AKA Smith -

The assumption of innocence is a constitutional right, not just a judicial policy. You can express any opinion you want, which is also a constiturional right, and no one is saying you shouldn't. I can also disagree with you vehemently, and that is NOT an impingement on your freedom of expression. I have as much right to express my opinions as you have to express yours, although you seem to disagree by saying that I am trying to stop YOUR right to free expression. One thing you should consider: any opinion you express is also covered by laws concerning slander and libel. If someone expresses an opinion about another person that is not legally proven to be true, the accused has legal recourse. Yes, I know, you will now say, "Then why doesn't Placa use that recourse, and doesn't that PROVE his guilt?" Perhaps he will use that recourse: that is an expensive. lengthy, and exhausting process. The concept of freedom of speech does not guarantee freedom of irresponsible public conjecture, and there is a difference between expressing an opinion for public consideration and trying to USE that opinion as fact to generate action. Again, look at the Duke case and the "facts" stated publically by the District Attorney. They certainly felt good and right to a lot of people. And they were totally wrong and only caused destruction.

Dear other other anonymous-

No. Everything you say is speculation. It is possible that you are right, but in this country we don't condemn people on possibilities. You are engaging in exactly the sort of thinking I described: "Well, I believe my position is morally correct, I can't really prove anything, but I certainly think child abuse is bad, and IF THIS GUY did it, he is a bad person, so I'll go ahead and say he is a bad person. And the Church has tried to cover this stuff up, and IF he was part of that, then I can ASSUME he behaved without personal integrity, even though it is possible that he was an exception to what I believe is the rule. I have a lot of information about cases that seem similar to this, even though I can't directly relate that information to this case because I have no FACTS about this case. But, by association, and because it satisfies my inner urge to feel that justice has been done (even though there has been no just process here) I feel that I can safely assume this guy is an evil pedophile and condemn him without trial or any concrete evidence. And I can condemn Giuliani for abetting this unproven behavior." Imagine for a moment that YOU were falsely accused of sexual harrasment at work. You would want people to assume your innocence, wouldn't you? And what if they didn't? What if they said, "Well, where there's smoke, there's fire?" And what if people who just didn't like you USED the accusations against you and began to build upon them? You think it doesn't happen? Think again. Everyone is innocent until proven guilty, and when we lose sight of that, we are heading right back to the Salem witch trials. And it could mean the end of democracy as we have liked to imagine we know it. Sorry, can't agree with you. And please consider the above scenario seriously.

The right to the assumption of innocence exists for people being tried in a court of law. Placa has no record of conviction. However, that does not mean that people cannot hold opinions about him. It also does not mean that people may not infer opinions about Guiliani based upon his friendship with Placa and the annulment which Placa facilitated.

When we can no longer hold opinions about people and when we cannot express those opinions is when we are really in danger. This hysterical emotionalism about "camps" for people we disagree with is nonsense. It's only purpose is to stifle free expression.

It is my opinion that priests and church authorities who covered up for pedophile priests were complicit in child sexual abuse because without such cover fewer children would have been molested.

As to Guiliani, before I ever read this article, I did not like him. I have long been of the opinion that he is a narcissistic authoritarian who is no friend of constitutional rights. Having him as president would be worse than keeping Bush in office. My nightmare ticket includes Guiliani or Liberman. I would have McCain. At least he has some ethics.

You refer to Placa's right to be assumed innocent until a trial proves he is or isn't. But if the church has maneuvered so that no trial can take place, what kind of justice is that? Where does that leave us?

I do not know anything about Msgr. Placa, let alone his guilt or innocence of pedophilia. But abuses in this area by the Church in multiple cities are very well documented, and Placa apparently ran one of these offices that handled complaints. If he handled them the way the others did, then he is guilty at least of cover up.

The RC church is a top-down organization, to say the least, and it is a pretty safe bet that no diocese, especially one as large as NY, is out doing its own thing. He most likely took the same kinds of steps the others did.

Clearly, thanks to the actions of the church, these matters cannot be litigated, and many of these priests will be neither held to account nor cleared. So we are left to make our best judgment. In this case, speaking only of the cover up aspect, which is heinous enough, if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

Fellow readers-

The responses support my original point. So many people writing in have referred to Msgr. Placa as a "pedophile!" As other writers have pointed out, a grand jury investigation is organized by a district attorney. It is not a trial, and the accused has no recourse for self-defense. Msgr. Placa was not ever CHARGED with a crime, despite the grand jury "investigation." Readers have reffered in their responses to the abuses of the Catholic Church, to its manipulation of the law and the media and its members. All of this may very well be true. But it has absolutely nothing to do with Msgr. Placa's legal right to the assumption of innocence until proven guilty. It is exactly this sort of personally outraged reaction that the sort of sleazy innuendo-based journalism used in this article hopes to arouse. It is a technique our current Republican government constantly employs in manipulating the public. Good golly, people! Your feelings -even your convictions- are not proven factual truths. The law, and democratic government, can proceed on no other principle but factual truth. If we forget this, we're going to have concentration camps in this country in short order, and into them we will put everyone we disagree with, have suspicions about, or fear -without trial, without recourse to defense, and with nothing that we can call democratic justice. We will say only that they are criminals because we believe they are, based on our magical inner radar. Sound familiar? Do examples of such "camps" and suspension of civil liberties come to mind? Think about it! And use your brains instead of just your feelings!