Mirror of Justice

A blog dedicated to the development of Catholic legal theory.
Affiliated with the Program on Church, State & Society at Notre Dame Law School.

Friday, April 13, 2012

Social Justice and Children

Last week, I had the opportunity to observe many of the Seven Themes of Catholic Social Teaching at work. I had the privilege of serving on an expert working group to aid in drafting a model child protection law. This project arises out of the Child Protection Project, which is an exciting partnership between The Protection Project of The Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies and the International Centre for Missing and Exploited Children. One of the Project's goals is to "draft, publish, and globally disseminate model child protection legislation." While not intended to be connected to the Themes, I could not avoid thinking of them as the group worked. While present I was impressed with the focus on dignity of children, the desire to protect the most vulnerable, and a serious commitment to a responsibility to participate in society for its improvement.

The working group was the last of six that have convened throughout the world. All these experts have brought to the table insight from their experience regarding the needs of children to live in safe and healthy environment – and the reality that so many of the world's children do not. While there was a healthy exchange of perspectives, not always in agreement, it was hopeful to see so many people driven by a desire to protect the inherent dignity of children and their right to live and grow in a protective environment.

Thursday, April 5, 2012

Lynn Trial Concludes a Second Week

Philadelphia's trial of Msgr. William Lynn and Fr. James Brennan has continued this week. Two more jurors were released for unknown reasons. However, the court, presumably anticipating such occurrences, had several alternate jurors available.

The case is unlike many other child sexual abuse cases in that many internal documents are being presented which are disturbing. The prosecution is using this evidence to establish that Msgr. Lynn conspired to endanger the welfare of children. They assert that he was made aware of sexual crimes of priests and then he either failed to act or acted by reassigning these priests in a way that put children at risk. The defense continues to argue that such documentation illustrates an effort by Lynn to do something to respond to the problem, but his effort was thwarted by deceased Cardinal Bevilacqua. The case is still in the government's case in chief, so which side is successfully utilizing these documents is yet to be determined. Guilt of Msgr. Lynn and his codefendant aside, there is a larger picture being painted by the documents. The documents are beginning to paint a disturbing picture of the institutional response by the Archdiocese. Several documents presented suggest a paramount concern and priority of liability issues, a deception of parishioners, and a response which fails to put the protection of children first, if at all. Such was also portrayed in the 2011 grand jury report as well as the 400 page 2005 grand jury report.

The case, however, in other ways is like many other child abuse cases. Jurors heard from victims this week. The victims told of the abuse, the fear of reporting, and then the less than compassionate response from church officials when they did disclose. Similarly, one victim testified of experiencing the well documented effects of sexual abuse: going from a straight A student to one with problems. The victim's credibility was challenged because of some troubled events in his life. This reflects a common scenario in such sex abuse cases. If the allegations are true, victims experience an ironic second victimization. The initial victimization of child sexual assault can have devastating effects on the victims' lives, increasing their risk of depression, substance abuse, eating disorders, and other conditions. Then, in an ironic twist, often when the children have enough courage to disclose the abuse in a court, defendants tell the fact finder to not believe them because the witness has had such a troubled life. Essentially, the defendants cite the reason he targeted the victim or the after effects of this trauma as the very reason to disbelieve the victim. Whether such is the case here, or the accuser indeed is not credible, has yet to be determined. This week's testimony, however, reminds us that while some of the legal issues in the case are unique to it, the personal and tragic story of child sexual abuse is not.

Coverage of the case is international. It has also been slanted in some areas. With these updates I have tried to pull from different sources. Below are some sources including Sunday's New York Times editorial which illustrate some of what I have discussed. The case will resume next week.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/02/opinion/a-monsignor-goes-on-trial.html

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/120201744.html?c=r

http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/29/2721290/woman-helpless-trapped-at-rectory.html#storylink=mirelated

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/on-faith/priests-accuser-to-return-to-the-stand-in-clergy-abuse-trial-under-way-in-philadelphia/2012/04/05/gIQAHQfFxS_story.html

 

Second Week of Lynn Trial Comes to a Close

Philadelphia's trial of Msgr. William Lynn and Fr. James Brennan has continued this week. Two more jurors were released for unknown reasons. However, the court, presumably anticipating such occurrences, had several alternate jurors available.

The case is unlike many other child sexual abuse cases in that many internal documents are being presented which are disturbing. The prosecution is using this evidence to establish that Msgr. Lynn conspired to endanger the welfare of children. They assert that he was made aware of sexual crimes of priests and then he either failed to act or acted by reassigning these priests in a way that put children at risk. The defense continues to argue that such documentation illustrates an effort by Lynn to do something to respond to the problem, but his effort was thwarted by deceased Cardinal Bevilacqua. The case is still in the government's case in chief, so which side is successfully utilizing these documents is yet to be determined. Guilt of Msgr. Lynn and his codefendant aside, there is a larger picture being painted by the documents. The documents are beginning to paint a disturbing picture of the institutional response by the Archdiocese. Several documents presented suggest a paramount concern and priority of liability issues, a deception of parishioners, and a response which fails to put the protection of children first, if at all. Such was also portrayed in the 2011 grand jury report as well as the 400 page 2005 grand jury report.

The case, however, in other ways is like many other child abuse cases. Jurors heard from victims this week. The victims told of the abuse, the fear of reporting, and then the less than compassionate response from church officials when they did disclose. Similarly, one victim testified of experiencing the well documented effects of sexual abuse: going from a straight A student to one with problems. The victim's credibility was challenged because of some troubled events in his life. This reflects a common scenario in such sex abuse cases. If the allegations are true, victims experience an ironic second victimization. The initial victimization of child sexual assault can have devastating effects on the victims' lives, increasing their risk of depression, substance abuse, eating disorders, and other conditions. Then, in an ironic twist, often when the children have enough courage to disclose the abuse in a court, defendants tell the fact finder to not believe them because the witness has had such a troubled life. Essentially, the defendants cite the reason he targeted the victim or the after effects of this trauma as the very reason to disbelieve the victim. Whether such is the case here, or the accuser indeed is not credible, has yet to be determined. This week's testimony, however, reminds us that while some of the legal issues in the case are unique to it, the personal and tragic story of child sexual abuse is not.

Coverage of the case is international. It has also been slanted in some areas. With these updates I have tried to pull from different sources. Below are some sources including Sunday's New York Times editorial which illustrate some of what I have discussed. The case will resume next week.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/02/opinion/a-monsignor-goes-on-trial.html

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/120201744.html?c=r

http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/29/2721290/woman-helpless-trapped-at-rectory.html#storylink=mirelated

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/on-faith/priests-accuser-to-return-to-the-stand-in-clergy-abuse-trial-under-way-in-philadelphia/2012/04/05/gIQAHQfFxS_story.html

 

Wednesday, March 28, 2012

Institutions, Child Abuse, Church Officials, and Trials

A significant trial began in Philadelphia this week. A similarly important hearing took place in Kansas. Both cases may indicate a sea change in how jurisdictions will seek accountability of Catholic Church officials for their role in failing to protect children from clerical perpetrators.

As most MOJ readers know, two priests are on trial related to the child sex abuse scandal of the Philadelphia Archdiocese. Originally three defendants were to be tried together. Former priest Edward Avery and current priest James Brennan were accused of conspiracy and sexually assaulting children. What makes this case particularly legally interesting is the third defendant, Msgr. William Lynn, who is not accused of assaulting children. However, he is accused of endangering the welfare of children and conspiracy in his role as Secretary for the Archdiocese. As the New York Times described it, "[t]he defendant, Msgr. William J. Lynn, 61, is the first Roman Catholic supervisor in the country to be tried on felony charges of endangering children and conspiracy — not on allegations that he molested children himself, but that he protected suspect priests and reassigned them to jobs where they continued to rape, grope or otherwise abuse boys and girls."

The history of the case is lengthy and dramatic. This reality continued last week when Avery pled guilty to conspiracy and sexually assaulting a boy in 1999. He was sentenced to 2 ½ - 5 years incarceration. During the plea, a local television station reports that "Avery also admitted in court that Msgr. Lynn knew that he had sexually abused children but had nevertheless allowed him to remain in ministry." As a result, Msgr. Lynn moved to delay the trial and select a new jury, arguing that jurors could not have avoided the pretrial publicity and would be tainted. On Monday the judge and counsel individually questioned the jurors and two were dismissed as a result of their exposure to the news coverage. The case began as scheduled.

Prosecutors outlined their case Monday in an hour long opening. (In full disclosure, I am a former Philadelphia Assistant District Attorney.) According to the Philadelphia Inquirer, the theme of the prosecution's opening statement was that Lynn was in charge of investigating allegations of abuse and also of protecting the Archdiocese, he "could not do both," and "chose to spare church leaders and his fellow priests from scandal at the expense of victims and the public." Lynn's defense lawyer's opening theme was to suggest that Lynn was the only person working on this problem and the failure to act and assignments were made by those above him, to include the now deceased Cardinal Bevilacqua. Brennan's defense counsel presented a defense of attacking the credibility of his accuser.

The Washington Post reports that the first day of trial included a list of molesting priests allegedly prepared by Lynn. Avery was on that list. The witnesses testified that although Avery was removed from his parish because of his sexual abuse, his parish was misled as to the reason he was ultimately reassigned and lived at a parish connected to a school. The Philadelphia Inquirer reported that,

[Lynn's] letters to two of Avery's parishioners, read aloud today to jurors at Lynn's trial, praised the priest [Avery] and urged them to disregard any unflattering whispers they might have heard.

"Let me assure you, that is what they are: rumors," Lynn wrote one woman. "Father Avery had requested a health leave from Cardinal Bevilacqua, which was granted."

The trial is expected to last several weeks.

Much of the commentary mentions this is the first trial of its kind. However, yesterday in Kansas, another hearing took place. Kansas Bishop John Finn has been charged with failing to report a fellow priest for his child pornography collection. Today, Finn's lawyers moved to dismiss the charges, arguing, he "did not have a legal obligation to report suspected child sexual abuse by a local priest even if he knew about it…." The Court has taken the motion under advisement.

How the respective courts and juries respond to these charges will likely influence the future decisions of prosecutors. These decisions will also, no doubt, be influenced by how well dioceses are doing in actually fulfilling their obligation to protect the children of their parishes. The role of the "institution" in abuse and its cover up is one critical to explore as we grapple with the reality of child sexual abuse in our culture. No doubt these trials will offer some insights.

 

Monday, March 19, 2012

Msgr. Lynn Trial

 

As many MOJ readers are aware, next week begins a historic trial in Pennsylvania. In Philadelphia, four priests face criminal charges stemming from child sexual abuse allegations. Three defendants are accused of molesting children and one, Msgr. William Lynn, is the former Secretary for Clergy for the Archdiocese of Philadelphia where his duties included the assignment of priests. He is accused of endangering the welfare of children in his assignments, actions, and failures to act.

I plan on blogging about this case as it unfolds in what promises to be a very interesting trial. The cases raise fascinating legal issues regarding child protection, duty of care, retroactivity, attorney client privilege, as well as others.

I have spared MOJ readers many of the pretrial events which have garnered the focus of the mainstream media. However, an interesting development took place on Saturday raising further questions of ethics and what happens when lawyers start working on behalf of the Church…as opposed to what should happen.

The Philadelphia Inquirer reports that the Archdiocese has suspended its in house counsel less than two weeks before the trial. The attorney, Timothy Coyne, has a long term relationship with the Archdiocese as both in house counsel and the attorney with the firm that handled most Archdiocese matters during the time in question at the trial. According to the Philadelphia paper,

Lynn, who investigated misconduct complaints against priests and recommended their assignments, is accused of conspiracy and child endangerment for allegedly enabling or covering up clergy sex abuse. His attorneys have signaled they may argue he was following the advice of church lawyers.

The trial judge, Common Pleas Court Judge M. Teresa Sarmina, has ordered the archdiocese to be ready to hand over hundreds or thousands of documents, including correspondence between church officials and their lawyers. She is expected to hear arguments on the issue and decide it next week.

This case promises to be an interesting one to watch on a number of levels - institutional responsibility, attorney client relations, vicarious liability, not to mention child abuse and protection. No doubt it could also indicate the viability of the theory of criminal responsibility for covering up abuse of our most vulnerable children.

Monday, March 12, 2012

A Call for Civility, Public Discourse, and Consistency

 

There has been a great deal written here about the current issues of religious liberty and public debate. Earlier this month John DeGioia, President of Georgetown University, the oldest Catholic University in the United States, issued a call for civility and public discourse which may be of interest.

Along those lines, as well as Professor Garnett's earlier discussion of bigotry and civil discourse, this piece appeared in the Washington Post to discuss the uneven response to misogynistic comments….depending on who is the target. Both pieces may offer some food for thought on the state in which we find ourselves regarding our national dialog about important issues.

Friday, February 24, 2012

A Different Spin on Dignity, the Church, and the Government

There has been much discussion lately, deservedly so, of the need for the government to reflect a level of morality, or at least respect deeply held religious beliefs with respect to fundamental issues of life. Indeed, much of the discourse regarding threats to religious freedom in the last several weeks has included dialog around women, their rights, their dignity, and the dignity of all life. This is an important discussion in which we see tension between media messaging, governmental actions, and some of the teachings of the Catholic Church.

I would like to turn that discussion to another area. Here the government's criminal law and the Church stand together. If this week is any example, together they wage a battle, perhaps a losing one, with our culture of violence. This too involves issues of dignity, autonomy, and life itself – it is the dark world of domestic violence.

The Commonwealth of Virginia finds itself the setting for two dramatic domestic violence sagas. The Commonwealth and all of metropolitan Washington have been following the trial of George Huguely who was convicted this week of second degree murder for the killing of his former girlfriend and fellow University of Virginia classmate, Yeardley Love. In so doing, the jury concluded that Huguely caused her death by blunt force trauma to her head after he violently put a hole through her bedroom door and physically attacked her. His statement to the police, while minimizing the violence, included an admission to kicking in her door, shaking her, and holding her to the floor to "calm her down." The case included a history of violence and threats by Huguely against Love. Consequently, it has been a "teaching moment" for parents of young girls about the dangers of domestic violence and the realities of the often overlooked area of teen dating violence. This tragic story has been a reminder of need to recognize the signs of a violent relationship and to intervene to protect the victim.

This is an area on which the Church and the government stand together. The state condemned the defendant's actions and pursued justice against Huguely despite his privileged life. If Henry Hart is correct and a conviction is "the moral condemnation of the community," the jury did so as well. In 1995, John Paul II in his Letter to Women clearly condemned violence against women as an affront to their inherent dignity.

When it comes to setting women free from every kind of exploitation and domination, the Gospel contains an ever relevant message which goes back to the attitude of Jesus Christ himself. Transcending the established norms of his own culture, Jesus treated women with openness, respect, acceptance and tenderness. In this way he honored the dignity which women have always possessed according to God's plan and in his love. As we look to Christ at the end of this Second Millennium, it is natural to ask ourselves: how much of his message has been heard and acted upon?

Well, if the other Virginia story is any measure, not much of this message has been heard.

Virginia also is the home of popular singer Chris Brown, currently in the middle of his 5 year probation for felony assault of his then girlfriend, the even more popular singer, Rihanna. In 2009 he pled guilty to severely beating her which, according to the search warrant affidavit in the case, included attempting to force her from a vehicle, shoving her head against a window, repeatedly punching her in the face, biting her, choking her to such an extent that she began to lose consciousness, and threatening to kill her. Again, here the government stood behind the dignity of women by pursuing felony criminal charges against Brown, notwithstanding his prominence. Yet half way through that probation, the Grammy's have featured him and honored him. Furthermore, he and Rihanna have leaked remixes of songs in which they collaborate together. Rihanna's remix is particularly disturbing, and too explicit for this blog. Suffice it to say NPR described the lyrics as "blurr[ing] the line between pleasure and pain, and could be interpreted as alluding to Brown's assault of her."

From this carnage, parents attempt to act upon John Paul II's 17-year-old message and resurrect a teaching moment. Such a moment can lead to powerful opportunities to help protect girls from the dangers of domestic violence, to help them recognize that it affects even the most famous and privileged, and to engage bystanders in appropriate responses. However, the culture provides an alternative message. These two extremely popular performers (not to mention the industry behind them) contribute to a different dispatch to their teen followers: rather than end the violent relationship – continue collaborating, dismiss the violence against women, exploit the scandal, and reinforce gendered stereotypes that suggest such violent assaults are at best excusable and at worst somehow the fault of the victim. Given this kind of culture, is it any wonder that a college student quoted in the NPR story referred to this recent collaboration as indicating "love?" Even more disturbing, teens assembling for a fall 2011 Brown concert in Baltimore, Maryland blamed the "incident" on Rihanna's. Baltimore…not far from where Yeardley Love attended high school. No doubt several will wonder, what is the harm? One measure of the result of this social messaging is this: after the Grammy win- several documented tweets from young women stating, "Chris Brown can beat me."

So as we wrestle with these tensions between government and people of faith, it is a reminder that, even when on the same side of an issue, such solidarity is not enough to affect change. We must also combat the social messages that perpetuate the lack of dignity afforded to all. February's role as Teen Dating Violence Awareness Month is brought all the more sharply into focus with these examples of how far our society still has to progress in order to ensure the life and dignity of our young women. Perhaps we would do well to remember and share John Paul II's words in Mulieris Dignitatem, that "woman cannot become the "object" of "domination" and male "possession.""