The Independent News Source
Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
Catholic pastor fires principal for trivial reasons
by Tom Gallagher on Jul. 01, 2009
Printer-friendly version
Send to friend
PDF version"The Park Slope priest who dismissed a popular veteran Catholic school principal was upset he had to pay to attend two school fund-raising galas, the Daily News has learned.
Printer-friendly versionSend to friendPDF versionIf the facts are as described in this Newsday story, it appears like another act of pure clericalism by Father Dan Murphy, pastor of St. Saviour Church in Brooklyn diocese, at its finest and backed up by the diocese.
That's among the beefs that St. Saviour church pastor the Rev. Daniel Murphy had with James Flanagan, who was let go this spring after 25 years as principal of the church's elementary school, according to an e-mail to parents from Flanagan's adviser.
"As pastor, I should have received a personal invitation with a complimentary ticket," Murphy wrote in six pages of complaints against the principal about the $200 he had to shell out for the March 2007 and October 2008 events."
Flanagan said the charges against him had nothing to do with his leadership of the school.
"It was the approach of, 'Let's throw all of this against the wall, and maybe some of it will stick,'" said Flanagan, who told parents Murphy was unhappy with his stand against tuition hikes.
Flanagan has asked the Brooklyn Diocese to mediate so that he can keep his job until he retires in 2010.
Brooklyn Diocese spokesman Father Kieran Harrington said the diocese was waiting to hear the details of Flanagan's mediation request, but getting his job back was "off the table" because the pastor has the final word on hiring at a parochial school."
Apparently in the Brooklyn diocese, whatever "Father says goes" even if "Father is plainly wrong." Weird. Antiquated. Unjust. Typical.
It's painful to read these stories as this plain vanilla personality clash was entirely manageable had basic management steps been taken months before. Had this been the Archdiocese of St. Paul-Minneapolis, the Justice in Employment policy would have kicked-in and the rights of Principal Flanagan would have been protected and the pastor's "complaints" would have been evaluated in a formal process.
It's also ironic that the Brooklyn diocesan schools are turning into "academies," wherein the pastor is removed from managing schools and will focus on religion -- presumably, the religion the pastors will focus on will include theological concepts like justice, dignity of the human person, rights of workers, serving the common good... you get the idea.
The Brooklyn diocese should do the right thing: Keep Principal Flanagan employed -- somewhere -- until retirement. The diocese should adopt the Justice in Employment policy immediately and train pastors, priests and all employees that there is a new way to treat one another in the Catholic workplace and it is not the way in which Father Murphy treated Principal Flanagan.
In this piece, Dan Murphy is
In this piece, Dan Murphy is referred to as "pastor", "reverend" and "Father". "Clerical bully" would be more appropriate if this story is true.
This may indeed be unjust,
This may indeed be unjust, but I find it edifying when a bishop of a diocese backs up his priests. Too often, bishops refuse to stand behind the decisions of their priests, either because they fear bad publicity or anger, or they are weak, or because they are afraid that, by enforcing and standing behind their priests, that they will have their own authority diminished. What they fail to realize is that, by defending and enforcing their priests' decisions, the authority of the bishop is enhanced. I am edified to find that the bishop of Brooklyn understand this.
To the case, the diocese is correct, the parish priest (pastor) has the final canonical authority to determine who is employed by the parish and its school. It seems rather obvious that there was a personality clash here that the principal was unwilling to rectify by his submission to the pastor. It is ridiculous that the pastor of a parish be expected to pay to attend a function of his parish. Thus, it can only be due to the principal's desire to minimize the pastor's importance or to humiliate or denigrate him that he forced Father to pay. This is undoubtedly a minor symptom in a larger problem and the pastor is right to dismiss a person who does not show him the proper respect and to replace him with someone that the pastor will work better with.
"It seems rather obvious that
"It seems rather obvious that there was a personality clash here that the principal was unwilling to rectify by his submission to the pastor." So, this is the way one deals with a personality clash: one of the persons involved has to play "doormat" by submission (in this case) to the "pastor". What about the other party in the conflict?
You further state, "This is undoubtedly a minor symptom in a larger problem and the pastor is right to dismiss a person who does not show him the proper respect and to replace him with someone that the pastor will work better with."
Another way of putting it: "....that the pastor is able to boss around. This pastor (sic) needs a "yes-man".
Mr. Green, you are trying to defend a clerical culture (priests placed on pedestals) that should have been done away with a long time ago. Remember: Christ entered Jerusalem on a donkey, thus showing that he didn't regard Himself as being above the people, but as being with the proverbial "ordinary people", one of them.
The principle did not want
The principle did not want the Pastor to pay. The decision was that of a group that exists to benefit the school but stands alone. Another priest not only paid for his own ticket but donated tickets back which he purchased in the interest of supporting the fund raiser to benefit the school. How is fund raising humiliating?
Dear Mr. Green, What is so
Dear Mr. Green,
What is so sad is that it was our fine and very religious principal who always made sure that our pastor was included in school functions and decisions. One would find that Principal Flanagan is a strict adherer to canonical law and always insisted on proper protocol when he was the deciding factor. However, Mr. Flanagan was unable to manage the feelings of the independent parent group which insisted on making everyone pay to attend the fundraiser. The pastor included this slight in a larger list of offenses in an attempt to build a case for dismissal out of false or misleading circumstances. This cannot be a desirable action committed by anyone, and certainly not condonable by the Bishop. I believe the pastor should have received an invitation to the fundraiser. I also believe that my children have a right to keep their excellent principal, and when I weigh the two issues, I'm depressed that there is even a connection. I am sorry that the Bishops have to be burdened with this meritless firing considering Mr. Flanagan was due to retire anyway.
First off Mr. Flanagan did
First off Mr. Flanagan did not force Father Murphy to do anything. The fact is that the group which Father Murphy is a part of (well Father Murphy didn't go to the meetings)decided everyone would pay for the tickets no exceptions. Mr. Flanagan did not have a say maybe if Father Murphy went to the meetings he would have known this.
Second it pays to have the Bishop as your friend Rita doesn't it? I do believe that Father Murphy the Bishop and the Deacon go way back.
The Bishop will not allow Fr.
The Bishop will not allow Fr. Murphy to turn a second parish against itself.
Tom, You mentioned the
Tom,
You mentioned the fundraising beef as one of a list of six pages of complaints the pastor had with the principal. Could we know what some of the other complaints were? Maybe they are more substantive.
People close to the situation
People close to the situation say they are not. Jim Flanagan knew every child's name in that school, including mine. He had been there 26 years, and the school was considered the "pride of Brooklyn West" as it was the only successful school, with 400 students enrolled and a wait list. Over 30 schools have closed down in Diocese. We do know the replacement principal helped redecorate the rectory according to the March 13-14 Church Bulletin . . .
Further evidence that
Further evidence that parishes should not be running schools! This is the case whether the facts as reported by Newsday are true or false.
I find it intriguing that
I find it intriguing that with six pages of complaints that this one complaint, not getting free tickets to a fundraiser, was the most salient point in the six pages. I guess if you depend on Newsday for your facts and don't investigate for yourself, that will be as deep a conclusion you will be able to draw from the story.
The clergy don't think that
The clergy don't think that the laws and justice culture applies to them. UNTIL THEY ARE SUED. How many diocesan law suits have been lost in unfair labor practices. They have already lost 2 billion in abuse cases.. My archdiocese suspended a priest 'whistle blower' and paid dearly. He was fully restored, got a hi-end condo and good retirement for life. They settled 15 minutes before the jury was to be seated.
Maybe the bishop [D'Marzio] thinks he can threaten the Courts like he did the legislators.. geeeze
All I gotta say is that Mr
All I gotta say is that Mr James Flanagan certainly has a lot of pull at NCR.
As a student of Mr.
As a student of Mr. Flanagan's 25 years ago and the Puydak family having a history with St. Saviour, where all my aunts and father attended as well as all three of my siblings, I have to admit that the catholic church really knows how to practice what they preach (of course this is sarcasm). I just don't get it. Mr. Flanagan successfully provided leadership and structure to a school while many other catholic schools have been failing. Now one priest comes in and wants to destroy what has been the pillar of 25 years of success, growth and community. If this was a public company, stock holders would vote Father Murphy out since it is obvious he has an agenda that does not look out for the best interest of the institution.
I guess when the nuns taught us religion and we learned about the devil in disguise, I never thought it would come from within, but isn't that exactly what we were warned about.
I know this sounds harsh, but I am not happy. My parents, pillars in the community for over 50 years, are not happy. They want to know why and Murphy will not provide an explanation, but keeps changing the excuses (I think we are now up to four different stories). As I wrote in a comment to the SS Preservation Society, the "my way or the highway' is not what we were taught in a catholic education system, but we find it coming from an ordained catholic man.
Honestly, some of us know that Murphy just wants to bring in his own personnel and pay them generous salaries. This is what we found out he did in his last parish until he broke the bank. The fact that the bishop won't provide leadership is a shame. Why have a hierarchy otherwise??
I have heard the phrase "Obedience to the church" thrown around. Sorry Catholic church, my loyalty is to God to do what is right and to stick up for a righteous man, Mr James Flanagan.
Edward A. Puydak
Salutatorian - Class of 1986
One of EIGHT Puydak's to attend St. Saviour
Xaverian H.S 1990
BBA-Fiance - Pace University
Apparently in the Brooklyn
Apparently in the Brooklyn diocese, whatever "Father says goes" even if "Father is plainly wrong." Weird. Antiquated. Unjust. Typical.
Well it seems what Father says is "I've hired one of my friends as the new principle". Someone who did not send her own children to Catholic School and has worked in a Jewish Pre-School for the past twenty years. He has also hired the new principle's cousin as the new Director of Religious Education for the School of Religion. It seems the position for Principle was never opened to the qualified staff already employed with Saint Saviour Elementary School.
What Father says goes! What he says is "I will hire all my friends" as he has done with several other positions in the Parish.
It is shameful and yet the Diocese keeps allowing it to happen! They should be ashamed of themselves.
St. Saviour is a school I would have considered but with a Pastor such as he making decisions how can a parent feel faith based education will be fostered here.
I believe the word you are
I believe the word you are trying to use is "principal", which is defined as "the chief officer of an educational institution" -- as in: The principal greeted the students each morning. Instead you repeatedly wrote "principle", defined as "a general or fundamental law, doctrine, or assumption; a rule or code of conduct; also a devotion to such a code" --as in: The pastor stood by the principle of hiring a qualified candidate for the position of chief officer of the school.
Dear Anonymous I guess it
Dear Anonymous
I guess it makes you feel smug to correct "Anonymous" misspelling of the word principal. I am also a stickler for correct spelling. However, I am more of a stickler for the truth and the truth is that the principal did not want the Pastor to buy a ticket and Fr.Murphy knows that.
The truth is that the principal, Jim Flanagan, did in fact greet each and every student, each day, by name. The truth is that the Diocese of Brooklyn has already determined that the pastor did not follow the principle of the proper procedure in the firing of Mr.Flanagan.
It also appears that the pastor again ignored the principle in hiring a principal when he hired his good friend.
I would always rather stand on the side of truth than to point out petty errors.
Ah, to be above a typo in the
Ah, to be above a typo in the wee small hours. Congratulations it takes a big person to attack someone’s mistakes, however, not a very Christian person. You must be proud!
As to your sample sentence. “The pastor stood by the principle of hiring a qualified candidate for the position of chief officer of the school.” Yet another dig! Where is the principle in this?
In order to clarify one of
In order to clarify one of Clint Green's comments....the Gala which Father Murphy is so upset that he had to pay for his ticket was a Fund Raiser that was run by a seperate organization and not the School. Everyone including all clergy that attended paid for their own tickets. Mr. Flanagan did not run the event and, like Father Murphy, was only a member of the board for the organization. It was not his decision to have ALL people who attended the Gala pay for thier tickets. To include such claims as the basis for not renewing Mr. Flanagan's contract is wrong. The fact that Father Murphy has admitted that he has not visited the School, which is less than a block away, for over two years because it "drains" him is troubling. The recent hiring of Father Murphy's good friend in place of Mr. Flanagan is much worse.
Flanagan should just sue em.
Flanagan should just sue em. A Brooklyn jury will give him plenty. D'marzio is closing schools or selling them as charter schools.. . Maybe the 'clergy protectors' who post here will chip in and pay the judgement! NOT... Sueing is the only lesson that can be taught to clericalism..then they cry anti-catholicism and nobody but too-well paid 'Wild' Bill Donahue cares or listens.. next?
Even if it doesn't get to
Even if it doesn't get to suing, which it most likely will,we hear St Saviour's parents will have to cover the cost of 2 principals for some time ahead because of the autocratic, non-consultatative, non-process way that Murphy unilaterally fired Flanagan. It won't be Murphy covering the cost of carrying two principals. The school will, and the school is funded by the parents and that's directly taking the money away from anything that would benefit the children. Remember - parents are paying who had absolutely no say in the matter of Flanagan's firing. Where were the Parish Council when all this was being agreed, where is the note home to parents saying that the school's funds are going to be used to pay for 2 principals. At least the money will go in Flanagan's pocket, not be used to purchase expensive rectory kitchens etc. Apparently, Murphy's new pick for Principal 'helped' him with his recent extensive redesign of the rectory. In Murphy's last parish there was also a great deal of landscaping and remodeling carried out before he was sent on to St. Saviour. All parents want is a decent Catholic School education for the children, something that they had and valued highly, before Murphy fired Flanagan for no cause. Cronyism and Clericalism, that's the headline for this story and it's sad that this still is the name of the game.
No cause??? You're dreaming
No cause??? You're dreaming -- you don't like the decision so now you slander the pastor as well as the new princiPAL. Do you have any princiPLEs???
Anonymous....since you appear
Anonymous....since you appear to be so knowledgeable perhaps you can enlighten us as to the cause for Father Murphy's decision, we know that Mr. Flanagan did not commit any crime, he has not been accused of any improper conduct, the School is successful and financially self sufficient, he did not have any Federal Tax liens filed against him. Please enlighten all of us as to your understanding as to the reason Father Murphy refused to renew a successful Principal who has dedicated 37 years of his life to Catholic education and 25 years to Saint Saviour's as its principal.
Slander, innuendos and
Slander, innuendos and lies... your agenda?
Same scenario. How many are
Same scenario. How many are there across the nation?
Urban Catholic School in Cincinnati
November 2003
Suburban Catholic School in Louisville
Winter 2008/09
Suburban Catholic School in Memphis
Spring 2008
Your headline "Catholic
Your headline "Catholic pastor fires principal for trivial reasons" is totally unsubstantiated. This is the SADDEST story of manipulation in the Catholic church that I have ever seen unfold from a close view. The principal fights the pastor through "concerned parents" while the pastor is trying to avoid discrediting the principal; the principal and his crew show no moral compass in attacking the pastor, playing the clericalism card, and winning unsubstantiated negative headlines that malign the pastor. In another situation where the principal was changed in Brooklyn one of the bishops, the vicar-general for the Diocese of Brooklyn, told an audience that no specifics could be disclosed since it would be in violation of labor laws and inappropriate for a public forum." He added "It's neither professional nor legal to do so," ..."It would be no different than if you applied for a job and your qualifications were discussed publicly." So while trying to act with a sense of professionalism, a pastor makes a difficult decision that he sees as in the best interest of the parish and school and in turn he's attacked in the media with obviously no homework done by the "journalist" or whatever title enables one to write this sickening article. Clint Green said it well: "This is undoubtedly a minor symptom in a larger problem and the pastor is right to dismiss a person who does not show him the proper respect and to replace him with someone that the pastor will work better with."
Brooklyn Observer. If this is
Brooklyn Observer. If this is the SADDEST story of manipulation in the Catholic Church that you have ever seen then I would question where you have been the last 20 years. Mr. Flanagan is not fighting through concerned parents. We are fighting for him, our children, our School and our parish. As with Father Murphy, you seem to be convinced, or at least are trying to convince yourself, that there is no problem at our Parish. Perhaps you also believe Father Murphy and the Parish Council's claim that the "healing" in our Parish is well underway. I suspect you may have even helped draft that lie. You apparently have forgotten that it was Father Murphy who first advised parents, alumni and parishioners that he had "six pages of documentation" to support his decision. I guess you missed it when Father Murphy was quoted on TV as stating that there was going to be a new principal and the parents should try him (we now have learned her) out and if they don't like it they can take there kids and go. You clearly overlooked the numerous newspaper articles in which Father Murphy was quoted as stating that Mr. Flanagan was incapable of leading the School into the future. You seem upset by the Daily News article and apparently didn't read it, particularly where Father Murphy stated that his decision was based on an erosion of trust. So much for your claim that Father Murphy has remained silent on the issue and has not sought to discredit Mr. Flanagan. Perhaps you should do some homework yourself and take off those blinders you are wearing.
The manipulation through
The manipulation through "concerned parents" is and continues to be very SAD. The children will be hurt in the long run. You pushed Fr. Murphy into disclosing that there was "an erosion of trust" -- CONGRATULATIONS for your tactics to maim and hurt. Keeping will only result in more hurt. Perhaps, you should accept a change in leadership at the school and quit trying to impose your way on the situation which results in maligning good people. Think about it.
So now you admit that Father
So now you admit that Father Murphy has not remained silent and taken the high road as you initially claimed. Finally some truth in your words. With the possible exception of Maura Lorenzen, please identify the good people whom you claim are being maligned here other than the caring parents, parishioners and alumni of Saint Saviours whom you feel obligated to attack and denigrate. I suspect you will mention Father Murphy, but given that he created this situation that would be illogical. Perhaps you should accept the fact that Father Murphy has made the wrong decision and his decision has caused undue damage to OUR Parish.
Speaking as one of the
Speaking as one of the "Concerned Parents" involved in trying to re-instate our fine principal back into our successful elementary school, I will tell you right now that one of our biggest struggles has been to get said principal, Mr. Flanagan, to take the gloves off and fight back. He is a very private and religious man. It is ironic that it was always Mr. Flanagan that insisted that parent groups work in tandem with Father Murphy. Parents often have their own idea of how things should go, however, and I would like to say that now Mr. Flanagan is taking the bullet for the actions of others BUT I don't even think this is true. The pastor wanted to put his own person in. He made a laundry list of gripes which were mainly unfounded, and sat back safe in the knowledge that he was backed by canonical law (at least in the hierarchical sense).
I strongly disagree with
I strongly disagree with Brooklyn Observer. The parents, home school board and a very large number of parents completely believe that the headlines are unsubstantiated based on their dealing with the pastor. Does Brooklyn Observer think that 40 to 100 parents come out and protest in the rain for over 6 weeks over unsubstantiated claims? Also, the pastor owes the parents of the 400 children an explanation as to why there is a change and Brooklyn Observer's is overplaying his/her hand on the pastor discrediting the principal - the pastor can discuss what is generally wrong with the school without discrediting the principal.
How do you know that? Accept
How do you know that? Accept the change and have faith that all will be well.
To whom ever submitted this
To whom ever submitted this comment, you have no idea what you are talking about, nor the situation. Faith is not meant to blind you, but open your eyes to see.
Murphy has shown his colors before this situation and it proves he is only looking out for his own benefit. A man of God he is not. True men of God sacrifice to work with others. True men of God do not find kids "draining". True men of God do tell the truth, not make up different excuses (up to four right now on Flanagan, which contradicts your justification for not mentioning specifics since he has). True men of God practice what they preach and are humbled before God, not greedy and self-righteous. Tue men of God don't tell others they have no say. St. Saviour has had trouble with another corrupt priest in the past, so we know what it looks like. We got rid of him too.
You as a commenter probably do not know he has already redecorated his personal kitchen in the rectory. He now has hired his friends. This is exactly what we found out he did at his last parish before they got rid of him.
You need to remember it is the people of the parish that make the parish, not the priest that so easily come and go today.
The only one being
The only one being manipulated is Mr. Flanagan. For your information Mr. Flanagan does not have a crew. We are concerned parents from St. Saviour. How insane is it that you state "they show no moral compass in attacking the pastor" when Father Murphy has done nothing but lie about Mr. Flanagan. Funny, Rita Lavin how you know so much about the bishops and the vicar-general. I remember now your husband is Deacon Ed O'Connell who works with Bishop Caggiano. It must be so nice, you having a friend like Father Murphy and his business manager Michael Sapienza. How interesting that Mr. Sapienza has been with Father Murphy for a very long time now. I never heard of a pastor bringing his business manager along from parish to parish. I did hear that while Mr. Sapienza was with Father Murphy at Holy Child of Jesus they had lovely grounds. Anyway, lets get back to the facts. How can Father Murphy make any decisions about St. Saviour School when he hasn't been in the school for over two years. Now Rita I know you say he has but we are talking about when the students are in school as well as Father Murphy. When you speak of respect, what respect has Father Murphy shown to Mr. Flanagan or the parents. Father Murphy still has not given the parents the real reason for his actions. That's right again Father Murphy did state that the parents have no say so why should he be honest with them.
Dear Brooklyn Observer, What
Dear Brooklyn Observer,
What is sad is that Catholic parents, many who were Catholic school educated themselves find themselves with no other choice but to protest in front of their own church! Never could we ever imagine having to do this!
Many of us have children who are second and third generation at St.Saviour. That is the SADDEST story.
The principal, Mr.Flanagan never asked "concerned parents" to fight for him. We are merely fighting for what is right.
It is very simple, what Fr.Murphy is doing is wrong. By his own admission he does not like to be around children. It is an "emotional drain" on him.I would think that being the pastor of a parish with a school that this would be one of the basic requirements: visit the children, the future of the Catholic Church. No, this is too much for him.
Perhaps the dismissal of Mr.Flanagan is but one symptom of a much larger problem. That problem being Fr.Murphy and the job he is doing as pastor.He has replaced many positons with his friends. Any new postions have also been filled by his friends.Fr.Murphy has made renovations to his private residence,the rectory, the church and parish hall.
We all know that this is beyond the unjust firing of Mr.Flanagan.The need here is to restore our parish. The parish that was built by the families of many of the people on the protest lines. The parish that is supported by these same people and the parish that will still be called ours long after Fr.Murphy is gone ( provided he hasn't turned enough of us away completely from the Catholic Church).
I have spent my entire life as a proud practicing Catholic. I have argued for and defended the Church and my religion in many a debate.I make the sacrifice to send my children to St.Saviour's for a fine Catholic education.
How dare anyone accuse us of having no moral compass, etc. Perhaps you are one of Fr.Murphy's currrent employees/friends or maybe you are waiting in the wings for the next position to open up at St.Saviour's. As far as homework by journalists,not to worry,much homework is being done everyday.
It is our right and our obligation to our children and to our beloved parish to fight for what is right. We are as determined as ever and have not given up hope.
As you state "That problem
As you state "That problem being Fr.Murphy" is your concern. You don't like Fr. Murphy (perhaps not the Gospel of Jesus Christ either) as he seems to have disrupted life the way you think it should go. Now you are out to destroy him. SAD. Very sad. FROM A CLOSE VEIW (I live in Brooklyn) this is the SADDEST manipulation of people that I have ever seen in the Catholic church. Fr. Murphy is a very good person, yet you can't see that. He made a decision in the best interest of the parish, not what you would have decided, probably not what I would have decided, but it was with the best interest of the children and the parish in mind. Since it was made and I have witnessed the horrendous behaviour by so many "concerned parents" and St. Saviour Christians, I now see that it was the right decision -- I see now more clearly that intimidating behaviour shouldn't part of the makeup of a church community. So sad that you aren't able to recognize GOOD and choose it. CLEARLY you aren't able to recognize GOOD and choose it.
Brooklyn Observer. With each
Brooklyn Observer. With each comment you sound even more ridiculous. Now apparently because we question the unquestionably wrong decision of our Pastor we are not Catholics. I am not sure where you live in Brooklyn but given your unwavering devotion to Father Murphy, I will gather it is in close proximity to Saint Andrews. You clearly have no understanding of the present situation and intentionally overlook the fact that Father Murphy has admittedly not been over to the School (when students are actually present) for over two years because it drains him. How he could possibly make a decision that "is in the best interest of the children" is beyond comprehension. Though I venture you will try to explain it. Please know we are able to recognize GOOD and also are able to recognize RIGHT from WRONG and are willing to speak out when someone, whether he be our Pastor or not, has acted wrong, unjust and in an un-Catholic manner.
Your behaviour says it
Your behaviour says it all....
If the pastor had the best
If the pastor had the best interests of the parish at heart he would have addressed the parents and answered our questions. He refused.
If the pastor had the best interests of the parish he would have written a letter to bridge the gap and heal the parish. Instead he chose to write an inflammatory self serving letter.
If the pastor had the best interests of the parish at heart he wouldn't have deserted his parish in the midst of such turmoil to take a two week vacation.
Brooklyn Observer - so you
Brooklyn Observer - so you are saying that the actions of Fr. Murphy and the Gospel of Jesus Christ are indistinguishable? Jesus Christ talked to many groups of people who did not agree with him. Father Murphy refuses to listen or speak to any group on the matter of the Principal .....parents, Parish Council or parishioners. You say that Fr. Murphy made a decision 'in the best interest of the parish'and you imply that any opposition or disagreement with his decision is evidence of 'horrendous' behavior. I don't understand- how could Fr.Murphy possibly be acting in the best interest of the parish IF HE NEVER CONSULTED ANYONE THROUGHOUT THIS PROCESS AND DID NOT REVIEW FLANAGAN BEFORE DISMISSING HIM OR FORMALLY INTERVIEW ANY ALTERNATIVE CANDIDATE FOR THE POST OF PRINCIPAL.
Is standing up for a man who has given 26 years of service to this community and been dismissed without cause , evidence of the 'horrendous' or 'intimidating' behavior you describe? Do you mean when you say 'horrendous' and 'intimidating', the peaceful protest of marching up and down the street or saying out loud that Principal Flanagan should be kept on....is that the 'horrendous' and 'intimidating' behavior you abhor? Or is it just the idea of disagreeing with Fr.Murphy on ANY issue that you find 'abhorrent' and 'horrendous'. I have a question about 'GOOD' for you Brooklyn Observer. Wouldn't Jesus Christ stand up for a man who has been discarded and has no power to defend himself....Principal Flanagan has been dismissed without cause .You seem to feel that Fr. Murphy's actions should not be questioned in any way and we should accept him as'GOOD' no matter what his actions. Maybe if you lost one of the 'O's, your points would make more sense. In any case words are cheap, actions speak louder. Who refuses to listen, makes decisions without consultation and will not consider an alternative outcome? That would be your 'good' pastor Murphy.
horrendous as in pounding a
horrendous as in pounding a drum while students are taking tests ... oh, and across the street from a hospital ... no moral compass = you.
Dear Brooklyn Observer, I am
Dear Brooklyn Observer,
I am sorry that our parish didn't work out for you. I hope that St. Ephrem's will be a better fit. Not one of we "concerned parents" would ever wish you any harm and we will pray for you and your new parish. I think that this public debate is healthy and will do much to heal us going forward. Father Murphy must have SOMETHING going for him to have such a devoted defender.