Download PDF

Back to Previous Page

Adult Consensual Relationships

Quinn R. Conners, O.Carm., Ph.D.
Vol. III No. 1
January/February 1999

The following three statements are fictitious:

Father Paul said, "But she was in her 20's. It was a casual relationship. It was not in a parish setting. She knew there was no commitment."

Father Bart reported, "We met in a bar. He knew I was a priest. I was completely honest with him. He told me he did not expect it to be a long-term relationship. He was over eighteen. What do you want?"

Sister Priscilla related, "We were both finally professed. We met during summer school. We both were having a difficult time in new assignments. We had so much in common. We started talking and this closeness just happened. Before I knew it we were being sexual. But we're both adults. No one was forced."

The pattern of thinking is about adult, consensual relationships that become genital. This thinking implies that as long as the two people are adults and agree to a sexual encounter, then such a relationship is legitimate. What is behind that thinking and why is it problematic?

Such persons try to distinguish their sexual encounter from one which takes place in a pastoral relationship. They reason that as long as the encounter is not with a parishioner, a student, a counselee, or a directee, then it is not problematic. Engaging in a sexual relationship with a parishioner or counselee is a moral, ethical, and possibly legal violation of one's responsibility as a person in a position of power, which clergy and religious are as public ministers in the church. It is clearly defined as an abusive relationship. Some cite sexual misconduct policies developed by dioceses and religious communities to distinguish their adult, consensual behavior from sexual misconduct.

However, clergy and religious who try to justify adult, consensual relationships fail to acknowledge two important areas that challenge their rationalizing of that behavior. First, such thinking ignores the moral and ethical commitment priests and religious have made. Morally, the church teaches that a sexual relationship outside the context of a marriage is wrong. Such teaching is clear and unambiguous. Thus, to engage in genital behavior as a vowed religious or ordained priest has serious moral implications.

Ethically, the vows of a religious or the promise of celibacy of a priest are public commitments. Such public commitments state that their private and public lives are not completely separate. A clear and unambiguous aspect of celibacy is that a choice has been made to forego genital expressions of sexuality. Their sexuality is lived out, but without that particular dimension. The absence of that dimension is a sacrifice and a loss that needs to be acknowledged and integrated into the person's psychological and spiritual experience on an ongoing basis. Nevertheless, with that promise/vow priests and religious declare that their public and their private lives are connected.

Second, from a psychological perspective, adult, consensual sexual relationships for priests or religious are problematic. Such behavior reflects the absence of psychological integrity in their committed relationship. There is an internal split in the individuals between what they are saying publicly and how they are behaving privately. It suggests an unintegrated sexuality and a difficulty in connecting their belief system with their behavior. The cognitive and behavioral dimensions of their lives are not connected when they are acting out sexually, even with a consenting adult.

Thus, from moral, ethical, and psychological perspectives, adult consensual relationships are problematic. With that in mind, what options do you have if you are experiencing this problem either yourself or with someone for whom you are responsible? Respond in a compassionate and pastoral way. Clearly, such persons are in a dilemma. While they may articulate a level of comfort with their behavior, there is usually another part of them that is uncomfortable. There is a difference between being judgmental and being clear about boundaries. You can challenge them to look compassionately at what they are saying and doing with their lives and their behavior. While they may not have crossed professional boundaries, they have crossed moral and psychological boundaries. Such a crossing reflects deeper psychological concerns such as unintegrated sexual issues in their life, serious questioning of their vocational choice, or difficulty in managing impulses. Assist them to get professional help from a therapist and/or spiritual director to work with whatever issues have surfaced in their lives.

Is this problem understandable? Absolutely. Celibacy is a real challenge, especially in a culture that does not appear to appreciate such commitments. The basic human task of intimacy is an ongoing part of any adult life experience whether married, single or celibate. Learning to be close to others, to share friendship and the intimacy it brings, without being genital is particularly challenging. Hopefully, if priests and religious honestly face these challenges, they will find adult relationships that will help them to deepen their experience of intimacy and respect their moral and psychological integrity.

Quinn Conners is Chief Operating Officer and a member of the clinical team at Saint Luke Institute.

LUKENOTES is a bimonthly publication of Saint Luke Institute.
Permission to use these materials must be requested in writing by contacting
lukenotes@sli.org

SLI EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
Saint Luke Institute
8901 New Hampshire Ave.
Silver Spring, MD 20903
(301) 422-5499 • (301) 422-5519 (fax)

back to top