AS THE dust settles on yet another sex scandal involving the Catholic Church, a powerful consensus has emerged that the essential problem here is the difficulties clerics have obeying the rules of compulsory celibacy. Meanwhile, the main issue in such cases has been virtually ignored, which is the serious problem of sexual misconduct by clergy and the (non) response of the church to it.
The clergy parishioner relationship is essentially a professional one in which the clergy's pastoral role gives them privileged access to people, who are often, by definition, vulnerable. Because of his role and position of authority, for the contact to move on to a personal, intimate level constitutes an abuse of power by the cleric.
The real issue is not the sex or intimacy in the relationship, even when it involves celibate clergy, however immoral such behaviour may seem to true believers. Nor is it even the abandonment of the secret children, however dastardly we may think that is. It is the breach of trust and exploitation of power within the pastoral relationship which defines the encounter as intrinsically unethical, and for which the pastor and the church must be accountable.
This core principle holds true even if it is the woman who sexualises the relationship. Because of the cleric's position of power, it is his responsibility to maintain the contact within the acceptable ethical boundaries.
THIS perspective on clergy misconduct and the need for a just response to this serious problem has been articulated most persuasively by the Rev Marie Fortune, a pastor in Seattle, Washington, and founder/ director of the influential Centre for the Prevention of Sexual and Domestic Violence.
As she argues in Breach of Trust: Sexual Exploitation by Health Care; Professionals and Clergy, clergy parishioner relationships must be designated as unethical and abusive even when they appear to involve two consenting adults. What is at issue is "meaningful consent", which it is not possible for parishioners to give to relatively powerful clergy. As Ms Fortune puts it, "meaningful consent to sexual activity requires a context of not only choice but mutuality and equality; hence meaningful consent requires the absence of, fear or the most subtle coercion.
The radical importance of adopting such clergy ethics became fully apparent to me earlier this year when I attended a training workshop on intervention in clergy misconduct put on by the Centre for the Prevention of Sexual and Domestic Violence. This included the testimony of survivors of illicit relationships with clergy.
The truth of how such relationships between apparently "consenting" adults are abusive is also revealed in the accounts of women involved in recent high profile cases on this side of the Atlantic. Bishop Roderick Wright, like Bishop Eamonn Casey and allegedly Father Michael Cleary before him, clearly sexualised a relationship that began on a pastoral basis with a parishioner.
At first the woman involved felt "special" and flattered to get the priest's attention, and so positive that she may even have seen herself as consenting to the intimate contact. But given that the woman sought pastoral care as a parishioner and when vulnerable, she eventually realises that she is being denied a pastoral relationship and begins to feel exploited.
The sense of injustice is compounded by the priest's double life, his insistence on secrecy and primary commitment to his pastoral role, and his public denial that she and their children exist. Feelings of betrayal, victimisation, embarrassment, fear and self blame arise. As the woman and children continue to be denied, anger finally surfaces and the woman takes action on her own and the children's behalf by breaking the silence.
At a minimum, suspicions of sexual misconduct must place in doubt the individual's fitness to practise, and be rigorously investigated. The extraordinary extent to which the Catholic Church is dangerously out of touch with - or in denial about - the nature of such abuses is exemplified by how the Scottish hierarchy, even though it knew of the existence of Mrs Whibley and the bishop's son Kevin, continued to insist that Bishop Wright could continue as a cleric if he gave up his relationship with his new lover.
At the core of what is required to prevent such abuses is a strong church which is prepared to recognise and challenge the pastoral privilege of sexual access to parishioners.
WHEN cases of clergy sexual misconduct are suspected, intervention must be guided by clear policies and procedures. The Wright case exemplifies what can happen when clear procedures and structures are not in place to deal with such complaints in that previous allegations of his sexual indiscretions appear to have been mismanaged.
While the Catholic Church has finally introduced strong policies on responding to suspected child sexual abuse, similar guidelines need to be drawn up to deal with sexual misconduct with adults. These need to be as unambiguous as possible about what is (un)acceptable conduct by clergy, thus limiting the scope there is for abusers to argue that what they were doing was acceptable.
Prevention must involve churches taking responsibility to prepare clergy - be they celibate or otherwise - to lessen the risk of violation of the integrity of professional relationships, thus minimising the risk they face of transgressing ethical boundaries. Preparation on sexuality and power issues should begin during clergy training and continue through their careers.
Finally, being strong in response to clergy misconduct and enforcing the legitimate boundaries of the pastoral relationship does not mean denying clergy expression of their sexuality or that they can never have authentic, intimate relationships. Of course they can as long as the gift of sexuality is freely expressed in a context where meaningful consent truly applies.
