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

[LRThunder]

In what context did he say the words you quote? Since my childhood I’ve heard protestant preachers jump up and down and declare hell and damnation on society/the world/the country/the present generation: take your pick, if they would not listen. I simply can’t say that those words themselves incite any kind of hate.

Have you actually heard Wright “revel” in the death of anyone? I’ve heard more than one preacher claim that 911 was a result of the nation’s sin and no one accused them of revelling in death but then they were not Wright, now were they? I don’t particularly care for Protestant theology, I just see double standards here.

The secular crowd generally takes a dim view of Christian “preacher speak” such as in the present move in many countries to declare preaching against homosexuality as “hate speech”. Maybe some of us wouldn’t feel quite so self-righteous if the MSM aimed it’s beam of political correctness on us.

Does context really matter?

He also accused the government of inventing the AIDs virus to target blacks. That is SLANDER and unless I am mistaken, bearing false witness is a violation of the 10 Commandments. We’re not supposed to lie about anybody else.

 

[seekerz]

Does context really matter?

He also accused the government of inventing the AIDs virus to target blacks. That is SLANDER and unless I am mistaken, bearing false witness is a violation of the 10 Commandments. We’re not supposed to lie about anybody else.

Context always matters. It’s what enables me to read the Bible and become a better Catholic while some read it and abandon the Church.

 

[Teflon93]

In what context did he say the words you quote? Since my childhood I’ve heard protestant preachers jump up and down and declare hell and damnation on society/the world/the country/the present generation: take your pick, if they would not listen. I simply can’t say that those words themselves incite any kind of hate.

If you google Hugh Hewitt you’ll find links to whole sermons from Wright, including the ones from which these were extracted. Listen for yourself and see.

I suspect many more will become available due to high interest—keep an eye on You Tube.

Have you actually heard Wright “revel” in the death of anyone? I’ve heard more than one preacher claim that 911 was a result of the nation’s sin and no one accused them of revelling in death but then they were not Wright, now were they? I don’t particularly care for Protestant theology, I just see double standards here.

It’s not just the words, which cannot adequately convey the tone. If you’ve heard the “chickens come home to roost” audio, or seen the video, I’d say “revel” is the right word.

The secular crowd generally takes a dim view of Christian “preacher speak” such as in the present move in many countries to declare preaching against homosexuality as “hate speech”. Maybe some of us wouldn’t feel quite so self-righteous if the MSM aimed it’s beam of political correctness on us.

And yet the media does shine the light on the Catholic Church and Catholics, all the time. We are held to a higher standard than Wright has been held, certainly. The secularists recognize the Catholic Church as a much bigger threat than, say, the United Church of Christ or its various permutations.

It wouldn’t suprise me if Wright’s take on homosexuality went far beyond sound moral teaching and into the realm of damning those who have homosexual preferences, given the other statements he makes and continues to make. Again, this is not Christ-like; Christ embraced the abhorred, and corrected them with love.

We shall know them by their fruits, right? If my priests or deacon said anything like this, much less in public, much less from the pulpit, much less without apology, I’d be in the bishop’s office before Mass ended, and in another parish by the following Sunday if action hadn’t been taken.

Salvation’s too important to risk following someone who’s lost sight of Christ.

 

[pnewton]

I believe this priest to be a moron, a liar, or so biased as to be incapabable of clear thought. I base this on his statement from his website:

I believe the attacks on Dr. Wright are two-fold.
As a back door entrance to attack and try and weaken Senator Barack Obama.
To stifle the freedom of prophetic preaching in the church.
Both of these are unacceptable! I stand with Rev. Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr. as a friend and as a preacher who I respect.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. The attacks on the message of Wright are based on hatred of his brand of bigotry and ignorance. There is no difference in Wright’s message and the KKK except the color of the messanger. Stifling the prophetic preaching of the Church? How insane is that? Obviously none of Wright’s critics consider him to be a prophetic preacher. Instead, he is the Howard Stern of black preachers. He stirs up hate and uses shock to keep his following faithful. No doubt his welcome by the priest satisfies the same need in this priest.

 

[Teflon93]

What is “prophetic preaching”?

I’d assumed the age of the prophets was past, ended with John.

 

[neat62]

Here’s an interesting read on the “good” Reverend Wright

Giving God the glory and America the blues

 

[LRThunder]

Context always matters. It’s what enables me to read the Bible and become a better Catholic while some read it and abandon the Church.

But we’re not talking about reading the Bible, we’re talking about the inflammatory and racist statements of Rev. Wright.

I doubt anybody would call for context if a white racist said anything as offensive as Wright said.

 

[BSHoop96]

\I doubt anybody would call for context if a white racist said anything as offensive as Wright said.

You are so right on that point. A few examples as of late…nobody called for context when Imus made his insulting comment about the basketball players. Nobody called for context when Geraldine Ferraro was vilified when she dared to suggest that color got Barak Obama where he was. She also said when she was nominated for V.P. years ago it wouldn’t have happened had she been a man. Nobody said much when the black owner of BET television said virtually the same thing. He wasn’t slamming Obama personally. He meant if the candidate was a white, young, senator with 2 years experience that no one had heard of he would not be where he is.

If anybody is damaging Obama it’s Wright. He threw Obama under the bus when Obama dared to distance himself. It’s almost sad that the first time a serious black candidate has a shot at the presidency he may be taken down by one of his own because of his own ego (Wright’s ego, not Barak’s).

I guess we are not supposed to be discussing political candidates but it’s hard to discuss this without mentioned some.

 

[Apryl]

Have you listened to his sermons?

If not, you might want to do so before you agree or disagree with my assessment.

Nothing resembles the sermon on the mount less than one of Wright’s.

Do you assume that I haven’t listened to his sermons?

No one said his sermons had to be like the Sermon on the Mount in order to be truthful or factual.

Now, have you listened to his sermons? From what you’ve heard, what, if anything, can you point at as being untruthful?

No matter how he may express it, since I’m sure he’ll do it in a way that is clear to his audience from his perspective.

 

[Apryl]

If their catechesis leads them to believe that Pfleger is behaving in a manner fit for Catholic clergy or laity, one wonders whether they converted in the first place.

Converted? Converted to or from WHAT?

I really need to understand what you are trying to say here.

 

[Apryl]

Are you SERIOUS? Do you think the U.S. government invented AIDS to kill black people??? And if you respond by saying that we can’t prove they didn’t, that isn’t an answer and would only prove the ridiculousness of your statement.

I listened to Wright’s speech at the Press Club the other day. He amplified what we heard in the “sound bites”. He needs to shut his mouth and go home to his new mansion and $10 million dollar credit line.

So… your problem is that he thinks that the government was involved in inventing AIDs? or that he thinks AIDs was to kill Black people?



C’mon, folx… is your problem with Wright his religion, or that he’s Black? or what??? I’m so confused by your comments, and your sentiment.

Not only that, I’m saddened by your comments.



There are so many problems in the world… and rather than be willing to try to be compassionate, hear someone out, accept the fact that while they may be more emotional than we’d like, they have some credance… we’re trying to insult their spirit.

I don’t agree with all that was said, or how it was said, and I don’t agree with actions from some of the players involved, but I am not going to get down deeper in the muck than the ones I’m talking about.

I just pray that you could, too

 

[Apryl]

Perhaps you could enlighten us with examples of Wright’s Christ-like nature.
.

Could you enlighten me with examples of your Christ-like nature?

 

[Apryl]

Does context really matter?

He also accused the government of inventing the AIDs virus to target blacks. That is SLANDER and unless I am mistaken, bearing false witness is a violation of the 10 Commandments. We’re not supposed to lie about anybody else.

It’s only slander if it’s not true, and he KNOWS it to not be true. If he believes it, whether we believe it or not, it’s not slanderous.

But then, people, on this Catholic website, on this Catholic forum, have STATED that he was a bigot, a hate monger, and a few other negative adjectives. They believe their comments to be true, right? So, why is it that they can ‘call a spade a spade’, but Rev. Wright is not allowed the same?

 

[Teflon93]

Do you assume that I haven’t listened to his sermons?

I do. You seem to think his sermons are somehow vastly different from the excerpts; based on what’s available online the soundbites are consistent with the sermon.

No one said his sermons had to be like the Sermon on the Mount in order to be truthful or factual.

I said there is no Christ in him; I said nothing about truthful or factual, although I will take the opportunity to note Wright is either deluded or dishonest regarding the U.S. government invented AIDS nonsense, the “black children learn differently” nonsense, etc.

Now, have you listened to his sermons? From what you’ve heard, what, if anything, can you point at as being untruthful?

Let’s start with the U.S. government inventing AIDS. Put aside that he offers no evidence for his claim. Read Harvey Klehr’s work on the Venona decrypts or any of the recent books on the KGB (Christopher Andrew’s written several; there are also solid autobiographies of high-ranking KGB defectors like Oleg Gordievsky) and you’ll discover that this meme was actually Soviet propaganda from the 80s. It is completely fabricated, as the fabricators admit. So why does Wright continue to circulate it?

No matter how he may express it, since I’m sure he’ll do it in a way that is clear to his audience from his perspective.

As long as they pay him, surely.

 

[pnewton]

It’s only slander if it’s not true, and he KNOWS it to not be true. If he believes it, whether we believe it or not, it’s not slanderous.

I do not think it is slander because it is not aimed at one person. I think the fact that it shows stupidity and paranoia is sufficient.

 

[Teflon93]

Converted? Converted to or from WHAT?

I really need to understand what you are trying to say here.

Converted to Catholicism from whatever denomination they belonged to before. Pfleger doesn’t seem to have much in common with the Church. Perhaps he should read a little more Catechism and a lot less Farrakhan.

 

[neat62]

It’s only slander if it’s not true, and he KNOWS it to not be true. If he believes it, whether we believe it or not, it’s not slanderous.

But then, people, on this Catholic website, on this Catholic forum, have STATED that he was a bigot, a hate monger, and a few other negative adjectives. They believe their comments to be true, right? So, why is it that they can ‘call a spade a spade’, but Rev. Wright is not allowed the same?

Oh please…sigh…I have been reading through your posts and its apparent that you haven’t actually listend to his sermons or you WOULD understand the outrage…this man who supports the “killing of the white man” through his support and promotion of Black Liberation Theology.

This “wonderful” theology teaches the following:

Jesus is black (neat62 -frankly…what does it matter one way or the other?)

Merging Marxism with Christian Gospel may show the way to a better tomorrow.

The white church in America is the Antichrist because it supported slavery and segregation.

It gets even better…the FOUNDER, James Cone, of this distorted theology states:

“Black theology cannot accept a view of God which does not represent God as being for oppressed blacks and thus against white oppressors. Living in a world of white oppressors, blacks have no time for a neutral God. The brutalities are too great and the pain too severe, and this means we must know where God is and what God is doing in the revolution. There is no use for a God who loves white oppressors the same as oppressed blacks. We have had too much of white love, the love that tells blacks to turn the other cheek and go the second mile. What we need is the divine love as expressed in black power, which is the power of blacks to destroy their oppressors, here and now, by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject God’s love.” [A Black Theology of Liberation, p. 70]

"All white men are responsible for white oppression. It is much too easy to say, “Racism is not my fault,” or "I am not responsible for the country’s inhumanity to the black man…But insofar as white do-gooders tolerate and sponsor racism in their educational institutions, their political, economic and social structures, their churches, and in every other aspect of American life, they are directly responsible for racism…Racism is possible because whites are indifferent to suffering and patient with cruelty. Karl Jaspers’ description of metaphysical guilt is pertinent here. ‘There exists among men, because they are men, a solidarity through which each shares responsibility for every injustice and every wrong committed in the world, and especially for crimes that are committed in his presence or of which he cannot be ignorant.’ " [Black Theology and Black Power, p. 24]

“To be Christian is to be one of those whom God has chosen. God has chosen black people!” [Black Theology and Black Power, pp. 139-140].

Wright has said that a basis for Trinity’s philosophies is the work of James Cone, who founded the modern black liberation theology movement out of the civil rights struggles of the 1960s. Particularly influential was Cone’s seminal 1969 book, “Black Theology & Black Power.”

Don’t believe that this “church” does indeed support and promote this kind of hate and twisted depiction of scripture? See for yourself: trinitywallstreet.org/education/?institute-2008&s=cone

As for those who question this “reverend’s” version of “truth”…why are they less Christian/Catholic then you, who questions theirs?

 

[Teflon93]

Could you enlighten me with examples of your Christ-like nature?

So you have no examples, then.

Are pastors supposed to emulate Christ?

 

[neat62]

Converted to Catholicism from whatever denomination they belonged to before. Pfleger doesn’t seem to have much in common with the Church. Perhaps he should read a little more Catechism and a lot less Farrakhan.

The bigger question is why is this behavior accepted by the heirarchy within the Church? I know of Pfleger…he’s made some very inflammatory comments…and somehow, he is able to “preach” politics from his pulpit without worry of losing his tax exempt status…so why can’t EVERY Catholic Priest/Bishop do the same??

 

[Teflon93]

It’s only slander if it’s not true, and he KNOWS it to not be true. If he believes it, whether we believe it or not, it’s not slanderous.

But then, people, on this Catholic website, on this Catholic forum, have STATED that he was a bigot, a hate monger, and a few other negative adjectives. They believe their comments to be true, right? So, why is it that they can ‘call a spade a spade’, but Rev. Wright is not allowed the same?

We provide his own words as evidence.

What evidence does he provide?