Thrashers have won three straight to move back into contention for the final playoff spot...

ATLANTA (AP) — Colby Armstrong (FSY) scored two goals and the Atlanta Thrashers beat the Philadelphia Flyers 5-2 on Saturday night to continue their late postseason push.

The Thrashers have won three straight to move back into contention for the final playoff spot in the Eastern Conference. Atlanta trails eighth-place Boston by one point.

GAME REPORT: Thrashers 5, Flyers 2

Atlanta had not won as many as three in a row since a four-game streak from Nov. 25-30.

Armstrong had his second straight two-goal game. Nik Antropov (FSY), Niclas Bergfors and Bryan Little (FSY) also scored against Brian Boucher (FSY), who had 23 stops. Johan Hedberg (FSY) made 25 saves for Atlanta.

Dan Carcillo and Blair Betts (FSY) had goals for the Flyers.

Antropov, a 10-year veteran in his first season with the Thrashers, has emerged as Atlanta's scoring leader after the team traded Ilya Kovalchuk (FSY) to New Jersey on Feb. 4 for four players, including Bergfors. Antropov has set a career high with 63 points, including 25 points in his last 21 games.

Antropov's leadership showed late in the game when he put Philadelphia's Scott Hartnell (FSY) in a headlock after Hartnell took a swipe at Hedberg. Antropov drew a 2-minute penalty for roughing and Hartnell was called for slashing.

Goals by Bergfors and Armstrong in the first six minutes gave Atlanta a 2-0 lead. Carcillo answered for the Flyers 8:16 into the first period. Antropov and Betts traded goals in the second period, leaving the Thrashers with a 3-2 lead.

Little pushed the lead to 4-2 with his follow shot in front of the net midway through the third period. Armstrong added his second goal late in the period.

Philadelphia, which has been good on 23% of its power-play chances to rank third in the league, was 0 for 3 with a man advantage.

Boucher, who fell to 5-13-2, is the Flyers' third No. 1 goalie of the season, following injuries which ended the regular seasons of Ray Emery (FSY) (hip) and Michael Leighton (FSY) (left ankle sprain). Leighton was injured Tuesday night in a loss at Nashville.

The Thrashers are 3-0 in the season series. The teams play again Sunday in Philadelphia.

NOTES: Atlanta's Jim Slater (FSY) and Philadelphia's Carcillo drew 5-minute penalties for fighting only 39 seconds into the game. About 3 minutes later, Atlanta's Eric Boulton (FSY) and the Flyers' Ian Laperriere (FSY) followed them into the penalty box after a fight. ... Slater also drew 2-minute roughing and tripping minors for a total of three penalties. ... The Flyers had only three shots on goal in the second period.

German industrial city of Essen was accused of sexually abusing three boys in 1979....

NOT long after a portly, jovial priest in the German industrial city of Essen was accused of sexually abusing three boys in 1979, he was offered a new home in Munich by Joseph Ratzinger, the future Pope Benedict XVI.

Ratzinger, who was Archbishop of Munich and Freising at the time, wanted Father Peter Hullermann — known to friends in the church as “Hulli” — to undergo psychotherapy.

A psychiatrist quickly concluded that Hullermann was untreatable, however.

“I told the church officials that Hullermann must never be allowed to work with children again,” said Werner Huth, the psychiatrist, in an interview with The Sunday Times this weekend.
“He did not seem to want or be able to co-operate fully during the therapy. He had an alcohol problem and the assaults on the children mostly happened when he had been under the influence of alcohol.”

Huth’s warning was ignored. The priest was allowed to return to pastoral work and then to teach religion in a local state school.

Soon, he was in trouble again. He drank, showed pornographic videos to boys and abused them. He was convicted of the sexual abuse of minors and fined.

Even that was not the end of his time in the church. After a period of probation he continued working — with altar boys, among others.

He was still working as a priest right up until last Monday when, at the age of 62, he was suspended from his duties at a Bavarian tourist resort for breaching a church order in 2008 to avoid any involvement with children.

This unholy saga, reflecting both the severity of clerical abuse and the failure to stop it, goes to the heart of the gravest crisis the Roman Catholic church has faced since the wartime Pope Pius XII was accused of responding inadequately to the Holocaust.

It also raises questions about Pope Benedict’s responses to mounting allegations of paedophilia in the church. According to a report in Der Spiegel, the German magazine, Benedict knew about the allegations against Hullermann in 1980 but chose not to report them to the police.

DECADES of abuse allegations — first in private, then, increasingly, in public — culminated this weekend in a letter of apology from the Pope to the Irish faithful that was also taken as a message to the broader church.

The letter, to be read at mass throughout Ireland today, recognises years of “sinful and criminal” sexual abuse by the clergy.

“You have suffered grievously and I am truly sorry ... It is understandable that you find it hard to forgive or be reconciled with the church. In her name, I openly express the shame and remorse that we all feel,” Benedict writes in the seven-page letter, the first public apology of its kind.

“I know that nothing can undo the wrong you have endured. Your trust has been betrayed and your dignity violated ... We are all scandalised by the sins and failures of some of the church’s members.”

The Pope reprimands Irish bishops for “grave errors of judgment and failures of leadership” in handling cases of abuse. He does not announce any sackings, however.

Cardinal Sean Brady, the head of the church in Ireland — who, as this newspaper revealed last week, attended a secret tribunal in 1975 at which two children abused by a priest were made to take a vow of silence — remains in his job.

Nor has the Pope ordered bishops or priests to report sexual abuse to the police when they learn of it, as Irish victims’ groups demanded.

Much of the anger in Ireland appeared unassuaged last night. Andrew Madden, the first victim to go public after reaching a settlement with the church, said he was deeply disappointed. The Pope’s letter had failed to acknowledge any active role taken by leading figures in covering up sexual abuse by priests, he said.

“There is no owning up by the Pope to his part in the cover-up,” Madden said. “He says he is deeply sorry about what other people did, not what he did.”

Madden is not the only one to claim that questions about the Pope’s role remain unanswered.

IN the case of Hullermann, the priest from Essen, the Pope — then Archbishop Ratzinger — presided over a meeting of church officials in Munich on January 15, 1980.

The minutes show that far from being reported to the police, Hullermann had his request for a “flat and temporary lodging” in a Munich parish granted. “Chaplain Hullermann will engage in psychotherapy treatment,” the minutes read.

Huth, the psychiatrist, said there were problems from the start. Hullermann agreed only to group therapy and refused to recognise that he was a threat to boys. He portrayed himself as a victim, forced to undergo treatment by his superiors.

“His personality problems couldn’t be overcome,” said Huth.

The psychiatrist prescribed drugs to treat Hullermann’s alcoholism and recommended not only that he be kept away from children, but that he be monitored by another priest at all times.

A church official asked Huth why he had made such a recommendation, protesting Hullermann was “well liked among the altar boys and the staff”.

Gerhard Gruber, then Ratzinger’s deputy, has now accepted blame for “serious mistakes” that followed, including restoring the priest to pastoral duties. Officials have not disclosed whether Ratzinger was kept informed before he moved to the Vatican in 1982.

Giancarlo Zizola, a writer on the Vatican, said Ratzinger “very probably” was updated about Hullermann. “The archbishop is responsible for the diocese, people answer to him, so theoretically he is aware of what’s happening,” Zizola said.

The suggestion that the Pope may have known more than has been admitted in a case where inaction allowed sexual abuse to continue was echoed by Hans Kung, a dissident Catholic theologian who once taught with Benedict at Tübingen University in Germany.

In an article published by several European newspapers last week, Kung charged that Benedict knew about the sexual abuse of members of the Domspatzen (cathedral sparrows) choir in Regensburg. The choirmaster from 1964 to 1994 was Benedict’s brother, Georg, and the future Pope had also taught theology there.

Former choirboys at Regensburg have testified about ordeals stretching into the early 1990s.

“Joseph Ratzinger was perfectly well aware of the situation of the Domspatzen,” Kung wrote. “And it is not a case of slaps, which unfortunately were the order of the day at the time, but of sex crimes.”

Kung demanded that Benedict issue a mea culpa for his part in “covering up decades of clerical sex abuse”.

Bishops including the Pope should not just seek forgiveness, but “should finally acknowledge their own coresponsibility” in covering up “systematic abuses”, said Kung.

“Should not Pope Benedict XVI also assume his own responsibility, instead of complaining that there is a campaign against him?”

Kung was stripped of his licence to teach Catholic theology after he rejected the doctrine of papal infallibility. Benedict invited him to dinner shortly after his election as Pope five years ago, prompting speculation that they had reconciled.

Benedict has now let it be known that he is “disappointed and saddened” by Kung’s attack. His brother Georg, 86, acknowledged earlier this month that he had slapped young members of the choir. He said he had never heard anything about sexual abuse there.

IN the eyes of his critics, Benedict’s failure to demand more openness with the police is reminiscent of a 2001 directive he issued as head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Vatican body in charge of prosecuting sex crimes. They accuse him of fostering a culture of secrecy by insisting on keeping cases confidential while the church investigated them.

Andrea Tornielli, a papal biographer, dismissed this. “Benedict simply applied sub judice rules to the church’s investigation. And he insisted on all cases being reported immediately to his congregation to stop bishops covering them up. He has long been pushing for zero tolerance and for cases to be reported to judicial authorities,” Tornielli said.

Outrage over secrecy in the church is becoming more acute, however. For many, the scandal lies not only in the scale of the abuse but also in the way the church kept it quiet.

In Austria, a poll last week indicated that almost 1m Catholics were considering leaving the church because of its handling of the allegations. The crisis is also spreading to Italy, where the Vatican’s influence has until now stifled any revelations. Cases have come to light in Rome and Florence.

The Vatican has signalled that it will launch reforms including a more rigorous selection of candidates for the priesthood and closer co-operation with civilian authorities.

Such reforms will come too late for Hullermann and his victims. His flock in the spa town of Bad Tölz knew nothing about his record until last Sunday, when they were told in church.

The congregation sat in shocked silence, save for a 30-year-old who stood up and interrupted the service.

Mr. Obama’s dream of overhauling the nation’s health care system...

WASHINGTON — Speaker Nancy Pelosi was at her wits’ end, and she let President Obama know it.

Scott Brown, the upstart Republican, had just won his Senate race in Massachusetts, a victory that seemed to doom Mr. Obama’s dream of overhauling the nation’s health care system. The White House chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, once Ms. Pelosi’s right hand man on Capitol Hill, was pushing Mr. Obama to scale back his ambitions and pursue a pared-down bill.

Mr. Obama seemed open to the idea, though it was clearly not his first choice. Ms. Pelosi scoffed.

“Kiddie care,” she called the scaled-down plan, derisively, in private.

In a series of impassioned conversations, over the telephone and in the Oval Office, she conveyed her frustration to the president, according to four people familiar with the talks. If she and Harry Reid, the Senate Democratic leader, were going to stick out their necks for Mr. Obama’s top legislative priority, Ms. Pelosi wanted assurances that the president would too. At the White House, aides to Mr. Obama say, he also wanted assurances; he needed to hear that the leaders could pass his far-reaching plan.

“We’re in the majority,” Ms. Pelosi told the president. “We’ll never have a better majority in your presidency in numbers than we’ve got right now. We can make this work.”

Now, in what could become a legislative Lazarus tale — or at least the most riveting cliffhanger of the Obama presidency so far— the House is set to take up the health bill for what Democrats hope will be the last time.

For Mr. Obama, who vowed earlier this month to do “everything in my power” to see the bill to fruition, the measure’s passage would be an extraordinary triumph. Its defeat could weaken him for the rest of his days in office.

That Mr. Obama has come this far — within a whisper of passing historic social legislation — is remarkable in itself. But the story of how he did it is not his alone. It is the story of how a struggling president partnered with a pair of experienced legislators — Ms. Pelosi and, to a lesser extent, Mr. Reid — to reach for a goal that Mr. Obama has often said had eluded his predecessors going back to Theodore Roosevelt.

Their journey over the last two months, interviews with White House aides, lawmakers, outside advisers, lobbyists and political strategists show, involved tensions, resolve, political spadework — and a little bit of luck.

When Anthem, a California insurer, notified policyholders of an increase in premiums of up to 39 percent, the move played right into the hands of a White House that had spent months demonizing the insurance industry.

A cross-Capitol feud erupted when Ms. Pelosi demanded that Mr. Reid provide a letter with the signatures of 51 senators willing to pass a package of legislative changes under the complex parliamentary procedure known as reconciliation. (On Saturday, the leader announced that he had a “significant majority.”)

And Mr. Obama’s decision to hold a bipartisan health care summit meeting proved a strategic success. The move privately mystified some Democrats. But it created an important cooling off period and helped shift attention to Mr. Obama and away from Capitol Hill, freeing the speaker to work on convincing recalcitrant members of her caucus that it would be politically disastrous for them simply to walk away.

Mr. Obama did not need any prodding from Ms. Pelosi, his aides say. The Scott Brown election came on the eve of his first anniversary in office, and he told aides he was irritated that his presidency appeared to be stalled. He was eager to do what he had done so often in the presidential campaign: cast caution aside in favor of bold action.

“We are this close to the summit of the mountain,” Mr. Obama told his close advisers in a meeting in late January, said one participant. “We need to try one more time.”

Responding to a Setback

The polls were still open in Massachusetts on Jan. 19 when Mr. Obama met in the Oval Office with David Plouffe, his top outside confidant and former campaign manager. Mr. Brown’s victory — he would take Senator Edward M. Kennedy’s old seat — was all but certain, and Mr. Obama’s 60-vote supermajority in the Senate had suddenly vanished.

Mr. Brown had made clear his objections to the health care legislation. “One thing is clear,” he proclaimed on election night, “voters do not want the trillion-dollar health care bill that is being forced on the American people.”

At that moment, the president did not know whether, or how, to proceed. The House and Senate had passed different versions of the bill and could not come to terms. Republicans were unified in their resistance. He considered his options, including Mr. Emanuel’s “skinny bill.” Whatever the course, aides said, Mr. Obama was insistent that health care not be put into a “time capsule,” never to be opened again in his tenure.

Tom Daschle, a close outside adviser, said Mr. Obama believed that health care would be his legacy. “This is what his presidency is about,” he said.

On Jan. 21, Representative Barney Frank, a Massachusetts Democrat and a powerful committee chairman, headed to the White House for a banking industry announcement. He had been openly skeptical about the prospects for the health measure