Title: Putman v. Vath

State: alabama

Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court

Document:

340 So. 2d 26 (1976)
Dennis PUTMAN
v.
Joseph G. VATH, Individually, and as Bishop of the Catholic Diocese of Birmingham in Alabama.
SC 1840.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
December 3, 1976.
Edward Still, Birmingham, for appellant.
W. H. Sadler, Jr., and W. J. Sullivan, III, Birmingham, for appellee.
SHORES, Justice.
Dennis Putman is a Catholic priest and Joseph G. Vath is the Bishop of the Catholic Diocese of Birmingham. Putman was incardinated in the Diocess of Birmingham and was serving at the direction of the Bishop as Campus Minister at the University of Alabama in Birmingham on December 7, 1973, when Bishop Vath assigned him to serve as Notary of the Tribunal of the Diocese and as Assistant at the Church of Our Lady of Sorrows. On December 11, 1973, Putman replied to the Bishop saying that he would consider the assignment and whether to accept it by January 16, 1974. The Bishop again, on December 13, repeated his notice that Putman was to assume the new assignment on December 15. Putman did not assume the new assignments; and on December 19, Bishop Vath informed him that he was suspended from all exercises of his priestly ministry and all of his faculties were revoked. He also directed the priest to vacate the Diocesan Rectory where he had been living. Putman refused to do so.
Thereafter, on February 5, 1974, Bishop Vath and Putman executed a document whereby Putman would vacate immediately the Diocesan Rectory where he had been living at the pleasure of the Bishop, and the Bishop would ". . . arrange for the proper canonical tribunal to be established in the Diocese of Mobile or in such other diocese as will be willing and able to accom[m]odate, in an equitable manner, such *27 proceeding as may be filed by Father Putman.. . ."
Immediately thereafter, Bishop Vath contacted Archbishop Donnellan of the Diocese of Atlanta requesting permission to institute a tribunal in Atlanta to hear Putman's grievance on the assignment which his Bishop had given him. Archbishop Donnellan replied that he would be pleased to institute a tribunal, but that it would be necessary for him to have a delegation from the proper authority to do so. Bishop Vath, in response to Archbishop Donnellan's request, wrote Archbishop Jadot, the Apostolic Delegate in Washington, D.C., seeking permission to delegate Archbishop Donnellan to institute a tribunal to hear Putman's grievances. In March, 1974, the Apostolic Delegate advised Bishop Vath that his request would have to be forwarded to the Vatican for a ruling and that that was being done. In May, the Apostolic Delegate informed Bishop Vath that the Vatican had determined that the Putman matter was an administrative, and not a judicial, one; and, therefore, under the Canonical Law of the Roman Catholic Church, no tribunal could be established. This information was passed on to Father Putman by the Bishop, who informed him that he had a right of appeal, afforded by the Canonical Law of the Church.
Father Putman exercised that right of appeal and submitted his grievance to Cardinal John Wright, Prefect for the Sacred Congregation for the Clergy, in Rome. Subsequently, Cardinal Wright reported to Father Putman the decision of the Sacred Congregation, which was in part:
Bishop Vath thereafter wrote to Putman inviting his response to the alternatives offered by the Sacred Congregation to which he had presented his appeal. Putman declined to accept either alternative and thereafter filed this lawsuit, which sought $10,000 in damages and asked for a declaratory judgment that Bishop Vath not deprive him of a benefice, office or salary sufficient for his proper support, and not suspend him from his priestly duties ". . . unless and until the Defendant shall have convened a canonical tribunal in the Diocese of Mobile to hear the complaint of Plaintiff."
Bishop Vath challenged the court's jurisdiction to entertain the lawsuit, contending that the entire matter was one governed by Canon law and not by the civil courts. He also moved for summary judgment, supported by affidavits and documents which reflect the matters set out above. Father Putman countered with an affidavit by a former Catholic priest, who stated that it was his opinion that Bishop Vath's actions against Father Putman did not meet the requirements of natural equity, ". . . because it failed to implement three basic ingredients of due process(a) Putman had no opportunity to appear with counsel before any Vatican official, (b) Putman had no opportunity to present evidence to any Vatican Official orally, (c) There was no opportunity of confrontation or cross-examination of adverse witnesses."
The trial court granted the Bishop's motion for summary judgment and Father Putman appealed.
The facts in this matter leave no question in our minds that the dispute between Father Putman and Bishop Vath is an ecclesiastical one. Such disputes cannot be resolved in the courts of this state. Harris v. *28 Cosby, 173 Ala. 81, 55 So. 231 (1911); Mt. Olive Primitive Baptist Church v. Patrick, 252 Ala. 672, 42 So. 2d 617 (1949).
The latter case involved a factional dispute within the church which resulted in two members being ousted from membership without notice. One of them was deposed from any official connection in the church and filed suit seeking reinstatement to the church office he had held. This court held that the civil courts would not intervene in the dispute, noting:
Likewise, in Hundley v. Collins, 131 Ala. 234, 32 So. 575 (1901), this court affirmed the trial court in its refusal to entertain a suit whereby the plaintiff sought reinstatement to the Christian Church of Huntsville, from which the General Assembly of the church had suspended him without notice and a hearing. There, the court said:
These expressions are consistent with the position which this court has historically taken in such matters. That position is restated in Odoms v. Woodall, 246 Ala. 427, 429, 20 So. 2d 849, 851 (1945):
The Supreme Court of the United States has likewise avoided adjudication of religious controversies. This attitude was initially verbalized in Watson v. Jones, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 679, 20 L. Ed. 666 (1871). Attempting to define the proper scope of review of decisions made by religious tribunals, the court held:
On occasion, the United States Supreme Court has averted to the possibility of "marginal civil court review" as an exception to the Watson rule. Presbyterian *29 Church in the United States v. Mary Elizabeth Blue Hull Memorial Presbyterian Church, 393 U.S. 440, 89 S. Ct. 601, 21 L. Ed. 2d 658 (1969). In Gonzalez v. Archbishop, 280 U.S. 1, 16, 50 S. Ct. 5, 7, 74 L. Ed. 131 (1929), the majority concluded:
However, the most recent decision of that court, Serbian Eastern Orthodox Diocese, etc. v. Milivojevich, 426 U.S. 696, 96 S. Ct. 2372, 49 L. Ed. 2d 151 (1976), criticized the concept of "marginal review" as mere dictum and concluded that that concept has never developed into a concrete exception to the Watson rule, saying:
This statement was directed to a decision of the Supreme Court of Illinois which had relied on Gonzalez to reject a decision of a religious tribunal as arbitrary. In reversing the court said:
Commenting on the ecclesiastical proceedings, the majority held:
In an explanatory note, the court gave reason for the conclusion:
This case is not materially different from Milivojevich, except that Father Putman's position is somewhat weaker than was Milivojevich's. We conclude that the trial court properly granted the motion for summary judgment.
AFFIRMED.
MADDOX, FAULKNER and BEATTY, JJ., and CATES, Presiding Judge of the Court of Criminal Appeals, sitting by designation of the Chief Justice, concur.