The Moral Prism

I would like to make the case that it is not the crime that matters, but who does it that is largest discriminator to the common man. For this effort, I offer an example. Crime is defined as an action constitutes an offense that may be prosecuted by the state and is punishable by law. The crime in my example is distasteful, but is relevant despite this. I would like to present, for your consideration, the crime of child rape.

I think it is universally held that adults that commit this offense are held in the lowest possible esteem even among the criminal community. Child molesters are often the target of prison violence and I submit that most Americans have little problem with this. If the mother of a child subjected to child abuse pulled a pistol on the street and shot the offender dead, I also believe that in our heart of hearts, we would say "He had it coming." Feel free to count my sentiments among them. 

Here is the example. A man in a position of power among young boys is implicated, then found guilty of such a crime. The boys in question are as young as 10 years of age. There are multiple witnesses that were aware of the offenses but failed to step forward to identify the offender.Should this person be prosecuted to the full extent of the law? Yes. Should the organization that this man belongs to and afforded him the power associated with his position be subjected to close inspection and a detailed review? Of course. Does it matter if you are Jerry Sandusky of Penn State University or a Catholic Priest at the time of your crime? Unfortunately, it does.

The parallels in these two cases cannot be ignored. In both, we have men who are under deep suspicion for sexually abusing children. The crimes are the same, but the public opinion varies widely. I see the crimes in the same manner, but John Q. Public sees them through a different moral prism. In both cases we have a number of similarities:

• They involved the abuse of boys presumably under their care and supervision
• They involved gross abuse of this trust
• Both had parties that were privy to the actions but did little or nothing about it

Where is the difference, you ask? The difference is in the treatment of the supervisors of the men charged with these crimes. In the case of Jerry Sandusky, Americans are calling for Joe Paterno's head. He knew about it, so he must pay in some way or another. In the case of the Catholic priests, the crime seems to have stopped at the perpetrator and gone no further. Why are these situations treated differently? Why are religious people given a free pass and Paterno is treated equally as guilty for the same crime. This becomes even more interesting when one considers that the Catholic scandal is more heinous. Yes, the worst offender is viewed in a more favorable light.

Here are the details. Joe was given information and details about a specific event and passed that information on to his Athletic Director. He did nothing else and did not follow up on the accusations. That is his crime. Is he clean? Probably not. Should eh be removed? Probably.

Let's contrast this with the Catholic scandal. The church dealt with the matter in a far different fashion. James Hogan, the diocesan bishop, wrote the following passage to an accused priest.

"Painful as the situation is, we must safeguard your own good name, protect the priestly reputation and prevent scandal from touching the church — even if unjust."

I think it is obvious that the church was far more pernicious in their handling of the matter. Joe Paterno did not try and hide this and he did not try and protect the interests of Penn State University. The Catholic Church, however, did exactly that.

The quote from James Hogan was written in 1994. Were the headlines back then filled with hate and discontent for James Hogan? Were people calling for the resignation and/or firing of James Hogan. No. The real question is why not? The church was involved in a decades-long cover-up and they cared more for the reputation of their members than for any collateral damage that a full disclosure would have brought upon them.

Paterno is not going to survive this, and it is too early to tell if he should. The real concern here is why the Catholic Church was not viewed by the press in a similar matter. Why didn't the American people clamor for the resignation of the bishops that protected these bastard priests? I don't have an answer for this question other than to say that religion is a protected enterprise in this country. Americans give religion a free pass and I will never understand why. Guilt is guilt and the same crime should receive the same treatment. These events should not be seen different by the public, but they are and that is a damn shame.