New York Post

Mayor Bloomberg weighed into the Catholic child-abuse scandal yesterday with a blunt message: The church is not above the law.

As Edward Cardinal Egan told parishioners at St. Patrick's Cathedral his heart was crying, Hizzoner took a thinly veiled swipe at the Church's handling of allegations against priests.

"Everybody should obey the same laws . . . nobody should be outside the law," Bloomberg told WABC radio.

"In a case where somebody alleges that another person committed a terrible crime, particularly against children, it seems to me that's what the police are there to do, an investigation, and the courts are there to decide whether you're guilty or not."

His comments came on the eve of state legislation being introduced today by Assemblyman John McEneny (D-Albany) requiring all religious groups to hand over the names of clerics accused of molesting children over the past 20 years.

After a week of controversy over his handling of sex-abuse allegations, Egan got personal in the pulpit during his Palm Sunday homily yesterday, including himself among sinners yearning for purification.

"We all know that we are all sinners, and we are all expected by our God to do penance," the 69-year-old cardinal told thousands of worshippers.

"The cry that comes from all of our hearts is that we never want to even think that such a horror may be visited upon any of our young people, their parents or their loved ones through the body of Jesus Christ, his Church. That cry goes from my heart as well."

At the beginning of the service, Egan announced that his printed statement, which announced a tough new approach to handling child-abuse allegations, was available, saying he prayed "that it will be helpful in facing this tragic challenge to the Church in our day."

Despite his vow to stamp out the "evil," he was further haunted by his handling of abuse cases while he was bishop in Bridgeport, Conn.

Psychiatric hospital The Institute of Living, where the Catholic prelate referred priests accused of sexual misconduct, said the Church failed to provide full details of the men's pasts and then used the hospital's reports to justify returning them to work, The Hartford Courant reported.

"In some cases, necessary and pertinent information related to prior sexual misconduct has been withheld from us," said Dr. Harold Schwartz, the Hartford-based institute's chief of psychiatry.

"In some cases, it would appear that our evaluations have been misconstrued in order to return priests to ministry."

In the case of Rev. Raymond Pcolka, whom Egan sent to the institute in 1989 after a mother accused him of molesting her son, doctors at the institute were never informed about a prior molestation complaint, The Courant said.

Egan told lawyers that a 1983 letter containing that accusation had gone missing from Pcolka's personnel file at the diocese, according to court records.

Egan, who has strongly defended his actions, said during a 1999 deposition there was little he could do if doctors didn't support the allegations.

A spokeswoman for The Institute of Living stood by Schwartz's comments yesterday but said the institute regretted having to discuss its actions regarding the treatment of priests.

Despite the lingering controversy, the cardinal's comments yesterday appeared to comfort many of the worshippers at St. Patrick's.

"In the homily, he did take responsibility," Christie Bonilla, a mother from San Diego, said. "There was definitely an attitude of no tolerance or cover-up. He is stepping up to the plate, and it's not going to happen."

-- Dennis Molson (dennismolson@hotmail.com), March 25, 2002

Answers

Dennis Molson,

You don't seem too effective in attacking church teachings; but, for some reason, you cherish ad Hominum attacks on people with whom you disagree.

BTW, if you have a belief that God does not exist, are you morally ambivalent to homosexual behavior with teenagers? Are you exclusively condemning hypocrisy, without passing judgment on the act itself?

Dennis, how do you form moral judgments about right and wrong? Doesn't a law which prohibits sexual activity with those 18 and younger sound arbitrary from your perspective?

"Thou Shalt not Kill" is in the Bible (Exodus 20:13). Should we remove the laws against murder from the government's justice system, in order to remove repressive religious influence in our laws?

Enjoy,

Mateo el Feo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), March 25, 2002.

Matt,
Dennie is the cheap-shot artist par excellence. There's so much JOY for him in the news these days! Let's not take it a way from him. Catholicism has been an unreachable star to Dennie. He spits up into the heavens, and the spit falls back into his poor mug. But it makes him happy to spit. His only hope for real joy is to see Catholic priests in a jam.

He titled his entry: Subject: Catholic Church - Not above The Law

Yet, the Catholic Church is not charged with any crimes. The ones charged don't comprise the Church, but just a few who have fallen from grace. Why is he attacking ALL of us?

Because, he's a cheap-shot lover; and he likes the scatter gun cheap-shot best! With it, he might land a hit. One-on-one, Dennie couldn't hit the deck on his own butt.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), March 25, 2002.

"You don't seem too effective in attacking church teachings"

It has always been my experience that cult members, er, catholics, are true believers. No amount of fact or logic will dissuade you that you are wasting your life, so I occasionally have some fun at your expense.

As it relates to moral judgments, I have found the laws of the land and my own moral compass to be an adequate barometer. I believe I know the difference between right and wrong without having to belong to a "religion" that will tell me what to think.

For example, you asked: "Doesn't a law which prohibits sexual activity with those 18 and younger sound arbitrary from your perspective?"

My answer is no, it does not. It is fundamentally wrong for an adult to take sexual advantage (through money, stature, power, community standing, etc...) of a minor, regardless of the situation.

The Ten Commandments are (for the most part) logical, ethical guidelines that are the basis for much of modern law. The difference is that I believe man wrote them - and you do not.

-- Dennis Molson (dennismolson@hotmail.com), March 25, 2002.

Dennis wrote:

It has always been my experience that cult members, er, catholics, are true believers. No amount of fact or logic will dissuade you that you are wasting your life, so I occasionally have some fun at your expense.

Dennis,

Are you blaming my "closed mind" for your inability to effectively use facts and logic to support your positions? That's an interesting accusation.

I understand that your attacks on others bring you joy. Do you think that sadism is mature? Many have carried out far worse attacks (killing, sexual abuse, psychological abuse) because they derive pleasure from attacking others. In these situations, this attitude is strongly condemned by secular society. Please ask yourself whether this behavior is worth fostering as you mature.

Chistians have well known positions on the purpose of life. I wonder what you hope to do with your life. Is your atheistic enlightenment something that you hope to promote during your lifetime? Is your life goal to constantly answer you desires, without regard to a knowable right/wrong? Do you believe that one can become a slave to his own passions if they are never questioned? Are there any valid reasons for "repressing" our inner desires?

I appreciate that your post is beginning to state your views; but I still do not see your reasoning behind your opinions. Just as you expect Catholics to question the "why" of their beliefs (instead of towing the "party line"), I hope that you can do the same--the reasons why you believe is a lot more interesting to me.

Peace,

Mateo el Feo

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), March 25, 2002.

Quoting marvelous Molson:

''It has always been my experience that cult members, er, Catholics, are true believers. No amount of fact or logic will dissuade you that you are wasting your life, so I occasionally have some fun at your expense.''

My, but he preens in self-satisfaction! He dominates every ''fact and logic'' argument.

Dennie-- what facts? What logic?? That you aren't buying it? You are above religious faith?

That may be logic to you. You didn't prove it to me. I haven't wasted a minute of my life. You are the total loser, not me. Is this FUN, for you? At my expense, and the other Catholics???

Do you like being the outsider? That isn't fun, nor does it come at my ''expense''.

You're only cheating yourself. You have a God in your own belly which you adore. My God is Creator of heaven and earth; and he created you and the belly you love so much. You made an idol of your appetites. My God helps me to control my animal appetites.

My God is merciful to me, and sent Jesus Christ to redeem me. Because I was only a loser like YOU, until Jesus Christ took my sould back from the devil. Yours is still with the devil. Before you die, (and you WILL) investigate the real motives of your Catholic acquaintances here. Mine and the others'. We didn't need a judgment over you. It would make us happy if you ''wasted'' this life learning about Christ and the salvation He offers you. You thought we weren't interested in facts and logic. How wrong you were. As I've just explained, it's very logical to love your Creator. It's a FACT you were created, and you were redeemed by Christ. You keep fighting the truth. Even animals who see something in broad daylight know it; but you want to remain beneath animals. Blinder even than a cheeseball.

A flower looks up at the sun; she sees the love of his light. You are a ball of jack cheese; no eyes, no love, no direction. What isn't eaten will be sent down the disposal. And you aren't wasting your life? --Look into yourself, and confess. You might as well die tomorrow, for all the hope life holds for you. EMPTY.

You sure love to brag about your own emptiness, and deride the ones who have everlasting LIFE. GO FIGURE!

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), March 25, 2002.

Jmj

Good of you, Mateo and Eugene, to reveal some of the intellectual gaps in the comments of the visiting atheist.

Personally, I was rather amazed at what he said in response to the question, "How do you form moral judgments about right and wrong."
His reply? "As it relates to moral judgments, I have found the laws of the land and my own moral compass to be an adequate barometer. I believe I know the difference between right and wrong without having to belong to a 'religion' that will tell me what to think."

This reply holds no water at all.

(1) There are no "laws of the land." Laws are constantly changing, with certain things being criminalized and others being decriminalized. The law is not something objective that tells us what is intrinsically right and wrong, but rather something relativistic, something that tells us what the lawmakers want to seem right and wrong at a specific moment in time. Moreover, each "land" has its own laws, sometimes differing greatly when one crosses the border. Still, it is not right to say that civil law is a bad thing. Civilized people with a right mind are always seeking to make their nations' laws conform more and more closely to the divine law that God has revealed.

(2) It is true that one must start with one's own moral compass, but just exactly what is that compass? An atheist is a materialist. What is the "material" of this "compass?" There is none!

What is being called a "compass" is actually something invisible, immaterial -- namely, the "natural law" -- the basic morality written on our "hearts" by almighty God. If there were not a God who provides this natural law to each soul he creates, mankind could not exist. People would have a chaotic mixture of thoughts about right and wrong -- or more properly, nothing could ever be called "wrong."

A wise man said that, if God does not exist, everyone can do anything and no one can hold another person "guilty." The local atheist annoys me greatly. But may I kill him to get him off my nerves? If there were no natural law from God, I would indeed feel free to kill him. Since he does not believe in God, he should feel free to kill all Catholics, because they annoy him so much. But he does not feel so free! Why does he not kill us? Only because God gave him a conscience and the natural law. He may try to pretend that he has a moral "compass" from some other source, but no explanation he gives can be convincing and logical.

God bless you.
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), March 27, 2002.