The well from which we
drink is poisoned
Dr Margaret Kennedy
Jean Vanier the founder of l’Arche, has now been revealed as
a sex offender. This has been shocking and hugely painful for many women and
men who for years revered him and learned from him. To know that your idol has
clay feet is hard to compute.
To call someone a sex ‘offender’ is not to automatically
place the person in a criminal context. The criminal law has not yet caught up
with the whole notion that vulnerable women can be coerced into exploitative
and abusive sexual activity from which they have no mechanism to extricate themselves.
However these men are ‘offenders’.
In America there is a distinct statute of criminal law for
any professional who sexually molests whilst in role as a professional. In some
states clergy are included as professionals. The UK or Ireland has no such
statute.
Vanier, taking the role of spiritual director, mentor,
counsellor, would and should be regarded as having a religious professional
role.
We now know and understand the whole notion of ‘grooming’
that takes place when children are coerced, encouraged, manipulated into sexual
activity with predatory sex offenders. These sex offenders skilfully silence
the child. We understand that children cannot consent to sexual activity and
when it does happen it is a criminal offence and not their fault.
However it is not the same for adult women. The first thing many
people think is why did that woman apparently ‘agree’ or ‘acquiesce’ in the
sexual contact. After all, she was not a child, but a grown adult. Was she not
capable of consent or not consenting? Vanier was not a cleric, but to all
intents and purposes he acted like one. What he did needs exploring in order to
safeguard women.
I am now an older woman of 67 years, years where a lot of
water has gone under the bridge since I was molested by an Anglican priest when
I was aged 25. The horror and terror of those frequent assaults has never
disappeared. I too, for years, wondered why I would ‘allow’ this priest enter
my flat to do what he had aimed to do and planned to do. For his behaviour was
predatory and I later found out I was not the only victim. There were at least
three others; four of us.
He was the chaplain of the college I attended and he molested
several women attending Christian Union. It took me years to deal with the
shame and guilt of his serious sexual assaults and I did that by trying to
learn about myself and about why clergy target adult women.
My learning began when I set up a group called ‘Christian
Survivors of Sexual Abuse’ – CSSA, in the late 1980’s. A support group for Christian
women who had been sexually abused as children. When women started to come forward as victims
of abuse as adults, I had to think deeper about what happened to me as
well.
I then knew it was not my fault. I had believed I was the
only person this happened to. How wrong I was.
None of us believed we caused our own abuse, but we did
suffer shame and guilt and this was very difficult to deal with. We had no one
to talk to except between ourselves. We had no literature to read, no groups to
go to, no advice to obtain, no law to have recourse to. We were deemed adults
able to consent. We were often blamed, thought able to repel – if we wanted to
– predatory clergy. Even blamed for ‘seducing’ the clergy person. We made no
headway asking our Christian denominations to challenge this sexual
exploitation, to censure the behaviour, to deal with it. Much of this is still
the same today.
If we did report it to church authorities it was
conceptualised as a relationship, albeit a wrongful relationship. (Just to add
to our shame and guilt). Some denominations even conceptualised this as an ‘affair’
or ‘adultery’.
It was deemed ‘conduct unbecoming the priesthood’ (Anglican
Church) or breaking celibacy vows (Catholic Church) if it was deemed anything
and mostly our cries were ignored.
Notice why it was ‘wrong’, and where the focus was…it was ‘unbecoming
of the priesthood’ and ‘celibacy breaches’.
It was never viewed as sexual assaults on women. The focus
was male behaviour in context of their priesthood. It was priesthood that was
harmed, not the victim, the woman. We
were invisible.
In my PhD research I learned the definition of sexual
exploitation;
‘Sexual exploitation occurs when a person in
authority, in role, as Clergy, Minister or Pastor sexualises
contact with female parishioners
or those who seek his help for his own sexual gratification.
It constitutes exploitation whether or not women
consented, if at the time they are a ‘client’ or parishioner.
The Pastor mis-uses power and role whenever they sexualise contact with
someone to whom they have a duty of care.
Consent is compromised within
a setting where the woman seeks the advice, counsel, teaching or spiritual
direction of her Pastor.’
If women seeking guidance or spiritual direction from Jean
Vanier had known all this they could have safeguarded themselves. If the Church
believed it; the women would have been safeguarded.
Also as part of my PhD research I analysed language use in
many articles concerning clergy sexual exploitation. There were constant
deflecting euphemisms employed to ‘soften’ the reality. I called this ‘false
naming’.
False
naming is a major component of institutional violence, for it helps to
accomplish denial. False naming means we can avoid responsibility and it
protects the abuser. False
naming creates false consciousness. It avoids assigning responsibility, thus
cloaking the identities of the offender. This false naming sends a message to
an offender that he has still not been “found out” and that the Church is not concerned. False naming allows women to continue to be abused by clergy.
I categorised ‘false naming’ under headings. Under ‘normalisations’ I found this language;
Affair; (Extramarital/Clandestine), Sexual liaisons, falling in love,
adultery/marital infidelity, infidelities, unfaithfulness, sexual
relationships, relationship, sexual attraction, sexually intimate, sexual
seduction.
Under misconduct I
found: Sexual misconduct, sexual malfeasance, violation of forbidden zone,
abusing intimate relationship, misconduct ‘mess’, Profession al sexual
misconduct, sexual infraction, sexual misdeed.
Under pathology I
found; Sexual addiction, acting out, intimacy deficit, boundary diffusion,
sexual boundary violation, PSM (professional sexual misconduct) Non-paraphilic
sexual interest.
Under minimization
I found; inappropriate behaviour, become involved – involved sexually,
inappropriately involved, involvement – emotional entanglement, inappropriate
touching, sexual encounter sexual contact,
Under Euphemisms I
found; the phenomenon, straying into dangerous waters, fallen, situation, the
problem, male malady, get into trouble, delicate situation, trouble, clergy
crises, this intimacy, dalliance.
Under misbehaviour
I found; sexual escapades, naughty, transgressions, indiscretions, succumbs to
sexual attraction, sexual favours.
Under morality I
found; sexual impropriety, morally indefensible behaviour, moral failure,
immorality, moral lapse, wrongful sex.
Under weakness I
found: sexual temptation, personal failure, failure, intimacy failure, human
frailty, and mistake.
Under theological
I found; Sin, evil.
The only categorisations I accepted were under; criminal acts; Crime, Sexual offence,
rape, sexual exploitation. However we are still light years away from
criminalising professional sexual exploitation in pastoral settings.
It certainly seemed no author of the many articles I examined
could name correctly what was happening. The offender was either out of
control, immature, misled, encouraged, in a relationship, or committing
adultery or in many other categories. He was portrayed as not particularly
responsible nor causing much harm.
I knew this was all wrong. I knew I was neither in a
‘relationship’ or that it was an ‘affair’, (the man was married) or any other
category other than it was a sexual crime against me. It took years to get to
this point.
I was a troubled young woman, already needing psychological
help and had previously been hospitalised. Those early years of my adult life
were torrid and marked by childhood trauma and abuse. This predator priest
chose well! He had targeted me.
We had been manipulated, and mentally and emotionally trapped
into something we did not consent to, we did not want and we certainly did not
like. Finally, we did not know how to ‘get out’. But we were adults and no one
wanted to know.
I wanted to know, I wanted to know how this happened, why it
happened and what was the harm done and how recovery could be envisaged.
Realising that over the years of my CSSA work 200 women had
contacted me to share clergy abuse as adults, I knew I had a pool of subjects
for a doctoral piece of research on ‘clergy sexual exploitation of adult
women’. 127 woman were interested to be part of the research, but 65 women were
final subjects of the study.
My starting point was to only focus on situations where women
had met clergy in the professional or pastoral setting. Women had not met the
clergyperson on the golf course. The
beginning was not in the context of an equal friendship but in professional –
parish work or pastoral care.
The clergy/pastor/religious leaders denominations [1]
were; Anglican 25, Roman Catholic 25, Baptist 4,
House Church 2, Methodist 2, Assemblies of God 1, Pentecostal 1, Quaker 1, URC
1, Other 1,Unknown 2. Interestingly the majority were married men. Celibacy was
not the issue.
Most of the women had desperately traumatic or
abusive childhood or adult circumstances. Which rendered them vulnerable. They
had, already, before meeting the clergyperson experienced multiple forms of
abuse; Emotional n27-71%, Sexual abuse n25 -66%. Physical abuse n16-42%, and neglect
n8-21%. This makes clergy sexual exploitation the more egregious.
They were not abused, necessarily, because
they were vulnerable, that notion posits the cause in the victim. Vulnerability
is a risk factor, but cause is male power and choice. They were abused because
they were women, and clergymen had male privilege, power, control and
wherewithal to do it and get away with it.
Clergy abused because they could; because
their ‘Brothers in Christ’ did also, and because the Bishops or leaders
chose to protect the Church from scandal and preserve the clergy’s ministry.
Women were targeted and groomed. From early subtleties, to later assaults. Nine
women were raped, one made pregnant (she had an abortion) and still no justice
resulted.
The most painful part of the research was hearing from the
women how clergy ‘hooked’ them. For some
there was no ‘preamble’. Listen to what some of them said;
He talked about his chastity and purity and
how the cross he carried was so heavy that he needed me to ‘mother him’. (Q25/RC)
He came in and he seemed more excited than
usual, and he scared me, because – he was
unpredictable, – we were in the front room, and he
immediately made a grab for me, and undressed me, and it was like when I said I
felt like a doll, that I just stood there and he treated me like a doll. And he was – he was excited and
out of control… (nine second pause). (4/Ang)
I needed to know sex was beautiful and he
wanted to show me, this was before he raped me. (Q82/Baptist)
He declared undying love. I was the woman he should have married. He
was also aware that he was leaning very heavily on me as his own marriage was
very destructive and he had reached the end of his tether with it. (Q78/Ang)
Yes, to begin with he was worshipping,
adoring, loving, and affirming. He said
he loved me. Later, he resented the fact
I expected to see him. (Q74/RC)
He told me what he was doing and what had
happened as a child was because I had a spirit of lust, and other unclean
spirits that caused it all to happen. He
was, “having to fight these spirits in order to
help free me, but some days he failed!” So I was very confused and full of fear. (Q20/Baptist)
I had a spirit of enticement and that I
needed deliverance, and that I should seek God about that. (26/House Church)
These clergymen focused on the most vulnerable trait of
women, their strategies were deliberate, often planned. If women had been in a
domestic violence situation, the clergyperson would show care, support and
gentleness never before experienced. Often rescuing them from the violence,
even finding accommodation. If the women were child abuse survivors and found
all things sexual a horror or traumatic , clergy often argued they, being
priests, could neither be wrong or bad, or that the sex they offered was ‘Holy’
therefore healing. Some clergy even said; ‘God
asked me to do this’; it’s for your benefit not mine’. Others, so
traumatised by childhood experiences felt the priest truly ‘loved’ them unaware
they were being exploited only for sex. Only years later did they realise they
were duped.
Some clergy sex offenders wanted and demanded ‘payment’ in
kind – sex. One woman in Ireland was pregnant at a time when single women often
had to have their babies adopted. The priest said he’d make her his housekeeper
and she could bring the baby. In return he demanded sex and brought her to a
gynecologist for the pill at a time when contraception was illegal. He had
done this before, regularly securing ‘housekeepers’ from an adoption agency in
Dublin.
Other clergy used women’s ignorance of sex , inexperience as
excuse to ‘teach’ how sex worked, such as for the nun going to confession who
was asked about masturbation and slowing drawn into alleged ‘loving sexual
activity’, admonished to not reject it – at least with him – for her benefit.
This is part of what she told me:
We were talking … he sort of looked
around, dropped his trousers and gave me an illustrated lesson on the male
genitalia… I have the visual image… I’m not sure whether
it was at that time or whether it was at other times when he asked me to hold
his penis. It was always a suggestion – well, “this is not for me,
it is for your benefit and growth” [He would say] “I think, I am sure
you would like to hold my penis now”. There were things
being said like “you’re going to
experience a lot of sexual arousal but that’ll be good for you
in the long run”, and of course I am so completely in control
that I don’t feel anything” ...I am beginning
to feel angry now. [He said] “You will feel so aroused that you will want
to be raped.” He
used to say that, he was always in control; a kind of a sense of I’m doing all of this
for your benefit.
(73/RC)
MK: And what did he say? (about masturbation)
73/RC: I’m…stopping here. I mean I can find myself stopping. [He said]
“The right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and cast it from you.”
MK: If
it was a sin for you to masturbate – then why is it OK for you to hold his
penis?
73/RC: The logic of that never occurred to
me. I never actually saw the incongruity
of it placed side-by-side before, even.
I do see it now.
Women were made dependent on the clergyperson, were told they
needed him, would not cope without him, would fall apart if he wasn’t around or
he’d fall apart. This frightened them, so they stayed.
In the research I identified distinct behaviours or rationalisations
by the clergy abusers to groom, entrap, and abuse women. These were; blaming
women; use of coercion, threats and fear; claiming male clerical privilege; the
good deeds: rescue and gratitude causing dependency; emotional manipulations;
isolation and forced secrecy; theological justifications; romantic deceptions
and therapeutic deceptions. These men had a full armory to trap women.
Women dealt with their abuse in different ways. Some went
into dissociative states whilst sex was happening
It felt like I was in a ‘glass bottle’ looking at people
but not really with them. I panicked
when I thought about it. So I learned
not to. (Q22/RC)
[I] went into a world of my own which meant
in my head it wasn’t happening. (Q82/Baptist)
In the sense that it was never mentioned and
I immediately went into a profound withdrawal (as when a child) until I could “block it out” – isolate it. (Q33/RC)
Others tolerated sex because they desperately needed the
money, home, clothes for children the clergy was offering, others did not know
what to do and were very fearful.
How did they ‘get out’? Many compared their situation with
other abusive scenarios thus recognising abuse and
reflecting on their own situation; many realised they were NOT either in a relationship, or
special by experiencing violence, threats, secrecy and finding they were not the only woman the clergy person was having sex with.
(Most clergy perpetrators of abuse of women have multiple victims – it is rarely a once off sexually abusive act.) They reflected on clergy behaviour towards them, often through counselling.
Most were severely harmed
I will never be normal. (4/Ang)
[I am] Severely damaged.
(6/House Church) (73/RC)
It was a pivotal point
of my degeneration as I call it, or disintegration. (9/RC)
I have been utterly
shattered. (83/RC)
It’s blighted my life
spiritually, mentally and physically. (6/House
Church)
The past overwhelms me. (70/RC)
The toll on woman of clergy sexual exploitation is not just through
betrayal, physical harm, emotional harm or rejection. It eats at the core of
trust, spirituality, and the notion of a just Church, and a loving God. Most had left their Church.
Most victims still face shame, for they have not yet been
heard or believed in our Churches. Women are still blamed. We are Eve, enticing
clergymen, it’s our ‘fault’ – still.
Living with the cross of shame or guilt for a lifetime is
certainly not what we should, as Christians, allow, accept or want.
Many victims, leave Church because the way they were treated
when they reported was ‘not of God’ and that destroyed all faith. Many leave
Church whilst their very abuser is allowed remain in ministry with nothing more
than a slap on the wrist.
In my case, I later fought back. My abuser went to America.
When strong enough I found him, reported him and the Anglican Church paid for
me to go to America to confront him with a therapist present. I took back my power, I told him how I felt.
The therapist (Male), a specialist in professional abuse of woman told me; ‘Margaret, he was a predator’.
I knew he was not safe; he was eventually removed from
ministry. The Anglican Church paid compensation and arranged that I could write
a Service of ‘Remembrance & Proclamation’ for my healing to which many
women and men, abused by clergy as adults attended. For it was not only for me,
it was for us all. The Church supplied St Giles in London and an Archdeacon to
facilitate OUR service.
The Archdeacon read out a letter;
In the Church,
where we witness God’s love for humankind and celebrate the teaching of Jesus
to love our neighbours as ourselves, abusive relationships are wholly
wrong.
We are gathered
together here at St Giles for those who have suffered sexual exploitation,
abuse and rape from the very people they should have been able to rely on for
spiritual guidance and support. Whilst we can be under no illusions that
today will ease the suffering of those present, I hope we can at
least serve to recognise the ordeal that Dr Margaret Kennedy and others have
endured.
I first met Margaret in February this year, and I was shocked to learn about the sexual assaults she had suffered. Whilst the events may have happened twenty-eight years ago, Margaret’s traumatic retelling of her experiences demonstrated the extent to which they are still remembered in her life even today. What happened to Margaret is indefensible and contrary to what the Church and Christian faith stand for.
Much of Margaret’s adult life has been spent in seeking acknowledgment and justice for what happened to her. Fighting for that recognition will, I am sure, have added an additional layer of pain and suffering. I hope that now the Church has been able to provide some support and assistance, although clearly that can never remove the feelings nor replace the energy she has spent in addressing these issues.
In recent years the Church has taken steps to root out the evil
of sexual abuse of children by clergy and to ensure swift and decisive action
is taken to deal with those members of the Clergy who have abused children.
However, we still have some way to go in tackling the sexual exploitation of
adults by clergy by implementing the good practice recommended in the House of
Bishops’ Promoting a safe church: Policy for safeguarding adults in the
Church of England. This will ensure that pastoral care is characterised by
a clear policy, based on Christian ethical standards, and establishing
appropriate boundaries and professionalism and procedures for dealing,
without delay, with allegations of mistreatment, spiritual, physical, emotional
financial and sexual, abuse, harassment and bullying.
Margaret deserves great credit for the work she has done to support those who have suffered similarly traumatic experiences to herself. The organisation she founded in 1993 - MACSAS- has worked tirelessly to provide information and guidance, a helpline, conferences, website, educational material to victims of clergy sexual abuse, whether they have been abused as children or as adults, and for both those who have remained within their Christian communities and for those who have left.
I pray that Margaret’s own faith will grow and that this service will go some way to acknowledge the truth of her experience and the courage of her journey for justice.
26 November 2011.
This letter was a wonderful affirmation and I welcomed it. It
was indeed unique. (No similar service has ever been held since) I brought all
the pain before God, before my fellow sisters in suffering….We supported each
other. We knew it was NOT our fault. We did nothing wrong.
It was a ‘closure’ but it was not erasure. I live with what
he did; but it was not my fault. I fully know that now.
Its time our Christian Churches say this and remove Clergy
and religious leaders, similar to Jean Vanier, who sexually assault, exploit, abuse, rape and
harm women from ministry. The time is now.
To other victims/survivors I hope you’ll find strength to
come forward. It was NOT your fault, you did nothing wrong, do not let guilt
and shame consume you.
MACSAS – Minister & Clergy Sexual Abuse Survivors’ is
ready to help.
I’ll end with two very powerful quotes:
History,
despite its wrenching pain
Cannot
be unlived
But
if faced with courage
Need
not be lived again
Maya
Angelou
I
do not want the peace that passeth understanding
I
want the understanding that bringeth peace
Helen
Keller
Dr Margaret Kennedy’s PhD thesis can be obtained through the
British Library, UK: ‘The Well from which we drink is poisoned; Clergy Sexual
Exploitation of Adult Women’ - 2009
UK ONLY: MACSAS contact details:
Free
Helpline: 0808
801 0340
From anywhere in the world I'm at the end of an email:
Dr Margaret Kennedy: magsken57@gmail.com
