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

Courthouse News Service ^ | March 25, 2011 | Reuben Kramer

[Dr. Eckleburg]

At an intensely combative and vitriolic hearing Friday afternoon in a sex-abuse case that has shaken the Philadelphia Archdiocese to its core, a state court judge shocked one priest's defense attorney by disclosing that the government thinks he might be a witness as a former seminarian and could be disqualified from the case. The lawyer, who represents one of three current and former Roman Catholic priests charged with raping boys in their parish, fired back that prosecutors were being "anti-Catholic" and had uttered an "abomination."

Judge Renee Cardwell Hughes told defense attorney Richard DeSipio that she's received information that "might make you, in fact, a witness because of events that occurred while you were a seminarian."

The information "stems from the fact that you attended the seminary with a student who asserts he was abused," Hughes said, adding that DeSipio "may possess factual knowledge about abuse that occurred with that student."

She added that the substance of the claim that DiSipio witnessed something is still unclear. "I just don't know if it's true," Hughes said. "I really don't know if it's true."

Yelling and visibly upset, DeSipio demanded that the government, then and there, identify the source of the allegation. "Let them spill it out right now!" DeSipio demanded.

"How dare they send you a letter about that," DeSipio said, referring to the district attorney's office. "That's an abomination."

Prosecutors said only that part of DeSipio's seminary training overlapped with the tenure of a senior clergyman accused of endangering children by failing to protect them from priests with a known history of abuse.

Monsignor William Lynn, now pastor of St. Joseph Church in Downingtown, Pa., is reportedly the highest-ranking member of the Roman Catholic Church in the United States ever to be charged with child endangerment. Between 1984 and 1992, he served as dean of men at St. Charles Borromeo Seminary in Wynnewood, Pa., according to his biography on St. Joseph's website. As the secretary for clergy for the Archdiocese of Philadelphia from 1992 to 2004, Lynn acted as personnel director for priests. He is accused of ignoring reports of abuse, covering up for them and putting children in danger.

"They are anti-Catholic. I'll say it," DiSipio fumed. "[The district attorney is] attacking me as a Catholic!"

The judge rejected DiSipio's claim. "Attack you? You attacked me! You don't even know me!" Hughes said, referring to a prior argument over the necessity of a preliminary hearing, another hotly contested issue Friday afternoon.

"Mr. DeSipio, I suggest you shut up," Hughes said. "People are coming from out of the woodwork [to provide information to the commonwealth.]"

If the government can prove the allegation is credible in 30 days, DeSipio will be disqualified as the archdiocese's attorney.

"You can change lawyers now, you can change lawyers in 30," the judge warned DeSipio's client, the Rev. James Brennan. "[But] there are some conflicts that are not waivable."

DeSipio argued that the 30-day investigation was "really unfair to Father Brennan," given his mounting legal costs.

Judge Hughes was livid that DeSipio spoke up again. "If you open your mouth one more time I am going to have the sheriff take you out of here," she told DeSipio.

As DeSipio continued to argue, Hughes said she might have him "locked up and held in contempt." Instead she issued a gag order, responding to what she observed as attorneys having "gone to the airways to advocate."

"No more interviews with anyone," the judge ruled.

"Does that include the DA going on Chris Matthews' 'Hardball' and going to the New York Times," defense attorney Michael McGovern asked.

The judge responded affirmatively: "I don't want tweets. I don't want Facebook. I don't want IMs [instant messages]."

Hughes said the court will revisit the gag order on April 15, when defendants are to be arraigned. That date also marks the deadline for the DA to provide the defense with the first batch of discovery, she said.

All but one of the defense attorneys challenged the government's amendment to its case, which added a conspiracy charge that had not explicitly been requested of the grand jury.

"The issue here is that if the DA seeks to amend, it has to be subject to some sort of prima facie determination," the defense argued.

The judge found otherwise, ruling that the commonwealth established "good cause" in its pleadings and that "there is no constitutional right - federal or state - for a preliminary hearing."

It was "a technical error on the commonwealth not to charge conspiracy" originally, Hughes said. "Conspiracy is made," and the defendants will not be afforded a preliminary hearing, she ruled.

Hughes said there was abundant evidence to support the amendment.

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

Defense attorney McGovern argued that her admission was precisely the problem.

"Your Honor, this is patently unfair!" McGovern said. "You know the evidence. They know the evidence. I don't know what the evidence is! I haven't seen any!"

The attorney said proceeding to trial without a preliminary hearing was like saying, "Let's have a dart game in a dark room."

"What kind of country is this where we have this?" he shouted.

The judge yelled back, baring her teeth: "You sit down! Sit, sit, sit!"

DeSipio agreed with McGovern that their clients deserve a preliminary hearing, which could allow them to confront their accusers.

"There's no witness. I know that they [the prosecutors] don't like that he's in jail," DeSipio said. "This accuser says there was an erect penis in his buttocks."

"Was it in your buttocks, or was it in your anus," he asked rhetorically. "If that question wasn't asked [of the grand jury], and he didn't specify anus or butt cheeks, I have a right to ask that."

"What you can't do, and what I submit they're trying to do, is say just because we have a grand jury, we have good cause [to by-pass a preliminary hearing]," DeSipio said.

The judge also addressed a potential conflict of interest concerning Monsignor Lynn, who unlike the three current and former priests, faces child endangerment charges - not rape or sexual assault. Plans for the Archdiocese of Philadelphia to pay Lynn's legal costs present "a whole array of conflicts that I can't even imagine at this point in time," Hughes said.

"It's real simple," the judge said to Lynn, who was donning his clerical collar, "your master is the person that's putting bread on the table."

"It may be in your best interest to put forth a defense that attacks other people [or the church]," Hughes said.

She told Lynn he was putting himself in the position of receiving "advice from people who are being paid by people whose interests don't necessarily align with yours."

The stakes of this gamble could amount to "14 years of incarceration versus probation," she said.

Lynn, in a calm voice, declined. "Well, I trust these two men." he said, adding that the church hadn't placed any conditions on the payment of his legal costs.

Hughes was incredulous. "You are making a knowing, voluntary and intelligent decision to place yourself in conflict with your attorneys?" she asked.

"I am," Lynn responded, waiving his right to any future appeal based on the argument that his attorneys had a conflict of interest.

"Then we're moving forward," the judge said.

After arraignments and release of the first batch of discovery, which will include grand jury notes and testimony, on April 15, the government will begin putting together a second batch. The government said that batch would take longer to produce, as it will include roughly 10,000 pages of documentation, much of which will need to be redacted.

Hughes said the government must give the defense a specific timeline for the production of the second batch. "There has to be some finality," she said.

In January, a grand jury returned an indictment for rape and sexual assault against one current priest, one defrocked priest and one man who taught at a Catholic school. Monsignor Lynn, the third cleric who worked for the archdiocese as secretary of clergy, is accused of giving known abusers easy access to minors.

[Quix]

WELL PUT.

[Quix]

How rational is it saying ..just a few? In this case alone, there are 37 priests. How many more would be needed to breakthrough your ‘just a few’ thresh hold?

---

It’s that rubberized Vatican math text at work again.

Only for the white hanky initiated to understand, of course.

[Quix]

Now now.

The world is supposed to know . . .

There’s rubberized Vatican “truth”

and there’s truth for everyone else.

[smvoice]

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

Nothing could be more shameful and disturbing than to deny Christ's very words. The ones written in red, so there can be no mistaking those words for anyone else's words.

Matthew 15:24: "But he answered her and said, I AM NOT SENT BUT UNTO THE LOST SHEEP OF THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL."

And who can forget those red words here: Matthew 10:5, where Christ commanded the twelve to "go NOT INTO THE WAY OF THE GENTILES".

What does the RCC teach about these red-words of Christ? Are they denied, or are they skipped over for nicer red words? It's very clear what they say. It's not just WHAT IS SAID, it's also WHY IT IS SAID.

[MarkBsnr]

Mark: 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?

Maybe it's a question to ask the PCA, not PCA Gamcock as well?

I'm sure that the answer would be predestined:

[esquirette]

Whom does the puppeteer represent?

[OLD REGGIE]

Come now Mark, there is no evidence that James I wrote even one word of the KJV. It was written by 47-54 scholars unlike the Latin Vulgate which was written by Jerome.

The commissioning, the approval and the cash came from King James (and more from his handlers than him).

From various sources:

(Insert extraneous propaganda which does nothing to support the claim that James I wrote the KJV)........................
..........................................................

I assume this is your quiet way of admitting your erroneous claim that James I wrote the KJV.

In the future I would prefer a simple statement such as "I mistakenly claimed James I wrote the KJV." "Old Reggie is correct in that James I did not write the KJV."

See how easy it is to admit an error.

Would you take issue with me if I claimed Pope John Paul II wrote the New Code Of Canon Law?

[ConservativeNewYorker]

Then why the Rosary? Why the prayers directed to Mary, if she is not an intecessor for you with the Lord? Where in Scripture are you directed to pray to anyone but the Lord himself? Why the need for a third party intervention?

[count-your-change]

May you find your place in the great chunky peanut butter of life!

[Iscool]

I get very upset when people equate sexual abuse by clergy and the coverups by Bishops with Catholic teaching.

I get upset because it's the Catholic teachers who are perpetrating the cover ups...

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.

It's not a lopsided view, it's a lopsided crisis...Yours is the only institution that hides and provides cover for these perverts...You then shuffle them to different areas with the same set ups and allow them to commit even more crimes...And then you shuffle then again...

And then they get promoted to a higher rank within your institution...

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.

HuH??? You guys are constantly trying to defend yourselves...Problem is; there's not much air in your balloon...You guys have to resort to trying to change the subject by pointing out what you seem to think are flaws in the religion of others...

If you guys would team up and aid Jesus in removing those rascals from your religion instead of trying to deflect the attention they are getting, just think of the hundreds of millions of dollars your parishes could have to spend on worthwhile projects and programs...

[OLD REGGIE]

The rules are not enforced evenly.

There there now. Poor baby.

[MarkBsnr]

Nothing could be more shameful and disturbing than to deny Christ's very words. The ones written in red, so there can be no mistaking those words for anyone else's words.

Matthew 15:24: "But he answered her and said, I AM NOT SENT BUT UNTO THE LOST SHEEP OF THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL."

And who can forget those red words here: Matthew 10:5, where Christ commanded the twelve to "go NOT INTO THE WAY OF THE GENTILES".

Applause. Christ at that point was telling the Apostles to stick close to home and observe the ramifications of their interactions with the Jews. He was getting them ready for their eventual mission to the world, but they were not ready at that point. Luke 10 and Mark 6 both speak to this initial evangelization practice, as it were.

Luke 10:17 The seventy (-two) returned rejoicing, and said, "Lord, even the demons are subject to us because of your name."

Mark 6: 12 So they went off and preached repentance. 13 9 They drove out many demons, and they anointed with oil many who were sick and cured them.

Bingo. And what was their final mission to be, after Jesus had Ascended into Heaven?

Mark 16:. 14 (But) later, as the eleven were at table, he appeared to them and rebuked them for their unbelief and hardness of heart because they had not believed those who saw him after he had been raised. 15 He said to them, "Go into the whole world and proclaim the gospel to every creature. 16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved; whoever does not believe will be condemned. 17 These signs will accompany those who believe: in my name they will drive out demons, they will speak new languages. 18 They will pick up serpents (with their hands), and if they drink any deadly thing, it will not harm them. They will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover." 19 So then the Lord Jesus, after he spoke to them, was taken up into heaven and took his seat at the right hand of God. 20 But they went forth and preached everywhere, while the Lord worked with them and confirmed the word through accompanying signs.) 3

Matthew 28: 18 11 Then Jesus approached and said to them, "All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Go, therefore, 12 and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. 13 And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age."

Jesus was readying the Apostles for their evangelizing mission to the whole world. That is the nice thing about believing the Church that Jesus has created for us. The Church skips over nothing; the Church does understand what the worlds mean and in what context.

Jesus could have converted all men in His time spent Incarnate, but He did not.

Jesus could have waved a magic wand and converted all men from Heaven, but He did not.

Jesus could have robotically programmed Adam and Eve to never have eaten from the fruit of the Tree, or else simply eliminated the Tree from the Garden, but He did not.

What do we have? We have ALL of the words of Jesus spoken as He wishes us to know them, in the order that He wishes us to know them, and in the context that He wishes us to know them.

The Apostles went their various ways - evidence from both Scriptural and extraScriptural writings of the times. Since Tradition and extra Scriptural writings both come into play here, before you say anything, yes I know that only a little of this is actually in the New Testament. However, this is a compilation of what I was able to find.

Matthew - martyred by sword in Ethiopia.
Mark - martyred by dragging from a horse in Alexandria.
Luke - martyred by hanging in Greece.
John - a bunch of close calls, but died peacefully.
Peter - crucified upside down in Rome.
James the Just - thrown off the southeast pinnacle of the Temple (allegedly where satan tempted Christ) and then beaten to death.
James the Greater - martyred by beheading in Jerusalem.
Bartholomew - martyred by flaying in Armenia.
Andrew - martyred by crucifixion in Patras, Greece.
Thomas - martyred by a spear thrust in India.
Jude - martyred with arrows (not sure where).
Matthias - stoned and then beheaded (not sure where).
Barnabas - stoned to death in Salonica
Paul - tortured and beheaded by the Emperor Nero.

This is the instruction to the Church - what Jesus meant and why. He had to teach them viscerally that they weren't just Jews anymore - and Peter had to learn the lesson from Paul again. But that is the Church - fallible men attempting what the infallible Christ instructs them to do. So as it was, so as it is and so as it ever shall be until the return of Christ.

[MarkBsnr]

Whom does the puppeteer represent?

The choices are few, when you think about it, aren't they?

[MarkBsnr]

In the future I would prefer a simple statement such as "I mistakenly claimed James I wrote the KJV." "Old Reggie is correct in that James I did not write the KJV."

Very good. Old Reggie is correct in that James I did not write the KJV.

Would you take issue with me if I claimed Pope John Paul II wrote the New Code Of Canon Law?

Lesson accepted, Master Po. :)

[Iscool]

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.

Could it be that some of us are just repeating the Red words of Jesus???

Mat 15:24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

Mat 10:5 These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not:

Mat 10:6 But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

You seem to have trouble believing what Jesus said...Are you a Gentile??? If so, Jesus says His Gospel is NOT for you...Don't argue with me...Take it up with Jesus...

You also seem to be disingenuous...It was Paul that gave you the knowledge of the Gospel of your Grace, not Jesus...It was Paul that revealed to you that you would be allowed into the church that Jesus planned on building...If Jesus had not revealed this information to Paul, you wouldn't have a church to go to...

[Iscool]

It's very clear what they say. It's not just WHAT IS SAID, it's also WHY IT IS SAID.

Because they can't figure out what to do with it, they pretend Jesus didn't say it...

[presently no screen name]

I meant you were presenting my opinion in such a way (out of context and incomplete) that it actually appeared to contradict what I truly believe.

You presented your own opinion, I didn't - I, merely, copied it and then presented my own opinion. When an opposing view is posted - do you expect it NOT to appear as a contradiction to your statements? What is it - you didn't want me to contradict your opinions but wanted me to agree with your view?

Nothing what taken out of context - what you read was my view which is different than yours.

It's not hard to refute... 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.The second is those rabid, vitrolic Protestants who hate Catholicism and Catholics. Guess who the group on FR are???

Your church failed in it's duties and it's everyone else's fault.

[Iscool]

Applause. Christ at that point was telling the Apostles to stick close to home and observe the ramifications of their interactions with the Jews.

Obviously, that's your religion's private interpretation and thus your tradition since it can't be found in the scriptures...

Sorry, but no cupie doll...The Apostles weren't practicing on the Jews til they got it right enough for the Gentiles...Apparently you have no idea how much scripture you have to ignore and trash to come up with the interpretation your religion invented...

[OLD REGGIE]

Let’s just say I’ve seen many questionable decisions in the past about which freeper gets booted off the thread.

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

Methinks our power of observation has been clouded by a bad case of "Poor Me-ism".

I have been booted off more than one thread and I am a kind, sweet, old man.

[WPaCon]

“We have scripture despite the Romish “Church.””

Romish “Church?” What is that? If you’re trying to say that you have scripture in spite of the Catholic Church, then that is just more historical revisionism.

“Nice attempt at deflection — the quote from the catechism spoke specifically of Mary’s “roles” — one of which the “Church” defines as ‘Mediatrix’ — I challenged you to find that in scripture in light of 1 Tim. 2:5. But, instead of confronting that, you ask about sovereignty? Go back and re-read the post.”

Let’s see who is deflecting and who needs to go back and read the conversation. This conversation has nothing to do with Mary, and your the one who brought up sovereignty. Here it is:

574 Hoss: “Here’s a newsflash: God is SOVEREIGN.”

614 Me: “I don’t know why that’s a newsflash. Who disagrees with that?”

751 Hoss: “The Roman Catholic “Church” does—just showed you from its own catechism. 2 Tim. 2:5. Check it out.”

756 Me: “Really? I didn’t see the line where it said God is not sovereign.”

As you can see, I’m not the one deflecting by bring up Mary, and I’m not the one who brought up sovereignty.

“Basically it means that scripture is the ultimate authority for doctrine and teaching”

Sola Scriptura is latin for “by scripture alone.” How someone could get your definition out of “by scripture alone,” I don’t know.

“Keep swingin’ —”

Trash talk is no substitute for debate.