Skip to comments.HOUSE SNUBS (NY Cardinal) EGAN
Posted on 07/19/2007 8:37:28 AM PDT by NYer
July 19, 2007 -- WASHINGTON - Congress is trying to "excommunicate" Edward Cardinal Egan by refusing to pass a routine resolution honoring the New York Archdiocese simply because it mentions the archbishop's name, The Post has learned.
In a stunning personal slap at the leader of 2.5 million Catholics in New York, a powerful Democrat-controlled House committee has demanded that Egan's name be stricken from the commemoration of the archdiocese's 200th anniversary.
Rep. Vito Fossella (R-S.I.), the resolution's chief sponsor, said it appears the committee wants the cardinal's name deleted because of the Catholic Church's sexual-abuse scandal.
The bipartisan resolution, which has 60 co-sponsors, is a simple, nonbinding, two-page statement lauding the archdiocese.
The ninth paragraph contains a line that proved radioactive with the committee's Democratic majority.
It states: "Whereas the Archdiocese of New York is currently under the spiritual guidance of His Eminence M. Cardinal Egan, who was installed on June 19, 2000, and elevated to Cardinal on February 21, 2001."
According to Fossella, staff on the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee, chaired by Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), told his aides the resolution wouldn't be approved unless he agreed to cut the Egan line.
Fossella, who is Catholic, refused.
"It's just insulting and outrageous," Fossella fumed. "Given all the wonder and good deeds of the archdiocese, to be dictated and told that his name should be removed is unconscionable and unacceptable."
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
Egan, while not flawless, is not a scumbag like Mahoney or (the now departed) Law. Kinda reaching to associate him with “scandal” IMHO.
Oh, that's right, he voted 'nay' on impeaching the felon.
Btw, Henry, where do you stand on NAMBLA, or homosexual marriage, huh? I could go on...
For an anonymous letter it received a lot of press and coverage.
I suspect this is all blowback from that controversy.
The democrat congress is determined to insult as many constituencies as possible.
From the end of the article. If this is true, I wouldn't want him named in the legislation either...
Egan got caught up in the abuse scandal when he was bishop of Bridgeport, Conn., in the 1990s and allowed priests accused of abusing their parishioners to remain in the church.From another NY Times article, we get this re Egan's defense of his time as Bishop over Bridgeport ...
Cardinal Egan yesterday repeated his past assertions that he relied on the expert advice of psychiatrists in allowing some accused priests to keep working in Bridgeport -- a practice that was common across the country. But that measure, he said, has changed. ''Right now, I have less and less confidence in depending upon the medical and psychiatric community,'' he said. ''It's too dangerous, it seems to me, to do anything now but to play always on the side of safety,'' he said, and suspend priests more promptly.
In April, the cardinal said he was sorry ''if in hindsight we also discover that mistakes may have been made'' regarding the removal of priests and assisting victims. Yesterday, when asked if he had made any mistakes, he answered, ''I think that we did this properly, as it was understood at that time, and I'm happy with what we did.'' NY Times
The key question is,will Egan be kept in NY as Cardinal since he is now 75? He has been afraid of the media since the day he was appointed Archbishop of NY. The very important Archdiocese of NY needs a strong leader like Cardinal O’Connor, who will stand up to the media. The next Archbishop can not come in with baggage as Cardinal Egan did.
The bishops who played along with the 'psychiatric community' are responsible for their abnegation of duty. It's clear from Scripture that homosexual acts are sinful, and acts that are sinful can only be performed by freely acting persons.
That is rude!
Actually, Law (the ultimate organization man) just followed the guidelines, which were heavily reliant on shrinks, etc. The press attacked him because he was pro-life and actually once had the nerve to appear with O’Connor at a pro-life march in DC. If he had been a raving nutcase liberal like Mahony, he’d still be in Boston.
That said, I’m surprised the Dems have attacked Egan. He’s not popular among Catholics, is virtually silent in NY, a place that needs a very firm and vocal archbishop, and really hasn’t rocked the boat much there. They should count their blessings. I hope whoever replaces Egan is a Hammer of the Heretics.
I just never saw Law as being particularly competant, and when the sh-t hit the fan, he passed the buck, a tendency all too common among the human race.
No, he wasn’t competent. Law was your basic organization man. Most of the guys who made it to bishop at the time that he did were over-promoted middle-managers.
Cooke was a real mystery. I grew up under Spellman, and I never really knew what to think about Cooke. But I was young, and I moved to another state after a couple of years under Cooke and didn’t come back until O’Connor held the job.
He also gave a moving pro-life statement in his homily at Cardinal O'Connor's funeral -- and embarrassed the Clintons, who pretended they were looking for something or whatever so as not to have to join the standing ovation.
Yes! I remember that!
I have always felt rather bad for Law, whose heart was probably in the right place but who clearly got broadsided in Boston. I think the press in Boston attacked him mainly because he was considered conservative and was no friend of the Clintons.
The press folks have given Roger a pass in LA because he’s a raving flake whose agenda fits perfectly with their own. Roger Dodger was actually bishop when some of these things happened, and even seems to have been a personal friend of some of the molesters, unlike Law, who didn’t know them, wasn’t bishop when they were active, and was just doing what the guidelines said he should do.
I heard too that the Boston Globe had known all about it for years, but it was "opportune" to break the story when JP II was in ill health (remember, a lot of people expected him to die sooner than he did) -- and when the gay marriage people were planning to start their push.