An Alley In Chicago

[chicago]

Considering some of the discussion surrounding Fr. Pfleger, I thought that this essay on notable Chicago priest, the late Msgr. Jack Egan, which I happenned across today was insightful.

archives.nd.edu/findaids/html/etext/alley004.htm

A brief exceprt follows

Jack Egan would say that he was only carrying the implications of the doctrine of the Mystical Body to their logical conclusion. Ordained to be a “foot-washer of the world,” that’s what he’d be. For Jack in 1943 the hierarchical model of the Church was already outmoded and irrelevant. “At our very best we are to be servants of the servants of God. That means we have to put ourselves at the disposal of lay people.”

That service should be enhanced by kindness, the “big, rough and tumble, lovable Jesuit who taught Moral Theology” had preached to Jack’s classmates. “The day you are unkind in the confessional will be a day you will always regret,” Father Jim Mahoney told the young men preparing for Saturdays in the box. Once the penitent vanishes, the priest/professor warned, “you can do nothing about it. You do not know the person to whom you were unkind and you cannot apologize or do anything to rectify the unkindness.” That advice Jack never forgot.

Not all the young men ordained in the United States in that decade would ease smoothly onto the fast track leading the Roman Catholic Church world-wide to the second Vatican Council. But the lessons Monsignor Hillenbrand taught of devotion to the liturgy, commitment to social justice based on the encyclicals, and faith in the laity as the Mystical Body of Christ did prepare his seminarians. Once they were ordained to minister to the laity under the astutely permissive Samuel Cardinal Stritch, Archbishop of Chicago, they began to strike out in new directions, pulling along segments of the Chicago Church, people who had been sensitized by Hillenbrand himself or Father Carrabine, CISCA, the Queen’s Work, Father Daniel Lord, Father Edward Dowling, Father John Ryan, Dorothy Day, and the Baroness de Hueck.

Like a shift in tectonic plates that opens up the earth and lets its molten innards erupt in a volcano, Monsignor Hillenbrand had opened the vein in the church that allowed the pent strength of visionaries, contemporary and historical, to affect his students, “Rynie’s young men.” A powerful force flowed through them into the lay persons they affected, and from those lay people into the national Church. Together, they all shared something of the invigorating exhilaration of the first Pentecost and all those times in the Church’s history when Jesus’ message is rediscovered, reformulated.

When Rynie’s group implemented the theory of the laity as equal members of the Body of Christ, they threatened the Church’s authoritarianism. They were forging new pathways, destination unknown. The idea of the Mystical Body seemed fresh as a morning in May in 1943. Few people remembered that Archbishop John England had grounded his teaching in the Pauline image of the Body of Christ, a response to his American experience of Church, a hundred years before. To these young priests, far closer to the mind of their immigrant forebears than they were to the insights of an Archbishop England, it was a giant step to embrace this image without losing touch with the Church they were raised in, the Church of their pious first or second-generation immigrant families.

For the Church they were ordained to serve in Chicago was still suffering the friction of an immigrant Church into the 1930s and 1940s in spite of Cardinal Mundelein’s vigorous efforts to introduce discipline, uniformity and centralization. The archdiocese was not nearly so unruly and stormy as Chicago’s fourth archbishop found it when he arrived on his special train from New York in 19l6. Cardinal Mundelein had been effective. Building a seminary to train young priests from different cultures together was an impressive advance. But, more than that, the dean of American Catholic church historians, Monsignor John Tracy Ellis, credits the Archdiocese of Chicago for a half century of leadership in the American Catholic community before 1965. “It was there that national progressive movements relating to youth, family life, social justice, etc., took their rise during the administrations of Cardinals Mundelein, Stritch, and Meyer.”

In a review in Catholic New York, Tracy Ellis traced this national leadership “to an impetus given by the bishops of the Middle West that dated from the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore, a gathering that the Middle Western prelates were mainly responsible for bringing into being in 1884, and which has influenced American Catholic life down to our own day.”

 

[melensdad]

Considering some of the discussion surrounding Fr. Pfleger, I thought that this essay on notable Chicago priest, the late Msgr. Jack Egan, which I happenned across today was insightful.

While there have been other lighting rod type priests in Chicago before, I fail to see how these guys equate to the experience that Fr Pfleger is bringing to the church. Afterall I didn’t read that they were bringing in non-Catholic pro-abortion candidates to speak during mass. Or that they were bringing into the mass as speakers some radical Muslims into the mass who have called for eliminating the Jews.

No question that we can find positive contributions made by just about anyone. We can draw some parallels to other people if we look hard enough. But can we dismiss some of the transgressions with a simple shrug and just say, “that’s just Fr Mike’s personality” and not seriously question his commitment to the Roman faith? The ends to do not justify the means.

 

[Andy_K]

While there have been other lighting rod type priests in Chicago before, I fail to see how these guys equate to the experience that Fr Pfleger is bringing to the church. Afterall I didn’t read that they were bringing in non-Catholic pro-abortion candidates to speak during mass. Or that they were bringing into the mass as speakers some radical Muslims into the mass who have called for eliminating the Jews.

No question that we can find positive contributions made by just about anyone. We can draw some parallels to other people if we look hard enough. But can we dismiss some of the transgressions with a simple shrug and just say, “that’s just Fr Mike’s personality” and not seriously question his commitment to the Roman faith? The ends to do not justify the means.

I concur. There is a fine line between displaying fruits of the Holy Spirit and preaching heterodoxy, after all, as Fr. Pfleger certainly has done. Comparing him to the “lightning rod” priests (I’m gonna start employing that euphemism more often ) of the first half of the 20th century is grossly unfair; in fact, I’d go one step furthur: it’s almost an insult to their memory.

Pray that Chicago gets more priests like those Msgr. Egan mentions in this essay - not just priests with a penchant for attracting media attention and pulling their own Bishop Levebre-esque coups within their own individual parishes. Chicago needs orthodox priests possibly more than any other time in its history, and as the archdiocese enters a new era in its seminary formation program rolleyes: sigh), Fr. Pfleger is most assuredly not a model priest to be emulated or admired by those in discernment or the Catholic population in general.

 

[chicago]

At the time, Msgr. Egan was in some ways as much of a controversial sparkplug as Fr. Pfleger is now. He and the movement priests like he were leading upset many a Catholic and prelate. It is out of this period, in particular, that much of the early impetus for what people might call the “liberal Chicago priesthood” came. They are the ones who set the stage for much of what people would be critical today. He and those who collaborated were the type of Catholic which led the way early on in many of the things which would soon be seen as frustrating fruit following the Second Vatican Council. In some circles, Msgr. Egan is still seen not as a heoric leader and dedicated priest as much as a mere noted liberal activist. So, yes, reflections about his ministry is very pertinent in relation to discussions of today’s Chicago presbyterate and understanding the type of ministry which Fr. Pfleger leads. For without priests like Jack Egan, a Mike Pfleger would not have been possible.

 

[chicago]

… and pulling their own Bishop Levebre-esque coups…

You might like a phrase which Cardinal George coined a few years back at one of the bishops’ conference meetings: “Lefebrists of the Left”.

… and as the archdiocese enters a new era in its seminary formation program rolleyes: sigh), Fr. Pfleger is most assuredly not a model priest to be emulated or admired by those in discernment or the Catholic population in general.

Interesting you would say that, as (though I knew he had issues and problems) I always found him to be one of the most inspiring witnesses to the priesthood when I was a minor seminarian. Were I to have seen more priests with the kind of witness, commitment to his flock, and personal dedication as he had, I may have felt better encouraged to continue on.

 

[melensdad]

Msgr Egan was a far greater man than Fr Pfleger could ever aspire to be simply because Fr Pfleger is willing to use deception to achieve his goals and Jack Egan used the truth. Both were crusaders for minorities and for the poor. One is a problem who defies his superiors, the other used just means to achieve just ends.

 

[chicago]

Msgr Egan was a far greater man than Fr Pfleger could ever aspire to be simply because Fr Pfleger is willing to use deception to achieve his goals and Jack Egan used the truth. Both were crusaders for minorities and for the poor. One is a problem who defies his superiors, the other used just means to achieve just ends.

It’s easy for some to say that in tribute of retrospect. But Jack Egan was certainly seen as a maverick in his day.

And, of course, the larger idea is not to compare the two directly (or hold a bash fest for either of them), but rather understand the development of leftist activity in the Chicago presbyterate.

 

[anthony022071]

It’s easy for some to say that in tribute of retrospect. But Jack Egan was certainly seen as a maverick in his day.

And, of course, the larger idea is not to compare the two directly (or hold a bash fest for either of them), but rather understand the development of leftist activity in the Chicago presbyterate.

Jack Egan may have been a maverick in his day,but in those rowdy times socialistic and populist movements were in the air;
while on the other hand,the Latin rite was still being used and within the Church there was not the kind of stubborn dissent or leeway for it that there is now.

 

[melensdad]

It’s easy for some to say that in tribute of retrospect. But Jack Egan was certainly seen as a maverick in his day.

Yes a maverick. But he didn’t use lies to achieve his goals. Nor did he bring in abortionists or Muslims into the church to speak.

 

[chicago]

Yes a maverick. But he didn’t use lies to achieve his goals.

Well, that’s your take

Nor did he bring in abortionists or Muslims into the church to speak.

Again, this isn’t the point. Nor is the thread about Fr. Pfleger, except as a transitional touch point in starting to discuss a certain history and perspective of interest.

Do you have any other tunes to whistle but that one note? Incessant criticism of one priest doesn’t prove ultimately very attractive, afterall.

 

[melensdad]

Well, that’s your take

Again, this isn’t the point. Nor is the thread about Fr. Pfleger, except as a transitional touch point in starting to discuss a certain history and perspective of interest.

Do you have any other tunes to whistle but that one note? Incessant criticism of one priest doesn’t prove ultimately very attractive, afterall.

You are the one who put the two up for comparison. Fr Pfleger’s lies are documented by the press, I can’t find the same for Msgr Egan. Nor can I find where Msgr Egan broke church rules while he pushed for social justice. You wanted a historical perspective, people answered you with answers you didn’t like but you still harp onward, but now by criticizing those who provide the perspective you choose not to recognize.

 

[chicago]

You are the one who put the two up for comparison.

No. I used the ongoing discussion of a Chicago priest with a leftist/liberal bent (Fr. Pfleger) as the transitional launching point to introduce an article which deals with issues of longstanding struggles within the American Catholic Church, and particularly the Chicago presbyterate, as noted through a tribute piece to Fr. Egan. That was the intended point of discussion: something much more broad than just, “Let’s defend or pile on Fr. Pfleger some more”. It’s more a about the real challenges of Catholic ministry and traditional cultural clashes as well as eclesiastical infighting which have been with us for centruies, then.

Fr Pfleger’s lies are documented by the press, I can’t find the same for Msgr Egan. Nor can I find where Msgr Egan broke church rules while he pushed for social justice. You wanted a historical perspective, people answered you with answers you didn’t like but you still harp onward, but now by criticizing those who provide the perspective you choose not to recognize.

Msgr. Egan was and is still, likewise, despised by some of the more conservative elements within the Church who didn’t like his own tactics (especially those learned from Saul Alinsky) or the route which he took. It’s just not as clearly highlighted today because the man is dead rather than alive and active in our media saturated internet culture as Fr. Pfleger exists in.

 

[melensdad]

Sorry, I didn’t realize this was supposed to be a “leftist” vs conservative debate Seems to me much of the criticisms of Fr Pfleger have nothing to do with “liberal/leftists” politics but do have something to do with his liberal view of the Catechism.

The logical reason to criticize Fr Pfleger is because of the many church related reasons that have been listed time and time again by many different posters here.

On the other hand, Msgr Egan riled the political fuddy-duddies who were stuck in their beliefs that blacks were inferior to whites.

 

[chicago]

Sorry, I didn’t realize this was supposed to be a “leftist” vs conservative debate Seems to me much of the criticisms of Fr Pfleger have nothing to do with “liberal/leftists” politics but do have something to do with his liberal view of the Catechism.

Frankly, I’m disappointed that the thread has become a debate of Egan V Pfleger at all.

That said, it is not merely a matter of politics but ecclesiatical focuses in the area of social gospel and lay leadership that Msgr. Egan was involved in which stir controversey. There is a “Church liberal/conservative” aspect at play, then, also.

The logical reason to criticize Fr Pfleger is because of the many church related reasons that have been listed time and time again by many different posters here.

Given. Though that isn’t the key of what Fr. Pfleger is really all about. It’s more of a related matter to the social Catholicism aspects of his ministry which are at the heart of his priestly service. So to understand the things which we might be critical of him for, we must place that in it’s proper context.

That, of course, is where what I was pointing to with the ideas brought forth by the article about Egan being in some ways linked, in the larger scheme of things.

On the other hand, Msgr. Egan riled the political fuddy-duddies who were stuck in their beliefs that blacks were inferior to whites.

Ironic, isn’t it, seeing as how Fr. Pfleger’s ministy is to an African American population.

But Egan’s challenges also had a lot to do with ministry style, leadership, marriage preparation concepts, and lay involvement which were springing to life at the time and agitating norms.

Not to mention things which might be considered by some as socialist and radical rather than in concert with traditional concepts of spirituality and human relations.

 

[OutinChgoburbs]

As a person of mixed race, I find the attitude at parishes such as St. Sabina toward persons of color to be arrogant, condescending and detrimental, as a majority of us do not need Father’s Pfleger’s leadership or assistance to better ourselves in the world. We certainly do not need our Catholicism “dumbed down” to the point where our parishes can no longer be recognized as Catholic parishes, but take on the aspect of stereotypical “black” anabaptists. Salem Baptist and PUSH fill those needs nicely, and there is always the AME. Obviously, Father Pfleger is completely unaware that there have been Catholics of African descent in this country a lot longer than those recent converts from protestantism, and the 20th/21st century immigrants from African nations. This is also highly divisive. We are all Catholics.

Father Egan, while he did champion social justice, did not condescend, and did not think himself better being of totally white extraction. He did not set himself up as his own personal church, and his Masses were recognizable as Catholic- not “services”, not some sort of Protestant worship and format taking place in a building owned by the cardinal as a corporation sole. He was not arrogant to the point where he assumed his opinion was not always the only correct opinion. Those of us old enough to have been served by Father Egan remember him fondly, for his humility- something that seems to be lacking in Father Pfleger.

 

[manualman]

This thread is pretty frayed! I’m not sure any two people are taking it the same way.

Here’s my take:

Simply noting that two priests have evoked strong reactions and controversy from the populace and the episcopacy does not make them anything like the same.

The fact that controversy is generated and bishops frown is irrelevant to the substance of the ISSUES at hand. It is the issues and principles espoused by leaders which identify them as shepherds or wolves, not their PR effects.

 

[chicago]

This thread is pretty frayed! I’m not sure any two people are taking it the same way.

Very true.

Here’s my take:

Thank you.

In turn, perhaps I can attempt to summarize my own:

The Catholic Church in the United States at a certain point in recent decades tended to split paths in leadership between those who chose to focus on a more traditional and devotional oriented ministerial route and those whose ministry emphasized the social aspects of the faith. (And, while there has been a revival of the former in relatively recent years, it is no secret that the latter took clear precedence in the American Church for some time, affecting most of us and our parishes more or less strongly in ways till this day.) Sometimes, the latter went far afield into an area which perhaps placed so much importance upon the social gospel as to take leading precedence over all that it colored a take on the faith which has enabled certain challenging difficulties to creep into practice. This includes (but is not limited to) issues concerning the role of the laity and women, ecumenism/interreligious sensitivities, as well as the importance of social justice. While these are very real and legitimate concerns which needed to be addressed, when these aspects are allowed to get out of balance, there may be difficulties.

Priests who followed along this latter path are certainly quite sincere in their desires and outreach to bring Christ to the world and the world to Christ. Though often those who came out of a certain era (one of which the likes of Msgr. Egan were initially leading, but so many more followed along in - during the 60s/70s and post Vatican II) got single track aligned with these power struggles for justice (as they perceived them, especially in light of the likes of Alinksy’s views). Such has shaped everything, then, which they are about and significantly influences their actions in many areas of ministry, for better or worse.

Such debates, of course, as well as stuggles within the Church over such types of issues (or anything else) are nothing new. As witnessed even in the apostolic period following the ascension of Christ, best ministerial practices have long been a source of frustrating argument, even among bishops, themselves. Practically speaking, what we have are generally good men trying to be good priests and offering leadership/service to their people in a very human way which responds to the needs they perceive while attempting to be practically faithful to God amidst the messiness of life all around them. But, naturally, we can expect that not everything will always go well here, for nothing ever really has ultimately been terribly congruous and totally in order, as history shows thoroughly.

 

[manualman]

Fair enough. Here’s my elaboration:

The separation of the piety faction and the social justice faction of the church is harmful and probably demonic in origin. How foolish that the arm should say to the head “I don’t need you.” (Sound familiar?)

Social Justice undertaken by those without a deep and consistant prayer life will devolve into “liberation theology” at best and outright communism at worst. Piety practiced without genuine Corporeal Works of Mercy will degenerate into hypocritical and empty religion.

Fr. Benedict Groeschel is IMO a fine example of the balance in teaching and ministry that OUGHT to be more common, but sadly isn’t.