The delicate balance between the freedom to exercise religion and the demands placed on all persons (clerical and others) by civil law, requires us to proceed cautiously in a controversy where we are asked to hold that a religious institution's reliance on its own written policy governing the response to reports of a clergy's sexual misconduct with an adult parishioner gives rise to liability under civil law.Yesterday's Quincy (MA) Patriot Ledger reports on the decision and on further background of the case.
Objective coverage of church-state and religious liberty developments, with extensive links to primary sources.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Massachusetts High Court Rejects Suit Against Episcopal Diocese In Sex Case
In Petrell v. Shaw, (MA Sup. Jud. Ct., March 16, 2009), the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court dismissed a lawsuit against the Episcopal Diocese of Massachusetts and three of its bishops brought by parishioner Carolyn Petrell who had been in a sexual relationship with her parish rector, August Rakoczy, after she went to him for family counselling. Soon after Petrell ended the relationship, Rakoczy was admitted to a psychiatric facility and renounced his vows in anticipation of being deposed from the Episcopal priesthood. The Court rejected the claim that defendants owed Petrell a fiduciary duty of care to protect her against sexual exploitation by a member of the clergy. The court also rejected the argument that defendants were vicariously liable for the Rakoczy's wrongful actions. Finally, the court found no negligent hiring, supervision or retention of the Rakoczy by defendants, saying: