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.

[OLD REGGIE]

Paul was unmarried (and so was Jesus, obviously). Barnabas was unmarried. Scripture is silent on the married status of any of the rest - excepting Peter. The Church from the beginning believed in continency of its clergy and over the centuries, strengthened that belief.

39 Popes Were Married????

[WPaCon]

Better question: Why would anyone but a baby send a private message to someone which they didn't have the guts to post online?

What are you referring to?

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Where does CUNY contradict the Pew Study? CUNY is even mentioned in the Wikipedia page here...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_in_the_United_States#cite_note-6

Protestants outnumber Roman Catholics in the U.S. by more than a two-to-one margin (which doesn’t include Mormons.)

And among those Protestants who self-identify as “Evangelicals,” this number (26%) is larger than the number of Roman Catholics in the U.S. (less than 24%.)

And for all the world to see, you continue to end your posts with nasty personal remarks.

lol. Bible-believing Christians couldn’t ask for a better opponent than someone like you who posts nonsense and personal invectives.

[lastchance]

Why? Because such tactics all allow lies to stand. Yet again we are not allowed to defend ourselves.
What lies? That there was abuse in the Catholic church?

THE LIE that the abuse was a result of Catholic teaching. Which has been implied again and again by certain people.

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?

I AM NOT defending the abuse or how the Bishops responded. I am defending Catholic dogma and saying it is not to blame for what happened.

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).

AGREED Also time wasted on false allegations means true ones may end up not getting adequate investigation.

Therefore, in light of that, it’s possible that the problem is not as widespread as it appears.

WHAT IS important is that the Church learns that it must appear they take allegations seriously and are cooperating with civil authorities.

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.

YES THAT may well be true. Especially in cases of actual pedophilia where multiple victims from one abuser is very, very common.

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.

THE ONLY explanation (not defense) that I offer is that sometimes when dealing with adults reporting crimes when they were children those adults may have requested that authorities not be involved. To the shuffling it was thought by many experts that removing a sexual abuser from access to the known victims would put a stop to the abuse. They thought pedophilia or homosexual abuse could be cured. But not reporting credible crimes against minors. No defense.

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.

NOT OUT of touch with reality. I think those who believe the number of abusers in the Catholic clergy are disproportionate to the number of clergy are out of touch with reality. Those who think it is a Church only problem are out of touch with reality. Those who believe Catholic teaching caused this are out of touch with reality.

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.

YES THERE have been failures. Human nature being what it is tells me there will be more. But I don’t feel betrayed by the Church. There are so many faithful, humble and virteous(sp) priests and bishops. I know too that good triumphs over evil. We all know how the big story ends. Christ Triumphant.

Should we expect any church to be exempt from sin by it’s members and clergy? Not realistically.

NO, Nor is anyone exempt from forgiveness. Though as a Catholic I sure believe those who have truly repented of such horrible crimes will spend rather more time in purgatory. It also does not negate the rightness of earthly justice being served.

Thanks for a sensible approach to the subject.

I capitalized my first two words cause I just don’t have HTML down pat and wanted to distinguish your words from my response. I am not yelling. Really.

[RnMomof7]

The U.S. is over 50% Protestant and 24% Roman Catholic. Without the huge influx of immigrants from Mexico and South/Central America, Rome's membership numbers would be falling even more precipitously

Catholics pump their numbers by counting every unknowing baptized baby as a "member"...

The bottom line is when one is saved they leave Rome.. as Rome's doctrines are contrary to the gospel, the number left behind.......... will be :)

[MarkBsnr]

And you keep calling the Pew Study “flawed.” Where do you get that opinion?

1. They didn't perform the study. Somebody else did.
2. They have no methodology listed.
3. They did not state the means or the questions utilized in order to gather the responses.
4. They did not state the groupings or inclusion in the groupings of individual replies.
5. They did not state whether the replies were forced into a model either in the questions themselves, or once the replies were gathered.
6. They did not present the raw data or how the raw data were analyzed.
7. Only the conclusions were published. That is the means that the left wing uses to 'prove' its case.

And yes, since only the left wing of the Catholic Church wants it to become Protestant, I consider you guys left wing. Certainly your theological innovations are parallel to the political left wing as it applies itself to the Constitution. You guys want to reinvent Christianity to your own particular whims; the political left wing wants to reinvent the Constitution to its own particular whims.

As we’ve seen, inconvenient truths are always “flawed” to RC apologists who cannot face the truth.

Ah yes, inconvenient truths. And who uses that term? Not conservatives, and not Christians. Perhaps we should acknowledge the good Dr. E. - pushing the boundaries of liberalism, one liberal Pew 'study' after another. Weren't you just telling me about conservatives joining the Protestant churches? Let's see - would you send me a picture of you and Al Gore next time you're worshiping at another one of his Earth Mother lectures? I'm sure that you get on so well together.

Now tell me true; does Al really do this to all the women he meets?

or just the more attractive masseuses?

[WPaCon]

I notice that you are pinging buccaneer81.

I guess you don’t know that he was kicked off the thread.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Yet again we are not allowed to defend ourselves.

Really?

You just spent several dozen sentences trying to defend something.

Who's stopping you?

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Mark, try to follow along. Your criticisms of the Pew Study are idiotic.

Regardless, what do you disagree with in the Pew Study?

[lastchance]

Please let us know then your personal knowledge of this priest. I should have been clear personal knowledge was what I meant when I wrote “You know nothing of Father Corapi.” So are you basing your knowledge of Father Corapi on the allegations or on your personal knowledge of Father Corapi?

[RnMomof7]

And what do YOU know of him?

[MarkBsnr]

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.)

Ah, I remember the days of my youth, in the land of Alberta Premium Rye Whisky and Molson Brador. These young whippersnappers have no clue when they obligingly trundle down to the local dispensary for sixpacks of Bud and Miller Lite...

[WPaCon]

Catholics hang all their hats on numbers

Actually, the OPC should be hanging their hats on numbers. After all, there are more non-Christians than Christians in the world.

[lastchance]

“Roman Catholics on this forum on this forum regularly defend pederast priests and the organization that covers for them”

I want you to find one post from any Catholic freeper that states “PEDERAST PRIESTS DID NOTHING WRONG. THE BISHOPS WHO COVERED FOR THEM DID NOTHING WRONG. PEDERAST PRIESTS SHOULD NOT BE BLAMED FOR WHAT THEY DID. BISHOPS WERE NOT AT FAULT IN COVERING UP CRIMES.”

Present me with that evidence. You continually make allegations against Catholic members here. You never have any substantial evidence to prove those allegations. If this were a court of law you would have been found in contempt for such tactics long ago.

Now if the RM follows the usual procedure I will be told writing that somebody post allegations is a form of calling somebody a liar. But nothing will be said about your accusation that RC members regulary defend pederast priests. I know the RM has your back. That is the only explanation of the vileness you are allowed to post over and over again. Maligning and libeling good people here. Without any proof at all.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Ah yes, inconvenient truths. And who uses that term? Not conservatives,

LOL. More seeking to control the language. And so once again we see the error of your logic...

FBI REPORT POINTS TO INCONVENIENT TRUTH ABOUT GUNS AND CRIME

A Dec. 21 press release from the Second Amendment Foundation points to an inconvenient truth:

A ten percent drop in murders during the first six months of this year at a time when gun sales were up dramatically is more proof that there is no correlation between gun ownership and violent crime...

The above link is written by a pro-gun rights conservative. But thanks for proving our point once again.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

I and others have repeatedly said that Roman Catholic apologists' "criticism" of pederast priests is invariably couched in phrases like "but everyone does it" and "the victims are out for money" and "unscrupulous lawyers are behind this," etc.

The evidence in littered all over this thread. I think I read ONE comment by a Roman Catholic who actually denounced these pederst priests and the hierarchy which has protected and promoted them.

See, it can be done. It should be done.

But it's not being done. And so this corrupt scandal continues and grows.

Protect your children. Pay attention.

[lastchance]

I read the link. It did no such thing. Post the first 15 profiles and let others decide if what SNAP claims is what the profile of cases shows.

That the majority of priests were dumped on the military when allegations of abuse came to light.

That the majority of abuse happened while they were active military chaplains.

That the majority of such abuse was made known to Church authorities while it was happening and not years later.

That the abuse always involved minors.

That no priest was removed from duty when allegations came to light.

Try that for size. Being able to deduct reasonable conclusions from facts or lack of facts presented is a skill sorely lacking in many these days. It takes logic and a willingness not to allow personal prejudices thwart our judgment and conclusions.

[WPaCon]

It's actually a lot like those trading in Catholicism for Christianity Lite.

Miller Lite and Christianity Lite: Great taste, less filling!

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Please let us know then your personal knowledge of this priest.

I am not about to tell you on an open forum the people whom I may or may not know in real life.

But you cannot make the blanket statement that I have no personal knowledge of this priest because you do not know that information.

What anyone can read about this priest on Free Republic should be enough to understand that he has some serious accusations to respond to.

And so far, his only response is to whine and say the system is flawed and that he's being taken advantage of unfairly.

Yeah, that's a real solid defense.

[lastchance]

I know of his reputation for bringing people to Christ. I also know that the victims allegations do not pass the smell test. Not because they are against a priest but because of past history as revealed by several who do have personal knowledge of the victim. Also because she made these allegations to a number of Bishops.

For the most part when someone goes outside the authority having jurisdiction it means they don’t like the answer they are getting from that authority and are looking for the right answer. Now going to someone higher up is a different matte. Also it would be a different matter if she had gone to the appropriate civil authorities at any time. Whether she liked the church response or not. She has every right to do so if she believes a crime has been committed.

However no criminal allegations were made. Please keep that in mind. My take on this is that she is angry over being dismissed (why she was dismissed is not known) and hs decided to take revenge and try to ruin a good man’s reputation. I would say this if the man was not a priest and the circumstance presented were the same.