The Roman Catholic archdiocese went eyeball-to-eyeball with Fr. Michael Pfleger…and the archdiocese blinked. The incendiary priest is to return to his pulpit and pastorate June 16 to a forest of high-fives from those to whom the Mass and reverent ceremonials have always meant not much more than a circus.
Not surprising.
All along the archdiocese has forfeited its authority because it has been afraid. Afraid of black anger at St. Sabina’s. Afraid it couldn’t find a replacement that could build support to succeed him. Afraid the media…headed by the Bohemian Girl reporter, Cathleen Falsani…Carol Marin’s little sister…who has Catholic antecedents but is a Wheaton College grad (even though little evangelical propriety is observed in her hippie writing) who disses Roman Catholic cardinals as “men in red dresses” would portray the archdiocese as…gasp…unfeeling, untrendy.
All along the archdiocese had seven points to consider which authenticists say doesn’t rank very high with the lay pragmatists running the P.R. show.
1. It had to understand that keeping Fr. Pfleger at St. Sabina’s far too long was sign of a weakness, a caving in to a rambunctious mob, many members of which are not Catholic at all but have flocked there for a good show on Sunday morning to catch the local rabble-rouser flail around putting on his ping-pong balls for eyes routine as he shouts.
2. It should understand that returning him to his church would inevitably produce more of the same-old, same-old nonsense, likely to produce another confrontation down the pike in weeks to come.
3. Replacing Pfleger with a new pastor would have been the principled way to go.
4. Installing a black pastor would have been `way too cute…a needless mollification and would put the African American priest in an untenable position because the heart of Pfleger’s appeal is that he is a white man who is an anti-white bigot.
5. The archdiocese should have replaced him with a tough pastor, presumably white, and prepare to batten down the hatches to see a lot of “defections” from the largely non-Catholic congregation and a lot of articles by the Bohemian Girl. But courageously hunkering down and returning the parish to its original status of Church rather than raucous meeting hall is what’s needed.
6. But this is all academic now. Frightened of the political, social and media consequences of replacing the priest, the archdiocese has once again played into the hands of the media and the militants.
7. Once more the archdiocese has kicked the can down the road. Once again its lay leadership has shown it doesn’t have the starch to run a corner grocery much less the Chicago outreach of a Church founded by Christ. But then that it has survived for 2,000-plus years with such earthen vessels indicates it shall endure to the end of time.
Bill Baar says:
Will they allow cameras in Church when Pleger's preacheing... he's really a gift... the creator's way of blessing Chicago bloggers with material...
fed up says:
Why do I continue to support George?
Do we not count for anything?
I gave my 3600 to sharing Christ's gifts.
I give over 2k a year? Why?
Phil Smith says:
This is just another case of backing down because the man yells. He was a bad egg in HS always getting in trouble with administration over rule infractions....nothing has changed years later.
Jan Wnek says:
Here's the other side of the coin....
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmit...
After 1700 years of Constantinian Christianity, what else can you expect?
Margaret says:
SIGH. Roeser is correct -- the Church in Chicago is weak. Weakness inspires contempt and that is what the media and public have for it now.
Jim Morley says:
Please read Phil Kadner's column at: http://www.southtownstar.com/news/kad...
I believe it represents a more non-judgemental view of the man and his work.
John Powers says:
Kadner's column is pretty hollow.
Pfleger makes inflamanatory statements, then claims anyone who objects is filled with "hate". Perhaps people object to his radicalism because of common sense or a respectful view of political opponents, and not hatred.
The Marxist actions of Fr. Pfleger have been extremely detrimental to the very people that he claims to want to help. Does anyone really think that keeping Wal-Mart out of the South Side is somehow helping poor people? Political pandering is not Social Justice.
JBP
Taylor Siluwe says:
Thanks, Jim -- Kadner's column may be hollow in as much as it doesn't go into any negative detail, but that wasnt't the purpose (John). There is enough negativity floatinfg around in the form of disjointed sound-bites and video clips. The man clearly has lead an explemplary life, one that his detractors, if put under the same scrutiny, could hardly match. I think the archdiocese should stick to rooting out pedophiles.
John Powers says:
Only if an "exemplary" life is one where you make death threats and drive away legitimate business so you can continue to trade on poverty.
I agree we have plenty of negative detail already about Pfleger's clownish rant. His accusations of "hate" on the part of his critics are bizarre and somewhat pathetic.
One can criticize without being hateful. Fr. Pfleger can and should be criticized for his heterodoxy and Marxist politics. The fact that these were caputured on YouTube just provides a telling example of his ravings.
JBP
Black Robe says:
Pfleger is a monger of racism, hate and division. Twenty years from now, Pfleger will be seen as an embarrassment and blight upon the Catholic Church and its present leadership for not taking serious steps to stop this vile spewed in the name of the Church. He will go down as this geration's Father Coughlin, the anti-semitic priest from the 30's.
Dan Kelley says:
Phil Kadner is an not a trustworthy journalist. In addition to being reflexively liberal, he plays favorites. He is not objective and seldom neutral. The writers at the Chicago Daily Observer may engage in partisanship, but they are honest and open about it. Kadner poses as impartial while secretly engaging favoritism. Anything that he writes must be taken cum grano salis.
Rufino Torres says:
In a couple of your columns, you wondered how many of the Sabina parishoners are Catholic. Today's Sun Times article quoted a parishoner who is not Catholic. So there's at least one.
Does Fr. Mike give Holy Communion to non-Catholics? Does he even know the faith of his followers?
Or is it not important to him?