The Importance of Language Surrounding Adult Clergy Sexual Abuse
In religious communities, leaders often act as “moral entrepreneurs,” with the power to shape what is considered right and wrong. This guest post from T.P. Zamora explores the danger in incorrectly labeling abuse.
Over the years, while researching abuse in religious communities, I found that many spiritual leaders wrongly describe adult clergy sexual abuse (ACSA) as a “consensual affair.” This hides the fact that there’s a power imbalance tipped in favor of the clergyperson, and that abusive clergy often groom and coerce victims into a sexualized situation. ACSA, which is illegal in some US states, is when a spiritual leader, ordained or not, behaves sexually toward an adult under their spiritual care, who holds less power in the spiritual leader-follower relationship.
A major problem in some religious communities is that many people don’t fully understand the idea of sexual consent. Some even reject it, calling it a “worldly” idea. This leads to confusion and allows leaders to explain away ACSA as a consensual sexual sin, rather than calling it what it is: abuse.
Sexual consent can’t exist when pressure, fear, or manipulation is involved. Studies show that many ACSA survivors didn’t feel they could say no to their spiritual leader’s advances. This abuse often leads to symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Survivors are also often groomed, making it even harder for them to understand what happened as abuse. That’s why we need clear and honest language to talk about ACSA. We need language that recognizes the harm caused and the trauma survivors carry.
There are many terms researchers use to describe this abuse, like “pastoral misconduct” or “clergy or clerical sexual misconduct.” Knowing these terms helps in locating academic articles. However, many survivors I’ve spoken with prefer the term adult clergy sexual abuse because it clearly states that what happened to them was abuse, which occurred as an adult. It was not just a professional offense, as the term misconduct highlights. Nonetheless, understanding the term clergy sexual misconduct is crucial, as churches may use this language. In the same way that we must understand the term consent, we must recognize clergy sexual misconduct as abuse, which is clearly reflected in the research.
In my research, I’ve noticed a pattern in how people react to survivors and how survivors come to understand their own experience. This pattern happens in five general stages:
Grooming and Sexual Misconduct
At first, the abusive clergyperson often calls the abuse “mutual” or “consensual.” This can cause the victim to blame themselves and accept harmful labels like “seductress.”Disclosure or Discovery
When the abuse is uncovered, religious leaders often don’t have the right words to describe it accurately. Because some churches view sexual issues only in terms of “sin” or not, they might call the abuse a biblical term, like adultery, which doesn’t capture the grooming and coercion involved. Survivors often repeat the abuser’s language because they don’t know how else to explain it.Leadership Response
This is where institutional betrayal often happens. Churches typically protect the abuser instead of the survivor, who relies on the institution for support. This betrayal results in additional trauma. The leaders accept the abuser’s version of the story and frame the situation this way to the congregation. In many cases, the survivor is unsupported, and the situation is covered up.Congregational Response
Church members often blame the survivor, usually a woman, for the “fall” of their beloved leader. They may call it an “affair” and use harmful stereotypes, like comparing the woman to “Jezebel,” a biblical figure associated with seduction and manipulation, particularly toward men in leadership.Survivor Negotiation
Survivors may accept the harmful labels at first, which often results in their ability to stay part of the church community. However, their inclusion usually depends on their “repenting,” as if what happened was a mutual sin instead of abuse. This allows the abuser to be welcomed back as one who simply had a “moral failure,” hiding the reality of abuse. But once survivors learn new, accurate language, they often reject the false narrative. Sadly, when they speak the truth, they are often rejected by the religious community, which adds to their trauma. Many survivors say this rejection is worse than the original abuse.
Over time, many survivors find healing in peer support groups made up of other survivors and in speaking out about abuse. However, these groups are sometimes perceived as a threat by churches that wish to keep their problems private. This rejection extends to movements like #MeToo and #ChurchToo, which many religious communities view negatively, especially because they challenge the idea that traditional authority, who are typically men, should be trusted with little questioning.
However, research shows that healing involves survivors speaking, being listened to, and being believed. It also involves accurately naming the abuse and, for many, participating in advocacy work to educate others and help prevent it from happening again. Survivors also heal by connecting with others, sharing their stories, and finding spaces that understand trauma.
I chose to study sociology because it helps us understand how people behave in groups and how institutions, like churches, influence our lives. By examining how churches deal with abuse, we can work together to change harmful systems. This work is sacred to me. Sociologist Dr. Dennis Hiebert noted that Christian sociologists are similar to prophets who speak the truth and challenge injustice, which can help bring about institutional change.
The sociological concept of “moral entrepreneurs” explains how people with power shape what is considered right or wrong. In religious communities, leaders often act as moral entrepreneurs. Unless they are willing to tell the truth about adult clergy sexual abuse and change the way perpetrators and survivors are labeled, real change won’t happen. To create safer communities, church leaders and congregants must change the way they talk about abuse and the way they respond to it.
If you want to learn more about ACSA and how to respond, visit ClergySexualMisconduct.com.
T. P. Zamora, editor of CSM Research Insights and sociology student, explores power dynamics and abuse within religious institutions and its multi-faceted impact on survivors.
