Here we have two adults who were consenting participants to this. I think that the state law, while set up to protect those vulnerable to persuasion by religious professionals, is still wrong. As long as a person is legally able to consent into a sexual relationship with another adult, I don’t see where said person’s profession or relationship should be involved.
Really? Are you okay with psychiatrists having sex with their patients too?
I’m not OK with it, and I think it should be a sanctioned act by the profession, but it should not be illegal.
Do they meet the limits I set above? Then the answer is obvious. Yes.
No - but psychiatrists provide actual medical services, informed (one hopes!) by vigorous, peer-reviewed scientific inquiry. The medical community works very hard to ensure that psychiatrists, like all physicians, provide a very high standard of care - and as a consequence, people place a very high level of trust in them.
Priests are different. Yes, I’m sure people place a lot of trust in them, too - but (with rare exceptions), these aren’t medical professionals, or even trained social workers. They’re just people who know a lot about their specific set of myths. There are lots of people who believe these myths are actually true, and that detailed knowledge of them improves one’s moral judgment - but still, the expertise of priests lies very far from real medicine.
Would you insist that astrologers should be unable to have sex with their clients? What of barbers? Tattoo artists? If you believe that anyone who is counseling another in a professional capacity should be precluded from engaging in a romantic relationship with that person - well, fair enough. But that seems awfully broad to me, and reaches a level of silliness pretty quickly.
It would be up to the body licensing psychiatrists. Oh wait! That would be the state. I assume that a psychiartist would simply stand to lose their license if he/she was having sex with his patients. Unless the patient was so sick that they could not give consent.
When you need a license from the state to be a priest, then the state can start making laws about what rights you give up when you become a priest. I’m not sure that development would be one I would welcome, but you might disagree. Worse, in this case they are talking about this being a criminal violation.
Suppose we make it a criminal violation for lawmakers to have sex with interns. Or bosses with their subordinates. Not just a bad idea, a crime.
Out of curiousity, how old is the law? Was it passed due to the recent Catholic child-abuse scandals or is it a holdover from back when sexual morality legislation was more common?
In any case, I agree its not a good law, and sets a bad precedence for the State to become involved in peoples personal lives. There are already laws on the books to protect people from harassement if a clergyman uses his position to force people into having sex with him, I don’t see the need to criminilize his having sexual relations with his clergy beyond that.
Plus, this law would really mess up my ability to found a tantric sex-cult.
I also found some caselaw from before about this. The priest was guilty:
Thanks. Seems to be some sort of code at the end that gives what part was added when, but I can’t read it.
Also looks like you can have a relationship with your clergyman if you stop having meetings with them in their official capacity first. Which makes the law a little less draconian then I was picturing, but I still think its an overly intrusive law.
So, we have an organization that advertises itself as representatives of an all powerful God. Its representatives have sworn to never have sex and to provide guidance to members. The state gives special status to this organization, like tax exemptions, and is mostly hands off even though the organization provides services that would normally require a license.
Now we have a Priest who feels that his promise (before Almighty God) to never have sex doesn’t really apply to him and it is also OK to break the normal bounds of propriety that would apply to any other person in a counseling position.
Yep, looks like we need a law. The Roman Catholic Church could have policed itself and failed to even enforce their own rules. Looks like some grown-ups need to step in.
I can’t believe this law would pass a constitutional challenge, given Lawrence.
“According to science…” (cartoon possibly NSFW).
I don’t really think that matters, the State isn’t in the business of evaluating theological claims. It shouldn’t favor the Church because they claim to speak for God, but I don’t think they should give them special scrutiny because of it either.
Does the Church get special exemptions from the State? I don’t think any non-profits pay taxes. I don’t think they get any exemptions on needing license either. You don’t need a license to offer spiritual advice, whether your a Catholic or not.
The State shouldn’t be in the business of enforcing peoples religious vows. Its probably unconstitutional to do so, amongst other things.
I hope some minister’s wife never comes to her husband asking for advice, or he could be in trouble.
Certain relationships are treated differently than others for legal purposes - for example, in some jurisdictions discussions between religious councellors and members of their flocks, while acting in their religious capacity, are subject to privilege much as conversations with one’s lawyer.
This is not true of barbers and tattoo artists.
It has nothing to do with whether said religious figures are practicing medicine, but rather because of the expectation of the parties concerning the relationship.
That relationship has aspects of trust and authority which puts the religious official in a fiduciary-type relationship with members of his or her congregation - meaning, that they are expected to act for the benefit of those members and not for their own. Having sex with them places the nature of the relationship in doubt.
What underlies all relationships in which sexual liasons are frowned on, is that the relationship is in part based on this sort of trust. The exact reason for generating trust may vary - be it because of medical knowledge, legal duty, or recognized spiritual authority. Also, whether a presumed breach of that trust ought to result in administrative sanctions (disbarrment, defrocking, or suspension of license to practice) as opposed to criminal conviction is a live issue - but a good case can be made that these sorts of relationships should be treated differently.
This may be true in many churches, but clergy in most major denominations (and most especially the RCC) receive extensive training in counseling as part of their educational training in seminary. They receive at least as much, if not more, training than your typical social worker. Do you think seminary is just three years of bible study? :dubious:
I don’t see how the church can expect to have it both ways. They are providing counseling services, something that normally would require training and a license. The Church gets a pass on this from the state. If I’m not mistaken even fortune tellers have to get licenses. And a Church isn’t just a not-for-profit, they are charitable organizations, so any money given to them is tax deductible. They also have well publicized internal rules that apparently are not enforced. Heck, priests even take oaths, but I guess they don’t mean anything either.
I agree the state shouldn’t be in the business of enforcing religious vows. Unfortunately, churches doesn’t seem to feel the need to do that either but those vows have led some to believe that churches DO follow some sort of ethical rules. Their special status shouldn’t absolve church leaders from having to follow the normal rules of human decency.
What do you mean both ways? Let’s say my next door neighbor comes to me for counseling. I can give her all sorts of advice on what she should do, and then we can jump in the sack and have wild sex. I have not represented myself as a licensed therapist, and neither has the priest.
What’s the difference?
You don’t need a license to give people advice, otherwise Ann Landers would have died in prison.
I’m not sure the law passes constitutional muster either, but I don’t see how any of the Lawrence reasoning applies.