US Monsignor sentenced for sex abuse cover-up

danmand

Well-known member
Nov 28, 2003
46,500
4,906
113
US Monsignor sentenced for sex abuse cover-up


US Roman Catholic William Lynn has been sentenced to three to six years in jail for covering up child sex allegations.



Last Modified: 25 Jul 2012 03:04

The highest-ranking US church official to be convicted of covering up child sex allegations, Monsignor William Lynn, has been sentenced to three to six years in prison.

Lynn, whose job it was to investigate reports of abuse in the archdiocese from 1992 to 2004, was found guilty last month of one count of child endangerment.

Defence lawyers had pushed for Lynn to be spared prison, but Judge Teresa Sarmina on Tuesday imposed close to the maximum sentence of between three-and-a-half and seven years.

"It was three to six years," an official at the court in Philadelphia told AFP news agency by telephone, confirming the tough sentence.

Lynn, 61, who took the witness stand for three days during his 10-week trial, was not charged with molesting children, but rather with covering up the crimes of priests who did.

He argued that he may have been out of his depth, but had never acted criminally.

Victims' groups hailed the verdict as a major step forward as a court had acknowledged that someone in Lynn's position had endangered a child.

The trial, the first in the US involving such a senior official in the Catholic Church, also centered on two more Philadelphia priests.

Reverend James Brennan, who was suspended from his duties as a priest, stood accused of attempting to rape a teenaged boy in the 1990's. The jury was hung over the charges dealing with Brennan, who will not face a new trial.

Defrocked priest Edward Avery pleaded guilty on the eve of trial. Avery was sentenced to between 2.5 and five years in prison.

During the trial the court heard graphic testimony describing sexual abuse in the Philadelphia archdiocese.

'Constant deceit'

Lynn was found not guilty of endangering Brennan's accuser and not guilty of conspiring to endanger that accuser. He was found guilty of endangering Avery's victim, but not guilty of conspiracy with regard to that victim.




"The Lynn trial is of lasting significance because of its guilty verdict"

- BishopAccountability.org



Lynn's lawyer described him as a low level functionary who struggled within a rigid church hierarchy to act against abuse by documenting it and compiling the voluminous records that prosecutors used to build their case.

The defence said a prison sentence was unfair and that Lynn should not be punished in the same way as Avery, who had actually committed sexual abuse.

Prosecutors portrayed Lynn as a keeper of the secrets who was obliged to compile the records and thought they would never see the light of day.

Prosecutors allege that in failing to remove abusive priests from positions where they had contact with minors, Lynn put children in danger.

Prosecutors wrote in their pre-sentencing memo that Lynn showed "constant deceit" and "a striving to please his bosses no matter how sinister the business".

Shockwaves from the trial are expected to keep reverberating.

"The Lynn trial is of lasting significance because of its guilty verdict, and because the record of the trial contains a dramatic analysis for a single archdiocese of the two crimes that constitute the ongoing sex abuse crisis: a) the sexual abuse of children by priests and b) the enabling and cover-up of the abuse," wrote bishop-accountability.org, which tracks reported abuses.
 

fun-guy

Executive Senior Member
Jun 29, 2005
7,276
3
38
Lynn's lawyer described him as a low level functionary who struggled within a rigid church hierarchy to act against abuse by documenting it and compiling the voluminous records that prosecutors used to build their case.

The defence said a prison sentence was unfair and that Lynn should not be punished in the same way as Avery, who had actually committed sexual abuse.

Prosecutors portrayed Lynn as a keeper of the secrets who was obliged to compile the records and thought they would never see the light of day.

Prosecutors allege that in failing to remove abusive priests from positions where they had contact with minors, Lynn put children in danger.

Prosecutors wrote in their pre-sentencing memo that Lynn showed "constant deceit" and "a striving to please his bosses no matter how sinister the business".
Exactly, same as JoPa, probably worse.

Begs the question how did Ratzinger get away with what he did, or should I say what he didn`t do, in the 1980`s when he was in a position to review and remove abusive priests but he didn`t.........oh I know what happened, he swept things under the rug so no one would find out, strived to please and impress his bosses no matter how sinister the abuse of children was, and guess what the bosses did to him...........for doing such a good job in protecting the Catholic image they made him Pope.
 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,555
23
38
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
Too bad the NCAA can't fine the Catholic church a years revenue....

OTB
 

rld

New member
Oct 12, 2010
10,664
2
0
I followed the case closely when it went on. It was fascinating, the jury was deadlocked forever.

The sentence seems fair enough, but I don't think the conviction will survive appeal. The judge was pretty unconventional to put it politely.

We may see this one tried again.
 

rld

New member
Oct 12, 2010
10,664
2
0
Exactly, same as JoPa, probably worse.

Begs the question how did Ratzinger get away with what he did, or should I say what he didn`t do, in the 1980`s when he was in a position to review and remove abusive priests but he didn`t.........oh I know what happened, he swept things under the rug so no one would find out, strived to please and impress his bosses no matter how sinister the abuse of children was, and guess what the bosses did to him...........for doing such a good job in protecting the Catholic image they made him Pope.
In the case of the current Pope the only solid accusation against him was that he delayed in defrocking a priest who had already resigned. Beyond that, there is nothing substantial, and in fact he did act quite aggressively and boldly in some cases.
 

train

New member
Jul 29, 2002
6,992
0
0
Above 7
Too bad the NCAA can't fine the Catholic church a years revenue....

OTB
Hopefully they will go after all the bastards involved. You have to know that there were bishops and archbishops involved or who knew and did nothing. This was significantly worse than Penn State in terms of the sheer numbers over decades and decades and the extent that the Church went to to cover it all up. And that is just in the US. The same thing happened in Canada and world wide. The culture of the Church needs to be changed.
 

rld

New member
Oct 12, 2010
10,664
2
0
Hopefully they will go after all the bastards involved. You have to know that there were bishops and archbishops involved or who knew and did nothing. This was significantly worse than Penn State in terms of the sheer numbers over decades and decades and the extent that the Church went to to cover it all up. And that is just in the US. The same thing happened in Canada and world wide. The culture of the Church needs to be changed.
considering that the rate of abuse in the RCC has fallen like a stone since 1985 it would appear that something has changed. The sad part about this case in Philly is that the real villain of the story had died and the guy they actually convicted's involvement was pretty marginal.
 

fun-guy

Executive Senior Member
Jun 29, 2005
7,276
3
38
In the case of the current Pope the only solid accusation against him was that he delayed in defrocking a priest who had already resigned. Beyond that, there is nothing substantial, and in fact he did act quite aggressively and boldly in some cases.

Here`s one:

In Germany in the early 1980s, Father Peter Hullermann was moved to a diocese run by Ratzinger. He had already been accused of raping three boys. Ratzinger didn't go to the police, instead Hullermann was referred for "counselling". The psychiatrist who saw him, Werner Huth, told the Church unequivocally that he was "untreatable [and] must never be allowed to work with children again". Yet he kept being moved from parish to parish, even after a sex crime conviction in 1986. He was last accused of sexual abuse in 1998.
 

fun-guy

Executive Senior Member
Jun 29, 2005
7,276
3
38
and another that you are quite familiar with:



In the US in 1985, a group of American bishops wrote to Ratzinger begging him to defrock a priest called Father Stephen Kiesle, who had tied up and molested two young boys in a rectory. Ratzinger refused for years, explaining that he was thinking of the "good of the universal Church" and of the "detriment that granting the dispensation can provoke among the community of Christ's faithful, particularly considering the young age" of the priest involved. He was 38. He went on to rape many more children. Think about what Ratzinger's statement reveals. Ratzinger thinks the "good of the universal Church" – your church – lies not in protecting your children from being raped, but in protecting the rapists from punishment.
 

fun-guy

Executive Senior Member
Jun 29, 2005
7,276
3
38
and another........shall I continue:

In 1996, the Archbishop of Milwaukee appealed to Ratzinger to defrock Father Lawrence C Murphy, who had raped and tortured up to 200 deaf and mute children at a Catholic boarding school. His rapes often began in the confessional. Ratzinger never replied. Eight months later, there was a secret canonical "trial" – but Murphy wrote to Ratzinger saying he was ill, so it was cancelled. Ratzinger advised him to take a "spiritual retreat". He died years later, unpunished.


Interesting articles for your perusal:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...words/2010/03/the_great_catholic_coverup.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinio...ics-its-you-this-pope-has-abused-2074029.html
http://ncronline.org/news/accountability/more-documents-link-ratzinger-abuse-cases

A video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yLU2DywbzEA


There hasn`t been a more controversial Pope in modern times IMO. I know there are his supporters but many others believe the devil has finally infiltrated the Vatican.​
 

blackrock13

Banned
Jun 6, 2009
40,085
1
0
and another that you are quite familiar with:



In the US in 1985, a group of American bishops wrote to Ratzinger begging him to defrock a priest called Father Stephen Kiesle, who had tied up and molested two young boys in a rectory. Ratzinger refused for years, explaining that he was thinking of the "good of the universal Church" and of the "detriment that granting the dispensation can provoke among the community of Christ's faithful, particularly considering the young age" of the priest involved. He was 38. He went on to rape many more children. Think about what Ratzinger's statement reveals. Ratzinger thinks the "good of the universal Church" – your church – lies not in protecting your children from being raped, but in protecting the rapists from punishment.
and another........shall I continue:

In 1996, the Archbishop of Milwaukee appealed to Ratzinger to defrock Father Lawrence C Murphy, who had raped and tortured up to 200 deaf and mute children at a Catholic boarding school. His rapes often began in the confessional. Ratzinger never replied. Eight months later, there was a secret canonical "trial" – but Murphy wrote to Ratzinger saying he was ill, so it was cancelled. Ratzinger advised him to take a "spiritual retreat". He died years later, unpunished.


Interesting articles for your perusal:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...words/2010/03/the_great_catholic_coverup.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinio...ics-its-you-this-pope-has-abused-2074029.html

A video from another perspective:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yLU2DywbzEA


There hasn`t been a more controversial Pope in modern times IMO. I know there are his supporters but many others believe the devil has finally infiltrated the Vatican.​


and these al happened 15-20 years ago. He's also the most scrutinized because of his past responsibilities. he's not one of my favorite people and ism still resisting change in areas that many feel are needed and may not bend much on. As RLD said, the the numbers of cases have dropped drastically. I guess the scrutiny has worked somewhat.

The Devil? By many others are you referring to people the NEW WORLD ORDER.

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/sociopol_vaticanpope_nwo05.htm

I hesitated posting the link as it might give CM a source of material that could be like a pot cake with a dirty bone causing him to bust a blood vessel.
 

fun-guy

Executive Senior Member
Jun 29, 2005
7,276
3
38
Yea, right when he was in charge of investigating child abuse cases, so is there a statue of limitation on child sexual abuse. You missed my point. His legacy is not acting on child abuse cases in a timely matter, so they promote him. JoPa`s legacy is not acting on child abuse cases in a timely matter so they erased him from memory, and rightly so. The Pope, and his band of Cardinals, are an embarrassement.
 

rld

New member
Oct 12, 2010
10,664
2
0
and another that you are quite familiar with:



In the US in 1985, a group of American bishops wrote to Ratzinger begging him to defrock a priest called Father Stephen Kiesle, who had tied up and molested two young boys in a rectory. Ratzinger refused for years, explaining that he was thinking of the "good of the universal Church" and of the "detriment that granting the dispensation can provoke among the community of Christ's faithful, particularly considering the young age" of the priest involved. He was 38. He went on to rape many more children. Think about what Ratzinger's statement reveals. Ratzinger thinks the "good of the universal Church" – your church – lies not in protecting your children from being raped, but in protecting the rapists from punishment.
Yes, this is the case where the priest had resigned and I think been criminally punished and he did not get around to defrocking him for a few years.

Did the Cal diocese screw up by letting him volunteer after he had resigned and been convicted and not having a program to do background searches on volunteers. Absolutely. Was that the Rat's fault? I don't think so.
 

rld

New member
Oct 12, 2010
10,664
2
0
Here`s one:

In Germany in the early 1980s, Father Peter Hullermann was moved to a diocese run by Ratzinger. He had already been accused of raping three boys. Ratzinger didn't go to the police, instead Hullermann was referred for "counselling". The psychiatrist who saw him, Werner Huth, told the Church unequivocally that he was "untreatable [and] must never be allowed to work with children again". Yet he kept being moved from parish to parish, even after a sex crime conviction in 1986. He was last accused of sexual abuse in 1998.
Now I don't know where you were cutting and pasting from, but I trust that both the author and you would know that the case was not handled by the Rat, but rather by a Fr. Gruber who took full responsibility for the failings. The shrink you saw this guy never reported to or discussed the case with Rat, but rather with Gruber.

This particular one seems a dishonest attempt to smear the Rat.
 

rld

New member
Oct 12, 2010
10,664
2
0
and another........shall I continue:

In 1996, the Archbishop of Milwaukee appealed to Ratzinger to defrock Father Lawrence C Murphy, who had raped and tortured up to 200 deaf and mute children at a Catholic boarding school. His rapes often began in the confessional. Ratzinger never replied. Eight months later, there was a secret canonical "trial" – but Murphy wrote to Ratzinger saying he was ill, so it was cancelled. Ratzinger advised him to take a "spiritual retreat". He died years later, unpunished.


Interesting articles for your perusal:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...words/2010/03/the_great_catholic_coverup.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinio...ics-its-you-this-pope-has-abused-2074029.html
http://ncronline.org/news/accountability/more-documents-link-ratzinger-abuse-cases

A video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yLU2DywbzEA


There hasn`t been a more controversial Pope in modern times IMO. I know there are his supporters but many others believe the devil has finally infiltrated the Vatican.​
Now this one is particularly misleading.

Some 22 years after the events in question had not been dealt with by the civil authorities in the US (who you don't seem concerned about) or the church in the US (his abuse stopped in 1974 and the letter was written in 1996), Ratzi gets a letter saying...hey this guy is an abuser, what should be do with him. To which he replies...do a trial and defrock him.

The trial did actually happened but the guy died before they could finish it (more or less).

The only reason this guy went unpunished in any real sense is because the Wisconsin police and prosecutors did not believe the victims and their famalies.

Archbishop Weakland, knew about the abuse for 2 decades and had full authority to deal with it. The Pope received one letter telling him about it 22 years after the fact, and your source wants to blame him? Come on...what a pile of crap.
 

FAST

Banned
Mar 12, 2004
10,069
1
0
A little late

"Monsignor William Lynn, 61, is the first U.S. church official convicted of covering up sex-abuse complaints against Roman Catholic priests."

Seems to contradict what the church apologists have been saying here !


FAST
 

rld

New member
Oct 12, 2010
10,664
2
0
"Monsignor William Lynn, 61, is the first U.S. church official convicted of covering up sex-abuse complaints against Roman Catholic priests."

Seems to contradict what the church apologists have been saying here !


FAST
Since I suspect that you are referring to me, can you point out what this contradicts?

And technically speaking, this is the second conviction in the area. Another priest was convicted for failing to report child porn found on another priest's computer.

And are you suggesting that the civil authorities have not done a good enough job?
 

Possum Trot

New member
Dec 7, 2009
1,093
1
0
considering that the rate of abuse in the RCC has fallen like a stone since 1985 it would appear that something has changed. The sad part about this case in Philly is that the real villain of the story had died and the guy they actually convicted's involvement was pretty marginal.
What's your source for the abuse rate falling like a stone since 1985. I would guess that the spotlight did not focus on this until the late '90's.

If the guy convicted was marginal , all that means is that there are higher ups that have yet to answer for their crimes. Let's hope they don't give up trying to make them answer for what they did.
 

rld

New member
Oct 12, 2010
10,664
2
0
What's your source for the abuse rate falling like a stone since 1985. I would guess that the spotlight did not focus on this until the late '90's.

If the guy convicted was marginal , all that means is that there are higher ups that have yet to answer for their crimes. Let's hope they don't give up trying to make them answer for what they did.
A number of studies have come to that conclusion, both inside and out of the church. The litigation data suggestions the same thing.

In this case, the real bad actor was dead. Many of them are.

The spotlight is a different question. I am no guru but wiki says public attention started in the mid 80's, which accords with my rough recollection.
 
Toronto Escorts