Advocate: Pa. church sentence a wake-up call
Tags
Related Posts
About the author
A Roman Catholic church official let children suffer at the hands of pedophile priests rather than stand up to his bishop, a judge said in handing down a stiff three- to six-year prison term that the archdiocese called unfair and excessive.
Monsignor William Lynn, 61, is the first U.S. church official convicted of covering up sex-abuse complaints against Roman Catholic priests. Common Pleas Judge M. Teresa Sarmina gave him nearly the maximum term for child endangerment, noting that he made the choice to stay on the job, unlike the young victims who couldn’t control their fate.
Lynn “enabled monsters in clerical garb … to destroy the souls of children,” Sarmina said Tuesday.
The former secretary for clergy at the Philadelphia archdiocese, he “helped many but also failed many” in his 36-year church career, Sarmina concluded.
Lynn, who handled priest assignments and child sexual assault complaints from 1992 to 2004, was convicted last month of felony endangerment for his oversight of now-defrocked priest Edward Avery. Avery is serving a 2 1/2- to five-year sentence after pleading guilty to sexually assaulting an altar boy in church in 1999.
“I did not intend any harm to come to (the boy). The fact is, my best was not good enough to stop that harm,” Lynn told the judge. “I am a parish priest. I should have stayed (one).”
Lynn’s lawyers had sought probation, saying their client shouldn’t serve more time than abusers. They plan to appeal the landmark conviction and seek bail next month while the lengthy appeals process unfolds.
Sarmina believes Lynn initially hoped to address the problem, and perhaps drafted a 1994 list of accused priests for that reason. But when Cardinal Anthony Bevilacqua instead had the list destroyed, Lynn chose to stick around , and keep quiet, she said.
“Monsignor Lynn personally heard the suffering of children,” she said. “Since he was going to obey his bishop, he had to build a wall to steel himself from hearing their pain.”
Lynn was acquitted of conspiracy and a second endangerment count involving a co-defendant, the Rev. James Brennan. The jury deadlocked on a 1996 abuse charge against Brennan; prosecutors plan to retry him.
The archdiocese called the sentence severe and hoped it would be “adjusted.” [more]
SOURCE
Leave a Comment
Photo Archive
-
May 23, 2013 1:58
Religious freedom reports see little improvement in troubling countries
-
May 23, 2013 1:43
LGBT Catholics find a new supporter: An openly gay priest
-
May 22, 2013 1:37
Tornadoes exact deadly toll; region needs ‘a lot of prayers right now’
-
May 22, 2013 1:32
State Dept. report says countries have repressed religious freedom with laws
-
May 22, 2013 1:23
2 lawsuits filed against Maine Catholic church
-
May 21, 2013 1:32
Church Whistle-Blowers Join Forces on Abuse
-
May 20, 2013 5:17
Maine Catholic church closing its doors
-
May 20, 2013 5:14
Muslim leaders in US facing challenges inside and outside the faith
-
May 17, 2013 5:43
Archbishop clarifies remarks about Cuomo
-
May 17, 2013 5:40
Fr. Gary Meier goes public with clergy experience
30 Comments
Why was Bernard Law never tried in Massachusetts for his knowing transfer of pedophile priests, especially John Gagin(sp.?) Instead, Law was rushed out of country–and given a promotion in Rome. Egregious!
Sometime we will stand before our Lord to be judged by Him for the things we have thought, done, said and written while in this body. I am thankful that it is Jesus who will be judging me, and not my fellow christians.
It is truly a shame that this panderer of pedophiles gets off so slightly and his victims have to live with it for a lifetime. There is no out there that can tell me he got what he deserved. HE DID NOT. And to have anyone think this is excessive is an idiot. If we believe in what the church teaches there is no redemption for those that hurt children. He provided the victims and a pervert to carry them out. Obedience is one thing and flat out crimes against children are another. Lets hope he receives God’s justice and not his mercy.
Merton — even the AP reporter, who very likely is a biased liberal, called the sentence “stiff.” Wow, are you JUDGMENTAL (were you in the courtroom and therefore know all the nuances of the case?) and UNMERCIFUL. By the measure that you measure, you also will be measured.
Jim, now you even use the words said to you to others – as I replied with that to you earlier this week – but yet again you don’t see the hypocrisy as you judge others so harshly and unfairly. There is no one posting on this sight that is more judgmenatal than you. (now I am sure you will come back with saying that I am and demonstrate your inability to present a logical argument.)
Let’s see if you remember those words the next time you are gloating and applauding that someone was denied the sacraments.
Well, Concerned, I am up against a deadline, so I don’t have much time, but I couldn’t resist: your post (to which I am responding) IS VERY JUDGMENTAL OF ME. But, truth be told, I don’t care, because we can and should judge the behavior of others. What we can’t judge is their hearts. Another reason I don’t care about your judgment of me: actually, I would be more concerned if you approved of what I wrote — that would be a red flag that I likey am in error.
The fact that you comment about anyone’s writings as judgmental demonstrates your hypocrisy. The immature response of “I would be more concerned if you approved of what I wrote — that would be a red flag that I likey am in error” demonstrates your inability to offer any real defense. You simply try being a spiritual bully under the guise of piety. Let’s see who else has done that. Oh yeah, Pharisees, Scribes who were confronted by Jesus himself about their hypocrisy.
So Concerned, I have a simple, yes or no question for you: was your post at 4:03 P.M. July 26 on this thread judgmental of me, or was it not? I am requesting a simple yes or no response from you. Even if it could be established that I have been judgmental (which I dispute), that is not the question on the table. Let me repeat: the question is, were you being judgmental of me at 4:03 P.M. July 26? Yes or No?
I will not enter into your deflection game. If you can’t own up to your judgmental way – you deserve no response. However, as long as you continue to attempt to be a spiritual bully, I will continue to point out your judgmental and hypocritical ways.
and Jim – if you read the end of my post at 4:30 you will see that you proved me right
and I guess I didn’t expect much else – the Pharisees and Scribes denied their hypocracy also. I think they must be your role models.
No deflection whatsoever, Concerned — in fact, it was you who have been deflecting. Recall that this particular back-and-forth between you and I began when, at 4:16 P.M., I called you judgmental. You responded by deflecting, saying I was judgmental. Man oh man, your incapacity to see yourself for what you do is stunning. Just look at this thread, the evidence is all there: 4:03 P.M.: you judge me. 4:16 P.M. I call you out for your judgmentalness. 8:55 A.M. you deflect, not addressing my charges of your judgmentalness. 10:42 A.M. I insist you address the charges and not deflect. 11:38 A.M. you continue to deflect, refusing to answer a simple yes or no question. If you can’t see this, Concerned, you truly are blind. BTW — I can’t find any post from you at 4:30 on this thread. If you meant 4:03 — well, you did in fact predict accurately. So what? That is not the question on the table. The question, Concerned, is this: were you being judgmental of me in your 4:03 P.M. July 26 post? Whether or not I’ve ever been judgmental is irrelevant. If you are on trial for murder, whether or not I have murdered someone says nothing about your guilt. So, I am saying you are guilty of being judgmental of me at 4:03 P.M., and you cannot use as your defense any statement about me.
So, the question begging for a simple yes or no answer remains: were you being judmental of me at 4:03 P.M. July 26? Yes? or No? Be a man and answer the question.
You have to look more than that – that was in response to you calling someone else judgmental. And it goes on long before this article. And yes it was 4:03 – and you continue to simply do the same thing – deflect whatever someone says about you back to them – it does not work with me. You attempt to be a spiritual bully with people – I will continue to point it out at every opportunity. As for your other childish comments, who cares? Stop bullying people.
oh maybe as further proof – you can look at you 1:15 response to Merton – not judgmental and childish? “…also, you are (oh my goodness, what a surprise!) again in error.”
Concerned — you do not have a logical mind at all. Did you not read the irrefutable logic in one of my posts that you cannot defend against my charge that you are judgmental by pointing out instances where you believe (albeit falsely) that I have been judgmental. What I have or have not done is irrelevant to the matter at hand: your judgmentalness. Obviously, it is a logical possiblity that BOTH of us are being judgmental (even though I know for a fact I do not judge the heart of anyone). Thus, the fact that you refuse to answer my simple yes-or-no question is prima facia evidence that you are a deflector. You just won’t address the issue. So, I’m unwilling to engage in any more back-and-forth about this, as you are unwilling or unable to follow through with a logical argument.
Concerned: I’ll be happy to respond to your allegation that I am judgmental just as soon as you resolve the matter at hand: your judgmentalness of me at 4:03 P.M.
Wow, Concerned — your middle name is deflection. I have now called you out specifically to answer a question with a simple yes or no, but you won’t. So, since you have presented no evidence to me to refute my allegation that you were very judgmental of me at 4:03 P.M., I am left with the only possible conclusion: that indeed, you were being quite judgmental of me. So, be it so known that you are judgmental, at least with me. Case now closed. You’ve had your opportunity to present evidence in your defense.
Merton — also, you are (oh my goodness, what a surprise!) again in error. The Church most definitely does NOT teach that “there is no redemption for those that hurt children.” ALL sins are forgiveable, Merton. Also, this monsignor did NOT hurt children. He may (or may not) have made errors in judgment, errors that are more obviously errors as we look at it in 2012 — but he started in his post in 1992, when our understanding of pedophilia was not as advanced as it is today. Matthew 5:7 is a huge heads up for you, Merton: “Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy.” By your own admission, Merton, you are denying mercy to this man. If you do not repent, you will not be shown mercy by the ultimate judge.
In 1992 the knowledge about pedophilia was quite good – you make it sound like it was prehistoric knowledge. And I still don’t get how you can possibly judge a person’s mercy when you yourself are so harsh on those you condemn.
and let’s be completely honest – he did hurt children by not acting. He was not an innocent bystander – he willingly cooperated with something he knew was wrong – he therefore hurt children. Allowing someone else to harm a child when you ccan do something to stop it – or at the very least not cooperate – is hurting a child.
Merton — so, it’s ironic: in one sentence, you label anyone an “idiot” who thinks the sentence is excessive. In the very next sentence, you — who are proclaiming people to be idiots — misrepresent what the Church teaches. You are a joke, and the joke is on you.
Francis Joseph you are so right on target. I wish I had written what you have. I think we, in the church lost sight of Jesus who said that he doesn’t call his followers servants but friend.
I hope all priests see where blind obedience gets you instead of doing what’s right.
The structure of the church is from the middle ages of Kings. The Bishop is “King.” All clergy, Priests Aux.Bishops, Deacons promise an oath of obedience to him and his successors. The struggle for priests, deacons, religious is how to live the gospel of love and service inspite of the oppressive feudal system that has taken priority in their lives?the system of servanthood established by Jesus who came to serve and not be served. When clergy are apart of this system, they obey as they hope to progress up the ladder and some day be a bishop themselves. They system is all they have, they have given their lives to it. This system has never been challanged before until the sex scandal.
Indeed, Francis, God Himself does not run a democracy — so many posters here get it wrong. One prime example is Michael Francisconi — he asserts that, since most Catholics practice hormonal birth control, that makes it moral. How ridiculous. Get used to autocracy, Francis — Jesus is indeed King of the universe, and His Mother indeed is the Queen of the universe.
And, Francis, to speculate that clergy are obedient so that they can “progress up the ladder” — wow, what a sweeping and unfair statement. You couldn’t possibly know that about the vast majority of clergy, and my guess is you don’t have good evidence for even ONE clergyman that this is his motivation for obedience. All the great saints talked about obedience. Jesus told St. Faustina that He was interested in her obedience, not the outcome. The reason the Church has lasted for 2000 years and will continue to last is precisely because it is not a democracy — the hierarchy ensures unity.
Jim there are many priests who are obedient simply to get ahead. And I have personal knowledge of them – so don’t try that one on me. Lynn could have resigned his post and should have resigned his post when told to do something morally wrong. Obedience does not include doing something that goes against conscience.
and the reason the CHurch has lasted this long is purely a gift of the Holy Spirit – in spite of human failure – in so many cases it has nothing to do with the human beings in charge who seem to do their best to destroy the church. And those bishops and priests who allowed this to go on are guilty of great damage to the Church.