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 went to public school all the way
“Thanks for being truthful.”
Always try to be.
“Roman Catholics seem to spend so much time trying to explain how the only “prayer” that occurs is to God.”
I’m no expert, but I’ve heard different explanations. What is important is that we worship no one but God.
As an aside, not everyone agrees that Michael Archangel isn’t God.
Those biases are completely understandable.
“Finally, Free Republic is pro-God meaning pro-Judeo/Christian God.”
To be more specific, I think it is pro-Protestant opinion of God.
I see.
If it’s public knowledge on fr, what is his wife’s freeper name?
Thank you
I guess when conservatives complain about media bias, they are really being liberal crybabies attempting to intimidate and control.
Don't be silly. While I believe Dr. Eckleburg overstates the case it is true that the results speak for themself.
Perhaps the "system" attracts an unusually high number of homosexuals. Whatever the case may be the Roman Catholic Clergy is populated by an inordinately high percentage of homosexuals when compared with other religous clergy.
Do you have any proof that the case is not as I described? Silly question and one which is impossible to answer as is your request of "proof".)
No, and that in no way invalidates my point.
I don't know if that's true, but that's not what I'm arguing over.
I'm arguing over whether "Rome" actually prefers having homosexual to heterosexual priests.
Do you have any idea how many seminarians attended at this time. I admit I have no idea but I believe it is a reasonable assumption that it was a very small number. Small enough, in fact, that the seminarians knew each other.
Further, your analogy is rediculous - apples to oranges.
Then why are Protestants being castigated for Catholic bias?
Is it *Do as I say* time again?
A lot of negatives there but let's try to sort it out.
"Not everyone agrees that Michael Archangel isn't God." Which means some people believe Michael Archangel to be God.
I know the Greeks give Michael a place of prominence but I've never read they believe him to be God.
Do you believe the Archangel Michael is God?
Prove it. Let's see the numbers.
Prove it. Let's see the numbers.
***Let’s just say I’ve seen many questionable decisions in the past***
LOL! You’ve been a member for how long?!?
I don’t mean to be critical of you, not my intention. I just love history and most people get the Disney thumbnail version.
Sources you requested:
1) The Synod of Melfi under Pope Urban II in 1089
“Wives and concubines were liable to be seized as slaves by the overlord, while the children were relegated to the category of servile rank, debarred from sacred orders, and declared incapable of exercising hereditary rights, because saepe solet similis filius esse patri.”
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/lateran2.html
2) Corpus Iuris Canonici, promulgated by Pope Gregory IX which remained official law of the Church until 1913
Steven Epstein, Wage Labour & Guilds in Mediaeval Europe (1995), page 226
Here is another reference:
In 1488, Pope Innocent VIII accepted the gift of 100 slaves from Ferdinand II of Aragon, and distributed those slaves to his cardinals and the Roman nobility.
Luis M. Bermejo, S.J. (1992). Infallibility on Trial. Christian Classics, Inc.. p. 315. ISBN 0-87061-190-9.
There is a bias in favor of Protestants and Calvinists.
1Now Jesus was praying in a certain place, and when he finished, one of his disciples said to him, "Lord, teach us to pray, as John taught his disciples." 2And he said to them, "When you pray, say:
"Father, hallowed be your name. Your kingdom come. 3 Give us each day our daily bread, 4and forgive us our sins, for we ourselves forgive everyone who is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation."
5And he said to them, "Which of you who has a friend will go to him at midnight and say to him, 'Friend, lend me three loaves, 6for a friend of mine has arrived on a journey, and I have nothing to set before him'; 7and he will answer from within, 'Do not bother me; the door is now shut, and my children are with me in bed. I cannot get up and give you anything'? 8I tell you, though he will not get up and give him anything because he is his friend, yet because of his impudence he will rise and give him whatever he needs.
9And I tell you, ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. 10For everyone who asks receives, and the one who seeks finds, and to the one who knocks it will be opened. 11What father among you, if his son asks for a fish, will instead of a fish give him a serpent; 12or if he asks for an egg, will give him a scorpion? 13If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will the heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!"
That's odd. I don't see any instruction from Jesus to canonize saints, make statues, light candles, bow down to or knee in front of, and pray to anyone. No instruction on praying to ANYONE but God the Father.
God knows what we need. Will He not give it to us if we ask?
What ever possesses anyone to think that praying to someone besides God will grant them their request?
If God is not going to answer someone's prayers to Him, He's not going to grant the request if someone else asks.
And even if some saint or angel had been authorized to answer prayer, not one of them is going to do it contrary to God's will.
The defense attorney should have disclosed the fact that he attended the same seminary at the same time as the alleged abuse took place because he personally may have known the victims and the accused and thus may have pertinent information about the case which could cause him to be called as a witness.
That’s what the judge is saying and it’s not a difficult concept to grasp. But once again we hear from RC apologists that everyone is wrong but Rome.
The most absurd part of this entire article is that the idiotic defense of “anti-Catholic bias” must be coded into the DNA of RCs at birth since we hear it every day from Free Republic all the way to Philadelphia.
Maybe it’s part of the regenerative baptism mojo. Regardless, it’s a common whine from bullies who lack a sound defense for their faith...and their clients.
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.