The Case of Father Kavanaugh

Last September, for those who have the luxury of viewing daytime television, made for arresting drama.  Typically during the work day, when I am in my office, I have CNBC in the background where I listen to the Financial News.  On the last Thursday of September in which Brett Kavanaugh spoke before the Senate Committee, I was otherwise engaged at my desk.  A friend called and said, “Turn on the TV.  You have to watch Brett Kavanaugh.”  So I did.

I had watched Dr. Ford earlier.  She seemed sincere, at least in her words and in her composure.  Then I began to hear a phrase repeated by the media and certain Senators, one which, to anyone who either is a Priest or has followed issues regarding the Priesthood in this country, is all too predictable and familiar: “We find the accusation to be credible.”

Let me explain, for those who may not know, what that phrase means to most Priests, and what that triggered in my mind.  That is the phrase that has been used to effectively damn quite a few men, who now abide in both civil and canonical limbo while accusations, often made with little or no corroboration or evidence, are permitted to destroy them and their reputations.  It conjured in my mind images of Priests reduced to penury because of the legal fees which they could not afford with their meager salaries.  These Priests are abandoned and shunned by people they once considered friends, and hated by a society that has already passed judgment them according to their preconceived prejudices.  Even for some of us who have done no wrong, we experience the hostile or mocking looks, the shouting in public places, and in some cases, even physical assault.

Sometimes the Priests who are accused end up being exonerated.  Some get their day in court.  Yet a considerable number of these Priests will never receive the benefit of their human and constitutional right to a trial by jury for the accusations against them, and even if they do sometimes attempt to defend their innocence, their spiritual fathers, the Bishops, often treat them not as brothers exonerated and restored, but as radioactive material best discarded.  Even a legal triumph for a Priest tends to be pyrrhic, as he can no longer be employed in “active ministry”, and so must endure the ignominy of forced retirement.

It has been observed by several people in the past few years that an alarming amount of people no longer understand the difference between an argument and an assertion.  I would like to add to that observation by describing its corollary, that people no longer seem to understand the difference between an accusation and a conviction.  Both phenomena are related in their core: a fundamental lack of rationality which is overtaking our Republic and the culture at large, which is unable to understand the reasons for due process and presumption of innocence.

Let’s pretend for a moment that Justice Kavanaugh, on the day of his impassioned self-defense, was instead a Priest.  Let’s say that morning he had been accused by four women.  What would have happened to him?

First, the diocese and the Bishop would have immediately removed him from his position, also called administrative leave, pending investigation.  He would be barred from presenting himself in public as a Priest.  He would in many cases be evicted from his Rectory.  Maybe the Priest would find himself sheltered by a friend or relative, as his parents may be dead, and he has no children. Or maybe he would find himself at the local Motel (this happens, people) barely able to feed himself and pay the bill for the room.  The Priest’s name in all likelihood would be released to parishioners and perhaps even the media, in some cases describing in unnecessary detail the accusations made against him.  This very well could have been Kavanaugh, if he were a Priest.

What happened instead?  First, he didn’t lose his job immediately, because there was only an accusation made, and there was no legal case made against him.  Second, he did not lose his title as a judge, and remained in good standing.  Furthermore, he was able to return home, not only to a physical shelter, but also the moral fortitude of his wife and children, who love him.  It was in the company then of loyal family and friends that he was given the strength necessary to make his legitimate defense.  Now different this is to what a Priest in similar circumstances would encounter!

I have to say, if there is one group of people in America who viscerally understood what happened to Justice Kavanaugh, it is the Priests of this great nation.  But what we witnessed, instead of complete defeat and surrender to the voice of the mob, like in the case of many Bishops, was an impassioned, even virtuous, defense of a man whose whole life withstood a scrutiny which most of us would be unable to bear, if only for the mere exhaustion such a process would cause.  Yes, transparency was necessary: let’s call for the FBI, yes, let’s investigate the man, let’s examine the testimony of the accuser.  Yet in the face of a lack of evidence and no corroboration (in fact, quite to the contrary), there was no case.  Justice Kavanaugh knew that, and so too does any fair minded person who reverences the rights enshrined in our Constitution.

If Justice Kavanaugh were Father Kavanaugh, he would most likely be finished.  He may even have been finished as Judge Kavanaugh, if the power of the media and the mob had prevailed.  I do not want for a second to come across as attacking Dr. Ford in any way.  But I do think we need to remember something extremely essential: a long time ago, we judged as a society that it was imperfect, but far better, to let a guilty man go free, than for an innocent man to be wrongly convicted.  That is why, after centuries of the experiences of kangaroo courts and revolutionary mobs, the Founders of this Nation knew that human justice, though imperfect, must be executed in accord with reasonable evidentiary standards, and that a word is not enough to condemn a man.

Returning to the earlier point, what does a “credible accusation” mean?  The disparity in what this means from diocese to diocese, and between legal jurisdictions, is open to a great deal of controversy, and has been widely observed.  But one thing is incontrovertible: the rights of the accused to the presumption of innocence and to due process.  The whole apparatus of our legal jurisprudence is fundamentally pro-defendant, protecting anyone accused of a crime from everything from lack of legal representation to self-incrimination.  It should take evidence to condemn a person.  As I have said before, this is even the standard of the Mosaic Law.

I for one am happy for the confirmation of Justice Kavanaugh, if only because our constitutional principles were upheld.  Yet I will never be able to shake the terrible feeling that, should Justice Kavanaugh had worn a Roman Collar in place of a Judge’s Robe, he would not have found himself on the Highest Court, but in a jail cell.