Catholic Sex Abuse Hearing Descends Into `Shut Up' Order and Charge of 'Abomination'

Courthouse News Service ^ | March 25, 2011 | Reuben Kramer

[Dr. Eckleburg]

At an intensely combative and vitriolic hearing Friday afternoon in a sex-abuse case that has shaken the Philadelphia Archdiocese to its core, a state court judge shocked one priest's defense attorney by disclosing that the government thinks he might be a witness as a former seminarian and could be disqualified from the case. The lawyer, who represents one of three current and former Roman Catholic priests charged with raping boys in their parish, fired back that prosecutors were being "anti-Catholic" and had uttered an "abomination."

Judge Renee Cardwell Hughes told defense attorney Richard DeSipio that she's received information that "might make you, in fact, a witness because of events that occurred while you were a seminarian."

The information "stems from the fact that you attended the seminary with a student who asserts he was abused," Hughes said, adding that DeSipio "may possess factual knowledge about abuse that occurred with that student."

She added that the substance of the claim that DiSipio witnessed something is still unclear. "I just don't know if it's true," Hughes said. "I really don't know if it's true."

Yelling and visibly upset, DeSipio demanded that the government, then and there, identify the source of the allegation. "Let them spill it out right now!" DeSipio demanded.

"How dare they send you a letter about that," DeSipio said, referring to the district attorney's office. "That's an abomination."

Prosecutors said only that part of DeSipio's seminary training overlapped with the tenure of a senior clergyman accused of endangering children by failing to protect them from priests with a known history of abuse.

Monsignor William Lynn, now pastor of St. Joseph Church in Downingtown, Pa., is reportedly the highest-ranking member of the Roman Catholic Church in the United States ever to be charged with child endangerment. Between 1984 and 1992, he served as dean of men at St. Charles Borromeo Seminary in Wynnewood, Pa., according to his biography on St. Joseph's website. As the secretary for clergy for the Archdiocese of Philadelphia from 1992 to 2004, Lynn acted as personnel director for priests. He is accused of ignoring reports of abuse, covering up for them and putting children in danger.

"They are anti-Catholic. I'll say it," DiSipio fumed. "[The district attorney is] attacking me as a Catholic!"

The judge rejected DiSipio's claim. "Attack you? You attacked me! You don't even know me!" Hughes said, referring to a prior argument over the necessity of a preliminary hearing, another hotly contested issue Friday afternoon.

"Mr. DeSipio, I suggest you shut up," Hughes said. "People are coming from out of the woodwork [to provide information to the commonwealth.]"

If the government can prove the allegation is credible in 30 days, DeSipio will be disqualified as the archdiocese's attorney.

"You can change lawyers now, you can change lawyers in 30," the judge warned DeSipio's client, the Rev. James Brennan. "[But] there are some conflicts that are not waivable."

DeSipio argued that the 30-day investigation was "really unfair to Father Brennan," given his mounting legal costs.

Judge Hughes was livid that DeSipio spoke up again. "If you open your mouth one more time I am going to have the sheriff take you out of here," she told DeSipio.

As DeSipio continued to argue, Hughes said she might have him "locked up and held in contempt." Instead she issued a gag order, responding to what she observed as attorneys having "gone to the airways to advocate."

"No more interviews with anyone," the judge ruled.

"Does that include the DA going on Chris Matthews' 'Hardball' and going to the New York Times," defense attorney Michael McGovern asked.

The judge responded affirmatively: "I don't want tweets. I don't want Facebook. I don't want IMs [instant messages]."

Hughes said the court will revisit the gag order on April 15, when defendants are to be arraigned. That date also marks the deadline for the DA to provide the defense with the first batch of discovery, she said.

All but one of the defense attorneys challenged the government's amendment to its case, which added a conspiracy charge that had not explicitly been requested of the grand jury.

"The issue here is that if the DA seeks to amend, it has to be subject to some sort of prima facie determination," the defense argued.

The judge found otherwise, ruling that the commonwealth established "good cause" in its pleadings and that "there is no constitutional right - federal or state - for a preliminary hearing."

It was "a technical error on the commonwealth not to charge conspiracy" originally, Hughes said. "Conspiracy is made," and the defendants will not be afforded a preliminary hearing, she ruled.

Hughes said there was abundant evidence to support the amendment.

"I'm the only person, besides the prosecutors, who has seen every stitch of evidence," she said.

Defense attorney McGovern argued that her admission was precisely the problem.

"Your Honor, this is patently unfair!" McGovern said. "You know the evidence. They know the evidence. I don't know what the evidence is! I haven't seen any!"

The attorney said proceeding to trial without a preliminary hearing was like saying, "Let's have a dart game in a dark room."

"What kind of country is this where we have this?" he shouted.

The judge yelled back, baring her teeth: "You sit down! Sit, sit, sit!"

DeSipio agreed with McGovern that their clients deserve a preliminary hearing, which could allow them to confront their accusers.

"There's no witness. I know that they [the prosecutors] don't like that he's in jail," DeSipio said. "This accuser says there was an erect penis in his buttocks."

"Was it in your buttocks, or was it in your anus," he asked rhetorically. "If that question wasn't asked [of the grand jury], and he didn't specify anus or butt cheeks, I have a right to ask that."

"What you can't do, and what I submit they're trying to do, is say just because we have a grand jury, we have good cause [to by-pass a preliminary hearing]," DeSipio said.

The judge also addressed a potential conflict of interest concerning Monsignor Lynn, who unlike the three current and former priests, faces child endangerment charges - not rape or sexual assault. Plans for the Archdiocese of Philadelphia to pay Lynn's legal costs present "a whole array of conflicts that I can't even imagine at this point in time," Hughes said.

"It's real simple," the judge said to Lynn, who was donning his clerical collar, "your master is the person that's putting bread on the table."

"It may be in your best interest to put forth a defense that attacks other people [or the church]," Hughes said.

She told Lynn he was putting himself in the position of receiving "advice from people who are being paid by people whose interests don't necessarily align with yours."

The stakes of this gamble could amount to "14 years of incarceration versus probation," she said.

Lynn, in a calm voice, declined. "Well, I trust these two men." he said, adding that the church hadn't placed any conditions on the payment of his legal costs.

Hughes was incredulous. "You are making a knowing, voluntary and intelligent decision to place yourself in conflict with your attorneys?" she asked.

"I am," Lynn responded, waiving his right to any future appeal based on the argument that his attorneys had a conflict of interest.

"Then we're moving forward," the judge said.

After arraignments and release of the first batch of discovery, which will include grand jury notes and testimony, on April 15, the government will begin putting together a second batch. The government said that batch would take longer to produce, as it will include roughly 10,000 pages of documentation, much of which will need to be redacted.

Hughes said the government must give the defense a specific timeline for the production of the second batch. "There has to be some finality," she said.

In January, a grand jury returned an indictment for rape and sexual assault against one current priest, one defrocked priest and one man who taught at a Catholic school. Monsignor Lynn, the third cleric who worked for the archdiocese as secretary of clergy, is accused of giving known abusers easy access to minors.

[WPaCon]

I don't recall God ever saying this:

Then use your power with the demons. Don't jump to conclusion that they will listen - and if they know you don't have the authority and power from above, they could beat you senseless.

[presently no screen name]

Interesting that you thought immediately of the non-Christian ambition with demons ~ to use them against others.

WHAT are you talking about? Are you mind reading WRONGLY again. You make no sense.

Since "word magic" and the use of demons are NON EXISTENT

Where did this 'word magic' come from - right out of your hat?

My thought was simply that some here would really like to dispose of the demons who help a certain crowd on this thread.

WOW! You are all over the place, in a short few posts it went from sermons, to eternity, to jumping to conclusions, to demons, to your thoughts that make no sense. It's either you or me that needs some rest - in either case, I'll be the one to say good night.

[presently no screen name]

Of course you didn’t know. Like you don’t know His Words are in quotes. Right, WPaCon. Nothing like finishing the night off with that nonsense.

[tioga]

so, I won’t listen to you either. enough said

[WPaCon]

You said you posted God’s Word and that I was questioning it. I was pointing out that not everything you posted was Scripture.

[WPaCon]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2696138/posts

Penance or pretending to be conservative?

[Dr. Eckleburg]

What a truly idiotic comment you’ve made.

You, who says you’ve been on this forum for all of one month.

I’ve been here for a decade, newbie.

[muawiyah]

Quite remarkably your posts have the same style of language and cadence as another couple of posters on this thread.

Or, maybe that's not remarkable at all.

[WPaCon]

What a truly idiotic comment you’ve made.

Not really.

You, who says you’ve been on this forum for all of one month.

I’ve been here for a decade, newbie.

Like that matters

[Dr. Eckleburg]

lol. You guys have to get your stories straight.

In this post...

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2695139/posts?page=1002#1002

WPaCon says the statement you are attempting to refute is a true statement.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

lolol. Well, that’s one way to get out of an awkward error on Lastchance’s part.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Rome is out of step by the authority of God’s word.

That’s all the matters.

[presently no screen name]

Nice to know you attempted to interpret the beat of my posts.

What’s remarkable is your thinking that you know it all. Seems like more minding reading going on than anything else.

[metmom]

pnsn: what makes you think the Holy Spirit is working in a church that TOTALLY DEFIES HIS WORD?

WPC: Of course he doesn't. That's why He doesn't speak through the OPC or whatever church you belong to, whether it be a church with multiple people or the First Church of Presently No Screen Name. But, let's not try to limit the ways in which He works.

On one hand, we're castigated for sola sciptura and not following the traditions of the Catholic church.

On the other hand, we're castigated for defying God's Word.

Well, which is it? Will you guys make up your minds about what you're criticizing and condemning us for?

[MarkBsnr]

Let's see if it's all about Jesus or all about your own created god.

Mark, you way over estimate yourself - I don't have to verify ANYTHING to you; you are basically a nobody - just like any other person when it comes to their opinion or their need to know where I stand. Don't you read my posts? Man's opinion means nothing to me. That must be truly SO DIFFICULT for you to understand because you keep doing it!

Since God's Word is not your Final Authority - you may never get it. It may stem from your belief in man made teachings and your submission to the pope - who knows and really I don't care. If you don't, why should I. Good night.

Sigh. It is all about their own personal created god. If they don't like God's word, they just claim that it doesn't apply to them. You guys claim final authority of Scripture and simply ignore most of it and claim it doesn't apply to you. What little you keep, you guys redefine as something totally different. Same as the Creeds - many of you guys don't profess the Nicene Creed, or some of it, and redefine the rest of it away.

Some Final Authority. You guys are like the Marx Brothers in the contract scene in Night at the Opera. You start out with a full Bible:

and find that there are some things that you don't like about it:

and finish up with just enough paper to call it a Bible:

Anyone who declares that the words of Jesus are not for them cannot be Christian.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

I pray for your conversion and a healing for your psyche.

I don't need conversion. Mercifully the Holy Spirit has brought me to the truth of Scripture.

And my psyche is just fine, thanks.

As long as we're concerning ourselves with each others' welfare, I'll hope you are led from the darkness of Rome into the light of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

[lastchance]

She did not accuse him of assault. Read the news accounts.

[WPaCon]

I was correcting my error.

My error was assuming thinking that you were correct.

Lastchance, you are mentioned in 1,051 without a ping, fyi.

[lastchance]

I made no error. I wrote that Father C was not accused of assault. That statement is true.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

"Flawed methodology" about what???

What fact in the Pew Study is he refuting? What does he disagree with in the study? That over 50% of the US is Protestant or that 24% of the US is Roman Catholic?

I realize for some bizarre reason Mark questions the methodology, but what error has resulted from that methodology?