Cardinal George at Pfleger Award Ceremony: 'Abortion Kills Racial Justice'

LifeSiteNews.com -- Your Life, Family, and Culture Outpost ^ | April 8, 2010 | By Kathleen Gilbert

[topher]

Thursday April 8, 2010

---

Cardinal George at Pfleger Award Ceremony: 'Abortion Kills Racial Justice'

By Kathleen Gilbert

CHICAGO, April 8, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Presiding at an archdiocesan event honoring controversial priest Fr. Michael Pfleger for his civil rights work, Cardinal Francis George of Chicago took the opportunity to criticize media scrutiny of the award, but also to highlight the fact that, far from being irrelevant to the theme of the event, "abortion kills racial and social justice."

The Dr. King Prayer Service and Racial Justice Awards sparked controversy in pro-life Catholic circles after it was revealed that Fr. Pfleger, an outspoken supporter of strongly pro-abortion U.S. President Obama, would receive an award from the archdiocese's Office of Racial Justice at the event.

Cardinal George responded to the controversy in his remarks by defending Pfleger as "a Catholic priest and a pastor,” saying that, “in that capacity, like all good priests and pastors, he acts out of love."

The cardinal then went on to say that, “As part of his ministry for racial justice, Fr. Pfleger has addressed killing, for killing is not an act of love,” a theme that the cardinal applied to the issues of abortion and race. (To read the cardinal's complete remarks, click here) 

"We are surrounded by killing on the streets and in the schools, by violence in homes and by abortion that kills a child in its mother’s womb," he said. "The killing of the unborn is obviously a racial justice issue when disproportionately those killed before birth come from families of racial minorities.  Abortion kills.  It kills an unborn child, and it often kills a mother’s spirit.  It kills a society that embraces it as a personal right.  Abortion kills social and racial justice."

George delivered the remarks the same day that Sr. Anita Baird, the founding director of the Office for Racial Justice, apologized after telling LifeSiteNews.com (LSN) that President Obama is "not pro-abortion," but "pro-choice," which she called "two very different things."  LSN had been interviewing Baird on Fr. Pfleger and his support for Obama.

After Baird's statement made headlines on several Catholic news outlets, she issued an apology Wednesday "affirming my belief in the teachings of the Catholic Church and understand that there can be no distinction between pro-abortion and pro-choice, because the choice at issue is the choice to kill a child."

In his homily Wednesday, Cardinal George criticized the "media interest" garnered by Fr. Pfleger's award.

"Fr. Pfleger has been a controversialist; and controversy is easier to report on than is love," he said. "Fr. Plfeger has spoken in anger, sometimes unjustly or uncharitably; and anger is easier to capture on the camera than is love.  But Fr. Pfleger is a Catholic priest and a pastor, and in that capacity, like all good priests and pastors, he acts out of love.  Ask his people.  Ask the sick he has visited and the dying he has attended.  Ask the troubled he has consoled.  Ask the young people he has counseled and the school children he has supported. "

A former member of the Catholics for Obama Committee, a voluntary advisory committee to the Obama campaign, Fr. Pfleger won notoriety in 2008 for enthusiastically supporting the radically pro-abortion candidate as "the best thing to come across the political scene since Bobby Kennedy.” He also drew fire for inviting a pro-abortion speaker to address a Sunday Mass congregation at his parish, St. Sabina, contrary to archdiocesan rules.

Click here to read Cardinal George's full homily at the Dr. King Prayer Service and Racial Justice Awards.

URL: http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/apr/10040815.html

---

Copyright © LifeSiteNews.com. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivatives License. You may republish this article or portions of it without request provided the content is not altered and it is clearly attributed to "LifeSiteNews.com". Any website publishing of complete or large portions of original LifeSiteNews articles MUST additionally include a live link to www.LifeSiteNews.com. The link is not required for excerpts. Republishing of articles on LifeSiteNews.com from other sources as noted is subject to the conditions of those sources.

[topher]

The Cardinal may have made a mistake in allowing the award, but he made it an occasion to speak out against abortion:

"We are surrounded by killing on the streets and in the schools, by violence in homes and by abortion that kills a child in its mother’s womb," he said. "The killing of the unborn is obviously a racial justice issue when disproportionately those killed before birth come from families of racial minorities. Abortion kills. It kills an unborn child, and it often kills a mother’s spirit. It kills a society that embraces it as a personal right. Abortion kills social and racial justice."

The Cardinal is pro-life. I feel he made a mistake allowing this award, but he did use the occasion to make it clear how terrible abortion is, and how it is "racially imbalanced"...

[topher]

Paging Dr. Alveda King... Paging Dr. Alveda King...

The award given was named after your uncle Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Dr. Alveda King has very strong feelings on abortion...

She has had two abortions in college, which she regrets today...

[LibFreeOrDie]

He [Pfleger] also drew fire for inviting a pro-abortion speaker to address a Sunday Mass congregation at his parish, St. Sabina, contrary to archdiocesan rules.

So Cardinal George's remarks somehow cancel out Pfleger's actions?

[jonrick46]

Cardinal George is a Marxist. Racial justice = social justice = Marxism. Black Liberation Theology is coming into the Catholic Church through a different door.

[topher]

No.

I think Cardinal George made a mistake. But the award ceremony was probably scheduled in advance.

The Archdiocesan Office should have cancelled it.

But that is easier said than done...

Cardinal George used the occasion to "slap Father Pleger and Sister Anita in the face" on the issue of abortion...

[LibFreeOrDie]

George didn’t slap anyone in the face other than decent Catholics.

He should not have attended.

[livius]

Cardinal George is not a Marxist, just a squishy liberal who doesn’t have the smarts or the guts to stand up to leftist radicals. His entire diocese is infested with heresy and left-wing radicalism, and he’s afraid to confront it in any way. This is because he sympathizes with some of it, but mostly because he’s simply a coward and he knows what would happen to him if he opposed the left there.

[BlessedBeGod]

Perfect summation.

[TNCMAXQ]

So the despicable Pfleger is pro life? Since he believes in the rest of the far left’s ideological stands, it’s hard to believe he seriously would oppose abortion. If he were truly pro life he wouldn’t be so in love with the one in the White House and his ilk.

[terycarl]

So the despicable Pfleger is pro life? Since he believes in the rest of the far left’s ideological stands, it’s hard to believe he seriously would oppose abortion. If he were truly pro life he wouldn’t be so in love with the one in the White House and his ilk.

My church is becoming prone to use “moral equivalency” more and more an she becomes more liberal.....Obama will do some good things, so despite his record on abortion, it is O.K. to vote for him. It is O.K. to grant him an honorary degree from a Catholic University. My family has always voted Democrat so I will justify my vote for him on that basis. This message was related in my parish and I personally read the riot act (respectfully) to our pastor...I also protested, sucessfully, a Democrat fundraiser that was to be scheduled at our Knights of Columbus facility....I hate moral hypocricy and am very up front about announcing that to anyone at all.

[Jeff Chandler]

I wonder how siding with race baiting hate mongers and joining them in fanning the flames of bigotry, hatred, and an aggrievement, entitlement mentality qualifies as forwarding “racial justice”?

[jonrick46]

A blogger (www.jimmyakin.org) interviewed Cardinal George. From the interview, George appears to have a stubborn dogmatic nature; which is is reluctant to open up to his true opinions. This might fall in line with your characterization of “coward.” However, I believe he is being sly like a fox. He does not want to make any statement that would alert the opposition (conservative Catholics) of what he is allowing to happen. I believe his actions speak louder than his words and he works quietly as a leftist sympathizer.

Notice this line of questioning by Akin. It dwells on the Marxist redistributionist subject. It is what I see as a dangerous element working its way into the Catholic Church in the form of social justice theology:

“So, isn’t it really the employer’s responsibility to see that his employees get a living wage?” The Cardinal, perhaps not prepared for an intellectual battle on this subject, appeared perturbed:

“Although the Church does teach that a worker is entitled to a just wage, it does not provide models as to how this should take place. Do you change the laws in our government? Do you change the economic structure of your company? Or should society provide the ‘safety net’ for families whose income isn’t enough to meet their basic needs?”

“That’s all fine, but I’m saying a Catholic owner of a company shouldn’t be considered a Catholic if he owns several homes, when he has full-time employees who can’t afford a place to live.”

Notice Cardinal George’s response:

“Many Catholics would be shocked to hear you say that,” George said, not yet tipping his hat as to whether he agreed with me or not.

I think he was being guarded; not to reveal his real political thinking. He is letting the forces working in his diocese churches infect the body of the church because he is on board with them. They are making the changes he wants on their own without him sticking his neck out and drawing the fire from conservative Catholics who don’t like what’s happening. George knows that a diffused process from many different directions are more difficult to oppose and will make the changes easier to accomplish. All he needs to do is sit back and let it all happen. If he did not agree with any of it, this dogmatic, stubborn nature of his would be in full attack mode.

By the way, the above interview has been recently scrubbed from Akin’s website.

[livius]

Oh, I think he’s fundamentally ultra-liberal. However, I don’t think he’s a doctrinaire leftist, just a sentimental one who inclines to the high-flown but misused words of the left (”justice,” “equality,” etc.).

It is very true that the inane “social justice” organizations that have popped up in the Church since the 1960s are extremely left-wing and have had a horrible effect on the thinking or non-thinking of Catholics simply through their manipulation of language and feeling. Even this award was arranged by the diocesan social justice office, which is composed of people who are raving leftists and disagree with the Church on every doctrinal mtter; the whole office should be suppressed.

That said, his first answer was completely correct. St Paul and St James urged wealthy Christians to respect their duties to their poorer brethren, and Jews in the Old Testament were told to pay their servants a just wage, although at the time the specter of government redistribution did not exist, of course. So this is hardly anything Marxist or left-wing.

As for his second answer, that is indeed ambiguous, but I think that’s primarily because the question is ambiguous.

While it’s perfectly true that somebody who lived in splendor while not paying his employees enough to live would not be considered a good Catholic, you don’t give up your status as “Catholic” simply by not living up to the commands of the Church, in that or any other area. He might be a Catholic living a sinful life, not a good Catholic, that is, but he’s still a Catholic.

The question is whether the Cardinal thought that the responsibility to do something about this was that of the Catholic company-owner in question (that is, the Church should remind him of his duties to his employees) or that of the State (which would seize his property and redistribute it).

The Church has always tried to protect the poor from the behavior of the wealthy or the powerful, with greater or lesser success, depending on how much influence it had at the time and how much the powerful in question believed the religion.

So there’s absolutely nothing wrong with saying that the Catholic company owner who lived high on the hog while not paying his employees enough to live was not living as a good Catholic and not fulfilling his duties - but he is still a Catholic. However, this is different from saying that wealth in general is a bad thing or that the State has the right to decide these questions. So I don’t think the question was put in such a way that it could be answered in any meaningful sense.

[Jeff Chandler]

So there’s absolutely nothing wrong with saying that the Catholic company owner who lived high on the hog while not paying his employees enough to live was not living as a good Catholic and not fulfilling his duties

That is a nonsensical statement. What if the employees were performing services of such low economic value and in such plentiful supply that paying them a high wage would result in a failing business?

The wages paid for a particular set of skills are determined not by the needs of the laborer but but the value of those skills in the marketplace. Anything else is childish, wishful thinking.

Business and charity are two different things.

[livius]

Business and charity may be two different things, but we’re talking about business here. Could the owner have run his business without even his minor employees? Was he going to be out there taking out the trash, sweeping the floor or answering the phones?

And if nobody did these jobs, would his company run?

The answer to both questions is no. And this is where justice comes into it. Your “nature red in tooth and claw” theory is not Christian. Jews expected employers to pay their servants justly, St Paul and the writers of the Epistles expected this, Jesus expected tax collectors to collect justly, etc.

Survival of the fittest is not the Christian way. The point is that it is up to the individual to be just and merciful, because the state makes a terrible master, and its attempts to do even things that are fundamentally good result in gross injustice.

[Jeff Chandler]

A business that pays wages based upon arbitrary notions of "justice" rather than the actual worth of the labor will at some point succumb to businesses operating on actual economic principals. Then those "justly" paid workers will find themselves on the street.

Suggested reading (for the bishops, too):

[livius]

Workers are not slaves, and they can vote with their feet. If you don’t pay your workers justly, they’ll just stop showing up. And then where will your business be?

Justice is a legitimate concept in Catholic and Jewish terms, and does not in any way conflict with capitalism; in fact, it is essential to it, because every one - employers and employees - is motivated by self-interest. Workers do not work just for the fun of it, but for their wages.

What you think is capitalism is a semi-feudal wage-slave system, and I think you need to review basic economics yourself. You sound about 16 and I’m assuming you’ve never worked or run a business.

[Jeff Chandler]

If you don’t pay your workers justly, they’ll just stop showing up.

If by "justly" you mean the worth of their labor in the current marketplace, then you are making my point.

What you think is capitalism is a semi-feudal wage-slave system,

Not at all. Nobody is forcing workers to remain in low paying jobs. Its a free society.

In a free society, the value of labor is determined not by any arbitrary sense of "justice", but by its worth in the actual economy.

An example: If an employer provides provides a janitorial service to its customers and hires a hundred workers at $8.00 an hour, and after all expenses those hundred workers produce a net profit of $100.00 each, then the business owner earns $520,000 profit a year. Now that might seem "unjust", but the owner has probably risked his own money to start the business. He could lose everything. He has provided a valuable service that his customers are willing to pay for. And he has provided jobs for a hundred entry level workers, workers without the skills to earn a higher wage, and workers without the ambition to earn a higher wage.

The entry level workers get to earn money while gaining experience in the workplace. This experience can be a stepping stone to a better job. The low skill workers get to earn money commensurate with their skills. That's "just" any way you look at it. And the unambitious workers? Well, what can you say about them, other than they should be grateful they found a job at all.

Of course, the entry level and the unskilled workers can use the business skills they gain earning eight bucks an hour and eventually move into management or start their own business. No one is holding them back. Because in a free society, there is job mobility.

As long as you are going to make this discussion personal, I have worked for many employers over a period of 42 years. I always gave a good day's work for the wages we agreed to without expecting my employers to take care of me as if I were a dependent child.

I now own my own business.

[Jeff Chandler]

>> $100.00 PER WEEK apiece profit <<

[Salvation]

**“As part of his ministry for racial justice, Fr. Pfleger has addressed killing, for killing is not an act of love,” a theme that the cardinal applied to the issues of abortion and race. (To read the cardinal's complete remarks, click here)  **

 

Complete remarks are worth reading!