Statements Made In Church Annulment Proceedings Are Absolutely Privileged

Purdum v. Purdum, 2011 WL 1430279 (Dist. Ct. Kan., April 11, 2011) (available on Westlaw), involved a defamation claim by plaintiff against his former wife alleging that in the course of ecclesiastical annulment proceedings she submitted a written statement to the Catholic Archdiocese alleging, among other things, that plaintiff "was diagnosed bipolar." The court denied a request by the Archdiocese to intervene as a party to argue that the court lacks jurisdiction over plaintiff's claim, but the court permitted the Archdiocese to submit issues as an amicus curiae. The court rejected the Archdiocese's claim that it should dismiss the case under the "church autonomy doctrine", because that applies only when there is a challenge to action by a church that would involve courts in deciding matters of faith, doctrine or internal governance. However, the court concluded that:

Nonetheless, the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment does apply in this case to protect the defendant's confidential communications with her church or its representatives.... [I]n this case, the statement is absolutely privileged as made pursuant to the defendant's First Amendment right to Free Exercise of her religion..... To hold otherwise, would require individuals to defend themselves in civil court for statements made during required religious proceedings, even if the statements are later determined to be true.

[Thanks to Eugene Volokh via Religionlaw for the lead.]