That is my understanding as well.
Posted on 03/26/2011 12:59:03 PM PDT by 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.
Your implication was that celibacy was the norm for priests from the beginning of the Church, was it not?
That’s is not a misreading of your post, but a deception on your part not wholly supported by Vatican historical accounts (e.g Council of Pisa in 1135).
1074-Pope Gregory VII said anyone to be ordained must first pledge celibacy: ‘priests [must] first escape from the clutches of their wives.’
1095-Pope Urban II had priests’ wives sold into slavery, children were abandoned. (The Synod of Melfi under Pope Urban II in 1089 imposed slavery on the wives of priests.)
(Interesting side note on Vatican history:
The legitimacy of slavery is incorporated in the Corpus Iuris Canonici, promulgated by Pope Gregory IX which remained official law of the Church until 1913. Canon lawyers worked out four “just titles” for holding slaves: slaves captured in war, persons condemned to slavery for a crime; persons selling themselves into slavery, including a father selling his child; children of a mother who is a slave. )
You wrote: “Thus has it been almost from the beginning of Church history. Your statement is wrong. “
This was not the case. Celibacy did not become a requirement until 12 centuries later.
I for one believe priests should be celibate as you can not serve God in that vocation and a wife/family at the same time.
So, what is the consistent pattern here ~ is it that one organization builds a barrier and another doesn't? Or is it something more subtle ~ maybe EASE OF ACCESS for adults into the organization?
It's possible for adult pedophiles (who haven't got a track record of criminal convictions) to possibly enter the Scout leadership ranks ~ but it's pretty obviously difficult for adults to enter the ranks of RCC priests (who, unless transferring in from the Episcopals are ordinarily quite young).
Maybe that factor is what has turned the pedophile enablers in Philadelphia to targeting both the Boy Scouts and the RCC. They sought to force Boy Scouting to open the doors ~ and at the same time they simply sought to force competitors out of the ranks of the priests ~ perchance thinking that the fewer competitors in an organization already seriously short of priests they themselves might find other routes of access open to them to get at the Catholic children. If not choirboys, then CYO football!
Hope you don't think I'm trying to hijack the thread, but Catholicism isn't the real burning issue here ~ it's more about WHAT'S REALLY UP IN PHILADELPHIA?
Not the law, but the media. In case you haven't noticed, those venues are a hotbed of liberalism, and have been pushing both (not only unlimited, but taxpayer funded) abortion and the homosexual agenda. They'd love to shut down the Church, because it is in the way of both.
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.
If you reread my statement, you will see I said the media will belabor ANY report (justified or not).
If justified, let the chips fall where they may.
If not, you end up with the press burning an innocent priest at the stake of public opinion, a stigma which will follow them the rest of their life, and before any investigation is conducted. What happened to innocent until proven guilty?
One does not get to be a priest by taking courses at a correspondence divinity school while driving truck, rather it is an involved process taking a few years. The liberals are not beyond fighting a war of attrition to advance their agenda.
Just what catholics do best - it's someone else's fault.
If you knew anything about Catholicism, you would know the sacrament of Reconcilliation, which requires reflection on one's own faults and shortcomings. It is all about personal accountability to God for our actions. Apparently, you know little of that which you demean.
Another liberal tactic
Sure is. I had thought the secular humanists were the champions of such tactics, but perhaps I err.
With 25% of the electorate, it was the Catholics that elected Obama? What were the Protestants doing? Sitting at home on their thumbs? Protestant voters moved to the Democrats in 2008 over 2004 in about the same percentage as Catholics moved to the Democrats.
This is bad news for our country. For every one person who joins the RCC, four Roman Catholics leave the RCC. The RCC in this country is bleeding members. The membership statistics for RCs in this country remain flat because this exodus of Roman Catholics from the RCC is only offset by the huge influx of Hispanics.
Flat? The Catholic Church is growing. The Protestants are shrinking. In total numbers, as well as percentages. When do you, for instance, anticipate your telephone booth cult to be dropped in the dustbin of history due to lack of members? Your precious OPC is shrinking appreciably - and if all the members were gathered together, they wouldn't make a good crowd at a hockey game. Same as all the rest of Protestant USA.
And if the Catholics were such an enemy of American society, why are all of the Catholics (67%) and all of the Jews (33%) appointed to the US Supreme Court by Protestant Presidents with the result that there are no Protestants on the Supreme Court? Could it be that the current generation of Protestants are simply not up to the task?
That is my understanding as well.
Not so. While some mainstream Protestant churches are shrinking (the Episcopal Church, for example), nondenominational Protestant churches are the fastest-growing churches in the U.S. They're growing by leaps and bounds. (They're also experiencing huge growth in places like China.)
For some reason--because it's easier, maybe?--nondenominational churches are often left out of church statistics.
As Chuck Smith recommending abortion to someone who called the radio program he was on proves, the current generation of Protestants can't be counted on to have the same standards of right and wrong from one day to the next. After all, it doesn't really matter to them if they're wrong since quoting a single verse of Scripture makes their sins invisible just like their church and their church membership are invisible.
None of those who are working so hard to expand the invisible church want you to send them invisible money, though. While their morals may vary from day to day, their understanding of economics never waivers.
As Father [fill in the blank--pick any child molester] proves, the current generation of Catholic priests can't be counted on to have the same standards of right and wrong from one day to the next.
Want to trade broad brushes? We can pain each others' houses.
I brought my magnifying glass, but the subject of study was beyond it its focal ability. I suppose I shall have to bring a scanning electron microscrope if I am to have any hope.
Keep trying.
I will, but it is difficult to communicate with stone age savages whose idea of higher mathematics is counting one, two, three, many...
I doubt the leaders encourage child molestation but they sure do a lot of paying off and sweeping under the rug and transferring sick priests.
Sad...incredible really.
Where I grew up I knew a lot of Catholic kids...in the South they are a minority and mostly French, Italian or Lebanese-Syrian or Irish...I had some in my extended family by marriage as does my wife. I never heard of bad priests from them but they did talk about mean nuns at school.
It just looks very very ugly and gives so much ammo to folks who hate Christians which includes most liberals here.
I'm telling ya...God has a place for these monsters and they ain't gonna like it.
Besides the Church not handling it right..often..not always...what is just is bad is the collusion of neither the church or our culture calling it for what it is...a basic homosexual problem.
What percentage of the crimes are done by heterosexual priests?
when we see one folks go wow same as they do when some crime one usually associates with blacks or latinos is found out to be a cracker for a change...
this is just another symptom of our malignant culture in decline and denial
it does stand to reason that any office or job that gives one access to kids would attract perverts...camp counselors, school teachers, church outreach and so forth..which does make Priesthood maybe a nice sanctuary from which to indulge
Does anyone know historical perspective on this from over the centuries?
I would bet the penalties in older times were pretty serious and maybe a deterrent..like fire and the rack..that sort of fun.
No, it was not; it was encouraged and increasingly strongly. The references I posted included bishops such as Augustine who lived with their wives continently.
That’s is not a misreading of your post, but a deception on your part
I posted excerpts from a Vatican document quoting early Church writings and Patristic writings. I do not deceive and don't appreciate being accused of it.
1074-Pope Gregory VII said anyone to be ordained must first pledge celibacy: ‘priests [must] first escape from the clutches of their wives.’
Nice quotes. Celibacy was initially encouraged, not mandatory; and I said that the belief strengthened especially in the West over time.
1095-Pope Urban II had priests’ wives sold into slavery, children were abandoned. (The Synod of Melfi under Pope Urban II in 1089 imposed slavery on the wives of priests.)
Not that I'd doubt your accuracy, but would you happen to have a reference for this claim?
The legitimacy of slavery is incorporated in the Corpus Iuris Canonici, promulgated by Pope Gregory IX which remained official law of the Church until 1913. Canon lawyers worked out four “just titles” for holding slaves: slaves captured in war, persons condemned to slavery for a crime; persons selling themselves into slavery, including a father selling his child; children of a mother who is a slave. )
Also interesting in terms of its veracity. Do you have a link for this? Please also note that in terms of slaveholding, very few Catholics ever held slaves in the US - it was a predominantly Protestant practice.
You wrote: “Thus has it been almost from the beginning of Church history. Your statement is wrong. “ This was not the case. Celibacy did not become a requirement until 12 centuries later.
Look up my posts. I never claimed that it was a requirement.
I for one believe priests should be celibate as you can not serve God in that vocation and a wife/family at the same time.
That is how the Church leans. Priests are encouraged to be celibate and bishops must be.
LOL. What thread have you been reading? That's the stock and trade of half of those who post here.
The information in your post bears out my feelings about religious threads on FR.
I'm from the class of '98 and for every year I've been here I've watched with almost hypnotic horror the hate, divisiveness, name-calling, bigotry, ousters, departures and obsessiveness engendered by the religious threads. I have seen with incredulity anti-and pro-Morman threads rage on almost daily during the decade-plus I've been her, threads forever driven by seemingly-obsessed folks on both sides. Pro-and-anti-Catholic threads follow in a close second.
Attack, attack!
A special religion-debate category is the only thing I feel is absolutely out-of-place on FR. I abhor what is does to and by freepers in the name of religious "debate". A couple years ago, a "wolf pack" of adherents actually roamed the religious threads attacking those with a certain view, doing it with impunity, and the "abuse" button became the only recourse.
I'm always a jealous adherent and "protector" of the image of FR. The divisive, obsessive, venom-filled content that fill the religious threads appalls me as a proud freeper. Since continuation of the ugly, never-ending religious skirmishes and battles apparently are permanently established as an integral part of FR under management decision, the venom, fights, ugliness and obsessiveness of those who actually appear to live and thrive on attacking other religions and their adherents will undoubtedly continue to entrance and fascinate readers here, like watching train wrecks.
It also repels others.
Of course, no one has to participate or even read the threads, and I suspect many if not most don't because of the eye-glazing nastiness and snarky babble.
Religious NEWS is an integral part of the world scene today. Such NEWS can and must be disseminated and discussed, of course. Whether or not the subject can be handled in a better, less divisive and fractious way on FR is above my pay grade. There's a distinction between debating religious news and the discussions degenerating into ugly personal attacks on posters and their personal faiths.
But, to further reply to your post, Mark, I suspect that FR's religious battlefields have resulted in not a few wounded and permanently departed like your freeper friend.......casualties of the endless, hateful, divisive religious wars on this forum.
Leni
Of courwe you are right WPACon. Of course that will be denied.
I want all evidence to be presented as allowed in law. If that evidence leads to the finding of facts and from that the jury releases a guilty verdict so be it. However the judge is way out of line. Most people do not know that appeals are based on violations of findings of law not on what the jury has decided. This segment of the article:
“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.”
In my opinion tells me that if this Judge proceeds over the case an argument for appeal will be made upon any conviction and that conviction will likely be overturned.
She is an ass and her behavior is endangering the case. IF that happens the victims will be the losers.
But their self-salvation is very publicly announced and woe betide anyone who dares question them about whether God will honour their own determination of salvation.
None of those who are working so hard to expand the invisible church want you to send them invisible money, though. While their morals may vary from day to day, their understanding of economics never waivers.
When your moral beliefs begin in your belly, and your doctrines are written by the fight that you had with your wife, or whether the boss demoted you, or whether the grass has weeds in it, what do you expect?
“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.”
You are right. It is also the concern of faithful Catholics. It is also the conccern of those who see cover up of sexual abuse in other institutions such as public schools.
However there is a distinct number of people on Free Republic who use this scandal and its horrors to condemn everything about the Catholic Church even its dogmas. They are never concerned about sex abuse victims except for those who were victims of priests. They don’t care about other institutions shuffling abusers and covering up abuse. They are not even willing to admit that perhaps in some instances false accusations have been made. Though som.accusers have admitted such and withdrawn their complaints.
Everything is not about the wrongs done by clergy and bishops. It is about hating Catholicism and hoping and praying that this crisis will lead the the Church’s downfall and her silence.
There are two groups who embrace this idea. The first is the liberal secularists who hate the Church’s defense of life and Christian morality. The second is those rabid, vitrolic Protestants who hate Catholicism and Catholics. Guess who the group on FR are???
Not so. While some mainstream Protestant churches are shrinking (the Episcopal Church, for example), nondenominational Protestant churches are the fastest-growing churches in the U.S. They're growing by leaps and bounds. (They're also experiencing huge growth in places like China.)
For some reason--because it's easier, maybe?--nondenominational churches are often left out of church statistics.
ALL of the mainline Protestant churches are shrinking. All of them around the world, with the possible exception of the Anglicans in Africa.
Do you have any non denominational church statistics to bear out your claim? And do you have any stats as to how many of these non denominational churches actually remain Christian to go along with these claims? There are many non denominationals here who are overtly non Christian - the Gospel of Christ is for Jews only; we can only pray to Jesus; there is no Trinity, only Jesus/Jehovah with a mechanical windup Holy Spirit sent on missions; modalism, Nestorianism; Gnosticism; Paulicianism; and all manners of reversion back to first millennium heresies. We have all kinds of New Age Gaia worship and spiritualism in the Episcopalian and ELCA and similarly inclined non denominational churches. And so on, and so on.
This is possibly the first Christian writing that we have - it was written by St. Luke (who wrote his Gospel and Acts, and accompanied St. Paul in many of his travels). This is Christianity, not the inventions of the children of the Reformation.
There is an anti-Muslim bias, but it is reasonable, considering the fact that Islam is the enemy of our civilization.
There is also an anti-Mormon bias and anti-Catholic bias.
I wouldn’t even comment on the Arian, Albigensian, and Nestorian, biases because there’s no one that subscribes to those beliefs.
But there are no anti-Calvin and anti-Jewish biases.
Agreed, agreed and agreed. I've been able to make personal contact with several individuals who came on as completely hostile to Catholics and we now have a good and understanding relationship off the threads. But only a handful among so many. The religious news on FR is better than most, if not all, large news outlets in the world, thanks to individuals such as Salvation and NYer who bring so much to our community.
But, to further reply to your post, Mark, I suspect that FR's religious battlefields have resulted in not a few wounded and permanently departed like your freeper friend.......casualties of the endless, hateful, divisive religious wars on this forum.
There are a few I could name that fit that. I am sorry to have seen them leave (both Catholic and non Catholic). They, each of them, had their significant contributions to the FR RF.
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.