Statement on Cardinal Egan [NY Archdiocese; Correction of NYTimes]

  • Thread starter Thread starter lemonbeam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
L

lemonbeam

Guest
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: March 25, 2010

STATEMENT OF JOSEPH ZWILLING, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNICATIONS

The editorial in the New York Times of March 25, 2010, regarding Edward Cardinal Egan needs to be corrected immediately. In his twenty-one years as Bishop of Bridgeport and Archbishop of New York, there was no known incident of the abuse of minors by priests in the Cardinal’s care. The case that is described in the report to which the Times editorial refers has to do with events before the Cardinal’s tenure and was correctly handled by the Cardinal and his collaborators. During the Cardinal’s tenure in Bridgeport, despite careful questioning by diocesan staff and counsel and by professionals in the most highly-esteemed psychiatric institution in the nation, it was never proved that the priest in question had abused minors. Nonetheless, the Cardinal withdrew the priest’s authorization to exercise his priesthood and directed him to reside in a former seminary. When after four years the former seminary residence was no longer available, the priest was re-directed to live in a convent of religious women while acting as assistant-chaplain in a nursing-home. It is reported that some years after the Cardinal left Bridgeport, new information about the priest’s conduct emerged, and he was dismissed from the priesthood. During Cardinal Egan’s tenure, however, the case was handled both carefully and appropriately.

In December 2009 the Cardinal’s proper handling of alleged incidents of the abuse of minors by priests was detailed in the two attached statements of the Diocese of Bridgeport and the Archdiocese of New York released to the media and published in the December 3, 2009 edition of Catholic New York.
Click to expand...
Read more here: archny.org/news-events/news-press-releases/index.cfm?i=15964
 
about time the church responded to the unrelenting ongoing attacks by the NYT, who sadly has long since left ordinary standards of journalism far behind. the NY Post is more balanced and less sensational now.
 
This is what the Times said about the cardinal on 3/25/10:

"The American church’s investigative board of laity cautioned “there must be consequences” for prelates who orchestrated cover-ups. This has not been fulfilled, even though the board criticized management of rogue priests by Cardinals Roger Mahony of Los Angeles, the nation’s largest diocese, and Edward Egan, the former leader of the New York archdiocese. "

nytimes.com/2010/03/25/opinion/25thur1.html?scp=1&sq=egan&st=nyt

With that in mind, I think the archdiocese is wrong in demanding a retraction or anything else. It did not refute anything stated by the Times. Did the laity criticize the two cardinals or not?

If the lay board was wrong, the archdiocese should take its objections there.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top