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.
Oh, now... Is that ALL you can come up with? You can do better than that.
I’m not nearly as good looking as that hillbilly you posted.
Maybe WPaCon can come chastise you for your unChristian-like behavior. Or, maybe not if hypocrisy manages to show up.
Hoss
Celibacy works for those who can handle it.
If not, Paul says, better to marry than to burn (with lust).
The priests in ancient Israel were all married men and able to fulfill their priestly duties.
There have been uncounted numbers men who have been successful ministers and pastors, while being married and raising children.
Being able to shepherd a congregation and being married are not mutually exclusive.
I think the only hope for the Catholic church surviving is to allow for married priests again. I suspect that it’s the only way that it’s going to be able to get enough men to enter the priesthood these days and since there is nowhere in Scripture that DEMANDS that a pastor be single, there’s really no justification for it.
Which posters do I attribute things to? List, please.
Wow. You actually go as far as reading the mind of God.
Scripture, actually, I can help you out on the unfamiliar bits (Genesis to Revelation from what I can see).
And, sadly, the points you list are all wrong! ALL!
That second exclamation mark is very convincing.
Since your post included me, let me ask you this: how do you know I reject the Gospel?
I don't know that you've rejected the Bible. However, the fruits are getting rather mushy and nasty smelling.
You cannot know it. Because I LOVE the Gospel.
So you say. My 4-year old LOVES hot dogs.
Next... what on earth is Paulianity? Roman Catholics claim to have provided the Bible to the world -- Paul wrote books that are Canon, no? So - -do you reject Paul's teaching, inspired by the Holy Spirit?
What do they teach you in that tent? Obviously not the Christian faith, otherwise you would know about Paulianity, and the reasons that it was rejected as heresy. I suppose that you embrace Nestorianism as well, would you say?
Gnosticism? I think not. My salvation is based on Christ's shed blood on the Cross -- On the faith and trust that God has provided for me in His only begotten Son.
I thought that you had knowledge of your salvation.
Nestorianism? Fail. Nice try though, but fail.
Then you have no trouble with the concept of Mary, Mother of God, right?
I have not the first issue with the Nicene Creed -- but obviously, you attribute to me this issue since you pinged me.
Well, if you adhere to the usual Presbyterian beliefs blatted about here and elsewhere, you believe that Jesus is lesser than the Father, and the Holy Spirit is a mechanism or tool of the Father and the Son; you have a recently coined definition of the Catholic Church that is at odds with Christianity; you do not believe in the communion of saints as defined by the Church 1700 years ago; you do not believe in baptism for the forgiveness of sins; and your beliefs are at odds with early Christianity such as double predestination and the creation of men by God in order for them to suffer hellfire eternal. That is, if you believe in the usual Presbyterian beliefs.
The only "check" that is being shown here is a "check" written that cannot be cashed -- your points all come back marked "insufficient funds."
It's not my cash - it's God's.
Ok, Hoss, I apologize for criticizing your posting style/tone.
I guess it’s understandable in a thread like this.
Yeah, right.....
*Do as I say...*
Just what I thought.
No problem. Now get busy with Mark and be consistent.
:D
Hoss
No one knows how effective the public schools are at ferreting out and disposing of pedophiles.
I don't know what was the original justification other than apocryphal stories. Since the Catholic Church admits married priests from other denominations who matriculate, the boys upstairs seem sort of flexible on the issue.
You've managed to ruin any credibility you had with statement. That was funny.
Fail. Keep trying.
Hoss
And you escaped without riding a lightning bolt...
God's mercy in action.
Whatever.
As an aside, I think this is an appropriate prayer for Catholics to pray when coming on threads such as these:
Saint Michael the Archangel,
defend us in battle;
be our protection against the wickedness and snares of the devil.
May God rebuke him, we humbly pray:
and do thou, O Prince of the heavenly host,
by the power of God,
thrust into hell Satan and all the evil spirits
who prowl about the world seeking the ruin of souls.
Amen.
We have a similar situation with the argument that only by passing gun control laws can we keep them out of the hands of criminals. The criminals don't care ~ that's because they are criminals.
Pedophiles are hardly deterred from their mission of sex with kids simply because women may be more available to them.
Since you give no era for this claim, I will post from early Church history on celibacy in the service of God.
Priestly Celibacy in Patristics and Church History gives a good picture from the fourth century on. Here are some excerpts:
Clerical continence in the West
a. Fourth century legislation
Convincing testimonies to the normative nature of clerical continence in the fourth century can be found in individual Western patristic authors (such as Ambrose, Augustine, Jerome). The first known example of actual legislation is c. 33 of the Spanish Council of Elvira, the usual date of which is given as ca. 305. It reads:
We decree that all bishops, priests and deacons in the service of the ministry are entirely forbidden to have conjugal relations with their wives and to beget children; should anyone do so, let him be excluded from the honour of the clergy.17
There is a similar canon which certain manuscripts ascribe to the First Council of Aries (314), considered to be a sort of General Council of the West. Canon 29 reads:
Moreover, (concerned with) what is worthy, pure, and honest, we exhort our brothers (in the episcopate) to make sure that priests and deacons have no (sexual) relations with their wives, since they are serving the ministry every day. Whoever will act against this decision, will be deposed from the honour of the clergy.18
The wording of these canons does not immediately suggest that an innovation is being introduced, and it would be an error in historical procedure to maintain a priori that such was the case. The seriousness of the implications for the life of the clergy, the absence of justification for the strictness of the discipline and the canonical penalty attached, would suggest, on the contrary, that the Church authorities were concerned with the maintenance and not the introduction of this rule. The important papal decretals of the fourth century, which indicate the rule for all the West — Directa (385) and Cum in unum (386) of Pope Siricius; Dominus inter of Innocent I (or Damasus?), and the Synod of Carthage (390) — were in fact emphatic that clerical continence belonged to immemorial, even apostolic, tradition.19 Patristic writings are often explicit in considering the apostles as models of the priesthood. Yet those who might have been married were thought not to have lived other than in continence?20
Eusebius of Caesarea, a prominent bishop at the Council of Nicaea, writes in the Demonstratio Evangelica, I, 9 (3 15-325): «It is fitting, according to Scripture, ‘that a bishop be the husband of an only wife’. But this being understood, it behoves consecrated men, and those who are at the service of God’s cult, to abstain thereafter from conjugal intercourse with their wives.» St Jerome, who had a good knowledge of the Eastern Churches, writes to the priest Vigilantius (406): «What would the Eastern Churches do? What would (those of) Egypt and the Apostolic See do, they who never accept clerics unless they are virgins or continent men, or if they had had a wife, (accept them only) if they give up matrimonial life...» (Adversus Vigilantium, 2).
Epiphanius (315-403), born in Palestine and consecrated bishop of Constantia in Cyprus, condemns all forms of encratism but nonetheless insists that priests themselves are required to live continently, as regulated (he believed) by the apostles. Priestly continence is observed, he maintains, wherever the ecclesiastical canons are adhered to, human weakness and the shortage of vocations being inadequate reasons for clergy to contravene the rule.38
Synesius. of Ptolemais, of the Libyan Church, knows that he is expected to live in continence with his wife if made bishop,39 and Palladius the historian reports that a synod presided over by John Chrysostom, Bishop of Constantinople in the year 400, condemned Anton inus, Bishop of Ephesus, for doing what was forbidden by the ‘holy laws’ including resuming common life with his wife.40
Other testimonies to be taken into special account include Origen (d. ca. 253) (23rd homily on Numbers, 6th homily on Leviticus), Ephraem Syrus (Carmina Nisibena, 18 and 19 [ca. 363]), and the Syriac Doctrina Addei (ca. 400).
Thus has it been almost from the beginning of Church history. Your statement is wrong.
As to what.The men accused of abuse are with young male’s.Your point is Men should marry men?.
I try to take into account the limitations of those I converse with.
That could be said of any organization.
However, given the Catholic church's history, they haven't been doing too good a job at it, and there is less excuse for THEM not doing a good job.
They, after all, have direction from God Himself and Jesus own words directing how to deal with sin within and they've chosen to ignore it.
Sometimes I am guilty of overestimating people.
I'd suggest he simply be ignored.
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.