HOW MANY ARE REALLY GUILTY?: Who knows? I think there’s been some misuse of the maxim, Innocent until proven guilty. It should be obvious that there are false accusations out there; we are in the late stages of a (delayed, and understandable) media pile-on, after all. In any individual priest’s case, we should always keep that possibility in mind. But “innocent until proven guilty” is a principle of the courtroom, not everyday life. Think about it this way: Do you really believe that OJ Simpson is out there looking for the “real killer”?

So I really take issue with the people who have challenged Dreher, sometimes even implying that no minors were ever raped by clergy. Dreher has detailed some of the awful things he has seen and heard as a reporter. He’s explained that many of those cases will never come to court, because necessary witnesses have refused to testify. (Hmm, that doesn’t sound like most other rape cases, does it?) That doesn’t mean the abuse never happened. I believe Dreher because a) he has personal credibility, and b) more importantly, he’s clearly reporting something that goes against his own biases and desires. When the Boston Globe reports on priestly abuse, it’s more understandable that Catholics might dismiss it (although such Catholics would have been proven wrong, of course). When Dreher reports it, I believe it for sure, because he has no reason to be making it up. Oh, and because it fits in with the way the world works: People abuse power; people shield those who seem “like them”; people blackmail in order to cover up their own crimes; people refuse to testify as witnesses in rape trials. All. The. Time.