BishopAccountability.org
	Religious Freedom and the Wisniewski Case By Gerald L. Montroy Belleville News-Democrat July 1, 2011 http://www.bnd.com/2011/07/01/1770381/religious-freedom-and-the-wisniewski.html Do churches have legal or fiduciary responsibilities toward their members? This question has arisen recently in the Belleville Diocese's defense of the clergy sexual abuse case involving Jim Wisniewski. Because religious freedom is protected by the United States Constitution, courts have been reluctant to define what legal or fiduciary responsibilities, if any, exist between a church and its members. Courts fear that, in defining or attributing responsibilities, they might infringe on the religious freedom protected by the 1st amendment. One the other hand, there are times when courts will hold that a church or a religious institution itself has created a legal or fiduciary responsibility toward its members. An easy example of this is the case of Bodewes v. Zuroweste. In that case the bishop, as CEO of the Diocese, promised payment of $100 per month plus room and board to employ a priest in a particular assignment. When the bishop refused to pay the priest for fulfilling his duties in his assignment, the court held the bishop had created an employment relationship and was required to pay him. The Wisniewski v. Diocese of Belleville case is another instance where the court, while refusing to define legal responsibilities a church had toward its members, has held the church itself created a fiduciary relationship with a parishioner. The court acknowledged and upheld that relationship. In Wisniewski, the court upheld the jury's finding, that under the particular facts of the case, the Diocese had created and then breached the responsibility it had toward Wisniewski, causing and contributing to the injury he sustained as a result of the breach. The bishop, in assigning Rev. Kownacki to the parish and informing parishioners that he was vouching for the priest's knowledge, piety prudence, experience and general character, he led the parishioners to believe they could have a relationship of trust with Kownacki. The bishop, however, misled the parishioners because he knew this priest had been accused of numerous acts of sexual abuse of minors in at least his three previous assignments. The Diocese had not investigated these charges and withheld its knowledge of these accusations when it assigned him. The court held that, under these circumstances, the jury could find the Diocese by its words and actions had created a relationship of trust between it and the parishioners. Through its silence and failure to inform the parishioners of the priest's predatory history of abusing children, the jury could find that the Diocese had breached its duty to Wisniewski. Under these circumstances the court said the jury could find the Diocese was responsible for Wisniewski's injuries from Kownacki's repeated sexual abuse of him. While the Diocese claims the court infringed upon religious freedom and practice by upholding the jury verdict, it did not. The court no more interfered with the church's religious practice than it interferes with the education of children when it upholds a jury verdict against a school district for its school superintendent assigning a pedophile teacher to a classroom while hiding from parents and children his knowledge that the teacher was a dangerous sexual predator. Gerald L. Montroy, of O'Fallon, is a retired attorney at law.
Any original material on these pages is copyright © BishopAccountability.org 2004. Reproduce freely with attribution.