Ritröð Guðfræðistofnunar - 01.09.2011, Blaðsíða 18

as „consenting adults", the difference in role precludes the possibility of
meaningful consent.
It is a violation of the dergyperson’s relationship to their faith body.
When we receive credentials from an ordaining body, we make promises
to that body to carry out ministry in service to the members of our faith
community. If we betray the trust of an individual, we also betray the trust
of the faith body.
Without a sound ethical framework for addressing sexual abuse by
clergy, the institutional church cannot even comprehend the disclosures
from victims, much less respond appropriately. Our ethical understanding
will drive our response
The church’s credibility can be restored depending on how it responds
to this ongoing crisis. The people don’t expect perfection from their clergy.
They accept our humanity, our foibles, our mistakes, and even our miscon-
duct — even when they suffer from it. What they cannot accept and do
not deserve is incompetence, cover-up, corruption, blame and betrayal by
the institution that supposedly holds individual leaders accountable. This
secondary victimization which comes when the church, synagogue, temple,
etc. ignores their pleas and punishes them for speaking out is where the
deepest wounds occur. They feel cheated and have no place of sanctuary
or refuge. It is the contradiction between their experience and their love
and trust of the church that is the hardest. All they are asking is that we be
true to our own stated values and precepts. And when we fall short, they
should expect confession, acknowledgement of responsibility, repentance,
and protection by the powers that be.
If the institutional church chose to use its considerable power and
resources, it could be a real source of justice and healing. To do so requires
a resolution of the contradiction that is eating away at the heart of so
many churches. As we continue to be confounded by the contradiction in
values that underlies the wrongheaded responses to sexual abuse by clergy,
what we see are responses by leadership to disclosures of abuse that are
motivated by fear and not faith. Fear of the victim/survivor, fear of liability,
fear of „scandal,“ fear of inadequacy, fear of political repercussions within
the institution, fear of loss of status as a leader, fear of external „enemies.“
What we need are courageous leaders, grounded in their faith, trusting their
16
l