Who deserves the blame for tragic death?

On Wednesday, Allegheny County District Attorney Stephen Zappala Jr. announced that Rev. Henry… On Wednesday, Allegheny County District Attorney Stephen Zappala Jr. announced that Rev. Henry Krawczyk will be charged with involuntary manslaughter, among other charges, in relation to the June 18 falling death of 19-year-old Pitt wide receiver Billy Gaines, who was intoxicated – from alcohol provided by Krawczyk – when he fell.

Gaines, along with place-kicker David Abdul, had been staying – without diocese permission, which church officials say would not have been granted, had it been sought – at the rectory of St. Anne Church after his Oakland apartment caught fire. Apparently, Krawczyk was in the habit of hosting booze-soaked cookouts for Pitt football players. Krawczyk asserted, in an affidavit, that he was aware all the players he provided alcohol to were under 21.

Krawczyk had converted part of the rectory laundry room into a bar, and often took particular drink orders from the young men.

Gaines’ death is a terrible tragedy, a promising young life ended far too soon. No one debates this, and it’s difficult, in the face of such heartbreak, to consider pointing fingers. But, in this case, blame needs to be laid, and forcing Krawczyk to answer to legal charges is at least a start.

This incident is not the first time allegations of misbehavior have been leveled at the reverend. In 1986 and 1992, complaints were made against Krawczyk, alleging that he provided alcohol to youths. After Gaines’ death, police seized more than 100 bottles of alcoholic beverages from the rectory.

Clearly, Krawczyk is not the responsible, trustworthy adult figure society expects clergy members to be. His position in the community implied that he had a certain degree of maturity, and he fell disastrously short of that. He’s clearly a troubled, irresponsible man.

Setting his lack of reliability aside, though, there are other disquieting aspects of this case.

Two separate complaints, six years apart, were made against Krawczyk. These should have been investigated.

Two young men staying at a church rectory should have raised a few eyebrows among their peers – although, from the sound of it, the rectory was a pretty close approximation of a swingin’ bachelor pad, and perhaps no one wanted to “ruin it” for Gaines and Abdul.

The specter of alcoholism, if not something more sinister, seems to hover above Krawczyk. His peers must have been aware of this character defect.

Too many blind eyes were turned on this man over the years, and, as a result, a life has ended. Krawczyk should face scrutiny, but so, too, should the community.