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.
Leave the thread.
Right. Like the RCC priesthood.
If the RCC priesthood attracted men of substance, men of honor, men whose minds and hearts had been renewed by the Holy Spirit, the RCC wouldn't be in the tawdry position it has put itself into.
I have a friend who is a raging vegetarian. I asked her once why she didn't eat eggs, and her response was "I don't like eggs."
Apparently it's easy to give up what we don't really desire.
And so it is with men who are drawn to the RCC priesthood. They "give up" wives and children because they don't really want them.
They want something else. They want to be called "another Christ" (in both their personal as well as private lives, as Father Kenneth Baker told us) and to wear long skirts and have people kneel to them and kiss their rings.
Rome has been content with that situation for centuries. If it weren't for all this pesky publicity, nothing would change.
Do not post to a Freeper who has been instructed to leave the thread.
I’m sorry. I didn’t see that.
Right now or always?
Alex Murphy is not now and has never been a Free Republic Religion Moderator.
Was 275 the cause of buccaneer being told to leave the thread?
1Timothy 4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
:2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
:3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
They made celibacy of their priests madatory 1123 A.D
Lateran Council
Canons 3 and 11 forbid priests, deacons, subdeacons, and monks to marry or to have concubines; it is also forbidden them to keep in their houses any women other than those sanctioned by the ancient canons. Marriages of clerics are null pleno jure, and those who have contracted them are subject to penance.
It goes totally against God’s word but I guess if you want to keep wealth and power in an organization you don’t want to have it willed to dependents.
1Timothy 3:1 This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
:3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
:4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
:5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)
:6 Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.
:7 Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.
:8 Likewise must the deacons be grave, not doubletongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre;
:9 Holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience.
:10 And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless.
:11 Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things.
:12 Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.
:13 For they that have used the office of a deacon well purchase to themselves a good degree, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus.
When you blatantly go against God’s word you can expect plenty of rift raft and false doctrines coming in.
1Timothy 4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
I instruct posters to leave the thread when they ignore my warnings and/or when they are too upset (thin-skinned) to continue in a particular discussion.
Let’s just say I’ve seen many questionable decisions in the past about which freeper gets booted off the thread.
By some wild coincidence, each time the freeper was questionably booted of a thread, he/she was Catholic.
You know, just an observation here.
IIRC, FReepers in the past have asked different mods for their identities and the mods have not complied. I understand that.
So it appears to me that the new strategy is to pick a target FReeper name and harangue you as the mod until you get exasperated tell them that you’re not whoever they picked, just like as has happened just now.
The problem is, sometime they are going to pick the name of who you are and you’ll be stuck either having to admit that they’re right, lie and deny it, or refuse to answer, which can easily be construed as an admission of fact.
What I see happening here is essentially that some people are trying to find out your identity by the process of elimination. It takes longer, but patience will win out. They’ve already eliminated two possibilities.
Never!!!
I wouldn’t ever expect the RM to lie and deny it.
I mentioned it only as an option.
That then leaves admitting that they’re right or maintaining silence which can be construed as an admission of fact. If the RM denies it several times and then suddenly clams up, that will look suspicious.
You've only been a Freeper for a month or so. If you had been here back in the FLDS scandal or Romney's failed campaign, you might think the Mormons were the only ones being told to leave threads.
The Catholic Church has suffered some lousy news recently which no doubt has become fodder for the antis as the FLDS scandal was for those antis.
Next time maybe the Lutherans will be on the receiving end of bad news.
Posters who can't handle the heat need to stay out of the kitchen.
I wouldn’t answer under normal circumstances. But this “Alex Murphy is the RM” gossip has been going on for years.
Shouldn’t the posters who couldn’t stand the heat from buccaneer stay out of the picture?
I believe the bias has been going on for quite a while.
I think there is an anti-Mormon bias on this website, too.
Maybe Lutherans can be unfairly picked on.
I’m not so sure about Calvinists and members of assorted pseudoChristian religions, though.
I really don’t see why it’s relevant who you are. You’re modding is pretty balanced. I’ve seen you instruct non-Catholics to leave threads.
I suppose if they found out who you were, they would accuse you of bias if you weren’t Catholic. But it seems to happen anyway, so I don’t see then what difference it makes whether they know or not. Nothing would change.
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.