Comments for Crime and Punishment at Penn State at http://www.thecatholicthing.org , comment 1 to 26 out of 20 comments http://www.thecatholicthing.org Wed, 19 Jun 2013 01:26:03 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/crime-and-punishment-at-penn-state.html#comment-9051 "By the way, would you use this same reasoning when it comes to Cardinal Ratzinger's culpability in the priest sex abuse scandal? If so, do you think he should step down?" This is a good point. Look at JPII, who presided over a Church with a serious scandal... He just got raised to the altar, but questions about him are written of as from crazy Traddies. He was not only a good man, but a Saint, even if he preferred not to know or do anything about reports of priests he simply "could not" believe. Seems like a double standard of indignation. - JM Wed, 30 Nov 2011 18:31:58 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/crime-and-punishment-at-penn-state.html#comment-8894 Mr. Cothran: Paterno's culpability hardly rises to the level of Sandusky's, but it is — in my opinion (I'm no lawyer) — the same as McQueary's, the AD's, and anybody else who believed it appropriate simply to kick the can down the road. As we've seen over the past several days, more information is coming out that may (or may not) make clearer circumstances between 1998 and the convening of the grand jury. Perhaps it's time to cease speculation. We know now that a serious investigation is underway, and it's doubtful anything will derail it; that any fact will hereafter be suppressed. That's the hope anyway. - Brad Miner Thu, 17 Nov 2011 06:41:31 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/crime-and-punishment-at-penn-state.html#comment-8892 Brad, By the way, I'm not arguing that Paterno bears no culpability in all this. My argument is over the level of culpability given what he may or may not have known and been able to assume at the time, as well as a few other factors. All I am saying is that what we know now is an insufficient basis to say that the level of culpability warranted his firing, as opposed to waiting until an investigation clarifies what actually happened. What bothers me is the way the media is playing this, Paterno is being lumped with Sandusky, as if there was some kind of equivalence in the their culpability. - Martin Cothran Wed, 16 Nov 2011 11:59:07 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/crime-and-punishment-at-penn-state.html#comment-8891 Brad, The simple answer to your question is that we don't know what Paterno's knowledge of Sandusky's doings was after Sandusky's retirement in 1999. I would be willing to wager you do not either. Nor do we know one way or another what conversations may have taken place between Paterno and the administration. That, undoubtedly, will come out in the legal proceedings. Given Paterno's lifetime of contributions to his players--both in football and academically--over the many years he has served at Penn State, I'm willing to reserve judgment until we actually know the facts. That doesn't go down will with the mob that has now gathered, but, whatever Paterno's simple, definitive moral response should have been, I know what mine is a situation in which I don't know all the facts. By the way, would you use this same reasoning when it comes to Cardinal Ratzinger's culpability in the priest sex abuse scandal? If so, do you think he should step down? - Martin Cothran Wed, 16 Nov 2011 11:33:32 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/crime-and-punishment-at-penn-state.html#comment-8886 Mr. Cothran: Paterno knew of the rape in 2002. It's now 2011. Do you really believe he never saw Sandusky during those nine years — that is, saw a man walking free whom he (Paterno) knew should be in prison? Or do you believe Paterno didn't credit McQueary's report? It is amazing to me how many Penn State supporters fall back on legalistic nitpicking in a situation that cries our for a simple, definitive moral response. - Brad Miner Wed, 16 Nov 2011 02:31:46 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/crime-and-punishment-at-penn-state.html#comment-8884 Brad, You start this post by asking, “The questions upon which Coach Paterno’s fate (and that of various others at Penn State) has rested are familiar: What and when did he learn about Sandusky’s crimes?” You then go on to list things that Sandusky did, implying that Paterno must have known something about it. But in fact you give no evidence that Paterno knew of any of this. You just assume it. That is not an inference: that’s a leap in logic. In contrast, the people we know were aware of Sandusky’s behavior were the police (you know, the people Paterno had a moral obligation to inform). They are the ones who conducted the 1998 investigation. What they found in that investigation was not explicitly incriminating, but it was, at a minimum, disturbing and enough to justify keeping an eye on the man. And yet they apparently just let it go. You ask, “If a neighbor came to you to say another neighbor was raping a boy in your garage, would you call your contractor? No. You'd call the cops.” That analogy fails on a number of counts, one of which is that the incident at penn state was over by the time it was reported to paterno. It had already happened. IN addition, My contractor is not my employer. And There is no state law which requires my contractor to report to the cops is his employee reports it to him. In Pennsylvania, however, the process the laws sets up with one’s employer is clear and explicit (whatever we think of its sufficiency): If you are not the head of the institution or the program, you are asked to report it to your supervisor. Your supervisor assesses the charge and reports it up the chain of command. The head of the institution is the one who reports to the police. We have no idea what Paterno’s mentality was at the time. He may very well have expected his supervisors to do what they were supposed to do under the law, as he had done in reporting it to his supervisor, in which case the process would have worked. We simply don’t know. The lynch mob mentality that has taken over in the media on this issue asks us to read back into the past what we now know about Sandusky. Until someone comes up with some evidence as to what Paterno knew and when he knew it, it contributes little to the case against Paterno to simply recount what we now know. To just list what Sandusky did and and when he did it does little to establish that Paterno knew about it. It does not constitute a logical inference: it is engaging in speculation. - Martin Cothran Tue, 15 Nov 2011 19:58:52 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/crime-and-punishment-at-penn-state.html#comment-8883 Mr. Brennan - above - thank you! As the father of three sons, I can't help but be appalled by the tragedy that's still playing out at Penn State. I think that it's probably good, though sad, that Joe Paterno has been relieved of his duties as coach. But the hue and cry - the vindictiveness and schaudenfreude - are even sadder. Mr. Sandusky is by all appearances a criminal and a very sick man. On the evidence, he did horrible things and hurt a lot of people. But in one account of his conversation with the mother of a victim who had found out what was going on, he said 'I wish I were dead'. I'll bet he did. He deserves to be punished for his crimes - and he needs our prayers. I, for one, believe that our Lord wants him to have them. Certainly his victims need - and deserve - our prayers; but from a Christian perspective, he is worse off than they are. As for Coach Paterno, the only way that I can see him now is as a good and decent man who made a bad judgment with tragic consequences in a moment of weakness. Consider the following: * Mr. Sanduskey had worked for Mr. Paterno for almost 30 years - 30 years! and as far as we know, there was no knowledge on Coach P's part of Mr. Sanduskey's misdeeds. I'm fairly confident that Mr. Paterno thought he knew him well. I can only imagine the shock, the incredulity, at being told something like this about someone you considered a trusted friend. * As best I can tell, when you're accused of pedophilia, the court of law may hold you innocent util proven guilty, but you're guilty until proven innocent in the public eye, and even then you may never clear your name. I'm old enough to remember former Sec. of Labor Ray Donovan's 'What office do I go to to get my reputation back?'. When someone accuses a trusted colleague of something like this, how can the thought that your response may push them into something that they may never fully recover from, whether innocent or guilty, not affect your thinking? * For additional perspective, see the book 'sway - the irresistible pull of irrational behavior' by Ori and Rom Brafman. The authors make a compelling case for the inordinate influence exerted by a nexus of commitment and fear of loss on the judgment of all kinds of people in all kinds of situations. For example, a pilot with a flawless record, in charge of safety for his airline, when faced with a ticking clock and pending deadlines, makes a split-second decision and gambles unsuccessfully with the lives of several hundred passengers. Was the pilot a bad man? Probably not - he just couldn't process the data objectively under the circumstances, and the results were disastrous. Not that it excuses the outcome - but was there anyone at Penn State more committed, or with more to lose, than Mr. Paterno? One very bad decision - especially one made in the context in which Coach Paterno apparently made his - doesn't negate a good man's life of service. I think it does warrant his removal as coach, but it certainly doesn't merit the vilification that he's received at too many hands. What did he do to his critics? The media will make pronouncements - with no real regard for justice. The courts will issue judgments - more or less consistent with justice. In the end, God will proclaim judgment - perfectly. May He have mercy on us all, and may we all learn something from this. - Tim in VA Tue, 15 Nov 2011 19:47:05 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/crime-and-punishment-at-penn-state.html#comment-8882 I, too, was sexually assaulted. Not once, but three times at the ages of 9, 24, and 49. Prayerfully, Sandusky will never feel the privilege of freedom again. His crimes will stay, and have stayed, with his victims for life. The can learn to have a good and functional life through the help of therapy. Coaches are in a position of power and are able to instill fear in their charges. Thence, they get away with it for a time, if not for years. The truth comes out eventually. My emapthy goes out to all of those who looked up to this man. - Judy Paulk Tue, 15 Nov 2011 16:02:15 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/crime-and-punishment-at-penn-state.html#comment-8877 Mr.Miner, Thank you for a great piece. I have to think that a big part of this drama is the absolute worship people have for sports these days. You allude to it in your essay. I hope, among other things, that Catholics will wake up to the idolatrous pursuit of sports that goes on in our culture. Including our football techs that pretend to be universities. That so many waste so much time on such trivia surely will not go well for us at our particular judgement. - anon Tue, 15 Nov 2011 06:41:27 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/crime-and-punishment-at-penn-state.html#comment-8872 For SOME people who have been raped, they choose to use the term "sexually assaulted." For whatever reason, the term "raped" can make a person feel powerless and like a victim- every time they use/hear the word. The term "sexually assaulted" feels like you have "overcome" it (moved on, are healing, etc), are in more of a victor (instead of victim) role, and it's just more empowering. I'm having trouble putting this into words, but hopefully you get it. I don't like to say I was raped - I prefer to say I was sexually assaulted. The healing process was easier to get thru when I changed the term. To each their own. This is what works for ME. I pray for God's will to be done in this situation, and healing for all those effected. Regardless of what has happened to me, had I been the one to walk in and witness this, I would have beat him within an inch of his life (I won't share how I *really* feel about this). I don't get how anyone can turn their back on such a crime...especially against innocent children?! What on earth is wrong with people?!?! I hope there's a special place in hell for abusers and those who turn their back on it, allowing it to continue. - Just a girl in the northwest Mon, 14 Nov 2011 22:40:48 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/crime-and-punishment-at-penn-state.html#comment-8866 What bothers me about Mr. McQueary is this, and even you, Mr. Miner, got this part wrong in your last statement above. "If a neighbor came to you to say another neighbor was raping a boy in your garage, would you call your contractor? No. You'd call the cops." No, if the neighbor is a 28-year-old man (such as McQueary was in 2002), he should be knocking on your door, saying, "I just incapacitated someone who was raping a boy in your garage. I had to use your garden hose to tie him up. Please call the cops." - Richard A Mon, 14 Nov 2011 05:59:28 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/crime-and-punishment-at-penn-state.html#comment-8857 I am loath to rush to further judgement on Joe Paterno. If we can be patient, we will learn "who knew what when", and unless barred by 5th amendment concerns, we will hear some of it from Joe himself, especially his explanation of why he failed to act more than he did. Joe's failure was, in this one instance, to live up to his own high standards. There's an excellent piece by Joe Posnanski on si.com; Posnanski has been working on a biography about Paterno, and, while he says that Joe was at fault for not doing more and that he should have been fired, that the way that this was handled by the media (piling on) and the university (how they carried it out) has been disgraceful. His summary of JoePa? "Joe Paterno has lived a profoundly decent life." And Posnanski adds this "But I will say that I am sickened, absolutely sickened, that some of those [hundreds of] people whose lives were fundamentally inspired and galvanized by Joe Paterno have not stepped forward to stand up for him this week, have stood back and allowed him to be painted as an inhuman monster who was only interested in his legacy, even at the cost of the most heinous crimes against children imaginable." And this is where we come back to the Catholic Thing. We've been down this road before. We know what motivates a "zero tolerance policy" where sound judgement is suspended and heads must roll, and quickly, to satisfy the clamoring crowds: "Because they were afraid. ... A kind word for Joe Paterno in this storm is taken by many as a pro vote for a child molester." One of the outstanding virtues emphasized by the Paterno organization is loyalty; look at how many decades JoePa served, Tom Bradley served, McQuery served - and Sandusky served. I believe that this emphasis is what blinded Joe to the larger, external issue - of the children. This is not an excuse, but it is an explanation. As Posnanski says, Joe is a complex man, and neither saint nor villian. What is a Real Catholic to think about all this? Besides how overwhelmingly sad it all is - the betrayal, the molestations, the sins of omission, the freudenschade? What about praying for those who do us harm? Many men in Sandusky's position kill themselves; is there any worse outcome than that a man goes to hell for his sins, without an opportunity to seek forgiveness and redemption? And to deny his victims some closure and healing through this? Are the Real Catholics here praying for Sandusky? And I'd like to close with a personal comment on JoePa and legacy: when we lived in State College, I taught 9th grade CCD, and was assigned one of the Paterno boys (Scott, I think). Most of you probably know from direct personal experience how much 9th graders want to be there, or how unimportant they feel it is, and how they act accordingly. And so I dreaded it: the son of the Great Man was sure to be an entitled, chip-on-his-shoulder slacker/brat. But he was, it turned out, one of the very best students I ever had: engaged, interested, well-prepared, and polite. Some men "do" legacy for the cameras, for show; there is no more difficult, more important, or more evadable legacy than to leave well raised children. For Joe and Sue Paterno, the appearance is also the reality. Real. And Catholic. - Tom Brennan Sun, 13 Nov 2011 19:00:42 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/crime-and-punishment-at-penn-state.html#comment-8855 Mr. Cothran: You list a number of instances you characterize as implications, whereas it seems to me they are inferences. You hit the right note in the first sentence of the final paragraph of your comment (and it's the gist of my argument): he had a moral obligation. If a neighbor came to you to say another neighbor was raping a boy in your garage, would you call your contractor? No. You'd call the cops. - Brad Miner Sun, 13 Nov 2011 17:35:39 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/crime-and-punishment-at-penn-state.html#comment-8854 Brad, You imply here that Paterno knew about the 1998 charges. Do you have evidence for this? You also do not mention that the police investigation into the charges at the time exonerated Sandusky. So even if Paterno had known about the investigation, how do you think the findings might have affected his view on the matter? This post seems to suggest that Paterno knew Sandusky's history of abuse. Can you provide any proof that Paterno knew anything other that the one accusation from his assistant coach in 2002? The grand jury report certainly doesn't bear this out. In addition, you say, "Paterno chose to call PSU’s athletic director," as if that is not what he was supposed to do. You need to read the relevant Pennsylvania law: that's exactly what it REQUIRES him to do. He may indeed have been morally obligated to do more, but to say that Paterno committed some egregious moral blunder seems to me to read back onto the situation at the time all that we now know, most of which almost certainly Paterno did not know. - Martin Cothran Sun, 13 Nov 2011 17:16:25 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/crime-and-punishment-at-penn-state.html#comment-8852 How timely Jesus's question for Mr. Paterno: "What does it profit a man if he gain the whole world and lose his own soul?" It must be painful to have to contemplate that question at the age of 84. - Louise Sun, 13 Nov 2011 07:50:20 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/crime-and-punishment-at-penn-state.html#comment-8850 Going to church every Sunday and TALKING about good character does NOT make a person a good Catholic or define if someone is a good "believer". We BELIEVE as we LIVE Paterno's action or in this case sin by omission. Jesus told us the greatest Commandement was to love God above all things and love your NEIGHBOR as yourself. If it were Paterno's child being raped would he want it to be brushed under the carpet so it could happen over and over again. Our country has replaced God with all sorts of things such as sports, fame, money, power. That's what this is all about. Sadly we can expect to see much more child rape and abuse in the future. - Mary Martin Sat, 12 Nov 2011 11:54:14 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/crime-and-punishment-at-penn-state.html#comment-8849 Peter Maurin wrote some 70 years ago that the Catholic Church was the last moral security in the world. Why are we ( our present civilization such as it is) shocked by these events and on what basis do we claim that something wrong has been done? Unless the foundations of thought and life are restored expect the nihilism of our time given to us by intellectuals acting against reason to yield horrors as great and greater than these. - Quaecumque Vera Sat, 12 Nov 2011 07:18:50 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/crime-and-punishment-at-penn-state.html#comment-8848 "This is what happens when men make gods of men". Grump, go to the head of the class! You have just described the anthropocentrism (man-centeredness) of the spirit of Vatican II. This is the main criticism of the Novus Ordo Mass. As we believe, so do we worship. We have replaced God with man. If the people of this country have been willing to remove God from the pregnancy-birth process by murdering 53 million of their children in utero, what could a dozen ten year old boys matter? We have have become pragmatic and pagan and we cannot stand it when the evidence of this obtrudes into our lives. - Manfred Sat, 12 Nov 2011 06:50:05 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/crime-and-punishment-at-penn-state.html#comment-8847 Dear Trish: Another apposite set of questions. I suspect that soon — after the collective mourning over the fall of Coach Paterno has passed — there will be a kind of awakening in central PA, which — we hope — will lead to more dismissals in the several polices departments involved and at Penn State. We hear a lot of palaver these days about "zero tolerance," and it's time the notion was absolutely embraced with regard to crimes such as these. More broadly, the almost Mafia-style shielding of Big Sports has to end all across the U.S. - Brad Minerl Sat, 12 Nov 2011 05:37:18 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2011/crime-and-punishment-at-penn-state.html#comment-8846 What I want to know is why, after the mother of the 11-year-old called the police in 1998, were there no charges pressed? Did the mother not press charges? And if that's the case, why on earth not? Really? We're just going to stop at asking him nicely over the phone to stop the creepy showering with boys? Or was there nothing considered criminal regarding the incident, and thus charges could not be pressed? If that's the case, why wasn't totally inappropriate conduct with a minor considered criminal? If charges had been pressed in 1998, perhaps the remaining horrible things could have been prevented. - Trish Sat, 12 Nov 2011 05:29:33 +0100