or
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 interpreting that remark as sarcasm.
It is actually using their own words back upon them. The theme often distills down to the idea that celibacy is unnatural and leads automatically to child molesting or other crimes against people.
There are many Catholic young men who revere God and would love to be pastors. The problem for these boys is that they also like girls and find it impossible to give up the thought of a wife and family.
It is not impossible to be a married priest. It is just that Scripture and Church practice indicate that a celibate state can be more optional to serving God and not being distracted from Christianity and the worship and serving of God.
These boys could also be kind and loving pastors. I don't believe any passages in the Bible are opposed to that concept.
The Church permits married deacons (who are ordained) and the Latin Church discourages married priests and will not allow married bishops. The East has more married priests, but still prefers unmarried ones. Monks and cloistered brothers/sisters are celibate. Serving the Church within Church discipline can be done in the married state. And it is practice, a discipline, not dogma. Theoretically I could be made Pope, with a wife and six kids. But probably not, within the Church disciplines.
Let us see what Scripture says about celibacy in the service of God:
Matthew 19: 9 I say to you, 7 whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) and marries another commits adultery." 10 [His] disciples said to him, "If that is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry." 11 He answered, "Not all can accept [this] word, 8 but only those to whom that is granted. 12 Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage 9 for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it."
Jesus tells us that some men are granted the state of celibacy for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Now, we know that Paul was a voluntary celibate. What does he say?
1 Corinthians 7: 1 2 3 Now in regard to the matters about which you wrote: "It is a good thing for a man not to touch a woman," ... 6 This I say by way of concession, 4 however, not as a command. 7 Indeed, I wish everyone to be as I am, but each has a particular gift from God, 5 one of one kind and one of another. 8 6 Now to the unmarried and to widows, I say: it is a good thing for them to remain as they are, as I do, 9 but if they cannot exercise self-control they should marry, for it is better to marry than to be on fire.
If you can do it, be celibate Paul says, but if you cannot, then be moral in your relations. Good.
26 So this is what I think best because of the present distress: that it is a good thing for a person to remain as he is. 27 Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek a separation. Are you free of a wife? Then do not look for a wife. 28 If you marry, however, you do not sin, nor does an unmarried woman sin if she marries; but such people will experience affliction in their earthly life, and I would like to spare you that.
More urging for celibacy.
32 I should like you to be free of anxieties. An unmarried man is anxious about the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord. 33 But a married man is anxious about the things of the world, how he may please his wife, 34 and he is divided. An unmarried woman or a virgin is anxious about the things of the Lord, so that she may be holy in both body and spirit. A married woman, on the other hand, is anxious about the things of the world, how she may please her husband. 35 I am telling you this for your own benefit, not to impose a restraint upon you, but for the sake of propriety and adherence to the Lord without distraction. 36 13 14 If anyone thinks he is behaving improperly toward his virgin, and if a critical moment has come and so it has to be, let him do as he wishes. He is committing no sin; let them get married. 37 The one who stands firm in his resolve, however, who is not under compulsion but has power over his own will, and has made up his mind to keep his virgin, will be doing well. 38 So then, the one who marries his virgin does well; the one who does not marry her will do better.
Okay; Paul argues for celibacy very strongly to the Corinthians.
Jeremiah 56: 3 2 Let not the foreigner say, when he would join himself to the LORD, "The LORD will surely exclude me from his people"; Nor let the eunuch say, "See, I am a dry tree." 4 For thus says the LORD: To the eunuchs who observe my sabbaths and choose what pleases me and hold fast to my covenant, 5 3 I will give, in my house and within my walls, a monument and a name Better than sons and daughters; an eternal, imperishable name will I give them.
Even hoary old Isaiah is told by the Lord that eunuchs who serve Him will be rewarded for that celibate service. Therefore, I must conclude that while celibacy is not required to serve the Lord, there are certain roles which call for or are able to better be served in by celibates.
Now this is an interesting question. I don't know. I went to school with young men who were embarrassed to say they were seminarians. I never was, even when I went in the military.
I never realized until I was about forty that the Gospel of John was written for me, personally. The Gospel of John changes everything. John tells us we all have a real shot at the big prize even if we can't brag about our lives to this point. The others say much the same but not with the same eloquence.
I think I might have made a good priest. I think I might have made a great one if the option of joining the Archdiocese of the Military were ever presented. The key to the city would have been female companionship. It wasn't in the cards in those days.
The evil that was committed was transferring priests to other towns and churches so that they could harm other children.
This was AN evil that compounded the evil. I think bishops that did this were either pederasts themselves or earned for themselves reservations in the deepest regions of hell or both. If they are extant, and it can be proved, they need to be put in prison.
Bishops who transfer evil don't play by the rules. They never have.
Christ used sarcasm to make points .. was He not a "Christian "?
There was no celibacy in the Catholic church until the priests in Spain started to give “church” property to their wives and children
Well, harpies do have ears; and may even understand portions of human speech. Christianity does seem a bit much for them, though.
But they do represent CATHOLICISM. As a matter of fact, by your own admission they represent the US Conference of CATHOLIC Bishops.
Thus, they represent Catholicism.
Conservative Catholic vs. liberal Catholic.
So much for unity in the ranks.
Oh, and if you're going to split Catholicism into *conservative* and *liberal*, what are you going to do about the number of 1.2 billion members strong that keeps being bandied about when someone wants bragging rights on how big the Catholic church is. You aren't seriously going to try to convince anyone that that's the number of *conservative* Catholics out there, are you?
Seems that FRoman Catholics are more than happy to count the liberals that FRomans Catholics claim they denounce when it comes to counting them for membership roles.
Can you say *hypocrisy*?
I think you would have made a very good priest.
Goodnight to all...
If you have stats that are much different than those which show that overall RCs are more liberal (see above) than evangelicals, as are most mainline Prots, then let me know, as all i have found is the contrary. Thanks.
So, am I a liberal?
I suggest you read up on the strife between the Vatican and the USCCB. It is a rather tumultuous relationship.
or
Not uncharitable sarcasm.
I’m not doubting you, but what are some examples of him using sarcasm to make a point?
Are you really 83?
Virtually every Catholic I knew and worked with voted Democratic.
When confronted about the abortion issue, they weaseled their way around it, mostly with some nonsense about how the Democrats help the poor so that’s why they voted dem.
I guess the moral evil of abortion wasn’t an issue for them. A woman’s right to choose, don’t you know? Doling out more welfare and getting more people on the government teat was more important than not murdering children.
And we’re talking some pretty committed Catholics. Just like the FRoman Catholics on FR claim to be; allegedly knowledgeable about the church, KofC, taught catechism, ran Bingo, mass more than once a week for almost any reason.
You know the type I’m sure.
Should of capitalized Him.
My experience is the opposite.
See post 178....Ok, then it was condescending. Christians should not be condescending when dealing with others.
Physician, heal thyself.
Or is it more of *Do as I say, not as I do*?
Catholics are pretty good about that.
The Vatican is a City-State, located inside of the city of Rome.
I've actually been to both. Here are a couple of pics:
My comment was in a tone of resignation, not condescension.
I could have said how funny and stupid her statement was, but I decided against it.
I think what I said was perfectly polite, especially considering the many other ways I could have responded.
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.