Cardinal Edward Egan, in a letter sent to the priests of New York, appears to blame the recent anonymous criticism of his leadership on dissatisfaction with his handling of sex-abuse cases involving priests.
In the letter, dated Oct. 20, Egan writes that stories "told by priests who have been found guilty of sexually abusing minors" were related to a recent, anonymous letter attacking his leadership.
"Many claim that they have been the victim of unjust treatment, deception and lack of understanding," Egan's letter reads. "Unfortunately, no one challenges what they have to say. And the reason is clear: the Archdiocese has always been careful to respect their privacy."
This is...interesting. Because the text of the original, anonymous letter makes no mention of alleged mistreatment of accused priests.
Joseph Zwilling, Egan's spokesman, said last night that several individuals who have commented in the media on the anonymous letter have also criticized Egan's treatment of priests accused of abusing minors.
"That has been the focus of what people have been saying, on the record or anonymously, that (sex-abuse) has been mishandled," Zwilling said.
In 2004, about 75 New York priests signed a letter that criticized a lack of due process for priests accused of sexual abuse.
Egan's letter to priests twice cites Monsignor Howard Calkins, the vicar of Westchester County's Sound Shore region, for supporting the criticisms of the anonymous letter in media interviews. Calkins, the well-liked pastor of Sacred Heart Church in Mount Vernon, apologized to Egan in a letter and offered his resignation as vicar.
"This situation cannot be allowed to continue, as the recent episode of the anonymous letter, the declarations of Monsignor Calkins, and other negative statements to the media have amply proved," Egan wrote. "Thus it is that I believe we need to address this matter head on. We cannot be left open to all manner of lies, leading to all manner of scandal and damage to the Archdiocese and the Archbishop from people who refuse to take responsibility for their actions."
Calkins could not be reached for comment last night.
I can't make up my mind what this amounts to: a blatant diversionary, discrediting tactic? A bold revelation of the real, unspoken tension? Self-serving? What?
Comments