Like It or Not, Court Gets It Right on Monsignor Lynn Ruling

The Mercury
February 3, 2014

http://www.pottsmerc.com/opinion/20140203/like-it-or-not-court-gets-it-right-on-monsignor-lynn-ruling

Philadelphia District Attorney Seth Williams is still outraged that Monsignor William Lynn is walking free, even if restricted to electronic home monitoring.

Williams still believes the Archdiocese of Philadelphia acted shamefully in its handling of a long, sordid history of sexual abuse of children by predatory priests. It was that policy of shifting problem priests from parish to parish — without alerting parishioners and families to the dangers being placed in their midst — that landed Lynn in prison, convicted of endangering the welfare of children in his duties as secretary of the clergy.

The D.A. is still adamant about protecting victims of sexual abuse and remaining vigilant to the issues that linger in the archdiocese.

He still believes a state appeals court was wrong when it tossed out Lynn’s conviction, backing a claim made from the day Lynn was charged, that he could not have committed under the law because at the time the statute did not apply to him in his role as a supervisor with the archdiocese.

Williams’ zeal in protecting the innocent, and his ardor in seeking justice for victims of child sexual abuse, are admirable.

But it does not change our opinion that Monsignor Lynn — regardless of what you think of his actions — was wrongly charged and convicted.

Williams’ office this week appealed the Superior Court ruling overturning Lynn’s conviction, tossing the case to the state Supreme Court.

The thinking behind the move is understandable; the law is not. Lynn became the only high-ranking church member in the United States charged and convicted in connection with the priest sex abuse scandal. He did 18 months in prison – not for any abuse on his part, but for his role as secretary of clergy and placing a problem priest in a parish where he abused an altar boy.

There was only one problem with the case. At the time the law did not apply to supervisors such as Lynn. That’s one of the reasons former District Attorney Lynne Abraham did not bring charges after a scathing grand jury report blistered the archdiocese’s action in connection with the scandal.

State lawmakers changed the law in 2007. But Williams took that change and applied it retroactively to Lynn’s actions in connection with the Rev. Edward Avery, who is alleged to have abused a 10-year-old altar boy in 1999 after being placed in a parish in Northeast Philadelphia.

Trial Judge Teresa Sarmina dismissed the defense objection that the statute did not apply to Lynn. He was convicted and jailed. But the Superior Court tossed the conviction. Even Sarmina admitted she was “not infallible” and her ruling could be questioned.

But Williams remained undeterred.

In a 39-page brief filed as part of the appeal, Assistant District Attorney Hugh J. Burns makes an impassioned plea for victims.

“The message sent by the Superior Court’s published opinion in this high-profile case is therefore a dismal one – victims of child sexual assault at the hands of pedophile priests who reluctantly come forward may do so in vain,” he wrote.

Burns makes the argument for convicting Lynn as an accomplice, and focusing on just how the statute defined “direct supervision,” the key element in overturning Lynn’s conviction.

The Superior Court did not have any such qualms. The three-judge panel was unanimous in overturning the case.

The prosecution argued that education or religious leaders “often benefit from an institutional policy of concealment.” He argued that the reversal of Lynn’s conviction “calls into doubt that ability of the criminal justice system to hinder such institutional wrongdoing.”

Actually, that’s why the Legislature changed the law. But it still cannot be retroactively applied to Lynn’s actions years before.

This is not an argument in defense of Lynn’s actions, or those of the archdiocese, which too often placed the image of the church above those of the victims of priest abuse.

It is an argument about whether Lynn could be rightly charged under the existing statute, not the new and improved one that was used retroactively to seek justice for his actions.

You don’t have to like it. It’s easy not to. But it would be much worse to simply take on the “blind” aspect of Lady Justice and look the other way when an injustice has occurred.