adjudicating the reasonableness of a church's supervision of a cleric—what the church 'should know'—requires inquiry into religious doctrine. . . . [T]his would create an excessive entanglement, inhibit religion, and result in the endorsement of one model of supervision.The court of appeals held that different 1st Amendment interpretations by federal district and appellate courts and courts in other states do not take precedence.
Objective coverage of church-state and religious liberty developments, with extensive links to primary sources.
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Negligent Supervision Claims Against Archdiocese Dismissed on 1st Amendment Grounds
In two decisions handed down on Tuesday, Doe v. Roman Catholic Archdiocese of St. Louis and Nicholson v. Roman Catholic Archdiocese of St. Louis, (MO Ct. App., Feb. 23, 2010), a Missouri state appellate court held it is bound by Missouri Supreme Court holdings on whether the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution bars courts from adjudicating the reasonableness of a church's supervision of a cleric. In both cases, the trial court dismissed negligent supervision claims against the Archdiocese growing out of sexual abuse of minors over 50 years ago by a now deceased priest. The court of appeals affirmed, quoting the Missouri Supreme Court's 1997 opinion in Gibson v. Brewer: