N.Y. Cardinal Draws Criticism Over Policy on Sex Abuse Cases

NEW YORK —  As many Roman Catholic Church officials across the nation rush to cooperate with law enforcement officials in the burgeoning sex abuse scandal, the New York archdiocese has been a notable exception.

Cardinal Edward M. Egan, who has called pedophilia “an abomination,” says the nation’s third-largest archdiocese will refer cases of alleged abuse to authorities--but only when the church determines there is reasonable cause to do so, and only if victims’ families do not object.

His policy has sparked intense criticism, not just from church opponents but from New Yorkers who have been traditional friends of the archdiocese.

“This position is a huge mistake for him [Egan],” said former New York Mayor Edward I. Koch, an Egan supporter and longtime ally of the politically powerful church. “It’s not the job of the church to screen these cases--that’s what the district attorney is supposed to be doing.”

Many other dioceses have taken a different course, referring cases immediately to the police, whether or not the victims approve. In nearby Long Island, for example, Bishop William Murphy of Rockville Centre announced last week that church officials would voluntarily give authorities the names of all priests accused of sexual misconduct with minors.

As controversy grows, some observers say Egan’s policy, no matter how sincere, reinforces the notion that church officials are more interested in protecting themselves against lawsuits than protecting their flocks.

Egan has roundly denounced such suspicions. But his problems worsened recently when New Yorkers learned that, as bishop of Bridgeport, Conn., from 1988 to 2000, Egan had vigorously defended several priests accused of sexual abuse and had allowed several of them to continue in their positions.

“The church has gone soft,” said William Donohue, president of the Catholic League of Religious and Civil Rights, in a CNBC interview. “Where is the leadership?”

Egan remained silent for weeks before speaking out last weekend on the current scandal, and his policy has been criticized as too little, too late. Some observers say New York church officials have badly misread the depths of anger among the archdiocese’s 2.4 million parishioners.

A recent New York Daily News poll suggested 90% of New York Catholics disagree with Egan’s position on reporting sex abuse cases.

And his refusal to cooperate fully was a key factor in the state Legislature’s push last week to pass a bill mandating such disclosure, as teachers and doctors are required to do.

If the measure is passed, as expected, New York will become the 20th state to require the clergy to make such information public.

Joseph Zwilling, spokesman for the New York archdiocese, declined to say whether Egan, 69, supports or opposes such legislation, noting that “the [New York] State Catholic Conference [representing eight dioceses] will monitor this for us.” Zwilling also pointed out that the archdiocese’s policy of referring cases of suspected sexual abuse to authorities--with its two exceptions--is strictly voluntary and not required by state law.

“All of this has been a public relations disaster for Egan,” said Jeffrey Stonecash, a Syracuse University political science professor. “And the stories about his actions in Bridgeport have made the problem worse.”

This month, the Hartford Courant published reports about Egan’s handling of suspected sexual abuse cases while he was in Connecticut. According to legal depositions, Egan--who was trained in canonical law--challenged the credibility of victims’ stories, saying “very few have even come close to having anyone prove anything” against a priest.

In one deposition, Egan was asked by an attorney suing the archdiocese if he was aware of the details about a priest accused of oral sex, sodomy and beatings: “I am not aware of any of those things. I am aware of the claims of those things, the allegations of those things.”

The Bridgeport archdiocese settled 26 claims against five priests about 18 months later, admitting that “there were incidents of sexual abuse.”

Egan has criticized the news reports as inaccurate, saying the published stories “omitted certain key facts and contained inaccuracies.” He added that cases of sexual abuse in Bridgeport, including the referral of several local priests for psychiatric counseling, “were handled appropriately.”

Vowing to “heal the Church” at a time of great national scandal, Egan promised in a March 23 letter to New York parishioners that “should any priest sexually abuse a child, he will be removed from the pastoral ministry. My heart goes out to any and all victims and their families.”

Despite Egan’s pledge, he has come under attack from New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, the district attorneys representing each of the city’s five boroughs and a host of other elected officials. Normally these politicians would think twice about locking horns with Egan in heavily Catholic New York. But as many experts note, this issue is different.

“His policy and actions leave much to be desired,” said Father Richard McBrien, an influential theologian and professor at the University of Notre Dame. “And I’ve said that, just as the Berlin Wall fell, so will the Egan wall. Stonewalling just won’t work now. He has to better explain himself.”

It’s been a rough baptism for Egan, who took over the high-profile New York post on June 19, 2000, after the death of Cardinal John O’Connor. Although he clashed with opponents over issues such as abortion and homosexuality, O’Connor was admired for his gregarious personality. Egan, by contrast, comes off as stiff, and he has yet to build the reservoir of public support that might help him survive such turbulence.

“Even now, after all these terrible stories have come out, I still don’t think he gets it,” said Michael Dowd, a New York attorney who has handled several sexual abuse cases against the church. “Egan and a lot of his allies seem to be praying that this whole abuse thing will somehow blow over.”

For those who know Egan, however, his stern demeanor and lawyerly skills sum up his greatest strengths. He was born in Oak Park, Ill., a Chicago suburb, and was a bright student who was attracted early to service in the Catholic Church. Rising rapidly through the hierarchy, he was made assistant vice rector in moral theology and canon law at Pontifical North American College in Vatican City in 1960 and returned to Rome in 1971 as judge of the Tribunal of the Roman Rota, the church’s highest appeals court.

Egan became an auxiliary bishop in the New York Archdiocese in 1985, before being named bishop of Bridgeport. He was credited with being a good administrator, and his defenders have noted that the sexual abuse cases that he handled in Connecticut did not take place on his watch.

For now, New York parishioners are taking a wait-and-see attitude toward their new archbishop. Yet some observers believe Egan may have done irreparable damage to his image by failing to take stronger action.

“He’s blotted his record,” said McBrien. “In the beginning, he took the stance that he wasn’t going to say anything, so people shouldn’t waste their time. And now, of course, he’s saying things. He has to.”