Oct 12, 2026
TRIGGER WARNING: This article discusses clergy sexual misconduct, sexual assault, power and consent. It is intended as general psychoeducation and legal information, not legal advice. Whether conduct constitutes a criminal offence is a fact-specific legal determination.
Sexual relationships between clergy and adult parishioners are often described in deceptively simple terms:
They were both adults.
It was an affair.
There was no force.
They had feelings for each other.
The parishioner participated.
Those facts may be relevant, but they do not necessarily resolve the question of consent.
Canadian law recognizes something important that is often missing from public conversations about clergy sexual misconduct: being legally old enough to consent does not automatically establish that legally valid consent was obtained in a particular sexual interaction.
That distinction matters when one person entered the relationship as a parishioner seeking spiritual guidance, pastoral care or support, while the other occupied a position of trust, power or authority.
Under s. 273.1(1) of Canada's Criminal Code, consent for the purposes of sexual assault is defined as the voluntary agreement of the complainant to engage in the sexual activity in question.
The Code then identifies circumstances in which consent has not been obtained. One is particularly relevant to clergy sexual misconduct.
Section 273.1(2)(c) provides that no consent is obtained where:
“the accused induces the complainant to engage in the activity by abusing a position of trust, power or authority.”
This provision requires precision: Canadian law does not establish that every sexual relationship between a clergy member and an adult parishioner is automatically sexual assault. The existence of a pastoral relationship or power differential alone does not determine whether a criminal offence occurred.
But the opposite conclusion is also too simplistic: being an adult, participating in sexual activity, or even experiencing affection for the clergy member does not necessarily end the legal inquiry.
The question can become:
Was the sexual activity voluntarily agreed to, or was the person induced to participate through an abuse of trust, power or authority?
That is a fact-specific legal question.
Clergy can occupy an unusually intimate position in another person's life. A pastor, priest, minister or spiritual leader may be entrusted with information about someone's marriage, sexuality, trauma, grief, family, addiction, shame, moral concerns or relationship with God. People frequently seek pastoral care during periods of significant vulnerability.
The relationship may therefore begin very differently from an ordinary romantic relationship: one person comes seeking guidance or care, the other accepts a role carrying responsibility, authority and trust.
If that relationship later becomes sexual, the history of the relationship remains relevant. This is part of what can make clergy sexual misconduct so difficult to recognize: the same trust that makes pastoral care possible can also make boundary violations difficult to see; power does not always look like intimidation.
It can look like being deeply understood.
It can look like spiritual guidance.
It can look like someone knowing exactly what you are struggling with.
It can look like believing that the person guiding you would never use that position in a way that could harm you.
In some religious environments, spiritual authority adds another layer. A clergy member may influence how someone understands morality, marriage, sexuality, forgiveness, sin, belonging and even God's will. That does not make every clergy-parishioner relationship coercive. It does mean that spiritual authority should not be dismissed as irrelevant when considering how a sexual relationship developed.
Clergy sexual misconduct does not necessarily begin with a sexual proposition.
Boundaries may change gradually.
Pastoral conversations become increasingly personal.
Communication moves into private channels.
The clergy member begins sharing their own marital or emotional difficulties.
The parishioner is told that their connection is unique or unusually meaningful.
Secrecy develops. Emotional intimacy deepens.
Physical boundaries shift. Spiritual language may be used to explain or legitimize the closeness.
None of those circumstances, individually, proves that sexual assault occurred. But they may be important when examining whether pastoral trust or authority was eventually used to facilitate a sexual relationship. This is why examining only the final sexual encounter can provide an incomplete picture. Sometimes an important question is not simply:
“Did I say yes?” It is: “What happened within this relationship before I said yes?”
This can be particularly difficult for someone reconsidering a past relationship.
Perhaps you sent affectionate messages.
Perhaps you initiated contact.
Perhaps you returned after sexual contact had already occurred.
Perhaps you protected the relationship from discovery.
Perhaps you missed the clergy member when the relationship ended.
Perhaps you genuinely believed you loved them.
Those parts of the experience do not need to be denied or rewritten. But attachment, participation and legal consent are not interchangeable concepts. The Criminal Code expressly recognizes circumstances in which consent is not obtained despite apparent participation, including where an accused induces sexual activity through an abuse of trust, power or authority. This allows for a more complex understanding of someone's experience.
A person can have been attached to a clergy member while later questioning the power within the relationship.
They can have participated while later recognizing boundaries they could not clearly see from inside the relationship.
They can have understood the relationship as an affair at the time and later wonder whether that language adequately accounts for how the relationship began.
None of those realizations establishes that a crime occurred; they do, however, deserve to be taken seriously.
Another common misconception is that sexual assault requires physical force or an explicit “no.” Canadian consent law is broader than that. The starting point under s. 273.1 is voluntary agreement. The Code then specifies circumstances in which consent is not obtained, including where sexual activity is induced through an abuse of trust, power or authority.
The Criminal Code also restricts when an accused can rely on a belief that the complainant consented. Section 273.2 addresses circumstances in which belief in consent is not a defence, including where the accused failed to take reasonable steps to ascertain consent.
Sometimes affair may accurately describe what occurred. But using the term automatically can prematurely assume a degree of equivalence between the participants.
If one person originally entered the relationship seeking pastoral care and the other occupied the role of spiritual leader, it may be important to examine that relationship before deciding what language best describes what followed.
What was the relationship before it became sexual?
What vulnerabilities had been disclosed?
Who was responsible for maintaining the pastoral boundary?
How did that boundary change?
Was secrecy encouraged?
Was spiritual authority or religious language used to make the relationship seem permissible, exceptional or divinely significant?
What did the parishioner believe would happen if they refused, ended the relationship or disclosed it?
And, if the legal question of consent arises: Was sexual activity induced through an abuse of trust, power or authority?
The point is not to predetermine the answer, it is to stop predetermining the opposite answer simply because both people were adults.
Clergy sexual misconduct can be particularly difficult to recognize from inside the relationship because understanding it may require questioning the very person whose judgment was trusted. Distance can change what becomes visible.
Someone may eventually recognize that the clergy member knew they were grieving, struggling in their marriage, recovering from trauma or experiencing a spiritual crisis. They may begin to see that conversations they understood as pastoral care gradually became emotional intimacy. They may recognize how much weight they gave the clergy member's interpretation of the relationship.
For someone embedded in a religious community, reconsidering what happened may also mean reconsidering relationships, theology, institutional authority, community belonging and sometimes their understanding of God. It is therefore entirely possible for questions about an experience to emerge long after the experience itself.
A later understanding does not automatically establish the legal character of what occurred, but a delayed understanding does not make the questions illegitimate either.
If reading this has raised questions about an experience within a church, ministry or other religious community, you do not need to have already decided what happened (or what to call it) before seeking support.
At VOX Mental Health, we specialize in religious trauma and spiritual abuse, including the complicated aftermath that can occur when trust, pastoral authority, sexuality and faith become intertwined.
Therapy can provide a confidential space to begin examining the relationship with greater distance and context: how it began, the role the clergy member occupied in your life, how boundaries changed, whether spiritual authority influenced your choices, and how the experience has affected your relationship with yourself, others, your community or your faith.
Our role is not to impose a label, determine whether a criminal offence occurred, or tell you how you should understand your experience. Our role is to help you safely unpack what occurred and make room for your own understanding to emerge.
If you are ready to start that conversation, VOX Mental Health offers therapy for religious trauma and spiritual abuse, in Barrie and virtually across Ontario.
