(Cardinal) George Temporarily Removes Pfleger From St. Sabina

CBS2 Chicago ^ | 6/3/2008 | n/a

[Pyro7480]

CBS 2 News has learned that Francis Cardinal George is temporarily removing Father Michael Pfleger from his position as pastor of St. Sabina Roman Catholic Church on Chicago's South Side.

CBS 2 Chief Correspondent Jay Levine reports the move comes after several days of deliberation and consultation by the Cardinal, who first learned about Pfleger's racially charged comments about Sen. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton from the pulpit of Trinity Unity Church of Christ last Thursday night.

The Cardinal immediately contacted Pfleger who agreed not to refer to the presidential candidates by name, but as CBS 2 reported at the time, there remained the possibility of some further disciplinary action against Pfleger.

The Cardinal reportedly spoke to Pfleger again this morning.

A spokesman for the archdiocese would neither confirm nor deny action had been taken to remove Pfleger. Another spokesman said she expected to have some announcement later today.

Indications are that another Chicago priest would take over at St. Sabina, while plans for the permanent reassignment of Father Pfleger, who's been there far longer than is customary in the archdiocese, would be accelerated....

[newzjunkey]

Let’s hope he gets a PERMANENT relocation out of the USA.

[netmilsmom]

Seriously, I want him under Bishop Bruskewitz!

He’d learn what a strong Bishop is!!!!!

[ktime]

You are correct that not ever Bishop engaged in the coverup.

However, we still have many Cardinals and Bishops unwilling to follow directives from the Vatican regarding communion for abortion supporting politicians -- like Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy, and John Kerry. Even the Pope's own representative.

Examples:

"At the installation Mass of the new Archbishop of Washington, Donald W. Wuerl, Thursday, Archbishop Pietro Sambi, the representative of Pope Benedict XVI, was seen giving Holy Communion to pro-abortion Senator and former Presidential candidate John Kerry."

My question is if these leaders show constant disobedience to simple directives, why do they still have a job?



"In the summer of 2003, Archbishop O’Malley of Boston said, “A Catholic politician who holds a public, pro-choice position should not be receiving Communion and should refrain from doing so.” O’Malley also said that “It is not our policy to deny Communion. It is up to the individual.”"

Bishops involved directly in the scandal.

* Archbishop Robert Sanchez of Santa Fe, New Mexico, resigned in March 1993 following accusations that he had abused five teenage girls (p. 176).

* Bishop J. Keith Symons of Palm Beach, Florida, resigned in 1998 after having admitted he had molested five altar boys decades earlier (p. 182).

* Bishop Patrick Ziemann of Santa Rosa, California, resigned in 1999 after he was sued for abusing an altar boy for over 20 years and a priest for two years (p. 101).

* Bishop Anthony O’Connell of Palm Beach, Florida, resigned in March 2002, after he confessed to having abused a boy (p. 195).

* Bishop J. Kendrick Williams of Lexington, Kentucky, resigned in June 2002, facing allegations he had abused minors and an 18-year-old man (p. 215).

* In August 2002, it came to light that late Bishop James Rausch of Phoenix, Arizona, had abused a minor (p. 218-219).

# Bishop Daniel Ryan of Springfield, Illinois, resigned in October 1999 as a consequence of revelations of two male prostitutes, of whom he was a client (pp. 183-184).

# Archbishop Rembert Weakland of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, resigned in May 2002 after indisputable public evidence was released to the media by his homosexual partner (pp. 102, 107-109).

Card. Roger Mahony who paid $660 million to more than 500 victims to settle their complaints out of court in order to prevent his conduct as Archbishop of Los Angeles from becoming public.

Thomas Daily, the Palm Beach Diocese's first bishop, acknowledged in depositions last year that he urged seven sexual abuse victims in Boston to keep quiet two decades ago, rather than subject the church to scandal.



Cardinal Bernard Law covered up for the sexual abuse of Fr. John Geoghan and Fr. Paul Shanley. http://www.vachss.com/help_text/archive/law_admits.html

[Miss Marple]

Thanks for the clarification. As a recent convert, I sometimes miss the fine points.

[markomalley]

Apparently you’ve never been a priest taken to a new parish.

No kidding. ;-)

He would not be sent to a monestary, he is a different kind of priest. The best thing is IMO, a good ethnic parish where the laity takes no crap.

I have to disagree. I know of diocesan priests who have been dispatched to monasteries for reflection (a "spiritual retreat"). You are right that he can't be assigned to a monastery permanently; however, a retreat is a different issue.

And yes, an ethnic parish that will take no crap would be a good thing...as an "in residence" priest or a parochial vicar, not as a pastor.

[netmilsmom]

>>And yes, an ethnic parish that will take no crap would be a good thing...as an “in residence” priest or a parochial vicar, not as a pastor. <<

I’d go with that!!!!

[Antoninus]

My question is if these leaders show constant disobedience to simple directives, why do they still have a job?

If you have to ask that, you don't understand the depth of the problem. Removing a bishop has always been a major problem for the Church from time immemorial. Imagine removing 20 bishops. Or 50 bishops. Or 100 bishops. All of whom will support each other. And the press will portray it as if the Vatican was persecuting these poor souls.

Many of these bishops (Mahoney, in particular but others like Clark and Hubbard as well) have strong ties to local media and politicans in both parties. They are effectively protected. For some of them, I'm convinced that their goal is to do as much damage to the Church as possible.

Someone at the Vatican has determined that the best solution to the problem is to wait these guys out and replace them with bishops who are better. I'm not in a position to say that this isn't the best strategy, frankly.

[marshmallow]

I recall Pfleger calling for the murder (you read that right) of a gun shop owner a year or two back. If that isn't enough for a Catholic priest to get himself disciplined, what is? Now, apparently, he's really crossed the line with his Clinton comments.

We'll take it anyway we can get it, but it's hard to escape the cynical view that the political storm around this is what forced the Cardinal's hand in the end, rather than a pastoral concern for souls.

[Petronski]

Send him to a new parish in Upper East Slobobia Heights.

[Boagenes]

Sounds like this is something that the Church should do with Pfleger. This guy is obviously filled with racial hatred toward whites, and the vile, venomous filth coming out of his mouth in that "pulpit" shows nothing Christ like, or the love of Christ. He seems nearly demonically possessed, in that video - the hate and venom is dripping from his tongue.

The Church should retire this guy to Siberia.

[Texas Federalist]

Where’s the list of Baptist preachers who sexually abused kids or covered it up? We got at least one here in Dallas.

Can we stop the anti-Catholic bigotry please? This is a thread about Phleger.

[ktime]

Good post! It’s enjoyable to see well balanced and reasonable writing here.

[conservative blonde]

Pfleger should take a long sabbatical to Iceland or New Zealand or the Bermuda Triangle to think long and hard about his calling to the priesthood and if he is fit material.

[RobbyS]

This is called the Ratzinger effect. The pope’s visit to the USA was a triumph, and he revealed himself to the public as the opposite of the Panzenkardinal , that the cardinals are doing what they declined to do: Listen to Josef Ratzinger, the anti-liberal.

Do note that the pope does not just snap his fingers and the clergy jumps. It has taken him years to make clear what he wants, what he will tolerate and what he will not. The liberals hated the fact of his election; they hoped that he would died, since he has a history of ill-health. But, God be praised. Benedict XVI is spryer than Ratzinger was ten years ago. He is a gentle, soft-spoken, retiring scholar, and he asked several times to leave Rome so he could write books. But he saw how his friend John Paul II was struggling and decided that he could not desert him. He was positively inspited by John Paul. I was amazed how fiery he was at John Paul’s funeral. The man we saw on TV was that man. He likes being pope, and I think that if you had asked him ten years ago if he wanted the job, he would have said no,no,no,never. Thank God for men who do not want power but yield to God’s call. Amen.

[RobbyS]

Until the French Revolution, the Catholic Church was a kind of federation of national churches. The French Church had been virtually a royal institution since 1516. The Hapsburg emperor had a kind of Veto over the choice of pope. That changed during the 19th century. The loss of the papal states have the efect of liberating the popes from the control of Catholic princes. The popes gained much more power over the local churches. One result of Vatican II was to shift power back to the national hierarchies. So we get the bishop’sconferance which is political, not relgious in character. Paul VI was helpless to stop the process. John Paul counter-attacked by taking his case to the people. Bennie XVI is now in a position to take on pols like Mahoney.
Too bad Mahoney is so young. I understand that the Cardinal is not in great health, and he has had to deal with the Bernardin types all during his tenure. But he has the advantage of being able to rely on B16’s prestige and the threat that if he goes, the pope will install someone who will really shake things up.

[verga]

Where’s the list of Baptist preachers who sexually abused kids or covered it up? We got at least one here in Dallas.

http://stopbaptistpredators.org/index.htm

[proud2beconservativeinNJ]

We’re gonna need a bigger chicken coop.

Too good to just let your quip pass. Thank you.

[baa39]

Yes, I know all that, and you’re right it’s good to clarify these details. As for baptism, it’s not enough for a person to “intend” to do it as the Church does, it must be performed correctly. For example, look at all the people who have had to get “re-baptized,” or bring back their children, because a trendy priest (ironic that a layperson probably would not take this liberty) said the wrong formula “I baptize thee in the name of the Creator, the Redeemer and the Sanctifier” instead of “Father, Son and Holy Ghost.” Not a valid sacrament.

A laicized priest is not to perform any sacraments, even baptism, except in the cases you mention, which makes sense, so a dying person is not deprived in an emergency. Then he would be allowed to do those sacraments because he is always a priest in the sense Holy Orders cannot be “erased”. That’s why the term is “laicized priest” and the common expression “defrocked” confuses folks.

[Texas Federalist]

Thanks!

[bpjam]

I have to admit that I laughed out loud when I heard Pflegers excuse of ‘i thought the live feed wasn’t working’. As if this screed would have been acceptable if it was only heard by the black people in the building.

And then this queen complains about critics assaulting his ‘free speech’??? Boy, that’s some chutzpah. Somebody condemns you for racism and you still try to work out being a victim? There ought to be an award for that. Maybe one given out by the NAACP.