Jun 23, 2012 -- 11:28AM, WaveringCC wrote:

Jun 22, 2012 -- 4:04PM, cherubino wrote:

Jun 22, 2012 -- 2:49PM, mokantx wrote:

mo,

I think more is hanging on whether or not Lynn goes to prison than on the technicalities of the verdicts. My hunch is that the Church will do whatever it takes at whatever it costs to keep that from happening.

They didn't do anything in Canada about the bishop who was caught smuggling in child porn. He was convicted and Rome just quickly laicized him.

Hewy is right - they will wash their hands of him. His loyalty to the institution has cost him. It seems clear that he knew that what was going on was wrong, but lacked the courage to be a whistleblower.  Now he pays the price and the higher ups (if not dead) collect $200 and get out of jail free. 

However, an important message has been sent - having a clerical collar and a title are no longer enough for the civil authorities to look the other way.

Wav, Cher, hewy

I think you're right here.  First, this is ALL about men who put institution above morality, conscience, and the law.   And as frustrating as it is that once again the hierarchy walks free, they have to recognize this as a shot across the bow.

Sadly, I'm guessing they still see this as being about dodging the legal issue, more than being alarmed at the question of how so many in this "divinely led" organizati on could and STILL continue to miss the moral, ethical and religious red flags.  The legal issue should  NOT be the concern if these guys did the right thing under moral, ethical and religious thought.  The fact that this is all playing out at the legal level, the "last societal defense" if you will, should be setting off alarm bells all the way to the top.  Clearly, it's not, or we'd be seeing accountability take a pretty high priority here.  

And it's interesting what both the prosecutors and one of the lawyers for Lynn and the archdiocese had to say about where it goes from here. From the article:

"Everything you wrote is within the realm of possibility," Williams, the district attorney, said when I shared those scenarios. "I will consider all options."

[Defense attorney] Lindy made a bolder prediction: "If they've got a victim, they'll go forward. That's their obligation."

Because after scoring a big win against Lynn, a man who should have stopped criminals in their tracks, prosecutors are left to do the job he refused to do.

Jun 25, 2012 -- 10:21PM, mokantx wrote:

Jun 23, 2012 -- 7:05PM, cherubino wrote:

Interesting, though, that Lynn has been denied bail and will remain in jail until his sentencing on August 13th.

Cher

Id have loved to have been able to listen on the discussion on the standard motion that Lynn be released on his own recognizance.  Methinks the legacy of Cdl. law played heavily here.

I'd imagine that NOT releasing Lynn prior to sentencing sent a shiver down the vertebra of many a of the bishops (I don't want to imply that most of the bishops have real spines, as they've shown precious little to suggest they are ever willing to get out of the party line.). Rather clearly, at least some courts no longer assume that clergy can be trusted.  It may be subtle, but I'd imagine the move was not lost on some of these guys.

Now they're asking for 'home confinement'.  Can you imagine--a person involved with child abuse, mostly occurring in a rectory--requesting 'home confinement'!!!  In the recent words of Scalia--"it simply boggles'.

Jun 25, 2012 -- 11:31PM, cherubino wrote:

Here's the beginning of the backlash I was talking about earlier, wherein Lynn already has a firewall of support from people both clerical and lay who see no wrong in what he did. Do these people really, truly and deep-down believe that priests have a right to sexually abuse children and that the Church has an obligation to protect them from prosecution? We keep assuming that isn't so, but the evidence clearly says they do.

Cher

I think there are a lot of things going on here.  As the church collectively seems to edge towards that wonderful world of that black and white so beloved by the neocons, the thought that a man can do good in one area but be a stinker in another gets written off as some kind of "humanist claptrap."  (How quickly they forget a guy like Richard Nixon, who could have the wisdom to open up China, yet become almost a petty but paranoid criminal when it came to political campaigns...)

It's like the church forgets its own teachings at times as those in it try to paint everybody in one of two colors.  And in the process of course, anybody or anything that would seem to stand in contradiction to that simplistic image must be wrong.  This inability to see the bigger picture seems to run all the way to the top, as I see it.  In this story, look at what Benedict has decided is undermining the Vatican's credibility and trust in the institution.  It's not the abuse that's cost the church in the US over $2.6Billion, nor that which has left the church in Ireland in tatters.  No, the credibility issue is apparently "butler-gate."  And there, at its core lies the inability of the Vatican to keep a secret.  Now THAT is what costs trust, not all this other stuff....

If this is the thinking of those at the very top of the church, can it be all that much of a surprise that those in the lower ranks might even now still buy into that stuff that says that clerics are above everybody else, and should be protected no matter what?

Jul 24, 2012 -- 12:32PM, cherubino wrote:

Update.

It's happening. A squeaky-clean loyal, obedient, pious, affable and thorougly orthodox diocesan administrator is going to prison.

Hi Cher

I think we must have been posting at the same time...

Two things of note to me here.

First, I think this sets a precedent: one which I expect to be attacked strongly in the appellate court.  If left to stand, this really DOES up the game for the bishops who, until now, have not been held accountable in the church.  So I read this as society saying "fine, you won't manage your own, then we'll do it for you if that's what it takes to protect our children.

Secondly, I thought the words of the judge here interesting:

From the article:

Judge M. Teresa Sarmina said Lynn enabled “monsters in clerical garb ... to destroy the souls of children, to whom you turned a hard heart.”
 
She added: “You knew full well what was right, Monsignor Lynn, but you chose wrong.”
 

Not exactly the kinds of words you hear within the church, even now.  I can only imagine where this all would have gone had Belavaqua lived and been healthy...