Oh, oldies is singing his tired old song, the same song he always sings.
he always whines about how the women involved in the extramarital stuff have some personal responsibility in the matter, how they could have said "no", and to call them victims is to mislabel them.
he whines about how it could not possibly have been rape or sexual assault, since both parties were "consenting adults".
he's trying to exonerate his hero, docvic(praise be his name).
I have no problem with you understanding how tough abuse is on the victims, how ethically wrong it is, but not necessarily seeing clergy/congregant sex as against the law per se.
I'll just release all your friends into your custody. That'll teach you....
Individuals who have been the victims of traumatic abuse, especially caretaker sexual abuse, feel uniquely shameful. The damage done when the person who is supposed to be protecting and nurturing the child is the one abusing him or her is singularly damaging. The person to whom the child would usually turn for comfort when hurt is the person doing the hurting. That is why we now classify sexual molestation by clergy as incest: the priest (or nun, or minister, or the like) is set up by the family in the role of -- as well as often being called -- father (or sister, brother, and so forth). And these individuals' role as spiritual caretaker, as a person of God, sets them apart in importance/validity from all other in the children's lives except their parents or primary caretakers. Adults who were molested by clergy, whether as children or as adults, tend to take on the same degree of responsibility in their victimization as do individuals molested by their parents.
Just a quick question....Who's the "we" that now classifies sexual molestation by clergy as incest?...Is it the Pressman's or other authorities as well?...
Quick answer, it's the Pressmans, who run a well-regarded clinic for people with post-traumatic stress disorder, in New York State, if memory serves. From the book's bio: "Stephanie Donaldson-Pressman is a therapist, consultant, and trainer. She is known for her work with dysfunctional families, particularly with survivors of incest. Robert M. Pressman, PhD is the editor-in-chief and president of the Joint Commission for the Development of the Treatment and Statistical Manual for Behavioral and Mental Disorders."
I think there's a cult-disconnect going on here with the definition of "clergy" and the way it was used by Pat Liberty. Because I need to shake the cult definition of pastor out of my head, I misunderstood what she wrote and I disagreed with it. I still do, but to a much lesser degree.
Liberty wrote:
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.
That makes it sound like a single pastor can only date unbelievers, which is silly, and which is one reason I disagreed with it.
But in the context of that original statement, plus in the interview with Pat, she made it clear that when she said "clergy," she was talking within the context of a particular congregation. In other words, in her mind it is always ALWAYS inappropriate for a pastor to enter into a sexual relationship with a member of his/her congregation. Other congregations are fair game (as far as dating goes). I missed that, because in TWI, we didn't have congregations, per se.
A married pastor should never enter into a romantic relationship with a congregant for obvious reasons. A non-married pastor should also never enter into a romantic relationship with a congregant (she says). I'm okay with that as a rule of thumb, but would allow that there are probably cases where it's okay and it isn't abuse.
Liberty is also talking about the issue of "responsibility," and making it seem like the congregant is never ever ever to blame, even if they initiate the contact. While I agree that the clergy ALWAYS bear the responsibility to put a stop to anything inappropriate, no matter what, I think it's naive and, frankly, insulting to think that the congregant is "not to be blamed" in ALL cases where the congregant initiates the contact. In some cases, yeah, the starry-eyed congregant swayed by the power of the clergy may be immature and in need of counseling. But can we acknowledge that there are others who are mature and should know better and do it anyway? Whatever the case, the clergy always and I mean always has the responsibility to set and maintain boundaries, as excy said (and as I've said before: I don't care if she's a hooker at mardi gras, men of God ought not be doing such things). But I'm sorry, I don't think those who seduce clergy are "not to be blamed" in every case.
"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."
This is the opening line of the "Why it's not an affair" article. The use of terms like "exposed" imply that the pastor is simply engaging in sexual relations and intends to hide the fact. It doesn't seem to address in any way the topic of decent, Godly dating between two mature, single adults.
Liberty makes it fairly clear that it's impossible for a clergy to have a relationship of "Godly dating between two mature, single adults" with a member of his/her congregation. The nature of being clergy makes that impossible.
quote: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. (emphasis Raf's).
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.
Excathedra and Steve, I agree with what Raf just said.
quote:Liberty is also talking about the issue of "responsibility," and making it seem like the congregant is never ever ever to blame, even if they initiate the contact. While I agree that the clergy ALWAYS bear the responsibility to put a stop to anything inappropriate, no matter what, I think it's naive and, frankly, insulting to think that the congregant is "not to be blamed" in ALL cases where the congregant initiates the contact. In some cases, yeah, the starry-eyed congregant swayed by the power of the clergy may be immature and in need of counseling. But can we acknowledge that there are others who are mature and should know better and do it anyway? Whatever the case, the clergy always and I mean always has the responsibility to set and maintain boundaries, as excy said (and as I've said before: I don't care if she's a hooker at mardi gras, men of God ought not be doing such things). But I'm sorry, I don't think those who seduce clergy are "not to be blamed" in every case.
The original topic was “Suing ministers for sexual assault.”
quote:Originally posted by JustThinking:
In the Parker case, one of the allegations was sexual assault. Is it ever against the law for a minister to have an affair? There are legal limits for some doctors such as psychiatrists. Are there any such limits for clergy? If so, could anyone in TWI have been sued on these grounds?
“An affair” and “sexual assault” are two different things. A minister would not be legally liable for a truly consensual sexual affair. The key to either a criminal charge or civil liability would be consent and the laws vary from State to State. In Texas, where I live, the relevant portion of the penal code is as follows.
quote: A sexual assault under Subsection (a)(1) is without the consent of the other person if … the actor is a clergyman who causes the other person to submit or participate by exploiting the other person's emotional dependency on the clergyman in the clergyman's professional character as spiritual adviser
Such an offense is a felony of the second degree. Punishment is imprisonment from two to twenty years and a fine of up to $10,000.00. A minister guilty of sexual assault would also be liable in a civil suit for damages.
Whether someone could sue a TWI minister (or criminal charges could be filed) would depend on the laws of the State in which the offense occured and the particular circumstances.
quote:... by exploiting the other person's emotional dependency on the clergyman in the clergyman's professional character as spiritual adviser
I don't think it should be assumed that, just because someone is a clergyman, that the congregant is automatically considered "emotionally dependent" upon them. I think substantive and relevant facts would have to weigh in as well, corroborating same.
Oldiesman, it would first have to be proved that such emotional dependence existed and then that the clergyman caused the other person to submit or participate by exploiting it. Neither would be assumed.
Seems a little extreme to me. How does the poor guy ever find a wife?
That's where the cult/non-cult disconnect comes in. We're thinking of clergy in terms of our TWI experience. Erase that from your mind. Liberty is talking within the context of a single congregation, and in that case, feels any sexual contact between clergy and congregant is automatically inappropriate by definition. Other congregations are fair game.
quote: Liberty is also talking about the issue of "responsibility," and making it seem like the congregant is never ever ever to blame, even if they initiate the contact. While I agree that the clergy ALWAYS bear the responsibility to put a stop to anything inappropriate, no matter what, I think it's naive and, frankly, insulting to think that the congregant is "not to be blamed" in ALL cases where the congregant initiates the contact.
It looks like there are a few of us who happen to agree on this point. It seems Patricia Liberty's only solution is for clergy to take some: "vow of celibacy" - much like the priests in the Roman Catholic church do. I tend to view a persons professionalism and credibility in light of the solutions they present. This might explain how much crediblity and credence some of us want to give Liberty's "It's Not an Affair" article. We pretty much know where the "vow of celibacy" has already taken the RC church.
I'm reminded of a movie I watched that was supposedly based on a true story...It was called "Murder Ordained"...Coincidentally,it took place in Emporia,Kansas,the site of other sexual assaults by clergy....In the movie,if I remember correctly,the pastor and a married congregant had an affair,or whatever it should be called,and even plotted together and successfully had their respective spouses bumped off...
After looking at LongGone's post about Texas law,I wonder if any good judge would consider the wife in the MO movie a victim of sexual assault in the same fashion as maybe some of those "other" young women in Emporia who looked to their minister as their 'Father in the Word"...
It seems Patricia Liberty's only solution is for clergy to take some: "vow of celibacy" - much like the priests in the Roman Catholic church do. I tend to view a persons professionalism and credibility in light of the solutions they present. This might explain how much crediblity and credence some of us want to give Liberty's "It's Not an Affair" article. We pretty much know where the "vow of celibacy" has already taken the RC church.
I repeat: Liberty thinks it's perfectly fine for a member of the clergy to date someone from another congregation. Her solution is not celibacy.
After looking at LongGone's post about Texas law,I wonder if any good judge would consider the wife in the MO movie a victim of sexual assault...
Depending on circumstances, that might be considered as a mitigating factor that would figure in the punishment for murder but it wouldn't let her off the hook.
Yes, what Raf posted seems to agree with what you posted, and vice versa.
Except that in the past, anytime this subject came up (and you post the same stuff EVERY time it comes up), you keep hammering that the women involved have some culpability too, and you always seem to be driving towards ZERO or MINIMAL culpability on the part of the minister.
If this time what you are saying is that SOMETIMES the "victims" are partially responsible for what happened (for example, Raf's point about starry-eyed vixens), but that the minister still retains the lion's share of culpability, then I will agree with you.
But if as usual what you are seeking to do is to excuse the ministers involved, then I will keep hammering that that stance as idiotic.
Obviously,that was an extreme case,just as the relationship between a culthead minister and his congregant would be,IMO,extreme on the other side of the coin,in light of some of Rev. Liberty's statements...
If this time what you are saying is that SOMETIMES the "victims" are partially responsible for what happened (for example, Raf's point about starry-eyed vixens), but that the minister still retains the lion's share of culpability, then I will agree with you.
Steve!
In my example, I count the "starry-eyed" among the victims. Just want to be clear.
I think it should be repeated as often as possible that regardless of whether the congregants are victims or vamps, prey or hookers, men of God ought not be doing such things.
quote:But if as usual what you are seeking to do is to excuse the ministers involved, then I will keep hammering that that stance as idiotic.
Steve, that's your mistaken interpretation of what I've been saying. I never excused anyone's adultery. Rather I've stated over and over again that sin is sin. But what I have objected to on this topic is a seeming double standard, why some folks seem to be so quick to exonerate "the victim" (which indeed, in some cases, may not be a victim at all), while at the same time, being so unforgiving and so unrelentingly harsh and critical towards the minister. Yes, the minister should know better and do better, that's for sure. But I sometimes feel the seeming double standard as unbalanced and unfair. I don't worship Wierwille, but neither do I hate his guts.
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
excathedra
always
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve!
Oh, oldies is singing his tired old song, the same song he always sings.
he always whines about how the women involved in the extramarital stuff have some personal responsibility in the matter, how they could have said "no", and to call them victims is to mislabel them.
he whines about how it could not possibly have been rape or sexual assault, since both parties were "consenting adults".
he's trying to exonerate his hero, docvic(praise be his name).
Link to comment
Share on other sites
shazdancer
Dear Simon,
I have no problem with you understanding how tough abuse is on the victims, how ethically wrong it is, but not necessarily seeing clergy/congregant sex as against the law per se.
I'll just release all your friends into your custody. That'll teach you....
Shaz
Link to comment
Share on other sites
shazdancer
PS Regarding sexual abuse by clergy...
I've quoted this one before in GS, but it bears repeating:
From the book The Narcissistic Family by Stephanie Donaldson-Pressman and Robert M. Pressman:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Individuals who have been the victims of traumatic abuse, especially caretaker sexual abuse, feel uniquely shameful. The damage done when the person who is supposed to be protecting and nurturing the child is the one abusing him or her is singularly damaging. The person to whom the child would usually turn for comfort when hurt is the person doing the hurting. That is why we now classify sexual molestation by clergy as incest: the priest (or nun, or minister, or the like) is set up by the family in the role of -- as well as often being called -- father (or sister, brother, and so forth). And these individuals' role as spiritual caretaker, as a person of God, sets them apart in importance/validity from all other in the children's lives except their parents or primary caretakers. Adults who were molested by clergy, whether as children or as adults, tend to take on the same degree of responsibility in their victimization as do individuals molested by their parents.
-------------
Regards,
Shaz
Link to comment
Share on other sites
simonzelotes
Shaz,
Just a quick question....Who's the "we" that now classifies sexual molestation by clergy as incest?...Is it the Pressman's or other authorities as well?...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
shazdancer
Quick answer, it's the Pressmans, who run a well-regarded clinic for people with post-traumatic stress disorder, in New York State, if memory serves. From the book's bio: "Stephanie Donaldson-Pressman is a therapist, consultant, and trainer. She is known for her work with dysfunctional families, particularly with survivors of incest. Robert M. Pressman, PhD is the editor-in-chief and president of the Joint Commission for the Development of the Treatment and Statistical Manual for Behavioral and Mental Disorders."
Regards,
Shaz
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I'll speak for myself:
I think there's a cult-disconnect going on here with the definition of "clergy" and the way it was used by Pat Liberty. Because I need to shake the cult definition of pastor out of my head, I misunderstood what she wrote and I disagreed with it. I still do, but to a much lesser degree.
Liberty wrote:
That makes it sound like a single pastor can only date unbelievers, which is silly, and which is one reason I disagreed with it.
But in the context of that original statement, plus in the interview with Pat, she made it clear that when she said "clergy," she was talking within the context of a particular congregation. In other words, in her mind it is always ALWAYS inappropriate for a pastor to enter into a sexual relationship with a member of his/her congregation. Other congregations are fair game (as far as dating goes). I missed that, because in TWI, we didn't have congregations, per se.
A married pastor should never enter into a romantic relationship with a congregant for obvious reasons. A non-married pastor should also never enter into a romantic relationship with a congregant (she says). I'm okay with that as a rule of thumb, but would allow that there are probably cases where it's okay and it isn't abuse.
Liberty is also talking about the issue of "responsibility," and making it seem like the congregant is never ever ever to blame, even if they initiate the contact. While I agree that the clergy ALWAYS bear the responsibility to put a stop to anything inappropriate, no matter what, I think it's naive and, frankly, insulting to think that the congregant is "not to be blamed" in ALL cases where the congregant initiates the contact. In some cases, yeah, the starry-eyed congregant swayed by the power of the clergy may be immature and in need of counseling. But can we acknowledge that there are others who are mature and should know better and do it anyway? Whatever the case, the clergy always and I mean always has the responsibility to set and maintain boundaries, as excy said (and as I've said before: I don't care if she's a hooker at mardi gras, men of God ought not be doing such things). But I'm sorry, I don't think those who seduce clergy are "not to be blamed" in every case.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JustThinking
Liberty quote:
"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."
This is the opening line of the "Why it's not an affair" article. The use of terms like "exposed" imply that the pastor is simply engaging in sexual relations and intends to hide the fact. It doesn't seem to address in any way the topic of decent, Godly dating between two mature, single adults.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Liberty makes it fairly clear that it's impossible for a clergy to have a relationship of "Godly dating between two mature, single adults" with a member of his/her congregation. The nature of being clergy makes that impossible.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Thanks Raf.
Excathedra and Steve, I agree with what Raf just said.
Well said, Raf. Thanks.Link to comment
Share on other sites
JustThinking
Seems a little extreme to me. How does the poor guy ever find a wife?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LG
The original topic was “Suing ministers for sexual assault.”
“An affair” and “sexual assault” are two different things. A minister would not be legally liable for a truly consensual sexual affair. The key to either a criminal charge or civil liability would be consent and the laws vary from State to State. In Texas, where I live, the relevant portion of the penal code is as follows.Such an offense is a felony of the second degree. Punishment is imprisonment from two to twenty years and a fine of up to $10,000.00. A minister guilty of sexual assault would also be liable in a civil suit for damages.Whether someone could sue a TWI minister (or criminal charges could be filed) would depend on the laws of the State in which the offense occured and the particular circumstances.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LG
Oldiesman, it would first have to be proved that such emotional dependence existed and then that the clergyman caused the other person to submit or participate by exploiting it. Neither would be assumed.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
That's where the cult/non-cult disconnect comes in. We're thinking of clergy in terms of our TWI experience. Erase that from your mind. Liberty is talking within the context of a single congregation, and in that case, feels any sexual contact between clergy and congregant is automatically inappropriate by definition. Other congregations are fair game.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
What The Hay
It looks like there are a few of us who happen to agree on this point. It seems Patricia Liberty's only solution is for clergy to take some: "vow of celibacy" - much like the priests in the Roman Catholic church do. I tend to view a persons professionalism and credibility in light of the solutions they present. This might explain how much crediblity and credence some of us want to give Liberty's "It's Not an Affair" article. We pretty much know where the "vow of celibacy" has already taken the RC church.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
simonzelotes
I'm reminded of a movie I watched that was supposedly based on a true story...It was called "Murder Ordained"...Coincidentally,it took place in Emporia,Kansas,the site of other sexual assaults by clergy....In the movie,if I remember correctly,the pastor and a married congregant had an affair,or whatever it should be called,and even plotted together and successfully had their respective spouses bumped off...
After looking at LongGone's post about Texas law,I wonder if any good judge would consider the wife in the MO movie a victim of sexual assault in the same fashion as maybe some of those "other" young women in Emporia who looked to their minister as their 'Father in the Word"...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I repeat: Liberty thinks it's perfectly fine for a member of the clergy to date someone from another congregation. Her solution is not celibacy.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LG
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve!
OM -
Yes, what Raf posted seems to agree with what you posted, and vice versa.
Except that in the past, anytime this subject came up (and you post the same stuff EVERY time it comes up), you keep hammering that the women involved have some culpability too, and you always seem to be driving towards ZERO or MINIMAL culpability on the part of the minister.
If this time what you are saying is that SOMETIMES the "victims" are partially responsible for what happened (for example, Raf's point about starry-eyed vixens), but that the minister still retains the lion's share of culpability, then I will agree with you.
But if as usual what you are seeking to do is to excuse the ministers involved, then I will keep hammering that that stance as idiotic.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
simonzelotes
LongGone,
Obviously,that was an extreme case,just as the relationship between a culthead minister and his congregant would be,IMO,extreme on the other side of the coin,in light of some of Rev. Liberty's statements...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Steve!
In my example, I count the "starry-eyed" among the victims. Just want to be clear.
I think it should be repeated as often as possible that regardless of whether the congregants are victims or vamps, prey or hookers, men of God ought not be doing such things.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve!
Very well put, Raf.
I apologize, I did not intend to water down your meaning.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
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.