Normally, the media is quick to spin a protective web around criminal defendants. Consistent with the mandate of our justice system, journalists respect the rights of the accused to the extent that each perpetrator's new first name becomes "Alleged." That's the way it should be.
But apparently, the Fourth Estate has what I'd call the "collar exception" wherein priestly collars who get collared are not given the automatic presumption of innocence. You've seen it with our homegrown talent in the past weeks. Both the Daily News and the Inquirer have run stories branding Catholic priests as predators. I'm not talking about the actual news accounts. I'm referring to the editorial commentaries and opinion columns that have seized on the recent Grand Jury indictments as if they were manna from tabloid heaven.
I understand that balance is not necessarily the hallmark of opinion journalism. But just once I'd appreciate reading a piece on an indicted priest that doesn't have them cuffed, convicted and caged before they've even appeared before a judge.
And if that's too much to ask from my colleagues-in-ink, I'd settle for some respect for the adversarial system that allows an accused to challenge his accusers without being criticized for defending himself. I'd also like some acknowledgement that statutes of limitations were designed to protect the innocent from being attacked decades after crimes are alleged to have occurred. They're not just a way for slimy priests and their clerical protectors to avoid justice.
In most cases, journalists are quick to condemn any perceived violation of due process. They wax poetic about Miranda rights and talk bitterly about perceived inequities in the system. But when a Catholic priest like James Brennan exercises his right to call an accuser's credibility into question, he's attacked for not playing fair. According to these normally conscientious defenders of the accused, Brennan didn't have the right to point out his alleged victim's rap sheet, including credit card theft, drug use and general dishonesty. It's almost as if our local scribes want the good father to just roll over and ask for extreme unction.
Last week, I wrote about Peter King's hearings on radicalization in the Muslim community. My main point was that there is nothing inherently racist in focusing upon American Muslims if your goal is to determine the scope and nature of Islamic terror in the United States. Similarly, I have no problem focusing on Catholic clergy if the stated goal is to root out sexual abuse in that particular community. But the same people who scream about anti-Muslim racism are suspiciously quiet when it comes to religious profiling of the Christian sort. If you seek consistency, don't look for it among the opinionators (I plead guilty as well.)
And it's not just our local flock. Pulitzer princess Maureen Dowd was ensconced at the Criminal Justice Center this week, as noted by our own Dan Gross. The New York Times diva was there to gather nuggets for her column on D.A. Seth Williams and how this former altar boy was handling the abuse scandal in our city. It is rare that the Times devotes slobbering praise to a law enforcement official. Usually, they only make the front page if they're charged with racism or brutality.
But Dowd's words were virtually dripping with appreciative saliva, praising the D.A. for going after her former church like a pit-papal bull. That's because priests make conveniently unsympathetic defendants these days, so the guys going after them look particularly noble.
I understand that it's not popular to defend men accused of sexual crimes. It's self-evident that perverts need to pay for their transgressions, especially if they wear collars, and if these men are actually convicted of sexual abuse they should be dispatched to Dante's fifth circle of Hell as soon as the ink is dry on the judge's order. But I'm sick of this required posture of apology, this almost absolute deference to the claims of alleged victims who are excused from having to explain why so many of them waited decades to speak up.
So yes, I do have a bias, one which is clear in every piece that I've written on this subject. I stand with the priests until they are convicted. Then, I'd gouge out their eyes myself if the allegations are proven.
But until then, I want them to be given the respect they deserve, especially from Common Pleas judges who think it's fine to ridicule them in a courtroom, and journalists who presume the worst. Like any other citizen, they deserve the benefit of the doubt and shouldn't be pegged with collective guilt.
If it makes it any easier, we can just pretend they're Muslims.