Young J L, Griffith E E
Whiting Forensic Institute, Middletown, CT 06457, USA.
Bull Am Acad Psychiatry Law. 1995;23(3):421-32.
Growing concern about sexual abuse covers many kinds of perpetrators. Therapist and clergy abusers have been increasingly targeted, yet clergy counselors who sexually abuse their clients have so far largely escaped effective sanctions from the courts. This article identifies the justifications given by these courts, identifying and evaluating their supporting arguments. This analysis suggests that the courts have decided not to enter this public policy fray, or to do so with considerable caution because of their fundamental respect for the freedom of religion. It is a choice especially problematic in regard to pastoral counselors practicing outside the discipline of either a central church authority or a professional counseling organization. The authors suggest potential legal bases for reaching sexually abusive clergy counselors without encroaching on religious freedom. They urge the churches to meet their responsibility and assume a more active stance toward helping to resolve this problem. The question of whether society does in fact value religious freedom above protection of clients sexually abused by clergy counselors remains an important policy issue.
对性虐待问题日益增长的关注涵盖了多种犯罪者。治疗师和神职人员施虐者越来越成为目标，但对客户进行性虐待的神职人员顾问迄今为止在很大程度上逃脱了法院的有效制裁。本文确定了这些法院给出的理由，并对其支持论点进行识别和评估。该分析表明，法院决定不介入这一公共政策争论，或者由于对宗教自由的根本尊重而相当谨慎地介入。对于在中央教会权威机构或专业咨询组织的规范之外执业的牧师顾问而言，这一选择尤其成问题。作者提出了在不侵犯宗教自由的情况下追究性虐待神职人员顾问责任的潜在法律依据。他们敦促教会履行其责任，并在帮助解决这一问题上采取更积极的立场。社会事实上是否将宗教自由置于保护受神职人员顾问性虐待的客户之上这一问题仍然是一个重要的政策问题。
