Cupich denounces Fr Pfleger decision to host Nation of Islam leader

  • Thread starter Thread starter bassmansteiny
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

bassmansteiny

Guest
Fr. Pfleger has always been problematic to me. Look at the attached link to St. Sabina’s website…I always thought Catholic parishes celebrated “Mass”. What word is missing from that page?
 
KMC said:
Fr. Pfleger has always been problematic to me. Look at the attached link to St. Sabina’s website…I always thought Catholic parishes celebrated “Mass”. What word is missing from that page?
Click to expand...
That is just downright weird.
 
It’s unfortunate that he was not removed from his position years ago.

He is 69 years old. The good news is that men with his kind of views of the Church are rarely entering the priesthood in recent years.

He is an extreme example, but in my diocese there are many somewhat similar priests, all now retired or close to retirement. They all were deeply influenced by the secular media, to a lesser degree than this priest, and all deemphasized doctrine, and anything supernatural in Christianity. Chicago is a special case (Alinsky) but other Dioceses had somewhat similar processes.

Nowadays young men who hold similar views go into politics or the media.
 
Last edited:
Cupich certainly does seem to get a lot of “unusual” priests in his diocese.

I hope this one is put out to pasture soon. “Worship Service” on a Catholic parish page instead of “Mass”? If I were just visiting town, went to a purported Catholic parish church page and saw a list of times for “Worship Service” I would wonder if there was actually going to be Mass or just vespers or “communion service” and/or whether the parish was actually in communion with the Church, and I would probably just pick another church to attend for Mass, where the page said “Mass at 7 am” or whatever.

Priests like this guy are the negative face of Vatican II.
 
Last edited:
So I hadn’t heard about this priest before, but after doing a bit of research I found a discussion about him on the Catholicism subreddit (r/catholicism). Apparently this guy has been around for a long time and has been openly flaunting his borderline-heretical views for years. Several of Cupich’s predecessor’s tried to take action against him, including Cardinal George, who did briefly suspend him (source here: https://abc7chicago.com/archive/8142916/) but he threatened to leave the priesthood. Normally this wouldn’t be much of a threat, but there is fear by the Archdiocese that he would cause a minor schism and take a large majority of his congregation with him as he has built up his parish around himself as a dominating personality, rather than based on authentic Catholicism.

Someone from Chicago attempted to explain why it is highly unlikely that action will be taken against him. I will post his comment here verbatim but you can find the thread discussing this here:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Catholicism/comments/bnoygg/why_has_the_chicago_archdiocese_not_done_more_to
Lots of reasons. Here’s my take as a lifelong 4th generation resident of the Archdiocese of Chicago.

Cupich is a strong supporter of Pfleger. When Cupich came to the Archdiocese he made a point to visit Pfleger’s parish and state publicly “I’m here today to give you a word of encouragement but also to let you know how much I admire you, I depend on you.” and "Every parish should have the vibrancy of this parish.” source

Cardinal George made efforts to rein in Pfleger, but the threat of schism made him back down. In that case all the media support was on Pfleger’s side. After years as a media darling Fr. Pfleger had enough of a ‘power base’ to win in any public disagreement.

Bernadin (like Cupich) was a strong supporter of Pfleger and gave him support in all of his actions. That support and space allowed Pfleger to build up his power base with politicians and non Catholic local religious groups and other social/political organizations.

Pfleger always provides local media with great copy and content so they love him. In nearly every situation when there is any effort to disagree or rein in Pfleger the local media will report from the perspective that Pfleger is on the good side.

The community he has built at St. Sabina is not necessarily Catholic. If you look at the website you will find no mention of sacraments, no RCIA or ‘join the Catholic Church’. Many of the people who are active in the community (including leadership positions) there are not Catholic.

Cupich has removed priests for much less (much, much less) than inviting Farrakhan to speak in their church. My guess as a Chicagoan is that nothing will be done to Pfleger unless the media pressure becomes too strong to resist (something unlikely to happen as the media generally supports Pfleger).

The reason nothing will be done is that in this case Cupich will just wait it out and nothing will result.
Click to expand...
 
Unfortunately it is a very real risk that if you discipline or excommunicate one of these priests with a big cult following, he’ll take all his followers with him and they’ll all leave the Church together.

Farrakhan is kind of “old news” and this priest is aging out too. Like I said, he will just get old and need to be put out to pasture or expire. At that time, the people who are not really Catholic or are just in it for the cult of personality of the priest will likely drift away, but the others who are still at least nominally Catholic will not have been forced to choose between this priest and the Church.
 
It was hard to find even one mention of “Catholic” on their website. Apparently they are a “faith community” and not a Catholic Church. The site makes for interesting reading. This part especially:

“Worship Service with Celebration of the Eucharist (Holy Communion).Praise and worship with St. Sabina’s Music Ministry and Saint Sabina’s Spirit of David Spiritual DancersLiturgical reading”

This situation shows why pastors should move around every few years. By keeping someone stable for many years in a row, the chances of a parish developing a cult following to a particular priest increases.
 
That’s a good point. I kind of think that he may have been dealt with in a more meaningful manner though. If he were moved around, more people would have stepped up and ask he be dealt with. After a few years perhaps the bishop would have been fed up enough having to continuously step in that he would have been banned permanently.

Now that I think about it, maybe not. I don’t really trust bishops to do what is best anymore. It truly seems that when devout, orthodox parishioners step away no one cares but they want to bend over backwards to keep the ones that have questionable beliefs. It’s not so bad I been a city the size of Chicago where there are many Catholic Churches to choose from. However, not all of us live in Chicago and many have very few options for Mass. sometimes stepping away from your parish results in a drive of over an hour to the next nearest Mass. I have personally experienced two bishops in separate diocese turn their backs on orthodox parishioners and leave a priest like this in their parishes. In both cases the churches were the only Catholic Churches in their town. It’s not like they could just choose to attend someplace else.
 
I understand that priests with weird ideas about liturgy or having Farrakhan come to speak can be very annoying. However, unless the bishop removes their faculties, they are still priests and can administer the sacraments, which is really what it’s all about. The antidote to these sorts of priests is for more men to step up and become priests, giving up all the things men give up in order to do so. When men - and it obviously has to be men because we women are not allowed and can do nothing about this - step up to become priests in such numbers that we no longer really need the “unusual” priests, then the “unusual” priests can be put out to pasture more readily or at least they wouldn’t be the only priest at a parish so people would have another alternative.
 
The two cases I was referencing had nothing to do with strange liturgical practices. They are priests that preach against Church doctrines and sell books in parish books stores or parish websites that they wrote that contain the same beliefs. Both made newspapers, and one is an ongoing crisis. That parish is being ripped apart currently. (I can provide you with a link if you are interested by PM) The other parish is somewhat healing now that the priest is dead. The parishioners that were so in favor of that priest ended up leaving the Church when he died anyway. The more orthodox (and I’m using that term very lightly) parishioners are slowly returning.

Why would it not be better to remove their faculties than allow them to continue to destroy the Church? Fewer priests that uphold Truth would be better than allowing priests that actively preach against Truth.
 
I’m sure 90 percent of the posters here would want the “bad priest” fired immediately. In the case of individual priests, you’d have to ask the bishop why he let the priest continue.
 
Unfortunately the bishop has given the silent treatment to the parishioners while occasionally shaming them. Publicly shaming them even. We would all like to understand. We just don’t know where to go for answers if the bishop won’t speak about this. So many are losing trust in the church completely due to this. I just don’t understand why keeping priests like Father Pfleger around to cause the faith to be distorted, essentially creating their own church anyway, is better than losing faithful Catholics. I would love for a bishop to explain that. But how do you get the bishops to communicate?
 
I agree with with you that problem priests have been allowed to linger way too long. This may be somewhat understandable if it is an older pastor. The bishop may reason it is not worth the struggle now ,- canon law, civil law, media frenzy, etc, if the pastor may be retired soon anyway.

The greater fault is with prior Bishops who waived him through seminary, through early appointments then made him pastor. They helped create the entrenched situation for their successors.
 
Last edited:
You make a good point that it is a hassle to move a priest, especially one that is resistant, like Fr. Pfleger would certainly be. Pastors have rights under canon law and cannot be moved without reason by their bishops. In the case of Fr. Pfleger though I’m not sure that he will really be gone anytime soon. He is 69 years old. Something could happen to him tomorrow…or he could live for another 20 years and still be at that parish. Chicago isn’t exactly bursting with vocations right now and they will probably need every priest they can get, so I wouldn’t be surprised that if he is still living for the next two decades that he is still serving at that parish in some capacity. Not that I think Cardinal Cupich has a mind to move him anyway, so it’s probably a moot point.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top