregon police reported that the “peaceful protesters came armed with pepper-ball guns, tasers and other electronic crowd control weapons, fireworks, rocks, and shields.” Some were armed with molotov cocktails, knives, batons, chemical spray, and crowbars. In Seattle, the January 20 “peaceful protesters” burned American flags and caused damage to an ICE headquarters. In Portland they carried signs reading, “We don’t want Biden. We want revenge!" They identified themselves as anarchists and antifa protesters responding to racism, fascism, and police brutality.

They also attacked the Democratic headquarters. Police made multiple arrests at the “peaceful protests.”

+ + +

Note from Father Gordon MacRae: Thank you for reading and sharing this post. You may also like a related post that is mentioned in the text above:

Wikileaks Found Catholics in the Basket of Deplorables

And for an example of media duplicity and coverup:

Hitler's Pope, Nazi Crimes, and The New York Times.

Please share this post!