The charging, conviction, and sentencing of Monsignor William Lynn are a travesty of justice. Consider the following points:

1. The District Attorney was permitted to present accusations of abuse that occurred before Monsignor Lynn even held his current position. This served to put the Archdiocese on trial, which is unfair to the accused. In a just society individuals are put on trial for their own actions, not the actions of others. How would you like to be charged with a crime and not only have to defend yourself but also defend someone or something else in the process?

2. Monsignor Lynn was forced into a co-trial with a co-defendant. a) This serves to psychologically impress the jury into associating both of the defendants with each other. How can this be just when every person accused of a crime in this country is supposed to be judged as an individual and judgments are supposed to be made based upon the merits of the evidence specifically implicating the accused? Any suggestion that justice is served by the jury being instructed to judge each defendant individually is a load of horse manure. Common sense dictates that the average person will confuse, intertwine, and make mistakes of fact when attempting to judge multiple individuals. If multiple defendants request a co-trial that is one thing, but forcing the accused to defend himself beside another person, who may very well be guilty, is deplorable. Remember, contrary to the best jury instructions, the human mind often cannot help but make inferences and associations between multiple parties. b) In addition, the very nature of multiple defendant’s results in a longer trial, a larger number of witnesses, additional jury instructions, more points of law to consider, and a longer jury deliberation. Prosecutors welcome these aspects of co-trials because they often lead jurors to engage in an introspective logic that says “After all this we have to convict somebody of something”. At the end of the day our Constitution requires and Natural Law dictates that the benefit of the doubt go to the accused and that any barriers to that benefit are to be removed, as well as any barriers to a fair trial. In the interest of erring on the side of fairness and justice Monsignor Lynn had every right to a separate trial. The only reason to deny him this right is out of bias. By denying this right, the D.A. and Judge Teresa Sarmina demonstrated that they were not after the truth, but rather a conviction, and by doing so ignored their chance to remain above board and avoid the appearance of bias and impropriety. As an American this disgusts me.

3. Monsignor Lynn was never charged with failure to report child abuse. Why? Because he was not guilty of violating that statute. Yet the D.A. used Monsignor Lynn’s so-called failure to report as the basis for child endangerment charges! Do you see how twisted that is? How can the government be permitted to use the failure to report as the basis for a separate criminal charge when the statute for reporting was clearly not violated?! If mere failure to report child abuse can result in prosecution for child endangerment then the existence of mandatory reporting laws and their specific requirements become baseless! Keep in mind that it does not matter what you may think the reporting law should say, only that a person can and should only face charges for what the law actually did say during the period that the violation is supposed to have occurred. If you don’t like the law then lobby to change it. In the mean time remember that in free countries people are only charged with what the law says, not with what you think the law should say. On a side note don’t be too quick to morally judge the Monsignor for not reporting on his own initiative even if he was not legally required to do so. In addition to being subject to the statutes of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, he is also subject to canon law in as far as it does not conflict with the civil law. This places an enormous amount of pressure on him to obey all legal requirements while acting in an ethical manner. All the while he must deal with serious accusations, many of which are false and/or have no evidence to substantiate them. The kinds of accusations that utterly destroy a person’s personal and professional life even when that person is innocent. We live in a day where individuals accused of sex crimes are for all intents and purposes considered guilty until proven innocent and that fact is utterly reprehensible. It is also a fact that made Monsignor Lynn’s job all that more difficult.

4. The D.A. had the audacity to assert that even though Monsignor Lynn took steps to protect children from potential predator priests (steps that went above and beyond any legal requirements) that the Monsignor was still criminally guilty for not doing more. This sickening assertion baffles the mind and is reminiscent of courtroom practices in Russia and China.

5. The only reason that the D.A.’s office was even able to call a grand jury was because the Archdiocese went to the D.A.’s office. And the evidence presented by the D.A.’s office to the grand jury also came from the Archdiocese. Evidence that Monsignor Lynn himself had compiled in an effort to deal with priests like Edward Avery!

6. How can Monsignor Lynn be held responsible for placing Father Avery in an environment in which Avery could prey on children, when in fact Monsignor Lynn did not have the authority to do what he wanted with Avery. That was and is the Archbishops’ purview. This is analogous to prosecuting a police sergeant for sending a patrol officer suspected of having a sex addiction to a call at a strip club, on direct orders from the captain, after it then turns out that the patrol officer assaulted one of the strippers. If you believe that Monsignor Lynn should have then reported father Avery to the authorities after receiving his orders then we go full circle to the actual legal requirements and I refer you to the previously discussed points.

7. Remember the adage that what people don’t say often says more than what they do say? In addressing Monsignor Lynn during sentencing Teresa Sarmina stated “You knew full well what was right, Monsignor Lynn, but you chose wrong,” This comment clearly demonstrates Judge Sarminas’ interjection of her personal bias, prejudice, and opinions during the trial and sentencing. Keep in mind that our opinions of right and wrong are often quite different from what the law states. It would have been much more proper for Sarmina to replace the words “right” and “wrong” with the words “legal” and “illegal”, yet she did not. The difference in meaning with the words changed and the omission itself speaks volumes.

8. How is it just that Monsignor Lynn received a stiffer punishment than the man who actually performed the molestations?! How is it just that a man who never even knew or interacted with any of the victims is treated in the same way and even worse than individuals who actually have contact with victims and those who actually commit the abuse?

9. The assistant D.A. that was assigned the case, District Attorney Seth Williams, and Judge Teresa Sarmina, have all demonstrated their contempt for the Constitution and for the rights of the accused. Rights which are necessary lest we delve into despotism in the name of justice, at which point our actions devolve into mere revenge. They have also demonstrated their hatred and bigotry of the Roman Catholic Church, her clergy, and faithful Catholics. The assistant district attorney, D.A. Seth Williams, and Judge Sarmina disgust me. Their actions disgust me. Their false platitudes disgust me. They are not even qualified to be dog catchers.

I pray for Monsignor Lynn and his eventual acquittal and vindication. I pray for the victims of child abuse and their families. This includes all victims, including those abused by protestant ministers, rabbis, police officers, public school teachers, girl scout leaders, United Nations Soldiers, etc. I also pray for people like Sarmina and Williams. That they come to respect and obey the Constitution which they took an oath to uphold and that their bigotry towards the Roman Catholic Church and her members is replaced with tolerance and understanding. In the mean time I also pray that people like them are kept out of and removed from positions of authority until such conversion takes place.

Lt. William J. Lawler II, M.Ed