Pfleger’s trinity
Fr. Michael Pfleger has just burst on to the national scene in an unseemingly way, but he’s been making unseemly waves in Chicago for years.
During Pfleger’s 2002 stand-off against Cardinal George, for instance, here was a cartoon the Chicago Sun-Times printed about Fr. Showboat:
Catholics interested in reading about the colorful 2002 stare-down between Cardinal George and Pflegers, when the Archbishop blinked first, can read some news articles I’ve reprinted in full on page 2.
[HT: Ann Scheidler of Pro-Life Action League]
St. Sabina losing its leader
Publication: Chicago Sun-Times
Date: February 12, 2002
Author: Cathleen Falsani
After 27 years as a Roman Catholic priest, the Rev. Michael Pfleger, one of Chicago’s most controversial religious figures, may be out as pastor of St. Sabina Church on the South Side.
Pfleger said Monday that Cardinal Francis George met with him last month and told him he would not be kept on as pastor of St. Sabina, where he has been sole pastor for 20 years.
“I was told that my term as pastor is not being renewed and was asked to think about options for myself and for St. Sabina,” Pfleger said, adding that he would reject another church post. “I really do not feel that I wanted, nor that I was called, to do another form of ministry. Nor do I feel called to go to another African-American church.
“There’s a sense of a lack of commitment of the Catholic Church to the African-American community,” said Pfleger, who is white. “I feel there’s not the support there from the diocese to start over.”
If forced to leave St. Sabina, the 52-year-old priest said he might leave the Catholic Church altogether.
“My desire is to remain a priest. My desire is to pastor at St. Sabina,” he said. “If this was not an option for me, I would have to look for other employment opportunities. I might have to look outside the Catholic Church.”
A spokesman for the cardinal said Monday that George “is in conversations with Father Pfleger about his future.” But spokesman Jim Dwyer added, “No decision has been made about his future and may not be made for quite some time.”
Gary London, president of the St. Sabina parish council, said if Pfleger leaves, many parishioners will follow. A self-described “cradle Catholic,” London said if his pastor leaves the Catholic Church, “I would be right there with him. I wouldn’t have to think twice about it.”
Archdiocesan policy normally limits pastors to two six-year terms at the same church, though assignments can be extended by the cardinal. Pfleger reached the end of his third six-year term in November, Dwyer said.
Although priestly assignments are largely a private matter, word of Pfleger’s possible reassignment had been spreading among religious leaders in Chicago and across the nation.
Pfleger long has been a thorn in the side of some church leaders, who consider his stands on social and religious issues to be grandstanding. He has clashed with all three cardinals under whom he has served. Pfleger has been arrested for acts of civil disobedience about 40 times, raising the ire of the late Cardinal Joseph Bernardin, who still kept Pfleger on at the end of each of his first two terms.
Last summer, Pfleger was at the center of a months-long controversy when he accused the Southside Catholic Conference intramural athletic league of racism after the largely white league voted against admitting all-black St. Sabina. “I was told by archdiocesan officials that we embarrassed the archdiocese,” Pfleger said.
In January 2001, George said despite Pfleger’s unorthodox style he was “a good priest, a priest in good standing. . . . I trust him. I trust that he’s close to his people and close to the Lord.” Asked about Pfleger’s long tenure at St. Sabina, the cardinal said, “That’s a unique place, and he’s a unique priest.”
Terry Peterson, Chicago Housing Authority chief and a close friend of Pfleger’s, said removing the priest “would just send a bad signal to the community. Here you have a person who has given his life to the ministry, to his community and his church. And here you have someone who’s not willing to make a decision to give him six more years.”
The Rev. Michael Pfleger, sole pastor of St. Sabina for 20 years, says he doesn’t “feel called to go to another African-American church” because of what he calls the Catholic Church’s lack of commitment to the black community. See related stories pages 1, 7.
Copyright 2002 Chicago Sun-Times, Inc.
Cardinal lets Pfleger stay at St. Sabina, for now
Publication: Chicago Sun-Times
Date: February 13, 2002
Author: Cathleen Falsani
Cardinal Francis George agreed Tuesday to extend the Rev. Michael Pfleger’s term as pastor of St. Sabina Roman Catholic Church.
“He is willing to extend my past term and, over the next few years, look into a new pastor for St. Sabina and other options for me in ministry,” Pfleger told several hundred of his parishioners gathered for a Bible study at the South Side church Tuesday night.
Pfleger, who said the cardinal had asked him to announce the extension, met earlier in the day with George and Auxiliary Bishop Joseph Perry at the cardinal’s Gold Coast residence.
“I’m just happy to still be pastor of St. Sabina,” Pfleger said. “I appreciate him extending my term.”
The cardinal’s offer came after a Chicago Sun-Times report Tuesday in which Pfleger said George told him last month he would not be kept on as pastor of the church where he has served nearly all of his 27 years as a priest.
Some parishioners yelled “No!” and booed when Pfleger said the cardinal still intends to find a new pastor for St. Sabina. Pfleger shushed them and said, “None of that.”
“I want to make it clear that I understand the policies of the archdiocese and that I respect them,” Pfleger said. “But I also believe there are unique situations, and unique parishes should be examined individually, and I’ve asked that it be done here.
“I really do believe that I’m called to be here. I believe we have a lot of work left to do.”
Pfleger’s third six-year term as pastor expired in November, and he told the cardinal he wanted to stay at the parish where he has been pastor since 1983. He said he did not want to go to another parish and that, if forced to leave St. Sabina, he might leave the priesthood.
The usual assignment for priests in the Chicago archdiocese is two six-year terms as pastor, though that can be extended at a cardinal’s discretion.
The mood among St. Sabina parishioners Tuesday night was upbeat and defiant. Before Pfleger spoke to parishioners, they sang hymns, clapped and prayed in tongues.
“I will not be afraid of ten thousands of people who set themselves against me round about,” they sang. “Thou O Lord are the shield for me. The glory and the lifter up of my hands.”
A reporter asked Pfleger who he could envision replacing him as pastor at St. Sabina. Before he could answer, a parishioner shouted, “There is no replacement!”
Earlier in the day, the archdiocese released a statement saying that dialogue between Pfleger and the cardinal about the priest’s future had been interrupted. “Picking up this conversation depends on Father Pfleger’s cooperation,” the statement said.
Pfleger said that on several occasions over the last year the cardinal and other archdiocesan officials had talked to him about his future at St. Sabina. Each time, he said, he made it clear he believed he should remain at the parish in the Auburn-Gresham neighborhood.
“I want to continue to build a church of leaders,” Pfleger told parishioners and reporters. “We are out to build leaders that can transform the city, the state and the country. I want them to continue to understand that their faith is not just something we do on Sunday.”
Pfleger declined to speculate on why George decided it’s time for him to move on. Cardinal Joseph Bernardin, George’s predecessor, had renewed Pfleger’s assignment at St. Sabina twice, giving him a third six-year term. In 1995, when his second six-year stint expired, Pfleger said Bernardin called and told him, “You can stay at St. Sabina as long as you want.”
The Rev. Michael Pfleger said Tuesday he’s happy his term at St. Sabina has been extended. “I believe we have a lot of work left to do,” he said.
Copyright 2002 Chicago Sun-Times, Inc.
Priest promised to obey, but has long habit of rebellion
Publication: Chicago Sun-Times
Date: February 13, 2002
Author: Cathleen Falsani
He likes to call himself “God’s errand boy,” but the Rev. Michael Pfleger has often clashed with mortal authority.
Pfleger touched off an unusual public standoff with Cardinal Francis George when he said Monday the cardinal told him he would not be kept on at St. Sabina Roman Catholic Church, the South Side parish where he has been pastor since 1983.
Pfleger–whose past adversaries have included the tobacco industry, Jerry Springer, a major brewer and stores that sell drug paraphernalia–said then that if he weren’t allowed to stay at St. Sabina, “I would have to look for other employment opportunities. I might have to look outside the Catholic church.”
Pfleger was much happier Tuesday night, announcing the cardinal had agreed to extend his term as pastor at St. Sabina indefinitely, while a search that could take two to three years is undertaken to find his replacement.
Pfleger, 52, has a history of rebellion dating to his days as a seminarian at the University of St. Mary of the Lake in Mundelein.
He was evicted from the parish rectory after he challenged the way the pastor treated parishioners. In Pfleger’s last year there, the school’s vicar threatened to expel the priest-in-training when he refused to move back to campus from the West Side parish where he had been working.
Also as a seminarian, Pfleger picketed then-Cardinal John Cody’s home on North State Parkway after the cardinal closed several inner-city schools.
Pfleger ran afoul of Cody again in 1981 when he adopted his first son, Lamar.
Cody threatened to fire him if he went through with the adoption. He did it anyway. Cody didn’t fire him.
Later, Pfleger was called on the carpet by then-Cardinal Joseph Bernardin after being arrested for defacing billboard ads for alcohol and cigarettes that targeted black neighborhoods–an act Pfleger described as civil disobedience.
As a Roman Catholic priest, just how obligated is Pfleger to obey the wishes of George, his bishop?
When Pfleger was ordained a priest of the Archdiocese of Chicago, he made a promise of chastity and a promise of obedience.
In canonical terms, a promise isn’t precisely the same as a vow, according to the Rev. Patrick Lagges, a canon lawyer and director of canonical services for the Chicago archdiocese. Religious women and men–nuns, brothers and religious order priests–take vows of chastity, obedience and poverty. Diocesan priests, like Pfleger, make public promises during their ordination to obey and to be chaste, Lagges said.
“They basically require the same thing,” Lagges said, “to obey legitimate church authority.”
The biggest difference between a vow and a promise is the steps needed to officially break them.
“A religious order priest who takes vows who wants to be relieved of his vows would have to be dispensed,” Lagges said, referring to the process by which the vow is formally undone.
A diocesan priest need not officially dispense with his promises, Lagges said. But there is a formal process for diocesan priests to be dispensed of their promises if they so choose. It’s commonly called “laicization”–making a religious person a lay person.
Many priests who choose to leave the priesthood don’t bother with the laicization process, Lagges said. “There are some guys that just walk away,” he said. “They’re not too concerned at that point what their official status is with the church.”
Canon law also spells out the process by which a pastor who doesn’t want to be transferred to another parish can petition the bishop to stay. But the bishop has the final word.
If George ultimately did order Pfleger transferred and Pfleger refused to leave, the cardinal could declare the pastor’s position at St. Sabina vacant, said the Rev. Gilberto Cavazos-Gonzalez, a professor of spirituality at Catholic Theological Union in Hyde Park.
“Even if he’s still there, it’s as if he doesn’t exist,” Cavazos-Gonzalez said. “But the priest can’t be excommunicated for disobeying the cardinal.”
Copyright 2002 Chicago Sun-Times, Inc.
Bishop to Pfleger: Just get out
Publication: Chicago Sun-Times
Date: February 22, 2002
Author: Cathleen Falsani
Kimberly Lymore, pastoral associate at St. Sabina Roman Catholic Church on the South Side, says an unexpected visitor stopped by the parish rectory last Friday–Bishop Joseph Perry, the Chicago archdiocese’s vicar for the area that includes St. Sabina.
He came to see the Rev. Michael Pfleger, Lymore said, and, finding Pfleger wasn’t there, left a message for him.
“He says, ‘Get out of the priesthood, start your own church,’ ” Lymore said. “I was kind of shocked that that came out of his mouth. He said that Father Mike had said in the newspapers that he would leave the priesthood and start his own church” if he couldn’t stay on at St. Sabina. “Then, he said, ‘I would do that immediately, so as not to be disruptive to the church.'”
Lymore said she had tried to reach Perry earlier that same day to get a fax number for the Vatican for parishioners who wanted to write to protest Cardinal Francis George’s plans to remove Pfleger from the South Side parish where he has been pastor for 18 years and reassign him.
Pfleger’s third six-year term expired in November. Archdiocesan policy normally limits pastors to two six-year terms at the same church, though assignments can be extended by the cardinal.
George has said he will extend Pfleger’s last term indefinitely while a search is mounted for a new pastor, a process that could take as long as two or three years.
Pfleger, who has been a lightning rod for controversy in the church, said Thursday he was hurt by Perry’s message.
“When a bishop comes and tells somebody who works for you that you should leave and to pass the message along, it’s hard for me to think this isn’t personal,” Pfleger said. “My desire, and I have made it very clear from the beginning, is to remain in the church. To have a message passed on to me that I should leave the church by a bishop of the church, that’s both painful and hurtful.”
Perry did not respond to calls Wednesday and Thursday for comment.
Jim Dwyer, a spokesman for the Chicago archdiocese, said Thursday he would not comment about a conversation between two employees of the archdiocese.
The Rev. Michael Pfleger (left) and Bishop Joseph Perry talk last year at a meeting to discuss the Southside Catholic Conference’s refusal to let St. Sabina into the athletic league. Last week Perry reportedly encouraged Pleger to leave the priesthood.
Copyright 2002 Chicago Sun-Times, Inc.
Pfleger to church: ‘I am not quitting’
Publication: Chicago Sun-Times
Date: February 24, 2002
Author: Dave Newbart
Read here.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Sigh… problems on my site still exist. I’m sorry comments weren’t possible on this post until now.
and on the one above too Jill.
“old stinky breath” must be around harassing you
It is not surprising that Fr. Pfleger seized upon this opportunity to say and do outrageous things and then bask in the media limelight. It has been his modus operandi for longer than we care to remember. But instead of his antics helping his friend Obama it has served to raise yet even more questions about the kinds of company Barack keeps.
Some may ask why the company he keeps is important. If Barack is so easily taken in by the Pflegers, the Wrights, and the Ayers of the world, what will his picks look like to run important posts in his administration and to fill supreme court vacancies? This is why, despite all of the talk about an Obama juggernaut, there is still a chance that the American people will have second thoughts and opt for adult leadership.
Obama says abortion is a morally wrenching issue. Then he says he would want his daughter to have the abortion option because children would be a burden to her. Then he takes his stance against the Illinois Born Alive Infact Act which makes him the most rabid pro-abort I know. Are there really “any” people left who do not see him as a hypocrite who is just trying to play for their vote? I mean, even those who support him should see he is full of empty promises of “change” just to get their vote. But he’s got Mike Fleger’s vote….ha
Actually I think Father Frank Pavone seems more like an egomanical creepy windbag than either Jeremiah Wright or Pfleger. It’s funny, thousands of preiests diddle little boys and girls and no one in rome blinks an eye. One or two preists speak out for a democrat and all hell breaks loose. At this rate I would not be suprized if Jesus himself got off the cross at the Basillica in Rome and left the building in disgust.
Who ever you are:
Jesus is not on the cross “at the Basilica in Rome”. He’s in Heaven sitting at the right hand of the Father. I suggest you give Him some respect.
Anonymous,
For starters, please step in front of the camera and give us a name; too many anons screaming around this blog. Want to make sure we’re dealing with the correct character.
Not sure how Pavone would fall under the egomanical creepy windbag category. I’ve read enough of his writings, seen enough of his shows, and heard his sermons aplenty to conclude otherwise.
And could you just drop the whole priest pedophelia rant? It’s such a dead horse; “thousands” of priests? @@
Carder, it’s not a dead horse until priests stop molesting children. Check out Google news for recent stories on priest molestation charges. The most recent story was posted about an hour ago.
Also, I stumbled across a study from 2004 that said more than 4,000 priests had 11,000 complaints of child abuse and molestation against them.
So yes, thousands of priests. That was four years ago, and more priests keep getting arrested.
Dead horse? Not until all those bastards get rooted out of the church and thrown into jail.
Edyt and Anon,
The Catholic church is doling out millions to victims of pedophilia because they did not address the issue correctly. Your beloved Planned Parenthood covers up for a lot more pedophilia and openly protects them. They prodect child molesters and do it out in the open and get federal funds to operate but nobody id scfreaming about that. Where is your outrage against that? I am not saying that we shouldn’t stay on top of the problems with pedophilia in the church, I am saying that PP is there right now in front of everybodys noses practicing putting pedophiles back out onto the street. How about SCREAMING about that, or is your goal really just to attack the Church?
above post was ts
TS, you need to get back on your meds, because you’ve been talking like a crazy person again.
I was just responding to Carder’s post that the priest pedophilia thing is a dead horse. Which it isn’t.
That statement had NOTHING to do with ANYONE covering up pedophilia and everything to do with people who have committed pedophilia.
If PP is covering up pedophilia, then of course, I don’t support it. But besides a bunch of fringe right-to-life groups, I have been unable to find any actual PROOF of this happening.
It’s not attacking the church to make an honest statement of fact that about 4-5% (more than 4,000) of their priests are responsible for molesting children (often multiple children). You provide the unbiased proof for PP molesting kids, or at least covering it up, then I’ll change my mind about it.
P.S. A phone call to a PP does not mean they would actually help a young victim of rape/incest and/or not report it. However, PP has to at least get the victim in the door to get her info, which would be why they don’t immediately deny care.
If I were a cop, I’d want PP to do the same thing. There’s no use scaring off the girl before she comes into the clinic and risk not getting that incident reported. At least if she is there, face to face, they can say they’re going to report it or discuss it with her so that she feels comfortable talking to the police on her own.
Edyt,
I guess you are just not as angry about the predators that attack these young gorls being left out on the street to offend again and again. You cannot deny the fact that more 13 and 14 year old girls get pregnant from adults then get pregnant from other adolescents. How many of the rapists that abused these girls has PP brought to justice? I think your reluctance to say anything bad about PP has you remaining silent even though you “know” they are noy making any effort to bring these scumbags to justice. PP is where these young girls get processed for abortions. PP fights against parental notification and fights against releasing any information. I shouldn’t have to prove to you that they are doing “nothing” at all about it, there record speaks for itself and they have found ways to isolate everybody else from getting access to that information. Even if I were to ever accept PP for performing abortions on these young gorls (which I do NOT), I would still find them offensive and dangerous to society because of the way they cover up for pedophiles. Again, no reasonable person could suggest that many of these young gorls processed through PP for abortions have been raped either forcibly or stutirily raped by child molesters. How many have PP helped bring to justice.
I guess you are just not as angry about the predators that attack these young girls being left out on the street to offend again and again.
Uhh… yes I am. But I’m angry at the PREDATORS. Not the Planned Parenthood. Duh.
You cannot deny the fact that more 13 and 14 year old girls get pregnant from adults then get pregnant from other adolescents.
Well, I don’t have those statistics on hand, so if you wouldn’t mind supplying them…
How many of the rapists that abused these girls has PP brought to justice?
I don’t know. If you find stats, please let me know.
I think your reluctance to say anything bad about PP has you remaining silent even though you “know” they are noy making any effort to bring these scumbags to justice.
Um, no. Try again. Like I clearly said, I cannot find any actual PROOF that PP is NOT reporting possible rape/incest cases. However, under the law, a pregnant woman is considered an adult and can make her own choices about whether or not to continue the pregnancy. If the young girl does not tell the facility she was raped/molested, they cannot report it. I am certain that if she DID tell, they would report it.
PP is where these young girls get processed for abortions. PP fights against parental notification and fights against releasing any information.
As any doctor should. Parental notification can cause harm to some women in poor circumstances and I can imagine it could sometimes be dangerous. It is a doctor’s duty to look out for their patient’s best interests, and that means confidentiality and privacy.
I shouldn’t have to prove to you that they are doing “nothing” at all about it, there record speaks for itself and they have found ways to isolate everybody else from getting access to that information.
If the record speaks for itself then why can I not find a SINGLE reliable source citing that PP is not reporting it?! Everything I have found is all hearsay based on some pro-lifer calling a clinic and asking if the clinic would do an abortion on an incest case. Legally, they can. That does not in any way imply that they would not report the case.
Even if I were to ever accept PP for performing abortions on these young girls (which I do NOT), I would still find them offensive and dangerous to society because of the way they cover up for pedophiles. Again, no reasonable person could suggest that many of these young girls processed through PP for abortions have been raped either forcibly or statutorily raped by child molesters. How many have PP helped bring to justice.
Probably a few. But they probably don’t publicize it since they CARE ABOUT THEIR PATIENT’S RIGHT TO PRIVACY AND CONFIDENTIALITY.
Unlike some people, they don’t feel the need to prove themselves heroes by putting the girl up on a pedestal in front of everyone and saying “LOOK, WE REPORTED THIS GIRL’S RAPE!”
Please. Don’t be ridiculous. Either provide some real information or cut the BS. Your anecdotal “what-ifs” have no basis in reality.
ts said: PP is where these young girls get processed for abortions. PP fights against parental notification and fights against releasing any information.
Edyt said: As any doctor should. Parental notification can cause harm to some women in poor circumstances and I can imagine it could sometimes be dangerous. It is a doctor’s duty to look out for their patient’s best interests, and that means confidentiality and privacy.
Because of a handful of lousy parents you want to take away the “right to parent” from the majority of the good ones? That’s logical.
If the doctors are as caring as you think, wouldn’t doctors make sure with the courts that a bad situation would be fixed? I can’t wait until all you PC’rs who defend parental notification have your own daughters. We’ll see how you feel then when the doctors say to you, “it’s none of your business”.
Correction above 11:43:
**That should read “defend against parental notification”**
Because of a handful of lousy parents you want to take away the “right to parent” from the majority of the good ones? That’s logical.
You never know who is a bad parent…
If the doctors are as caring as you think, wouldn’t doctors make sure with the courts that a bad situation would be fixed?
In most cases where there is abuse in the home, the court won’t/can’t help. Usually the child ends up running away and living with other friends/family members. Often, they are forced into prostitution. Sometimes, the best situation for the child is to stay in the home until they are of age, while trying to keep disputes at a minimum, just so they can have food and shelter.
There are a lot of reasons behind this – education is one; if you try to move a kid, they can lose months of their education. The prostitution reason is another. Third, there aren’t enough shelters for homeless youth. In Illinois, for example, there are approximately 25,000 homeless youth, and a little over 300 beds for all of them. About 6,500 of those are prostitutes.
Now if a situation is really bad, of course I wouldn’t want the kid to be trapped there. But we really don’t have enough places for these kids to go, and for the sake of the child, I’d rather be sure she has the ability to get medical care first, and handle the situation later. I’m sure the doctors do what they think is best.
I can’t wait until all you PC’rs who defend parental notification have your own daughters. We’ll see how you feel then when the doctors say to you, “it’s none of your business”.
As much as I would love my child to be open with me, I would understand if she could not, for whatever reason. And I would want her to be able to get that access, whether or not she feels comfortable telling me. Because if she doesn’t feel comfortable telling me she’s pregnant, than it’s not her fault, it’s mine. If I had been a better parent, she would be open and honest with me. You can’t force your children to trust you, and that’s exactly what these laws attempt to do. You have to establish the basis of trust before your child will go to you with her problems.
Edyt said: 12:39: As much as I would love my child to be open with me, I would understand if she could not, for whatever reason. And I would want her to be able to get that access, whether or not she feels comfortable telling me. Because if she doesn’t feel comfortable telling me she’s pregnant, than it’s not her fault, it’s mine. If I had been a better parent, she would be open and honest with me. You can’t force your children to trust you, and that’s exactly what these laws attempt to do. You have to establish the basis of trust before your child will go to you with her problems.
Sounds like a cop-out. I don’t believe you’d let your 14 year-old abort your grandchild. Not for a minute.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Janet said: Because of a handful of lousy parents you want to take away the “right to parent” from the majority of the good ones?
Edyt said: You never know who is a bad parent…
So you don’t care about protecting parental rights in Illinois, because of a lousy few. Perhaps parental notification would act as a deterrent to abortion. That would be positive, if we are in favor of reducing abortions, right?
Now if we don’t care about reducing abortions, or care about what parents want for their children, then I guess we could leave things as they are – No parental notification in Illinois.