Diocese's Concern Is Keeping Secrets

October 7, 2020

The Diocese of Rockville Centre filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, citing pressures from payments to victims of clergy sexual abuse. Credit: Newsday/Steve Pfost

I believe the Diocese of Rockville Centre has tried to avoid its responsibilities to the survivors of its clergy abuse, from being the only large diocese in the country to refuse to put out a list of credibly accused priests to trying to have the Child Victim Act declared unconstitutional. So now it is bankruptcy ["Diocese of Rockville Centre seeks bankruptcy," News, Oct. 2]. It would have you think it is concerned about the survivors when, to me, its concern always has been only keeping church secrets. These secrets would have been endangered in court discovery and litigation. I believe this is the reason this diocese is in bankruptcy and there is no list. I call this Bishop John Barres’ "burden." I say the diocese is bankrupt of any moral fiber when it comes to facing its sins of clergy abuse.

Janet Cleary Klinger,


Editor’s note: The writer is Nassau-Suffolk leader of the Survivors Network of Those Abused by Priests (SNAP).

Mail-in ballots date many decades

In 1966, I voted in my first election. I was in the Marines and used an absentee ballot. In 1944, my soldier dad voted from France by absentee ballot. I am sure our uncle would have used one in 1864 had he not been killed in action in Manassas, Virginia. The military has successfully used absentee ballots in peace and war for more than 150 years. I am quite sure they will work in 2020 as well.

Consideration for SCOTUS nominee

The final paragraph in your editorial "Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a fighter to the end," [Sept. 20] I believe falsely declares that our democracy is "fragile," implying that we are somehow in peril if we let President Donald Trump replace RBG with his nominee. To me, the real peril is not giving his nominee full consideration. As noted in the same paragraph, "The selection of a new justice should be made by the winner of the presidential election." I agree, and in 2016 that winner was Trump.

Michael Sparks,

Problems of domestic violence

Bernadine Waller writes that domestic violence in Black women’s homes have been more of a concern since the COVID-19 lockdowns ["‘Shadow pandemic’ hurting Black women," Opinion, Oct. 4]. "Leaving their homes safely away from the potential danger is a problem for two reasons." I am appalled that systemic racism is cited as one. The writer makes a false case that survivor services must be rooted in racism. To me, failure of government to provide adequate service is due to incompetence, not hatred. She also writes, "Their stories of severe physical abuse are sometimes discounted because their dark complexion camouflages their injuries." Is she saying doctors cannot determine injuries on Black people because of skin color? She calls out alleged discrimination in "emergency rooms and urgent care facilities." I believe her op-ed is an assault on health care workers and physicians who do not see color but only people in need of help.

Mark Young,

Floral Park

Typhoid Mary, a lesson not learned

When we learn from history, we can avoid past mistakes and move forward on a more positive path. Mary Mallon, known as Typhoid Mary, was a poor, uneducated immigrant who worked as a cook. Doctors explained to her that she was an asymptomatic carrier of typhoid and infected others and must not work as a cook. At first she didn’t understand the medical/scientific complexity of her condition. That she infected 53 people with typhoid fever, three dying, is attributed to her. She was forcibly quarantined by authorities, and each time she was released, she refused to listen. She was finally permanently isolated from society for the rest of her life. So I wonder why, when it comes to COVID-19, do so many educated citizens and national leaders refuse to heed science to learn from the past to curb this pandemic. Many lives could have been saved. America should wake up.

Holly Gordon,

Bay Shore

March closing of U.S. borders

In the article "Pence Ordered CDC to Close Borders" [News, Oct. 4], health experts cited complained that the March closing of U.S. borders due to coronavirus threats was not science-based. Maybe so, but you didn’t need a study nor could you afford to wait for one; all you needed was common sense. The fewer sick people coming into the United States, the fewer sick people able to spread the virus. Is that so difficult to understand? The article also contains complaints that the border closure is bypassing the asylum system, without noting that the vast majority of asylum claims are ultimately denied. What if we had not closed the borders? It would be "catch and release" at the Southern border again because crowded border detention facilities would otherwise become hot spots for coronavirus. These scientists support health-related lockdowns within our country, yet locking down the border from 150,000 people thus far with unknown health conditions is viewed under a different standard? Sounds like politics to me.

Douglas Hoffmann,

Garden City








Any original material on these pages is copyright © 2004. Reproduce freely with attribution.