LEGAL DOCUMENTS

On June 2, 1997 the defendant, Roman Catholic Diocese of Fall River, (the "Diocese of Fall River"), in the person of Bishop Sean O'Malley, sole corporation, brought a motion to dismiss this action pursuant to Mass. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), or in the alternative, to grant summary judgment pursuant to Mass. R. Civ. P. 56(c). In support of this motion, the defendant argues that the free exercise guarantees of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and provisions of the Massachusetts Constitution bar this court from considering this case. For the following reasons, the defendant's motion for summary judgment is ALLOWED.

FACTS

This case involves a claim against the Diocese of Fall River for damages caused by wrongful termination of the plaintiff, Beverly Plante. The following facts in the case are not in dispute. The plaintiff is a member of the Sisters of Mercy, a Roman Catholic religious order. In July of 1985, the religious order assigned the plaintiff to the Diocese of Fall River. She worked at the direction of the Diocese as the Associate Superintendent for Elementary Schools. In this capacity she held a written employment contract which was renewed on a yearly basis by the Diocese.

In July of 1993, the plaintiff became involved with a group known as "friends of Michael Ross." The plaintiff attempted to donate a sum of money to the Samaritans of Fall River/New Bedford, Inc. on behalf of the "friends of Michael Ross." In her attempts to contact the Samaritans, the plaintiff wrote letters using the official letterhead of the Diocese of Fall River. Additionally, she set forth her job title within the Diocese beneath her signature on these letters. These letters were not authorized by the Diocese or written as part of the plaintiff's official duties. Eventually, she also sent a collection of poems and lyrics to the Samaritans. This poetry collection included illustrations of Tarot cards, a mystical medium not recognized by the Roman Catholic Church.

The Samaritans refused to accept any donations from the plaintiff on behalf of the "friends of Michael Ross." As time passed, the relationship between the plaintiff and the Samaritans became increasingly acrimonious. Eventually, the Samaritans held a meeting with the bishop of the Diocese, Bishop Sean O'Malley. As a result of this meeting, Bishop O'Malley spoke with the Diocesan Director of Education, Father Beaulieu, and the plaintiff's superior in the religious order, Sister Rosemary La Liberte, R.S.M., regarding the plaintiff. On August 15, 1994, Father Beaulieu and Sister La Liberte informed the plaintiff that she would be placed on indefinite administrative leave. Additionally, Sister La Liberte and Father Beaulieu informed the plaintiff that she needed to receive psychiatric counseling.² Faced with what she felt were impossible working conditions brought on by the evaluation and perceived unfair treatment, the plaintiff resigned from her post at the Diocese.

DISCUSSION

Although the defendant seeks either motion to dismiss pursuant to Mass. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) or summary judgment pursuant to Mass. R. Civ. P. 56(c), this court will treat the defendant's motion as a request for summary judgment. This court grants summary judgment "if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Mass. R. Civ. P. 56(c); Nashua Corp. v. First State Ins. Co., 420 Mass. 196, 202 (1995); Wheatley v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co., 418 Mass. 394, 397 (1994). Although the moving party is obligated to show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact, "when a complaint sets out a detailed statement of the facts on which the plaintiff relies, and those facts do not support a claim entitling the plaintiff to relief, it is appropriate to allow a defendant's motion for summary judgment because, in those circumstances, there can be no genuine issue of material fact." (emphasis added) Smith v. Commissioner of Mental Retardation, 409 Mass. 545, 547 (1991).

In the case at bar, there can be no genuine issues of material fact because the facts presented in the pleadings and affidavits demonstrate that the controversy involves an ecclesiastical decision. The Free Exercise Clause of the United States Constitution prevents this court from involving itself in the internal decisions of a religious group. Matters beyond the scope of civil review include decisions on discipline, faith, internal organization, or ecclesiastical rule, custom or law. Serbian E. Orthodox Diocese v. Milivojevich, 426 U.S. 696, 713 (1976); Kedroff v. St. Nicholas Cathedral, 344 U.S. 94, 116 (1952). Madsen v. Erwin, 395 Mass. 715, 723 (1985). It is not the function of the state to embroil itself in determinations of whether or not a religious member is spiritually fit for a church position. Any attempts to explore the religious and secular motives of the church hierarchy would necessitate an examination and evaluation of church canon law. Civil courts must defer to the church in matters of ecclesiastical decisions. Serbian E. Orthodox Diocese, supra at 709; United Kosher Butchers Association v. Associated Synagogues of Greater Boston, Inc., 349 Mass. 595, 598-599 (1965); Madsen, supra at 722. Seeking to determine whether the Diocese of Fall River placed the plaintiff on leave for secular rather than ecclesiastical reasons would place the court in a position where it must intrude into an ecclesiastical function.

The actions undertaken by Father Beaulieu, Sister La Liberte and Bishop O'Malley fall under the ecclesiastical category protected by the United States Constitution. The court may not seek to review instances of internal church reorganization. Churches must be free to discipline members of its clergy and religious orders without interference by the state. The actions taken by the Diocese of Fall River clearly involve internal church action. It is undisputed that the actions taken by the Diocese came with the full support and participation of the plaintiff's religious superior, Sister La Liberte. Upon entering a religious order, the individual voluntarily puts herself under the direction of a religiou superior. Churches and religious societies must be free to determine the spiritual aptitudes of the ecclesiastical staff. Members of a religious order clearly have a closer nexus to the church hierarchy than lay employees of the Diocese. The actions of Bishop O'Malley, Sister La Liberte and Father Beaulieu constitute ecclesiastical decisions which are not subject to judicial review.

ORDER

For for the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ORDERED that the defendant, Diocese of Fall River's, Motion for Summary Judgment is ALLOWED.

DATE: September 11, 1997

(signed) John M. Xifaras Justice of the Superior Court

NOTES:

¹ a/k/a Sister Michaelinda Plante, R.S.M.

² The plaintiff did receive a psychiatric evaluation which revealed no abnormalities.

| BACK | GO TO TOP | NEXT |