I represent the Rev. Michael Pfleger of St. Sabina Catholic Church. The recent letter by Leah Heffernan of the Archdiocese of Chicago (“Archdiocese’s investigations,” Sept. 2) highlights a real problem with the ambiguity and the reality of the archdiocese’s process.
Heffernan writes that when the archdiocese receives an allegation of sexual abuse by a priest, it “promptly assesses whether safety of children requires interim action, which may include temporary withdrawal from ministry and/or the ministry site, pending investigation, and announces it publicly.”
Heffernan’s letter falsely implies that the archdiocese actually did an assessment of whether the safety of children required the temporary removal of Pfleger from his ministry and the public announcement of that.
The archdiocese did not make any such assessment. It received the accusation July 6; the accuser says she was abused by Pfleger while attending St. Sabina’s parish school in the early 1990s. The archdiocese determined that the accuser likely attended St. Sabina during the early 1990s. The archdiocese did not do a background check, nor did it interview the accuser before removing Pfleger from his ministry July 11, publicly humiliating him.
Neither Heffernan nor anyone else from the archdiocese made any assessment that the safety of children required immediate removal of Pfleger.
The accuser was interviewed July 16, five days after Pfleger was removed from his ministry. Importantly, if the archdiocese interviewed the accuser before it acted, this injustice would not have happened. Her interview made it clear to any reasonable person that her story was demonstrably false and that the safety of children was never a legitimate concern.
The archdiocese acted too quickly to remove Pfleger from his ministry and acted too slowly to resolve the false allegation and restore his ministry.
More Top Picks Swim Cap
The archdiocese’s process is flawed. Thoughtful time and effort should be devoted to fixing and improving the process. The Faith Community of St. Sabina, canon and civil lawyers, and community leaders are making suggestions and volunteering to work with the archdiocese to bring substantial reforms to the process to protect children, while also protecting priests who are falsely accused.
Instead of disrespecting Pfleger and St. Sabina, the archdiocese should celebrate the good it does for children, the community and the Catholic Church.
— Jim Figliulo, partner, Smith, Gambrell & Russell LLP
Sacrificial lambs for Ishbia plan
The Tribune has reported on Amtrak’s plan to move its maintenance facility to Bridgeport. I’m a lifelong Bridgeport resident. For my neighbors and me, this is not an abstract plan. These are our homes, our families, historic Armour Square Park and a neighborhood generations of Chicagoans have built and cared for.
Amtrak wants to place a massive, 24-hour maintenance operation beside Bridgeport and Chinatown while using a categorical exclusion to avoid the full environmental review a project of this magnitude demands.
The risks are not hypothetical. Peer-reviewed research has documented health concerns associated with rail-related air pollution, including diesel exhaust, fine and ultrafine particles, and black carbon, as well as chronic noise and vibration. These exposures are associated with serious respiratory and cardiovascular harm, and diesel exhaust is a known human carcinogen linked to increased cancer risk.
At Amtrak’s current facility, soot and grime are visible from publicly accessible areas. Fires, spills and other incidents are in the public record. Amtrak’s own inspector general documented more than 500 repeated idling incidents in Chicago in a single month. Yet Amtrak expects our communities to accept risks it has not fully studied.
We will not.
White Sox minority owner Justin Ishbia calls his plan to develop the area from Roosevelt Road to 18th Street, from Canal Street to the river, “a Chicago project, built by and for Chicagoans.” But that deal depends on clearing Amtrak’s valuable South Loop land for private redevelopment and on our neighborhood absorbing its maintenance operation.
A plan that sacrifices one Chicago neighborhood to unlock valuable land somewhere else is not a plan for Chicagoans.
We are grateful to Ald. Nicole Lee, Commissioner John Daley and the elected officials who have stood with our communities. But many remain silent. To every elected official who claims to stand for environmental justice: Where are you? Why are you silent?
Our demand is clear: Stop this project. Bridgeport is not a sacrifice zone. Chinatown is not a sacrifice zone.
Our ward is one of the most diverse in Chicago, and the Chicagoans who live here are united in this fight.
These are our homes. This is our park. We are organized, we are committed and we are not going anywhere.
— Maria LaGiglio, Chicago
Question for cardinal, nuns
Let me start with a confession. I’m Catholic. I was born Catholic, and unless some power decides to exclude me, I hope to die Catholic.
More Top Picks Best Shoes For Support And Stability
There is a new Illinois law that allows for prescription medication to help the terminally ill end their lives.
I’ve had some experience with the dying, those who no longer want to live — not out of selfishness but because they want to be, as my Jesuit educators would often say, “in the arms of Jesus.” These terminally ill people suffer a constant suffering; they feel it in their bones and bloodstream. And there is that other suffering as well: The terminally ill feel it in the shaking hands and hear it in the tear-filled voices of those who love them.
I understand this might be a particularly Catholic problem. As a child, I remember being told there was one sin God could not forgive — suicide. But fortunately, lots of us Catholics have grown in grace and wisdom so we understand why those suffering want to die; we hear their whispered good and holy reasons.
So now, I respectfully question Cardinal Blase Cupich and nuns: What about those who don’t want to die? The ones who, thanks to American technology and bombs, are killed? No consent required. If those babies in cradles could talk, what would they say about the bombing? And what about the old men and women at a table, tea steeping? Would we listen to them? And the teenagers, so full of hope and promise, what would they say?
To this dear cardinal and those blessed nuns (maybe they, too, were taught about that one unforgivable sin), I ask again: What about those who don’t want to die, so many in Gaza and Iran? So many. Not many who are terminally ill.
— Bill Leece, Schaumburg
Catholic Church out of bounds
The Catholic Church has challenged Illinois’ medical-aid-in-dying law, arguing in part that the law violates the church’s First Amendment religious rights. The Catholic Church, of course, has the right to practice its religion as it wishes and to require that its followers adhere to the practices required by the church. The Catholic Church has every right to decide that Catholics cannot avail themselves of the law and still be considered practicing Catholics. The church can state that availing oneself of the law is a sin against God.
I have no problem with the church saying and doing all this. I do have a problem with the Catholic Church arguing that it has the right to impose its beliefs on me, a person who is not Catholic and not a member of the church. Under the First Amendment, the church has no right to impose its religious views on me. The decision, if it ever comes, for me to decide to seek medical aid in dying is between my family and me.
I don’t want or need the church to impose its view on me. The Catholic Church needs to concern itself with its followers and stop trying to impose itself on nonpractitioners.
— Peter Felitti, Chicago
Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email [email protected].