How different are the cases of Paterno and Monsignor Lynn?

It’s a shame that former Penn State football coach Joe Paterno passed away and not just because he was a beloved football coach to many thousands of Penn State loyalists.

Paterno, some say, knew a lot more about the activities of Jerry Sandusky than he let on. Sandusky faces 52 criminal counts for alleged abuse of 10 boys over 15 years, allegations he denies. Jury selection is scheduled to begin in a central Pennsylvania courthouse on Tuesday.

A Pennsylvania appeals court turned down Sandusky’s latest request for a delay. Sandusky’s lawyer wanted more time to review material from the prosecution and has argued a delay was also warranted so that defense experts and potential witnesses could be available at trial.

That delay isn’t happening so it’s on with the case.

Now there are plenty of people who wanted to see Paterno charged with helping Sandusky commit his alleged sex crimes. Obviously that can’t happen. But would it have happened?

I suppose the point of this argument is that if there are those ready to get Paterno charged and convicted for allowing Sandusky to allegedly continue his evil ways, how is that different than the case involving Monsignor William Lynn?

Right now a jury is deliberating Lynn’s fate. He is the first U.S. church official charged with endangering children by keeping predator-priests in ministry.

According to an Associated Press story, jurors have heard from more than dozen alleged victims. They include a nun, a former priest and young adults with drug and alcohol problems. Lynn says he tried to get the Philadelphia archdiocese to address the problem, only to be rebuffed by the late Cardinal Anthony Bevilacqua.

But prosecutors say Lynn could have quit or called police.

In the Paterno case involving Sandusky, the former coach told officials that he had gone up the chain of command and no one did anything about the problem. It seems like Lynn says the same.

So how about it? If we have Lynn on trial would we have put Paterno on the same hook?

— Andy Hachadorian


About fromtheeditorchair

I am the editor of the Daily Local News.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to How different are the cases of Paterno and Monsignor Lynn?

  1. lundy says:

    Awful analogy. Sandusky was not an employee at the time Paterno reported the incident. Paterno had no authority to take action, so there was no ‘so called’ keeping Sandusky at Penn State. Additionally, Sandusky’s access to kids came through The Second Mile (not PSU), who were aware of multiple incidents involving Sandusky. Also, the PSU Board of Trustees and President granted Sandusky access to PSU facilities. If you insist on drawing an analogy, then it is more accurate to draw it with those that allowed Sandusky access to kids and facilities rather than on Paterno.

  2. Becky says:

    If it was “your kid”, you would want everyone and anyone that knew to do everything and anything to stop the abuse immediately! And when you find out that he knew and he knew and he knew, that’s okay, they “had no authority to take action”. Does that mean you have to have some type of “authority” to call the police and tell them what you have witnessed, or even been informed? The children and parents of the already abused, and of the “next to be abused” would be ever so grateful for you never giving up. I’m sure Sandusky and Paterno, fathers themselves, would feel the same.

  3. Voice of Reason says:

    Disagree with Lundy. Both Paterno and Monsignor Lynn were both aware of potential child molestation. Additionally both held high positions which could haved swayed what happens at each respected place of work. Whether it 1 person or 15 people participating its hard to believe they didn’t do anything else for these victims. Pointing fingers at the Board of Trustees and President for the blame says it all from this fellow poster. Will be interesting to see how more Paterno knew as the Sandusky trial envolves.

  4. wryview says:

    I don’t know where you are getting that there was the possibility that Paterno would have been charged. The PA Attorney General’s office flat out stated that he was NOT under investigation & that he did what he was supposed to do.

    • The blog post merely asked the question of how different are the cases of Paterno, Sandusky and the priests. I believe there are comparisons to be made. You don’t — which is fine. Just my opinion.

  5. bob says:

    well put also the difference is as a priest his sole responsability is to serve God. Joe did what was expected of him he expected others did their job and the fact Sandusky was on the field again was because those in charged cleared him. Lynn knew what was going on had facts that backed him up and he desided to disregard these facts. Now as a servent of God he had an obligation to report this regardless of what any other church official told him

  6. jcx2 says:

    I believe Joe Paterno did exactly what he should have done, anything more would have been construed as interference or pressure. I guess since “some said” he knew more, that should be proof enough of Joe’s complicity. Evidence seems to indicate that Lynn did know, and if so, shame on him. Even if his motive was to save the Church embarrassment and dishonor, it was the worst possible way to go about it. His job was to protect the children first, the Church second. There were some who said Joe kept silent to protect Penn State, an assumption I seriously doubt….but then I had no axe to grind with Paterno. I believe he was a man of quality and integrity to the very end. I think those “somes” always love it when a good person is brought down as it makes their lack of such qualities easier for them to accept.

    • I think the question is only one of what more could Joe Paterno have done? Did he really push the issue knowing what he supposedly knew about Sandusky’s activities? That seems to me to be an issue.

  7. bob says:

    Why is that an issue you sould like a stand by your church person trying to deflect the fact that the church in general was wrong. Lynn was wrong he had an obligation to the children and God to protect the innocent. That is what you pledge to do as a priest. Joe took a pleadge to take care of a football team and to report any problems to others who should have taken care of the problem. He went back to his job knowing he did what he should do and when sandusky return to the penn state campus he thought the people in charge of the investigation cleared him. Lynn was in charge of the investigation and was told to hide it how could a thinking person link the 2?

  8. bob says:

    love it when truth silences the media

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s