EthicsWalk addresses spiritual care as an ethical enterprise. It explores why relationships between spiritual care providers and those they serve need protection, and examines what that protection entails. PlainViews invites our readers to share their responses to each EthicsWalk column, which will be published in the following issue.

If you’d like to respond to EthicsWalk, please send a comment of no more than 100 words. You can use the e-form below (click on "hearing from you," link) or submit your commentary to the editors in the body of an e-mail (or as a Microsoft Word attachment) sent to Info@PlainViews.org. Please put the phrase “EthicsWalk” in your subject line.

We look forward to hearing from you.

---

Boundaries: Navigating or Negating?

Last month’s column suggested that experienced spiritual care providers might occasionally navigate boundaries to benefit persons served. How does one discern beneficent boundary navigation from maleficent, self-serving boundary negation?

Some sticky wickets:

Self-disclosure:
Appropriate self-disclosure acknowledges the spiritual care provider’s humanity and may be re-assuring. Disclosures must address the needs of the other and be directly applicable to them. Disclosures to impress, seek advice, sympathy, or admiration from the other, are never appropriate. Similarly, discussions of the provider’s sexuality, relationships, or other personal matters are reserved for friends or professionals engaged for that purpose.

Availability:
Availability is vital to good spiritual care. However, availability has parameters. When reasons are frequently found to stretch parameters with a particular person in care, problems may be developing. Examples include:

     — arranging to see the person outside “normal” hours
     — rearranging one’s schedule
     — excitedly anticipating visits
     — extra care with clothes and grooming
     — meeting at a “special location”
     — frequently thinking about the person
     — giving or receiving gifts
     — keeping secrets beyond confidentiality requirements
     — failing to note contact in the office schedule
     — not wanting other staff to know about the meeting 

Unusual Touching
Touch is important and prudent touching is often appropriate in spiritual care. Before touching, consider:

     — “What is the likely impact on this particular person of my touch?”
     — “What is my intent?” If your intent is about “you,” don’t touch.

If you are uncertain about the impact, ask. [“Are you comfortable with shaking hands?” “Is a hand on your arm comforting?”]
Be conscious of touching a particular person more frequently or in ways different from normal patterns of touch in the professional care environment. For example, hugs rather than handshakes, hand lingering on arm rather than touch-and-remove.

Sexualized Attraction
“I’m really sexually attracted to this other person, I think...”
Erotic energy is good. Erotic energy is healthy and helpful in many professional relationships. The danger is letting erotic energy sexualize the context, content and contact of the spiritual care provider’s association with a particular person. If you suspect this is happening, ask:

     — what is lacking in me, in my committed relationship with partner or religious community, in my social life, in my prayer 
          and study life that becoming involved with this other person would hope to satisfy?
     — why am I vulnerable in my personal or professional life to this infatuation, to falling in love outside my commitments?
     — what do I need to know about myself to understand this attraction?
     — from whom can I get some enlightenment -- immediately?
     — if the spiritual care provider asks, “Is this a relationship I should discuss with a colleague?” the answer is “definitely
          and soon.”
     — if the care provider wonders, “Can I handle this relationship” the answer is, “probably not.”
     — if he or she ponders, “Should I terminate this contact?” the answer is, “Yes, and, now!”

Relationships carry risk. A spiritual care provider does not avoid relationships, even with difficult or troubled people to avoid risk. However, a spiritual care provider is responsible for establishing and maintaining relationships which respect the provider’s and the other’s integrity and safety.

To be continued from other perspectives. Comments welcome!

Anne Underwood has an undergraduate degree in religious studies, a master’s degree in rural sociology and a mid-life law degree obtained after working over a decade as a college administrator. She has mediated for the Maine family courts since 1983. Currently she serves as an advisor to the ethics commissions of ACPE, APC, the CCAR (Central Conference of American Rabbis), and NAJC, and consults with a variety of Protestant faith communities on issues of power, fair process, and congregational conflict management. Her articles on mediation and restorative justice have appeared in the ACPE News, The APC News and on the ACPE web site. Articles on clergy accountability and judicatory processes are published by the Alban Institute and The Journal on Religion and Abuse. A chapter, “Clergy Sexual Misconduct: A Justice Issue,” appears in Body and Soul: Rethinking Sexuality as Justice-Love, Marvin Ellison and Sylvia Thorson-Smith, editors, The Pilgrim Press, 2003.