US Child Sex Abuse Conviction for ‘cover Up’ Is a Wake-up Call

Pannone Blog
July 5, 2012

http://www.pannone.com/blog/abuse/abuse/us-child-sex-abuse-conviction-for-cover-up-is-a-wake-up-call

The conviction of US Roman Catholic Church official who covered up child sex abuse is a wake-up call.

Monsignor William Lynn who oversaw hundreds of priests in the Philadelphia Archdiocese was found guilty on Friday 22 June 2012 of one count of endangering the welfare of a child, making him the first senior US Roman Catholic Church official to be convicted for covering up child sex abuse.

What does the case mean for child abuse victims?

I think it put pays to the argument that the Catholic Church is not responsible for its priests.

Lynn's job was to supervise priests, including investigating sex abuse claims. Instead of considering the risk to children, the prosecution said, he chose to protect the Catholic Church from scandal and potential loss of financial support.

The case against Lynn was that he covered up child sex abuse allegations, often by transferring priests to unsuspecting parishes.

This has been a common practice both in the UK and elsewhere. Instead of reporting priests who were abusing children to the police the Catholic Church has dealt with matters “in-house”. The practice has been to move a priest to another parish, but that has meant that the danger of continuing abuse was exported to another community.

An example is the case of Father David Crowley who was allowed by his bishop in the face of warnings that he was a risk to boys to move to another part of England where he went on to sexually abuse more children. He was finally convicted in 1998 and sent to prison for eleven years.

The argument - 'priests are employed by god'

The trial raised questions about personal responsibility and institutional constraints within the Catholic church hierarchy. In essence there has been the argument that priests are “employed by god” and so no one is responsible for what they do. That argument has been whittled away over recent years, and the Lynn case may well be its last gasp.

Lynn said that he tried to address cases of pedophile priests, by compiling a list of accused predators and writing memos to suggest treatment and suspensions. He was hampered because he could merely make recommendations to his superior, Cardinal Bevilacqua.

The prosecution used the list to show the Catholic Church was aware of priests who were sexually abusing and covered up their existence. Testimony also showed Bevilacqua ordered the list of accused priests be destroyed, although a lone copy was found in an archdiocese safe.

What Monsignor William Lynn should have done to protect potential victims

What Lynn should have done is to protect potential victims by reporting the priests concerned to the police. He must have known that the priests posed a potential danger to children, and clearly the jury reached that conclusion by convicting him of endangering a child.

Is there a legal obligation on a church official in England to report child abuse?

There maybe compelling moral obligations to do so, but is it a crime not to report an abuser or a suspected one?

In Philadelphia the prosecution case is that it is a crime not to do so, but in England what is the position?

I would argue that a church official who knew or suspected that a priest had abused a child and moved him on to another parish out of harm’s way, and not having reported matters to the police, could be guilty of perverting the course of justice.

The gist of the offence is conduct which may lead and is intended to lead to a miscarriage of justice whether or not a miscarriage actually occurs. By moving the priest on as opposed to confronting the issue and reporting the alleged offending to the police the ability to investigate is diminished to the detriment of the victim and society. The course of justice has been perverted.

It is no different to disposing of a gun following an accidental shooting which might have resulted in a prosecution following an investigation.

Claims for child abuse compensation

Following on the effect in my opinion goes wider and could assist victims in their claims for damages.

I would argue that the Lynn case highlights the Catholic Church’s broader responsibility for its priests and the children in its parishes, schools, and institutions. It demonstrates clearly the duty of care that is owed by it and its officials. The key points are:

it has to supervise priests

it has to report sexual abuse allegations to the priests

it cannot expose potential victims to the risk of sexual abuse

it does owe a duty of care to the children

Clearly each case is unique and has to be considered on the facts, but the Lynn case helps to focus attention on the Catholic Church’s responsibilities and liability for priests who abuse.

Are you a victim of sexual abuse?

If so remember you are not alone and many victims have successfully obtained justice.

Justice may not always, perhaps, be perfect, but many victims tell me that it is better than none and by securing it they achieved something positive.

I have together with my colleagues at Pannone Solicitors successfully represented victims of child sexual abuse. This is a highly specialised area of law requiring sensitivity, and we are in a position to help and advise victims.

If you have been abused then please contact us, in confidence, and we will listen and answer your questions. This will be free of charge.

I have found time and time again that victims have kept the abuse secret for many years, and they tell me what a relief it has been to relieve themselves of that burden by telling me.