Justice Served in Monsignor Lynn Case
By Christine Flowers
Beware of those who want to be “on the right side of history.” Sometimes, that’s just code for “the law be damned, I’ll do whatever I, the omniscient arbiter of right and wrong, want to do.” Kathleen Kane is one of those legal systems unto herself, looking at the Pennsylvania statutes as being optional, particularly the one that bars same-sex marriage. Bruce Haynes is another, following in the attorney general’s footsteps with his crusade to issue worthless marriage licenses to hopeful spouses. The members of Philadelphia City Council were in lockstep with them, passing gun control legislation even though they knew that the state had sole jurisdiction. In the Haynes case, the Commonwealth Court slapped him down, telling Mr. “Right Side of History” that he better go back and take a remedial course in civics. City Council also had its comeuppance by the same appeals court. As for Queen Kathleen, the jury — or rather, the judge — is still out. But she might take some guidance from what happened this week in the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, and realize that not every moral crusader gets away with spitting on the Constitution in the pursuit of a “noble” end. On Thursday afternoon, the appeals court overturned the child endangerment conviction of Monsignor William Lynn, who had been convicted of the charges in what appeared to many as a fatally flawed prosecution back in 2012. Lynn had been prosecuted under a law that had been applied to him retroactively, a clear violation of the Constitution’s prohibition against ex-post facto laws. In other words, if the law does not prohibit an act at the time you commit it, any future changes to the law criminalizing the conduct cannot be used to convict you at a later date. It’s a simple principle, one that forms the basis for our system of due process. It is one of the primary bulwarks we have against mob rule. Unfortunately, once you enter the realm of “pedophile priest,” all of our calm, sober discussions about fairness are drowned out by the wild-eyed, pitchfork-wielding guardians of innocence. Any suggestion that an accused priest, even one who never laid a finger on a child, is entitled to a proper defense is greeted with an almost hysterical reaction. When I posted a link to an old article I had written about the case on Facebook and applauded the Superior Court for its ruling, one person wrote such a hateful response that I did something this Princess of the Free Speech never does: I deleted it. Others essentially argued that regardless of the law, Monsignor Lynn failed to protect children by transferring pedophile priests instead of reporting them, and this alone justified a conviction. They were basically saying that regardless of what the law provides, their definition of justice would be imposed. Fortunately, there were some saner posts. My good friend David Spaulding, who is a lawyer (but don’t hold that against him) observed that, “to charge someone on a statute that was not effective when the alleged crime was committed … is unlawful.” He was attacked for those comments when he revealed that he personally knew Monsignor Lynn, as if this connection to the defendant delegitimized the bedrock principle of due process. Robert Castaldi, another friend and aspiring lawyer (I run with a rough crowd) criticized the church for its failures and then wrote “I am disappointed in the legal system that twists and turns, perverts and prostitutes the law just to get a conviction when those efforts could be better spent focusing on the truth, and because they seem to forget the job of a prosecutor is to get to the truth, to ensure justice is served and not to tally more points in the “W” column.” Couldn’t have said it better. And here is what Thomas Bergstrom, one of Monsignor Lynn’s lawyers, had to say about the appellate victory: “we are all most gratified that the rule of law has prevailed over emotion and mob mentality.” I think special thanks are due to this man who, with his very courageous and expert team, had to battle in two courts: the legal one, and the much more unforgiving court of public opinion. Speaking of that “real one,” Judge Teresa Sarmina, who heard the case at the trial level, had to know that the law making administrators responsible for failing to adequately protect children could not be applied retroactively. Patrick Blessington, a zealous prosecutor with whom I share an Augustinian alma mater, must have known that as well and came far too close to the Kathleen Kane school of “my ends justify my means.” St. Augustine might be a bit put off by that, as would St. Ignatius Loyola, the patron of D.A. Seth Williams’ alma mater Georgetown. Both of those saintly men prized the pursuit of the truth, even a bitter and unpalatable one. I am not insensitive to the anger of Catholics and non-Catholics alike when it comes to the painful reality of sexual abuse in the church. It is evil, it is criminal, it must be avenged and its victims must be made whole. But we do not seek a remedy by wadding the Constitution into a ball and using it to stanch the blood flow of the victims. We do it methodically, conscientiously and with due respect for the laws which are meant to apply to all of us equally. As someone who once clerked on the Superior Court, I know all about the discomfort that comes from decisions that offend our sense of justice but respect the rule of law. But I am much more troubled by men and women who ignore those “inconvenient” laws to further their own utopian sense of justice. For now, at least, we can all take a deep breath and be thankful that justice — not vengeance — was done. Christine Flowers is an attorney and Delaware County resident. Her column appears every Sunday. Email her at cflowers1961@gmail.com
|
.
Any original material on these pages is copyright © BishopAccountability.org 2004. Reproduce freely with attribution.