Church Sex-Abuse Controversy, and Exorcising a Vision of Scandals Past

Even the nastiest headlines ultimately resurface on TV as entertainment. So as sure as movies about Catholics tilt toward miracles, saints and exorcisms of demons, you can bet that teleplays are now being written about the nationwide child-abuse cases blackening the Catholic Church.

Best-case scenario, they’ll be thoughtful, sensitive and perceptive, having this scandal bode ominously not only for the church and its credibility--How much did top guys know and when did they know it?--but also for the tainted priests who may be innocent. Oh ... them.

Some of the accused clergy are clearly guilty, and most appear guilty or at least morally culpable. But what if some are not? What if the cases against them are no more plausible than statues that cry tears of blood? What if there are cracks in the monolith of evil reported by media day after day?

Unfortunately, the presumption of guilt is now so strong in much of the TV coverage, the net so wide, that one can’t help recalling media’s role in the witch-hunt frenzies behind sex-abuse allegations that closed the McMartin day-care center in Manhattan Beach and Little Rascals preschool in Edenton, N.C., in the 1980s and 1990s, respectively. The first case yielded no convictions, the second two that were overturned. All of the defendants were stigmatized indelibly.

Although not strictly analogous to the present scandal, the same rule of fairness applies today that should have applied then. And a token “allegedly” hardly cuts it when the crushing tonnage of reporting is mostly accusatory.

When it comes to entertainment, meanwhile, prime time has a spotty record in depicting priests who don’t coincide with benign cliches.

Lasting only two episodes in 1998 was the CBS series “Four Corners,” whose Mexican American priest lusted after a curvy redhead before ending his crisis of faith by informing her he loved God best. “Four Corners” was defrocked just two weeks before the finale of the more controversial short-lived ABC series “Nothing Sacred,” whose provocative Father Ray irritated many Bible thumpers by nearly lapsing with an old flame and generally defying conventional doctrine.

“Why do people ask priests for help on their marriages?” he wondered at one point. “Who ... could know less about marriage than priests?”

And know more about controversy these days? Check out this TV picture:

A cherubic altar boy is molested repeatedly by a parish priest in whom his devoutly Catholic family has complete trust. Yes, you’re getting the drift.

When the lad reluctantly indicates to his parents he was fondled by the seemingly gentle and caring priest, they’re initially skeptical. Particularly the boy’s father. What is it with this kid? This is the church, after all. Their church.

Finally they’re persuaded, their son’s rectal bleeding and altered behavior now making sense. When seeking comfort and justice from a cold, intimidating monsignor, however, they receive no satisfaction and leave outraged. After hiring an aggressive lawyer who confronts the church, the anguished couple is offered a financial settlement, but one not including an admission of the priest’s guilt or a promise that he will be reported to police or even removed from the parish.

Yes, you are getting the drift. This is not cuddly Barry Fitzgerald and mellow Bing Crosby in “Going My Way.” Or even rebellious Father Ray questioning the existence of God.

It turns out that eight other altar boys are being molested by the offending priest, and this is not the first such complaint against him. For years the church had been transferring him from parish to parish in response to charges that he sexually abused young boys in his care. It’s obvious that the film’s stonewalling church hierarchy is not only cowardly, but cares more about image than about the well-being of children being emotionally scarred for life by a predatory priest.

Sound hauntingly familiar, as the Catholic Church is rocked in 2002 by sexual-abuse and cover-up scandals that have touched dioceses in Los Angeles and Orange counties and kept Cardinal Roger M. Mahony sizzling on a hot seat?

Based on an actual case in Louisiana, what you’ve just read is the plot of an HBO movie titled “Judgment.” Good cast, ugly and painful topic, perfect timing.

Original airdate: 1990.

Talk about being ahead of one’s time. Given recent revelations, the film that Tom Topor wrote and directed is even more relevant today than a dozen years ago, when breaching the inner sanctum of church secrecy was almost as jolting as the act of sexual abuse itself.

“Judgment” last aired in 2000, on one of HBO’s multiplex channels, and the pay-cable giant says it has no plans to rerun it. HBO’s claim that it no longer owns rights to “Judgment” is disputed by the film’s executive producer, Steve Tisch, who believes now is the ideal time to show it again.

It originally arrived at HBO, he says, after being rejected by the commercial broadcast networks, who felt at the time “it was much too controversial, and that sponsorship would be a huge issue.” This year’s news surely renders that moot.

“Judgment” is no great movie. Although treating its subject candidly and with restraint--thanks largely to strong work by Blythe Danner and Keith Carradine as the parents, David Strathairn as the priest and Michael Faustino as the molested boy--its movie-of-the-week thinness falls short of HBO’s present standards.

Because it’s uncannily on point, however, Tisch is right about it meriting another shot in 2002, the TV-rights issue being for others to work out.

The verdict arrived long ago regarding the priest on which Strathairn’s Father Aubert is based. Viewers are told in a printed message on the screen that he was convicted and sentenced to 20 years at hard labor without possibility of parole.

Whether “Judgment” rises again remains to be seen. It may need a miracle.

*

Howard Rosenberg’s column appears Mondays and Fridays. He can be contacted at howard.rosenberg @latimes.com.