Why It's Not an Affair
Rev. Patricia L. Liberty
Rev. Liberty is the Executive Director of Associates in
Education and Prevention in Pastoral Practice, PO Box 63, 44 Main Street,
North Kingstown, RI 02852 AEPPP@aol.com
401-295-0698
The issue of sexual contact between clergy and congregants is
complex. Whenever a minister is exposed for such behavior the
aftermath is traumatic for everyone involved. Churches feel
betrayed, victims/survivors are marginalized and misunderstood and
the families of all involved suffer greatly. This article is
intended as an informational and educational forum to increase
understanding about sexual contact between clergy and congregants.
Oftentimes sexual contact between clergy and congregants is
dismissed as an "affair" between "consenting
adults". This is a misnomer for several reasons. First, the
relationship between a clergy person and his/her congregants is
professional in nature. That means that clergy have a responsibility
to use the special knowledge, skills and gifts of their call for the
benefit of those they serve namely their congregants. It also means
that clergy have a responsibility to establish healthy professional
relationships. Because clergy carry moral and spiritual authority,
as well as professional power it is ALWAYS their responsibility to
maintain an appropriate professional boundary.
In practical terms this translates into clergy not pursuing or
initiating sexual relationships with congregants (regardless of
marital status of either party) and not responding to the sexual
advances of congregants who may be interested in a relationship with
their pastor. It also means that clergy will not engage in
sexualized behavior with congregants. Sexualized behavior includes
jokes, inappropriate touching, pornography, flirting, inappropriate
gift giving, etc.
Since the ministerial relationship is professional in nature, it
is inappropriate to call a sexual encounter an affair. Affair is a
term used to describe a sexual liaison between peers, or equals. In
addition, the term affair focuses attention on the sexual nature of
the behavior rather than the professional violation. It also places
equal responsibility for the behavior on the congregant. Since
clergy have a responsibility to set and maintain appropriate
boundaries, those who are violated by clergy's inappropriate sexual
behavior are not to be blamed even if they initiated the contact.
This is a difficult concept for many people to grasp. We want to
blame the congregant (usually but not always a woman) for the
sexually inappropriate behavior of the minister (usually but not
always a man). As tempting as this may be, it is wrong because it is
always the responsibility of the minister to maintain the integrity
of the ministerial relationship. The temptation to blame the
congregant is also a reflection of the difficulty people have
believing that a person who carries moral and spiritual authority,
who is respected and trusted, can also be guilty of misusing the
power and authority of the office. That denial and confusion causes
tremendous damage to victims who need understanding and support as
well as to churches that need clear, ethical, theological and faith
based intervention to understand their betrayal. Blaming the
congregant also means a failure to call the abusing pastor to
genuine accountability. The focus needs to remain on the violation
of the ministerial relationship.
The term "consenting adults" also reflects a
misunderstanding of sexual behavior between clergy and congregants.
It is assumed that because two people are adults that there is
consent. In reality, consent is far more complex. In order for two
people to give authentic consent to sexual activity there must be
equal power. Clergy have more power because of the moral and
spiritual authority of the office of pastor. In addition, education,
community respect and public image add to the imbalance of power
between a clergy person and a congregant. Finally clergy may have
the additional power of psychological resources, especially when a
congregant seeks pastoral care in the midst of personal or spiritual
crisis, life change, illness or death of a loved one. This precludes
the possibility of meaningful consent between a congregant and their
pastor.
In our work with survivors of clergy abuse we often ask the
question, "Would this have happened if he/she was your neighbor
and not your pastor." Overwhelmingly the answer is
"no". The witness of survivors underscores the truth that
the clergy role carries with it a power and authority that make
meaningful consent impossible.
When speaking of sexual contact between clergy and congregants,
the term professional misconduct or sexual exploitation is more
accurate. It keeps the emphasis on the professional relationship and
the exploitative nature of sexual behavior rather than placing blame
on the victim/survivor. "An affair between consenting
adults" is never an appropriate term to use when describing
sexual contact between a minister and congregant. Accurate naming of
the behavior is an important step to reshaping our thinking about
this troubling reality in the church, how we name it reveals our
belief about it. Holding clergy accountable with compassion and
purpose and providing healing resources to churches and survivors is
dependent on an accurate starting point. Only when we name the
behavior accurately can we hope to have a healing outcome for all
involved.
This article has been reproduced on AdvocateWeb with permission
from the author. Copyright © 2000 Patricia Liberty. See AdvocateWeb's disclaimer.
|
Disclaimer
Exploitation
