Why "Consensual" Affairs with Clergy Are Actually Abuse

If what happened to you has been called an "affair" — by the clergy member, by your church, by your family, or even by yourself — this article is for you.

The word "affair" carries a specific meaning. It implies two adults who made a mutual choice. Two equals who entered into something together. It places responsibility on both parties equally.

But when one person holds spiritual authority over the other, that equality does not exist. And without equality, the word "affair" is the wrong word.

The Problem with the Word "Affair"

Language shapes how we understand our experiences. When an experience is labelled an "affair," it implies:

• Both people had equal power to say yes or no
• Both people bear equal responsibility for what happened
• The relationship, however wrong, was a mutual choice

None of these things are true when one person is a clergy member and the other is a congregant, counsellee, or person under their spiritual care.

Calling it an "affair" is not just inaccurate. It is harmful — because it places blame on the survivor and removes accountability from the person who held power.

Why Power Makes Consent Impossible

Consent requires that both people have genuine freedom to say yes or no — without fear of consequences, without confusion about what is appropriate, and without one person holding authority over the other's spiritual life.

When a clergy member holds authority over you, they hold:

When someone holds that much authority over your spiritual and emotional life, saying "no" to them is not a simple act. It can feel like saying no to God. It can feel like risking your community, your faith, and your sense of self. That is not a context in which genuine consent is possible.

What the Law Recognises

Many states in the United States have recognised this reality in law. Several states — including Minnesota, California, Wisconsin, Texas, and Iowa — have statutes that specifically address sexual contact between clergy and congregants, recognising that the power imbalance makes genuine consent impossible.

These laws exist because lawmakers, advocates, and survivors have understood something important: the pastoral relationship creates a fiduciary duty — an obligation to act in the best interest of the person in your care. Sexual contact violates that duty, regardless of whether the congregant appeared to consent.

This legal recognition does not mean every state sees it this way, and it does not mean you have to pursue legal action. But it does mean: you are not alone in questioning whether "consent" was truly possible in this context.

Why Survivors Often Use the Word "Affair" Themselves

Many survivors — including those who later come to understand what happened as abuse — initially describe the experience as an "affair." This is not a failure of understanding. It is a natural response to several things:

If you have used the word "affair" to describe your experience, that does not mean you were wrong, naive, or complicit. It means you were working with the language and framework available to you at the time.

You Get to Decide What to Call It

This article is not here to tell you what to call your experience. That is your decision, and it may change over time. Many survivors move through different frameworks — from "affair" to "inappropriate relationship" to "abuse" — as they learn more and process what happened.

What this article offers is a framework: when one person holds spiritual authority over another, the conditions for genuine consent do not exist. That is not an opinion. It is a structural reality that many legal systems, ethics boards, and trauma researchers have recognised.

Whatever you call it, what happened to you was not your fault. And you deserve support, clarity, and the freedom to understand your experience on your own terms.