Tragedy Has Major Implications For All

GOOD POLICIES CAN PROTECT THE VULNERABLE; PERSON IN POWER HAS RESPONSIBILITY TO SAY ‘NO’

Sunday, August 12, 2012

The recent tragedy at Penn State has important implications for all institutions, including churches.

Any institution that seeks to protect its own reputation and public image at the expense of truth-telling opens itself to the likelihood of abuses of power.

Sexual misconduct is not usually about sex. It’s about power.

Power is an aphrodisiac.

Power bequeaths trust.

People in positions of power need to recognize they hold the trust of others. People in positions of power need to realize some people will be sexually attracted to them. Whenever a person in power acts sexually toward someone within their sphere of authority, it is an abusive act. There is an inherent power imbalance. Theirrelationship is not equal.

It is always the responsibility of the person in power to set the boundaries, for instance, to say “no” if someone under their authority seeks to initiate a romantic or sexual relationship.

Good institutions will develop guidelines about these things. Our Episcopal Diocese has a policy to discourage any single priest from a romantic relationship with a parishioner. Some dioceses prohibit priests from datingany Episcopalian. These policies recognize the power imbalance.

Our diocese requires the bishop’s involvement in discernment for any possible proposed romantic relationship between a priest and a lay person. For such a relationship to continue, the bishop will establish a form of oversight and pastoral care in order to protect the spiritual health and integrity of the lay person.

Healthy institutions create strong boundaries to prevent sexual misconduct.

Everyone who exercises some degree of power or authority should have training in boundary issues.

Every institution needs to have policies to respond to accusations of misconduct.

Those policies have to be carefully drawn particularly to protect anyone who may be complaining of possible misuse of power by a clergy person.

The problem is most institutions are reactively protective of their leaders.

The more charismatic,revered or important the leader, the more likely it is the institution will react to protect the leader. An institution that does not have a profound commitment to a system for seriously investigating charges of misconduct is likely to revictimize a victim should a leader abuse power.

I worry about churches that don’t have an authoritative external institutional structure.

In churches with a congregational organization - especially a church profoundly dependent upon the personality or charisma or celebrity of its pastor - how strong can a governing board be when their leader is accused?

It is so natural for a congregation to feel threatened should its figurehead be compromised or disgraced. Congregational boards are usually defensive and protective of their church’s reputation and stability. Unless strong policies and a culture of openness and truth are in place, it is tempting for a board to act first to protect the pastor and the church’s reputation rather than courageously seek the truth in a way that will protect a possible victim. That’s what seemed to happen at Penn State.

Studies show false accusations of professional sexual misconduct arevery uncommon, though they do happen. Although the data are not defi nitive, studies point toward a lifetime prevalence of a 7 percent rate of misconduct among various kinds of professionals.

What about your church or institution? If someone brings forward an accusation, will your organization “circle the wagons” to protect itself and its leaders, or will it pursue the truth respectfully?

Churches must be responsive to accusations and must have a strong system to allow an alleged victim to be heard,respected and protected as the church investigates any allegation. I was very troubled awhile back when a local church’s disclosure about an incident of clergy misconduct publicly listed the age, gender and sexual orientation of a victim in such a way church members could probably identify that person. That’s a failure to protect a victim, and it is almost certain to cause revictimization.

Victims of abuse need to be heard, respected and protected. They need a sincere apology and they need the assurance the offense will never happenagain to anyone else. They deserve help for their own healing. They usually want the offender to be helped, but certainly they want the offender to be prevented from any additional off ense.

They want to make sure that if there are other victims, those others will get help and support.

People who expose incidents of abuse are people of courage, not troublemakers. They make our institutions safer and healthier.

LOWELL GRISHAM IS AN EPISCOPAL PRIEST WHO LIVES IN FAYETTEVILLE.

Opinion, Pages 13 on 08/12/2012