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.
I’m under no obligation to answer any questions from you about my prayer life.
And I won’t ask you about yours.
I know well that I could answer your queries, but I already know, by the nature of your questions, that answering would be an exercise in futility.
Had you asked because you wanted to exchange with me I may have answered; but you asked and then answered for me with your own answers-—so......
An 83 year year old disreputable disagreeable busybody crone. Why, are you trying to sign up?
I don't know what an RC apologist is, so I will let that go for now. The site that you brought up is not a Roman Catholic website; it is not even a Catholic one. It uses the term 'Catholic' on the site in the same manner that the OPC uses the term 'Christian'. They are equally true - or should I say - false.
Deny the evidence all you want. Same old/same old.
The evidence that you brought is approximately of the same value that most of your evidence is. I bring you evidence of the CUNY study with complete methodology (and as a scientist and engineer, I must say that their methodology is quite satisfactory for a blind study). You post statements about somebody's else's statements about somebody else's statements about a study that has no methology or raw data or any sort of scientific methodology about it.
Your postings that purport to contain the Gospel message are overwhelmingly snippets from Paul or verses from the OT. Same as your doctrinal proofs.
But start protecting your children from Romes pederast priestcraft because they are creating the next generation of homosexuals.
You have no clue as to the situation as it is. I was an altar boy from a young age and have been very involved in the Church most of my life. I have never known or known of a child molesting incident in which I knew or knew of any of the victims or perpetrators (except in far off news coverage). Exactly none of my six siblings were molested or knew of any molesting. My parents didn't. My extended family didn't. My neighbours and fellow parishioners didn't.
Any of the failed Catholics that you know were molested?
The (heinous) sins of the few taint all. Agreed. But the actions of Arianna Huffington and Jack Abramoff do not invalidate the entire Republican Party.
Something RC apologists dont seem too concerned about.
My responsibilities to my family are not to be paraded about for the amusement of pagan barbarians claiming to be civilized. Or Christian.
I ask this because what you are being taught in the Catchism, doesn’t square with Scripture. I understand, I am ex-RCC. (Although I still get my envelopes every month, after not having set foot in an RCC church for over seven years.) Simply put, the value placed on Mary and the saints in the RCC is antithetical to Gospel Scripture. For Catholics to say, that they don’t pray to or worship Mary is simply a fallacy. In fact, the RCC parish in my town has as it’s centerpiece a huge statue of Mary in the front yard.
Yep. We've seen on this very thread how RC apologists work to finagle the language.
It all depends on what the meaning of "is" is.
Keep denying the facts. It doesn’t matter other than to serve as one more example of RC misdirection and ignorance.
add another one...I left the RCC years ago, after learning the truth from my Protestant Army Chaplain.
Irish Tenor. Rnmomof7. Presentlynoscreenname. Topcat54. Metmom. My husband.
Lousy try. Let's have some public figures whose life can be examined - those who are becoming Protestants, as I posted - and we can see their spiritual life as Catholics and make the determination in the light of day whether these are truly conservative Catholics.
That is, unless you have nobody that can be evaluated. Which is most likely the case.
Now that Catholics are established by several recent polls to be at the highest percentage of the American population they have ever been in the country's history and ever increasing
Mark, easily proven errors make for lousy evidence.
CATHOLIC TRADITION FADING IN U.S.
Excellent. You bring up the Washington Post's reference to the flawed Pew reference to a study group that nobody has ever heard of, with no methodology or scientific basis listed. That truly is lousy evidence.
Now, we have the fully documented CUNY scientifically documented poll designed to eliminate any claims of roll-padding, because the people were asked blind what religious affiliation they were with no leading or biasing in any way.
Read 'em and weep, good Doctor. Not only is the phone booth cult losing, but Protestants (at least those that still believe in God) are also losing at an accelerating rate.
Question: will the last OPC church close its doors in your lifetime? I realize that 83 doesn't leave much time, but you seem quite spry and will probably be around for a while. Well, what do you think?
The characterization seems inconsistent with the comment you made.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_United_States
"The largest religion in the US is Christianity, practiced by the majority of the population (76% in 2008[4]). From those queried, roughly 51.3% of Americans are Protestants, 25% are Catholics, and 1.7% are Mormons (the name commonly used to refer to members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints), and 1.7% to various other Christian denominations.[16]"
And as the Pew study pointed out, those Protestants who self-identify as Evangelical are now the largest denomination, making up over 26% of the population of the U.S.
Better question: Why would anyone but a baby send a private message to someone which they didn't have the guts to post online?
You aren’t asking me. You’re telling me how to pray according to you understanding.
That just doesn’t work.
For either of us.
As we’ve noted for years on this forum, NO evidence is ENOUGH evidence when it contradicts Roman Catholic error.
You’ve been given the evidence you asked for, and yet you come back with a rephrasing of the question. lol.
And you keep calling the Pew Study “flawed.” Where do you get that opinion?
As we’ve seen, inconvenient truths are always “flawed” to RC apologists who cannot face the truth.
When I converse with you, I don't have to deny any facts, even if I were inclined to (which I am not), simply because you almost never bring any to your posts.
There are a number of Calvinists and non Catholics on this site who do routinely have well reasoned arguments supported by facts, but I am really amused by the state of the usual OPC/PCA argument. Not just comical, and not just fact-free, but:
AMEN!
Post tenebras lux.
After darkness, light.
Beer, ale, and occasionally a glass of wine, yes! No hard liquor has passed my lips in over 55 years. (I just couldn't handle firewater and would most likely be dead or in jail if I continued.)
"The largest religion in the US is Christianity, practiced by the majority of the population (76% in 2008[4]). From those queried, roughly 51.3% of Americans are Protestants, 25% are Catholics, and 1.7% are Mormons (the name commonly used to refer to members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints), and 1.7% to various other Christian denominations.[16]"
You are far too funny for this thread. I bring you a scientifically designed, performed and evaluated study by the CUNY, with complete open and aboveboard fact gathering and analysis, and you come back to me with Wiki and a flawed Pew report in which they didn't perform the study and have no data as to the methodology, oversight, fact gathering and analysis.
I suppose that back when you were in school, 3/4 of a century ago, that passed for facts in whatever unelectrified swamp you grew up in, but your presentations are not of rigourous scientific study and their conclusions are dubious at best and outright lies at worst.
“Incoherent? LOL!”
I always admire those who can laugh at themselves.
Mark do you really think that matters?
Catholics hang all their hats on numbers.. as if the church with the most members wins.. I would just remind you of the words of Jesus..."Many are called , few are CHOSEN"
.." wide [is] the gate, and broad is the way, that leads to destruction, and many will go there"...
Truth is not determined by numbers... ask Christ who heard the crowd yell to crucify him...
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.