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.

And that last one is the kicker — Mediatrix? Really? Where in scripture did God say this? So..... “

Well, your church is the one which makes the claim to that in the CCC so YOU show us where that appears in Scripture, or admit that the Catholic church is wrong.

Here....http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P2C.HTM

969 "This motherhood of Mary in the order of grace continues uninterruptedly from the consent which she loyally gave at the Annunciation and which she sustained without wavering beneath the cross, until the eternal fulfilment of all the elect. Taken up to heaven she did not lay aside this saving office but by her manifold intercession continues to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation .... Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked in the Church under the titles of Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix."510

So... when you believe or quote a passage of scripture... let’s say John 3:16, then it’s only your opinion that Christ said that if we believe in Him we will have everlasting life? That is opinion?

If God says it, it IS. No opinion about it at all. When God tells us we are to have no other gods before Him, is it a suggestion, or a command? Doesn’t that rate as fact?

If Christ teaches us to pray to the Father, does that mean it’s an opinion only?

Nice, but again, fail.

Well, it can't be "again, fail," since this is the first time I've posted to you on this subject. I guess the best thing I could say with respect to your reply to what I wrote is that you need to learn to read and to respond to what is actually in the text, an ability I've seen is sorely lacking amongst certain Freepers. I do, though, see a lot of reactive reading. The reader sees certain words or phrases, reacts to them in isolation, assumes that his reactions are what the writer was stating or implying and responds to them instead of to what was actually written.

So, read what I wrote and respond to that. You failed to do that about as completely as is possible for anyone to do.

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."

Can you actually READ the stinking article?!?!?!?!

She stated nothing as fact. She never accused him of abusing anyone. She said that she was informed that this MIGHT happen because he MAY have knowledge of the events.

Just where does it say that she said that he was accused of being a child molester? Where does it state that she was *waving a letter around*?

But don't let truth and the facts get in the way of a good agenda.

Like was pointed out: These guys are aping the NYT and other communist-atheist types who understand that if you wish to attack Christ, you must attack the Catholic Church

We had one sleeper leftist called Hank-kerchief who started all threads to set up Catholics versus Protestants. What was strange was even after it was revealed that he was a leftist writer who writes anti-Christian pieces, the familiar band of anti-Catholics (like the thread poster here) still stuck on the thread.

Most rabid anti-Catholics (who keep posting threads attacking Catholicism and keep trying to incite CAtholic-Protestant fights) are just aiming to hurt Christianity as a whole

They have let the mask slip at times and I've realised that these are NOT protestants and just use the cover of "protestantism" to foment discord among Christians.

they will loudly shout out that they are Protestants, yet when Catholics avoid the FR to pray, these people then start threads attacking Wesleyan Methodists, Adventists, Pentecostals, Baptists, Lutherans etc. --> that reveals their true agenda.

These are NOT Protestants. Protestants are our Christian brothers. Lutherans, Anglicans, Methodists, Baptists, Pentecostals and even the non-OPC/PCA Presbyterians worship our Loving Christian God. The real Protestants who believe in Jesus Christ may disagree with us on some points, yet do not resort to the language of hate, but lovingly explain their positions to us and lovingly disagree with us.

The anti-Catholic posters here are not filled with the love of Christ. Rather they are filled with the hate of the enemy.

It is obvious in ever post that they post. They are so utterly consumed with their need to spread bile and hatred that they are blinded by it.

“How can Protestants say that the Church is not trustworthy because it is composed of fallible men, but have no problem with a Book written by fallible men.”

Actually, evangelicals do most universally concur on truths which have been held of old which have sound Scriptural warrant and conflation, such as are expressed in the Apostles Creed, and are foremost adversaries against those who deny such, which are a result of holding men or an office as effectively infallible. And so they also contend against traditions of men which lack such warrant and conflation with Scripture, but are against it.

Thus, is not simply a matter of distrust of men but of holding the RCC as if they are infallible, which claim is based upon their claim to formulaic infallibility, which de facto renders statements infallible (if not necessarily the arguments behind them) when declared in accordance with their infallibly declared (scope and content-based) criteria, including their own claim to be infallible. But which still have need of some interpretation.

Moreover, your logic would require us to submit to the Jews, since it is expressly (versus of Rome) said of them that they were given stewardship of Scripture. (Rm. 3:2;9:4)

The way men of God and writings of God became established as such was by their heavenly qualities, supernatural Divine attestation, and their progressive complementary conflation with each other. And as such became established - most being before Rome’s claim to an infallible magisterium - they became the standard by which further revelation was tested by.

Holding Scriptures as supreme does not negate the teaching magisterium of the church, and in fact it materially establishes it, but it makes it subject to the Scriptures, rather than being the supreme authority on faith and morals, as possessing formulaic infallibility.

And while the Scriptures appeal to fallible human understanding in providing for assurance of truth, (1Jn. 5:13) those who hold Scriptures as supreme cannot claim they are infallible, but can only look to the Scriptures as the only objective, transcendent infallible authority, as they alone are affirmed to be so, (2Tim. 3:15-17) not a church office.

Odd that one of the harpy followers would bring up the words of Jesus; and especially this verse which is the promise that Jesus extends to all men. I thought that you guys preached the gospel of Paul and rejected the Gospel of Jesus as for the Jews only; and that salvation was only for predetermined men, and bulk of humanity, according to the Calvinist God, can just go to hell. Can you expand on this seeming lack of consistency? Or haven't the Calvinist lessons taken? Is the Calvinist load too heavy?

If God says it, it IS. No opinion about it at all. When God tells us we are to have no other gods before Him, is it a suggestion, or a command? Doesn’t that rate as fact?

Jesus says that all men will be Judged by their deeds and their salvation will be rendered to them accordingly. Do you believe in that? Paul says it too, but if you are a Christian, you hold the words of God in higher esteem than words of bishops of the Church, right?

If Christ teaches us to pray to the Father, does that mean it’s an opinion only?

Are you one that believes that one must ONLY pray to the Father? Do you pray in Jesus' Name only? Is it blasphemy to pray to Jesus or the Holy Spirit? Where does your doctrine come from? What is the mechanism by which it has been generated which makes it different from Christian beliefs?

And of course, the demigod J. Gresham Machen understood his followers very well:

But never fear, we have 83 year old busybody females that have no hesitation about instructing men in their faith, regardless of how their god Paul proscribes such deeds:

It is merely the opinion of the sad mad preacher with presently no clue in the Church of one, he has decided for himrself that Christ's teaching in the Church are wrong.

He refuses to acknowledge that he was led to the Bible by someone and someone has taught him the meaning of what he has read. It’s a fact, not one of us is an island when it comes to faith.

He refuses to acknowledge that he learned your creed somewhere and regardless of his Capitalizing every other word, it remains presently his opinion.

I don’t hold that against you and I would never accuse him of following demons for rejecting the tenets of my faith. But, that is what he does to us. It is unconscionable and unChristian to say the least.

So, unless God himself comes down and tells me that presently no screen name is the final and highest authority, I will continue to grasp onto the faith I have found in my own heart to be the true faith .

It is common for those of your ilk to say that I and other Catholics are spoonfed what to believe and what to say in defense of our faith and so that holds no weight with me as your remarks are as predictable as the day is long. It must be too galling to admit that we, like many Catholics here on FR, actually read and think about what we believe and why. We have found that our hearts and minds and souls are with Christ in His Church, Christ’s church, the Catholic Church.

If you, presently no no believe that the Holy Spirit would allow an honest seeker of Him to be led by demons, then you are calling Jesus a liar.

Yes, I use the word hate and it is hate that would cause someone to say that another Christian is demonic for their beliefs just because you happen to disagree with them.

The Catholic church does not own the definition of heresy or have the claim to be able to define it solely, even though I'm sure they'd love to.

It has been thus for 2000 years and it is not going to be given up to a pack of gibbering isolates who cannot from one week to the next figure out what it is that they do believe.

If you wish to define something as Presbyterian, or PCUSA, or PCA heresy, or heresy according to Joe and Mike's bar and salvation palace across the tracks from the welfare office and kitty corner to the crack house, with the tent in the backyard and the Pentecostal prayer hankies sold by the yard, then so be it.

Christian heresies are defined by the Christian authorities, not any Tom, Dick or Calvin who pulls his gaze from his navel just long enough to put an X on a mallfront store lease and start selling prayers from the Pentecostal prayer wheel.

Actually, evangelicals do most universally concur on truths which have been held of old which have sound Scriptural warrant and conflation, such as are expressed in the Apostles Creed

Rot --> which do you agree on?

do you agree on one should believe in something as basic as Jesus was always God (Trinitarian position) or that Jesus Christ was man made God (Oneness PENTECOSTAL Protestant position) or the Angel Michael (Seventh Day Adventist Ellen G White teaching)
do you agree on that there is the REAL Presence of Christ in the Eucharist (Lutheran, some Anglicans, maybe even Methodists), or is it just a symbol (Calvinists)
do you agree on that one MUST talk in tongues (Oneness Pentecostal) to display faith or not?
do you agree on that there should be an episcopate (Lutheran, Anglican) or not (Presbyterians)?
do you agree on that apostolic succession is important (Anglican) or not (others)?
do you agree on that Baptism is for infants and sufficient (Presbyterian etc.) or not (Baptists)?
do you agree on that God pre-damns people to hell (Calvinism) or not (others)?
do you agree on that vestements are ok (or in the silly words of one poster allowing men in dresses and silly hats) (Anglicans, Lutherans, some Methodists, Presbyterians, even Baptists and Pentecostals) or not?
do you agree on that Jesus came only for the salvation of a few (Calvinists) or he was Savior of the world (everyone else)?
do you agree or disagree with soul sleep? (Calvin: "As long as (the soul) is in the body it exerts its own powers; but when it quits this prison-house it returns to God, whose presence, it meanwhile enjoys while it rests in the hope of a blessed Resurrection. This rest is its paradise. On the other hand, the spirit of the reprobate, while it waits for the dreadful judgment, is tortured by that anticipation. . .", Psychopannychia,
do you agree or disagree with worshipping on a Sunday (Presbyterians, Pentecostals etc.) or not (Seventh Day Adventists)
do you agree with the Adventists that one should follow kosher laws or not?
do you believe that we still have spiritual gifts like prophecy amongst us (Pentecostals) or not (Presbyterians)
do you agree with being "slain in the spirit" (Pentecostalism) or not (Presbyterianism, Lutheranism etc)
do you agree on that Regeneration comes through Baptism (Lutheranism) or not (Baptists)
do you agree on that grace can be resisted (Pentecostalism, Lutheranism, Methodism) or not (Calvinism)
do you agree on that baptism is three-fold (Mennonites) or not?
do you agree on that there is no free will (Calvinism) or that man has free will (Mennonites)
do you agree on that it is faith + works (Mennonites: Menno Simons told the followers of Luther and Calvin: “If you wish to be saved, you must walk in the way of the Lord, hear His Word, and obey it. For nothing avails in heaven nor on earth unto salvation, … not even Christ with His grace, merit, blood, and death, if we are not born of God, … if we do not believe His Word sincerely, and if we do not walk in the light and do right. As John says: …>If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie.’” (Complete Writings of Menno Simons, p. 208)) or not?
do you agree on that there is imputed righteousness (Calvinism) or not (Mennonites)

I don’t know why I let myself get drawn in. I had meant to keep a Lenten fast from these style of posts. I’m gonna log out again and keep that intention.

You are right about increased attacks. I get very upset when people equate sexual abuse by clergy and the coverups by Bishops with Catholic teaching. I get very upset when people do not bother with the facts of sexual abuse in other institutions. I get upset when they cut and pste facts to present a completely lopsided view of the crisis.

Why? Because such tactics all allow lies to stand. Yet again we are not allowed to defend ourselves. Even when other take what we write and quote it out of context so it appears to support their arguments we are forbidden from calling them to task.

God bless and remember “the gates of hell shall not prevail.”

Actually, evangelicals do most universally concur on truths which have been held of old which have sound Scriptural warrant and conflation, such as are expressed in the Apostles Creed

Rot -->do you not read what your friends Dr. Eckleburg and GAmecock's groups say about you Pentecostals?


OPC/PCA preaching hatred against Pentecostals	from the OPC doctrinal website {the OPC} sharply contradicts the view popularized today by the neo-Pentecostal movement. In essence this view would have us believe that we can have the same charismatic gifts that we read about in the age of the Apostles - such as prophecy, speaking in tongues, and healing - today. This is a very serious error (of the Pentecostals). In essence it is a result of a failure to grasp the Biblical teaching concerning the history of salvation.
OPC/PCA preaching hatred against Pentecostals and Methodists:	From the opc doctrinal website: . Are Arminian (Methodists, Pentecostals, Baptist etc) preachers heretics? yes . Is Arminianism (Methodism, Pentecostalism, Baptists) a damnable heresy? Yes. . the teachings of Arminianism are contrary to Scripture, they are manifestly false. They are serious perversions of the gospel of Jesus Christ "we see the inherent Satanism of Free-Will Arminianism" (accusing Methodists, Pentecostals, etc. who disagree with Calvin of preaching a gospel of Satan

Maybe we can ask Gamecock if he agrees with the statement (click the link): "This goes to what the Reformers taught; that is the "enthusiasts" or what we call today Pentecostals, are really no different from the Roman Catholics

Or maybe you agree with Dr. Eckleburg when she says that The problem with non-denominational churches is that there's nothing to stop the congregation from deciding to become Mormon or Unitarian, etc.
There is something to be said for a diagonal form of church structuring, like the Presbyterians -- organized by a representative group of congregants. This actually strengthens the Christian imperative rather than dilutes it as so many non-denominational churches tend to do.

Do you agree with them on these two things?

Isn't it strange that these folks say that Christ came only for a few? They deny Christ's very words

Christ seems to be their milk. It is Isaiah and Paul which is their meat. And only snippets thereof.

Once they have self-identified as the selected elite elect for no reason whatsoever, except that they have a Gnostic revelation, they make their own created God beholden to them to accept their own promise to themselves of salvation; and sneer at and shun all others since the God that they have created will not save anybody else.

Since all others are going to hell, they feel free to post their opinions (which they consider to be facts) of all those who do not subscribe to their rather odd and unChristian beliefs of self-salvation:

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.