Attorneys for Monsignor William Lynn - the only high-ranking church official ever convicted in connection with the burgeoning child sex abuse scandal - will be in court today looking to have their client freed on bail.
I hope he gets it, and he goes free after 18 months behind bars.
That's not because I condone for a second what I believe he and other archdiocesan officials did. It remains in my view no less horrendous, what amounts to a policy of putting the reputation of the church and problem priests over that of children.
I believe Monsignor Lynn was doing the bidding his job as best he could, implementing the policies put in place by Cardinal Anthony Bevilacqua, who was not charged in the scandal.
I think his actions - and the church's policies - did in fact endanger the welfare of children. Lynn himself while on the stand during his trial indicated that "doing his best" to protect kids was not enough.
But opinions - even moral ones - do not trump the law.
And clearly there were serious legal issues surrounding Lynn's conviction.
Specifically, a three-judge state appeals court ruled in his favor after his lawyers made the argument that Lynn never should have been charged - let alone convicted - under Pennsylvania law. That's because the law that was in place at the time Lynn's actions are in question, did not apply to Lynn in his supervisory status as secretary for the clergy in the archcdiocese. The law targeted only people with direct supervision over of children, such as parents or teachers.
The law was changed in 2007, widened in scope to include those such as employers whose employees end up harming children.
In Lynn's case, the case zeroed in on a reassignment of Edward Avery, a defrocked priest who pleaded guilty to sexually assaulting an altar boy.
You can find our editorial position here.
This is my person opinion.
I should note that Monsignor Lynn was my parish priest. Much of what I have written in regards to his case have not exactly been welcomed by many in my parish, St. Joseph's in Downingtown.
I still abhor the behavior of the archdiocese in this case. No doubt advocates for victim abuse will rue the appeals court's ruling. Philadelphia District Attorney Seth Williams already is ripping the ruling and indicating he may appeal.
Protesters were back outside the Basilica of SS. Peter and Paul in Center City yesterday. The moral argument clearly is on their side.
The legal argument just as clearly is not.
Monsignor Lynn has been behind bars for 18 months for a crime that he could not have committed, because the law did not apply to him at the time.
Many no doubt will refer to it as getting off on a legal technicality.
I don't consider spending 18 months in jail anything of the sort. Lynn has paid a huge price. So has the church.
My hope is that they have learned from the scandal that has burned around this issue for years.
My belief is they likely have not.
That should not be used as a wedge to keep him in jail.
It's time for Monsignor William Lynn to be freed.
Comments
In the decision, there is a lot of analysis pertaining to that decision.
This is clearly a case of a rogue district attorney and compliant judge wanting to strike out at someone for horrible acts committed by priests who should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and then some.
However, in cases like Msgr. Lynn's, it isn't so clear. Did he knowingly and willingly put children in harms way? In hindsight it appears that he did. But did he knowingly do it? In my heart, I don't believe that he did.
I think in hindsight you can take almost any tragedy and find others that are guilty of not taking action to prevent it. Take a drunk driver who caused an accident that killed innocent people. Or parents charged with long term child abuse. I'm sure you would find lots of people who could have prevented the future actions by doing something differently. Friends, parents, social workers, judges, etc. You could make the argument that they are just as guilty of the results of those actions as Msgr. Lynn is guilty of his.
Unless, of course, you believe he knew Avery was going to molest kids and didn't care and assigned him to another parish just to protect the reputation of the church. The evidence, and the impression of the man, doesn't support that.
The more serious issue lies in how clergy is protected by laws meant for the lay society.
Targeting the clergy for laws in the name of protection is not the answer either.
The change has to come from within the church...we the parishoners...the faithful need to be more vigilant and not rely on laws to protect our children but become the guiding force and example of how true christians treat each other....Forgive the sinner not the act.
Pay Ceasar what is due Ceaser if the law is just.