Ritröð Guðfræðistofnunar - 01.09.2011, Qupperneq 17

is in a privileged position and trusts the capacity of the clergyperson or the
church to fulfill its responsibility.
In addition to a moral imperative to protect the vulnerable, use our power
responsibly, and stand with the victim, we also need a clear and unequivocal
ethical framework to guide our understanding and actions. What seems to
be missing is a fundamental understanding of the nature of the problem of
sexual abuse by clergy. It is a violation of pastoral professional ethics for
any person in a ministerial role of leadership or pastoral counseling (clergy
or lay) to engage in sexual contact or sexualized behavior with a congregant,
client, employee, student, etc. (adult, teen, or child) within the professional
(pastoral or supervisory) relationship. Why is it wrong for a minister to be
sexual with someone whom he/she serves or supervises?
It is a violation of role. The ministerial relationship presupposes certain role
expectations. The minister/counselor is expected to make available certain
resources, talents, knowledge, and expertise which will serve the best interest
of the congregant, client, staff member, student intern, etc. Sexual contact
is not part of the ministerial, professional role.
It is a misuse of authority and power. The role of minister/counselor
carries with it authority and power and the attendant responsibility to use
this power to benefit the people who call upon the minister/counselor for
service. This power can easily be misused, as is the case when a minister/
counselor uses (intentionally or unintentionally) his/her authority to initiate
or pursue sexual contact with a congregant, client, etc. Even if it is the con-
gregant who sexualizes the relationship, it is still the minister/counselor’s
responsibility to maintain the boundaries of the ministerial relationship and
not pursue a sexual relationship.
It is taking advantage of vulnerability. The congregant, client, employee,
student intern, etc. is by definition vulnerable to the minister/counselor,
i.e. in multiple ways, she/he has fewer resources and less power than the
minister/counselor. When the minister/counselor takes advantage of this
vulnerability to gain sexual access to her/him, the minister/counselor violates
the mandate to protect the vulnerable from harm.
It is an absence of meaningful consent. 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. There is always an imbalance of power and thus inequality bet-
ween the person in the ministerial role and those whom he/she serves or
supervises. Even in the relationship between two persons who see themselves
15