$250,000 bail set for Philadelphia’s Monsignor William Lynn

Print More

Active RNS subscribers and members can view this content by logging-in here.

(RNS) “If the conviction is in question, is not the punishment in question?” asked Common Pleas Court Judge M. Teresa Sarmina in setting a $250,000 bail for Philadelphia's Monsignor William Lynn, whose conviction of sheltering abusive priests was overturned.

  • Pingback: $250,000 bail set for Philadelphia’s Monsignor William Lynn | Do You Really Believe?()

  • Pingback: $250,000 bail set for Philadelphia’s Monsignor William Lynn | Hartford Faith & Values()

  • Steve Newark

    My, my how the City of Philadelphia hates Roman Catholics. This person should have the right to walk out of prison having been found innocent of charges. It seems clear that a simple “Common Pleas Court” judge should have no contempt for a three judge “Superior Court panel” finding. If dear Msgr. were black he’d be out free and clear as any person should be. bigotry exists everywhere.

  • Emerjk

    Easy does it!!! Your bigotry and paranoia are showing through!!! You really think it is because he is white and Roman Catholic? Maybe it’s because he was covering up molestations, and I don’t care what loop hole he might squeeze through, he needs to do time if he did it

  • Corey Mondello

    Where are all the right-wing religious nuts talking about activist judges? Did Bachmann not hear about the children being raped? Oh wait I forgot, people like her aren’t pro-life they are pro-fetus.

  • Earold Gunter

    Just read the Catholic Church put up a portion of his bail. It’s business as usual, for the Catholic Church, even with their new P.R. Pope.

  • Duane Lamers

    Perhaps Lynn cannot be jailed for his past offenses. However, there’s no reason why his bishop cannot yank him from the clerical role, perhaps even recommend to the Vatican that he be laicized.

    Someone whose main defense is “My boss wanted it done this way” seems to have lost his moral compass somewhere along the line.

  • Duane Lamers

    “P.R. Pope,” Earold? How so? I hope that you’re not angered over the fact that even the mainstream media has found something to like about the pope’s m.o. That would be unjustifiable bias.

  • mxwll

    So he IS guilty, but the law did not cover what he did at the time? He aided and abetted rape and pederasty, and yet he is to go free and still holds a high office in the Catholic Church. Adding insult to injury, if Earold is right, his freedom is being facilitated by that same church. This is exactly why, no matter what this kinder gentler pope says, I will continue to hold the Catholic Church in complete contempt and regard it as a threat to the safety of children and society in general. Rotten to the core.

  • mxwll

    Not guilty is not the same thing as innocent. Please do not confuse the two. This guy did it. “I was following order” was his primary defense. He should have gone to the law at the very first indication that something was amiss. This is so ingrained in the Catholic organization that enable and cover up is the standard response.

  • Survivor

    “Just following orders” hasn’t been a valid defense since the Nuremberg trials in 1946. This guy had a duty of care to children far more than to his superiors and the church hierarchy. EVERYBODY’s first duty of care is to the defenseless children irrespective of what trouble it may cause for the alleged friends – or was he happy to openly admit he was friends and colleagues with a child molestor?