A bill is working its way through the Georgia state legislature that would criminalize sexual contact between clergy and adult individuals. This is an important issue and not one that can be reduced to a thousand world blog post. While I have no questions about the intent of the legislators, supporters, and lobbyists for this, a number of difficult questions arise.
The matter is summarized in this article from Ministry Watch: https://ministrywatch.com/ga-senate-committee-unanimously-advances-bill-addressing-clergy-sexual-abuse/
I am not optimistic that the discipline and patience exists for much of anyone to read all of this article.
Here’s a key paragraph:
If passed, the bill would amend the state’s criminal code to define terms related to clergy sexual abuse and allow clergy members to be charged with certain sexual offenses when exploiting spiritual authority. First-degree violations would carry prison sentences ranging from one to 25 years. Cases involving minors or repeat sexual felony offenders could bring enhanced penalties.
Part of the motivation for this bill is the scandal involving one of our Georgia Baptist colleges. I don’t believe that criminal charges for sexual abuse are pending for that. This bill is an attempt to close a “gap” in Georgia law concerning sex abuse. I gather that other states have passed similar laws concerning clergy and sexual abuse.
SB 542 would update the Georgia statute governing “improper sexual contact by employee or agent” to specifically include clergy members within its scope. If passed, a clergy member could face criminal charges if they had engaged in sexually explicit conduct or sexual contact with someone who is the subject of a pastoral counseling or spiritual authority relationship.
The keys are the definitions: who is “clergy,” and what constitutes a “spiritual authority relationship” and other terminology.
The proposed amendment adds “clergy member” language to about 15 definitions of terms such as “person in a position of trust,” “sexual contact” and “sexually explicit conduct.” It also adds definitions of “clergy member” and “pastoral counseling or spiritual authority relationship.”
The bill defines a “clergy member” as “any person, whether licensed or unlicensed, who represents himself or herself as a minister, pastor, priest, rabbi, imam, or other spiritual leader of an organization claiming to be a faith based organization in this state or any other state, or any person who provides or purports to provide spiritual guidance, pastoral counseling, religious instruction, or spiritual direction to another person in a relationship of trust, confidence, or dependency.”
No one would be confused about “clergy” who are paid church staff, or listed denominational workers, or others but notice the “any person…who provides…spiritual direction…”
I would be considered a clergy member in retirement even though I’m not on a church staff. I am identified as such by those I kayak with, play pickleball with, and hike with. I sometimes dispense spiritual information that might be considered advice, counsel, or influence. I do some teaching as a volunteer. Does any of this convey “spiritual authority” or a “power imbalance?” I doubt that anyone would conclude that it does, although the law would provide a route for prosecution on this basis.
The question was asked, specifically, if a Sunday School teacher (and it is presumed that this is in an adult class) would be a “clergy member.” The answer was affirmative if the teacher “used their position as a spiritual educator to manipulate a person into a sexual relationship.” Thus, a 60 year old teacher and a 60 year old “victim” would make a positive case for this law.
I see lawyers jumping into the “gap” here, overzealous prosecutors flinging charges based on this law. Perhaps the law would protect some. I don’t know.
I have always had questions about how adults are freed of the ability to consent. I’m just not sure about this one.
___________
