Priests claim sexual abuse charges violate their religious freedom
Two Minnesota priests accused of sexually abusing women they were counseling are arguing that laws banning sexual relationships in positions of power violate their religious freedom. Their lawyer is claiming, in effect, that being a priest should exempt them from rules that apply to everyone else in similar roles.
On what grounds? On the grounds that punishing these men amounts to a violation of their religious freedom. Engh writes in one case that the law “expressly makes Father Herzing guilty of crime because of his status as a priest” and that, because he’s a priest, “it creates an irrebuttable presumption that complainant did not consent and it deprives Father Herzing of a jury trial on that issue.”
In other words, if he was just a random dude named Joe, he would not be charged with this particular crime, but because he’s a priest, he’s in trouble. And what right does the state have to decide what the appropriate boundary is between priest and parishioner?
It’s hard to accept that idea, though, because none of this is about religious oppression. It’s just the nature of a power dynamic. The state isn’t going after these priests because they’re religious; they’re going after them because their job gives them authority over other people.
They are not being charged for being priests. They are being charged for abusing the power that comes with it.
Gee, psychiatrists certainly don't get sanctioned for having sex with their patients, or teachers for having sex with their (even over 18) students, or bosses for having sex with the people whose performance reviews they control. Oh, wait, they all do.