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

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."

"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.

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

"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."

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.

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.

More on the history of married priests. Most Catholics have never heard of this.

“Of the numerous synods convoked throughout Europe during the eleventh and twelfth centuries to enforce with rigour the neglected law, the most notable are the First Lateran Council (1123) and the Second Lateran Council (1139), considered as ecumenical in Roman tradition. Lateran I made into general law the prohibition of cohabiting with wives (c. 7). Lateran II, c. 7, reiterating the declaration of the Council of Pisa (1135), also declared marriages contracted subsequent to ordination to be not only prohibited, but non-existent (... matrimonium non esse censemus). At times, this Council is wrongly interpreted as having introduced for the first time the general law of celibacy, with only unmarried men being admitted to the priesthood. Yet what the Council was doing, in a more pointed way, was re-emphasizing the law of continence (... ut autem lex continentiae et Deo placens munditia in ecciesiasticis personis et sacris personis dilatetur...)60 Subsequent legislation, however, continues to deal with questions relating to married men ordained secundum legem, not contra legem.

The principle sources for this legislation are the Quinque Compilationes Antiquae and the decretals of Gregory IX. These decretals form part of the Corpus Iuris Canonici, a work completed in the fourteenth century and which influenced law-making until the appearance of the 1917 Code of Canon Law. From these sources, we learn that from the time of Alexander III (1159-1181) married men were not, as a rule, allowed to have ecclesiastical benefices; a lower cleric who married would have his benefice withdrawn, but not his right to subdiaconate ordination on the condition that he discontinues his marital life. A son of a priest (considered legitimate if born before ordination) was prohibited from succeeding to his father’s benefice. Young wives and the wives of bishops were to agree at the time of ordination to enter a convent.61 The rights of the wife were also protected.

In 1322 Pope John XXII insisted that no one bound in marriage — even if unconsummated — could be ordained unless there was full knowledge of the requirements of Church law. If the free consent of the wife had not been obtained, the husband, even if already ordained, was to be reunited with his wife, exercise of his ministry being barred.62 One of the factors that must have contributed to the eventual universal practice of ordaining only unmarried men would have been the assumption that a wife would not want to give up her marital rights. Hence the irregularitas ex defectu libertatis of a married man, which became a formal impediment (impedimentum simplex) only in the twentieth century with the promulgation of the Codex Iuris Canonici (1917), was not due to the marriage bond per se. It was due to this assumption of unwillingness and inability to separate. From 1917, all cases of dispensation from the impediment were reserved to the Holy See. But those receiving dispensation were not authorized by that fact to continue with marital relations.63

The decretals and other parts of the Corpus Iuris Canonici provided the guidelines for synodal activity, concubinage being a persistent problem for the authorities. Opposition to the law of the Church was not lacking and occasionally well-respected figures argued for a mitigation of the law to help solve the problems of clerical indiscipline (Panormitanus, at the time of the Council of Basle [1417-1437], for example). The example of the practice of the East was given as a precedent, although it is unlikely that there was a proper understanding of this discipline.64 Similar calls for mitigation were heard at the time of the Reformation. They included humanists such as Erasmus, theologians such as Cajetan de Vio, and secular authorities with pragmatic and political aims in mind: Charles V, Ferdinand I, Maximilian II. The crisis precipitated by the Reformers was doctrinal as well as disciplinary. Zwingli and Martin Luther made the abolition of clerical celibacy a key element to their reform, but this was also related to the dismantling of the traditional theology of the sacramental priesthood.

In the third and final period of the Council of Trent (1562-3), and despite considerable pressures, all suggestions that the Catholic Church should modify and mitigate its rules of celibacy were rejected. In Session XXIV on 11 November 1563, the Fathers upheld the prohibition of clerical marriage (c. 9), adding (concerning the difficulties): «For God would not deny the gift to those who duly ask for it (the gift of chastity), nor allow us to be tempted beyond our strength.» They also rejected the thesis that the marital state should be considered better than that of celibacy (c. l0).65 The Council, in Session XXIII, also voted in favour of founding seminaries to prepare candidates from their youth for the celibate life. The discipline of continence by this time had meant in practice that only an unmarried man would be ordained. This is also shown in the discussions of the Council, for example when one theologian, Desiderius de S. Martino, concerned by the shortage of priests, suggested the possibility of ordaining married men provided the wives gave consent and that they and their husbands lived in continence. But the measure was not deemed expedient.66

The decrees of the Council were not immediately accepted in all nations but with time they did bring about a general observance of the law of celibacy, thanks in no small measure to their provisions for the better training of the clergy. The Enlightenment brought fresh assaults against clerical celibacy and after the First Vatican Council, the Old Catholics, separating themselves from Rome, abolished the rule. Despite the pressures on the Catholic Church to relax the law of celibacy, it has always resisted. Pope Benedict XV declared, in his Consistorial Allocution of 16 December 1920, that the Church considered celibacy to be of such importance that it could never abolish it.67 Following Vatican II, the Church has made an exception for married deacons of mature age and for individual former non-Catholic clergymen, following a precedent set by Pope Pius XII.68”

White US Catholics move toward GOP, Hispanic Catholics toward Democrats

Catholic World News ^ | 8/19/2010

Posted on Thursday, August 19, 2010 12:22:04 PM by markomalley

48% of the nation’s Catholics now identify themselves as Democrats, while 43% identify themselves as Republicans, according to a survey released August 19 by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. In 2006, 52% of Catholics identified themselves as Democrats, while 39% identified themselves as Republicans. White and Hispanic Catholics have become increasingly divided on party affiliation. In 2006, 49% of white Catholics and 63% of Hispanic Catholics called themselves Democrats, while 43% of white Catholics and 30% of Hispanic Catholics called themselves Republicans. Four years later, 41% of white Catholics and 71% of Hispanic Catholics call themselves Democrats, while 50% of white Catholics and 22% of Hispanic Catholics called themselves Republicans Among the survey’s other findings (survey results for Catholics did not differ greatly from Americans overall):

* only 37% of Catholics believe that churches should express views on political and social issues (vs. 45% in 2006)

* 64% of Catholics believe it is important for members of Congress to have strong religious beliefs

* 71% of Catholics believe that religion is losing its influence on public life (vs. 61% a year ago)

* 62% of Catholics believe that religion is losing its influence on government leaders (vs. 40% a year ago) A year ago, 51% of Catholics said that President Obama-- who was baptized in the United Church of Christ at the age of 27-- is a Christian, while 10% said he is a Muslim and 36% said they did not know. Only 32% of Catholics now say he is Christian, while 18% say he is Muslim and 46% do not know.

Not the fact that this defense attorney most likely...

Well, which is it? A "fact", or "most likely"?

It is evident that you harbor great emnity toward the Catholic Church from the tenor of what you have written on this thread.

Unlike so many other denominations, the Roman Catholic Church has maintained its stand against homosexual unions, abortion, and a host of other behaviours now welcomed with open arms by other churches or even incorporated openly and willingly into their clergy.

It is written that "none is without sin". So it is for organizations. The Catholic Church fights enemies, new and old, infiltrators in the ranks and those without. That for decades, in their failings, a few members of the church chose to deal with the relatively few problems within the clergy without people like you damning the rest of the members of the Church through 'guilt by association' is not cause to damn those who neither knew about nor approved of the alleged actions of those members of the clergy.

There are queer Republicans, too, but this does not make the Republican Party a rookery of homosexuality, nor does it imply that all Republicans are tolerant of that behaviour.

Presently, any claim of wrongdoing is treated by the church with the presumed guilt of the accused--guilty until proven innocent. Imagine yourself in the same position, where any claim of wrongdoing was treated that way. Imagine the ongoing homosexual assault on the Church using accusations to paralyze the Church.

Apparently, you would be all for that, despite the fact that the Catholic Church is the one major organization on the planet which has stood steadfast in the way of the homosexualists and the abortionists and the pedophiles, in spite of a few infiltrators.

Perhaps you prefer those denominations who have embraced the homosexual abomination and made it policy to have those who embrace (if not actively practice) it preach from the pulpit, who have decided to pollute the Gospel with false doctrine and proclaim it as acceptable, and who have decided to desecrate the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony by performing 'gay marriages'.

I have not researched the number of people who may have been accused of crime later who went to any school I went to at the same time, and would be challenged to name more than a handful of my classmates at any of those schools, even though some of them were pretty small.

That the attorney and the accused were in the same seminary at the same time does not necessarily give cause for recusal/removal.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.