Sexual Abuse as a Justice Issue

A New Catholic Moment 

Why Prosecutors Are Taking Bold Steps on Sex-Abuse

Paul Moses writes:

As the Justice Department launches an investigation of clergy sexual abuse of minors in Pennsylvania’s Catholic dioceses, it is worth noting that victims have called for such a probe for at least fifteen years. Leaders of SNAP, the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, told Attorney General John Ashcroft in a November 2003 letter that the Justice Department was in a “unique position” to plumb the secrets within the church’s organizational structure.

“We believe that senior management within the Church…have not been held institutionally accountable for these practices, and as a non-profit corporation continue to selectively circumvent our Nation’s laws,” their letter said.

This article is an excellent summary of the bold steps that prosecutors are taking. However it does not really tell us why this is a justice issue.

The paper that Commonweal needs to publish is an updated version of a paper that was written by Anne Underwood, .Esq.for the initial large gathering of Voice of the Faith back around 2002. It was entitled

Abuse of Power as a Justice Issue 

For many years it was on the VOTF website, but many of the foundational documents disappeared when VOTF reorganized their website.  Fortunately, I kept a copy since I was so impressed with  its reasoning. 

Below I will summarize its argument in relationship to the present situation. 

In her article Underwood did not focus upon VOTF's first goal which was support for victims but on its third goal Shaping Institution Change. She anticipated Pope Francis linkage of sexual abuse with the abuse of power.

Ministerial sexual misconduct is a public issue of justice, not simply a private concern about morality. It is a matter of justice because ministerial misconduct arises from abuse of power and the improper use of status.

Ministerial misconduct may be financial, emotional, physical or spiritual. None of these situations is simply a "personal" harm done privately between the minister and another. Each violates the trust an individual, the parish, and the commissioning body have placed in the minister. Each "private" act has a public face.

Likewise, the abuse of power through inappropriate sexual relationships by ministers with people whom they serve is not a private matter between two people. It is a concern of the entire community of faith.

The Church regards sex as a morality issue. When ministers abuse others sexually, it is analyzed, and often excused, as a moral failure. Because morality is seen by the Church as its special purview, sexual misconduct has been treated as an "internal" matter.

This discussion extends sex beyond the realm of morality into the sphere of justice-making. How a person uses sexuality is analyzed in the context of relationship. Sexualizing a ministerial relationship is an abuse of power. The issue is not only sexual morality but the just use of power.

Underwood says that power is neither good nor evil but how it is used in relationships can be a justice issue, especially when there is an imbalance of power. The clearest case is between adult authority figures and children. Society's ethical and legislative laws require that adults be held responsible for the well-being of children in their parental or professional care.

Another form of abuse of power by professionals, including clergy, is sexualization of a professional relationship. Underwood views it as a violation of trust, a breach of the special duty owed by professionals to those served, and manipulation of the inherent power differential. Most professional licensing boards and certifying associations (such as the American Psychological Association) have ethics codes which prohibit sexual relationships between those licensed and those served.

Underwood maintains that caring about the power differential is the responsibility of the professional -- even when the other person may have equal or greater "personal" power outside the professional relationship.

Parishioners and others who enter into relationship with a clergy person based on the clergy person's position within a faith community are as vulnerable to power abuse as patients and clients of doctors, therapists and lawyers. In each relationship, the patient, client, or parishioner allows the professional access to aspects of his or her life not readily visible to others. And, unlike the intimacy of family or friendship, there is no mutuality or reciprocity of access. The doctor does not bare a chest for the patient to examine; the attorney does not produce personal records for the client to review; the therapist does not discuss her or his own emotional frailties

Underwood says that some liberal priests along with many of their non-Catholic clerical colleagues deny having "power" in relation to parishioners. She replies that most laity experience no clear distinction between the professional (role) and personal power of their clergy.

Underwood maintains that like sexual abuse of minors, sexual abuse of adults is not related to sexual orientation or marital status, and that the majority of pedophiles are married heterosexual men. She maintains that sexual abuse is a product of ministers who have not learned to maintain healthy personal and professional relationships.

Underwood says that most allegations of unwelcome sex come from women who are in the conversion process or receiving counseling for bereavement, marital, economic or health problems.  This is very important since Catholics don't have much reporting of this type of abuse. It is very possible that there are many cases of sexual abuse of adult women by priests. Clergy have a lot of access to adult women as employees, volunteers, and recipients of pastor care. Woodward focuses upon the latter, probably because she has worked mostly with Protestant denominations.

The women are vulnerable and susceptible. Many have low self-esteem and are traumatized. In order to heal, they need safety to shed their psychological, emotional and spiritual clothing. As physicians are expected not to misuse touch when examining the naked patient, so clergy are expected not to touch inappropriately the vulnerabilities of congregants or counselees. Emerging wisdom says that no emotionally exposed, vulnerable person can give meaningful consent to a sexual relationship with the person to whom she or he has turned to facilitate healing or conversion.

It is clear that the bishops have acted unjustly not only in regard to minors, but also both the ecclesial and civil communities when they for many years allowed the sexual abuse of minors to continue. 

It is very likely that they are allowing the sexual abuse of vulnerable adults (employees, congregants, and counselees) to take place. 

We need a comprehensive ethical code for clergy and lay employees that covers all victims (minors, adults, employees), and we need that ethical code to be administered by people who do not have a conflict of interest.

Until we have that, the only way to bring about justice is through the civil justice system.  It is fortunate after so many years that many prosecutors have recognized the need for justice for not only victims, but Catholic laity and the general public who do not want this abuse of power upon the part of Catholic clergy to continue.