Individual, Relational, and Systemic Factors Related to Chaplain Moral Injury

Chaplains face profound occupational hazards (e.g., vicarious traumatization) and unique stressors at the individual (e.g., role ambiguity), relational (e.g., dispersed collegial networks), and institutional (e.g., limited resources) levels (Galek et al., 2011; Hotchkiss and Lesher, 2018; Hou et al., 2020). Because most chaplains work within organizations not linked to their own religious or spiritual tradition, the “chaplaincy industry” is not standardized nor uniform. This reality further adds to many of the struggles and challenges chaplains face and can increase the risk of experiencing morally injurious situations. For example, many chaplains report to non-chaplain administrators who may or may not understand or value the contributions chaplains bring to their larger professional team. Such relational dynamics can lead to chaplains feeling under-supported, chaplaincy departments being under-resourced, chaplain perspectives as superfluous, or chaplain visits perceived as expendable. Yet COVID-19 brought a surge of demand for chaplain care, often by people not otherwise connected to a religious community who understood chaplains as competent in caring across religious contexts and to those unaffiliated with any specific tradition (Winnfield, 2022). When this demand for compassionate spiritual and existential care increases alongside ever-increasing insurmountable institutional challenges, some chaplains find the institutions employing them to be inflicting more harm on them than is sustainable. Leaving their jobs often becomes the healthiest next step for these chaplains. 

To begin to offer corrective suggestions, we first need to better understand the complex web of factors that relate to moral injury in chaplains. Yet in a recent systematic literature review of over 80 empirical studies from around the world, only 13 studies included chaplains in their sample (Author, under review). This presentation will present the findings related to the moral injury of chaplains from two separate studies. The first study was a 2020-2021 pilot study of a supportive intervention for chaplains working during COVID-19 (Author, 2022). This study highlights some of the nuances of chaplaincy that increase isolation and burnout risks, often due to morally injurious experiences. The second is a 2022-2023 cross-sectional study of helping professionals (chaplains, congregational clergy, and mental health providers) that investigated how several of the occupational hazards relate to moral injury. Chaplains consistently scored high for negative factors like moral injury, anxiety and depression, PTSD, and burnout. They also had the lowest scores compared to the other two professional groups for positive measures such as feeling adequately compensated, having supportive management, emotional well-being, and psychological well-being. 

REFERENCES 

Author. Under review. “Burnout, Trauma Impacts, and Well-Being among Clergy and Chaplains: A Systematic Review and Recommendations to Guide Best Practice. Pastoral Psychology.  

Author. 2022. “Supporting Chaplains on the Frontlines of the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Mixed Method Practice-Based Pilot Intervention Study.” Psychological Services 20(1): 6-18. https://doi.org/10.1037/ser0000692  

Galek, Kathleen, Kevin J. Flannelly, Paul B. Greene, and Taryn Kudler. 2011. “Burnout, Secondary Traumatic Stress, and Social Support.” Pastoral Psychology 60(5): 633–49.     

Hotchkiss, Jason T., and Ruth Lesher. 2018. “Factors Predicting Burnout Among Chaplains: Compassion Satisfaction, Organizational Factors, and the Mediators of Mindful Self-Care and Secondary Traumatic Stress.” The Journal of Pastoral Care & Counseling 72(2): 86–98.     

Hou, Jian-Ming, and Thomas M. Skovholt. 2020. “Characteristics of Highly Resilient Therapists.” Journal of Counseling Psychology 67(3): 386–400.      

Winfield, Taylor Paige. 2022. “Chaplaincy Work and Preparation across Sectors.” In Chaplaincy and Spiritual Care in the Twenty-First Century: An Introduction, edited by Wendy Cadge and Shelly Rambo, 32-57. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.