People forgive some sinners while castigating others

I was watching an old documentary the other day about classic Hollywood stars. Henry Fonda, a man who epitomized the stalwart, decent American was the narrator, and he walked us through several decades of famous (and sometimes infamous) actors from Charlie Chaplin to Natalie Wood. Most of those profiled had a public demeanor that differed radically from the private ones, but only a few of them suffered because of it.

For example, Errol Flynn was a dashing and desirable swashbuckler in movies But his personal life was a mess, with many wives, alcoholism, accusations of statutory rape and even some rumors of bestiality. But his career managed to survive the racy rumors.

Ingrid Bergman was not so lucky. The woman who played the perfect nun in “The Bells of St. Mary” and became the epitome of class, grace and virtue ended up being vilified on the floor of Congress as an adulteress when she left her husband for Italian director Roberto Rossellini. The difference in treatment is very likely due in part to the fact that she was a woman, and greater virtue was expected from the fairer sex. It also might be attributable to her lack of shame in living her life in the open.

And who could forget Charlie Chaplin, accused of being a Communist at a most inopportune moment and who essentially chose self-exile in Switzerland? The great Kate Hepburn managed to thread that needle between private and public lives by essentially living with married, Catholic Spencer Tracy for over two decades and never apologizing or explaining.

We’ve always had heroes with feet of clay, and we’ve always been a little hypocritical about the way we deal with them. It’s hard to understand why we excuse some sins and sinners but crucify others. I saw that when a female reporter insisted on asking Pete Rose about “rape” allegations. Rose was in Philadelphia being honored along with other members of the 1980 Phillies, and while he’s a controversial character, he didn’t deserve to be saddled with interrogations about his private life. It ruined the day for the rest of the team.

It was yet another indication that we are still the sort of country that condemns Ingrid but gives Kate a pass. In other words, so many other athletes and stars have led their lives on the shady side of the street, and yet the majority of them get away with it. How about all of the wife-beating, multiple Baby Mama cavorting, drug snorting basketball stars. Should we go after them with the same glee as we do against Rose, who has steadfastly denied having sex with an underage female? He has admitted to having sex with a 16-year-old, which is gross but not a crime in most states. No criminal charges were ever filed. A low bar, true, but when raising these rumors from the dead after decades, it’s a useful consideration (see Cosby, Bill).

The thing that really annoyed me about the attacks on Rose was the continued shadow of MeToo being exploited by a female journalist. For some reason, females (especially female sportswriters) seem to think it’s their obligation to act like Joan of Arc on the equality battlefield, often raising irrelevant issues about greasy retired players who had their glory days before they themselves were even born. Rose may be an amoral old man, but if that were a crime half of Congress would be in jail.

You don’t have to excuse piggish behavior in order to see how wrong it was to make Rose was a central part of the Philly commemoration. You don’t have to be a feminist (which I’m not) to be annoyed at this sportswriter’s attempt to insert herself into a story that has nothing to do with remembering a beloved Philadelphia milestone. And you don’t need to be perfect, to have done something worth honoring.

Let’s treat people like Errol and Kate, not Ingrid and Charlie.