Pastor Wright invited to speak at St Sabina Catholic Church in Chicago

[jc-servant]

It seems to me that many people, not just yourself, seem apologetic for Mr. Wright’s comments. How would you feel if David Duke was invited to a Catholic Church and was openly welcomed by the priest? Would you be as willing to overlook some of his past behaviors?

I’m not apologizing for his comments, nor approving them nor agreeing with the vast majority of them. He did touch on some actual truths between his more offense and inflammatory remarks, but in the little sound bites most people never heard the comments that would have provided the broader context as to why any decent person would have listened to him at all. I already said that I would not invite him to speak at mass and of course I don’t want to hear people use GD and other crude language in church or anywhere else. It is shocking and offensive. However, I would love the opportunity to question the man directly. I believe it would make for a lively and informative adult religious education session to have Rev. Wright and some good Catholic theologians to do a roundtable or something similar.

I’m still waiting for someone to offer credible evidence that these few moments accurately portray Rev. Wright’s entire career/lifetime. What I keep hearing is that these few minutes should condemn him as a person entirely which is just not right for anyone, including David Duke. I know of many years worth of evidence of that man’s horrible beliefs and behavior, so there is no rush to judgment on him with a few moments of even the most inflammatory remarks. Absent evidence of such a long track record and actual dangerous behavior, I would like to converse with almost anyone and see if I could possibly lead them away from their anger and closer to Christ and His peace. I have talked calmly with people who admitted being racist and the like, so this is not something I would only reserve for this situation. I have found that condemning and ostracizing people does not usually result in them changing their beliefs or behaviors.

I have been attempting to provide some balance, perspective and context into a discussion that has many people so worked up that they don’t seem to be able to look past the surface. I don’t believe that attempting to exercise some Christian charity toward someone equals being an apologist for them. Mentioning past events that may have influenced someone’s thinking or formation of conscience is not the same as offering excuses for their behavior. I have noticed that there do not appear to be a wealth of black Catholics on this forum to provide a different perspective on many issues in threads where someone born into the majority population will view things through a different lens. We can be just as orthodox in our faith as our white brothers and sisters and still have some different perspectives on issues that should concern us all.

The tendency of many people to “shoot the messenger” when they hear something that they may not agree with or like is one of the reasons that I believe we have not been able to have open and honest discussions between racial groups in this country. If this was just a thread to bash on Rev. Wright and the priest in the story, then I wish that would have been clear in the beginning so that no would bother to try to have a real discussion on the topic.

 

[drafdog]

There was an interview recently with a professor of theology who specializes in the study of black liberation theology. He reported that the sound clips that were broadcast were taken out of context of a discussion of the biblical concept of damnation as a national reproof different from the concept of hell. In taking the words out of context the news media have provide this forum in particular and American citizenry in general an opportunity to engage in black bashing which is unchristian and offensive.

Matthew

 

[jman507]

I don’t want to sit here and condemn Rev. Wright as a person, but my position is he abused his office. He may have helped a lot of people along the way and have a good track record in his community, but an abuse of your office is still an abuse of your office. It may have been a reaction against the frustration felt about the many horrible things that happened in the past, which itself is nothing to gloss over, but to react poorly to it is still to act poorly to it.

A divorced parent may be a good parent, but if that parent makes distorted claims about the other parents to the children, that is wrong, doesn’t make them a condemnable parent. It would be more understandable if the child does it about a parent who done them seemingly wrong, but it is a whole different thing if a parent does it, who’s office as a parent gives them much more responsibility. It is one thing for yourself to be astray; it is another thing to lead others astray too.

I don’t really care to ostracize Rev. Wright, especially for the very reason that before much of this publicity he really wasn’t that widely known. It’s rather odd idea to think you could ostracize someone you had no real relationship with before hand. Rather it is much the opposite I’m worried about. I don’t want him to become a well known spokesman for what ever his views, because his major notoriety came from those provocative statements. Unless he was all ready going to be in my church, I don’t really care for him to be invited on the account of what I consider an abuse of his office. The people who are going to end up ignored most likely are the ones who will take a much more reasonable approach.

One the one hand I do care enough to say that his statements are an abuse of his office. On the other hand, I’ll also say if he really wants to disagree with that position so be it. Yet again, if he wants to make this an us against them thing, I would say, go for it, and see how well that is going to work out for you. If trying to persuade someone otherwise isn’t going to change the situation, sometimes there really isn’t much one can do but wish them peace and move on. Move on to others and maybe another time with the person.

I can undestand people saying things in their own homes and such, but if it really is race relations that people desire to improve blacks also have a responsibilty to be careful with what they say. It is like in a family or any other tight-knit association, it doesn’t take long to understand what one can say to completely create an atmosphere of strife. The family brings a lot of love and support, and you have a responsiblity to be very careful with what you say if you don’t want hate and undermining.

Why encourage those who make statements from facts that are hardly accepted and says GD America? We can have talks on race relations, what good is it going to be if we use people who use strife and emotionally charged arguments? If you want to be reasonable, then use reasonable people, but then again that would just be a yawner. While it may feel emotionally good to think that we can improve race relations be doing something, revolutionary like, chances are the most improvement and breakthroughs are going to come silently we people cease to care.

 

[Lucania]

There was an interview recently with a professor of theology who specializes in the study of black liberation theology. He reported that the sound clips that were broadcast were taken out of context of a discussion of the biblical concept of damnation as a national reproof different from the concept of hell. In taking the words out of context the news media have provide this forum in particular and American citizenry in general an opportunity to engage in black bashing which is unchristian and offensive.

Matthew

I beg your pardon?There has not been to my knowledge, any “black bashing” on this thread. Feel free to point it out to us. The thread is about a Pastor who happens to be Black, who says unchristian & offensive comments in his sermons, who has been invited to a Catholic Church, St. Sabina, by a Catholic Priest who defends him. A majority of us are quite confused about this. It has nothing to do with race. Feel free to lecture some one else.

 

[BSHoop96]

The tendency of many people to “shoot the messenger” when they hear something that they may not agree with or like is one of the reasons that I believe we have not been able to have open and honest discussions between racial groups in this country. If this was just a thread to bash on Rev. Wright and the priest in the story, then I wish that would have been clear in the beginning so that no would bother to try to have a real discussion on the topic.

I believe you misused this statement. “Shoot the messenger” refers to “shooting” the person who is delivering a message that is not necessarily their “own” message. I believe this IS Rev. Wright’s message.

And I don’t believe I have seen anyone on here “black bashing”.

Rev. Wright is not helping bring people together. An intelligent, well-educated person can sit in the congregation and may be able to separate the man from his words in realizing all the history and reasons behind it. But what about his children listening to that same garbage, and other people’s children? I don’t care if it was in a broader conversation or not…it’s wrong.

 

[shockerfan]

There was an interview recently with a professor of theology who specializes in the study of black liberation theology. He reported that the sound clips that were broadcast were taken out of context of a discussion of the biblical concept of damnation as a national reproof different from the concept of hell. In taking the words out of context the news media have provide this forum in particular and American citizenry in general an opportunity to engage in black bashing which is unchristian and offensive.

Matthew

“Don Imus’ comment about the Rutgers Women’s basketball team was taken out of an overall context of humor. Thus the in taking him out of context it provided an opportunity to people to engage in white bashing which is unchristian and offensive.”

I really don’t believe that, by the way, but I make the statement to point that I really see a double standard here. When Mr. Wright makes comments which many reasonable people consider bigoted and offensive, there seems to be many people defending him, when those same people would condemn similar comments made by a white man.

Apparently, I don’t understand the concept of “Black Liberation Theology” which seems to excuse comments like “AIDs was invented by the government to infect black people”. I guess I don’t see what theology would allow allow a so-called minister to bear false witness by making such a statement.

If we are to have honest dialog around the subject of race, it has to be in a context of equality and fair treatment for all people. If we condemn Don Imus for bigoted comments, we cannot make excuses for Jeremiah Wright.

 

[jc-servant]

I believe you misused this statement. “Shoot the messenger” refers to “shooting” the person who is delivering a message that is not necessarily their “own” message. I believe this IS Rev. Wright’s message.

And I don’t believe I have seen anyone on here “black bashing”.

Rev. Wright is not helping bring people together. An intelligent, well-educated person such as Barak Obama can sit in the congregation and may be able to separate the man from his words in realizing all the history and reasons behind it. But what about his children listening to that same garbage, and other people’s children? I don’t care if it was in a broader conversation or not…it’s wrong.

I was speaking in general of the messenger being any poster who stated things relevant to a topic that people did not like, not Rev. Wright delivering his own opinions. Therefore, I was not misusing the phrase.

I never said anything about “black bashing,” so perhaps you are referring to something another poster said?

I never said the Rev. Wright’s remarks in the brief video clips were “right,” so you are most definitely entitled to think that they are “wrong.” However, if you have not listened to the entire sermon, then you don’t really have the facts from which to form a well-reasoned position. My failure to jump to conclusions without all the facts being seen yet does not make me “wrong,” but it apparently makes me “unpopular.” I choose to do more research and see if I can find out more about the entirety of this man’s life and career without the spin and hype without getting all worked up.

Finally, we are not supposed to mention or discuss political candidates on this forum. The moderators have issued multiple warnings. This thread is about Rev. Wright being invited to a Catholic church, not how this same person may be involved in a political context.

 

[BSHoop96]

I never said anything about “black bashing,” so perhaps you are referring to something another poster said?

Finally, we are not supposed to mention or discuss political candidates on this forum. The moderators have issued multiple warnings. This thread is about Rev. Wright being invited to a Catholic church, not how this same person may be involved in a political context.

In a previous message you said:

If this was just a thread to bash on Rev. Wright and the priest in the story, then I wish that would have been clear in the beginning so that no would bother to try to have a real discussion on the topic.

I must have been thinking of this. Sorry.

I also apologize for my mention of a political candidate. It does seems a little hard to disconnect that though as we are only having this thread because of Wright’s connection to a political candidate.

Let me restate then:
An intelligent, well-educated person can sit in the congregation and may be able to separate the man from his words in realizing all the history and reasons behind it. But what about his children listening to that same garbage, and other people’s children? I don’t care if it was in a broader conversation or not…it’s wrong.

You heard him lie in the video clips already (USA started AIDS, etc). Then you want to listen to the WHOLE sermon so you can make an informed decision. You give legitimacy to what he is saying! He is preaching hate. That negates anything else he says in the rest of the sermon. And again, think about a child raised in that church. He is not capable of making those distinctions that you can make about the hows or whys of a black man of that generation thinking the way he does. What the child is going to hear is the “hate”. And then he will think it is justified. Rev. Wright needs to go read a sermon of Martin Luther King’s.

This is an endless argument. I’m done. Thank you and goodnight and I apologize if I seem too harsh.

In closing, concerning Rev. Wright…“When people show themselves to you…believe them.”

 

[Ridgerunner]

At the risk of being stoned, I will say I think Newt Gingrich had it right when he said there’s nothing Rev. Wright says that the far left doesn’t say all the time, though often less colorfully. I, myself, have heard one priest say things little different from what Wright says. I have read the writings of many more. There are lots of priests and religious like that. Some people are simply persuaded that the U.S. is evil and racist, warmngering and engages in conspiracies to kill or degrade minorities. And many of them are quick to say it. I have seen people here in CAF say the very same, or similar things. It’s just garden-variety leftist thought.

Frankly, I don’t think Wright is worthy of all the attention given to him, except to whatever extent he does provide some background for the otherwise obscure presidential candidate who calls him his “spiritual mentor”. That’s not a complete picture of the candidate, of course. But it does not seem an exceptional or inconsistent piece of the puzzle either.

 

[lucybeebee]

Why do we have all black Catholic Church in the first place? Are we not all brothers and sisters? Why do we not see black Catholics in our Church? In all my life I have never seen A black brother and sister in any Catholic Church in America or Canada, why?

God Bless

Blacks comprise more than 25% of the Church worldwide. In the US, there are about 2 million black Catholics out of 13 million blacks total. Black Catholics tend to be concentrated in places in urban areas. There used to be a vibrant black Catholic culture in the Gulf region, though it has probably been dispersed because of Katrina. The reason why there are not more black Catholics is pretty simple. The places in which African slaves were taken to were predominantly Protestant areas. The slavemasters that were Catholic baptized their slaves Catholic. However, after emancipation, many Catholic slaves became Protestant. This is because they resented being enslaved by Catholics (both whites and free persons of color) and because the black Protestant Church was one of the few places where blacks could be independent of whites. There were attempts to evangelize freemen during Reconstruction, but racism from society at large made this difficult. Whites didn’t want blacks in their parishes and the seminaries wouldn’t allow black men to enroll, so the option of segregated parishes wasn’t even an option. I think the first black priest ordained in the US (as opposed to Rome) didn’t occur until the 1900s or so. In some parts of Louisiana, black Catholics couldn’t receive Communion in a white parish and they had to sit in the back of the church, if they were allowed in at all. The book “From Slave to Priest” illustrates the difficulties of black Catholics in the late 19th century. Fr. Augustine Tolton (the subject of said book) clearly had an amazing love of the Church to put up with what he did. Most people don’t, which is why many of the blacks slaves who were raised Catholic became Protestant. So if anyone wants to know why racism is a sin, this is why.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Blacks comprise more than 25% of the Church worldwide. In the US, there are about 2 million black Catholics out of 13 million blacks total. Black Catholics tend to be concentrated in places in urban areas. There used to be a vibrant black Catholic culture in the Gulf region, though it has probably been dispersed because of Katrina. The reason why there are not more black Catholics is pretty simple. The places in which African slaves were taken to were predominantly Protestant areas. The slavemasters that were Catholic baptized their slaves Catholic. However, after emancipation, many Catholic slaves became Protestant. This is because they resented being enslaved by Catholics (both whites and free persons of color) and because the black Protestant Church was one of the few places where blacks could be independent of whites. There were attempts to evangelize freemen during Reconstruction, but racism from society at large made this difficult. Whites didn’t want blacks in their parishes and the seminaries wouldn’t allow black men to enroll, so the option of segregated parishes wasn’t even an option. I think the first black priest ordained in the US (as opposed to Rome) didn’t occur until the 1900s or so. In some parts of Louisiana, black Catholics couldn’t receive Communion in a white parish and they had to sit in the back of the church, if they were allowed in at all. The book “From Slave to Priest” illustrates the difficulties of black Catholics in the late 19th century. Fr. Augustine Tolton (the subject of said book) clearly had an amazing love of the Church to put up with what he did. Most people don’t, which is why many of the blacks slaves who were raised Catholic became Protestant. So if anyone wants to know why racism is a sin, this is why.

I won’t argue the point in detail, but I have read that, except in southern Louisiana, slaveowners were overwhelmingly protestant. They, not surprisingly, proselytized their slaves to Protestantism, which has remained largely the case with blacks since. Interestingly, chattel slavery was imposed on Louisiana after the Louisiana Purchase. Theretofore, slavery in Louisiana was, to that point, was “continental” in its nature; being something more like indentured servitude. That’s why there are so many more people of mixed race in southern Louisiana than elsewhere in the Deep South. Many freemen intermarried with whites. That’s also why New Orleans always had a black and semi-black or “creole” entreprenurial class when the rest of the Deep South did not.

So, while I don’t doubt segregation existed in the Catholic Church and wasn’t pretty, it was actually more benign in southern Louisiana than anywhere else in the Deep South. I spent a lot of time in the Deep South during segregation, and it was obvious. So I’m not sure that black attrition from Catholicism to Protestantism (if, indeed, it was ever significant) was due to that.

 

[Swan]

Anytime, anyone says “God Damn (fill in the blanks)” in a church, I think it is a problem. Have you ever heard these words uttered by the Pastor in your Church?

As for the media "cherry picking’ his sermons, I think he did that himself. If we are to believe what we read, Wright gave 3 sermons a week for 20 years or by my math over 3000.

How many of the 3000 do you think that he memorialized by putting them on a DVD and selling them at the back of the church. My best assumption would be 30 or less, thus these DVDs represent what he considers his best 1% of sermons given.

This is a sad scenario on a man of God… one can only wonder what was in the sermons he passed over. That a Catholic Priest would invite him to speak makes me wonder about the Catholic Church in Chicago.

BTW in addition to OReilly on his TV show saying that Pflifer would be invited, the next day on his radio show, folks have reported that Oreilly said Pflifer would be on that night. I can only assume that smarter folks at the Archdiocese shut him down and that O’Reilly (an acknowledged Catholic) gave them a pass. … which he seldom does for elected officials and candidates.

Don1852

Looks like he might not have said everything that has been reported (what a surprise). From Anderson Cooper’s blog, he comments on the sermon after listening to the ENTIRE thing:

http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2008/03/21/the-full-story-behind-rev-jeremiah-wrights-911-sermon/

He comments:

*As this whole sordid episode regarding the sermons of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright has played out over the last week, I wanted to understand what he ACTUALLY said in this speech. I’ve been saying all week on CNN that context is important, and I just wanted to know what the heck is going on.

I have now actually listened to the sermon Rev. Wright gave after September 11 titled, “The Day of Jerusalem’s Fall.” It was delivered on Sept. 16, 2001.

One of the most controversial statements in this sermon was when he mentioned “chickens coming home to roost.” He was actually quoting Edward Peck, former U.S. Ambassador to Iraq and deputy director of President Reagan’s terrorism task force, who was speaking on FOX News. That’s what he told the congregation. *See link for verbatim of this section of speech where Wright quotes Peck.

By the way, nowhere in this sermon did he said “God damn America.” I’m not sure which sermon that came from.

He goes on to say:

*This doesn’t explain anything away, nor does it absolve Wright of using the N-word, but what it does do is add an accurate perspective to this conversation.

The point that I have always made as a journalist is that our job is to seek the truth, and not the partial truth.

I am also listening to the other sermons delivered by Rev. Wright that have been the subject of controversy.

And let me be clear: Where I believe he was wrong and not justified in what he said based upon the facts, I will say so. But where the facts support his argument, that will also be said.

So stay tuned.*

You would think that with all of our experience in the way the media spins things, we wouldn’t be so quick to believe everything they say. We might, for example, do what Cooper has done and check the original ourselves.

 

[Lance]

As long as the Cardinal puts up with Michael Pfleger, he will get this kind of garbage. All the Cardinal has to do is have the gumption to tell Pfleger he is out of there and if he shows up have him arrested for trespassing. Jesus did not suffer the money changers in the Temple why should the Cardinal suffer a priest who can not follow the Catholic Church?

 

[ibkc]

Why do we not see black Catholics in our Church? In all my life I have never seen A black brother and sister in any Catholic Church in America or Canada, why?

That’s funny; around here all the Catholic churches are highly integrated with white, black, hispanic and Asian people. Seriously, if you could only see my parish on a typical Sunday you’d retract that statement very fast. There are also (I think) three “historically black” parishes in this archdiocese, but few if any all-white parishes.

 

[duskyjewel]

My husband and I attended a majority black Catholic parish, he for four years and I for three, while going to college in Chicago. Not the one this priest runs. (edit: Just looked it up. It was St. James on south Wabash.)

Funny how the pastor, a compassionate and politically liberal white man, managed to minister to that parish’s needs and support them in a particular political battle against the city and some developers. Not everyone in the pews agreed or participated, but he helped them when he could. He never resorted to racial hatred, and he never berated those of us who did not agree with the battle they were fighting against the city and developers. The people in that church didn’t need racial hatred preached to them in order to find community among themselves or with the white people who also attended the parish.

The black people there didn’t hate the white people, and the pastor never told them they needed to in order to succeed. We never heard sermons about how the blacks in the parish shouldn’t strive to enter the middle class, nor did we hear about how rich white people controlled the world and kept the blacks down.

That parish was vibrant and centered on Christ. Some of the most beautiful music I have heard at Mass was at that parish. To this day, there are certain responsorial psalms that I hear in the voice of the cantor from that church, regardless of who sings them. It was also integrated and never taught anyone to hate anyone else.

Rev. Wright is a racist hatemonger, and no Catholic church or priest should be touching him with a ten foot pole, except to ask him to apologize and repent. He’s also a liar. The gov’t invented HIV to exterminate black people? Interesting strategy, as patient zero in the U.S. was a gay white man. How exactly was the government aiming at blacks when they did that?

 

[BSHoop96]

At the risk of being stoned, I will say I think Newt Gingrich had it right when he said there’s nothing Rev. Wright says that the far left doesn’t say all the time, though often less colorfully.

I wouldn’t stone you. I like the political person that you named that we are not supposed to talk about. And he’s right of course, except the left isn’t preaching in the church.

 

[BSHoop96]

You would think that with all of our experience in the way the media spins things, we wouldn’t be so quick to believe everything they say. We might, for example, do what Cooper has done and check the original ourselves.

If you don’t want spin you better quit listening to CNN and their newscasters. I don’t know whose worse…NBC or CNN.

 

[seekerz]

Maybe it’s just me, but the whole issue seems a bit overblown in the light of my experience of Protestant preachers.

Since my childhood, I’ve heard from numerous Protestant preachers the following:

• Catholics are children of _ _ _ _ _ and are headed for hellfire
• we are "the great Babylon (and you know what happens to Babylon in the end…), Sodom & Gomorrah…whatever the slogan of the time happened to be
  -God is going to destroy us with fire and brimstone for anything from wearing shorts (years ago, this was unacceptable) to dancing
  -the attack on the towers was God’s punishment (this from numerous preachers) for national sin

I could go … Just recently, when Jesus Camp came out some in the media were making misleading (and frankly insulting) comparisons between Christian “battle talk” and terrorist propaganda.

The point is, Protestant preaching is usually fiery, tailored for maximum shock value and at times stunningly politically incorrect. If the media is truly as outraged as they portray, then methinks they just haven’t listened to enough sermons in enough places…

 

[Catholic29]

And so Cardinal George says and does nothing?

Reminds me of a certain Archbishop around my area.

 

[The_Dweller]

As long as the Cardinal puts up with Michael Pfleger, he will get this kind of garbage. All the Cardinal has to do is have the gumption to tell Pfleger he is out of there and if he shows up have him arrested for trespassing. Jesus did not suffer the money changers in the Temple why should the Cardinal suffer a priest who can not follow the Catholic Church?