From Church To The Chatterbox Cafe

A church and its pastors are protected from suit alleging defamation according to a decision of the Minnesota Supreme Court.

Under the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine, pastors and their church are not liable to former parishioners for defamation or related common-law torts for statements made by the pastors during the course of formal church discipline proceedings when the statements were communicated only to other members of the church and participants in the formal church discipline process.

The allegedly defamatory statements that led to excommunication

 The Pfeils were actively involved in slander, gossip, and speaking against Braun and his wife, Behnke, and the St. Matthew Board of Elders.

 The Pfeils had intentionally attacked, questioned, and discredited the integrity of Braun, Behnke, and other St. Matthew church leaders.

 Other people had observed the Pfeils display anger and disrespect toward Braun.

 The Pfeils had publicly engaged in “sinful behavior” inside and outside St. Matthew.

 The Pfeils had engaged in behavior unbecoming of a Christian.

 The Pfeils had engaged in a “public display of sin.”

 The Pfeils had refused to meet for the purpose of confession and forgiveness.

 The Pfeils had “refused to show respect” toward servants of God and St. Matthew church leadership.

 The Pfeils had led other people into sin.

 The Pfeils had engaged in slander and gossip and had refused to stop engaging in slander and gossip.

 The Pfeils had refused to follow the commands and teachings of God’s word.

 Holding

we agree with respondents insofar as they argue that applying the issue-by-issue approach advocated by the Pfeils to this case would foster an excessive entanglement with religion, unduly interfere with the internal governance decisions of religious organizations, and violate the First Amendment. Ultimately, adjudicating Pfeils’ claims would excessively entangle the courts with religion and unduly interfere with respondents’ constitutional right to make autonomous decisions regarding the governance of their religious organization. We hold that the First Amendment prohibits holding an individual or organization liable for statements made in the context of a religious disciplinary proceeding when those statements are disseminated only to members of the church congregation or the organization’s membership or hierarchy. As a result, the district court properly dismissed the claims brought by the Pfeils against St. Matthew and its pastors.

 A dissent from Justice Lillehaug would affirm excommunication but allow a defamation claim

Although religious freedom is, of course, a strong public policy, the court does not demonstrate that the possibility of defamation liability “unduly interfere[s]” with that freedom. Nor does the court discuss why religious organizations cannot procure insurance to protect themselves from defamation liability.

On the other hand, the court concedes that there is “merit” to concerns about injustice to defamation victims. It tries to limit the inoculation from liability it grants with a proviso: the rule of law applies only to statements made “during the course of formal discipline proceedings” and “communicated only to other members of the church and participants.” This proviso ignores the reality of how defamation can devastate its victims. Any statement made in a closed meeting of “members” and “participants” is unlikely to stay there. More likely, a vicious falsity uttered in a small-town house of worship will be avidly republished, starting the very next morning during coffee at the Chatterbox Café…

Whether or not the Pfeils accused the minister of theft has little to do with the underlying disciplinary proceeding. I see no reason why a court and jury could not apply neutral principles of law without entanglement to determine whether: (1) the minister made the alleged statement; (2) it was false; (3) it was damaging to reputation; and (4) it was not protected by a qualified privilege.

(Mike Frisch)