Swanson v. Roman Catholic Bishop of Portland
1997 Me. LEXIS 61, 1997 ME 63, 692 A.2d 441 (1997)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article I, § 3 of the Maine Constitution prohibit civil courts from imposing a secular duty of supervision on a religious organization regarding its clergy, thereby barring negligent supervision claims that would require courts to interpret or interfere with ecclesiastical relationships or governance and lead to excessive government entanglement with religion.
Facts:
- Albert and Ruth Swanson were parishioners of Saint Gregory’s Catholic Church in Gray.
- In 1990, the Swansons approached Father Maurice Morin, the parish priest, to discuss the possibility of remarrying in a Catholic ceremony.
- Father Morin 'counseled' Mrs. Swanson individually, encouraged her to postpone her remarriage, and initiated a sexual relationship with her.
- Mr. Swanson also sought 'counseling and guidance' from Father Morin, confiding that he suspected his wife was infatuated with another man.
- Father Morin acknowledged Mrs. Swanson needed counseling and claimed he was trained to handle the situation, indicating 'that he would do all he could to help the situation' while later admitting to Mr. Swanson that the infatuation was with him.
- Mr. Swanson subsequently discovered the sexual relationship between Father Morin and his wife, which led to Mrs. Swanson filing for divorce.
- During the pendency of the divorce proceedings, the Swansons' son committed suicide.
- The Swansons allegedly experienced extreme emotional distress, psychological damage, and incurred costs from the divorce litigation due to Father Morin's actions.
Procedural Posture:
- Albert and Ruth Swanson filed a complaint in the Superior Court (Cumberland County) seeking damages against Father Maurice Morin for intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress and negligent pastoral counseling.
- The Swansons also filed claims against the Roman Catholic Bishop of Portland, a corporation sole, and Bishop Joseph Gerry in his personal capacity (collectively 'the church') for negligent selection, training, and supervision of Father Morin.
- Other counts against the church for breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, and misrepresentation were dismissed by agreement pursuant to M.R-Civ.P. 41(a)(1).
- The church moved to dismiss the remaining claims of negligent selection, training, and supervision on the ground that Article I, section 3 of the Maine Constitution and the First Amendment of the United States Constitution barred such claims.
- The Superior Court dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims of negligent selection and training against the church.
- The Superior Court denied the motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' negligent supervision claim against the church, permitting it to proceed.
- Upon the motion of the parties, the Superior Court reported the case to the Maine Supreme Judicial Court pursuant to M.R.Civ.P. 72(c) for an interlocutory ruling on the constitutional issue.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, § 3 of the Maine Constitution bar the imposition and enforcement of a duty of employee supervision derived from secular agency principles against a religious organization for the alleged negligent supervision of its clergy?
Opinions:
Majority - Wathen, Chief Justice
Yes, the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, § 3 of the Maine Constitution bar the imposition and enforcement of a duty of employee supervision derived from secular agency principles against a religious organization for the alleged negligent supervision of its clergy. The court affirms that constitutional principles dictate judicial neutrality in matters concerning religious doctrine and organization, ensuring religious freedom from 'secular control or manipulation' and retaining 'power to decide for themselves, free from state interference, matters of church government as well as those of faith and doctrine' (citing Kedroff v. St. Nicholas Cathedral, Presbyterian Ch. v. Mary E.B. Hull Mem. Pres. Ch.). While 'neutral principles of law' can be applied to church disputes (e.g., property disputes as in Jones v. Wolf), these principles must not require considering doctrinal matters. Applying secular tort principles of negligent supervision to a church's relationship with its clergy would unconstitutionally infringe upon the church's right to determine its own governance and standards for ecclesiastical relationships. Comparing the relationship between a religious institution and its clergy to a business agency relationship introduces secular duties into an ecclesiastical sphere, potentially requiring an examination of church doctrine to determine the existence or extent of an agency relationship, which civil courts are forbidden from doing (citing Serbian Eastern Orthodox Diocese v. Milivojevich). Even if an agency relationship could be established without doctrinal inquiry, imposing secular duties and liability for deviation from secular standards would impair the free exercise of religion by controlling denominational governance. Pastoral supervision is an ecclesiastical prerogative. While some courts have allowed such claims when the church had notice of danger, this court found those decisions failed to maintain the required neutrality. The court concludes that imposing a secular duty of supervision would restrict the church's freedom to interact with its clergy in a manner deemed proper by ecclesiastical authorities and would not serve a societal interest sufficient to overcome the religious freedoms inhibited in this case, especially since beliefs in penance, admonition, and reconciliation are part of the ecclesiastical response to sin.
Dissenting - Lipez, Justice
No, the issue of whether constitutional principles bar negligent supervision claims against a religious organization should not be decided prematurely, as the report of the interlocutory order was improvidently granted. Justice Lipez argues that the court should not decide constitutional issues unnecessarily, especially on an interlocutory report (citing Your Home, Inc. v. City of Portland, Sirois v. Winslow, Matheson v. Bangor Publ'g Co.) because it lacks a fully developed record. The plaintiffs' claims against Father Morin personally might fail, which would eliminate the need to decide the church's liability. Furthermore, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court has never formally recognized negligent supervision as an independent basis for liability for any employer, and should establish that general tort principle before applying or excluding it for churches. The majority's decision is premature because it makes a 'difficult balancing judgment' of societal interest versus religious rights 'on the basis of abstractions' rather than a fully developed factual record that could show the church's knowledge of Father Morin's misconduct. The trial court had carefully limited the negligent supervision claim to secular inquiries (what the Bishop knew, when, and what actions were taken) to minimize entanglement, and this process should be allowed to unfold, potentially through discovery or summary judgment, before a constitutional ruling is made. While acknowledging the burdens of litigation on the church, Justice Lipez stresses that these must be weighed against the rights of injured plaintiffs and the need for constitutional rulings to be made only when required and on the most informed basis possible.
Analysis:
This case solidifies a strong judicial barrier against civil court intervention in the internal governance of religious organizations, particularly concerning clergy supervision. It reinforces the 'neutral principles of law' doctrine by clarifying its limits: courts may apply neutral principles to secular disputes, but not when doing so requires interpreting religious doctrine or imposing secular duties that infringe upon ecclesiastical prerogatives. The decision significantly impacts tort law by granting religious institutions substantial immunity from negligent supervision claims related to clergy, potentially shielding them from liability for certain actions of their ministers even when there is alleged prior knowledge of risk. Future cases will need to carefully distinguish between truly secular claims and those that, even subtly, necessitate an inquiry into religious policy or internal church-clergy relationships.
