The Contumacious and Pertinacious Fr. Pfleger

The Chicago Sun-Times reports that Fr. Pfleger has offered what is described as "an apology," although it reads a bit more like an apologia for his heretical beliefs:

“On Sunday, April 11, while preaching a sermon on the power of fear, I was referring to the fear that paralyzed the apostles, locking them in a room, leaving only John and the women at the foot of the cross. I stated that is why I believe women ought to be able to be ordained, as well as priests ought to be able to get married.” “While this is my personal opinion, I do respect and follow the Catholic Church teachings, and I am sorry I failed to do this.”

Just to be clear (as this blog has noted numerous times), there is an obvious distinction between married priests and ordaining woman. There are many married Catholic priests, some in the Western rites (mostly former Protestant and Anglican clergy), but many more in the Eastern rites of the Catholic Church. But it also seems clear that Fr. Pfleger is saying he believes men already ordained to the priesthood should be allowed to marry once priests, which is not allowed. (Part of the reason is simply practical: a priest vying for the attention of single women in a parish—or anywhere else—is a recipe for disaster.) Of more concern is his open support of women's ordination and his call for female bishops.

His statement is a sort of inverted play on the old "personally opposed but..." tactic used by Catholic politicians who publicly support abortion, either implicitly or explicitly, but say they are, in the inner sanctuary of their sacred conscience, opposed to it. Fr. Pfleger says he respects and follows Catholic teaching on this matter, but doesn't believe in it personally. That's hardly encouraging. Imagine if Tiger Woods had said, "Well, I do respect and follow the belief that spouses should be faithful and not commit adultery, but my personal opinion is otherwise." That would go over well, wouldn't it?

There is more:

In an interview, Pfleger — who was suspended from his duties by George for two weeks in 2008 over the comments about Clinton — noted that his comments Sunday amounted to a few seconds in a lengthy sermon. And he said he wished that people paid as much attention to dealing with violence in the streets as they do to his sermons.

“There’s four people murdered 10 minutes away from me in Marquette Park, there are shootings last night in the neighborhood where I live, and hundreds are killed in China, but people are more concerned with an opinion of a priest who said something for 15 seconds in a sermon,” Pfleger said. “It’s discouraging to me that no one’s emailing me or calling me to say, ‘How can I help you save our children?’ . . . But they’re emailing me over an opinion voiced in 15 seconds.

This is duplicitous, glib, and offensive. Wrapping oneself in the cloak of moral righteousness in an attempt to cover up heretical remarks—given with emphatic passion in a homily!—is truly reprehensible. If we follow the logic, he is saying that he should be given a pass on publicly rejecting Catholic doctrine because he cares more than others about inner city violence and murder. In other words, his subjective judgment about how much he cares about people being killed in Chicago or China trumps the objective teaching of the Church. But truth, of course, is of a whole; this is simply a typical misdirection play employed by those who make themselves and their concerns (however good or right those concerns are in and of themselves) the moral baseline, and thus view any criticism of their beliefs as a moral failing on the part of the critic.

"There are heretics," wrote St. Augustine in The City of God, "who in the Church of God entertain some unwholesome and perverse opinion, and on being rebuked refuse to alter it and square it to sound and right doctrine, but are contumacious in their resistance, refuse to amend their pestilential and deadly creed, and persist in defending the same." I read Fr. Pfleger's "apology" and other remarks as a thinly veiled refusal to amend his personal and false creed. He might want to consider the words of St. Thomas Aquinas: "A heretic who pertinaciously disbelieves one article is not prepared to follow the teaching of the Church in all matters. If he is no pertinacious he is not in heresy, but only in error. A pertinacious heretic, however, is wihtout divine faith in all the other articles of the Creed, but assents to them from his own opinion" (Summa Theologica, 2-2, 5, 3). Frankly, if he doesn't understand why his remarks have upset people, he really shouldn't be giving homilies or making public statements, at the very least.

Related links from Ignatius Insight:

• Is Heresy Heretical? | Fr. James V. Schall, S.J.
• Authority and Dissent in the Catholic Church | Dr. William E. May
• Women and the Priesthood: A Theological Reflection | Jean Galot, S.J. | From Theology of the Priesthood

Comments

[Ed Peters]

Add my name to the lengthening list of those who cannot understand the Archdiocese of Chicago’s stance toward Fr. Michael Pfleger, but that’s not what I write about here. Instead I offer two brief comments on Pfleger’s so-called apology for his most recent railings, this time against Christ’s decision to confer holy orders only on males and the Roman Church’s prohibition against allowing priests to marry.

Pfleger writes “I believe women ought to be able to be ordained, as well as priests ought to be able to get married. While this is my personal opinion, I do respect and follow the Catholic Church teachings…” That’s presented as an apology, but what does it really mean? How, specifically, does Pfleger “respect and follow” Church teaching on these two points? It might be better to ask, how could he not?

Consider: even if women could be ordained, Pfleger has no power to ordain them, so there is no way that Pfleger couldn’t “follow” Church teaching and refrain from ordaining women. Second, Pfleger is canonically impeded from marrying (c. 1087), so, again, he couldn’t marry against Church discipline, even if he wanted to*. How exactly, then, does he tout compliance with norms that he couldn’t violate in the first place? Such claims are chimerical.

Of course, one can gravely offend by attacking Church teachings even if they are teachings that one cannot personally violate. This kind of offense, which Pfleger admits he committed, he plainly continues to commit in his statement. That’s not an apology, it’s a mockery.

In short, it seems to me that Pfleger is apologizing for violating norms he couldn’t have violated, and affirming his contempt for those he has.

Some apology.

*Pfleger could, like thousands of clerical renegades before him, attempt a civil marriage, of course, but then, the most his present statement can mean is, “I personally haven’t attempted civil marriage”. Gee, that’s nice.

[joe]

"“While this is my personal opinion, I do respect and follow the Catholic Church teachings, and I am sorry I failed to do this.”

"Respect." What a crock. If Rome does not get that this is indicative of why thngs are a shambles i many places...

A devout lifelong Catholic (self-described) told me last week that while we all know the Church's position, NO ONE would date for two years and refrain from having sex. It would just be abnormal. But I am sure she knows and respects the Church's teaching.

Pfliger gets more offensive the more you know. He makes you take up for Hillary Clinton, for crying out loud.

[Eremeticus.blogspot.com]

Doesn't paragraph 6 of the CDF "Doctrinal Commentary on the Concluding Formula of the Professio Fidei" put Fr. Pfleger in a rather dubious canonical position?

[t.lewis]

Pleger is sick, it is obvious and George is ignoring it. I have asked George to help this man, George never responds, he's, let's say. to busy giving awards.

[John Siegmund]

Father Pfleger is still a priest......Why? Is a a non repentent rebel who should be defrocked and excommunicated.

[Lisa]

Pfleger's apology was nothing more than a gigantic waste of breath...it is no apology at all but another opportunity to dissent from Church teachings publically. If my child told me that they respected my rules and would not violate them, but then started publically mocking me for them and stirring up trouble with their siblings to revolt against the rules they don't like, you'd better believe I'd discipline that child. I certainly wouldn't reward them while this was going on. I too wrote the Cardinal and asked for Pfleger's removal because of the scandal this is creating from within and without the Church.

[Manuel G. Daugherty Razetto]

Fr. Pfleger is the product of an Archdiocese impregnated with leftist ideology, as is well known. This morbidly emotional priest is the shame of the US Catholic Church. Cardinal George , erroneously labeled as conservative, should not surprise anybody awarding a privilege to such a man who through low budget histrionics praises the likes of Rev. Wright and Farrakan. This gaudy play-actor priest need to be taken away where he can no longer display such tawdry, worthless behaviour.

The Chicago Archdiocese sui-generis fahion of governing has been looked upon by many who've tried to make sense of such a crazy management.

Dr Eugene F. Diamond, of Chicago, gives us the following information on Priesthood and Politics, providing as an example the Archdiocese of Chicago, the second largest in the country. He cites the Catholic Campaign for Human Development (CHHP) who funds, obliquely, anti-Catholic organizations like ACLU, NOW, ACORN etc. Dr Diamond also states that this powerful Archdiocese has given donations to the Industrial Areas Foundation (a left wing agenda entity) in the seven figure caliber. Finally we learn that during the years 1996, 1998, 2000 and 2002, the voting record of this archdiocese's priests was 78.7% democrat and 21.3% republican, while the auxiliary bishops voting record was 100% democrat.

[Deb Brunsberg]

I have been a confirmed Catholic for two years. I am 54 years old. I know enough to know that Fr. Pfleger is not working for the Church or the Truth of our Lord Jesus Christ. He is working for himself. He is a prideful, misguided man. The services in his church are not Masses and the Eucharist is not valid. He is not feeding his sheep, he only is feeding his ego.

I pray for his soul because I believe there is a special place in hell for Priests who turn to heretics and do not take care of the souls of those entrusted to them. Cardinal George will also have to answer for his inaction and his rewarding someone like Pfleger. Fr. Pfleger said once that if they removed him from this church, he would take his people with him and start his own church. That was the moment he should have been removed.

It is sad to see all those in the secular world who attack the Church and try to pull Catholics away from it. It is heartbreaking to see it happening by those within the Church. I think it is time to clean house. Regardless of whether you are a Cardinal or a priest or a religious or a member of the laity. If you do not believe in nor follow the doctrines of the Catholic Church, you should go. The fact that a person does not follow the Church doctrines is a very visible sign that they do not know Jesus Christ at all. When God himself gives you faith and opens up your heart to Him, His truths are evident, there is no questioning his Church. The Church is not a democracy.

I shall pray for the conversion of all Catholics.