Hot Buttons: Talk show topics

PEDOPHILE PRIESTS

St. Paul, Minn., attorney Jeffrey Anderson is suing the Vatican, three Catholic dioceses and two religious orders, charging them with moving pedophile priests across state and national boundaries to protect them from prosecution.

The lawsuits, filed Wednesday, name the Holy See, the dioceses of St. Petersburg, Chicago and Portland, Ore., the Salesian Order and the Order of Friar Servants of Mary. One suit was filed in Pinellas County Circuit Court in St. Petersburg, Fla., while the other was filed in U.S. District Court in Portland, Oregon.

The St. Petersburg case involves Rick Gomez, 28, who said he was abused by William Burke, a brother and teacher at a Catholic boarding school in the Tampa Bay area in the 1980s. According to court documents, Gomez complained about the abuse -- leading the Vatican and other defendants to move Burke to New Jersey, "outside the jurisdiction of local authorities in order to obstruct justice, avoid public scandal, avoid loss of financial contributions and criminal and civil liability."

The other case involves a plaintiff, whose name was withheld, who alleged abuse at a Catholic parish in the 1960s by the late Rev. Andrew Ronan, Anderson said.

Last month, Anderson sued the American Catholic Church -- charging it violated federal racketeering laws in the case of former Bishop Anthony J. O'Connell of the Palm Beach, Fla., diocese. O'Connell resigned before the suit was filed as a result of a newspaper story containing claims of sexual abuse at a seminary in Hannibal, Mo.

Legal experts -- including Father Robert F. Drinan of Georgetown University Law Center in Washington D.C. -- said lawyers have tried to sue the Vatican in sex abuse cases in the past, but so far none has been successful. They expect church lawyers will argue that the Vatican is a separate country with diplomatic immunity and therefore cannot be sued.

-- Why so many molestation charges against priests in recent months? Do you think the priesthood attracts pedophiles? Why or why not? What responsibility does the Catholic Church bear in these cases?

'SIN' TAXES

New Yorkers now must shell out almost $6 for a pack of cigarettes.

But if New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg has his way, those smokers in the Big Apple will pay $1.50 more per pack on top of the new rate.

"Raising revenues for the state and the city is important now, but because of the increase in the price of cigarettes there will (also) be a reduction in smoking that will save tens of thousands of lives," Assemblyman Richard Gottfried, a Democrat from New York City and chairman of the assembly health committee, told UPI. "The bill passed so quickly in January it didn't give the tobacco lobby much time for effective opposition, but even two years ago when we raised the cigarette tax it was as if it was a competition on who could propose the higher tax increase."

With a 39-cent tax increase, New York leads the country with the highest tax on cigarettes. After federal and city taxes are added, a pack of cigarettes can cost about $50.

Twenty-five other states are also considering raising taxes on cigarettes.

New York state must close an almost $6 billion budget gap for the 2002-03 fiscal year. New York City is facing a more than $5 billion budget gap -- blamed on a loss of tax revenue because of a drop in consumer spending after Sept. 11 attacks on the World Trade Center.

Convenience stores and small shops have fought cigarette rate hikes for years, because they lose business traffic from cigarette buyers to neighboring states and Indian reservations after each hike. According to the New York Association of Convenience Stores, business dropped by 20 percent after the last cigarette tax hike of 55 cents per pack in March 2000.

However, Tobacco-Free New York said a 10-percent increase in cigarette prices will result in a four-percent drop in cigarette consumption.

-- Are there other items that aren't "good" for you -- chocolate, powerful stereo speakers, fast cars -- that should be taxed?

(Thanks to UPI's Alex Cukan in Albany, N.Y.)

THERE GOES AIR JORDAN

Michael Jordan's quick return to the Washington Wizards following arthroscopic surgery proved too good to be true. On Wednesday, he was placed back on the injured list -- ending his season.

"Following his surgery, Michael did absolutely everything to come back as quickly as possible to help this team in our playoff push," Washington general manager Wes Unseld said. "In doing that, Michael probably pushed a little too hard and is now experiencing inflammation in the knee as a result."

Jordan underwent surgery Feb. 27 to repair torn cartilage in his right knee. He missed only 12 games before returning to the lineup in Denver on March 20, but has not been the same player he was earlier in the season. On Tuesday, he was held to a career-low two points in the Wizards' 113-93 loss to the Los Angeles Lakers.

"I think it is best at this point to rest the knee and let it heal properly," said Jordan, the Wizards' leading scorer at 23.3 points per game. "I tried to get back and play as soon as possible and early on, the knee responded well. But after the swelling this morning, I think it's best to give it rest."

Jordan came out of retirement this season, but his injury fueled speculation that he would call it quits again. Wizards coach Doug Collins caused a stir last week when he said he would be surprised if Jordan played next season.

Jordan has said he would not make a decision about the 2002-03 season until he has evaluated his health over the summer.

-- Is it time for Jordan to hang it up for good? Why or why not?