|
Sexual Ethics for Clergy Proposal |
||
|
Power Issues of the Introduction to the Proposed North Georgia
Conference Sexual Ethics for Clergy
The Proposal An excerpt of the proposal reads as follows: {17}INTRODUCTION - {18} The office of minister is a sacred trust and responsibility. There is inherent in the trust {19} placed in the ministerial office great personal authority and influence with others. It is hoped {20} that no ordained or consecrated minister would violate the trust and power of his or her office {21} for personal gratification or to discriminate against another human being. Yet the experience {22} of the church is that it does occur. Such behavior may occur as ministers relate to laity, and {23} to one another. These guidelines deal with the specific abuse of power by those who engage {24} in violations of professional ethics which involve sexual behavior. Key words in this section of the proposal include: office, sacred trust, ordained, consecrated, trust, power, abuse of power, and sexual behavior. Power and authority - Ministerial power is perceived to have come directly from God through a "calling of God." The minister is "ordained" ("called of God and set apart by the Church for specialized ministry of Word, Sacrament, and Order" par. 402 Discipline). The minister is perceived to prophesy the oracles of God. Authorization is bestowed on the minister by the Church to become a leader of its people. The minister holds the intellectual and spiritual keys to scripture, symbols, sacraments, and wisdom; is highly trained in theology, ethics, psychology, and other social sciences. The minister has the power of public speech, the podium and altar, vestments, Bibles, degrees, privilege, and clerical collars. The minister is for many the "man" or "woman of God." Access and freedom - The powerful role of minister allows an unusually high degree of access to intimacy with people in the parish, thus providing more freedom for ministers to display intimacy - hugging, kissing, physical gestures that symbolize caring. Thus ministers have access to intimacy and freedom in intimacy (Lebacqz 100). Boundaries - The danger is that there is a boundary that, in the opinion of the authors of the proposal, must not be crossed. The boundary stands somewhere between "pastoral intimacy" and "personal intimacy." Minister/parishioner intimacy is not a two-way street. The parishioner may share personal matters with the minister, but there is only a limited amount of traffic the other way. This leads to greater power for the minister and vulnerability for the parishioner. Although the boundaries are theoretically the same for both minister and parishioner, it is tacitly up to the minister to "keep the boundaries safe." The ordination makes the difference in the measure of responsibility (108). Power inequality - Although the proposal purports to be a statement of sexual ethics for ministers, it primarily "deals with the specific abuse of power," which may take the form of any in the litany of behaviors spelled out on 2.28ff. (Particularly note the behaviors that have been omitted from the list.) Sexual involvement between ministers and parishioners may only take place ethically if there is an equality of power. Having detailed the many dimensions of ministerial power above, there seems to be a very slim chance of satisfying this requirement in any situation, especially in light of the U. M. injunction of lines 9 & 10: "Expressions of our sexuality must affirm fidelity in marriage and celibacy (i.e. no sexual intercourse) in singleness and be mutually shared and entered into freely and equally." Although this statement sound liberating, coupled with power dynamics, it effectively shuts the door to sexual behavior between minister and parishioner. Source Karen Lebacqz & Ronald G. Barton, Sex in the Parish, Louisville: Westminster / John Knox Press, 1991. |