Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
Citation: Leimgruber, Ute. 2022.
Vulnerance of Pastoral Care. Religions
13: 256. https://doi.org/10.3390/
rel13030256
Academic Editor: John Jillions
Received: 7 February 2022
Accepted: 15 March 2022
Published: 17 March 2022
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.
Copyright: © 2022 by the author.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
religions
Article
Vulnerance of Pastoral Care
Ute Leimgruber
Faculty of Catholic Theology, University of Regensburg, 93040 Regensburg, Germany; ute.leimgruber@ur.de
Abstract:
Disproving assumptions to the contrary, this article clearly shows how and why adults
can become victims of abuse in church contexts. It does this by focusing on the pastoral care context
and the interdependent potential risk factors lying within. As previous studies suggest, this context
is especially susceptible to perpetrating abuse. Approximately three-quarters of all cases of abuse
occur or begin in the context of pastoral care or spiritual counseling. Often, theories of pastoral
care do not address this danger and tend to idealize the practice of pastoral care. In contrast, it is
necessary to recognize a specific power to victimize due to the theological and structural power
differential in pastoral relationships. Therefore, this article proposes a complex understanding of
“vulnerability” and “vulnerance” that accounts for the victimization potential inherent in all pastoral
care settings and advocates a theory of pastoral care that is not only concerned with the individual
but also incorporates reflections on structural and systemic power dynamics.
Keywords:
sexual and spiritual violence; abuse of adults; clergy abuse; violence against women in
church; pastoral care; vulnerability; vulnerance; professional sexual misconduct (PSM)
1. Introduction
According to the German MHG study
1
on the sexual abuse of minors “three quarters
of all victims were in a clerical or a pastoral relationship with the accused” (Dreßing 2018,
p. 7). If we broaden our view to first-person documents and the accounts from victims
who are adults, this observation is confirmed: when clergy commit sexual abuse (initiation,
grooming strategies, and concrete acts), it takes place within the context of pastoral care
or pastoral counseling (see, e.g., Haslbeck et al. 2020;Fortune and Poling [1994] 2004;
Byrne 2010)
. Sexual abuse and spiritual abuse go hand in hand—especially in the context
of pastoral relationships. The “Meffan” report from the Boston Diocese states: “There are
three allegations. They were all young women. The incidents began in the early or late
high school years. The allegations include lovemaking, inviting her to undress, inviting
her to his bedroom; touching and fondling, everything short of intercourse; bride of Christ,
imagine Christ touching, kissing, having intercourse with her, hugging him around waist
and kissing of genitals. All under guise of spiritual counseling” (Review Board of the
Archdiocese of Boston 1993). To a large extent, the context of pastoral care is a place in
which priests encounter adults and can involve them in the dynamics of abuse. This is
where perpetrators and victims meet, where relationships of trust are established and where
they are often later violated. “Often, it is a recurring pattern of misuse of the ministerial
role” (Fortune and Poling [1994] 2004, p. 5). Thus, with respect to adult victims, it is
particularly important to take a closer look at the specific aspects of pastoral relationships
and the theories of pastoral care and how these situations can enable abuse to occur.
The first part of the article discusses a common understanding of pastoral care in
Germany and casts doubt on whether the issue of abuse is sufficiently considered by
this understanding. I then it shows why pastoral care theories remain deficient if they
do not explicitly discuss the structural power to harm that lies within all pastoral care
contexts. In the following section, to grasp these interdependent abuse potentials, the
article introduces the term “vulnerance” as a readiness to use violence in connection with
“vulnerabilities”. Finally, consequences for pastoral care are drawn. It must be seen more
Religions 2022,13, 256. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel13030256 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/religions
Religions 2022,13, 256 2 of 14
clearly that pastoral care in itself harbors the danger of harming help-seeking people. In
the future, the awareness of “vulnerance” in pastoral care must play a central role in the
theological-scholarly discourses, in the practical training of pastoral care workers, and also
in the evaluation and processing of cases of abuse.
2. Theories of Pastoral Care in Relation to Sexual Abuse
The vast majority of all cases of abuse in the Church take place in the setting of
pastoral care or spiritual counselling (see Dreßing 2018, p. 7). This is a major reason why
it is important to look not only at the perpetrators and the victims, but specifically at the
setting of pastoral care.
2.1. Focus on Individual Actors
For centuries the theories of pastoral care were mainly focused on priests as individu-
als, on the Catholic side often within the framework of a universally conceived provision
of pastoral care and the sacraments (see Hoelzl 2017;Lohausen 2018). This centering on
the clergy and universalizing of pastoral care were overturned in the 20th century when
theories of pastoral care were founded upon contemporary social sciences. Today, pastoral
care is oriented towards the person in need and is intended to offer help to people in crises
of faith and life. Additionally, it is clear to all current concepts that not only theological
considerations, but also sociological and psychological contexts as well as system theories
must be taken into account (see Karle 2020, p. 403). From a historical perspective, this
is a progression in the humanization of pastoral care that can hardly be overestimated.
In contrast, little has changed in the focus on the individual. The practical theological
theories of pastoral care still focus in broad ecumenical agreement on the individuals
involved; pastoral care is essentially, according to one of the handbooks on the subject,
“person-centered” (Burbach 2018). Pastoral care is “encounter, interaction, designed time”
(Klessmann 2008, p. 15). It is about people accompanying people on the way to a more
meaningful life. The guiding perspective is focused on individuals. Authoritative for the
theology of pastoral care within German-speaking Roman Catholicism is the foundational
work by Doris Nauer. According to Nauer, pastoral care is “a comprehensive care for the
soul of a human being” (Nauer 2014, p. 322). Within her concept of multidimensional
pastoral care, she describes a complex competence profile for the pastor (Nauer 2014, p. 316)
extended by a small-scale profile of their pastoral role. A pastor has to be many things,
including for example a spiritual role model, a representative of the church, a mystagogue
who brings people deeper into the faith, a comforter, blesser, dispenser of the sacraments,
an expert in meditation, a healer, crisis expert, liberator, helper, an expert in solidarity, and
much more (Nauer 2014, p. 317). Here, a rather clear positioning of the people involved
is described: one person is in crisis, the other is the expert in crises situations; one needs
comfort, the other gives comfort; one needs help, the other provides help, and so on. One
could also say that on one side there is the needy, hurt, or vulnerable person, and on the
other side there is the helpful, strong, individual in a professional position to provide
pastoral care.
2.2. Ideals of Pastoral Care
We see that in most present publications an ideal of pastoral care is outlined as
“attentive participation in the lives” (Karle 2020, p. 405) of others, as “interested attention
and accompaniment” (Karle 2020, p. 405), being “close to people, tradition-oriented, and
(...) at the cutting edge” (Nauer 2014, p. 328). Pastoral care is “the mother tongue of the
church” (Bosse-Huber 2005, p. 11) and as “simple, elementary, approachable, and often
associated with loving gestures, touches, and a warm tone of voice” (Morgenthaler 2009,
p. 297; with reference to Bosse-Huber 2005). From the theological ideals of pastoral care
and sacraments, reference is made to a corresponding, almost romanticized practice (see,
i.e., Schneider and Patenge 2004). If one wishes to illustrate or depict pastoral care, it is
almost always symbolized by touching. For example: one person puts an arm around the
Religions 2022,13, 256 3 of 14
shoulder of another, one hand is enclosed within another’s two hands—always people
are physically close to each other. According to Doris Nauer “credible pastoral care aims
to enable those who give pastoral care to think and/or say confidently and proudly, ‘It is
something precious to be called to pastoral care’” (Nauer 2014, p. 322).
3. The Power to Victimize in Pastoral Care
Despite this ideal, practice is often different. Many adults, especially women, are
victimized in pastoral care contexts by their pastors who have a spiritual responsibility for
them. Already in 1984, a study provided “some data: 12.67% of clergy surveyed reported
that they had had sexual intercourse with a church member” (Fortune and Poling [1994]
2004, p. 5) In 2008, Diana Garland conducted a national research project in the US on
the abuse of adults by clergy (Garland 2009). Her study found “3.1% of adult women
who attend religious service at least once a month have been the victims of clergy sex-
ual misconduct since turning 18” (Garland 2009). Additionally, the US John Jay Report
(Terry et al. 2011)
reported that there were more incidents of sexual relationships between
clergy and adult women than between a priest and a minor. To date, for the German speak-
ing Catholic context from which I come, no studies or statistics that specifically pertain to
Catholic clergy and adult women have been done—this is an important area for continued
research. However, the stories of many victims correspond to the insights so far. One exam-
ple: a woman with the pseudonym Lindsey reports that the priest supposedly “counseled”
her empathetically over a long period of time before sexual acts occurred: “Never having
had much personal contact with a pastor, I thought this was probably what a pastoral
relationship was like. (...) At first our conversations ended with hugs, then with brief kisses
that eventually turned in light petting that turned into heavy petting. (...) During the next
two years we had occasional sexual intercourse” (Poling 1999, p. 104f). This is only one
example of many stories told about sexual behaviors within pastoral relationships, which
we can observe in all Christian denominations. Consider the Catholic Church: What does it
mean for the theory of pastoral care that at least three quarters of all cases of abuse happen
or are initiated in the context of pastoral counseling or sacramental settings? What happens
when one looks at the subject of pastoral care with the perspective of those who have been
affected and with the sensitivity of the abuse that has occurred?
3.1. The Topic of Abuse in Pastoral Care
In reading the numerous scholarly texts on, and application-oriented depictions of,
pastoral care with the hermeneutics of experiences of violence and abuse, one thing stands
out: the subject of violence and abuse is not prominent in the majority of publications.
Often readers search in vain for the topic of abuse within the context of pastoral care in
textbooks on the subject or on diocesan websites. There are only a few practical-theological
publications in the German-speaking world which deal with the topic of abuse in pastoral
care in its own chapter (e.g., Morgenthaler 2009, p. 372; with reference to Tschan 2005).
Some texts mention the dangers, but only in passing. Abuse and violence do not seem to
be a generally addressed topic, but are mainly discussed in publications that are already
active in this specialized field, such as publications on trauma sensitive pastoral care.
Andreas Stahl, a well-known expert in this field, writes: “Neither are church congregations
or institutions and Christian families abuse-free places, nor are workers in pastoral care
beyond the categories of victim and perpetrator. Pastoral care workers have been victims
or perpetrators of violence in the social sphere and potentially will be so in the present and
in the future” (Stahl 2021, p. 271). Barbara Haslbeck and Erika Kerstner, who have already
done a lot of research on the topic of trauma and abuse, put the matter succinctly: “Pastoral
counselings are not a power-free space” (Haslbeck and Kerstner 2016, p. 79). On the other
hand, many books with a specific view on abuse lack an analytical view of pastoral care,
even if the system as a whole is considered (e.g., Keenan 2013). In other pastoral theology
books, the question of power plays a role, albeit a minor one. Doris Nauer points to a
position of authority and power that arises in pastoral care: pastors and especially clergy
Religions 2022,13, 256 4 of 14
have, according to Nauer, an “authority and fullness of power” in pastoral care in several
respects (Nauer 2014, p. 415), and they can and must behave accordingly and learn to deal
with it so as not to harm anyone. In evangelical churches, the issue has been analyzed
before. Marie M. Fortune and James N. Poling write: “The role of minister/counselor
carries with it authority and power and the attendant responsibility to use this power
to benefit the people who call upon the minister/counselor for service.” (Fortune and
Poling [1994] 2004, p. 7).
Although this provides constructive direction, it simultaneously may fall short. For
in doing so, it could suggest the idea that one can act in pastoral care—if one would only
approach it reflectively enough—without assuming a dangerous position of authority and
power; the responsibility for this seems to lie with the individual. One could also say that
this is a consequence of the fact the theory of pastoral care focuses primarily on the personal
competencies of the individual pastoral care workers. According to Nauer, pastoral care-
givers need, among other things, relational competence, because “destructive relationship
building (...) [can] in extreme cases (...) lead to sexual abuse“ (Nauer 2014, p. 298). Unlike
Fortune and Poling, in many European theology publications the position of authority and
power of pastoral caregivers is often understood in a negative and damaging way (e.g.,
Bieler 2017;Burbach 2018;Nauer 2014). Canon law also points in this direction, through its
provision that clergy and other church people may “violate the sixth commandment by
abusing authority” (c. 1395 § 3 CIC).
3.2. Inevitable Structural Power Differential
Power in pastoral relationships may be interpreted as something that can or should be
avoided (on the complex contexts around power cf. Anter 2012;Laverack 2019). However,
again, this may be a misleading reading. For the asymmetries of power are inscribed in
pastoral relationships before any personal action occurs: formally, due to the professional
setting between the participants, and materially, because of the fact that already in the
common term, which goes back to Gregory the Great, cura et regimen animarum contains
the concept of ‘leadership’ or ‘rule’ and thus power differential, authority, and not least a
capacity to injure, are always present. In other words, pastoral care does not work without
an asymmetry of power and authority. The pastor cannot avoid this power differential,
nor does it per se lead to abuse. However, it may lead to abuse if it is either denied, made
taboo, or exploited for the pastoral caregiver’s own desire for power or pleasure.
The statement in almost all manuals and textbooks, that pastoral care ideally proceeds
in a linear way and accompanies people on their path in a progressively healing manner,
that “pastoral care [takes place] with people on equal footing” (Nauer 2014, p. 181), is
anthropologically, ethically, and historically welcome, and yet from a structural perspective
it is somewhat naïve. For such an idealized and strictly person-centered understanding of
pastoral care is in danger of overtaxing those involved and becoming undercomplex with
respect to relationships involving subtle dynamics of power and underlying patterns of
dependency. Every pastoral caregiver has the power to harm others within pastoral care
relationships. It is a complex relationship in which pastoral caregivers should know how to
act professionally and justifiably, as parts of their professional activity. The asymmetries lie
on several levels and cannot be exclusively related back to the respective persons, because
every pastoral care relationship contains structural power asymmetries that should be
openly reflected.
3.3. Structural Power to Harm, Using Confession as an Example
I would like to illustrate this with the example of the sacrament of confession (see Karl
and Weber 2021). Ulrich Engel writes: “in the theological justification of the sacrament
of confession as well as in the associated pastoral practices, possible abuse of power is
structurally or systematically inherent” (Engel 2021, p. 95). He points out that because of
these potentials for abuse, “a critical analysis of the system-immanent dependency relation-
ships and a systematic-theological reassessment of the institute of confession [is] needed.
Religions 2022,13, 256 5 of 14
Thus, it is absolutely necessary that the structural dangers inherent in the sacrament be
honestly named” (Engel 2021, p. 126). It is important to note that the manifold experiences
of abuse cannot simply be explained by the misdeeds of individuals, neither is “clergy
sexual abuse (...) just an issue of confused sexuality” (Fortune and Poling [1994] 2004, p. 39).
Sexual abuse in church is always associated with forms of structural violence (Galtung 1988;
Hallay-Witte 2020) and pastoral relationships exhibit structural dangers. These include
theological concepts such as the “sacra potestas” as the priest’s authority to absolve, or
asymmetries as expressed in language games such as “confessor father” and “confessing
child/penitent” or “shepherd” and “flock” (Engel 2021, p. 129; cf. Werner 2019, p. 166f.).
Male priests are still the gatekeepers of these sacramental resources. From an evangelical
church context James N. Poling asks: “What situations are more dangerous for women than
pastoral counseling, pastoral care, spiritual direction, and ministry supervision?” (Fortune
and Poling [1994] 2004, p. 58).
Another structural aspect with an inherent high power asymmetry lies in the concrete
place of a confessional or a conversation room, which may become secret, unobserved
and inaccessible crime scenes. “Locations as power factors [are] important because they
make it possible to take hold of people and enable disciplinary subjugations” (Sander 2021,
p. 120). Hans-Joachim Sander therefore warns against a “thoughtless naiveté” in dealing
with the scenes of sexual abuse, such as confession rooms or sacristies (Sander 2021, p.
120f.). Here, the perpetrators are the “lords of the house,” here they are in charge, the
place is not suspected of becoming the site of a crime due to its sacred function and to the
“presumption of security” inherent in the overall setting. The abuse is a kind of “home field
advantage” for many perpetrators. This phenomenon is also described by the victims: “The
actions of a priest were not questioned, so he could get away with anything”, so Cornelia
Berra, who had been abused by a pastor for years (pseudonym; in: Haslbeck et al. 2020,
p. 51). Under these circumstances, it is clear that a concrete, often intimate conversational
situation between two (professionally, ministerially, theologically, psychologically, etc.)
unequal persons can never generate a relationship “on an equal footing”. These obvious
power differentials prevent true and free consent.
The complex and intertwined asymmetries, the mutual interdependencies between
psychological dynamics, “theological constructs, ecclesial practices, and systemic logics”
(Sautermeister 2021, p. 73) are structural dangers. These are present in other pastoral
activities, analogous to confession, such as retreats, one-on-one meetings, counseling
sessions, etc.
4. Vulnerance
Thus, there is an inescapable, structural danger within pastoral care which, however,
has hardly been discussed in the theories of pastoral care or within the research on abuse.
When we talk about abuse in pastoral care, we have to include the structural as well as
the individual active and passive components of injuring and being injured. In order
to gain a better grasp of these components in the following, a term introduced into the
theological discourse on vulnerability by Hildegund Keul will be helpful: “Vulneranz”.
While “vulnerability” means a possible injury that may or may not happen and that can
possibly be averted, “vulnerance” means the special readiness to use violence in connection
with vulnerabilities (Keul 2020a,2020b,2021a); see www.vulnerabilitätsdiskurs.de; accessed
on 15 March 2022). The term “vulnerance” is a neologism in German and actually comes
from the field of political science (see Münkler and Wassermann 2012, p. 77). Following
Hildegund Keul, I propose using the English translation “vulnerance” (Keul 2021b). This
needs to be discussed, especially regarding sexual and spiritual abuse within settings of
pastoral care, in relation to a reflected concept of vulnerability.
4.1. Vulnerance and Vulnerability
One reason structural dangers have not been accounted for within the research on
abuse to date could be due to an understanding of vulnerability and abuse that focuses
Religions 2022,13, 256 6 of 14
on the victims and ignores other factors, such as the vulnerance of the situation. The
concept of “vulnerability” has been the defining factor characterizing potential victims;
and as such it plays an important role in processing and preventing abuse. Worldwide and
in various Christian denominations, concepts of protection and prevention measures in
cases of sexual abuse in the church refer to “children and vulnerable adults”, for example
in Australia (Anglican Communion Office 2017), Ireland (
Cumberlege Commission 2007)
,
and Germany (Rahmenordnung–Prävention 2019). The Vatican guidelines currently in
force also explicitly mention “vulnerable persons”, regardless of age, as potential victims
of sexual abuse and within the scope of the relevant norms (Supreme Pontiff Francis 2019,
cf. Vos Estis Lux Mundi Art. 1 §1 a; § 2 b). The church’s regulations clarify that certain
people are vulnerable because of their age and therefore in need of protection, so that
any sexual contact with them is prohibited. It is true that minors need special protection
because of their vulnerability. Children and adolescents are more vulnerable, that is why
they are always and everywhere covered by regulations, simply on account of their age.
Accordingly, prevention often starts with the potential victims, for example, by attempting
to make them strong and resistant to attempted abuse.
For adult victims, however, the situation is somewhat different. The central category
under which adults are placed as victims is that of “vulnerability”. Adults must be “in need
of protection and assistance” to fall within the legally described category of abuse (e.g.,
Ordnung 2019). However, what is meant by being “in need of protection and assistance” is
not uniformly regulated (Heyder and Leimgruber 2020, pp. 118–21).
In the case of minors, it is clear they are vulnerable and therefore need to be protected;
in the case of adults, however, there are only a few cases in which a pre-existing “need
for protection”/“vulnerability” can be established without any problems, for example, in
the case of an intellectual disability. Often it is complicated, for example, when adults
are traumatized by previous experiences of abuse. We know of many cases in which
perpetrators integrate this previous trauma of the victim within their actions and exploit it
for their own advantage or pleasure: “
. . .
actually, what happened was that he used the
first trauma by my brother like a ‘nose ring’ by which he dragged me behind him,” as Edith
Schwarzländer describes (pseudonym, in Haslbeck et al. 2020, p. 171). Another affected
woman with the pseudonym Et Al writes retrospectively about how a priest exploited
her psychological instability during pastoral care: “Following my father’s death I was
confused, and I turned to Patrick for counsel. Looking back, I see that that’s when he began
to exploit my vulnerability” (Poling 1999, p. 25). However, should church proceedings
be initiated, this specific vulnerability and “need for protection” according to the sense of
the regulations for adults can hardly be proven. So, what about the cases where adults,
who do not clearly fall under the “need for protection and assistance” provision narrowly
defined in the regulations at the time of the crime, become victims of spiritual and sexual
abuse in the Church (see Haslbeck et al. 2020)? According to the current state of the church
regulations, they are not considered vulnerable de lege, thus they are not covered by the
regulations. What happened to them would not be ‘abuse’ de lege. It therefore falls short of
the mark since the corresponding regulations and pronouncements usually focus on the
vulnerability of victims and mention adults in the same breath as children and adolescents
as “vulnerable adults”.
A key is to look at the contexts in which the abuse occurred and a correlated under-
standing of the categories of “vulnerability” and “vulnerance”. As stated earlier, vulnerabil-
ity as the possible injury that may or may not happen expresses a more passive component.
It refers to the vulnerability of individuals, groups, or systems. “Vulnerance” refers to the
active ability to wound. Vulnerance concerns the personal-existential (confessor, pastor),
but also the institutional, systemic level (church, institution, religious community, family”
(Karl 2021, p. 172). Vulnerability and vulnerance are not mutually exclusive polarities but
are in a complex and dynamic interdependent relationship.
The German MHG study reveals that the vulnerability of those affected is met to
a frightening degree by the perpetrators’ enormous power to inflict injury. It mentions,
Religions 2022,13, 256 7 of 14
for instance, forms of clericalism in a closed, perpetrator-friendly system as dangerous
factors (cf. Dreßing 2018). Furthermore, the study notes that a pastoral situation which
favors perpetrators is one with “maximum authority and power” with simultaneously
“minimal external control (Dreßing 2018, p. 265). It is, therefore, necessary to broaden
the view beyond those individuals involved to include the contexts in which the acts
occur. Recent debates increasingly point to the ambiguous situation of pastoral caregivers,
who exhibit vulnerance and vulnerability in equal measure: “As a pastor (...) one is not
per se harmless and as a pastor (...) one is also not invulnerable” (Sautermeister 2021,
p. 92). Nor is it simply the case that the individuals being counseled in pastoral care are
generally particularly vulnerable, always weak and “quickly become victims of violence”
(Keul 2021a, p. 62): vulnerability is far more complex and can by no means be attributed
unilaterally to one of the individuals involved. It becomes clear relatively quickly that
the predominant juxtaposition in pastoral care of the vulnerable and needy person being
counseled and the reliable, strong pastoral caregiver falls short, as does the focus in the
regulations for prevention and regulations related to abuse on the vulnerability of the
victims. In both instances, the thinking is too categorical and thus not appropriate to
the complexity. As Hildegund Keul notes, the “opposition of vulnerability, weakness,
insecurity, passivity on the one hand and security, reliability, resilience, strength on the
other hand” (Keul 2021a, p. 64) should be overcome. The ability to be harmed and the
ability to harm, vulnerability and vulnerance are not only complex in individual terms, but
also in situational-systemic terms.
4.2. A Concept of Vulnerability in a Broader Sense
Here, among others, Judith Butler’s reflections develop this further. Butler, too, does
not think of vulnerability and agency as opposites, but brings them together: “We are
never simply vulnerable, but always vulnerable to a situation (...) a social structure, some-
thing upon which we rely and in relation to which we are exposed. (...) To be dependent
implies vulnerability. (...) If that is so, we are not talking here about my vulnerability or
yours, but rather a feature of the relation that binds us to one another and to the larger
structures and institutions
. . .
” (Butler 2020, p. 46). In her view, vulnerability is not a
subjective state, but should be considered as a “feature of our shared or interdependent
lives”
(Butler 2020, p. 46).
Judith Butler does not understand vulnerability as something
that is added to a person’s constitution after the fact, as if there were a pre-existing un-
touched integrity. Instead, for Butler vulnerability is a basic component of human existence.
Vulnerability is “experienced and lived in a unique and specific way for each person”
(Pistrol 2016, p. 241), but this also means that it is distributed unequally.
This is of particular importance for pastoral care (see, e.g., Seibert 2022, p. 340).
The complexity of vulnerabilities, with their individual and institutional aspects and
interdependencies, must absolutely be included in pastoral care. The vulnerability of the
persons involved is not simply a characteristic that attaches to someone and is independent
of the particular situation in which one finds oneself and the other persons with whom
one is dealing. It is not a quality that can be examined after the fact to qualify the sexual
act as abusive or not. This would make it too easy and disregard the structural potential
for violence.
In the case of pastoral care and its forms of social interaction, the power to harm which
facilitates certain forms of spiritual and sexual violence for pastoral caregivers becomes
evident. The reflections on the structural vulnerability of sacramental pastoral and pastoral
care settings integrate them theologically and institutionally into the discourse and process-
ing of abuse; and it leads to overcoming the simplistic juxtaposition of vulnerable victim on
the one hand and violent (individual) perpetrator on the other (cf.
Hallay-Witte 2020, 77ff.).
Abuse is not a criminal phenomenon within an otherwise per se “good,” healing,
nonviolent pastoral context. However, rather, this context is ambivalent, ambiguous,
infused with power and dependencies, and therefore potentially violent. When we talk
about the systematic background of abuse related crimes, this is a factor that should
Religions 2022,13, 256 8 of 14
not be underestimated. There is no such thing as an “innocent” pastoral situation, no
pastoral relationship takes place “on equal footing”. In other words, it is not simply a
matter of identifying the vulnerability of the persons involved and then “protecting” them
(paternalistically). As necessary as the protection of particularly vulnerable people is—in
terms of pastoral care it is too short-sighted. In my opinion, the mistake lies in separating
the situation from the people involved or in seeing the people involved independently of
the situation, as if it were in a vacuum.
4.3. Subsequent Vulnerabilization
The particular problem becomes clear again when one looks at a specific aspect of
the concept of “vulnerable adults”: that of subsequent vulnerabilization. It is clear that
not all adult victims of abuse within the church were from the outset “vulnerable persons”
in the narrow sense of the church’s regulations when they encountered the perpetrator;
they were not a “person in a state of infirmity, physical or mental deficiency, or deprivation
of personal liberty which, in fact, even occasionally, limits their ability to understand
or to want or otherwise resist the offence” (Supreme Pontiff Francis 2019, Vos Estis Lux
Mundi Art. 1 § 2 b). Often, it is only because of the special relationship with the offender
that they are placed in a heightened vulnerable state, usually in the context of pastoral
relationships. The cynical thing about this is that it is only because of the abuse that they
have been traumatized and psychologically or physically impacted to such an extent that
they eventually—even after the actual crime—fall under the narrow definition of “needing
protection.” This is one of the specific problems of the existing regulations: If victims do
not fall under the narrow bounds of the regulations (“Ordnungen”) as a “person in need of
protection,” their case is not recognized as abuse and the perpetrator is not punished—and
yet the acts are often a traumatic event for the victims resulting in disorders related to
the regulation of stress as well as corresponding long-term consequences (Tschan 2004,
p. 182). This leads to the fact that they do not enter the circumstances of the crime as
“psychologically and physically impaired” and that the crime is therefore not recognized
as abuse, but that they exit as “psychologically and physically impaired” and therefore
qualify as one “in need of protection.” While the act does not meet the required conditions
(“in need of protection and assistance”) under which it would be prosecuted and punished
as abuse, it does produce those conditions. There is another reason why, on the one hand, it
is essential to think through the concept of vulnerability of adult victims and, on the other
hand, to better define pastoral care. In pastoral care relationships, there are complex power
and dependency relationships that need to be considered in both personal and systemic
terms. It is imperative to include this complexity within pastoral care contexts and in
the theory of pastoral care. It pertains to the roles of the participating parties as well as
the power for both individuals and structures to harm (=vulnerance), which is inherent
in all pastoral care relationships. For it is not only particularly vulnerable persons who
can get caught up in the dangerous maelstrom of abusive relationships and therefore in
need of protection, and it is also not only the sexual abuse of these particularly vulnerable
individuals that needs to be punished. Due to the vulnerance of pastoral care relationships,
a boundary must be drawn here prior to the initiation of the (professional) pastoral care
situation, which offers a reliable security for those accompanied by pastoral care.
4.4. Acknowledging Vulnerace in Pastoral Relationships
The recognition of the setting of pastoral care as an independent risk factor can be
found in a text by the German Bishops’ Conference, which was already mentioned above—
it is a text, where one might not expect it at first glance: in the “Ordnung für den Umgang
mit sexuellem Missbrauch Minderjähriger und schutz-oder hilfebedürftiger Erwachsener
durch Kleriker und sonstige Beschäftigte im kirchlichen Dienst” (“Regulation for Dealing
with Sexual Abuse of Minors and Adults in Need of Protection or Assistance by Clergy
and Other Employees in the Church Service” of 18 November 2019). It conceives of the
abuse of the particular vulnerability of individual groups of people, similar to Pope Francis’
Religions 2022,13, 256 9 of 14
aforementioned Apostolic Exhortation “Vos Estis Lux Mundi.” Let us take a closer look at
the German order: In the case of minors, vulnerability is indisputable; in the case of adults,
it is defined separately, namely as a need for protection or assistance in accordance with
the sense of the German Criminal Code (see § 225 Abs. 1 StGB).
The “need for protection or help” is thus a vulnerability covered by criminal law,
but the German order adds to this, with a view to the systemic vulnerance of the setting:
“Furthermore, this includes persons who are subject to a special relationship of power
and/or dependency. Such a special relationship of power and/or dependence may also
exist or arise in the context of pastoral care” (Ordnung 2019, Nr. 3). In other words, the order
mentions—almost in passing—the vulnerance of pastoral care relationships. However, it
seems as if the order stops halfway thereafter and does not draw any consequences from
the statement of vulnerance, because (a) it does not explain what it means by “the special
power and/or dependency relationship,” (b) it does not define when a person is “subject
to” it, (c) because of the “can” formulation, it does not clarify when which criteria give rise
to a “special power and/or dependency relationship” in a pastoral care context (Heyder
and Leimgruber 2020, p. 210). In short, while the order acknowledges systemic vulnerance
in pastoral care, it does not go so far as to formulate it as an unambiguous and legally
effective factor with regard to acts of abuse, but ultimately subordinates it again to the
guiding perspective of individually vulnerable victims (which, incidentally, leads to great
difficulties in the concrete application of the legal order). Following Marie Keenan, we
could diagnose this problem as “organized irresponsibility” (Keenan 2013, p. 154).
5. Consequences for Pastoral Care
Now, what does this mean for a theory and praxis of pastoral care, which is sensitive
to this interdependent and structural potential for violence? Apart from the fact that further
and deeper research is needed, I would like to briefly formulate some consequences (see
Leimgruber 2022).
5.1. Change of Setting
One step for concrete practical actions is to consider to what extent the setting, which
in itself is already imbued with vulnerance, can be changed. Parallel to other contexts,
for example, therapeutic contexts, the following can also apply here: if a situation is en-
dangering, preventive measures must be taken to change the framing conditions of the
situation. This includes, for example, modifying the intimacy and secrecy of inaccessible
potential crime scenes, whose vulnerance is especially evident in two-way conversations
such as confession (Leimgruber 2022). In quite a few communities, for example, architec-
tural modifications have been made to minimize the potential for danger in one-on-one
conversations.
5.2. A Complex Understanding of Vulnerablitiy by All Participants
What is clear is that the “complexity and ambiguity of vulnerability” (Gilson 2021,
p. 103) based on interdependencies should also be discussed in the theory of pastoral care.
“The realities of experiences and discourses of vulnerability are complex. Our concept of
vulnerability should be as well. (...) a simplified use of the concept is a misuse. (...) theories,
that maintain that vulnerability calls for ethical response must also be political, critically
attuned to existing power dynamics and their histories. Such critical analysis, however,
entails at once avowing vulnerability as an ineradicable shared condition and analysing
how it materializes in conditions of inequality, violence, and neglect” (Gilson 2021, p. 104).
In pastoral care, it would be an important step to abstract from the polar balance of
power between strong and weak, between helping and being helped, and to recognize
pastoral care as a space in which vulnerability plays a role as an “indelible common
condition” (Gilson 2021, p. 104) and at the same time is dealt with professionally. Pastoral
care and other forms of counseling or human leadership is basically ambivalent in the
inherent tension between mechanisms of trust, closeness, and distancing (see Seibert 2022,
Religions 2022,13, 256 10 of 14
p. 351). Katharina Karl uses the image of “showing scars” for this: “The image of the pastor
must free itself from the claim of invulnerability. (...) It is liberating (...) to know about
limits and to be able to articulate them. (...) In order to avoid vulnerance, vulnerability
must be taken seriously and must be perceived” (Karl 2021, p. 177). She demands that
one must learn to deal professionally with their own scars and from there come to a new
understanding of authority. Only in this way, she says, is it possible to formulate an
understanding of pastoral care “that responds to basic components that are susceptible to
abuse” (Karl 2021, p. 178).
5.3. Professional Treatment of Experiences of Violence and Trauma
However, it is not only a matter of preventing harm, but also of noticing that people
request pastoral care who have already experienced violence or are traumatized. In light
of the data, pastoral workers have to reckon with the fact that people with experiences of
abuse are present throughout the church—for example in their congregations, the liturgies,
the associations, etc. Frequently, those affected by abuse tell of new injuries including
retraumatization, due to the insensitivity of their pastoral care workers. Thus, there is
an urgent need for a higher demand of competence on the part of pastoral care workers,
including trauma competence and sensitivity to violence. To recognize the differentiations
and—as pastoral caregivers—to integrate them existentially, requires a high degree of
consolidated spirituality and professionalism. This raises the question of the quality of
pastoral care and the qualification of pastoral care workers, also with the aim of ensuring
quality standards (see Tschan 2004, p. 184). Here, there exists a monumental task to
train pastoral care workers, where it is simply not enough to talk about the occurrence
of Professional Sexual Misconduct (PSM) in pastoral care. There needs to be an intensive
and ongoing examination of the vulnerance of pastoral care and the position of chaplains
within the systemic potential for violence. It also requires competencies among chaplains
for dealing with traumatized persons (e.g., Stahl 2021;Kerstner et al. 2016).
5.4. Sexual Abuse in Pastoral Care as Professional Sexual Misconduct (PSM)
Every pastoral care relationship implies that those involved are at risk simply because
of institutional vulnerance. I argue that the setting in which pastoral care takes place should
be recognized as a third player, as a power factor in its own right. This would systematically
embed the responsibility of the acting individuals in the inevitable and always present
asymmetrical pastoral care relationship.
In this sense, a revision of the prevention guidelines and legal provisions is needed. A
renewed revised text must clearly define that a pastoral relationship generally contains an
imbalance of power and that this cannot be avoided or even resolved by the pastor’s behav-
ior, no matter how competent it might be. However, there can and must be a transparent
and responsible way of dealing with it. This would mean that there can be no consensual
sexual contact in the pastoral context àpriori, not even among adults. The concept of a
vulnerability focus in the processing of abuse should be modified. Abuse victims should not
have to prove that they were “in need of protection and help”. Samuel Fernández writes:
“The disciple opens his or her conscience to a master who has an ecclesiastical support
and in ‘the face of sacred power, instinctive resistance gives way’ [s. R. Blàzquez Pérez].
Therefore, vulnerability is not to be seen as a deficiency of the disciple, but a necessary
condition of discipleship, which always implies an asymmetrical relationship. Actually,
the assumption that the victims may have been abused because of their psychological
deficiencies is rejected by scientific research. Hence, adult victims should not be labelled as
‘vulnerable adults.’” Fernández demands, “the responsibility of the Church as guarantor of
the trustworthiness of her representatives” (Fernández 2021, p. 568).
Sexual abuse in pastoral care relationships should fall under the umbrella of Profes-
sional Sexual Misconduct (PSM) (Tschan 2004, p. 181). A sexual relationship is abusive
even if there is no visible violence, and the act appears to be consensual. The testimonials of
many adult victims, especially women, show that they simply did not consent, even if they
Religions 2022,13, 256 11 of 14
did not say “no” out loud, even if it was supposedly nonviolent (see Haslbeck et al. 2020).
Yet, it goes further: within pastoral ministry, professional standards for pastoral care are
needed—for reasons of safety for both parties. This means that sexual relationships within
the context of pastoral care are a violation of the duty of pastoral care which accompanies
professionalism and should be treated as an instance of PSM. Even if an individual who
is being cared for within a pastoral relationship initiates a sexual encounter, the pastoral
professional must set clear boundaries—for PSM in the context of pastoral care, it is irrele-
vant who initiates the sexual encounter (Tschan 2004, p. 181). Pastoral care relationships
are inherently vulnerate, and pastoral care workers as professionally acting, professionally
trained, and professionally supervised agents must have the prerequisites to correctly carry
out the tasks assigned to them. Although it is not possible to elaborate here, it would be
worthwhile to analyze the guidelines of different Christian denominations in different
countries. In the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, professional guidelines were
established as early as 1987. These state, among other things: “Pastors and pastoral coun-
selors are always responsible for emotional, spiritual, and physical protection of persons
who come to them for help or over whom they have any kind of authority. Breach of
this protective relationship is improper and/or unethical” (Fortune 1989, p. 136f.). It is
significant that such rules have not been generally accepted and enforced in the Roman
Catholic Church to this day. Two positive examples: (a) In the US, the National Catholic
Risk Retention Group, Inc. (National Catholic) developed a so called “Virtus Model Code of
Pastoral Conduct for Priests, Deacons, Pastoral Ministers, Administrators, Employees, and
Volunteers (Code of Pastoral Conduct)” (Virtus 2010), which could be adopted by dioceses
if they so choose (see
Byrne 2010, p. 78)
. These “Pastoral Standards” also focus on the care
of adults in certain pastoral situations as follows: “1.4. Pastoral Counselors and Spiritual
Directors must never engage in sexual intimacies with the persons they counsel. This
includes consensual and nonconsensual contact, forced physical contact, and inappropriate
sexual comments. (...) 1.6 Pastoral Counselors and Spiritual Directors assume the full
burden of responsibility for establishing and maintaining clear, appropriate boundaries
in all counseling and counseling-related relationships. 1.7 Physical contact of any kind
(i.e., touching, hugging, holding) between Pastoral Counselors or Spiritual Directors and
the persons they counsel can be misconstrued and should be avoided.” It is noteworthy
that the “Pastoral Standards” do not speak of “vulnerable adults”, but of “parishioners”:
“4.2 Staff and volunteers who provide pastoral counseling or spiritual direction services
must avoid developing inappropriately intimate relationships with minors, other staff, or
parishioners. Staff and volunteers must behave in a professional manner at all times. 4.3 No
clergy, staff, or volunteer may exploit another person for sexual purposes” (Virtus 2010).
(b) One of the few documents from the Roman Catholic Church in Europe that has
clear rules referring to the “self-definition” of pastoral care workers comes from Switzerland
in 2002. The Swiss Bishops’ Conference (Schweizer Bischofskonferenz 2002) points out the
“pastoral dependence” (5) and warns against “unprofessional care” (6). It is clear: “He
[the pastor] alone bears the responsibility for this. (...) Even if the request for a sexual
relationship comes from the other person, this is not a legitimation for entering into such an
encounter (...) because this makes the pastoral task impossible and disregards it” (6). Here,
a pastoral professional ethos is at play with clear consequences, and it does not consider
adults who are affected by abuse exclusively on the basis of vulnerability. “Even in the
case of supposed or expressed consent by the victim [to participate in sexual acts with the
pastor; U. L.], the requirements needed to qualify as sexual exploitation or harassment are
met” (4).
Even if a policy will not solve everything, such clear regulations are needed today for
all areas of pastoral care, in all dioceses worldwide. They would not only bring security
for those involved in contexts of pastoral care, especially adults (Byrne 2010, p. 79), they
would be a legal remedy for victims of abuse, to which they could reliably refer. By making
such changes to their own regulations, church authorities could live up to their oft-stated
assurances that they are doing all they can to resolve abuse and prevent future acts. More
Religions 2022,13, 256 12 of 14
to the point, I would say that they have specific duties as guarantors with respect to those
who are accompanied/counseled. With the German Bishops’ letter “Pastoral Care is the
Heart of the Church”, published in March 2022, a first step has also been taken for Germany
(cf. Sekretariat der Deutschen Bischofskonferenz 2022). It remains to be seen how it will be
implemented in practice and in training of pastoral care workers, both lay and clergy.
6. Conclusions
If vulnerance and vulnerability were taken up as key categories (Karl 2021) in their
complex interrelatedness as relevant in pastoral care, the attitude and role of pastoral care
workers would also be modified. This would also have urgently needed consequences
for the training and continuing education of pastoral workers, especially priests, and the
respective concepts of prevention. Moreover, a comprehensible and verifiable quality of
assurance of pastoral care would be desirable—by the way, a genuine task for bishops.
Vulnerability has to be thought of as an aspect in the larger structure of pastoral relations
and church structures, in which vulnerance is inevitable. The task for praxis in this
context is how people and situations that are marked by vulnerability and vulnerance are
professionally related in a pastoral manner.
In theological discourse as well as in practical pastoral fields, reflection on the power
dynamics and the potential for abuse in pastoral care settings is needed, both in formal
and material terms. It is an institutional, ecclesial, and theologically relevant phenomenon
(see Wirth et al. 2022). Pastoral care is the care for human and creaturely life; it realizes
the foundational pastoral mission of the church to be with and alongside people, under
the condition of strengthening, comforting, liberating, and healing. Many of the people to
whom the worst happened in the context of pastoral care later experienced offers of pastoral
care as places of healing and reconciliation. The difference was that the persons affected
experienced God as a liberating and healing resource, the sacraments as effective signs
of this healing, and the pastoral care workers, by whom the persons affected were cared
for in a healing manner, knew about their own limitations, their vulnerabilities and the
vulnerance of pastoral care situations. They did not abuse them for their own advantage,
for their own gain of pleasure, or for the exploitation of the relationship of power and
dependence. According to Andreas Stahl, pastoral care is an “action that seeks to support
the shaping and mastery of life on the basis of the Christian faith” (Stahl 2021, p. 266). To
do this, it is necessary to face one’s own vulnerance and the vulnerance of social/pastoral
contexts in which one finds oneself. This is one of the basic prerequisites for pastoral care to
live up to its liberating dimension and for abuse by adults in pastoral care to be effectively
prevented or sanctioned.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Note
1
The so called MHG study (see Dreßing 2018;Dressing et al. 2021) explores the extent of sexual abuse of minors by members of
the Catholic Church in Germany. It was the first comprehensive study to examine this extent in a European country.
References
Anglican Communion Office. 2017. Resolution 16.25: Safe Church Commission. Available online: www.anglicancommunion.org/
structures/instruments-of-communion/acc/acc- 16/resolutions.aspx#s25 (accessed on 15 March 2022).
Anter, Andreas. 2012. Theorien der Macht zur Einführung. Hamburg: Junius.
Bieler, Andrea. 2017. Verletzliches Leben: Horizonte einer Theologie der Seelsorge. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Religions 2022,13, 256 13 of 14
Bosse-Huber, Petra. 2005. Seelsorge—“Muttersprache” der Kirche. In Seelsorgliche Kirche im 21. Jahrhundert. Edited by Anja Kramer and
Freimut Schirrmacher. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, pp. 11–17.
Burbach, Christiane. 2018. Handbuch Personzentrierte Seelsorge und Beratung. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Butler, Judith. 2020. The Force of Nonviolence. An Ethico-Political Bind. London and New York: Verso.
Byrne, Kathryn. 2010. Understanding the Abuse of Adults by Catholic Clergy and Religious. Loganville: Open Heart Life Coaching.
Cumberlege Commission. 2007. Safeguarding with Confidence: Keeping Children and Vulnerable Adults Safe in the Catholic Church. London:
The Incorporated Catholic Truth Society.
Dreßing, Harald. 2018. Sexueller Missbrauch an Minderjährigen durch Katholische Priester, Diakone und Männliche Ordensangehörige im
Bereich der Deutschen Bischofskonferenz (MHG-Studie). Mannheim and Heidelberg: Gießen.
Dressing, Harald, Dieter Dölling, Dieter Hermann, Andreas Kruse, Eric Schmitt, Britta Bannenberg, Konrad Whittaker, Andreas Hoell,
Elke Voss, and Hans Joachim Salize. 2021. Child Sexual Abuse by Catholic Priests, Deacons, and Male Members of Religious
Orders in the Authority of the German Bishops’ Conference 1946–2014. Sexual Abuse 33: 274–94. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Engel, Ulrich. 2021. Strukturell missbrauchsfähig...: Das Institut der Beichte zwischen pastoraler Seelenführungstechnik und
klerikal(istisch)em Kontrollinstrument—Eine theologische Reflexion im Anschluss an Michel Foucault. In Missbrauch und Beichte.
Edited by Katharina Karl and Harald Weber. Würzburg: Echter, pp. 93–136.
Fernández, Samuel. 2021. Towards a Definition of Abuse of Conscience in the Catholic Setting. Gregorianum 102: 557–74.
Fortune, Marie M. 1989. Is Nothing Sacred?: The Story of a Pastor, the Women He Sexually Abused, and the Congregation He Nearly Destroyed.
San Francisco: Harper & Row.
Fortune, Marie M., and James N. Poling. 2004. Sexual Abuse by Clergy: A Crisis for the Church. Eugene: Wipf & Stock. First published 1994.
Galtung, Johan. 1988. Strukturelle Gewalt. Beiträge zur Friedens-und Konfliktforschung. Reinbek: Rowohlt.
Garland, Diana. 2009. The Prevalence of Clergy Sexual Advances Toward Adults in Their Congregations. Journal for the Scientific Study
of Religion 48: 817–24.
Gilson, Erinn. 2021. The Problems and Potentials of Vulnerability. In Vulnerability and the Politics of Care: Transdisciplinary Dialogues.
Edited by Victoria Browne, Janson Danely and Doerthe Rosenow. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 85–107. [CrossRef]
Hallay-Witte, Mary. 2020. Institutionelle Vulneranz und Vulnerabilität: Sich Anvertrauen—Ein Ethischer Moment. In Verwundbar.
Theologische und Humanwissenschaftliche Perspektiven zur Menschlichen Vulnerabilität. Edited by Hildegund Keul and Thomas Müller.
Würzburg: Echter, pp. 72–84.
Haslbeck, Barbara, and Erika Kerstner. 2016. Es dauerte mehr als 10 Jahre, bis ich einen Seelsorger fand, der mir zuhörte. Pastoraltheolo-
gische Informationen 36: 75–83.
Haslbeck, Barbara, Regina Heyder, Ute Leimgruber, and Dorothee Sandherr-Klemp. 2020. Erzählen als Widerstand: Berichte über
Spirituellen und Sexuellen Missbrauch an Erwachsenen Frauen in der Katholischen Kirche. Münster: Aschendorff.
Heyder, Regina, and Ute Leimgruber. 2020. Erwachsene Frauen sind Opfer sexuellen und spirituellen Missbrauchs in der Kirche: Was
aus den Berichten von Betroffenen zu lernen ist. In Erzählen als Widerstand. Edited by Barbara Haslbeck, Regina Heyder, Ute
Leimgruber and Dorothee Sandherr-Klemp. Münster: Aschendorff, pp. 187–220.
Hoelzl, Michael. 2017. Theorie vom Guten Hirten: Eine kurze Geschichte pastoralen Herrschaftswissens. Münster: Lit.
Terry, Karen J., Margaret Leland Smith, Katarina Schuth, James R. Kelly, Brenda Vollman, and Christina Massey. 2011. The
Causes and Context of Sexual Abuse of Minors by Catholic Priests in the United States, 1950–2010. Available online:
www.usccb.org/sites/default/files/issues-and-action/child-and-youth-protection/upload/The-Causes-and-Context-of-
Sexual-Abuse-of-Minors- by-Catholic-Priests- in-the-United- States-1950-2010.pdf (accessed on 15 March 2022).
Karl, Katharina. 2021. Verletzlichkeit als Schlüsselkategorie der Beichtseelsorge: Ein pastoraltheologischer Ausblick. In Missbrauch und
Beichte. Edited by Katharina Karl and Harald Weber. Würzburg: Echter, pp. 71–92.
Karl, Katharina, and Harald Weber. 2021. Missbrauch und Beichte: Erfahrungen und Perspektiven aus Praxis und Wissenschaft.
Würzburg: Echter.
Karle, Isolde. 2020. Praktische Theologie. Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt.
Keenan, Marie. 2013. Child Sexual Abuse and the Catholic Church: Gender, Power, and Organizational Culture. New York: Oxford University
Press. [CrossRef]
Kerstner, Erika, Barbara Haslbeck, and Annette Buschmann. 2016. Damit der Boden Wieder trägt: Seelsorge nach Sexuellem Missbrauch.
Ostfildern: Schwabenverlag.
Keul, Hildegund. 2020a. Theologische Vulnerabilitätsforschung. Gesellschaftsrelevant und Interdisziplinär. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.
Keul, Hildegund. 2020b. Vulneranz, eine humane Herausforderung. In Verwundbar. Theologische und Humanwissenschaftliche Perspektiven
zur Menschlichen Vulnerabilität. Edited by Hildegund Keul and Thomas Müller. Würzburg: Echter, pp. 13–91.
Keul, Hildegund. 2021a. Vulnerabilität und Vulneranz in Unsicherheit und Terrorangst—Eine Theologische Perspektive. In Verwundbar.
Theologische und Humanwissenschaftliche Perspektiven zur Menschlichen Vulnerabilität. Edited by Hildegund Keul and Thomas Müller.
Würzburg: Echter, pp. 60–71.
Keul, Hildegund. 2021b. Resilience out of Vulnerability: Perspectives from Systematic Theology in the Discourse on Vulnerability,
"Vulnerance", and Resilience. In Vulnerability, Trauma, and Resilience: Psalms and Prophets as Sources and Resources. Edited by Uta
Schmidt and Michaela Geiger. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press.
Klessmann, Michael. 2008. Seelsorge: Ein Lehrbuch. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener.
Laverack, Glenn. 2019. Public Health: Power, Empowerment and Professional Practice, 4th ed. London: Red Globe Press.
Religions 2022,13, 256 14 of 14
Leimgruber, Ute. 2022. Die Vulneranz von Seelsorgesettings im Blick auf den sexuellen Missbrauch erwachsener Personen. In Wirksame
Zeichen und Werkzeuge des Heils? Aktuelle Anfragen an die Traditionelle Sakramententheologie. Edited by Erwin Dirscherl and Markus
Weißer. Freiburg: Herder, pp. 188–204.
Lohausen, Michael. 2018. Weltdistanz und Menschennähe: Katholische Seelsorger zwischen Ausbildung und Praxisalltag in der Mitte des 19.
Jahrhunderts. Würzburg: Echter.
Morgenthaler, Christoph. 2009. Seelsorge. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus.
Münkler, Herfried, and Felix Wassermann. 2012. Von strategischer Vulnerabilität zu strategischer Resilienz. In Perspektiven der Sicher-
heitsforschung: Beiträge aus dem Forschungsforum Öffentliche Sicherheit. Edited by Lars Gerhold and Jochen Schiller. Frankfurt: Lang.
Nauer, Doris. 2014. Seelsorge: Sorge um die Seele. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.
Pistrol, Florian. 2016. Vulnerabilität: Erläuterungen zu einem Schlüsselbegriff im Denken Judith Butlers. Zeitschrift für Praktische
Philosophie 3: 233–72. [CrossRef]
Poling, Nancy W. 1999. Victim to Survivor: Women Recovering from Clergy Sexual Abuse. Eugene: Wipf & Stock.
Ordnung für den Umgang mit Sexuellem Missbrauch Minderjähriger und Schutz-Oder Hilfebedürftiger Erwachsener durch Kleriker
und Sonstige Beschäftigte im Kirchlichen Dienst vom 18. November 2019 der Deutschen Bischofskonferenz. 2019. Available
online: www.dbk.de/fileadmin/redaktion/diverse_downloads/dossiers_2019/2019-207a-Ordnung-fuer-den-Umgang- mit-
sexuellem-Missbrauch-Minderjaehriger.pdf (accessed on 15 March 2022).
Rahmenordnung–Prävention Gegen Sexualisierte Gewalt an Minderjährigen und Schutz-Oder Hilfebedürftigen Erwachsenen im
Bereich der Deutschen Bischofskonferenz. Gemeinsame Erklärung über Verbindliche Kriterien und Standards für eine Un-
abhängige Aufarbeitung von Sexuellem Missbrauch in der Katholischen Kirche in Deutschland des Unabhängigen Beauf-
tragten für Fragen des Sexuellen Kindesmissbrauchs und der Deutschen Bischofskonferenz. 2019. Available online: https:
//www.dbk.de/fileadmin/redaktion/diverse_downloads/dossiers_2019/2019-207b-Rahmenordnung-Praevention.pdf (ac-
cessed on 15 March 2022).
Review Board of the Archdiocese of Boston. 1993. Available online: www.bishop-accountability.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/
documents-BA-Boston-Meffan-2-036-038.pdf (accessed on 22 January 2022).
Sander, Hans-Joachim. 2021. Anders Glauben, Nicht Trotzdem: Sexueller Missbrauch der Katholischen Kirche und die Theologischen Folgen.
Ostfildern: Schwabenverlag.
Sautermeister, Jochen. 2021. Beichte und sexualisierte Gewalt: Theologisch-ethische und moralpsychologische Annäherung. In
Missbrauch und Beichte. Erfahrungen und Perspektiven aus Praxis und Wissenschaft. Edited by Katharina Karl and Harald Weber.
Würzburg: Echter, pp. 71–92.
Seibert, Christoph. 2022. Menschenführung als Kontext sexualisierter Gewalt. In Sexualisierte Gewalt in kirchlichen Kontexten|Sexual
Violence in the Context of the Church: Neue interdisziplinäre Perspektiven|New Interdisciplinary Perspectives. Edited by Mathias Wirth,
Isabelle Noth and Silvia Schroer. Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 1–28.
Schneider, Theodor, and Martina Patenge. 2004. Sieben heilige Feiern: Eine kleine Sakramentenlehre. Ostfildern: Schwabenverlag.
Schweizer Bischofskonferenz. 2002. Sexuelle Übergriffe in der Seelsorge: Richtlinien für Die Diözesen. Fribourg: Eigenverlag.
Sekretariat der Deutschen Bischofskonferenz, ed. 2022. In der Seelsorge schlägt das Herz der Kirche. Bonn: Wort der Deutschen Bischöfe
zur Seelsorge.
Supreme Pontiff Francis. 2019. Apostolic Letter issued Motu Proprio Vos Estis Lux Mundi. Available online: www.vatican.va/content/
francesco/en/motu_proprio/documents/papa-francesco-motu-proprio-20190507_vos-estis-lux-mundi.html (accessed on 15
March 2022).
Stahl, Andreas. 2021. Traumasensible Seelsorge: Grundlinien für die Arbeit mit Gewaltbetroffenen. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.
Tschan, Werner. 2004. Helfer als Täter—Sexuelle Grenzverletzungen durch medizinische und psychosoziale Fachpersonen. Psychothera-
pie im Dialog 2: 181–85. [CrossRef]
Tschan, Werner. 2005. Missbrauchtes Vertrauen: Sexuelle Grenzverletzungen in Professionellen Beziehungen. Ursachen und Folgen. Basel: S.
Karger AG.
Virtus Model Code of Pastoral Conduct for Priests, Deacons, Pastoral Ministers, Administrators, Employees, and Volunteers (Code of
Pastoral Conduct). 2010. Available online: http://www.virtus.org/virtus/pastoralconduct.pdf (accessed on 22 January 2022).
Werner, Gunda. 2019. Specifically Catholic: At the Intersection of Power, Maleness, Holiness, and Sexualised Violence—A Theological
and Historical Comment on Power. Journal of the European Society of Women in Theological Research 27: 147–74. [CrossRef]
Wirth, Mathias, Isabelle Noth, and Silvia Schroer, eds. 2022. Sexualisierte Gewalt in kirchlichen Kontexten|Sexual Violence in the Context of
the Church: Neue interdisziplinäre Perspektiven|New Interdisciplinary Perspectives. Berlin: De Gruyter.