House arrest for Monsignor Lynn?
Having spent about eight years as a reporter covering various court beats, I was surprised when Monsignor William Lynn was jailed immediately after his conviction on a charge of child endangerment. The practice I’ve witnessed countless times, except for gangsters, drug dealers and other violent criminals, is for the defendant to be free on bail pending sentencing. And even then, the judges I covered – some very tough judges in the federal court – often allowed defendants to remain free pending appeal.
At a hearing in Philadelphia today, prosecutor Patrick Blessington came up with a surprise piece of information to support his call for Lynn to remain in jail pending his Aug. 13 sentencing: a Chicago Tribune article reporting that since 1985, some 32 priests who were charged or under investigation in child-abuse cases fled the country. Only five returned to face trial.
I hadn’t caught that troubling story when it ran in March and, as the Philadelphia Inquirer makes clear, neither had Judge M. Teresa Sarmina, who “appeared to be taken aback.”
Blessington warned her that the Vatican doesn’t have an extradition treaty with the U.S., implying that Lynn could find refuge there.
It sounds as if the judge had been ready to release Monsignor Lynn to house arrest pending sentencing, a not-unexpected ruling for a defendant who has deep roots in the community. Typical precautions could include having the defendant wear an electronic monitoring bracelet and turn in his passport. Instead, the judge wants a further guarantee; she asked the lawyers to conduct research into whether a letter from Lynn waiving extradition would be binding.
This means the monsignor will continue to be held in the Curran-Fromhold Correctional Facility (No. 1102886) – at least until a July 5 hearing is held.
You wouldn’t think it would happen, him fleeing the jurisdiction, but….keeping him under house arrest seems much more appropriate, and you can give him a monitoring anklet and take away his passport. Could he take sanctuary in any church?
The case of Archbishop Marcinkus is also instructive — he hid out in the Vatican for many years to escape prosecution in the bank scandal. That is, the one before the latest Vatican bank scandal.
I wonder if Lynn’s lawyers should have gone for a diminished capacity defense.
The idea that the clergy of the RCC cannot be trusted, nor can the Vatican, to observe the ruling of the court speaks volumes about any sense of integrity that exists in this organization.
I wonder if the fleeing priests identified by the Chicago Tribune above made their getaways entirely by themselves, or whether Church leaders, either in the Vatican or elsewhere, gave them some help, as was the case with “Ratlines” after WWII, when the Vatican helped the escape of Nazis, clerical and lay, to safe countries (often in Latin America).
While I trust that rough justice has been done in this conviction and sentencing will be appropriate, I don’t see the need for incarceration. Despite the histories mentioned and with the current climate in the press and church what it is, could you really imagine him pulling a Cardinal Law? Can you imagine the outcry in Philadelphia and throoughout the counbtry if he took off for Rome? I think we are too quick to incarcerate many and surely, in the right place, he is no threat to individuals or for flight. Get him into someplace safe with an ankle bracelet.
Time to leverage that man’s blind obedience. Just get his bishop to vouch for him. If his bishop tells him to stay put, he will. Nothing more is needed.
My expectation is that the majority of the priests listed in the Chicago Tribune story are immigrants from other countries who have either returned to their country of origin or have fled somewhere else. (And in fact, we know that a number of priests who are imported into the US from other countries elect to come here because of problems or irregularities in their native country.)
Is Lynn a native of a country other than the US? Does he have dual citizenship? If the answer to both those questions is “no”, then I doubt he is an especial flight risk. As far as I know, priests don’t have special travel or residency privileges beyond those that would be extended to any other citizen. We all learned, during the Cardinal Law debacle, that cardinals are citizens of the Vatican, but I’ve never heard that it applies to all priests.
1)My experience with the courts is that if a defendant goes to trial and is convicted in a matter in which harm to the community is seen, frequently the Court will put the defendant in immediately of the judge intends to sentence to some incarceration.
2)Defense should try to do the best for their client (such as house arrest or even probation.)
Thats’s their job (as an appeal in the Sandusky case and this one will happen.) The validity thereof will be matters for the appeals courts.
3)I think the issue of child protection is still the prominent one (certainly raised by Ms. Kelly post Sandusky.)
4)I understand there will be a big push though from a variety of powers to give leniency to the Msgr. – that’s why the case is so high profile in many ways.
5) I take exception, if there be reason to, to treating the Msgr. differently because of his clerical state.
We have too much of that in Canon Law!
Lynn wasn’t convicted of posing a personal risk to children. Bail is more than sufficient, even if he were to leave. His supervisory career is over; any other punishment is just revenge.
If he were to leave, justice would not be done. You don’t seem to believe it, but for many of us it’s not about revenge.
So what do priests do when they go to jail? It might not the worst thing for the Monsignor, he might be able to do some kind of pastoral work that could turn out to be really redemptive.
“His supervisory career is over; any other punishment is just revenge.”
I’m sure you’re aware that deterrence and retribution — in addition to incapacitation and rehabilitation — are aims of the criminal justice system.
“Madoff’s career as a money manager is over; any other punishment is just revenge.” Sound right to you?
Most likely he would not survive in prison. Even though he is (supposedly) not guilty of any crimes against children, he will not be viewed as innocent once in prison. His life expectancy, like that of Jerry Sandusky, wouldn’t be a strong bet.
Jim Paulwels;
I too looked up the Chicago Trib article. It seems to me that over two-thirds are priests with names that would indicate foreign country ties. (Sorry, I am not intending to be racial profiling.) Most went to Mexico, a few went to India and the Philippines. My guess is that they were either foreign-born and had passports from their respective countries. Also, it was pointed out that all left to avoid going to trial.
I find it very disturbing that Judge Sarmina based her decision that Msgr. Lynn was a flight risk based on the prosecutor lawyer pointing out to her the Chicago Trib article which she had no knowledge of. (After all it was March 11, 2011 and wasn’t in the Philadelphia Inquirer
Obviously, he would have to be placed under special protection. No one deserves to be beaten up or abused, for any reason, so people who are at special risk in prison have a right to being protected.
Why should Monsignor Lynn be granted the privilege of house arrest? Lynn is a convicted felon, he was found guilty of child endangerment. The child he endangered was a 10 year old boy who was sexually assaulted by Fr. Avery. Lynn knew Avery was a child molester and he allowed him to live and work at St. Jerome’s parish. Lynn didn’t tell parishioners or this boys parents that a child sex predator was in their midst. Avery took that child into the sacristy, turned on the radio, and ordered him to perform a striptease and then performed oral sex on the child. That 10 year old boy went on to begin abusing alcohol and marijuana one year following Avery’s attack. He later began to abuse heroin, and by the age of 23 he has been in almost two dozen drug treatment facilities. The victim has now served 13 years of the sentence that Monsignor Lynn and Fr. Avery imposed upon him. He is not able to ask Judge Sarmina for any privileges. Lynn can stay in jail and reflect on what he has done.
Bail is more than sufficient, even if he were to leave. His supervisory career is over; any other punishment is just revenge.
Bruce,
Jumping bail is a crime in itself, and it also means that whoever put up the bail loses the money, which means that unless the person who puts up the bail secretly agrees to forfeit it so the person who jumps bail can escape (which would be a crime, too), the person who puts up the bail is cheated out of a large sum of money.
There are many reasons for sending people to prison other than to stop them from repeating what they did. You have a very strange view of the criminal justice system.
Sorry. I pressed the Submit button by accident.
(After all it was March 11, 2011 and wasn’t in the Philadelphia Inquirer.)
The judge’s actions here seem to me to be based on information that she did not process well.
Bob and Claire, I don’t disagree with either of you, nor with Bruce (if I understand what Bruce is saying – Claire, I don’t think Bruce is arguing that Lynn shouldn’t be sentenced to any other punishment, only that he doesn’t pose a flight risk or special danger and should be allowed to be free pending sentencing and/or any appeals. Bruce, if that’s not right, I apologize for misrepresenting your views.) From the comparatively little I know of his case, I think the jury made a reasonable decision, and whatever he is going to be sentenced to, I hope it represents justice.
I do suspect that the prosecution oversold the judge on Lynn’s flight risk. I don’t see that convicted priests are more or less likely to flee than any other class of convicted criminals. I would want the same standards applied to them as to any other class. I expect that, if the Chicago Tribune or any other news gathering organization was moved to do so, it could identify 32 accountants or bartenders or construction workers who have skipped out of the country while on bail.
‘Revenge” is not an acceptable goal in the criminal justice system.
Back a while, a Msgr. in NY did State time for swindling little old ladies -and didn’t die in prison.
Violations of trust deserve particular attention and if victims are children -
But those who think leniency is what’s called for will keep on arguing.
I think Atty General Kelly was right – we have an oportunity to raise consciousness about an evil more pervasive than we wish to admit and which institutions have historically (and I think still are) trying to tamp down
I hope we’ll not try to keep lowering consciousnes of an unpleasant evil for some, out of a stilted view of justice.
Anybody know what sentences have been in comparable crimes? I certainly think some jail time is appropropriate, given the horrific nature of the crimes. And while he might not be marked for death like actual child molesters are (see Geoghan, John) he would seem to merit some special protection.
Another question: what should the church do to Msgr. Lynn? If he were an actual abuser he would be laicized. But there seems to be no provision for someone in his position who is guilty of a crime. Or is there? In canon law? Nothing in the Charter, I think.
And if he is not laicized, what do you do with him when he gets out of prison, if indeed he is sentenced to jail time? A sinecure in Rome? A desk job in the archdiocese? Back in ministry?
“some 32 priests who were charged or under investigation in child-abuse cases fled the country. Only five returned to face trial”…..
“Blessington warned her that the Vatican doesn’t have an extradition treaty with the U.S., implying that Lynn could find refuge there.”
How many of the 32 priests fled to the Vatican and how many of the 27 missing priests are being hidden at the Vatican? Is there any factual basis for even implying that the Vatican would provide refuge there? If so what and where is it ?
How old is Lynn?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protective_custody
“In a prison context, protective custody is used mainly in the following cases:
Those who are at high risk of being harmed or killed by other prisoners either for their crime or their group (ethnic or otherwise), such as pedophiles, child murderers / child abusers,[4] corrupt police officers, gang members in a prison containing rival gang members or those who choose to “debrief” (provide information on their gang), or prisoners who are gay, transsexual, or transgender.[5]”
And if he is not laicized, what do you do with him when he gets out of prison, if indeed he is sentenced to jail time? A sinecure in Rome? A desk job in the archdiocese? Back in ministry?
I don’t see why he should be laicized. I think it is good for the priesthood to have some visibly defective priests among the clergy – it prevents the drift towards treating clergy like little gods. Why not back in ministry (maybe prison ministry!?) but with no decision power: assistant pastor, for example?
Lynn is 61, a stripling for priests these days.
I read this blog with utter amazement. If the editors of Commonweal had any any decency they should close this blog down immediately . Mean, vicious and vindictive comments are regularly posted under the ruse of calling the church to reform. Most of you are in facts arguing for what is essentially revenge. You are so far from the mercy of Jesus that I cannot believe the comments made here are by Catholics.
The US prison system is notorious internationally for its violence and cruelty not to mention the barbarism of capital punishment. It is manifestly not a solution to anything. What kind of bitterness and malice inspires so many of the contributors here to believe they are entitled to pass judgement on this priest from so far a distance from any personal involvement in this case
Yes, child abuse is a tragedy and an evil ; yes the church failed its people grievously and yes people like Archbishop Martin of Dublin are prophetic in making the victims our first priority.
Crucifying scapegoats however is bizarre behavior from followers of Jesus
Nothing can justify the Editors of Commonweal allowing the free floating rage of this blog. Msgr Lynne will one day be judged like all of us by Jesus . But I am sure he will receive far more mercy from the Lord than the sick revenge of people whose agendas are not so much the protection of children but projecting their own darkness onto others and solving nothing through their violence.
All Judge Sarmina needed to do was to take Msgr. Lynn’s passport. (I believe that Msgr. Lynn’s lawyer said a while back that he did not have a passport.)
Nevertheless, my point still stands that the judge is showing poor judgment here by basing her decision on a Chicago Trib article that really is not totally relevant here. (Disclaimer: My son worked for the paper up until last summer.) She has dropped a notch in my estimation, for what it’s worth.
And Mark O’Connor: I agree with you about “crucifying scapegoats.” The real felon here is Cardinal Bevilacqua and to be honest, as a Philadelphian, I want to gag when I write his name.
For rage and darkness, Mr. O Connor, not to mention self-righteousness, your comment exceeds anything else I have read on this blog.
I can’t speak for the mercifulness of Jesus, but he is reported to have said this: “But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.” (Mt. 18:6)
I trust it will not come to that for Msgr. Lynn.
John P., I believe that we are only discussing house arrest pending appeal, not in lieu of the eventual time to be served in prison. It is not a privilege but (I believe) a common arrangement.
Correction:
The Philadelphia Inquirer reports that Lynn’s lawyers surrendered his passport to the judge.
I was addressing my comment to John Pilmaier.
Dear Mr Prior
The problem of child abuse is essentially a sickness of violence and the abuse of power. Please do not delude yourself by quoting Scripture that Jesus wants anything to do with his followers solving a sin of violence by responding with more violence . The cycle is endless.
You rather prove my point when you project onto my comments the label ‘darkness”
Sounds sound like you would like to send me jail too!
That seems the way many in the USA want to solve its problems and why it’s prison system is a scandal and not where Catholics should be looking to to reform the church
“And if he is not laicized, what do you do with him when he gets out of prison, if indeed he is sentenced to jail time? ”
If he were really following the directions of his superiors- Cardinal Bevilacqua, Cistone, and the rest, how could the Church sanction him? He was subject to a vow of obedience, right?
Irene Baldwin:
Where did you get that fact that diocesan priests have a vow of obedience?
Sad to say, I think that they have a personal commitment to advancement.
Mr O Connor,
Neither the Church nor Christ nor any commenter on this blog convicted Msgr. Lynn. Secular authorities did, and they will determine his punishment. Commenters here have speculated, perhaps profitlessly, on what that punishment may be, but your characterizing their motive as “sick revenge” and your implying that the editors lack decency are dyspeptic and abusive.
And no, I don’t think sending you to jail would improve either jail or you.
Curious – Sandusky was found guilty and immediately went to prison. Why is Lynn any different from Sandusky?
His sentence should be in the same range as others with this offense. Are there sentencing norms?
In general, this nation incarcerates far too many people– the highest percentage in the world. We must do better. This does nothing to diminish his culpability or the punishment that is just.
He can be monitored outside jail until he is sentenced- although given the overall climate, he may be more peaceful in jail.
“Madoff’s career as a money manager is over; any other punishment is just revenge.” Sound right to you?
Frankly, yes.
Why is Lynn any different from Sandusky?
The difference is major. Sandusky actually molested children so his presence poses a danger. Lynn did not molest anyone: he failed to prevent another from molesting children, and not contemporaneously at that. I dont know about you, but to me that is a very substantial difference. And, in fact, Pennsylvania had to change the law to make Lynn’s actions a crime, whereas Sandusky’s actions were already criminal. To me, failing to prevent another from committing a crime seems like something anyone who knows a person who subsequently commits a crime could be convicted for. Hope you never have a family member or friend who drives home drunk from a party, you might be convicted of not preventing them from driving drunk…
Mr. O’connor –
Prison in the civil sphere is analogous to penance in the spiritual one. Would you have the Sacrament of Reconciliation drop penance? Might I point out to you that in the olden days people were sometimes sentenced to literal sackcloth and ashes or months or even years of severe penalities? If the courts did not provide very serious penance for very serious crimes, the courts would not be a deterrant to more crimes, and even more children and others would suffer.
Sometimes I think the change in our culture for the worse is at least partly due to the one Our Father and one Hail Mary penances given to my generation that always seemed like a very good deal considering my sins. People don’t even talk about sins anymore — they talk about “mistakes” and think compassion solves everything.
Forgiveness and leniency are not the same thing.
Irene –
What to do with the enabler Msgr. Lynn? In the not so olden days he’d have been made a bishop. Hmmm. The great Boston enabler is now a member of 5– count them 5! — Curial dicasteries. Maybe he could find a place for Msgr. Lynn when he gets out, maybe helping to choose new bshops.
Bruce – your example is actually law in many places. A bar or parent hosting a party can be held civilly liable if someone leaves drunk and causes a fatality.
It is also enshrined in all criminal and civil laws. Using your example, we would we hold folks responsiblie such as bank presidents, Wall Street honchos, etc. – their employees often did the actual illegal deals but they were still responsible and accountable.
Sorry, if you are present at a crime and do nothing to stop it – in fact, enable the criminal, in our legal system, you are just as guilty. Your approach is the same used by the USCCB and Rome – blame the priest abuser but do nothing to hold the bishops accountable for moving them around if not out and out enabling.
Will the warden and the other convicts have to address Lynn as “Monsignor” (my lord)?
Letter to the editor in this morning’s NYT:
————————
Msgr. William J. Lynn was found guilty of child endangerment by the state but not by the church. Indeed, the church assisted in his defense. He retains the honorific title of monsignor, and he is not suspended from the practice of priestly ministry.
When pressed, the church has belatedly applied punishments to priests credibly accused as child abusers and rapists. As this case shows, enabling that abuse merits no punishment in current church jurisprudence. The church has not risen to the standards of the state when it comes to protecting children.
DANIEL C. MAGUIRE
Milwaukee, June 24, 2012
The writer is a professor of theology at Marquette University.
you are present at a crime and do nothing to stop it – in fact, enable the criminal, in our legal system, you are just as guilty
Bill,
This is not actually true. In law, a non-participant is not obligated to do anything. Laws generally punish people for their actions, not their inaction.
“a non-participant is not obligated to do anything.”
Unless of, course, a legal duty has been imposed upon that person to act. Parents are the obvious people with a legal duty to protect children, but people in certain occupations also have a duty to report abuse.
MacGuire’s letter is striking. But I don’t expect he’ll lose his title unless he’s defrocked which he may be.
Still, keep him at home until sentencing. Jails are too crowded for many — it’s not a special clerical privilege. this would go for so many we incarcerate betsween conviction and sentencing.
It seems that Msgr. Lynn may be released to house arest on July 5 if the Court is convinced that he will abide by all conditions it lays down.
Before anyone excoriates Commonweal, they should say what knowledgability they bring about criminal justice -we’ve had several shoot from the lip commentators here already.
I look at this from the Judge’s perspective in real life experience of the courts.
Criminal terms in large metropolitan areas are under duress of calendar filed, in the main, against various flotsam who’ve done bad things, some quite ugly.
My hero continues to be Hon. Harold Rothwax, who sat in NY Supreme Court and author of
“Guilty” who expected all who appeared in front of him and himself to be fully prepared as he dealt with the pressures of calendar.
A plea was usually offered in his felony part and he would tell defendants if they were guilty, this was the best they could get -if they wished to profess innocence, the ante went up if they were convicted.
A friend has told me that a knowlegable source indicated that Lyn was offered probation for a plea.
If true, it may be, given the expense and effort there, that the ante goes up.
The arguments about his release as arguments during trial are the adverserial stuff that is the grist mill of the Court’s rough justice today.
In high profile cases such as these, more adversarial argument/spin(and there is spin) continue in TV coverage such as Mark Geeragos and Marcia clark having at it on CNN.
There may also be tremendous political pressures in high profile cases -something well hidden if extant.
But, it strikes me that
the jury was clear on the one count and wanted at first to convict on conspiracy, but the elements of the law as explained to them would not justify such.
Back behind all of this, the Sandusky case proceded and have been yoked in a number of articles -justly I think.
For the moment, what I’ve argued here is that we have an oportunity to rethink our preconceptions in this matter -I’m particularly concerned about instititutions’ behavior towards innocents they hurt (and then want to treat as expendables) as they try to lessen their own accountability.
Rants by those with little knowledge of the criminal justice system or clever legal arguments and spin by our friends at the bar should not dissuade us from thinking about again and articulating what justice means here -especially since the case has implications beyond the individuation factors of the defendant.
Bob,
Here is what the Jury foreman said:
On Monday morning, jury foreman Isa Logan went on Fox 29′s Good Day and told anchors Mike Jerrick and Karen Hepp that he didn’t believe the prosecution’s conspiracy theory, and neither did anyone else on the jury.
“It wasn’t about him [Lynn] passing them [abuser priests] on from parish to parish,” Logan explained to the two TV anchors. Instead, the jury concentrated on Lynn’s supervisory role, Logan said. “It was more on what are your actions knowing about a father [priest], what do you do after the fact when you find out that this person could be a potential problem or is a problem.”
“None of us understood or believed that he [Lynn] had the understanding that here’s a predator priest, I’ll help him get to another parish so he can continue to enjoy what he likes to do,” Logan stated. “None of us believed that.”
The full article is here and worth reading
http://www.priestabusetrial.com/2012/06/jury-didnt-buy-prosecutions-grand.html
As to priestly obedience–last time I was at an ordination, at one point in the ceremony the ordinand kneels before the bishop, his hands together in an attitude of prayer. The bishop envelops the ordinand’s hands with his own–which struck me then as an odd combination of a sensual and dominating gesture, embracing and constraining–and the ordinand promises obedience to the bishop and his successors.
Beyond the level of promises, though, there is the culture of obedience that characterizes the priesthood. All power and authority flows from one’s superiors–or not at all, and the bishop is seen as representing Christ. He’s not just a boss. (The same dynamic can be at work in priestly formation. I heard once of a seminarian told he was not being granted transfer credit for a course he’d previously taken, and was told to accept the decision as “God’s will.” ) For priests without strong connections outside the priesthood, the in-crowd loyalty can comprise social, emotional, economic and vocational ties that only the strongest (see Bourgeois, e.g.,) buck against. The requirement of priestly celibacy makes it more likely that priests will find most of their social connections among other priests–married men are answerable to their wives and families, ties which can (but don’t in every case,) serve to relativize professional obligations.
And part of the root problem for people like Lynn is the culture of obedience, compounded by clericalism. When the Vatican went investigating seminaries for bad formation leading to sex abuse, they looked at moral education concerning sex. Perhaps instead they should have looked for, and tried to root out, the sources of the culture of obedience and clericalism.
“When the Vatican went investigating seminaries for bad formation leading to sex abuse, they looked at moral education concerning sex.”
Lisa, it seems that Archbishop Dolan was poking about more for dissent. As if there were any connection between ideology and virtue. Or lack thereof.
As long as the institution is blind to the tangle of weeds that is an unholy combination of addiction, grooming, clericalism, elitism, and narcissism, I think they will continue to blunder badly. The most insightful among them today seem to be able to do little more than scratch their heads and wonder how it happened.
Getting back to Msgr Lynn, I’m struck by this testimony from Hildegard of Bingen when her community was placed under interdict:
“Before you close the mouth of a community, … (you) have to consider to be led by the eagerness of justice and not by indignation, unjust emotions or feelings of vengeance.”
Considering my family members who have been physically and sexually abused, I still think we are urged to consider our indignation, vengeance, and emotions, and honestly discern our passions in this matter. Victims need healing and justice. Not ugly vengeance.
Bruce is right on the jury sentoment, though I think I read the opposite elsewhere.
Tp appreciate the legalities, though, one should read Cipriano’s blog of June 25 which gives a full picture.
I’m glad to see the issue of seminary formation come up -deserves a thread of its own,
And then there’s epiccopla formation these days……
Finally, prosecutors and judges are awakening to the criminal sociopathology and psychopathology that is endemic in the Catholic hierarchy!!!
Survivors of sexual abuse and exploitation around the world are one step closer to justice and peace.
Catholics have an opportunity to reexamine their previously unwavering support for their corrupt all-male feudal oligarchy.
Hi, Todd,
Thanks for your comment.
I do have a question, though: what about the line of thinking which speaks of “exemplary” punishment, i.e. punishing someone in such a way that others (in this case, church leaders) may finally begin to get the point and, as a result, alter their behavior — maybe not because they’ve experienced metanoia, but because they begin to see that if they don’t alter it, it’s becoming more likely that they’ll end up paying a price themselves.
And if they do alter their behavior, fewer people will end up being harmed in the way your family members were. If that’s a fair way of seeing things, sending Lynn to prison wouldn’t be an act of vengeance.
Put it this way: you said, “Victims need healing and justice. Not ugly vengeance.” But potential future victims need measures which will help protect them. Might Msgr. Lynn’s jailing be such a measure?
He is convicted. He should receive the same considerations of others convicted of this crime. This seems like justice though there are elements of vengeance…
Still think incarceration until sentencing is not in the interst of justice or the state.
My broken record remark, we incarcerate way too many in this nation.
As far as the de-frocking. It would be a tremendous signal, but we should start with Cardinal Law. Ha! The canon lawyers will ponder this one…
David, the fact that we overincarerate in this country -especially for non violent drug arresrs -is irrelevant to this matter.
The repeated use of the word”vengenance” -not used in CJS circles, is prejudicial and unrealistic.
The issue is comunity safety -which in the matter of child sex abuse has often fallen by the wayside of institutional protection. What do you think betrayal of trust affecting innnocen tyoung lives should mean?
I would like to add to my previous coment that there are allegations of much political pressure from friends of the hierachy by Gerald Slevin in his post today.
Some will easily fob this off, but it’s hard to really know how much happens in such matters.
At any rate, we’ll see at sentencing what the court has to say, but, please, let’s drop the “vengeance” semantic.
One note to David Gibson and other journalists, please do not use the term laicize for the punishment of removal from the priesthood. The proper term for removal from the priesthood as a punishment is dismissal or the archaic term defrock you see in some newspapers.
Laicization is a voluntary process that is an honorable way for a priest to be relieved of the obligations of priesthood, like celibacy, that he no longer feels able to fulfill. I read an anguished comment by one daughter of a laicized priest who worried that people would think her father did something wrong because all of these abusers were said to be “laicized.” Saying “Fr. X, the abuser was dismissed from the priesthood” is much more fair to all those honorably laicized.
(Even a priest who has been reduced to the laity is a sacerdos in aeternum. Is the same true of one whose frock has been taken away? Imho, Lynn should not be defrocked. He should be allowed to minister to his fellow convicts to the extent of his supposedly quite limited capability.)
Robert P Hyde, thanks for your comment. The point you make has also been made in a very interesting Commonweal article by Nicholas Cafardi on a somewhat related topic: many bishops have used the laicization process, which you rightly characterize as honorable, and which Cafardi characterizes as merciful, as a practical and expedient method to get abusive priests out of the priesthood.
http://commonwealmagazine.org/loose-canons
Extradition may warrant limited confidence if Lynn were somehow to end up abroad. The Telegraph reports (6/28/12) from London that “One of America’s most wanted paedophiles has been spared extradition from Britain by the High Court on human rights grounds.” He is the 10th person to have extradition to the US from England blocked in recent years.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9362298/Paedophile-spared-extradition-to-US-on-human-rights-grounds.html
I want to go back a little here.
If Msgr.’s custody status is changed, it should operate on a guarantee that he will appear,
But most discussion revolves on sentencing and the goals of criminal justice.
In the early 1980″s a revolution occurred in sentencing.
Professionals involved in the sytem outside the adversarial lawyer approach argued strongly that the process pf sentencing was not focused on the individual alone being sentenced, but also on the community protection role of possible sentences including not only jail, but also fines, probation, restitution. treatemnt.
This had many obvious benefits including widespread uses of victim impact presentations andmore thotoughly grounded emrpirically based studies of rehab programs.
The latter would have had greater benefits if both political pressures from some”lock em all up” political figures made funding difficult, and ,more recently, especially, State budget problems call for more release with little community protection, as in California.
The attempt to balance sentencing, however, also suffered from a still continuing debate on who holds the discretion power -the prosecutor or the judge (sometimes with lots of poltics involved)and discretion continues to be an abiding issue in the many goals of administering justice.
(Side note: I think that the issue in Fortnight For Freedom is really also about discretion and how well it impacts the community as a whole.)
In the matter of Msgr. Lynn, there is a special problem in that he operates in a system governed by its own laws and that sees itself as basically accountable to that!
It’s been argued across this thread that he was the “fall guy” for the evil Bellevaqua, but I think that argument collapses in that there were many fall guys including the recently retired Archbishop and another sitting bishop and, perhaps as has been argued, a coterie tied to the late Bellevaqua.
I argue the issue of community protection is not only relevant here – in terms of justice – but even more so because it confronts a sytem that opeates with its own accounyability procedures in which those up the chain of command seem to be held to little or no accountability!
A couple of more things to think about:
John Martin has an excellent piece today ath Philadelphia Inquire about his coverage of the trial, he and others being conflicted in the aftermath and the dep sdaness this has caused.
In today’s Times, there’s a fine article on how the argument that things wete different in the 60′s and 70″s collapses under not only about what was really known then but the critical issue of consent!
(The article BTW is not about the Catholic church but big name prep schools in NY.)
Lastly, I’d like to add for myself that any real notion of justice begins with the idea that we are reponsible for our actions!
Why hasn’t Oh-so-moral maven Arch Chaput already started the laicization process for Lynn?
Does the hierarchy countenance having convicted felons in the priesthood?
What is this: Honor among thieves and criminals?
Msgr. Lynn will stay in.
His sentenxing moved up to July 24.
Interesting coincidence = the Journal of Anerican Medical Assn. (JAMA) has a piece in the new edition on reporting child abise – mandatory reporting.
Why hasn’t Commonweal called for the immediate laicization of Lynn?
Why should Msgr Lynn be laicized? Is it because priests ought to be pure and white as lambs, and those who fail must be laicized? I don’t agree. Priests are not above the rest of us.
It seems that laicization is often requested by survivors’ representatives because they see it as a concrete way for the Catholic church to get behind the rest of the world’s condemnation; and perhaps as an additional punishment for priests, on top of the secular justice’s punishment (or instead of it, in the case of offenses that are too old to be prosecuted); and because it is hard for many of us to imagine a child abuser doing priestly ministry; and because, in fact, the institutional church doesn’t seem to know what to do with its priests who have committed child abuse, and in a way is glad to be relieved of them.
But that is not the case here. Msgr Lynn has not himself committed child abuse! He’s been convicted, he will, I hope, serve his time, and then he can be given a position where he is not at risk of causing child endangerment again. That’s not so hard. I see no reason to request laicization, except as an effort to get the church institution to acknowledge his wrongdoing: but that would be unfair to Msgr Lynn.
The judge has refused Msgr. Lynn’s request to live with a relative until sentencing. The prosecutor argued that the Vatican doesn’t have an extradition treaty with the U.S., and the monsignor might seek haven there. See: philly.com
Army of youth (remember that?), did you ever dream that such a thing might happen?
I think we need a new thread, but that may come with sentencing.
I still have lots of questions including:
-Was a plea deal offered, what was it? Is there any truth to the rumor that legal fees may have been a factor?
=Why did the Judge change the explanation on conspiracy in reinstructing the jury?
Are there standard jury instructions for crimes in PA and if so, what are they?
-What political pressures were are and will continue to be placed on the judge?
I want to add now that in contrast to the Sandusky trial where the opposing lawyers behaved according to best standards as “officers of the court”, the interplay here has been and probably wil be a kind of”cat fight/”
If that was the only instance, but note that in Milwaukee (whefe a number of episcopla fish may be fried yet) the civil matter has been ordered to mediation by a retired Federal judge after very contentious battles by counsel.
Then of course there’s KC and mr. Donahue and friends….
All of this makes me think that, regardless of what happens to Msgr. Lynn, though just not the fall guy, but one of many, the continuing fighting intransigence by Chjtch leaders and their attorneys (despite nice words on transopency, etc,) means not much will change on the inside in dealing with these matters and the infortunate beat will go on….
Then there was today’s homily: “There is a temptation to think ourselves better than some others. Wrong! Sometimes we look at someone, and we think we’re better than him. Wrong! We can never assert that we are better than anybody else.”
Really? We cannot assert that we are better than a bureaucrat enabling, by his inertia and silence, sick priests to commit sexual abuse?
We cannot, because there are other victims whose ill fate we are enabling by our inertia, silence, indifference. We don’t see it, because they are not on our minds. Perhaps they are the people in the third world whose scarce resources are being exploited for our consumption, to feed our consumerism, or perhaps the invisible homeless people on the street. Perhaps one day it will be our turn to be on trial, and others (the next generation, or the one after that, maybe) will shake their head in sad disbelief of our indifference enabling humanitarian disasters. They will say: “How could you let it happen? Why so much inertia? Why did you do nothing?” Like Msgr. Lynn today, we will have no answer, and some of them will think we are monsters.
That’s what worries me. Msgr Lynn thought he was doing what he could. He did not (and maybe still does not) see his behavior as criminal. He was culpably blind. I can’t help but wonder: what about us? To what are we culpably blind?
(That’s not the direction the homily took, but given that I had just been thinking about this thread, that’s the question that immediately arose in my mind …)
More today -The Philly DA’s ofice has opened an investigation into Bishop Bransfield in WV whoduring trial, was noted to be accused of abuse, and, has vehemnetly denied it.