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.

The concern that non-catholics have when news such as this come out is that the Catholic church hasn’t done a good enough job of weeding out the evil priests who perform the criminal acts, but even worse - they maintain a culture of keeping these incidents internal instead of involving the proper authorities.

The arguement that other groups, such as schools and protestant churches have evil leaders who prey on children doesn’t address the second concern, which is the culture of not involving authorities. If this was just one isolated incident where a local priest was responsible, it would be more understandable. Instead, it is just one of many with a similar pattern: accused priest doesn’t face formal punishment or criminal investigation and church authorities who know about the accusations don’t alert the authorities or punish the priest.

It gives the appearance that church authorities are more concerned with hiding problems with priests rather than dealing with them openly and showing more concern for the victims. The church has said they’ve corrected their mistakes and abuse cases are from the distant past, but this case occurred starting in 1999.

As an aside, I think this is an appropriate prayer for Catholics to pray when coming on threads such as these:

Saint Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle; be our protection against the wickedness and snares of the devil.[...]

That's funny... Roman Catholics seem to spend so much time trying to explain how the only "prayer" that occurs is to God. Thanks for being truthful.

Where are we taught in scripture to pray to anyone other than God?

Hoss

THE BIAS, TO WHATEVER DEGREE IT EXISTS,

IS *ENTIRELY* IN FAVOR OF THE RC'S!

A fairly programmed computer could confirm that.

A fairly constructed atheist ran research study by communications students would verify that.

Y'all's wailing is outrageous and grossly hypocritical.

Just further confirmation that

RC's can't operate in normal reality

without their

RUBBERIZED HISTORIES,
RUBBERIZED PSEUDO-'BIBLES,'
DAFFYNITIONARIES,
IRRATIONAL 'LOGIC' TEXTS,
RUBBERIZED MATH TEXTS,

. . .

And, it just confirms that RC's are soooo thin-skinned that not only are they desperately uncomfortable when FR is not 100% biased in their favor instead of 90%--they can't stand conventional reality in the world at large unless the Vatican has 100% control. Witness all their wailing about the tardy courts finally beginning to deal with their altar boy physical ed classes!

But please, do go on, It make's y'all's absurd whines all the more ridiculous to all the more lurkers.

...accused priest doesn’t face formal punishment or criminal investigation and church authorities who know about the accusations don’t alert the authorities or punish the priest

If the priest is treated by the Church as guilty until proven innocent, they do indeed face official (within the church) recriminations while the incident is being investigated.

As many of these 'incidents' are only coming to light years, sometimes decades, after they allegedly happened, some of this reeks of lawsuit lotto.

I'm not saying that no incidents ever occurred, but consider that the taint of accusation, if unwarranted, not only removes a priest from his current contact with the public, but even if proven false, will follow that priest for the rest of his life. Needless to say, that would be a career wrecker.

Before one goes calling for heads on pikes, consider that this would be an excellent way for someone bent on damaging the Church to proceed, through baseless accusations, to cripple the clergy.

There are those who just might have such motivation, because the Catholic Church will not accept nor perform homosexual marriages, nor will it sanction abortion. When one considers the people who believe their ends justify any means, the abortionists, homosexuals, and others just might employ such tactics.

With the willingness of the media to belabor any accusation, justified or otherwise, it is only prudent that the Church isolate the accused (to prevent any further incidents, if indeed wrongdoing has occurred) and perform its own investigation before calling in authorities, otherwise, the tactic would be entirely effective.

Before one goes calling for heads on pikes, consider that this would be an excellent way for someone bent on damaging the Church to proceed, through baseless accusations, to cripple the clergy.

So now you have the 'motivation' of the law, etc. Talk about baseless accusations.

With the willingness of the media to belabor any accusation, justified or otherwise, it is only prudent that the Church isolate the accused (to prevent any further incidents, if indeed wrongdoing has occurred) and perform its own investigation before calling in authorities, otherwise, the tactic would be entirely effective.

So now the media is belaboring the accusation and totally ignoring what was shown in the 2005 grand jury report of harboring of the RCC. Just what catholics do best - it's someone else's fault. Another liberal tactic.

There are a few biases on the Religion Forum but not what you allege.

When oldtimers are belligerent, I try to be very patient. But when newbies are belligerent, their behavior is logged and they are either banned then and there or else put on the fast track to being banned.

And because this is a Religion Forum, atheists are trolls here. Some atheists are tolerated so the RF preachers will have someone to preach "to." But they will be instructed to leave the RF altogether if they misbehave.

Finally, Free Republic is pro-God meaning pro-Judeo/Christian God. Wiccans, for example, do not have a voice here. And pro-God posts are favored.

Your words make common sense and a true sense of justice for all concerned—the need for right and just punishment for the guilty and also justice for all who are innocent, including priests who have remained faithful to their calling.

It’s over-the-top to paint all priests as homosexuals, as men who are not “normal”. That approach does take on the attributes of the kind of media smearing that is thrown at political conservatives. And it also “brands” all Catholic priests as predators, and all Catholics in the pews as defenders of predators. That is an injustice and a mirror of liberal tactics-—the smearing and the targeting of a particular people.

Perhaps you could provide of list of clergy who have been prosecuted and found to be innocent...

We can see that your religion has been very successful at hiding and protecting these criminal priests and even promoting them to higher positions...Cardinal Law comes to mind...

One can only assume then that for the few who are caught, many, many more are successfully passed thru the system...How many would you think become bishops, cardinals and popes???

By some wild coincidence, each time the freeper was questionably booted of a thread, he/she was Catholic.

Reading the thread, one can't help but think some push the envelope - ignore the rules - it gives them something to whine about instead of staying on topic. This goes on in many threads - so, IMO, it's the catholics only defense - victimhood - control through intimidation.

This is nothing short of the liberal tactic of crying racist in their attempt to shut down an opponent through intimidation. If this were not a conservative site - that tactic would not be so glaringly obvious.

Reading the thread, one can’t help but think some push the envelope - ignore the rules - it gives them something to whine about instead of staying on topic. This goes on in many threads - so, IMO, it’s the catholics only defense - victimhood - control through intimidation.

This is nothing short of the liberal tactic of crying racist in their attempt to shut down an opponent through intimidation. If this were not a conservative site - that tactic would not be so glaringly obvious.

INDEED.

Only on FR, they’ve developed it into an art form . . . a BLACK ART form.

I’m not Alex Murphy......Right now or always?

What difference does it make who the moderator is? What does it have to do with the victims in these cases who have been violated spiritually, emotionally and physically by priests and the RCC harboring them? What does it have to do with catholics, themselves, not coming out in 2005 and vehemently demanding the officials do something about their covering up 'sinful actions' against children? Here, in 2011, it's still looking the other way, change the subject and point the finger.

IMO, catholics share the guilt of harboring, also. Reading the posts - they come against anyone speaking out against evil whether it be the media that reports it, the law who is bringing it to light, posters commenting on it or about victims who may be 'in it to win it'/lotto - and not against where the evil rests. I would say that is more in line with them being 'anti-catholic' than anyone they accuse of it. Anyone with an ounce of brains knows that the finger pointing tactic is not a way to solve anything nor does it give the appearance of wanting to solve anything. Yet, the RCC/Vatican/catholics have not been aggressive in keeping their 'name' worthy of anything - judging by the Grand Jury reports and reading these posts.

Your history is missing some important facts. It was not until the 1200’s under Pope Innocent II that the church rules changed to only prohibit married priests.

1) “For the first 1200 years of the Church’s existence, priests, bishops and 39 popes were married.” - Source: Kelly, J. N. D. Oxford Dictionary of Popes. New York, Oxford Press. 1986.

Your posting is missing some significant facts - I posted from Church councils and from Patristic sources about celibacy - and those excerpts quite clearly mention the fact that many priests and bishops were married, but living a continent lifestyle. The Church certainly did not disdain unmarried priests, but wanted the married ones to be concentrating on God, not on temporal lifestyles. At any rate, why does a misreading of my post supported by the Oxford Dictionary of Popes (an Anglican undertaking) trump my original post supported by quotes from the Vatican paper which is liberally sprinkled with quotes from Patristic and Church sources from the fourth and fifth centuries in support of that post?

2) “Celibacy is not essential to the Priesthood.” - quote Pope John Paul II - Source: Time Magazine. July 1993.

Nobody said that it was.

3) “You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.” St. Peter, the pope who was closest to Jesus, was married.

Yes? And? Many of the Apostles were unmarried and Jesus and Paul both had good things to say about celibacy in the service of God.

Paul was unmarried (and so was Jesus, obviously). Barnabas was unmarried. Scripture is silent on the married status of any of the rest - excepting Peter. The Church from the beginning believed in continency of its clergy and over the centuries, strengthened that belief.

I can understand your defensiveness of your church, but at the same time you and many other catholics seem to diminish known problems of the church. This particular case in Philadelphia is based upon a grand jury, which reviewed very damaging evidence and wrote a blistering report.

Of course, not every allegation is true, but the natural defense mode of the church is dismiss allegations as "lawsuit lotto" instead of appearing to be serious. You say the church should "isolate the accused (to prevent any further incidents, if indeed wrongdoing has occurred) and perform its own investigation before calling in authorities..." but that is exactly the problem. In many cases, the accused priest wasn't removed from ministry and still had plenty of access to new victims. This case in Philadelphia involves Monsignor Lynn who supervised 2 of the abusive priests, but failed to adequately investigate and kept those priests active.

You fail to understand that church leaders, such as Lynn are part of the problem and can't be trusted to perform legitimate investigations. They have a conflict of interest to protect the reputation of the church and not take allegations seriously. The church would have more credability if they immediately involve a third party, such as the police (a novel concept), to perform an adequate investigation.

BTW, does anyone know why Petronski doesn’t post here anymore?

He and I spoke privately about it before he left. He simply got tired of correcting the lies about the Church over and over again. Same lies about the same things over and over. I know that his wife occasionally comes on, but I don't believe that he even monitors FR any more, or if he does, it is very infrequent.

Liberals are clueless - they keep doing the same thing over and over on a conservatives forum and think no one is the wiser to their victimhood, whiny intimidation tactics. They wouldn't do it on DU because there is no one there to convince. In the name of 'religion' they think anything should fly here and one should submit or they are bias. That's the papal authority mindset - no one has salvation except through the RCC and has the smell of Islam - if one converts, there is the threat of death.

Meanwhile there is only ONE we must submit to and that is God as HIS Word is The Final Authority. Something else the Vatican/RCC/catholics do not agree with. IMO, there is no common ground - if the foundation isn't the same - God's Word is The Final Authority - we stand on different ground.

Have a good day, Quix.

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.