Judge Bruns concurred, holding that the church autonomy doctrine-- also known as the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine-- applies and requires dismissal of the case. He said in part:
In order for authorities within the Roman Catholic Church to perform their duties in an ecclesiastical annulment proceeding, I believe it is imperative that the parties be free to allege their version of the facts with candor and without fear of being sued in secular courts.Judge Atcheson dissented, arguing that the defenses put forward are not jurisdictional, and that the case has been dismissed at too early a stage. He also argued that this case does not threaten undue entanglement:
Purdum alleges that the petition for annulment contains a factual representation about him that is false and defamatory. The representation has nothing to do with his religious beliefs or the Catholic Church's ecclesiastical doctrine or views.... A court or a jury would not be drawn into a theological debate or an evaluation of annulments or other Catholic ritual in assessing the statement's falsity or its defamatory nature. In other words, the forum of publication—as part of a request to the Archdiocese for an annulment—is immaterial to the content of the statement that Purdum says makes it libelous.