Monsignor William Lynn, who handled priest assignments and the child sexual assault complaints against certain priests during his job as the secretary for clergy for the Archdiocese of Philadelphia from 1992 to 2004, was found guilty of felony child endangerment a has received a 3-6 year sentence for his crimes. Lynn didn’t do anything about the heinous sexual assaults on children that were committed by now-defrocked priest Edward Avery, who is himself is serving lesser a 2½- 5 year sentence for raping an altar boy in his church in 1999. I find it odd that Avery is serving a lighter sentence than Lynn. Of course, I also find it odd that you can serve as much time in prison for selling pot as you do for raping a child, but what do I know?
Regardless of how lightly Avery got off, I am glad Lynn is being held accountable and punished for his actions. The archdiocese of Philadelphia regards the sentence as too “severe” and hopes it will be “adjusted” on appeal. The archdiocese also thinks that, “Fair-minded people will question the severity of the heavy, three- to six-year sentence imposed on Monsignor Lynn today”. Of course, this is the same archdiocese whose former Cardinal, Anthony Bevilacqua, told Lynn to destroy the list of predator-priests that Lynn had allegedly drafted a 1994, in order to protect the priest and the good name of the Church. Lynn chose follow orders and keep his job, rather than doing the RIGHT thing and sending that list to the cops. Rather than falling for the defense that the poor guy was just following orders (whine, whine) and shouldn’t be punished (wail, wail), the judge called Lynn out on his chickenshit betrayal of raped children and said, “”You knew full well what was right, Monsignor Lynn, but you chose wrong”.
As glad as I am that bastard who rape kids, or enable rapists to keep raping those children, are starting to be publically named, shamed, and lamed … I cannot help but notice this is all revolving around grievous harm done to boys. Is there finally justice being done because the crimes took place again potential future members of the patriarchy? Would the Church and Penn State (although there are always apologists for this kind of behavior) be punished as severely, or at all, if the scandal involved Jerry Sandusky or Edward Avery raping multiple women? After all, a football player was allowed to play for Penn State even if when he had admitted to raping a woman. Raping women is not exactly a crime unknown to collegiate athletes.
But women will never get to be members of the patriarchal hegemony, so their worth is correspondingly truncated. Until women reach full equality, crimes against them will never “count” as much as crimes against boys and men.
“Until women reach full equality, crimes against them will never “count” as much as crimes against boys and men.”
I don’t disagree with the point you’re making, but in the cases you mention here, I suspect it’s also a factor that homosexual behaviour is considered more deviant and threatening than the equivalent behaviour directed at a person of the opposite sex.
On the one hand, I imagine it’s even more difficult for the abused individuals to be believed (much as it’s harder for many people to accept that a man has been the victim of domestic violence) because the accusation is seen as more of an affront to the alleged perpetrator’s status as a respected and respectable heterosexual man. On the other hand, once the allegations are accepted, the perpetrator will probably be condemned much more harshly because the crime may be considered unnatural as well as illegal and immoral.
That’s a very valid point. I also wonder if homosexuality is seen as such “bad” behavior because men are willing are putting themselves in a “woman’s place” by accepting physical intimacy with men. I know there have been some theories about it ….
There do seem to be quite a few assumptions made about what “physical intimacy” involves in homosexual relationships:
Bell, Robin. “Homosexual Men and Women.” February 13 1999, British Medical Journal 318 (7181): 452–455.
It makes me wonder why people, homophobic people in particular, want to know so much about it.