Archbishop: Helping With Lynn's Bail 'Reasonable'

Archbishop Chaput is granting $25,000 towards the bail Monsignor Lynn. The media is going to have a field day with this. Christian Charity towards Lynn’s family will be twisted as continuing to cover up child molesters. :frowning:

I’m afraid that these SNAP people are going to continue to broadcast their hate for years to come. :frowning:

I have a hard time seeing how this was a good thing to do, considering the circumstances.

I was horrified to find out about Lynn’s release and I am appalled that the Archbishop is helping with bail. He’s a criminal and criminals belong in the slammer. Period. By granting bail to Lynn, the Church looks like it has more to cover up, which in Philadelphia it probably does. It’s not “Christian charity” at all.

And as far as “these SNAP people”, they may have anger, but it is a justified anger. I cannot find fault with them for being bitter and hateful, especially when the reason for their hatred is not being corrected, but still being brushed under the rug.

If the “media has a field day”, Chaput–and his superiors–deserve it.

You have to remember that the Archbishop is a Friar Minor above all things. He must obey the Holy Rule. The rule commands that he do what justice allows. In this case, justice allows for bail. He cannot disobey Francis. He would forfeit his soul.

Do you want him to disobey his spiritual father and forfeit his soul?

He’s not making a statement about the innocence of the accused. He is simply doing what the law says can be justifiably done. Since the law is not in conflict with moral law, there is no reason why he should not.

We need to help people understand that a bail is not a statement of innocence. It’s simply an act of compassion that the law allows. The Friars Minor have bailed out many people from prison. Some have gone on to become friars and one is on the road to canonization. The man who murdered Maria Goretti died a Capuchin Friar Minor. He was also rescued by the friars. The friars never said that he was innocent. They’re two very different things. We must help people see the difference.

Brilliant, compassionate, and faithful response. :thumbsup:

Kudos to the AB for doing the right thing, not the politically correct thing. This whole conviction was suspicious from the start. First the investigation says no criminal action took place. Then Lynn was prosecuted for child endangerment. Now an appellate court overturns the verdict stating the law he was tried under was not applicable. :shrug:

The Supreme Court is supposed to protect all from unjust practices, one of which is prosecuting under laws ex post facto. Pennsylvania politicians have no business passing a law and going back to prosecute someone under a new statute for actions committed before that statute. It was a clear abuse of power and evidence enough to convince me that this was a political witch hunt.

Uh, sorry, but I don’t know if I care about the state of Chaput’s soul. That’s for him and his confessor and/or spiritual director. Call me nasty and uncharitable, but if Chaput cared about souls so much, he, Lynn and everybody else involved in the abuse and cover-up would be telling the truth and receiving their punishments. You don’t see that happening, do you? No, what you see is the Church hierarchy hanging with their lawyers, still trying to hide things. They are only doing what they are **forced **to do by the law, and not what real “justice” demands.

And, hypothetically, if the Pope ordered an immoral course of action, i.e. a cover-up, wouldn’t religious be bound **not **to obey?

Maybe Chaput isn’t saying outright that Lynn is innocent—no one would believe him, anyway—but it certainly looks like the Archbishop is rubber-stamping Lynn’s behavior. It has the **appearance **of impropriety, and that is why the media jumps on it.

And please don’t bring up the case of Alessandro Serenelli. That guy confessed his guilt and did all of his time—30 years of hard labor! Apples and oranges!

The bail was $2,500, not $25,000.

I liked Archbishop’s statement because it rings as sincere and true. He doesn’t gloss over any wrong doing of Msgr Lynn in the past. He also acknowledges that only their record of conversion, Archdiocese, and proof in the way they respond will change/heal what has happened there.

Part of Archbishop Chaput’s statement:

"The Superior Court ruling does not vindicate Msgr. Lynn’s past
decisions. Nor does it absolve the Archdiocese from deeply flawed
thinking and actions in the past that resulted in bitter suffering for
victims of sexual abuse and their families. Above all, it does not and
cannot erase the Archdiocese’s duty to help survivors heal. We remain
committed to that healing – now and in the future.

For the past three years the Archdiocese has worked vigorously to
reform the way it protects the children and families it serves. New
policies and procedures, new standards of ministerial behavior, new
Archdiocesan Review Board members, mandated reporter training for
thousands of volunteers, clergy and staff: All these things are a
matter of public record. Throughout the trial of Msgr. Lynn, the
Archdiocese cooperated fully and honestly with law enforcement and the
court. And that cooperation will continue, whatever the final outcome
of Msgr. Lynn’s case. We cannot change the past. But we can and will
do everything in our power to prevent it from being repeated.

I understand and accept the anger felt toward the Archdiocese by many
of our people and priests, as well as the general public, for the ugly
events of the past decade. Only time and a record of honest conversion
by the Archdiocese can change that. Msgr. Lynn has already spent 18
months in prison on a conviction which Pennsylvania’s state appellate
court has reversed – unanimously – as “fundamentally flawed.” This
reversal is not a matter of technicalities but of legal substance.
That is made very clear in the text of the Superior Court’s decision."

Correction: The bail was $25,000 but only 10%, $2,500, was paid. Sorry.

Closed until the moderator reviews the thread.


Please charitably discuss the issues

Negative and rude comments toward CAF members, clergy (deacons, priests and bishops) or toward religious and religious orders are banned.

Everyone, online and offline, deserves to be spoken to and about respectfully. However, some posters seem to feel that clergy and religious are fair game.

If you have an issue with them, take it up in private, not on this forum or any of our forums.

You may cite something from another source, if you are not using it to further an agenda. Agenda posting is not allowed.

If we deem that you are disrespectful to our clergy and religious, you will receive an infraction or even a ban.

Proof what you write before you post.

You may not make disparaging remarks about:

*]Vatican II
*]Clergy (deacons, priests and bishops) of any group
*]Religious (brothers, sisters, and nuns) of any order or congregation
*]Lawful actions and disciiplines by the Church including the historical excommunication of the SSPX. It happened. Rome explained why it happened. End of story. Rome did not put it out there for debate by the faithful.
*]Another poster or his/her ideas. You can disagree. You cannot attack,insult, ridicule or dismiss as unimportant. His opinion is as important to him as your opinion is to you.
*]Parishes, pastors, civil leaders.
*]Other religions – if you’re unsure how to speak in public about other faiths, look at the Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI and Pope Francis. They are fraternal, polite, and intellectual in discussing religious differences.
Avoid arguments that will lead to violations of charity. You don’t have to like what you read and others do not have to like what you post. But you must be civil toward each other and those who are not on the forum.

As Fr. Gorndon said in a recent post, “Sometimes we can think that we know more than we do and that leads us to make assumptions which could be incorrect. While having questions and seeking answers, we still need to trust that the Holy Spirit is who is guiding the Church. Put your mind at ease and trust in God to guide His Church.”

Wrong. The bail was $250,000. Source:

In Pennsylvania, a defendant generally can be released after posting 10% of the bail with the court. This is the case unless the court specifically issues a “No 10% Order” and requires the defendant to post the entire bail in full. No such order was issued in this case. Monsignor Lynn posted $25,000 in cash with the court. He also surrendered his passport. The judge further ordered that he wear an electronic monitor on his ankle that will allow law enforcement to see where he is at any given moment.

Thank you, Irish Cabbie, I see the mistake I made.

Thank you Brother for this beautiful response. I will use it when people attack my Archbishop

God Bless

You’re welcome. :slight_smile:

Wow. I have seldom seen bail that high for murder. Combined with the fact that the original sentence was only 3-6 years of which 1 1/2 has been served, I would call that excessive and evidence once again that this is politically motivated.

Something to think aboput (and additional evidence this is all political)out is that Avery, the actual molester only got 2 1/2 - 5 years. Interesting.

You have to remember that judges in Pennsylvania are elected to the bench. They are, by trade, politicians. This story is big news in the Philly area. I suspect the reason the bail was so set so high has a lot to do with the judge’s desire to come across in the press looking like a tough judge.

You are right about the bail being high, particularly when you consider that Pennsylvania has a reputation for setting low bails for those accused of crimes. Case in point: About 20 years ago I was having breakfast in a diner in West Chester, Pennsylvania. While I was eating, I was reading a story in the newspaper about a man that had been arrested two days earlier and who was accused of murdering his wife. There was a picture of the defendant in the article that I was reading. When I turned the page of my newspaper, I happened to glance at the person that was sitting on the stool right next to me. It was the accused murderer that I had just read about. His bail was $50,000, which meant he only had to post a refundable $5,000 with the court in order to be released on bail. If I recall correctly, back then they didn’t use electronic monitoring devices to keep track of people out on bail.

In all fairness to the judge that set that bail, the defendant did show up in court as ordered. The defendant was later convicted of manslaughter and not murder. I think he served about 5 years in prison before being released on parole. Even still, I doubt there are many states in the country where an accused murderer has a bail set that low.

Also remember that should Lynn be totally acquitted, the Archdiocese gets it’s $25,000 posted bail returned to them.

Brother, the Rule aside, how do you think it will look? Do you really think people will be mollified by that explanation in Philly, or just write it off as another excuse to cover things up? I suspect a lot of people would prefer the Archbishop damn himself if the alternative meant someone who did these morally reprehensible acts getting a break. Sad to say in America many people, Catholics included (not me) could give a pig’s hind foot about the rule of St. Francis. I mean, this is a country that still mandates castration as an actual punishment for sex offenses, they won’t care if the reason for this is justified by God or man.

This is not meant to disparage any prelate or priest, merely to point out the fact that your average man in the street, reading the paper, won’t buy your explanation.

Even if Monsignor Lynn is convicted again, the Archdiocese will get its money back. If the defendant appears in court as directed, the bail will be returned to whoever posted that bail. This happens whether the defendant is convicted or acquitted.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit