Father Michael Pfleger

[melensdad]

chicago:

That doesn’t stop anyone else.

So, you admit that gun laws do not stop criminals from obtaining and using guns! Then tell me what good Fr. Pfleger is doing by seeking more restrictive gun laws which will only be obeyed by law-abidding citizens who are not the source of the problem in the first place?

Ditto!

chicago:

You’re simplictically reducing everything to a matter of gun laws when Fr. Pfleger is a minister who is trying to get at things much deeper, ultimately.

No I am not reducing everything to gun laws, clearly that is a bad assumption based on everything I’ve written.

However, while you CLAIM Fr Pfleger is working on getting to deeper things, he is doing much of that work in a very UN-Catholic manner.

• I suppose that by inviting Pro-Abortion speakers to talk during the homily portions of his mass he is working on strengthening family relationships?
• By brining in Jewish hating Muslims to speak during the homily portions of the mass he is working to develop greater interfaith cooperation?
• Or was it during the rally when he was screaming to “snuff out” the owner of the gun store that he was working to create harmony and understanding?
• Maybe when he was defying the Cardinal (both of them, multiple times) he was showing his good Christian attitude and obedience to his superiors?
• Or maybe when he ultimately said he would leave the church and take his flock with him that he ultimately showed us all just how Catholic he really isn’t

Father Pfleger has become a total caricature of himself, his actions now border on the absurd and he has set himself up as a cult leader of a wayward parish that is willing to follow him out of the Roman Catholic church. He is an embarrassment to the Church and has proven, through his actions, that he is a “sound bite” looking for a public forum.

 

[chicago]

Father Pfleger has become a total caricature of himself, his actions now border on the absurd and he has set himself up as a cult leader of a wayward parish that is willing to follow him out of the Roman Catholic church. He is an embarrassment to the Church and has proven, through his actions, that he is a “sound bite” looking for a public forum.

That’s how you and his other detractors choose to paint him, failing to understand what he’s really about.

 

[chicago]

So, you admit that gun laws do not stop criminals from obtaining and using guns! Then tell me what good Fr. Pfleger is doing by seeking more restrictive gun laws which will only be obeyed by law-abidding citizens who are not the source of the problem in the first place?

Well, I’m not personally advocating stricter gun control laws, so I won’t take up that aspect of the debate.

That said, I do not believe that the matter at hand ought to be reduced to an argument over such. It is just one portion of the larger concern over gun violence which Fr. Pfleger (and many others) opine would be a worthwhile way of getting guns off the streets and out of the people’s hands such that a more peaceful society could prevail. His real goal is not merely concening gun control laws, but in bringing an end to the senseless violence and promoting peace.

 

[Sir_Knight]

That’s how you and his other detractors choose to paint him, failing to understand what he’s really about.

Sorry, but there is no understanding his threat to leave the church established by the Son of God and take his flock with him (didn’t Jesus pray for unity among His followers? doesn’t the bible warn AGAINST those who scatter the flock) and his disobedience to his superiors (Wasn’t Jesus obedient even until death?).

 

[Sir_Knight]

Well, I’m not personally advocating stricter gun control laws, so I won’t take up that aspect of the debate.

That said, I do not believe that the matter at hand ought to be reduced to an argument over such. It is just one portion of the larger concern over gun violence which Fr. Pfleger (and many others) opine would be a worthwhile way of getting guns off the streets and out of the people’s hands such that a more peaceful society could prevail. His real goal is not merely concening gun control laws, but in bringing an end to the senseless violence and promoting peace.

That’s NOT what the Father is doing. He IS calling for stricter gun laws. He IS threatening law makers who do not support these stricter gun laws. He IS threatening those engaged in completely legal business ventures.

 

[chicago]

Sorry, but there is no understanding his threat to leave the church established by the Son of God and take his flock with him (didn’t Jesus pray for unity among His followers? doesn’t the bible warn AGAINST those who scatter the flock) and his disobedience to his superiors (Wasn’t Jesus obedient even until death?).

Because bishops, afterall, are themselves perfect human beings who can never abuse their own power or do anything wrong to hurt the unity of the Church.

 

[chicago]

That’s NOT what the Father is doing. He IS calling for stricter gun laws.

I didn’t say that he wasn’t. I said that it is not the ultimate essence or end of what he is up to. It is just one expression of what he believes would help.

He IS threatening law makers who do not support these stricter gun laws. He IS threatening those engaged in completely legal business ventures.

And he believes that they are threatening his people.

 

[Sir_Knight]

I didn’t say that he wasn’t. I said that it is not the ultimate essence or end of what he is up to. It is just one expression of what he believes would help.

The end does not justify the means. The bible is very clear about that.

And he believes that they are threatening his people.

By engaging in legal business activities? By not supporting laws, which even you have admitted will do nothing to address the problem?

 

[Sir_Knight]

Because bishops, afterall, are themselves perfect human beings who can never abuse their own power or do anything wrong to hurt the unity of the Church.

First off, in this case, it is Father Michael Pfleger who is in conflict with official church position and not the good Cardinal but completely independent of that, both the church and the bible stress the importance of obedience to one’s superiors.

Jesus commanded His followers to obey even the Pharisies [sp] because their authority was VALID. In light of that, how can anyone think that Father Michael Pfleger is doing the correct thing by showing disobedience to his superiors and even threatening to leave the church and take people away from the church established by the Son of God.

 

[chicago]

The end does not justify the means. The bible is very clear about that.

He has not engaged in means which are unjust or evil, despite how some would like to paint his actions.

By engaging in legal business activities? By not supporting laws, which even you have admitted will do nothing to address the problem?

By making and enabling weapons to be more and more prevailant in an already violent society which must turn from it’s harmful ways and towards trust in God.

 

[chicago]

First off, in this case, it is Father Michael Pfleger who is in conflict with official church position and not the good Cardinal…

Given on some of the particular issues, but then as far as removal from pastoral ministry as head of the parish goes, Pfleger is entirely within his canonical rights and NOT in conflict with the Church at all.

… but completely independent of that, both the church and the bible stress the importance of obedience to one’s superiors.

Jesus commanded His followers to obey even the Pharisies [sp] because their authority was VALID. In light of that, how can anyone think that Father Michael Pfleger is doing the correct thing by showing disobedience to his superiors and even threatening to leave the church and take people away from the church established by the Son of God.

Sometimes a bishop needs to be stood up to and told off, even threatened. I’m not saying that Fr. Pfleger is necessarily making the right decision in doing so, but the wholecloth concept of a bishop being able to simply push his own weight around isn’t always the greatest thing, either. The Second Vatican Council most assuredly tells us that we have a right and responsilibity to express our own concerns and insights as to the needs of the People of God to our pastors. And sometimes this needs to be done forcefully and with courage - unwilling to back down, but instead taking a stand. In that sense, what he has stated in regards to his desire to continue ministry as St. Sabina’s pastor and personal inability to go anywhere else should be respected, at least.

 

[OutinChgoburbs]

Given on some of the particular issues, but then as far as removal from pastoral ministry as head of the parish goes, Pfleger is entirely within his canonical rights and NOT in conflict with the Church at all.

Sometimes a bishop needs to be stood up to and told off, even threatened. I’m not saying that Fr. Pfleger is necessarily making the right decision in doing so, but the wholecloth concept of a bishop being able to simply push his own weight around isn’t always the greatest thing, either. The Second Vatican Council most assuredly tells us that we have a right and responsilibity to express our own concerns and insights as to the needs of the People of God to our pastors. And sometimes this needs to be done forcefully and with courage - unwilling to back down, but instead taking a stand. In that sense, what he has stated in regards to his desire to continue ministry as St. Sabina’s pastor and personal inability to go anywhere else should be respected, at least.

Why, when Cardinal George attempted to transfer Father Pfleger, did Father Pfleger refuse him? What makes him so special that he cannot be transferred to another parish? There is no other priest in the Archdiocese who can take his place? Sounds like the cult of personality to me.

And if he is doing such wonderful work, you’d think Father Pfleger would want another parish where he can work the same wonderful miracles he has allegedly wrought at St. Sabina. You’d think he’d want to take his system to another parish, say St. Sylvester in Humboldt Park, or St. Angela. Instead, it **appears to me **he has ensconced himself there as a sort of demagogue.

 

[chicago]

Why, when Cardinal George attempted to transfer Father Pfleger, did Father Pfleger refuse him? What makes him so special that he cannot be transferred to another parish? There is no other priest in the Archdiocese who can take his place? Sounds like the cult of personality to me.

And if he is doing such wonderful work, you’d think Father Pfleger would want another parish where he can work the same wonderful miracles he has allegedly wrought at St. Sabina. You’d think he’d want to take his system to another parish, say St. Sylvester in Humboldt Park, or St. Angela. Instead, it **appears to me **he has ensconced himself there as a sort of demagogue.

The long standing tradition in the Church is actually for a pastor (whether a priest or bishop) to remain with his parish (or diocese in case of bishops) for life and become more seriously and dedicatedly involved, as has Fr. Pfleger. It’s part of the idea of a priest being a “Father”. A father does not abandon his family. And, when a pastor DOES accomplish this well, it argues for his continuance rather than removal or uprooting to “perform the same miracle elsewhere”, while disturbing his parish community.

The idea that a pastor (or even a bishop) should be constantly uprooted and replanted is something of an innovation. Though it now has a history and a theology attached, it is arguable whether it is any better and maybe not worse for a parish or local Church. Which is one of the reasons why pastors retain canonical rights as to their establishment of place and non-transfer.

 

[melensdad]

The long standing tradition in the Church is actually for a pastor (whether a priest or bishop) to remain with his parish (or diocese in case of bishops) for life. . .

First, none of that addresses the points I’ve made, or that many others have made about his cult like status (both in the minds of his parishoners and probably in his own mind) etc.

Further, that “long standing tradition” has been changed. It was changed under the previous Cardinal and the policy is in effect under this one! Fr Pfleger just refuses, flat out disobeys and refuses, to listen or to take orders.

Seems to me the “long standing tradition” has contributed to the cult that is now pretending to be a Catholic parish but that probably needs to be excised.

 

[chicago]

First, none of that addresses the points I’ve made, or that many others have made about his cult like status (both in the minds of his parishoners and probably in his own mind) etc.

Good pastors tend to get beloved by their parishioners who want to hang onto them. Nothing wrong with that. If he’s leading well, that will attract and upbuild a community to the point that they are loyal.

Further, that “long standing tradition” has been changed. It was changed under the previous Cardinal and the policy is in effect under this one!

No, it really hasn’t. It’s still very much there in canon law. And some dioceses retain the practice. The policy has changed in Chicago, but such is only an agreed upon matter which must not necessarily be imposed - and hasn’t always been. It’s basically a mutual agreement matter. If the bishop and the pastor mutually agree, then there is displacement, if they don’t then they either work out a way to maintain the status quo (as has here been the case, with Cardinal George formally reappointing him pastor - TWICE) or they butt heads (which has also occurred a bit both in this case and elsewhere).

Fr Pfleger just refuses, flat out disobeys and refuses, to listen or to take orders.

It’s more about a relationship between bishop and pastor than a militaristic implementation of “orders”.

Seems to me the “long standing tradition” has contributed to the cult that is now pretending to be a Catholic parish but that probably needs to be excised.

Possibly so. Which is likely one reason why that tradition in no longer always common in lots of places.

 

[melensdad]

Chicago, I’ve been here all my 46 years. I see the same things you do. For part of my life inside the city of Chicago and for much of my life just on the outside looking in. Now I’m farther away than I’ve ever been, but I’m still less than an hour from downtown so I see all the hijinx of the city politics and church politics, everyday.

The difference is that I see it very differently than you do and I refuse to make excuses for this man’s bad behavior. Through this thread you have argued the opposite position, and done so pretty well, but you have admitted to virtually every point of criticism levied against Fr Pfleger. Still, even after admitted to each of these things you cling to the excuses you have thrown up in hopes that others will see this man for something he is not.

He is wrong. He acts in non-Catholic ways. That does not mean he does not do a good job ministering to his ‘flock’ but it also does not mean he is acting, teaching, preaching or practicing the Roman Catholic faith.

On top of all that, 50+% of the people who have been following this thread seem to think he should be PROSECUTED for making threats against others! And another 20+% are unsure. That leaves just about 1/4-th of the people who seem to have much sympathy for this wayward priest. Not a real good sign of faith that people believe him!

 

[chicago]

The difference is that I see it very differently than you do and I refuse to make excuses for this man’s bad behavior.

I don’t know that I am making any excuses, just offering explanations. Some of the things which he has done are defensible, others inappropriate. All have good reasons, right or wrong. This is something which we ought to understand and respect, even if we disagree.

Through this thread you have argued the opposite position, and done so pretty well, but you have admitted to virtually every point of criticism levied against Fr Pfleger.

Because, I too, have made no secret that there is good reason for critique in many of the instances.

Still, even after admitted to each of these things you cling to the excuses you have thrown up in hopes that others will see this man for something he is not.

I honestly believe that he is ultimately something which you refuse to see… a good Catholic priest and pastor, an inspiring witness which we need more of, albeit human and flawed like every other priest and pastor in the world.

He is wrong. He acts in non-Catholic ways. That does not mean he does not do a good job ministering to his ‘flock’ but it also does not mean he is acting, teaching, preaching or practicing the Roman Catholic faith.

Here is where we part ways. I think he tries, even though he likely makes some mistakes.

On top of all that, 50+% of the people who have been following this thread seem to think he should be PROSECUTED for making threats against others! And another 20+% are unsure. That leaves just about 1/4-th of the people who seem to have much sympathy for this wayward priest. Not a real good sign of faith that people believe him!

Not unsurprizing, considering the makeup of the messageboard’s population, their general leanings, and Fr. Pfleger’s lightning rod personality. People don’t like someone who rocks the boat and challenges comfortable norms. He agitates, no doubt, and lots of people would like his brand of “makes me nervous” religious practice to just be silenced, perhaps “snuffed out”.

Of course, Christ Himself was crucified by the crowds. So what is public opinion ultimately worth? Most people in the Archdiocese also likely think that Quigley really did need to close, too.

 

[melensdad]

I honestly believe that he is ultimately something which you refuse to see… a good Catholic priest and pastor, an inspiring witness which we need more of, albeit human and flawed like every other priest and pastor in the world.

This is the big sticking point between us. I am not even sure he is still a Catholic. I do agree he is inspiring, but I think he has taken too many liberties with the faith, especially when he gave the Cardinal an ultimatum and told him that he would leave the church.

If he is willing to leave the church then what type of witness can he be to our faith

 

[John_Higgins]

melensdad:

I am not even sure he is still a Catholic.

I am. He hasn’t formally joined another religion, or he hasn’t renounced his faith to his local ordinary. Presto-still Catholic.

Many people here need to remember that Catholic means universal. The undercurrent here is often “If you don’t agree with MY view of Catholicism, you’re not Catholic.”

Nonsense.

John

 

[chicago]

This is the big sticking point between us. I am not even sure he is still a Catholic. I do agree he is inspiring, but I think he has taken too many liberties with the faith, especially when he gave the Cardinal an ultimatum and told him that he would leave the church.

If he is willing to leave the church then what type of witness can he be to our faith

I don’t think that he is willing to leave the faith. Nor does he likely want to leave union with his bishop. Rather, he wants his particular ministry in this parish to be respected and preserved. That is a legitimate concern. It’s probably nothing more than posturing to say, “I’ll leave”. It’s a sincere expression of his feelings and desires. It’s honest. (And I like that. It’s a lot more genuine than pandering with niceities.) It shows that he’s struggling (like we all are - including our priests - to one degree or another) with God and how to be faithful to his call and ministry. Everyone does this (or should), more or less. He just happens to wear it out there on his sleeve and, thus, allows everyone to see it; experiencing the journey along with the pastor.

But even if he would part, he’d be in formal schism, at worst, and mainly not in full union with his bishop. He’d, practically, still be Catholic in essential faith except for full formal communion under the episcopal authority. So until he renounces something significant, it is probably better to keep him and his community formally in the fold. In time, providence will sort it all out.