Not often that governor, mayor set foot on other’s political ‘turf’; that's an issue

Gov. Bruce Rauner deserves a bit of praise for having the nerve to set foot not only in City Hall, but at the City Council on Wednesday to make a long-shot attempt to persuade aldermen of the validity of his “turnaround agenda.”

That being the series of anti-organized labor measures he’d like to see implemented across Illinois because our state’s governor believes it is the fault of labor unions that many corporations cannot be even more profitable and beneficial to the state’s economy.

THE CITY COUNCIL already has made it clear that not only will they refuse to join the ranks of the many rural communities that have passed resolutions in support of Rauner, they’re prepared to lead the fight against the governor.

That led to Rauner requesting a chance to speak before the City Council during their meeting on Wednesday. Aldermen pushed during the morning to complete their other business (including approval of reparations payments for victims of police brutality from the minions of one-time Commander Jon Burge and a tribute to the late Cardinal Francis George) so that Rauner could give a noon-time address uninterrupted.

This is rare. Governors and mayors in Illinois and Chicago respectively often meet. There has to be some sort of a relationship between the two positions if anything is to get done in this state.

But they usually deal with each other, then rely on the other to get their political minions to go along. Almost like this is a third-rate attempt at remaking "West Side Story."

IN SHORT, EMANUEL being counted on to get aldermen to back a Rauner-desired goal. Although in this case, even Emanuel has expressed opposition to the labor-related measures that Rauner has made a priority of his first four months as governor.

Now I’m not about to get into the specifics of what Rauner said to the aldermen. Personally, I don’t think it matters one bit. I doubt many people were listening to what the governor said.

In fact, a part of me wonders if Rauner’s desire was to be booed and heckled and have the substance of what he said completely ignored. So that he could go out and tell other people how rude and inconsiderate (he’d probably use harsher language) the Chicago politicos were.

Make this a Chicago versus the rest of Illinois issue, and maybe he has a chance of forcing city opposition into having the “turnaround” rammed down their collective throat.

THEN AGAIN, PICKING the Wednesday council session was an odd choice if Rauner were really trying to sway people. Because it is the last gathering of aldermen before the newly-elected City Council members are sworn in.

About one-third of the people who heard Rauner on Wednesday will no longer be in the council. In fact, the trend seems to be that the replacement aldermen will be people of a more politically progressive nature who will be even more inclined to oppose the governor.

They’re the ones who got elected because of the sentiment that Emanuel is too inclined to back business interests and be too chummy with people like Rauner.

Perhaps the governor thought the lame ducks would be more sympathetic. Then again, the whole point of lame duck status is that they don’t have the power to do much of anything any longer.

SO THE GOVERNOR spoke to the City Council. It sounds nice. It would be nice if the governor tried to have a real relationship with these political people – instead of acting like they’re the opposition.

Then again, it’s not like Chicago mayors are all that eager to spend time in Springfield before the General Assembly.

I remember former Mayor Richard M. Daley would make what seemed to be his annual one-day trip to Springfield to be seen by the Democrats and remind them (including Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan, just in case he started to think his position was bigger than ‘Da Mare’) who was really the boss.

Emanuel isn’t any different in his dealings with the Illinois Legislature. Perhaps this attitude of politicians having their ‘turf’ goes a long way toward explaining why certain things never can seem to get done properly.

  -30-

Dragging the Klan into the mix is nothing but foolish for Cardinal

Cardinal Francis George is correct in saying that the Ku Klux Klan has a history of being just as anti-Catholic as it has been anti-black.

Does anyone seriously believe ... 



In fact, if one goes back to the late 1910s and early 1920s when Klan chapters expanded beyond the Deep South and it almost became respectable to be a member, there were some people who joined because of their religious bigotry more than any hostilities felt toward black people.

THE REALITY WAS that some parts of the country had very few black people. The Catholics, however, were a foreign conspiracy that was taking over the world. Or so the nitwits of that era wanted to believe.

But the Cardinal made himself look like the nitwit earlier this week, and he had to go ahead and do it on television. People across the Chicago metropolitan area who happened to watch WFLD-TV’s evening newscast on Wednesday got to see and hear George when he compared the gay rights activists upset about a Catholic parish’s objections to the route for the 2012 gay pride parade to the Klan of old.

As George put it, the “Gay Liberation Movement” has the potential to “morph into something like the Ku Klux Klan” for daring to suggest that Catholic officials might be mistaken.

This makes the Cardinal sound as ridiculous as Rep. Allen West, R-Fla., who got himself international attention for his wisecrack about how low approval ratings for Congress reflect badly upon its Republican members, saying, “if Josef Goebbels was around, he’d be very proud of the Democrat(ic) Party because they have an incredible propaganda machine.”

NAZI PROPAGANDA IMAGES for speaking the truth about Republican partisan political tactics? Just like thinking ill of the Catholic church. It all sounds like people who are way too touchy; perhaps because on a certain level they realize their side is wrong on a certain issue – but don’t want to admit it.

Of course, just as the Republican-controlled House of Representatives shot down an attempt to censure West for his over-the-top rhetoric, I suspect a lot of Catholics are going to be quick to jump on the bandwagon of support for the Cardinal.

... these people are comparable?



Which is a shame, because this is a case where everybody would be better off if this issue withered away – instead of being prolonged by defensive talk. Which all winds up being a defense of a ridiculous position.

Now the fact that the Catholic Diocese for Chicago is concerned about the gay pride parade next year isn’t new. Parade officials altered the route through north lakefront neighborhoods, and also wanted to start the event earlier.

THE END RESULT was the potential for the parade to pass by a Lakeview neighborhood Catholic church right as Sunday morning mass was starting. There may have been some parishioners who would get offended, but there also was the potential for an area traffic jam as a large-scale parade passes the Our Lady of Mount Carmel parish (although church officials had hinted that many passengers might just skip church that morning in protest of the parade).

Which is why parade officials have agreed to alter the starting time. Now, it should pass the church a couple of hours after the Sunday morning mass is over. Which, to my mindset, makes it sound like the parade organizers are trying to be reasonable.

But the rhetoric we got from the Cardinal makes it seem that being reasonable isn’t good enough. They’re upset anybody challenged their opposition at all. And now, they want to resort to Klan analogies – hoping desperately that they will capture the support of the “middle” of our society.

Which I’m skeptical would happen, because the imagery of gay rights activists being aligned with the Klan is just too absurd to take literally. It’s even more ridiculous than the concept of a “World Series champion Chicago Cubs” team.

BESIDES, IT REMINDS me of the occasions when, as a reporter-type person, I have covered rallies involving the Klan. I have seen the robes and the hoods up-close, and I also have read their literature that attempts to make them out to be an organization promoting “American values.”

One thing I noticed is that the modern Klan, in stating who it does not want, has altered its rhetoric slightly. Catholics are no longer forbidden. Catholicism has become so mainstream in our society that many of its members now qualify as ordinary white people – in the Klan’s eyes.

Although I’m going to stop short of stating that George may well have given verbal comfort to real-life Klan members by making statements that indicate opposition to gay rights activists. I’m sure real Klan members don’t object to what he said.

But I do, and I’m sure there are many other people (both Catholic and non) who do object – particularly in these days leading up to the holiest of all holy days. The concept of bringing up the Klan at Christmas-time seems particularly venal.

  -30-

EXTRA: He’s back!!!!!!

It already is starting on the Internet. Cardinal Francis George of the Chicago Catholic Archdiocese blinked.

He caved in. He surrendered to the priest they were hoping to dump – the Rev. Michael Pfleger of St. Sabina Parish in the Gresham neighborhood.

THE CARDINAL ON Friday said  he was reinstating Pfleger as pastor of the parish that Pfleger has led for three decades, and has made it clear he doesn’t want to leave. Pfleger will be back behind the pulpit and delivering a sermon come Sunday services, and I’m sure his gregarious personality will run amok on that day.

Such stability at a Catholic parish officially is regarded as a bad thing. The church likes to have its priests move about from church to church throughout their pastoral careers, believing they can effectively influence many more people through the church if they don’t become too attached to any one parish.

A priest lasting more than a decade at any one church is a rarity. For Pfleger to have remained in the same parish since the early 1980s is a miracle nearly as significant as the good works done by former Pope John Paul II that may make him an official Catholic saint someday.

What has enabled Pfleger to remain at St. Sabiina is that he is that rare breed of white person who is not uncomfortable among black people. And St. Sabina is a parish in a neighborhood that most definitely has changed to a heavy African-American character.

THE PEOPLE WHO are most offended by Pfleger’s conduct throughout the years are those who have their own racial hang-ups to work through, and who wish that the Catholic church could somehow reinforce those hang-ups.

The reason that St. Sabina is a thriving parish on the South Side is because it has adapted in character to its neighborhood. Critics would say it has been tainted. I would say it has adapted to its parishioners – which is what a church ought to do.

What good is a church if the people who live in its parish don’t find it relevant?

That is why I am pleased to learn that Pfleger will continue to have a role at St. Sabina. I know full-well that if Cardinal George’s suspension of the priest had evolved into a permanent removal, it would have been taken as a sign by the people with the hang-ups that the Catholic church was taking up their cause.

THAT WOULD NOT have been a good thing – even though I fully appreciate from my contact with Pfleger as a reporter-type person throughout the years that the man does have an ego. He’s not a bashful type.

His personality can be overbearing.

Yet that would not justify his removal – particularly since I don’t think the Catholic archdiocese would be able to find a replacement who could continue to keep that parish intact.

In short, there are lessons that the Catholic church could learn from people like Pfleger when it comes to appealing to the masses and remaining relevant as we work our way deeper into the 21^st Century.

  -30-

Catholic Church needs to make up mind

I was baptized in a Catholic church and my relatives who are devoutly religious are Catholic. When combined with an awareness of being Latino and the strong ties the Catholic Church has on the culture, it means that when asked for my religion, I mark whatever box indicates “Catholic.”

But there are times I wonder about the church’s leadership and its efforts to provide guidance to its members on the political issues of the day.

IT MAKES ME wish at times we could go back to the old days, when church officials pushed the notion that electoral politics were somehow an Earthly issue, and one that people shouldn’t get too wrapped up in.

What has me ticked off these days?

It is the fact that Catholic officials, including our city’s very own Cardinal, Francis George, are getting all worked up over the fact that University of Notre Dame officials invited President Barack Obama to speak at commencement ceremonies to be held May 17.

Obama’s stance on abortion is in accordance with the Democratic Party platform, which is the reason some politically involved Catholics insist on dealing with the Republican Party’s candidates.

SO SOME CATHOLICS are insisting that one of the premier Catholic universities in the nation cannot have any association with Obama, or any other Democrat, or any official who won’t toe the line on abortion.

George’s public comments on the issue came just a couple of weeks after he took a very public stance on the issue of immigration reform. He cited a Catholic church position that is intended to show compassion to the people who are in this country – regardless of whether or not they have a valid visa (and I don’t mean the charge card).

In my mind, the church went from common sense to absurdity in the time span of a couple of weeks (although I’m sure there are people of an ideological bent who would think the church went from absurdity to sense).

It strikes me as ridiculous that George earlier this week said that Notre Dame, of all places, does “not understand what it means to be Catholic.”

IF ANYTHING, THIS split is what it has come to mean to be Catholic these days in our society. I don’t know many people who agree with the church 100 percent on all the issues it attempts to take a stance on.

And while I know some of the hard-core denounce people like myself as “cafeteria Catholics” (we pick and choose what we want to believe) or spew rhetoric about concepts such as “excommunication” (because, in their minds, we shouldn’t call ourselves Catholic).

How absurd has this “controversy” about Notre Dame and Obama’s scheduled visit become?

This is an issue where Richard M. Daley, a master of the political malaprop, comes off as the Voice of Reason.

DALEY ON FRIDAY said he thought it ridiculous that any university ought to have a problem with getting the sitting president to speak at their commencement.

“There’s always controversy any time the president speaks, whether President Clinton, President Bush, President Bush, President Reagan, there’s always controversy,” Hizzoner said in his unique Daley-speak way. “But you live through the controversy.”

In fact, Notre Dame (if they give in to the desires of church officials and try to rescind the presidential invitation) could wind up looking even more ridiculous than Northwestern University.

Remember how bumbling they came off when some graduating students last year insisted that Daley was not a commencement speaker worthy of their school?

AT LEAST NORTHWESTERN stood by their decision and had Daley speak. If I recall correctly, the bulk of students there found his talk to be conventional (if not the most inspiring rhetoric they had ever heard).

For those few Catholics who are going to complain (and inevitably send me anonymous e-mails and other messages condemning me to eternal damnation), I can’t help but think the majority of us are embarrassed to have the Catholic religion tied into some cause this ridiculous.

What I can’t help but wonder is if church officials are afraid that the Obama speaking style is going to somehow sway someone on the issue. If that is their concern, I think they’re being ridiculous.

Abortion has become one of those issues upon which many of us have rigid perspectives (mine is that the decision whether or not to obtain one ultimately ought to lie with the pregnant woman) that are not going to be altered by exposure to another side.

IF OBAMA TRULY had that much ability to sway, then perhaps he literally would be “the messiah” that his political detractors mockingly refer to him as.

By taking such a stance with regards to Notre Dame, the Catholic church winds up exposing itself to equal ridicule.

-30-