Proposals that address clergy misconduct:
How should Catholics respond?

		Eye on the  Capitol  John Huebscher

Very soon, legislators will introduce a bill to address several issues related to the problem of sexual misconduct by clergy.

Questions addressed

The legislation will address at least three questions.

• Should clergy be added to the list of professions who are mandatory reporters under Wisconsin's child abuse and neglect reporting laws?

• Should the statute of limitations for criminal and civil actions against those responsible for such abuse be extended? If so, for how long after the offense should the statute run?

• Does the law permit victims of child abuse or child sexual assault the right to sue churches for acts of clergy?

The Wisconsin Catholic Conference (WCC) will be an active participant in the deliberations and debates concerning this legislation. This debate presents a unique set of challenges for the conference, indeed for all Catholics.

Restoring trust

Our participation in this debate should further several goals. First among these is that of restoring trust of victims and survivors who have experienced pain that is beyond the ability of most of us to comprehend.

We seek also to restore trust of other Catholics scandalized by what has happened and for whom the Catholic tradition has a moral authority on public policy questions.

It is also critical that the church's response reflect faithful stewardship of the resources given freely to the church by Catholics and others. People who have faithfully supported their parishes and the ministries that make up the Catholic presence in Wisconsin deserve no less.

These goals are easy to define. Discerning how to meet them is more difficult.

Legal and moral responsibilities

Last June, Mark Sargent, dean of the law school at Villanova University, wrote a thoughtful article discussing how the church should behave when sued in court. Sargent's insights are particularly helpful as one assesses how to meet this challenge in a policy debate.

Sargent notes that there is a difference between legal responsibility and moral responsibility. Though related, they are not the same. It is critical, he argues, to respond to what is essentially a moral crisis by accepting moral responsibility for our actions, as we pursue policy or legal issues.

At the same time Sargent emphasizes, "accepting moral responsibility does not mean that every church institution must accept the legal responsibility as defined by every plaintiff's lawyer."

Sargent observes that in our legal system lawyers are expected to be zealous advocates for their point of view. This is also true of debates over public policy. Enactment of sound laws and just policies is more likely when the public weighs the best cases for the differing points of view.

In this context, advocates for religious institutions do not have a moral obligation to assume that every argument made by their opponents constitutes objective truth. Putting it more simply, advocates for the church ought not behave like pit bulls but neither should they allow others to treat them as punching bags.

Sensitivity to others

Even as we assert our legitimate rights and interests in these debates, we must do so with sensitivity to those of other religious traditions. People of different religions and communities of faith employ a variety of structures to practice their beliefs. Crafting laws and policies that respect all of these structures is no easy task. The law should be as considerate of other religions as Catholics want it to be for ours.

Future columns and news accounts will describe and explain the WCC's specific response to the major issues in the pending legislation. Hopefully, readers will conclude those positions will represent a sincere effort to restore trust, exercise good stewardship, and respect Wisconsin's religious pluralism.

John Huebscher is executive director of the Wisconsin Catholic Conference.