Defending the Indefensible?

I don't normally like to point out other blog posts to point out a negative opinion of what they wrote.  This one time I am going to make an exception to that rule.  Matthew Archibold wrote on the National Catholic Register a defense of Joe Paterno.  Not just a defense but to say that Joe is a good man who did a bad thing.

While I agree with Matthew that many good people do bad things.  Let the first without sin cast the first stone.  That is all true.  But, in this case the facts of what happened to those young boys is inexcusable.  These boys were raped.  Their lives were changed forever.  Nothing can make up for that.

People knew that they had a monster in the midst and closed their eyes to it.  Why?  For money.  Penn State Football brings in millions upon millions of dollars to the school.  This can be the only logical reason that a man who talked about honor often would turn his eyes to the rape of young children.  Paterno knew that the man had a foundation that he set up for young boys.  One can assume that the entire reason Sandusky set up the foundation was to have a pool of young boys in which to choose from.  Before his firing the coach made the following statement:

"I have come to work every day for the last 61 years with one clear goal in mind: To serve the best interests of this university and the young men who have been entrusted to my care. I have the same goal today."

It is painfully obvious that he did not have the best interests of the boys who were victimized after he was told that Sandusky was raping a young child in the shower and did not call the police.  All he did was tell one person at the school.  Can anyone say that was enough?  Can someone look that young boy in the face and say "well,  he did tell someone"?  A man was caught in the act of raping a child in a shower and no one called the police.  No one intervened and tried to get that poor boy some help.  He did nothing to serve the interest of that child.  He served the interest only of the university.

Even after Sandusky was fired, did the people at Penn State just think he would magically stop his depravity?  Did they think he was cured?  No, they just were grateful that it wouldn't affect the university, or so they thought.  Archibold says that the name Mike McQueary isn't being talked about enough.  OK, I will talk about him.  He is even worse than Paterno.  He actually saw with his own eyes a boy being raped and did nothing to stop it.  Even if he felt he couldn't stop it (which there is no excuse for) he didn't pick up the phone and call the police.  Penn State still has this man in their employ.  Which to me just says that university has learned nothing from this.

Maybe I am wrong, but a good man who just did a bad thing can look the people he harmed in the eye and explain their actions.  Can the coach really look at the young man who was in that shower and say I made a mistake?  Can he do that to all the victims that have come after?  How many boys has this man raped since that day?  Can he look them in the face?  I don't think he can.

This is not a case of good man doing a bad thing that can be written off.  This is a case of a man who put his own self interests in front of those of a child who was being raped.  There is nothing good about that.