Posted on 05/02/2011 10:50:12 AM PDT by Chi-townChief
A few years ago, in a fit of concern that my two sons were not being academically challenged by their neighborhood public school, my husband and I forked over the big bucks to enroll them in a Roman Catholic school much like the one I attended as a child.
Talk about culture clash. My two sons came home complaining about the exact same ideologies that had vexed me so deeply during my eight years as a Catholic schoolgirl. It seemed like every dinnertime was exhausted by long explanations about the historical context of the religious beliefs they were taught and contemporary alternative viewpoints.
Two years later, despite the excellent academic gains the kids had made, none of us could take the dogma anymore. One day, as we exited the school, my sons explained to me that I could not walk on the west side of the school building because they’d been told that it — in contrast to the turf on the other areas of the campus — was covered in “God’s grass.”
That probably wasn’t the straw that broke the camel’s back, but it still occasionally comes up at dinner during discussions about respecting others’ beliefs no matter how loony or self-serving they seem to us.
What is it about Catholicism that makes some people run away screaming? The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life’s 2009 religious affiliation survey reported that one in 10 Americans is a former Catholic. And almost three-quarters of Catholics who left the church for another religion said they had left because their spiritual needs weren’t being met.
One of the tenets of Catholicism is that the church is not a physical location but the place where the spirit flourishes — most importantly, the church is the people.
Makes you wonder how the people of St. Sabina Church on the South Side feel about their place of worship now that its spiritual magnet, the Rev. Michael Pfleger, has been suspended.
Judging from the mournful tone of the St. Sabina members who gathered in front of Cardinal Francis George’s Gold Coast mansion last week to protest Pfleger’s unceremonious suspension , I’d say they were not feeling their spiritual needs were being met.
You may love Pfleger — some say he is, in fact, irreplaceable at St. Sabina because there is no one standing in line to take on the unglamorous work of being the chief advocate for a community of impoverished and usually overlooked people. Or you may hate him — some see him as a white, loud-mouthed publicity hound who gets off on being adored by black people and whose insubordination proves he is unsuited to lead a congregation.
But neither opinion matters because the bottom line is that the real church — the people of St. Sabina, not the archdiocese that George represents — feels betrayed. As they see it, Pfleger is being forced to leave them against his will for no good reason except for archaic church rules. One supporter told a reporter, “They’re tearing us down by taking [away] somebody that’s building us up.”
Hey, if that’s how the Chicago Archdiocese wants to handle its public relations, that’s their business.
Meanwhile, I can’t imagine any of this will keep Pfleger from tending his flock in one way or another. In March, he reiterated that his deepest desire was to continue serving St. Sabina members and the community that surrounds the church. I have no doubt he’ll find a way to make that happen, regardless of what George has to say about it; that’s just Pfleger’s way.
At that time, Pfleger said his future was “in God’s hands” and, unless you’re an atheist, what better place is there?
eejaycee@600words.com
PING
Waaah! Waaah! Waaah! Nasty ol' cardinal took away our race-baiting poverty pimp! Waaaah!
At that time, Pfleger said his future was “in God’s hands”
Osama bin Laden's future is also "in God's hands". Jus' sayin' ...
Pfleger didn’t want to play by the rules so out he goes. Simple. If he wants to serve the people of his district let him go to a public school or get a job and do it on the week-ends. Not use the Catholic Church as his calling card while going against church rules. I was raised Catholic and went to Catholic school in the old days and, talk about rules! Anyway, if I or my parents, did not want to play by the rules, there was a public school a couple of blocks away. Pfleger seems to be a diva to me - maybe he should start his own church - that’s how most cults start.
As a Christian, I do not look to any man to lead me. I am led by the inspired word of God, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. I need nothing else.
Personally, I have never seen a Catholic leave the Church while either "running" or "screaming". But I have seen a few who have walked away, mainly because their pride wouldn't allow them to follow Christ and live under the restrictions and doctrines of faith required of practicing Christians. They want to travel the easy road in life and make the road to Heaven in their own image. But......
"How narrow is the gate, and strait is the way that leadeth to life: and few there are that find it!", (Mathew 7:14).
If Father Flaky opens his mouth one more time Cardinal George should jerk him out of there by is collar and put him on the next plane to Nairobi. Then he can minister to some truly impoverished blacks.
The doctrines of Christians and the Catholic Church are often two very, very different things.
Some people lack the intellectual honesty to realize they belong elsewhere, and that goes for some people in every denomination. If you’are not comfortable with the beliefs of your church, then leave. Don’t stick around and undermine the faith of those that do believe, regardless of whether you’re an Orthodox Jew or Greek Orthodox, etc.
I don’t think I’d go to any church where the top guy is a leftwing nutcase. Father Phlakey was more likely to worship the “God’s” grass than the real Jesus of the Bible.
If you want a denomination where the membership decides who will be their pastor, simply become a Protestant. I do not mean that negatively, simply as a matter of fact. The Catholic church is not a democratic society but a hierarchical one and that should come as no surprise to anyone not living under a rock. There’s a Pope, then there are bishops, then there are pastors and then there is the laity. The pastors work for the bishops - end of story. Pfleger took a vow of obedience to his bishop and was reassigned. Another dedicated priest will assume the role of pastor at Sabina’s. One already has - a Black priest by the way who says if the Cardinal (bishop) says “go”, I go.
No one is irreplaceable, not even Pfleger.
I suspect that you’re right. Father Pfleger may have some charisma. And that may help to tend a flock. It is not, however, the most important thing in the role of a Catholic priest, ministering to a parish. He must teach what the Church believes, not the dreck that was dispensed at St, Sabina. The real Church betrayed is the one that Father Pfleger misrepresented to the people of St. Sabina. And the apparent fact that this person was of the opinions stated in this article indicate that it is past time to replace this poorly performing priest. I will pray for him. Saw too many of the “social justice” types in the seventies.
A better course of action for this woman would have been to check with the bishop’s office about what she was hearing, and what her children were being taught, and to have found another parish. In the eighties, an somewhat similar individual helped my decision to find another parish.
Why did she send her kids to a Catholic school, and then say the bit regarding her kids complaining about the same ideologies that vexed her as a schoolgirl, and then follow that with the remark about long dinnertime explanations on historical context and “contemporary alternative viewpoints?”
Are we meant to think that, as a girl, the author was likewise subjected to left-leaning, social justice types, and then, at dinner, rationalized those versus the eternal truths of the Church? I realize that I sound like I’m trying to pick this thing apart, and I apologize. My intent isn’t to snipe, just to understand.
The best example I can concoct is one centered around my kids, whom we affectionately refer to as The Horde. If my wife and I had a deep-seated problem with a school our kids were in, we’d move them to another. If a parochial school is not giving the education you desire for your cute-and-adorables, you find another that suits your tastes.
Father Phleger was suspended by the local Cardinal, (Cardinal George), for his nonsense, but he needs to be defrocked and given the permanent boot. He's a disgrace.
First of all, Catholics are Christians, the first Christians in fact. "Catholic" is merely a Greek word, ('katholicos'), that means "universal". Christ asked for one church, ('one' also means universal = 'uni' = ONE). The word "catholic church" was first written in they year 107 by Bishop Ignatius of Antioch. Writing to the Smyrnaeans he said: "Where the bishop is present, there is the Catholic Church" - Bishop Ignatius of course was a Christian, writing to his fellow Christians. But scripture reveals that this group of followers of Jesus Christ were called "the church" before they were called "Christians", (see Acts 11:26).
To further understand why Christ's Church had been called the "Catholic Church" at least since the year 107 AD, it is Scriptural that the job of every Christian, as Jesus commanded, was to "make disciples OF ALL NATIONS, baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit", (Mathew 28:19). Christ's followers were commanded to make His church the universal, (worldwide, or 'katholicos') church. It's really just that simple.
But you are correct in stating that the various denominations and parallel 'churches' that were founded on men who left the Catholic Church, like Luther, (an apostacized priest who married an apostacized nun), King Henry, (who enjoyed beheading women as much as Muslims enjoy beheading infidels), and Zwingli, et al, let's not forget that none of these 'Christian' factions agree with each other on doctrine. They frequently condemn one another, in fact, as 'heritical'. It seems to me that theirs is a doctrine that is founded AGAINST something, the Catholic Church, as opposed to being founded ON something. They all took something from the Catholic Church which they agreed with, then condemned that which they didn't agree with, making of themselves individual 'popes'. Hence anti-Catholic Church sentiment is the basis and foundation of Protestantism. Often times, just to prove their doctrines are the right ones, ministeres huff and puff over the fact that their doctrines fly in the face of Catholic teaching, as though that's some sort of proof that they are right. ~
So I'm sticking with the original Church, thank you, even in the midst of all the sins and faults of its members. And should a Christian Church manifest itself where all the members, elders and heirarchy are sinless, faultless and blameless, maybe then I'll consider joining that one.
I’ve read the Bible pretty closely. I can’t seem to find the word “pope” in mine anywhere. Nor can I find the word “bishop”. I must have a defective copy.
I have no doubt that you have a defective version. That said, neither will you find the word "Trinity" in the Bible, so I guess that makes all Bibles defective. Of course, the premise and theology of the Trinity is clearly in the Bible, as is the premise and theology of the 'Pope' as earthly head of the Church. Saint Peter was clearly the head of the entire Church, because he was clearly head of the Apostles. Also, the Greek term "presbyter", (bishop) is throughout the N/T, as is the word "elder", which obviously means 'cheif', 'head' or 'bishop'. When Peter died in Rome, as bishop, or elder, or head of the Church, (call him what you may), he had to be replaced with another earthly head of the Church, just as when the Apostle Judas died even he had to be replaced by the apostles who drew straws to choose his replacement. This is now called 'apostolic succession', which preserves the continuation and integrity of the Church, with a heirarchy to lead it.
There never was a time in Judaism or Christianity when there weren't priests, deacons, elders, fathers, rabbis, doctors or other terms to identify the heirarchy, or when there wasn't one man to preside over that heirarchy when necessary, such as Moses in the O/T, and Peter in the N/T.
"Pope" is a term that developed over time, it is merely the Italian term for papa, or "father", a term that was used in the N/T. The Apostle Paul referred to himself as the "FATHER" of the Christian faithful, ( I Cor. 4:15). The Jews too called their ancestral spiritual leaders "father", such as Father Abraham. As early as the year 107 AD there was a letter from BISHOP IGNATIUS of Antioch.
Theology is to religion as astrology is to astronomy.
The theology of a faith is the belief system of that faith, and it's the teaching of that faith as well, because it takes the doctrines and dogmas and explains them. Not all theologians are right all the time, but the Church needs them to help the faithful understand the doctrines and dogmas of the Church.
As for astrology's relation to astronomy, I'd say that's more like Obama's relation to honesty and leadership, there is none.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.