Out of the Ashes - LDS Guide to Helping a Betrayed Spouse Heal in the Aftermath of Sexual Sin - Ruth Davidson
(used with permission)
(used with permission)
Bishops
are often on the front lines in the battle against sexual sin. Many times both
injured spouses and transgressors, in their search for healing, turn to
ecclesiastical leaders for counsel, guidance and confession. As more and more
sexual sin is revealed as the Lord begins to cleanse His church for His coming,
bishops will be called upon even more heavily to deal with the damage done in
relationships scarred by sexual sin. This is no easy task. Sexual sin is deep
and far-reaching, causing horrendous amounts of spiritual damage—spiritual
atrophy in transgressors and many unseen wounds in innocent spouses and
children. Darkness and the oppression of the adversary have also been brought
into homes because of the evil spirits allowed in through sin. Fighting this
spiritual devastation is a very real and long-lasting battle, a battle which
occurs for years.
Sadly,
many bishops or other ecclesiastical leaders sometimes add further burdens on
strained relationships instead of helping those relationships—not because they
lack righteous intent or faithfulness, but because they lack knowledge about
the ramifications of the problems sexual sin creates. The following are some
points that might help in counseling struggling couples following sexual sin:
Never
use a joint counseling session with a couple to point out the weaknesses and
foibles of the betrayed party, especially regarding any “forgiveness” issues or
what that betrayed party “should be doing” to heal more quickly. Often
when dealing with a marriage, a priesthood leader feels he needs to make sure
he’s being fair to both parties and will thus discuss different ways both
parties can move forward. More often than not, however, when a transgressor
hears weaknesses or counsel in relation to a partner, the following
circumstances result: 1) the transgressor
feels less personal responsibility for the damage his or her choices have done
in the marriage. Already in a transgressor’s mind, a betrayed spouse is the
cause of many or perhaps all of the volatile issues that exist in a
relationship. When priesthood leaders point out the weaknesses in the betrayed
party—or infer that he or she is not far enough in the forgiveness
process—accountability for the damage is once again shifted away from the sinning
party and back to the spouse. Often words of counsel are used later as a
battering ram by a transgressor to manipulate or control a betrayed spouse’s
reactions, as well, especially if a “lack of forgiveness” is equated to still
having difficulties within a relationship. Lines such as, “The bishop thinks
you should be doing this and you’re not,” or “That’s not what the bishop says,”
are often used.
Another
reason great care should be taken toward counseling a betrayed spouse is that
2) a betrayed spouse is already dealing
with a great amount of devastation and intense emotions, especially if he or
she remained true to the marriage covenants. When a priesthood leader
“lovingly chastises” or sets forth ways of “moving along faster,” it serves as
a catalyst to beat a betrayed spouse down further. A betrayed spouse has gone through an array of deep and varied
emotions including anguish, pain, heartache, confusion, uncertainty,
loneliness, despair, self-questioning and so on, emotions which can be compared
to emotions occurring after a death. There is no set time or rule regarding
when these emotions should run their course. When a priesthood leader doesn’t
hear or understand these emotions and instead counsels someone that he or she
would overcome them sooner if they’d only do “such and such,” it only serves to
invalidate experiences and add further heartache to an already overburdened
heart.
One
woman’s experience with two different bishops helps illustrate how priesthood
leaders’ reactions can help or hinder the healing process. After finding out
about her husband’s deep sexual transgressions that had occurred over many
years, she and her husband counseled repeatedly with their first bishop. Her
husband faced church disciplinary action and often met with him alone, but they
also sought his advice as a couple as they were struggling to get through the
ramifications of what had happened in their relationship. After several months
of contact like this, one day the bishop called this woman into his office alone.
“He wanted to counsel with me because he said he had concerns specifically
about me,” she said. “He then continued to tell me that I wasn’t moving along
fast enough in my healing process and that I wasn’t where I should be. He said
the darkness and struggles in my life had come about because I had chosen to
live a life based on ‘unsound principles’ and that I wasn’t as forgiving of my
husband as I should be. He then told me that he needed to work with me on an
ongoing basis to help me overcome the unsound ideas that I had adopted.
“I
cannot tell you the devastation I felt after hearing words like that come out
of a trusted priesthood leader’s mouth, especially as I was still dealing with
my intense pain. I felt slammed to the ground. I cried and sobbed afterward,
wondering if it was all me and if the darkness and confusion that still existed
in my life were because of my choices.
“It
was only through reaching prayer and a priesthood blessing that I learned that
my Heavenly Father didn’t feel the same way. I was assured by Him that I was
where I needed to be in my life and that He had nothing to fault me for in my
forgiveness process. I was also cautioned to know that when He had counsel for
me to change my weaknesses, I would feel ‘peace and conviction’ and the
determination to overcome whatever I needed to overcome, not the devastation I
had been feeling previously. Heavenly Father said that was not ‘His way.’ From
then on, I avoided meeting with that bishop as much as I could. I only felt
worse if I did. I never did open up to him again and I felt judged harshly for
a long time afterward. I felt he didn’t understand how much damage sexual sin
causes and the long period of time it takes to overcome it.”
She
then compared this experience to an experience she had with a subsequent
bishop. “When he was first put in, he called my husband and me to meet with
him,” she explained. “I didn’t want to go. I was worried about getting hit over
the head again. I even remember trembling inwardly when I was sitting in his office,
feeling so exposed and vulnerable, like ‘here we go again.’ I’ll never forget
the difference I felt inside with the way he handled me. He looked me in the
eyes and said, ‘I’ve been reading over what President Hinckley had to say in
General Conference about pornography. For the first time, I think I understand
more of the pain you’ve had to go through.’ He had tears in his eyes when he
said it! It made me cry. Finally, finally I was safe with my pain, even though
he didn’t know very much about the sin itself. Still, he didn’t try to change
me or say I wasn’t where I should be. He only tried to help and understand.
Just trying to understand helped me so much. I felt safe sharing with him.”
So can it be for other priesthood leaders, even if they are not fully
educated about the ramifications of sexual sin. Offering a betrayed spouse a
safe place to express emotion and pain—and not invalidating or trivializing
experiences by saying a spouse should be more “forgiving”—can help tremendously
in moving that person toward healing.
Never
blame a betrayed spouse for the betrayal. One woman also told of a time
when she met with a bishop regarding her husband’s sexual sins. Instead of him
counseling her husband in relation to his transgressions, that bishop in essence
told this woman, “You need to pray for a stronger sexual desire and learn to
cherish your husband.” She said she felt through his reactions that he was
“making it all seem like it was my fault that my husband had strayed and that I
was the one who needed to change, not my husband. He was blaming it all on me.”
In
another instance, a woman said her bishop “talked about how loving and serving
his own wife was to him and how those traits made him want to cleave to her and
love her back. I felt like he was inferring that if I was more caring and
served my husband better, then my husband wouldn’t have felt he needed to find
something outside the marriage. But I had loved my husband; I had served
him—daily. I had been there for my husband physically, too. That didn’t make a
difference in his choice to engage in sexual sin. I think it’s unfair to assume
my husband strayed because I didn’t meet his needs appropriately. I could have
given endlessly but until he chose to be faithful in return, those gestures
would have amounted to nothing.”
Betrayed
spouses know and understand they have weaknesses. They know and understand they
are not without flaws. Yet they still cannot be blamed for the sexual sin or
the residual damage in relationships after sexual sin, especially when they
have remained faithful to marital covenants. Only when transgressors accept the
burden of responsibility for the damage done can the marriage begin to heal.
Don’t
infer that the pain and struggling that occurs in a betrayed spouse after sexual
sin, even if it occurs for a lengthy period of time, is related to that
person’s “lack of forgiveness.” It needs to be expected that betrayed
spouses will struggle for a long time with the repercussions of sexual sin. It
cannot be inferred that these struggles are occurring because of a person’s
lack of forgiveness. Struggles occur because of dealing with the residual
damage done to the relationship and the character weaknesses in a transgressing
spouse (those traits that led to the sin in the first place—for example, pride,
feelings of “entitlement,” selfishness, a willingness to deceive, etc.) This is
not to say a betrayed spouse is perfect; it is to say that the struggles that
abound after sexual sin are normal. “Forgiving” does not eradicate tough issues
or make them disappear. “Forgiving” does not guarantee there won’t be relapses
or further sinning on the part of the transgressor. Therefore, a “lack of
forgiveness” cannot be seen as the root of continuing problems. Only time and
sincere repentance on the part of the transgressor will eradicate those
problems.
“Helpful” vs. “Not Helpful”
Jill
Manning, Ph.D., a woman who has done in-depth studies on what happens to a
betrayed spouse after sexual sin, had these points to make regarding how
ecclesiastical leaders often respond to betrayed spouses. These responses were
divided into groups of what she termed “Most Helpful” or “Least Helpful”
responses.
In
terms of what was “Most Helpful,” she stated that an ecclesiastical leader
“initiating contact” and then “following up” with a betrayed spouse were very
beneficial. One woman spoke about the time her bishop came to her following
some relapses her husband had made in his sexual sins. “My bishop took efforts
to contact me twice and both times I was sincerely in need of help,” she said.
“I really appreciated his support.”
Other
beneficial steps Jill Manning suggested for leaders included “validating
feelings” and “taking the problem seriously.” One woman described a time when
this didn’t happen with her bishop and how it difficult it became for her
during a period of intense struggle. “At that time,” she explained, “it was a
24/7 struggle of, ‘What’s the middle ground here in my marriage? Do I hold firm
and say, “Let’s get divorced or else” or do I serve my husband with all I have?
What am I supposed to do in this?’ I was struggling to maintain the balance of
doing what was right and being submissive while trying not to get too angry or
hateful. I felt like I was walking on a tightrope with all these feelings.
Suddenly I fell off that tightrope into an eight-week free fall.
“It
was awful. I had no one to go to except my bishop—no family that knew, no
friends I could talk to—no one except my bishop. When I finally went to him and
explained my situation, he listened to me and then basically said, ‘Are you
being abused sexually? Physically? Emotionally?’ I said, “No, no, no, I’m not’
and then he sort of looked at me as if to say, ‘Then what is your problem? Why
are you struggling like you are? Why aren’t you getting over this?’
“Despite
what a difficult time I was having, he couldn’t understand my pain and didn’t
know what to do with it. I could have used anything—a blessing, an article from
the Ensign, the name of someone I
could go to, but I got nothing. He could have even just said, ‘Wow. You’re
really going through a lot. I’m sorry.’ I felt so alone after meeting with him.
I’ve struggled with some feelings since that time. I’ve discovered I’ve had to
build a wall of protection around myself.”
When
ecclesiastical leaders learn to “take the problem seriously” and “validate the
feelings of a betrayed spouse,” as Jill Manning recommends, they can help can
create safe havens where betrayed spouses can unload and thus move forward in
the healing process. Even if leaders don’t know how to deal with sexual sin per
se, they can “connect” a person with “professional help” or help them find
other resources. Even solely listening or acknowledging pains and emotions can
be greatly sustaining.
Jill
Manning lists the least helpful responses from ecclesiastical leaders as: 1)
“giving inappropriate or harmful advice (i.e., ‘wear lingerie’; ‘have sex more
often with him’)”; 2) when leaders are not “directive enough,” pointing
individuals toward resources or help; 3) when leaders “avoid” the “issues or
her” (the betrayed spouse) after discovering problems in the relationship; 4)
when leaders “over-spiritualize” the problem, even if it’s serious in nature;
5) when leaders “silence” the betrayed partner by not letting that person share,
as needed (for example, “I was sworn to secrecy by my Stake President”); and
finally 6) being “ill-informed about the issues.”
“It Really Wasn’t That Bad”
Many,
many transgressors treat their sins as if “they weren’t really that bad. I
didn’t go as deep as others have gone; I could have done much worse than I
did.” When leaders adopt this same attitude and don’t take sexual sin
seriously, even with sins than seem relatively “minor,” transgressors become
more prone to repeating sexual sin in the future—often on a much deeper level.
One man expressed frustration that his wife had seen three different bishops
and confessed sexual sins each time, but not one bishop had counseled her to
confess her betrayals to him. No church action had been taken in any situation,
even as her sins got deeper and more grievous. He finally learned of his wife’s
sexual sins when they began moving toward a divorce. When Bishops respond to
confessions lightly and do not have the transgressors confess to a partner,
often further sexual sins are the result.
“They
Began to be Scornful, One Towards Another” (Alma 4:8)
One
more note needs to be made regarding sexual sin. Whenever couples come in with
severe marital strains or unsolvable contention in a relationship—and one
person is usually more vocal about those issues and blames them on a partner,
it can often be inferred that some type of sexual sin lurks beneath that
person’s accusations. Many, many marital difficulties arise because of the
indulgence in sexual sin and the sin itself is rarely, if ever, seen as the
real problem. In fact, often the problems transgressors see are perceived
injuries their committed spouses have done. So remember: if there are severe
and ongoing marital problems in relationships, it can be inferred that sexual
sin is more often than not the cause of those problems.
A Heavy Responsibility
Truly
the Lord will help a bishop, a “judge in Israel,” (D&C
58:18) in his heavy calling of dealing with the increase of sexual sin
throughout the church. There are many guidelines, books and other helps that
are being put out in order to bring about further understanding of sexual sin
and the burdens it places on peoples’ lives. Even without an in-depth
understanding of the actual sin, however, a bishop can help in the aftermath of
sexual sin by 1) not treating the sin and the damage done lightly, 2) helping a
transgressor overcome sin, and finally, by 3) being a safety net for hearing
the pains, concerns and experiences of the betrayed spouse, who will become key
in the process of helping a damaged relationship move toward healing. This type
of listening should be done without pushing the “forgiveness process” as a
means of working through the issues. As Todd Olson, a licensed clinical social
worker, stated:
Often times the spouses’ pain is
minimized because there is such relief from the addict and the priesthood
leader that the addiction has been exposed and that the addict is on the road
to repentance. Sometimes the spouse is encouraged to start forgiving when they
just barely found out about the addiction. When forgiveness is preached and
they feel they can’t let go of the pain and anger, then they feel that they are
holding the bigger sin. It takes time to
forgive and to heal. (Church News, April 21, 2007, italics added)