# State lawforbids clergy from having sex with someone who is receiving religious advice **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 15, 2011, 2:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-lawforbids-clergy-from-having-sex-with-someone-who-is-receiving-religious-advice/603004 "2011-11-15T14:49:08Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![shiftless](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9c0ed/32.png) [@shiftless](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/shiftless)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2011, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-lawforbids-clergy-from-having-sex-with-someone-who-is-receiving-religious-advice/603004/21 "2011-11-15T18:46:11Z")
> [@Lemur866](#): > > You don’t need a license to give people advice, otherwise Ann Landers would have died in prison. That is really the angle you and John Mace want to take? That priests are just like any other neighborhood guy who happens to gives out free advice? So, when a client makes a donation after the the advice is given, should the priest have to pay taxes? If I collect money for my advice I would have to pay taxes, even if I cleverly tried to call it a gift. The IRS has seen that dodge. If the police come to me and want to know what was said in such a counseling session, I can’t claim special rights under the law - why should these free advice guys called priests get to? Sure, it is perfectly fine to invite your neighbor over, listen to her problems, then use that intimate knowledge you now have to convince her to screw your lights out. Go for it. My problem comes when you advertise counseling services (complete with claims of complete celibacy!), collect money, use the intimate knowledge you now have to convince your client to screw your lights out and the client complains afterward. Why shouldn’t the state have an interest in such a complaint? ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2011, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-lawforbids-clergy-from-having-sex-with-someone-who-is-receiving-religious-advice/603004/22 "2011-11-15T19:00:03Z")
Priests do not give advice, then present the advisee with a bill for services rendered. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2011, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-lawforbids-clergy-from-having-sex-with-someone-who-is-receiving-religious-advice/603004/23 "2011-11-15T19:31:08Z")
> [@shiftless](#): > > That is really the angle you and John Mace want to take? That priests are just like any other neighborhood guy who happens to gives out free advice? So, when a client makes a donation after the the advice is given, should the priest have to pay taxes? If I collect money for my advice I would have to pay taxes, even if I cleverly tried to call it a gift. That depends on the tax status of the organization. If you formed a not-for-profit agency that hands out advice, no, you would not have to pay tax on it. > [@](#): > > Sure, it is perfectly fine to invite your neighbor over, listen to her problems, then use that intimate knowledge you now have to convince her to screw your lights out. Go for it. My problem comes when you advertise counseling services (complete with claims of complete celibacy!), collect money The Catholic sacrament of confession is not a pay-for-pray deal. It’s free. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2011, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-lawforbids-clergy-from-having-sex-with-someone-who-is-receiving-religious-advice/603004/24 "2011-11-15T19:48:11Z")
Whether or not priests, rabbis and other religious figures act as paid councellors or as licenced therapists is a bit of a red herring in this context. The significant fact is that the priest/penitent (or religious figure generally/congregation) relationship is considered legally as one of trust, of a fiducuary-like nature. This is why, for example, conversations with priests in the confessional are often privileged. It is the violation of this trust relationship that attracts sanctions. The notion is that a priest or other religious figure _when acting in his or her capacity as religious figure_ should not use the influence obtained over his or her congregation for his or her own benefit - for example, by sleeping with congregants. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2011, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-lawforbids-clergy-from-having-sex-with-someone-who-is-receiving-religious-advice/603004/25 "2011-11-15T20:04:20Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > Whether or not priests, rabbis and other religious figures act as paid councellors or as licenced therapists is a bit of a red herring in this context. The significant fact is that the priest/penitent (or religious figure generally/congregation) relationship is considered legally as one of trust, of a fiducuary-like nature. This is why, for example, conversations with priests in the confessional are often privileged. > > It is the violation of this trust relationship that attracts sanctions. The notion is that a priest or other religious figure _when acting in his or her capacity as religious figure_ should not use the influence obtained over his or her congregation for his or her own benefit - for example, by sleeping with congregants. OK, then ban sex in a confessional. Otherwise, no. Just kidding about the ban part, btw. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2011, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-lawforbids-clergy-from-having-sex-with-someone-who-is-receiving-religious-advice/603004/26 "2011-11-15T20:16:10Z")
> [@Mr.Excellent](#): > > 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. The academic requirements for priests in the Roman Catholic Church are not trivial. I agree they aren’t medical professionals, but I disagree that they do not compare favorably to trained social workers. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2011, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-lawforbids-clergy-from-having-sex-with-someone-who-is-receiving-religious-advice/603004/27 "2011-11-15T20:17:11Z")
Do the academic requirements for priests include courses in mainstream clinical psychology? ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2011, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-lawforbids-clergy-from-having-sex-with-someone-who-is-receiving-religious-advice/603004/28 "2011-11-15T20:18:40Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > OK, then ban sex in a confessional. Otherwise, no. > > Just kidding about the ban part, btw. I understand that you disagree with the situation. I’m simply explaining why it is the way it is. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2011, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-lawforbids-clergy-from-having-sex-with-someone-who-is-receiving-religious-advice/603004/29 "2011-11-15T20:48:20Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > I understand that you disagree with the situation. I’m simply explaining why it is the way it is. You’re offering two completely independent things and claiming they must somehow be linked. Churches receive certain tax benefits and priests, in a confessional, receive certain immunities from testimony. What does any of that have to with whether or not sex is legal between a priest and a parishoner? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2011, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-lawforbids-clergy-from-having-sex-with-someone-who-is-receiving-religious-advice/603004/30 "2011-11-15T20:49:16Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Do the academic requirements for priests include courses in mainstream clinical psychology? Yes, either at the undergrad level or at seminary. It’s not mandatory in the sense that the bishop may waive the requirement, but in the normal course of events, a graduating seminary student will have had such classes. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2011, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-lawforbids-clergy-from-having-sex-with-someone-who-is-receiving-religious-advice/603004/31 "2011-11-15T20:58:21Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > You’re offering two completely independent things and claiming they must somehow be linked. Churches receive certain tax benefits and priests, in a confessional, receive certain immunities from testimony. > > What does any of that have to with who is having sex with whom? The tax benefits issue is not one I raised. The “certain immunities from testimony” is based on the type of relationship priests are, legally, considered to have with congrigants - one of heightened trust and confidence. Both the “immunity from testimony” _and_ the “not having sex with congrigants” things are products of the same legal fact: the nature of the relationship between priests and congrigants, which is legally _unlike_ (say) the barber/customer relationship, and _more like_ other, similar types of relationships in which sex is frowned upon - lawyer/client, psychologist/patient, etc. This does not mean that priests are lawyers or psychologists, only that all of these relationships are, legally, characterized by trust, confidence and dependency, which is why having sex with clients, patients and penitents is all frowned upon to various degrees, and in some jurisdictions will result in the professional being disciplined, disbarred, or even charged with an offence. You may agree or disagree that this is right or just, but this is the reason. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2011, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-lawforbids-clergy-from-having-sex-with-someone-who-is-receiving-religious-advice/603004/32 "2011-11-15T21:01:03Z")
I don’t think anyone would disagree that it should be “frowned upon”, but why should it be illegal? It’s not _illegal_ for a psychiatrist or a doctor to have consensual sex with a patient. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2011, 10:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-lawforbids-clergy-from-having-sex-with-someone-who-is-receiving-religious-advice/603004/33 "2011-11-15T22:29:21Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > I don’t think anyone would disagree that it should be “frowned upon”, but why should it be illegal? It’s not _illegal_ for a psychiatrist or a doctor to have consensual sex with a patient. Under the statute in question, sex with a “psychotherapist” is also illegal: > [@](#): > > (h) the actor is a psychotherapist and the complainant is a patient of the psychotherapist > and the sexual penetration occurred: > (i) during the psychotherapy session; or > (ii) outside the psychotherapy session if an ongoing psychotherapist-patient relationship > exists. > Consent by the complainant is not a defense; Compare with from the same statute: > [@](#): > > (1) the actor is or purports to be a member of the clergy, the complainant is not married to > the actor, and: > (i) the sexual penetration occurred during the course of a meeting in which the complainant > sought or received religious or spiritual advice, aid, or comfort from the actor in private; or > (ii) the sexual penetration occurred during a period of time in which the complainant was > meeting on an ongoing basis with the actor to seek or receive religious or spiritual advice, aid, or > comfort in private. Consent by the complainant is not a defense; > **[Sec. 609.344 MN Statutes](https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/2006/cite/609.344)** Now, I’ll grant you this is somewhat unusual. IMO these matters would be better handled through professional discipline - for priests, defrocking or the like; for psychotherapists, removal of licence. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2011, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-lawforbids-clergy-from-having-sex-with-someone-who-is-receiving-religious-advice/603004/34 "2011-11-15T22:34:01Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > Under the statute in question, sex with a “psychotherapist” is also illegal: > > Compare with from the same statute: > > [Sec. 609.344 MN Statutes](https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bin/getpub.php?type=s&num=609.344&year=2006) > > Now, I’ll grant you this is somewhat unusual. IMO these matters would be better handled through professional discipline - for priests, defrocking or the like; for psychotherapists, removal of licence. OK, but I think both are unconstitutional. Except that, perhaps, in the case of a psychologist there would be money changing hands and it could be construed as prostitution. ---
**Author:** ![Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skald_the_Rhymer)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2011, 10:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-lawforbids-clergy-from-having-sex-with-someone-who-is-receiving-religious-advice/603004/35 "2011-11-15T22:48:28Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > OK, but I think both are unconstitutional. Except that, perhaps, in the case of a psychologist there would be money changing hands and it could be construed as prostitution. What article or amendment of the Unites States or Minnesota Constitution do you believe the statute violates? ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2011, 11:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-lawforbids-clergy-from-having-sex-with-someone-who-is-receiving-religious-advice/603004/36 "2011-11-15T23:13:46Z")
I have no problem with the law as long as it holds other counselors to the same standard. ---
**Author:** ![doreen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/858c86/32.png) [@doreen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doreen)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2011, 12:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-lawforbids-clergy-from-having-sex-with-someone-who-is-receiving-religious-advice/603004/37 "2011-11-16T00:49:59Z")
> [@stpauler](#): > > 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. But what the law is essentially saying is that the congregant in that particular situation is _not_ legally able to consent. Not in those words, but that’s what “consent is not a defense” means. People always think of either statutory rape, unconsciousness or possibly mental illness or retardation when they think of incapacity to consent . But the inability to consent isn’t necessarily restricted to those situations. The [NYS penal law](http://public.leginfo.state.ny.us/LAWSSEAF.cgi?QUERYTYPE=LAWS+&QUERYDATA=$$PEN130.05$$@TXPEN0130.05+&LIST=LAW+&BROWSER=BROWSER+&TOKEN=24072557+&TARGET=VIEW) lists a large number of situations in which one party is incapable of consent. They haven’t added clergy members actually engaged in counseling a congregant \* (yet) , but it does include everything from inmates being unable to consent with members of the prison or jail staff, to parolees being unable to consent to sex with a parole officer who has ever supervised them to patients being unable to consent to sex with medical and mental health providers. - Even the Minnesota law would allow consent within the sort of relationship most people I know have with priests. Many people do not meet privately with clergy members on an ongoing basis to receive religious or spiritual advice , aid or comfort. ( Yes, Catholics are supposed to go to confession. Plenty of them don’t and plenty of the ones who confess don’t have a specific confessor. They might go to a different priest each time, or even avoid confessing to a particular priest they are friends with.) It seems that if the woman and the priest had simply begun a friendship which turned into a sexual relationship it would not violate the Minnesota law, so long as they were not meeting on an ongoing basis for the woman to receive spiritual advice etc and the sex didn’t occur during a meeting in which the woman sought spiritual advice. ---
**Author:** ![iamthewalrus\_3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/258eb7/32.png) [@iamthewalrus\_3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamthewalrus_3)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2011, 1:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-lawforbids-clergy-from-having-sex-with-someone-who-is-receiving-religious-advice/603004/38 "2011-11-19T01:21:12Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Except that, perhaps, in the case of a psychologist there would be money changing hands and it could be construed as prostitution. I don’t think it works that way. If I hire someone to do a job and they do that job _and have sex with me_, that’s not necessarily prostitution. You’re allowed to have sex with people you otherwise have a business relationship with without it rising to prostitution simply because money changed hands. ---
**Author:** ![Lust4Life](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ecc23a/32.png) [@Lust4Life](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lust4Life)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2011, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-lawforbids-clergy-from-having-sex-with-someone-who-is-receiving-religious-advice/603004/39 "2011-11-19T18:32:39Z")
Surely the simple answer is that if the minister is NOT using his position of trust to have his way with the parishioner, and he genuinly has feelings for the woman then all he has to do is to tell her to start using a different church. Or he could resign from the ministry. Of course it raises the question that can the man actually be trusted at all on anything when he has broken the oaths of chastity, and the laws of adultery, lying etc.etc. in a religion that he so deeply believes in and cares about that he volunteered to become a priest ? After this he can have no credibility as a religious practitioner, or as an honest broker offering advice whatever the court verdict is. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2011, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-lawforbids-clergy-from-having-sex-with-someone-who-is-receiving-religious-advice/603004/40 "2011-11-19T18:42:19Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > The academic requirements for priests in the Roman Catholic Church are not trivial. I agree they aren’t medical professionals, but I disagree that they do not compare favorably to trained social workers. A trained social worker is unlikely to pressure you out of birth control or an abortion. Or give you a series of chants and motions necessary to make a supernatural creature less apt to punish you. I’m not sure I’d call that comparing favorably. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/state-lawforbids-clergy-from-having-sex-with-someone-who-is-receiving-religious-advice/603004.md?page=1)