the leverage of trust with any clergy denies the idea of mutually consenting as in the clergy will always have a larger amount of influence over the "partner" than the "partner" over the clergyman or woman.
We had a local case, I dont remember all the details.(It was in the papers and I dont even remember the names) I thought however that the Pastor was charged criminally and the church and pastor sued civily. When a Pastor (or one in authority in a religious organization) seduces someone he is coounseling or one that he has control over through preaching, my gut feeling is that it may reach (or possibly could) reach to a criminal degree.
I am not a lawyer. Certainly if someone has been effected in this way they need to seek a district attorney's advice.
You would think if there is precedent in churches, (where people can roam from one church to another), that in an org like TWI, (where movement was restricted due to doctrinal differences with churches), that the influence of people in TWI would be scrutinzed legally far greater. (This is my opinion tho, I am no lawyer)
quote: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.
Rev. Patricia Liberty
I disagree with the above statement. Since a minister is blameable for participating in inappropriate sexual behavior, a participant also is blameable for participation, most especially for initiating it.
Rev. Liberty is supposed to speak for and be a representative of God. Ok, where does it say in the bible that folks who initiate inappropriate sexual contact should be given a free pass?
The thread is about legal responsibility. The law in the US and many other countries protects individuals from exploitation by those who have undue authority and/or influence over them. Professions such as psychiatrists are recognized as having both a higher level of impact AND privileged information which can be used to take advantage of their patients. The responsibility is on the physician to maintain the appropriate relationship. It is not a moral debate but a legal restriction which is not up for discussion in the laws view.
My question is whether ministers or religious counselors ever fall into this category. I really would like to know the answer. Please do not try to turn this into another "she started it too" debacle. It would probably be easier to sum up that you think the woman bears responsibility, many others disagree and none of you are likely to change your opinion. Is that fair?
The name of Rev. Patricia Liberty was invoked as a reliable source in these matters. What does her viewpoint have to do with legal responsibility or legal liability? Why didn't you reprove the others for invoking her viewpoints, like you reprove me? Her views are irrelevant to your initial question. No matter, if her viewpoints are being considered in these matters, then all of her statements are fair game.
quote: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.
Rev. Patricia Liberty
I disagree with the above statement. Since a minister is blameable for participating in inappropriate sexual behavior, a participant also is blameable for participation, most especially for initiating it.
I second that (when it comes to the "victim" initiating the seduction). I have been sharply critical of clergy who abuse their position to satisfy their lusts, especially when they twist the Word in order to do it. Their victims are truly victims. But saying that someone who initiates the contact is "not too blame" takes that view ridiculously too far. Clergy (really anyone, but for the sake of this discussion, I'll limit the comment to clergy) should be aware of the possibility that a congregant could have inappropriate sexual feelings for him/her, and should respond Biblically. But that doesn't absolve the person who initiated the seduction.
quote:Rev. Liberty is supposed to speak for and be a representative of God. Ok, where does it say in the bible that folks who initiate inappropriate sexual contact should be given a free pass?
The name of Rev. Patricia Liberty was invoked as a reliable source in these matters. What does her viewpoint have to do with _legal_ responsibility or _legal_ liability? Why didn't you reprove the others for invoking her viewpoints, like you reprove me? Her views are irrelevant to your initial question. No matter, if her viewpoints are being considered in these matters, then all of her statements are fair game.
Fair criticism. Before reading the article, I assumed that there was legal information in it. (PJ is kind of known for dabbling in legal stuff) There is not. So you are right. My apologies to you.
Liberty seems to think that a single pastor should only be able to date someone from outside his/her own congregation. I submit that this view limits the definition of the term "pastor," but at least makes her extremist position a little easier to understand.
I read somewhere that Billy Graham wouldn't even ride in an elevator alone with a woman; if he was alone on an elevator and it stopped at a floor where a woman alone got on it, he'd get off and walk the rest of the way up.
True, he's a celebrity, not just a pastor, but he must've felt he couldn't be too careful.
I actually use that principle in the college class I teach. It should apply to both sexes since, after all, you never know who's going to accuse you of what.
and when you become a minister, like when you become a therapist, you better be grounded and have some goddamn decent values and realize your position and the unbalanced thing going on and how someone looks up to you and and and whatever
You know, I am simply not going to apologize for every time I mention or acknowledge a scenario that does not fit the one people went through in TWI. What leaders did in TWI was reprehensible and I have said that over and over and over again. The fact that in some OTHER context, some minister might respond to the advances of a perfectly mentally healthy parishioner and that situation would NOT constitute abuse, does not in ANY way detract from the culpability of what TWI's leaders did.
At the same time, I could see why within the same church a statement like the one made by Pat Liberty would make more sense.
Understood, Raf. But I hope you'll also understand our caution about going into hypothetical situations, because some people really want to apply those situations to the young women who were abused in TWI. They want TWI clergy and BOT off the hook, by saying that the women must have done something to contribute to the abuse.
I was not abused by TWI clergy, but I WAS abused in my marriages. During exit counseling in the first marriage, the female counselor wanted to pin some of the cause for the marriage's failure on me. "It takes two to screw," is what she literally said. Yeah, I probably did some things wrong, everybody does in a marriage. But compared to him getting drunk and disappearing for days at a time, committing adultery, and throwing me across a room by the hair, I think the balances weighed against him. His responsibility as a strong man to keep his strength in check far outweighed any "wrong" I might have done in contributing to his anger. That is, unless I took a bat to him! ;)-->
I am also thinking about Wierwille's teaching that a battered woman has the spirit of masochism, and somehow wants to be abused. Again, the blame shifts to the victim spiritually "wanting" it, and we can turn away from the woman in disgust.
So could there be a theoretical scenario where the follower seduces the young minister, or the male follower rapes the female pastor? Probably. But I would watch very carefully that the theoretical discussion doesn't lend itself in anyone's mind (I know it doesn't in yours, Raf) to the conclusion that somehow those abused women did something that "made" Wierwille succumb to temptation.
quote:I am also thinking about Wierwille's teaching that a battered woman has the spirit of masochism, and somehow wants to be abused. Again, the blame shifts to the victim spiritually "wanting" it, and we can turn away from the woman in disgust.
Never heard him teach that. That is just sick. Wow.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
15
13
15
12
Popular Days
Aug 18
30
Aug 19
27
Aug 17
18
Aug 14
4
Top Posters In This Topic
excathedra 15 posts
Raf 13 posts
simonzelotes 15 posts
JustThinking 12 posts
Popular Days
Aug 18 2004
30 posts
Aug 19 2004
27 posts
Aug 17 2004
18 posts
Aug 14 2004
4 posts
washingtonweather
The "Why it's not an Affair" link
the leverage of trust with any clergy denies the idea of mutually consenting as in the clergy will always have a larger amount of influence over the "partner" than the "partner" over the clergyman or woman.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JustThinking
WW,
Agreed. Are they legally liable though?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
Just thinking:
We had a local case, I dont remember all the details.(It was in the papers and I dont even remember the names) I thought however that the Pastor was charged criminally and the church and pastor sued civily. When a Pastor (or one in authority in a religious organization) seduces someone he is coounseling or one that he has control over through preaching, my gut feeling is that it may reach (or possibly could) reach to a criminal degree.
I am not a lawyer. Certainly if someone has been effected in this way they need to seek a district attorney's advice.
You would think if there is precedent in churches, (where people can roam from one church to another), that in an org like TWI, (where movement was restricted due to doctrinal differences with churches), that the influence of people in TWI would be scrutinzed legally far greater. (This is my opinion tho, I am no lawyer)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
pjroberge
Here is my interview with the author of "Why it's not an affair" Patricia Liberty:
http://www.excultworld.com/interviews/Patr...20Interview.htm
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JustThinking
Pj,
Thank you. It's very informative.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Radar OReilly
JT,
Please check your private topics.
ROR
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JustThinking
Got is Radar. Thank you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
I disagree with the above statement. Since a minister is blameable for participating in inappropriate sexual behavior, a participant also is blameable for participation, most especially for initiating it.
Rev. Liberty is supposed to speak for and be a representative of God. Ok, where does it say in the bible that folks who initiate inappropriate sexual contact should be given a free pass?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JustThinking
OM,
The thread is about legal responsibility. The law in the US and many other countries protects individuals from exploitation by those who have undue authority and/or influence over them. Professions such as psychiatrists are recognized as having both a higher level of impact AND privileged information which can be used to take advantage of their patients. The responsibility is on the physician to maintain the appropriate relationship. It is not a moral debate but a legal restriction which is not up for discussion in the laws view.
My question is whether ministers or religious counselors ever fall into this category. I really would like to know the answer. Please do not try to turn this into another "she started it too" debacle. It would probably be easier to sum up that you think the woman bears responsibility, many others disagree and none of you are likely to change your opinion. Is that fair?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
JustThinking,
The name of Rev. Patricia Liberty was invoked as a reliable source in these matters. What does her viewpoint have to do with legal responsibility or legal liability? Why didn't you reprove the others for invoking her viewpoints, like you reprove me? Her views are irrelevant to your initial question. No matter, if her viewpoints are being considered in these matters, then all of her statements are fair game.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I second that (when it comes to the "victim" initiating the seduction). I have been sharply critical of clergy who abuse their position to satisfy their lusts, especially when they twist the Word in order to do it. Their victims are truly victims. But saying that someone who initiates the contact is "not too blame" takes that view ridiculously too far. Clergy (really anyone, but for the sake of this discussion, I'll limit the comment to clergy) should be aware of the possibility that a congregant could have inappropriate sexual feelings for him/her, and should respond Biblically. But that doesn't absolve the person who initiated the seduction.
Again, agreed.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
AGAIN, agreed.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JustThinking
OM,
Fair criticism. Before reading the article, I assumed that there was legal information in it. (PJ is kind of known for dabbling in legal stuff) There is not. So you are right. My apologies to you.
JT
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
No problemo, JT.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Liberty seems to think that a single pastor should only be able to date someone from outside his/her own congregation. I submit that this view limits the definition of the term "pastor," but at least makes her extremist position a little easier to understand.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
never mind
Link to comment
Share on other sites
johniam
I read somewhere that Billy Graham wouldn't even ride in an elevator alone with a woman; if he was alone on an elevator and it stopped at a floor where a woman alone got on it, he'd get off and walk the rest of the way up.
True, he's a celebrity, not just a pastor, but he must've felt he couldn't be too careful.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I actually use that principle in the college class I teach. It should apply to both sexes since, after all, you never know who's going to accuse you of what.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
and when you become a minister, like when you become a therapist, you better be grounded and have some goddamn decent values and realize your position and the unbalanced thing going on and how someone looks up to you and and and whatever
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
betrayal of trust
one stupid little link
http://www.advocateweb.org/hope/moreaboutexploitation.asp
i'm not in the mood for this
i guess if you're talking about some innocent little lamb minister ?????? molested by a trusting follower
i don't know, let me know what the hell you're talking about
and i actually understand more about "real life" situations than you realize
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
ps. of course i'm talking about my own perspective (experience) and what i've been through and also told by professionals and what i've read.
where are "you" coming from ?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
You know, I am simply not going to apologize for every time I mention or acknowledge a scenario that does not fit the one people went through in TWI. What leaders did in TWI was reprehensible and I have said that over and over and over again. The fact that in some OTHER context, some minister might respond to the advances of a perfectly mentally healthy parishioner and that situation would NOT constitute abuse, does not in ANY way detract from the culpability of what TWI's leaders did.
At the same time, I could see why within the same church a statement like the one made by Pat Liberty would make more sense.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
shazdancer
Understood, Raf. But I hope you'll also understand our caution about going into hypothetical situations, because some people really want to apply those situations to the young women who were abused in TWI. They want TWI clergy and BOT off the hook, by saying that the women must have done something to contribute to the abuse.
I was not abused by TWI clergy, but I WAS abused in my marriages. During exit counseling in the first marriage, the female counselor wanted to pin some of the cause for the marriage's failure on me. "It takes two to screw," is what she literally said. Yeah, I probably did some things wrong, everybody does in a marriage. But compared to him getting drunk and disappearing for days at a time, committing adultery, and throwing me across a room by the hair, I think the balances weighed against him. His responsibility as a strong man to keep his strength in check far outweighed any "wrong" I might have done in contributing to his anger. That is, unless I took a bat to him!
;)-->
I am also thinking about Wierwille's teaching that a battered woman has the spirit of masochism, and somehow wants to be abused. Again, the blame shifts to the victim spiritually "wanting" it, and we can turn away from the woman in disgust.
So could there be a theoretical scenario where the follower seduces the young minister, or the male follower rapes the female pastor? Probably. But I would watch very carefully that the theoretical discussion doesn't lend itself in anyone's mind (I know it doesn't in yours, Raf) to the conclusion that somehow those abused women did something that "made" Wierwille succumb to temptation.
Regards,
Shaz
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Never heard him teach that. That is just sick. Wow.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.