In the classic short story The Monkey's Paw, W.W. Jacobs memorably warned of the unforeseen dangers of wishes granted. His warning should give pause to those now pressing Catholic bishops to adopt a “one strike and you're out” policy on sexual abuse. Such a policy, so attractive on first glance, could prove devastating —especially for the victims.

Put aside the easy cases. A minister who sexually molests a child unquestionably has one “strike” and should be “out.” The problem is that most cases are not easy.

Does a pastor who tells a dirty joke have a strike? One who ogles a teenager or gives an adult a “lingering” hug? How about a pastor who pats a child on the rear at a softball game? One who has pornography in his office? Or one who admits to a one-night stand with a stranger or to an affair with an adult parishioner? In hundreds of cases like these, people argue about whether the minister has a “strike.” But at least the argument is about sexual misconduct.

In recent years, though, the definition of “strike” has been expanded far beyond sexual misconduct. For that reason, a “one strike and you're out” policy will have consequences that even W.W. Jacobs could not anticipate. This expansion has been the work of plaintiffs' lawyers and sympathetic courts.

Following the Money

In most sexual-abuse cases, the Church had no prior knowledge of sexual misconduct by the pastor. Indeed, in many cases, there was no prior sexual misconduct by the pastor. The challenge for plaintiffs' lawyers in these cases is to figure out how to blame the church. Why? Because ministers don't have money; churches do.

One way that plaintiffs' lawyers try to meet this challenge is to argue that, although the pastor did not have a history of sexual misconduct, he did have a history of problems with alcohol or depression.

The lawyers argue that this was a “warning sign” showing that the minister was “vulnerable” and less likely to maintain proper “boundaries.” The church was obliged either to monitor the pastor closely or to remove him from ministry. Because, as a practical matter, it is almost impossible to monitor pastors closely, the only real option was removal.

Consider the implications of this argument. Alcoholism, depression and similar problems are occupational hazards in the ministry. If these problems are “strikes,” and if one strike means that a minister is “out,” then most ministers will be out. The ranks of the clergy will be decimated.

So will the ranks of a lot of other professions. There is no reason why pastors should be treated any differently than teachers or day care workers or psychologists or nurses or anyone else who has unsupervised contact with minors and vulnerable adults.

The problem is that most cases are not cut-and-dried. Does a pastor who tells a dirty joke have a strike? One who ogles a teen-ager or gives an adult a ‘lingering’ hug?

If one strike is all a pastor gets, then one strike is all anyone else should get. And if being depressed is a strike for a pastor, then it should be a strike for everyone.

Ironically, no one will be hurt more by the success of plaintiffs' lawyers in expanding the definition of “strike” than the sexual-abuse victims who are the clients of those lawyers. Such victims often suffer depression, addiction and other problems. More importantly, sexual-abuse victims are, according to many studies, at increased risk of committing sexual abuse themselves. In other words, according to the logic of some courts and lawyers, to be a victim of sexual abuse is to have a “strike.”

Black Holes

The Alaska Supreme Court said as much in Broderick vs. King's Way Assembly of God Church. A girl was allegedly abused by a volunteer who worked in a church nursery. There was no evidence that the volunteer had previously committed sexual abuse, but the court found that the church could still be held liable. Why? According to the court, the church should have investigated the background of the volunteer. Had the church done so, it might have discovered that she had been sexually abused as a child. And had the church discovered that, it would have been “alerted” to the “danger” that the volunteer would sexually abuse children herself.

Studies suggest that those who have been sexually abused are attracted in disproportionate numbers to the ministry and other helping professions. Many of these people are effective in ministry, psychology and other helping professions precisely because they have overcome such pain in their own lives. Yet combining a rigid “one strike and you're out” policy with an expansive definition of “strike” would effectively put these professions off limits to sexual abuse victims.

Do we really want to live in this kind of world? A world in which all who work with children or vulnerable adults must be investigated, not just to determine if they have abused children or ogled teen-agers or had affairs with adults, but to determine if they have been depressed, addicted or abused themselves?

A world in which everyone with one such “strike” is “out”?

The choices facing the Catholic bishops at this month's meeting are not as clear as they might seem.

Patrick J. Schiltz is interim dean at the University of St. Thomas School of Law in Minneapolis.