When “Agency” Becomes Abandonment: The Failure to Safeguard Harassed Clergy

“We don’t want to take a clergy person’s agency away.”

That was the repeated justification given by safeguarding leadership when asked why clergy members facing stalking and harassment weren’t being safeguarded. This line was delivered, unbelievably, in response to clergy who were not only willing to speak up—but were pleading for help.

Let’s be clear: there is a vast difference between respecting someone’s agency and ignoring their pleas for protection. Agency is not the same as abandonment.

Clergy are vulnerable. That’s not a sign of weakness—it’s a reality of ministry. Clergy often live in tied housing, work in isolated settings, have blurred boundaries between public and private life, and are expected to be permanently accessible. When harassment, bullying, or spiritual abuse enter that picture—whether from within a congregation, from churchwardens, or even from within the diocesan hierarchy—the clergy person is rarely in a position of power, no matter how senior their title.

To claim clergy aren't vulnerable is to ignore every structural imbalance that makes it hard for them to report abuse:

• The fear of being labelled ‘difficult’ or ‘not resilient’.

• The risk of losing housing, livelihood, or license.

• The power external structures hold over career progression, deployment, and wellbeing.

  
  

So, when a diocese or indeed safeguarding, refuses to act—when it says, in effect, “We’ll leave them to it, because we don’t want to take away their agency”—it’s doing something deeply cynical: cloaking inaction in the language of empowerment.

This is a safeguarding failure.

When a person cries out for help and the response is, “You’re not vulnerable enough to warrant protection,” – Our moral compass is dead and buried with the rest of the bodies.

The safeguarding of clergy cannot be conditional on brand protection, hierarchy protection, or the illusion of professional detachment or safeguarding advisors being told “don’t become emotionally involved with clergy”. Harassment is harassment. Trauma is trauma. And clergy, like anyone else, deserve to be safe in the place where they serve.

Here’s what needs to change:

• Recognise clergy as potentially vulnerable adults, especially in cases of isolation, coercive control, or sustained harassment.

• Stop using “agency” as an excuse for institutional inaction —listen to the voices of those asking for help.

• Ensure safeguarding structures include clear, independent routes for clergy to report abuse, including from within the diocese.

• Train leaders to spot aggressive mimicry and misuse of authority—because sometimes the wolf is wearing a purple shirt too.

• Develop trauma-informed responses to clergy distress, not managerial ones.

x

~  Guarding the Flock