Ostensibly, the trial focuses upon an alleged systematic cover-up of pedophile priests on the part of administrators of the Archdiocese of Philadelphia. Prosecutors allege that despite knowing or suspecting that they might sexually abuse children, the former Secretary for Clergy, Monsignor William J. Lynn, recommended priests for assignments. Lynn is first and highest-ranking church official indicted for covering up clerical sexual abuse.
However, Monsignor Lynn's lawyers argue in a recent filing that new documents indicate Lynn was one of a few Archdiocesan officials who attempted to deal with the issue of clerical sexual abuse.
How?
According to the filing:
- After being named Secretary for Clergy in 1992, Monsignor Lynn undertook an examination of the secret personnel files of hundreds of priests to gauge the scope of clerical sexual misconduct. Lynn examined the files because he "felt it was the right thing to do."
- In February 1994, Lynn wrote a memo identifying 35 priests suspected of abuse or pedophilia. Lynn allegedly gave the memo to his superior, Monsignor James Molloy, the Assistant Vicar for Administration, who shared Lynn's duties in documenting abuse complaints.
- At a March 15, 1994 meeting, then-Archbishop of Philadelphia, Cardinal Anthony Bevilacqua, met with Molloy and Bishop Edward P. Cullen, the Cardinal's top aide to discuss Lynn's memo. After the meeting, Bevilacqua allegedly ordered Molloy to shred the memo.
- One week later, Molloy destroyed the four copies, with then-Monsignor (and now-Bishop) Joseph Cistone as a witness. Molloy's handwritten notes state: "This action was taken on the basis of a directive I received from Cardinal Bevilacqua."
- In February 2002, Bevilacqua cited the 35 suspected abusive priests when he claimed that the Archdiocese had turned over information to the Philadelphia District Attorney's Office. However, Bevilacqua failed to mention the 1994 memo or his alleged order to shred it. Then, in 10 appearances before a grand jury between 2003 and 2004, Bevilacqua denied knowing details or playing a significant role in handling sex-abuse complaints, claiming that he delegated those duties to Lynn.
It's all an amazing read. If the storyline is to be believed, Monsignor Lynn is the fall guy.
But where's the smoking gun?
According to the filing, Molloy apparently had second thoughts and without telling anyone, took a copy of the memo and, along with his notes, placed them in a portable, locked safe. The safe remained untouched and unnoticed until 2006, when an Archdiocesan official found it and hired a locksmith to open it.
Where those records were sequestered and how they came only recently to be turned over to prosecutors and Monsignor Lynn's lawyers remains an unanswered question. According to lawyers for the Archdiocese, they were reviewing thousands of files to comply with trial subpoenas and, as soon as they became aware of the records, turned them over.
Lynn's lawyers have contended all along that the order to shred the records proves that a conspiracy to conceal priestly sexual abuse in the Archdiocese was orchestrated at high levels in the chancery office. "It is beyond doubt that Monsignor Lynn was completely unaware of this act of obstruction," his attorneys wrote when asking Common Pleas Court Judge M. Teresa Sarmina to dismiss the conspiracy and endangerment charges against Lynn.
The filing didn't persuade Judge Sarmina, who dismissed the filing.
With the jury selected, opening statements at the trial are scheduled for March 26, 2012.
But, the story doesn't end there.
As it continues to unfold, Monsignor Lynn may not be the highest-ranking church official indicted. With Cardinal Bevilacqua having recently died, he's been written out of the story (although rumors persist that that the Cardinal may have been murdered) and, if he did issue that order to destroy the documents, could end up being the fall guy.
Cistone, now the Bishop of Saginaw, MI, and Cullen, the now-retired bishop of Allentown, could be charged with perjury for misleading the grand jury by not acknowledging the memo or the Cardinal's order to shred it. That is, if either or both would verify that Bevilacqua ordered the destruction of the documents. Holding firm to their grand jury testimony, Lynn could end up being the fall guy.
Then, too, Monsignor Malloy continues to speak from the grave.
After leaving his Archdiocesan job in the mid-1990s, Malloy died in 2006. Never openly discussing Lynn's 1994 memo, the Philadelphia Inquirer states that Malloy said in a National Catholic Reporter interview that he reached a point when "I couldn't be sure that I could trust my superiors to do the right thing." So, Malloy decided to document his action:
I wanted my memos to be there if the Archdiocese's decisions were eventually put on the judicial scales. This way, anyone could come along in the future and say, this was right or this wrong. But they could never say it wasn't all written down.
Malloy's interview muddies the waters and could persuade jurors of Lynn's innocence, leaving Cardinal Bevilacqua and possibly Bishops Cistone and Cullen the fall guys.
Did Lynn purposely assign pedophiles priest who could have endangered children? Is Lynn guilty of participating in a criminal conspiracy? Will either or both bishops be indicted for perjury? Will Malloy's interview persuade jurors of Lynn's innocence? Or, will Lynn be the fall guy?
Who's to know?
Stay tuned as the story continues to unfold.
Let the discussion begin...
To read the article in the Philadelphia Inquirer, click on the following link:
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20120226_Court_filing__Bevilacqua_ordered_shredding_of_memo_identifying_suspected_abusers.html?viewAll=y
Ah, yes. This defense worked so well at Nuremburg. Outrage is the only possible emotional response. Liberal Pilgrim
ReplyDeleteHi
ReplyDeleteI'm not really anomymous - I live in Philly.
If Msgn Lynn had the names of 35 misbehaving priests in his hot little hands, and years later saw those same priests's names come across his desk to be reasigned,
what are the implications ?
I'm no lawyer. WWJD ?
These guys are career criminals. That is the implication.
DeleteMike Ference
Well, all twelve years I was in Catholic school, we were constantly reminded that if the earthly Boss tells us to do something we know is wrong, we're responsible if we fail to refuse to do it.
ReplyDeleteSo I think "fall guy" is a misnomer. Msgr. Lynn was told to do something that was wrong--- to cover the tracks of sexually abusive priests. He should have said "no" and called police. And if that thug the Cardinal didn't like it, well, what was the worst he could do? Make Lynn work as a parish priest? Lynn had Canonical rights, too. He would not have starved, or been rendered homeless. He might have lost his cushy and prestigious position for a time, or his hope of becoming a bishop. He's not the "fall guy." But his is among the last men standing. For the moment, that is.
Everyone that was remotely involved should be the fall guy. Catholics will do anything to protect their child rapists. It is truly a sick cult instead of a church of Christ.
ReplyDeleteIt is a defense that will not hold up as lynn's conduct will ultimately be his down fall, now the public needs to be informed who the archdiocese of Phila's connections are in Harrisburg ?
ReplyDeleteThere is that powerful scene at the end of Judgement at Nuremberg, where Spencer Tracy as Judge visits Burt Lancaster as Convicted German Judge in prison: the convicted pleads his case one last time. That he didn't know it would come to this, he had no idea it would come to this, that the Nazis would carry out this genocide.
ReplyDeleteAnd Tracy's Judge responds that it came to this, this genocide, the very first time the judge had sent an innocent to their imprisonment and death.
And that's it, isn't it? Monsignor Linn may not be as "guilty" as Bevilacqua, but he is still guilty as hell.
And these were children. And these were supposed to be men of God. There is no need to beieve in demons when men of this caliber remain on altars.
There is no 'fall guy'... They are ALL guilty of knowingly allowing kids to be sexually abused. They should have dialed 911 the minute they suspected or learned of an abusive priest.
ReplyDeleteI keep picturing in my mind, those men who stood around and shredded documents. What they were really doing was shredding kids souls.
How sad is that? The only way for kids to be safer today, is for all who commit sex crimes and for all who cover up those sex crimes to be held accountable.
Judy Jones, SNAP Midwest Associate Director, USA, 636-433-2511
"Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests" and all clergy.
(SNAP, the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, is the world's oldest and largest support group for clergy abuse victims. SNAP was founded in 1988 and has more than 12,000 members. Despite the word "priest" in our title, we have members who were molested by religious figures of all denominations, including nuns, rabbis, bishops, and Protestant ministers and increasingly, victims who were assaulted in a wide range of institutional settings like summer camps, athletic programs, Boy Scouts, etc. Our website is SNAPnetwork.org)
I'm not Anonymous. I'm Jeannie Guzman! The following is a serious problem that I don't think anyone has addressed. Before his somewhat untimely, but convenient demise, Cardinal Bevilacqua's handlers claimed that he had dementia and was unfit to appear in court. My question is this: Was Cardinal Bevilacqua incharge of his own medications, or was someone else in charge of making sure that he received them every day, in the proper dosage and on time? Since a mystery surround the dear Cardinal's death as well as his mental capability or suitability to appear in court, wouldn't it stand to reason that someone should ask, "Did Cardinal Bevilacqua self-medicate OR were his medications controlled by another?
ReplyDeleteAlbino Luciani (JP1) Remember him?
Delete