Image 01 Image 03

More confrontation outside Chicago Chick-fil-A

More confrontation outside Chicago Chick-fil-A

There was another protest outside the Chicago Chick-fil-A last night, but unlike the other day when Anne filmed, there were protesters on each side of the issue.

Rebel Pundit has the video, involving Father Gerald O’Reilly being jeered by anti-Chick-fil-A protesters and seemingly led away by police so as to avoid the confrontation:

There isn’t much available online about O’Reilly, but he was profiled in a 2010 Chicago Archdiocese publication.

Following up on a theme, would this get more coverage or be viewed differently if the roles were reversed?

Was it unnecessarily provocative for the Father to walk into the protest line?  He could have prayed off to the side, although who knows, that may have led to a similar reaction.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


“Was it unnecessarily provocative for the Father to walk into the protest line?”

Wha…??? Really…???

Would the reaction be different or the same if it was Father Pfleger?

Leftist nuns?

Please, the Father had EVERY right to be there, and EXISTING is not a provocation.

    NC Mountain Girl in reply to Ragspierre. | August 9, 2012 at 4:35 pm

    Unlike the heretical Pfleger, who has gone to the media and threatened schism every time the Archbishop ordered him to a different parish as per longstanding Archdiocese rotation policy, Father O’Reilly has honored his sacred vow of obedience. He’s been transferred every seven years and ow seems to be at a large suburban parish.

    The protestors may not want Father’s prayers but they do seem to need them. It’s not often one sees so many people in the age 65 going on 15 class in one place.

The “Gaystapo” doesn’t own the sidewalk and if a Priest wants to walk and pray the rosary, they should just ignore him.

    Frank Scarn in reply to Sanddog. | August 9, 2012 at 4:02 pm

    Impossible! The Left cannot stand dissent explaining why it will NOT protect the free speech protections of the 1st Amendment. How many times does Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, and oodles of other conservative speakers need to be shouted down to prove this point.

    Muslims are cut from the same cloth. Just ask Pam Geller and Robert Spencer. We non-Islamic believers, infidels, kuffars in Muslim-speak are NOT permitted – get that, permitted – to speak of Islam or Big Mo himself.

    JackRussellTerrierist in reply to Sanddog. | August 9, 2012 at 8:44 pm

    Where do the cops get off making the priest, who by all accounts was conducting himself in a peaceful manner, be the one to leave?

    Is it because, in terms of the cops avoiding resistance and violence to their efforts, chose the low-hanging fruit of someone behaving rather than confronting the unruly behavior of the pro-homosexual side?


I loved the part about “why don’t you go where you are wanted”. Why did the person yelling that think he was wanted? Sauce. Goose. Gander.

“We don’t want tolerance, we want equality.” Finally, they speak the truth. It isn’t about tolerance.

So show me where they don’t have equality?

    gs in reply to JoAnne. | August 9, 2012 at 4:41 pm

    1. “We don’t want tolerance, we want equality.” Finally, they speak the truth. It isn’t about tolerance.

    They don’t want tolerance. They don’t want equality. They want power.

    They also don’t want civil discussion. As a libertarian, I call them out as enemies of liberty.

    2. They view people of good will who listen to justice-based arguments as suckers.

    3. I’ve said this before: If present trends continue, in a decade or few public schools will be pushing bisexual experimentation. Why won’t you go out with me? Is it because I’m a lesbian? Heaven help the teen girl who answers Yes.

    If that sounds ridiculous, remember how once upon a time the Left ridiculed the notion that ‘gay rights’ would lead to gay marriage.

      Ragspierre in reply to gs. | August 9, 2012 at 5:15 pm

      As I’ve said many times…

      it isn’t about tolerance now.

      It is about APPROBATION. Approval. You have to declare them normal.

        Browndog in reply to Ragspierre. | August 9, 2012 at 6:00 pm

        And once they are declared “normal”, they will demand the status of “superior”

        I don’t mind if they act straight in private, as long as they act gay in public

Juba Doobai! | August 9, 2012 at 4:18 pm

That priest is ANY person of faith. To homosexuals, we are “hateful bigot[s]” with no right to speak or be anywhere.

The woman decrying the priest as a “hateful bigot” also tells him to go clean up his own house before coming “here.” Well, if large numbers of homosexuals hadn’t actively entered the Roman Catholic priesthood with the deliberate intent of undermining the church from within, Rome would not have had a homosexual and pedophile (NAMBLA) sexual abuse problem. It was also a lot of homosexuals or homosexual sympathizers within the church, like Bernardin, who allowed the problem to continue for years. So, when we look at the Church of Rome, we see a microcosm of what will happen if the wishes of the homosexuals predominate, if they become part of the Boy Scouts, as Mitt Romney thinks they should be.

For people who once asked for tolerance, and got it, homosexuals are now demanding the silence or stripping away of dissenters’ First Amendment right of free speech under the American Constitution, with penalties (see the cop in Texas who ate Chick Fil A on the protest day and had two lesbian cops take him to task for it). They are also demanding that we must be reshaped in their own image and likeness. That ain’t gonna happen.

MaggotAtBroadAndWall | August 9, 2012 at 4:36 pm

So terribly sad. The Catholic Church has done so much to educate the illiterate, feed the hungry, and heal the sick for centuries, and this is how they are treated.

I’m not Catholic but it breaks my heart to watch this video.

I would pay money to see that same video with a couple of Nation Of Islam soldiers walking into the frame.

I would bet that old dyke harpy would break the land world speed record for “shut up” and find something else to do…!!!

That lady screaming “hateful bigot” was so arrogant and mean. Of course, she is also a hateful bigot. She hates practicing Christians and practicing Catholics. It is okay for her to express her opinions loudly but she won’t let the priest express his opinion softly. That woman feels it is okay to protest in front of a christian owned business but not okay for the business owner to spend his money fighting “gay marriage”

The priest asked them “What about tolerance … and they responded we don’t want tolerance we want equality”.
There will never be marriage equality because people will never view gay marriage the same as marriage.

Or have things changed so much that people aren’t repulsed by homosexuality and angry at the audacity of gays to demand marriage equality?

If we make gay marriage legal, we put our stamp of approval on it and we will get more of it and then ever increasing numbers of children will be raised in such families. Yuck!

NC Mountain Girl | August 9, 2012 at 5:43 pm

My take is quite different. First very little of the abuse was by pedophiles. The media tends to call sex with those under the age of consent pedophilia but the term means a sexual attraction to the prepubescent. It’s quite different in nature from homosexuality and may be rooted in childhood abuse. The vast majority of the abuse in the Church was of often troubled pubescent teens and the problems with the dioceses and seminaries that fell from grace wasn’t because of homosexual priests. The Church has always accepted celibate homosexuals. The problem came from no longer taking seriously the vows of celibacy and obedience while being drunk on the idea of keeping power.

It was a period of convulsion in which the laity which once followed pretty blindly was ow ninsisting on having a say in operations. Some priest who maybe weren’t sure why they were priests to begin with preyed upon those in the Church who couldn’t talk back.

I knew one priest caught up in the scandals. He was about ten years older. My older brother had been best friend to his kid brother. His widowed mother seemed to be in competition with another neighbor as to whose son would be the best priest. He abused teenage girls. It’s inexplicable in terms of sex. He was one of the most attractive men I have ever known, as head turning gorgeous as a Hollywood heartthrob. He could easily have had sex with dozens of age appropriate women seeking that special illicit thrill. He chose to have sex with teenyboppers at the the Catholic Youth Center. After the mid-1960s the same was true of every priest whose urges were homosexual in nature. Willing age appropriate partners would have easily obtainable in any medium to large city. They chose powerless teens instead.

    BannedbytheGuardian in reply to NC Mountain Girl. | August 9, 2012 at 6:52 pm

    One person’s observations & even personal experience is not much over a 2,000 year history.

    There is everything from Nero to King Henry X111 to the local St Vincent De Paul shop to consider.

    BannedbytheGuardian in reply to NC Mountain Girl. | August 10, 2012 at 3:32 am

    I grant you NCMG that the story of the Chicago Diocese would be worth a TV series or two or three.

    They must have some outstanding historical memos & ooompahpaloooza confessions.

This reminds me of the whole “Homeless Crisis,” the Leftist fraud of the 1980s. Bums and winos and other street persons had their numbers vastly overblown, to be dignified as “homeless persons” by “homeless advocates,” who seemed to be everywhere. Characters on TV shows spent their spare time “helping out at the soup kitchen.”

Then their main advocate, a shrill, angry zealot, suddenly died, an unexpected suicide. To everyone’s great surprise, his seemingly immortal movement evaporated.

While the gay movement has no such central figure, it has a lot more opposition, including heavyweight institutions like the Catholic church. The gays’ ugly shrillness has a panicked, desperate quality, a lot like that of “homeless advocates.” It would not be surprising if “something happens,” and the whole gay movement collapses under its own wickedness.

    CalMark in reply to CalMark. | August 9, 2012 at 6:33 pm

    By “something happens,” I mean some event that seems innocuous for the movement in the long run, but which winds up bringing it down.

9thDistrictNeighbor | August 9, 2012 at 6:38 pm

Cue Tom Lehrer “National Brotherhood Week”….

I would have preferred that the Padre had stayed out of it. The “demonstration” held by the Chick-fil-A buycott was FAR more effective, and reflected far better on conservatives. You don’t wrestle in the mud with pigs…

These activists have held their protests in churches. The venue did not determine their reaction, nor did it uniquely leave the priest vulnerable to a response.

Anyway, first amendment rights are, apparently, selective. Christians, Jews, and others who explicitly or implicitly recognize the merits and requirements of evolutionary fitness should be quiet and refrain from harshing the couplets’ mellow.

That said, I wonder how many of the activists were heterosexuals, who have elected to ally themselves with homosexual interests because they have a vested interest to protect their own dysfunctional behaviors.

Perhaps if he had walked through the protestors carrying a gavel and a sh*t-eating gring?

You could just feel the “tolerance” oozing out of the crowd. Who was that nasty “woman” who kept shouting “hateful bigot” over and over again? Was she advertising her position?

Was it unnecessarily provocative for the Father to walk into the protest line? He could have prayed off to the side, although who knows, that may have led to a similar reaction.

Yeah, he could have sat quietly on the sidewalk reading his Bible. No one would have bothered him then.

[…] to Rebel Pundit by way of Legal Insurrection for video: Share this:TwitterFacebookLike this:LikeBe the first to like […]