Cardinal George rebukes Fr Pfleger . . .

[melensdad]

It appears that Cardinal George is getting fed up with his wayward southside priest? So we know that Cardinal George will act, but the questions as to the pro-abortion speakers and Muslims who deliver homilies still exist.

The Chicago Sun Times reports this story:
Cardinal rebukes Pfleger for 'threat’

June 8, 2007
BY SUSAN HOGAN/ALBACH Religion Reporter/shogan@suntimes.com

Cardinal Francis George has taken an unusual step: issuing a statement about the Archdiocese of Chicago’s activist priest, the Rev. Michael Pfleger, for comments he made at an anti-gun rally.

It is the latest episode in longstanding tensions between George and Pfleger, who have clashed over everything from doctrine to politics.

Pfleger said Thursday, “I thought things were getting better.”

The cardinal said in his statement: “Publicly delivering a threat against anyone’s life betrays the civil order and is morally outrageous, especially if this threat came from a priest.”

But Pfleger, pastor of St. Sabina parish, said he didn’t make a threat, and that no one from the archdiocese contacted him about the May 26 rally outside of Chuck’s Gun Shop in Riverdale, run by John Riggio.

“We’re going to snuff out John Riggio,” Pfleger told the estimated 200 people at the rally. “We’re going to snuff out legislators that are voting against our gun laws.”

What did he mean by ‘snuff’?

** Pfleger said he didn’t know the word “snuff” was slang for “killing.”**

“Police were there. Reporters were there. No one understood me as calling for murder,” he said. “I was talking about exposing the gun shop owners and legislators who support them.”

Riggio said he’s considering legal action and referred the Sun-Times to his attorney, William Howard of Chicago. Howard called Pfleger’s statements “alarming” and “slanderous.”

“John Riggio is selling a legal product in a legal way,” he said. “They made it sound at the rally that he’s doing all of these horrible things. Well, he’s not.”

Three days after the rally, the Illinois State Rifle Association issued a press release headlined, “Chicago Priest Calls for Murder of Gun Shop Owner.” The leader of the association said he was writing to the archdiocese for an apology.

Since then, the archdiocese and the priest said they’ve been deluged with complaints.

The cardinal said that it “was up to civil authorities” to determine whether a threat was made.

Riverdale police called the rally “peaceful” and said no investigation was warranted.
Cardinal’s actions confuse priests

The Rev. Jesse Jackson, who also spoke at the rally, said gun associations were twisting Pfleger’s use of the word “snuff” to stifle his activism and divert attention from the issue of gun violence.

Several of the archdiocese’s priests said privately they were baffled by the cardinal’s statement. His spokeswoman, Colleen Dolan, said the cardinal wasn’t bowing to pressure from members of gun associations.​

 

[manualman]

I’m not sure I’m impressed. Is the Cardinal truly trying the shepherd this pastor, or has the archdiocesan legal counsel merely advised him that he needs to be on record denouncing this?

If somebody shoots this shop owner and the diocese never took any action, you can bet some lawyer will think of suing the diocese as being responsible for it.

I fear it is more a legal disclaimer than any real attempt to get this parish back under control.

 

[Dale_M]

Has Fr. Pfleger apologized for using the word “snuff”? Has he made clear that human life is sacred and that no harm should come to Mr. Riggio?

 

[melensdad]

Has Fr. Pfleger apologized for using the word “snuff”? Has he made clear that human life is sacred and that no harm should come to Mr. Riggio?

If you go to the St Sabina’s website you will see a letter on the parish home page. It actually attacks the people who think that Fr Pfleger was wrong. It claims that he is the one who did nothing wrong and he is under attack.

I’ll grant you that there are many in an uproar about this latest stunt, but to answer your question, NO HE DID NOT APOLOGIZE and apparently he has no intention of doing it either. Further, this street-wise priest who regularly uses ‘slang’ termanology claims that he had no clue that to “snuff out” means to “kill”.

 

[chicago]

I’d seriously doubt anyone is going to kill (how, with a gun?) John Riggio. Anyone who knows how Fr. Pfleger is would have understood his intent when first hearing his usage in context, afterall.

This isn’'t the first time that Cardinal George has had harsh words for Fr. Pfleger, either. There’s an ongoing battle of the wills with shots taken on both sides regularly. Rather, it would seem that because of all the publicity, he was forced into making a comment, at last. Which also goes to show that what the official spokepersons say about his lack of involvement initially is usually untrue. It’s just a formal stance of the Archdiocese if nothing is said, while behind teh doors lots of stuff is happenning.

 

[Hellisreal]

Wait to see if this gun store owner sues the pants of Pfleger and not the Church.
I dont know how the Church could be held responsible for this and **hope **it wont.
Maybe thats why Cardinal George spoke out.Who knows.

If this guy sues, he ought to be suing Pfleger and no one else.
I kinda hope he does sue Pfleger. Let Pfleger be humbled. But not on the Church’s dime.

 

[melensdad]

I’d seriously doubt anyone is going to kill (how, with a gun?) John Riggio.

You doubt it but you don’t know for fact.

This isn’'t the first time that Cardinal George has had harsh words for Fr. Pfleger, either. There’s an ongoing battle of the wills with shots taken on both sides regularly.

And that shows the constant and blatant disregard and disrespect that Fr Pfleger has for the Cardinal.

Rather, it would seem that because of all the publicity, he was forced into making a comment, at last. Which also goes to show that what the official spokepersons say about his lack of involvement initially is usually untrue.

How does it show that? That is nothing more than supposition that cannot be supported with fact.

It’s just a formal stance of the Archdiocese if nothing is said, while behind teh doors lots of stuff is happenning.

Again, where is there ANY modicum of proof to back up your statement? It is speculation, at best.

 

[Hellisreal]

chicago said:

It’s just a formal stance of the Archdiocese if nothing is said, while behind teh doors lots of stuff is happenning.

---

I hate it when people say this kind of thing. It implies a back room deal atmousphere indicitive of a Jack Chick conspiracy theory about Catholics.

What would be the “lots of stuff” anyway? He has been pulling stunts for YEARS what if any “stuff” has been done? Or is one to believe from your statement here that the real policy is Look the Other Way?

Either way you make the Church look corrupt and stupid. Re think your “defense” strategy, it leaves much to desire.

 

[manualman]

Wait to see if this gun store owner sues the pants of Pfleger and not the Church.
I dont know how the Church could be held responsible for this and **hope **it wont.
Maybe thats why Cardinal George spoke out.Who knows.

If this guy sues, he ought to be suing Pfleger and no one else.
I kinda hope he does sue Pfleger. Let Pfleger be humbled. But not on the Church’s dime.

How many BISHOPS were convicted of child molestation? None that I know of. And yet the regular parishoners are losing our diocesan assets because of the sins of individual rogue priests.

The precedent is clearly set, my friend.

 

[melensdad]

How many BISHOPS were convicted of child molestation? None that I know of. And yet the regular parishoners are losing our diocesan assets because of the sins of individual rogue priests.

The precedent is clearly set, my friend.

Well I certainly do not want to see Fr Pfleger sued, which would squander Church money. But you make a very good point about the precedent being set . . . this is all the more reason that Fr Pfleger needs to take a step back and reexamine what he actually said/did and all the more reason that Cardinal George needs to bring Fr Pfleger back into the flock, or send him out on his own.

 

[chicago]

You doubt it but you don’t know for fact.

As is any projection of fear that he will get killed. Shoot, all the gunowners would have us believe that he’s the safest person in the world, no? Afterall, he has access to all the guns he wants!

And that shows the constant and blatant disregard and disrespect that Fr Pfleger has for the Cardinal.

Many priests play tug of war with their bishop. It’s just that Fr. Pfleger is a public figure, so it is done in sight of everyone.

How does it show that? That is nothing more than supposition that cannot be supported with fact.

“Official spokespersons” are always commenting with an eye to the easiest way out. Sometimes, they are intentionally left blind for plausible deniability.

Again, where is there ANY modicum of proof to back up your statement? It is speculation, at best.

I know how this stuff works. Been around it too long.

 

[chicago]

I hate it when people say this kind of thing. It implies a back room deal atmousphere indicitive of a Jack Chick conspiracy theory about Catholics.

What would be the “lots of stuff” anyway? He has been pulling stunts for YEARS what if any “stuff” has been done? Or is one to believe from your statement here that the real policy is Look the Other Way?

Either way you make the Church look corrupt and stupid. Re think your “defense” strategy, it leaves much to desire.

As the saying goes, “Church politics is worse than secular politics.” If you don’t know how Ecclesiastical Bureacracy really tends to operate, then you probably don’t want to see inside the sausage factory. It can be all too human and messy.

 

[chicago]

Well I certainly do not want to see Fr Pfleger sued, which would squander Church money.

If the Archdiocese gets sued, they can just shut down the minor seminary and raid the endowment fund to pay off the settlements…

 

[melensdad]

As is any . . . around it too long.

You still provided absolutely NO proof or evidence to substantiate your earlier claims. All you do is offer up ‘excuses’ for bad conduct then you show us that bad behavior is tolerated too often and you make excuses for that too.

If the Archdiocese gets sued, they can just shut down the minor seminary and raid the endowment fund to pay off the settlements…

Perhaps an attempt at humor? Certainly not productive.

 

[Hellisreal]

Melensdad,

He has not taken a vow of poverty. He can be sued personally and not a dime of the Church’s money need be wasted on his tomfoolery.

I do think he should be sued so maybe he can start putting HIS money where his big mouth is. Lets see how long he will if he gets slammed with a lawsuit he will be personally financially responsible for.

 

[chicago]

You still provided absolutely NO proof or evidence to substantiate your earlier claims. All you do is offer up ‘excuses’ for bad conduct then you show us that bad behavior is tolerated too often and you make excuses for that too.

I don’t know that they are “excuses”. More in the way of “explanations” and “understandings” of the real world operating system.

Perhaps an attempt at humor? Certainly not productive.

Well, I don’t think it’s funny or productive, either. But I don’t get to roll the dice in that game.

 

[chicago]

Melensdad,

He has not taken a vow of poverty. He can be sued personally and not a dime of the Church’s money need be wasted on his tomfoolery.

Who is a lawyer going to go after… an individual priest or the “deep pockets” of the richest Archdiocese in the country?

 

[Hellisreal]

Who is a lawyer going to go after… an individual priest or the “deep pockets” of the richest Archdiocese in the country?

This is true. However, If I am not looking for big money, but for justice to be done to the man who did this-------- I would go after the man himself.

Lets not assume all people are merely looking for tons of cash. Lets assume that some people acutally are noble people.

Something tells me your experiences have left you jaded about the human condition. I hope I am wrong.

 

[chicago]

This is true. However, If I am not looking for big money, but for justice to be done to the man who did this-------- I would go after the man himself.

An attorney will want to go after the most money, not just justice.

Something tells me your experiences have left you jaded about the human condition. I hope I am wrong.

I’m a realist who recognizes both the good and bad in our human condition and world. As such, I take a look at things honestly, rather than in either an idealized hopfulness or depair of hopelessness.

When you live and work in the big city, frankly recognizing such is just a way of life and survival.

 

[melensdad]

Originally I wrote to something in a post from hellisreal:

melensdad:

Well I certainly do not want to see Fr Pfleger sued, which would squander Church money.

To which chicago replied:

chicago:

If the Archdiocese gets sued, they can just shut down the minor seminary and raid the endowment fund to pay off the settlements…

To which melensdad asked & stated:

melensdad:

Perhaps an attempt at humor? Certainly not productive.

To which chicago replied:

chicago:

Well, I don’t think it’s funny or productive, either. But I don’t get to roll the dice in that game.

Now that the whole string is in context, we can see you are the one who apparently told a joke about shutting down a seminary and taking money from an endowment fund, you even put in the little pink smiley face, now you say you don’t think it is either funny or productive? Then why did you bother to say it? What did it add to the thread? Nothing humorous and nothing productive, as admitted by you.

Finally, your also wrote:

chicago:

I don’t know that they are “excuses”. More in the way of “explanations” and “understandings” of the real world operating system.

Please read through most of your posts again, they come off more like “excuses” simply because they are not backed up with anything factual. It would be different if you could cite examples of other instances where similar incidents were handled in a similar manner, and then cite the Cardinal’s justification for handling it that way . . . but the reality is you are just offering up excuses and no facts.

On the other hand, in various Fr Pfleger threads people have cited evidence of his bad behavior that was backed up with various articles as evidence. So it seems to me all the evidence is on one side, and the excuses are on the other side