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.
“YOU show us where that appears in Scripture, or admit that the Catholic church is wrong.”
Why do you expect the Catholic Church to operate on some 16th Century invention called Sola Scriptura?
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...
I am not arguing with you. I merely repeat back to you the evidence that you give to us that you are not Christian. If you refer to the last chapters of both Mark and Matthew, all will be made clear to even pagan eyes.
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...
Then why wrap yourself in a faux cover of Christianity? Why not just admit outright that you are Paulian and be done with it?
“ONE of the definitions involves the Catholic church.”
That’s debatable, but it doesn’t matter. Only one definition needs to involve the Catholic Church. Are you suggesting that it is inaccurate to use a word, because it can also be used in a different sense?
I guess it’s wrong to say I boarded a plane at the airport, because another definition of plane is a flat surface.
I sure am glad I found the real truth and got out of that mess.
Thanks for your non-contribution to this thread.
Nobody said anything about SS except you. Expecting SOME Scriptural support for any doctrine is not unreasonable and is not SS.
Anyway, the Catholic church uses Scripture to back up the papacy, apostolic succession, transubstantiation, baptism, the priesthood, the keys of heaven and locking people out and all manner of other heresies.
Why not use Scripture to backup that Mary is a mediatrix as the Catholic church claims?
But, hey, thanks for demonstrating that there is none. It goes to show that the whole doctrine of her being a mediatrix is a fairy tale that the Catholic church teaches as truth.
What do you suppose that God will have to say about the Catholic church teaching as true things that are not?
Thirty-seven priests in one city in one diocese.
Yet again we are not allowed to defend ourselves.
No one is preventing anyone from defending anything. Roman Catholics on this forum regularly defend pederast priests and the organization that covers for them by diminishing the assaults, by pointing fingers at everyone else, and by denying the victims' charges and intentions.
This thread is filled with those kinds of dissembling. There is no "lopsided view of this crisis" other than the view presented by Rome.
"Crisis" for whom?
- Whom does the puppeteer represent?
- The choices are few, when you think about it, aren’t they?
______________________
Afraid to state in a straightforward manner what you meant, eh?
Some of us are surprised to you see back, Cronos. It's not Easter yet. Didn't you say you were giving up FR for Lent?
The distinctions between Protestant denominations is an interesting topic, but has no bearing on the subject of this thread which is the pederasty that is rampant within the Roman Catholic priestcraft.
Why don't you post another thread and discuss your concerns there?
After you return from Lent.
Mark 16 and Matthew 28 has been eliminated by the Great Church of Iscool (population 1), handed down from the Throne of the Great Sports Interpretation on NFL Sundays? And poor Paul is responsible for all this is he?
Let's recap what Jesus ACTUALLY said after He was Resurrected and was readying them for Pentecost (the starting signal, as it were):
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."
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
Luke tells us in Acts 1: 4 While meeting with them, he enjoined them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for "the promise of the Father 3 about which you have heard me speak; 5 for John baptized with water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the holy Spirit." 6 When they had gathered together they asked him, "Lord, are you at this time going 4 to restore the kingdom to Israel?" 7 5 He answered them, "It is not for you to know the times or seasons that the Father has established by his own authority. 8 6 But you will receive power when the holy Spirit comes upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, throughout Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth."
The only trash to be dealt with is the ruins of the Reformation and the rubble of the Restoration. Jesus tells us with his own words that the Apostles are to evangelize the earth (note that Paul is not part of this instruction - where do we have Scripture quote Jesus telling Paul this? Answer: we have no Scripture quoting Jesus talking to Paul as He did the 12 and those He dealt with during His Incarnation, right?) and He will be with them always.
As Christians, we follow Jesus. Who did you say that you follow?
Ah, yes, you follow a cupie (sic) doll.
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.
AMEN!
“Nobody said anything about SS except you.”
You’re the one saying something is not true unless it’s in scripture. Hmmm, I think there’s a name for that doctrine...
“Why not use Scripture to backup that Mary is a mediatrix as the Catholic church claims?”
They don’t have to.
“But, hey, thanks for demonstrating that there is none.”
Never did that. But, hey, thanks for demonstrating that you pull conclusions out of your you-know-what. Maybe I just don’t feel like looking up the Scriptural support, since its besides the point.
“her being a mediatrix is a fairy tale that the Catholic church teaches as truth.”
Incidentally, that’s how most people tend to feel about the Jehovah’s Witnesses and their belief that Jesus and Michael Archangel are the same.
“What do you suppose that God will have to say about the Catholic church teaching as true things that are not?”
I guess He wouldn’t like it if it were possible.
What lies? That there was abuse in the Catholic church?
Sure you can defend the church, but since it's apparent that there IS a problem and there the church WAS remiss in how it dealt with the problem, why would you want to defend it?
Everyone knows that not every priest abuses. Everyone is aware that false accusations can and probably will be made (which is reprehensible because it does a great disservice to those actually abused).
Therefore, in light of that, it's possible that the problem is not as widespread as it appears.
OTOH, Catholics need to at least be realistic and realize that the problem could also be worse than it appears. Not everyone who was abused can or will report it. Some likely have died, and some probably want to move on and forget about it.
But there is no reasonable, credible defense of the priests and the hierarchy which protected them. No excuse cuts it and no amount of blameshifting works either.
All that does is leave the distinct impression that Catholics are out of touch with reality on the issue and want to believe so badly that the problem isn't what it appears that they deny the obvious, that it indeed could be worse.
Nobody wants to feel betrayed by an organization they trust, but sadly that has happened. The Catholic church has failed the victims, has failed their families, and has failed the rest of its members in about the worst possible way.
Should we expect any church to be exempt from sin by it's members and clergy? Not realistically.
Should they be exempt from addressing it properly? NEVER.
Is that before or after you get into the slivovitz?
Wow. That is just about the most insane comment I've read in a long time on this forum. Wow.
Please show us where the judge said or implied ANYTHING like that.
She simply said the defense attorney attended the same seminary at the same time where and when the alleged sex abuse was taking place, and therefore he might have information about the case that would cause him to be called as a witness.
Witness.
In English, once again...
WITNESS.
LOL
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.
Excellent response to aruanan, who failed to make any salient point other than to question the confidence Christians have been given in the veracity of the word of God.
Does this mean that you either afraid that it refers to you, or alternatively, does not?
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.