Monsignor's conviction overturned in abuse case

  • Thread starter Thread starter coachkfan1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
One of those cases where there are no angels in the play. But I think way too much hindsight is being used to “convict” the Monsignor. It would be helpful to have details but in many abuse cases, the hideous activity occurred many years prior, and certainly prior to the exposure of this scandal. It was a time when, if someone accused a priest of inappropriate behavior, it was thought to be false. People simply couldn’t imagine a priest engaging in this behavior and what was common information about predatory homosexuals now was pretty much underground at the time. I read a lot about the scandal as I was converting at the time. Many of the priests were sent for counseling and the counselor claimed they were “cured.” Again, if we knew then what we knew now, it wouldn’t have ended up this way in my opinion.

It’s very easy to Monday Morning Quarterback here but without further detail, it appears that the Monsignor was informed one particular priest had engaged in sexual activity with a minor. He was sent to live in a rectory according to the report, not to another parish where he could reoffend. It may be that the Monsignor believed there was reason to be cautious about allowing the priest to have contact with minors but not enough to demand a significant investigation internally or externally. Again, people are using today’s standards and apparently were using today’s laws to convict a past action.

This doesn’t excuse the behavior of the offending priest or the Monsignor but he shouldn’t be made a scapegoat for society’s overall ignorance at the time.

Lisa
 
Yerusalyim said:
I take a different view…not having all the details of the case, if the Monsignor knew a priest was an abuser or strongly suspected it and still made assignments to parishes then I have no sympathy for him. Part of the problem we’ve had in the US is that the Church hierarchy has not been held accountable for the cover up.

The Monsignor’s defense of “just following orders” doesn’t pass the smell test. Tell me the Monsignor didn’t know he was assigning abusive priests and never made an attempt to cover up for the Church and I’m sympathetic. Tell me he knew of abusive priests and still made the assignments because the Archbishop told him to and I am unsympathetic.
Click to expand...
I agree with this. The OP sounds as if the poor man is a victim of injustice, when in reality he is being released because of a technicality. He’s still guilty of participating in a cover up.

This story is but one example of the huge problem in the Roman Catholic hierarchy.
 
According to VineLink, Monsignor Lynn was just transferred from a Pennsylvania state prison to the city jail in Philadelphia. His lawyer has told the press that the Monsignor has posted his $250,000 bail. The monsignor will be released as soon as they can set up the electronic monitoring that the judge has ordered as a condition of bail.

vinelink.com/vinelink/initMap.do
 
LisaA said:
One of those cases where there are no angels in the play. But I think way too much hindsight is being used to “convict” the Monsignor. It would be helpful to have details but in many abuse cases, the hideous activity occurred many years prior, and certainly prior to the exposure of this scandal. It was a time when, if someone accused a priest of inappropriate behavior, it was thought to be false. People simply couldn’t imagine a priest engaging in this behavior and what was common information about predatory homosexuals now was pretty much underground at the time. I read a lot about the scandal as I was converting at the time. Many of the priests were sent for counseling and the counselor claimed they were “cured.” Again, if we knew then what we knew now, it wouldn’t have ended up this way in my opinion.

It’s very easy to Monday Morning Quarterback here but without further detail, it appears that the Monsignor was informed one particular priest had engaged in sexual activity with a minor. He was sent to live in a rectory according to the report, not to another parish where he could reoffend. It may be that the Monsignor believed there was reason to be cautious about allowing the priest to have contact with minors but not enough to demand a significant investigation internally or externally. Again, people are using today’s standards and apparently were using today’s laws to convict a past action.

This doesn’t excuse the behavior of the offending priest or the Monsignor but he shouldn’t be made a scapegoat for society’s overall ignorance at the time.

Lisa
Click to expand...
Lisa, the legal decision has many of the details you question about this particular case. I believe the National Catholic Register even links to it, in their coverage of this ordeal. It’s fairly long and obviously filled with legalese - but pretty damning. Again not just a court and jury convicted him of the charges, but even the judges in his appeal decision stated he was overwhelmingly guilty of the charges. With the caveat that he couldn’t be criminally held liable, with the law as written at the time.
 
InigoMontoya said:
Lisa, the legal decision has many of the details you question about this particular case. I believe the National Catholic Register even links to it, in their coverage of this ordeal. It’s fairly long and obviously filled with legalese - but pretty damning. Again not just a court and jury convicted him of the charges, but even the judges in his appeal decision stated he was overwhelmingly guilty of the charges. With the caveat that he couldn’t be criminally held liable, with the law as written at the time.
Click to expand...
You can’t be guilty of the charges if you cannot be held criminally liable with the law as written. That is just the way the law works. 🤷
 
jilly4ski said:
You can’t be guilty of the charges if you cannot be held criminally liable with the law as written. That is just the way the law works. 🤷
Click to expand...
Of course you can. Ethical, moral, public perception, etc guilt are all different than criminal guilt. Again my original point was that it might not be good for public perception, for us in the Church to celebrate this… He may have been exonerated from criminal conviction, but he undisputedly according to the appeal judges endangered children and placed reputation over their safety.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top