How's that?

As the Catholic Church continues to grapple with the clergy sexual abuse scandal, theories abound as to the causes. Some appear to have validity, though studies and a historical perspective may be needed to make a final verdict.

Other theories are clearly wrong and seem aimed chiefly at advancing someone's pet cause - or worse.

Examples include those who use the scandal:

• to argue for an end to mandatory celibacy for priests;

• to malign priests, bishops or the church in general;

• to act as though only priests abuse;

• to pretend that the church is the only organization to improperly deal with abuse;

• to make it sound as though cases of abuse from 10 or more years ago just happened or that the inadequate policies of the 10 or more years ago are still in effect.

Then there are those who seem intent on deriding someone in the church by falsely linking them to the scandal.

Recently, such an allegation was made at a meeting several U.S. bishops had with 40 self-described conservative Catholic lay and religious leaders.

One of the group's spokesmen, Deal Hudson, editor and publisher of Crisis, a Catholic magazine and an organizer of the meeting, told Catholic News Service after the meeting that he thinks "dissent is the major cause" of the scandal. Dissent, he added, "has loosened priests and laity alike from core beliefs" including adherence to church teachings on human sexuality.

It is wrong, sad and counterproductive to say "dissenters" - people who advocate changes not in doctrine or dogma, but in some church practices - are to blame for the sexual abuse scandal.

In the minds of most people, as terrible and wrong as individual cases of abuse were, the greater scandal was that church leaders - bishops and religious superiors - too often responded by reassigning the offending priest, even after repeated offenses. The main scandal for most people was not the abusive priests - who ranged from ultra-conservative to ultra-liberal - but leaders who let abusive priests continue to abuse.

Hudson's group didn't let the bishops off entirely. They said bishops contribute to the problem by placing dissenters in leadership positions. The group specifically pointed to the appointment of Leon Panetta, White House chief of staff under Pres. Clinton, to serve on the National Review Board monitoring the bishops' response to the sexual abuse crisis. Panetta, they said, should not be on the board because he opposed anti-abortion legislation.

It's fine to argue whether Panetta belongs on the review board, but not by attempting to link him to the abuse scandal.

Let's listen instead to Card. Joseph Ratzinger. While not referring to Panetta or anyone in particular, the prefect of the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith told EWTN: "In the fields of the church, there is not only wheat but chaff.... This is the essence of the church. The Lord sits at the table with sinners."

He definitely isn't casting stones at the innocent.