Sentencing Tuesday in priest abuse case
Tags
Related Posts
About the author
The highest-ranking Catholic Church cleric charged and convicted in the landmark Philadelphia child sexual abuse trial is scheduled for sentencing Tuesday.
Monsignor William Lynn was found guilty in June of one count of child endangerment, the first time a U.S. church leader has been convicted of such a charge. He could face three-and-a-half to seven years in prison for his conviction on the third-degree felony.
A Philadelphia judge ordered Lynn, 61, to remain in jail until his sentencing despite a request for house arrest by his legal team.
The trial marked the first time U.S. prosecutors have charged not just the priests who allegedly committed abuses but also church leaders for failing to stop them. Lynn is the highest-ranking cleric accused of covering up allegations of molestation and rape against priests by transferring them to unwitting parishes.
He was found not guilty on a second count of endangerment and on a charge of conspiring to protect a priest accused of abuse.
Lynn’s defense team argued during the trial that their client repeatedly told higher-ups about the alleged abuse and, under strict orders from the late Cardinal Anthony Bevilacqua, had no authority to remove priests from the ministry.
The same jury that convicted Lynn was unable to bring a verdict against his co-defendant, the Rev. James Brennan, who was accused of attempted rape of a 14-year-old.
The Philadelphia district attorney’s office announced Monday it will retry Brennan. He is due in court for a status hearing on August 14. [More]
SOURCE
Leave a Comment
Photo Archive
-
May 24, 2013 7:00
Historic vote to accept gays as Boy Scouts draws mixed faith response
-
May 24, 2013 6:55
Faith-Healing Churches linked to 2 dozen child deaths
-
May 24, 2013 6:51
Clergy campaign for indigent care
-
May 24, 2013 6:46
Five more come forward alleging abuse by Hawaii Catholic priests
-
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
31 Comments
Joseph Francis I agree with you. If only the Cardinal were alive to testify himself, but the good Cardinal died suddenly, just before he had the opportunity.
The whole thing sounds like a scene from the movie, The Godfather.
This priests lives in a medeval system that is untouchable by secular society until now. Both he and the Bishops were free to do and act as they pleased. This has ended with this priest going to jail. If it were a Bishop who was found guilty, Rome would work out a deal behind close doors. He is just a priest, a soldier, a serf in the system who felt the security of the church behind him and followed the orders of his bishop who (died a few days before he was called to appear in court) (THE POWER OF PRAYER ? )This poor old man is being thrown to the sharks by the church. It should be a wake up call to the Bishops who got away with years of cover-up of so many countless priests, religious who violated the children of God.
Joseph Francis – “Both he and the Bishops were free to do and act as they pleased.” So, to draw that conclusion, apparently you have personally interviewed these clerics, right? If not, you should have some generosity of spirit and quit JUDGING others without having hardly any of the relevant facts.
Sorry Thomas, but that was not what he was convicted of – child endangerment – different sentencing guidelines.
Jim – you may not think this is something I would say, but I also look towards the mercy and forgiveness journey for those of us as “Church.”. The criminal and civil stages are the other side of the coin, as Christ pointed out.
The verdict is in and he gets 3 to 6 years in prison. NOT enough, Not nearly enough. And he can get out and continue to hide his fellow priests heinous crimes against children. I pray he has to register as a child abuser.
Jim, These events happened post 2002, not 30 years ago.
J.O. — okay, thanks for that clarification — I’ll assume you are reporting accurately.
J.O. — here is the post that contains the misinformation.
This priest needs to own up to the fact that what he did was wrong. He should have defied the orders of the Bishop. And the Bishops were the real culprits. They directed the cover-ups. They made the decisions to not remove the priests. However, in the end, getting Lynn is like getting the local dealer while the main distributor remains free.
The man does not deserve compassion or forgiveness. He facilitated in the sexual abuse of children for God’s sake. Wake up and smell the stink. He deserves the maximum and then some.
Merton — doesn’t deserve forgiveness? Matthew 6:15, Jesus speaking: “But if you do not forgive others, neither will your Father forgive your transgressions.” So, Merton, your Heavenly Father will not forgive your sinfulness until you are willing to forgive the monsignor.
Jim, remove the plank from your eye before trying to remove the splinter from another persons eye!
Concerned — and you are in a position to judge what “planks” are in my eye? I NEVER have expressed non-forgiveness on this blog. If you think I did, show me the thread. What I do do is I CELEBRATE when some heretic is chastised, largely because this helps others who might think what the heretic espouses is okay, but also because the heretic needs that kind of correction for their own good. Wise up.
Florian — I am not intimately familiar with the details of the case, so I don’t have a firm opinion. However, what I do know, as the story says, is that he is the first person in a leadership position to be convicted of not stopping another priest from abusing. He probably was following the culturally-accepted practice in the Catholic hierarcy at the time. Also, it is important that we not use the current understanding of pedophilia as the yardstick by which to judge this monsignor. As of 30 years ago, allegations of sexual perpetration were handled very differently, including by mental health professionals. So, hindsight always is 20-20 — in retrospect, it looks like the monsignor was negligent, but at the time my guess is his practice of reassigning perpetrating clergy was considered acceptable. I feel bad for the man, but hopefully he can offer up his incarceration and sufferings as a sacrifice to God for the salvation of souls.
O rara avis are you Jim — uninformed about Msgr Lynn who knew what he was doing was wrong, but was foiled by Bevilaqua.
whi in their right mind honestly believes that reassigning a child abuser is “acceptable?” My goodness Jim, birth control is “acceptable” but you want those who practice it to be denied the Eucharist. It was a COVER-UP because they knew it was wrong. If there were nothing wrong with it they would not have covered it up. Everyone deserves mercy – even this priest – but how do you propose mercy in one case and celebrate the punishment of someone else? “The measure with which you measure is the measure with which you will be measured.”
Concerned — as I have said elsewhere, I am not intimately familiar with teh details of this case; if indeed the monsignor was covering something up, then I agree that is prima facia evidence that he knew what he was doing was wrong. However, I’m not just going to take what you say as gospel — you are on a mission to attack the Church over this issue, so I suspect you are not rendering the information accurately. And, with regard to “celebrating” the punishment of others: excommunication is not a punishment — it is an act of mercy to tell them they are on the wrong road, and if they don’t turn around, they are going to crash and burn — FOR AN ETERNITY.
addendum: with regard to “the measure by which you measure…” I sure would hope the Church would take me to task if I was on the wrong track — as for others, it would be an act of mercy to me.
May they have mercy on Monsignor; he does not deserve harsh punishment.
Just what DOES the Monsignor deserve, Jim?
should he be excommunicated? As you celebrate when a sinner is excommunicated? “sow the wind, reap the whirlwind.”
Concerned — I NEVER celebrate that someone has sinned, but I DO celebrate when they are corrected, as it is a service to the sinner, and also to the rest of the Church, so that others are not led into error by thinking that what the sinner did was acceptable. With regard to the monsignor being excommunicated: you must really misunderstand excommunication. You never are excommunicated for sinful behavior, but you ARE excomnmunicated for refusal to recant and mend your ways. I’m sure this monsignor has already confessed his sins of omission.
Hs he recanted? Has he made a public admission of his guilt? How can you make that assumption since you do not know the case, as you admit? If he confessed his sins how did he continue to plead “not guilty?” You in fact continue to celebrate and gloat when people are denied the Sacraments – but it is only for those who have thoughts different than yours. Somehoow you believe that this is okay in those cases. You have made the decision that you get to decide who deserves it and who does not. I call for God’s mercy for everyone and pray that the Church become an example of that mercy for everyone. You on the other hand sway in the wind according to your pleasure.
Concerned — I’m glad to hear that you “call for God’s mercy for everyone” — because your call for God’s mercy for me is apparent in your loving responses to my posts. Hypocrit.
Concerned — with regard to “has he recanted?” — Well, I assume he has. You’re not JUDGING him, are you? You’re not ASSUMING he has not recanted, are you? You, who reflect the love of Jesus that includes everyone, including this monsignor — you’re not judging him and denying him mercy, are you? DON’T ASSUME, especially if you’re going to assume the worst. I am very glad I am not you.
And Concerned — with regard to the “not guilty” plea — that is a legal maneuver; it does not mean that he admits to no wrongdoing whatsoever, just that he does not believe he is guilty of the crime with which he is charged.
Should he be denied the Eucharist JIm? Just like you applaud being done for those who who are “notorious” sinners. “It is better that a millstone be fashioned around his neck and thrown into the depths of Gehenna than to lead one of these little ones astray.”
Concerned — of course he should NOT be denied the Eucharist — you deny the Eucharist only to those public figures who blatantly disagree with Church teaching. Monsignor, to my knowledge, never has disagreed with Church teaching.
Really? Keeping children out of harms way is not church teaching? Covering up crimes is not against church teaching? He knew church teaching but decided to do it anyway. Isn’t that blatant disregard? Or is it because he was a hypocrite about that makes it different? Saying one thing but doiong another. By the standards you have celebrated being imposed on others, then this man should be denied the Sacraments. Or is it just that you impose that on those who are labeled “liberal?” Sounds a bit hypocritical.
Concerned — you are lost. No one is excommunicated for a sin for which they repent. Where did you get your Catholic instruction? From heretics on the internet?
addendum to Concerned: did you instruction come from heretical “Sister” Farley in her garbage book?