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.

[HossB86]

When pederasts they are found to be in Protestant churches, they are usually turned over to police authorities, tried and convicted if guilty.

They are not protected, hidden nor promoted, as they are in the RCC.

And further, the cases you cite are from a dozen states.

37 Roman Catholic priests suspected of pederasty in one city in one diocese.

Game. Set. Match.

Hoss

[Dr. Eckleburg]

37 Roman Catholic priests suspected of pederasty in one city in one diocese.

Game. Set. Match.

It would sure seem that way to adult minds. Adults with children to raise and protect. Adults who wouldn't hand over their children to men who have forsaken a wife and children of their own but who instead prefer the company of other men. And boys.

[HossB86]

The man with the cat pictures has showed up.

Cat pictures are usually posted by girls, Mark.

Riot! That'll leave a mark, Doc.

:D

Hoss

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Here are some eye-opening statistics, thanks to Daniel1212, regarding just who is liberal and who is not...

56% of Catholics believe that sexual relations between two adults of the same gender is not a sin. 2011 Public Religion Research Institute http://www.publicreligion.org/research/?id=509 http://www.publicreligion.org/objects/uploads/40/Catholics_and_LGBT_issues_2010_FINAL.pdf
#

39% Catholics say homosexual behavior is morally wrong, versus 76% of white evangelicals and 66% of black Protestants. ^
#

52% of black Protestants and 58% of white evangelical Protestants oppose any form of legal recognition for same-sex couples.^
#

74% of Catholics agree that homosexual relationships should be accepted by society. (Among the general public 62% say that gay and lesbian relationships should be accepted by society.) ^
#

69% of Catholics disagree that homosexual orientation can be changed, versus 23% who believe that they can change. ^
#

43% of Catholics favor allowing homosexual people to marry — 71% if this would be a civil marriage “like you get at city hall” (versus in a church) — while 31% of Catholics favor allowing them to form civil unions, with 22% holding there should be no legal recognition of a homosexual couple’s relationship. Catholic support of legal recognition of homosexual relationships is higher than members of any other Christian tradition polled, and of Americans overall. ^
#

Without distinguishing what kind of marriage, 53% of Catholics overall affirm that homosexual couples should be allowed to marry. ^
#

27% of Catholics who attend church services regularly say their clergy speak about the issue of homosexuality, with 63% of this group saying the messages they hear are negative. ^
#

Only 26% of Catholics who attend services weekly or more favor allowing homosexual people to marry, compared to 43% of Catholics who attend once or twice a month, and 59% of Catholics who attend a few times a year or less. Only 20% of Catholics reported attending mass only once or twice a month. ^
#

Only 31% of weekly attenders say there should be no legal recognition for a gay couples relationship. ^
#

73% of Catholics favor laws that would protect homosexual people against discrimination in the workplace. ^
#

63% of Catholics favor allowing gay and lesbian people to serve openly in the military, while 60% favor allowing gay and lesbian couples to adopt children. ^
#

48% of white evangelical Protestants oppose letting homosexuals serve openly in the military, with 34% supporting this proposal, versus 63% of Catholics (66% of white) supporting and 23% opposing. Pew forum, November 29, 2010, http://pewforum.org/uploadedFiles/Topics/Issues/Gay_Marriage_and_Homosexuality/gays%20in%20military%20full%20report.pdf
#

White evangelicals are most satisfied with their church’s handling of homosexuality, with 75 percent giving it an `A’ or a `B.’ Catholics are the most critical, with nearly a third — twice as many as any other group — giving their church a `D’ or `F.’ Oct. 2010 Poll sponsored by the Public Religion Research Institute and the Religion News Service. http://thepulpit.freedomblogging.com/2010/10/22/survey-links-gay-bullying-to-religion/7682/

Thirty-one percent of Catholics called celibacy a major factor leading to sexual abuse, while another 28 percent called it a minor factor. Thirty-five percent said celibacy did not play a part in the abuse.

Thirty percent, meanwhile, said homosexuality played a major role. An additional 23 percent said it played a minor role. Thirty-seven percent said it was not a factor. http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/poll_catholics_050410_2pm.pdf

[buccaneer81]

54% of Roman Catholics voted for Obama

That lie has been exposed and other posters have explained how the media came up with that false number, but you side with the leftist MSM just the same.

Hmmm.

[Dr. Scarpetta]

many Catholics have decided to ignore the anti-Christians during Lent. Let them stew in their hate and bigotry against Christ and his Church.

I am very sad you feel this way. I am a Christian, and I love my young grandchildren, ages 1 and 3. I support the fact that a pastor, teacher, or coach should be investigated or prosecuted for sexually assaulting a child. That pastor, teacher, or coach should not be transferred to another town and allowed to assault other children.

[WPaCon]

I’m Catholic and I totally agree with your post.

[Dr. Scarpetta]

Thank you...

[Puddleglum]

pathetic is a term I would reserve for a denial that America is an abulance-chasing society. Your selective quoting of my reply is also pathetic, but predictable. I have no problem doubling down on my request to wait and see - it is a call for fue process, not a bet on the outcome. Also, I don’t recall saying “they all do it” or accusing anyone of anti-Catholic bigotry. Does your misrepresenting of my argument violate any rules of this forum?

[WPaCon]

That picture is nice, but as a Catholic, I prefer my cats to be homosexual.

[WPaCon]

Does your misrepresenting of my argument violate any rules of this forum?

I'm not sure, but keep in mind that some people get special protection on this site.

[MarkBsnr]

This batch are all Presbyterians.

If they were allowed to marry, none of this would happen and they would be full of the Christian love of God almighty and full of Christian charity to their fellow men...

...reserving their deepest reserves of Christian love for Quakers, Baptists, and Catholics...

such as Michael Wigglesworth (when he wasn't writing about his male students, he wrote this):

Oddly enough, even though he married, he didn't consummate the marriage. No matter, at least he was married. Hmm, so was James VI of Scotland, who became James I of England, and was a public catamite (even though he actually did father children) and wrote the KJV. So the ones who disapprove of homosexuality with adults and children lionize somebody that did it publically and believe that his political Bible is the best English Bible that ever existed.

Oh yes, where were we? Christian love for all men...

[WPaCon]

“Riot! That’ll leave a mark, Doc.

:D”

It looks like you’re reveling in someone being insulted. That’s not normally considered Christian behavior.

[WaterBoard]

That is because the majority of cases of child rape by priests outlived the statute of limitations in many states so prosecutors can’t bring cases.

However, in this case there is evidence of collusion among the child rapist priests and church leadership to cover up their deeds.

These gay priests are destroying the church and pretending that it does not exist in face of daily revelations is like burying your head in the sand.

[buccaneer81]

Spectacular post!

[MarkBsnr]

Cat pictures are usually posted by girls, Mark.

What do harpies usually post?

[Palladin]

I love Judge Renee for telling that sappy defense attorney to “SHUT UP!”

Like the judge, I have had it with defenders of these monsters. They raped little boys—anally and orally.

There is no defense.

Large millstone—deep sea. That’s what the child rapists deserve. That’s what Jesus said.

[stevem]

Just wondering if you're a priest...

Nope. I went into the seminary in ninth grade. In those days most of the lasses I knew up close and personal were shaped like pencils. By twelfth grade that had all changed, and pheromones filled the air. It was pretty clear to me that celibacy wasn't in the cards.

My freshman class had about a hundred a hundred lads. The total at graduation was thirty one young men. Two of those were eventually ordained. It says right here neither of those two ever abused a youth of any gender. I know them both and consider them friends.

My personal experience tells me only a tiny percent of priests make life miserable on the rest and on Catholics in general.

Even though I might argue an adjustment in Catholic rules might be worth the discussion, I feel it's sophistry to argue that Catholic rules engender evil. There are entirely too many adults in non-priestly functions who commit the same heinous acts to blame it all on Catholic rules.

I left the seminary and joined the military in a short time. That was during the Vietnam era. At that point I was accused of being a baby killer. I never killed a baby in my life. I've known hundreds of military men and women. My son is a Navy pilot. I've never known a single military man or woman who killed a baby. I s'pect in the history of the United States some have.

If you can argue that Catholic rules make priests pederasts, you can argue military rules make military people baby killers. I think both arguments are a bit of s stretch. Same with saying Catholic rules attract pederasts.

Pederasts are all around us. Many of them aren't even Catholic.