## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it

N os. 12

- 2157, 12

- 2257, 12

- 2262 K EV I N B. M C C ART HY, e tal ., P la intif fs-C o un tercla im D efend a nts-A pp ella nts/A pp ellees ,

an d L ANG S EN KAMP F AM ILY A POSTOLATE, e tal .,

C o un tercla im D efend a nts-A pp ella nts/A pp ellees,

v. P AT R I CI A A NN F ULLER, e tal .,

D efend a nts-C o un tercla im a nts-A pp ellees/Ap pella nts.

A pp ealsfr o m the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the S outhernDi stricto f Indian a, Indian apolisDiv isi on. No . 1:08- cv-00994-WTL-D ML

—WilliamT. Lawrence , Judge
.
S UB MI TT ED F EB RU AR Y 8, 2013

— D ECI DE D A PRI L 10, 2013

Befo re P OSNER, W I L L I A MS, a nd S YKES, C ircu it Judges . P OSNER, Cir cu i tJudg e . T h es e t h re e in te rloc u to ry ap p ea ls ar i se fr o m a c o m pl i ca ted an d a cr i m o ni o us l i ti g at i o n, ch ar gi ngRI CO, t r ade m ar k, a nd c o py r i g htv i o l at i o ns2 N os. 12

- 2157, 12

- 2257, 12

- 2262 alo n g w ith Ind ian a t or ts , t h a t h as be en p er c ola tin g in th e di st r i ctc o ur t f o r a l m o st fi ve y ea r s. The o r i g i ns o fthe l i ti gat i on g o backto 19 56, w h en S i ste r M ar y Ephrem ( bor n M i l dred N euzi l ) , a Catholic Sis tero fthe Congre gati o n o f th e S i s t e r s o f th e Mo s t P r e c i o u s B l o o d o fJ es us (of t en referr ed to j us t as the Con gregation of th e Si sters o fthe P r e c i o us Bl o o d) , h a d e xp e ri enc e d a s e r i e s o fa ppari ti ons of the Vir gi n M ar y, i n the cour se of w h i ch M ary ha d told Sister Ep hrem ( ac c o rd ing to the latter’s re port ) : “Iam O u r Lad y o fA m er i ca. ” The Archbi shop of C in c in n at i (th e c h ap el in w h ich Si s t e r E p h re m ex p er ienced the appari ti ons i s, tho ugh l oca te d i n I nd i ana, und erh is au th or i ty) was convi nced ofthe tr uth ofher re porto fthe appari ti ons, and w i th hi s s up portan el abor ate pro gr am o fdevot ion s to Our Lady ofA m er i ca was l au nc he d. OurLa dy ha s be enc r edi te d wi thhe al in g si ck pe op l e who appeal ed to herf ora cure, al though w h et h er eit h e r t h e a p p ar itio n s o r th e c u re s a re au th en tic ha s not b eenr ul ed o n b y the Co ng r eg at i o n f o r the Doctr i ne o fthe F a i th, the b o dy wi thin the R o m an Cathol i c hi erar c h y that i s r esponsibl e f orm aki ng such deter m i nati ons. Pe r ha ps i ns pi r e d b y h e r v i s i o ns , S i s t e r Ep hr e m j oi ned w ith oth er sisters w ithin th e C ong regat io n o f th e Si sters ofthe Prec i ous Blo od i n see ki ng to f or m a “co ntem pla ti ve cloi ster”

— a “ st ri ctl y c l oi ste re d house f orm em ber s o f the [ Congre gat i on] wh o w er e pri nci pal l y dedi cate d to a c o n t e mpl a t i v e l i fe . ” I n 1 9 6 5 P o p e P a u l V I a p p r o ve d t he cr eation o fthe c l o i st er, i n New Ri eg el, Ohi o , de si g na ting it a “p ap al e n c los u re .” (W e d isc u ss th e p o s s i b le re l evance o fthe d esignati on l ate r. ) The N ew Ri ege lN os. 12

- 2157, 12

- 2257, 12

- 2262 3 cl oi ste r l ast ed unti l atlea st 1977, wh en i ts thre e survi vi ng m em ber s, i ncl ud i ng Si ste r Ep hrem and Si ste r M ary Joseph Th er e s e , l eft the C ong regation of the Sisters ofth e P re ci ous Bl oo d and fo rm ed a new congr ega ti on th atthe y c all ed the Co nt empl at i ve S i st er s o fthe I ndwel l i ngTr i ni ty, de di ca te d t o pr o m o tingde vo ti o ns to Ou r Lad y o fA m er i ca. W e s houl d pause to expl ai n that al though th e par ti es a nd the di s t r i c tj ud g e r e fe r t o S i s t e r Ep hr e m a nd S i ste r Theres e a s “ nu ns, ” thi s probabl y i s incor re ct. N uns tak e whata r e ca l l ed so l emn v o ws a nd l i ve c l o i st er ed inc o nvents
. S i ste rs ( the fulldesi gnati on i s “ re l i gi ou s s i ste rs ”) t a k e wh a ta r e c a l l e d s i mpl e v o ws

— an d tho se w er e th e v o ws tha tb o th Ep hr e m a nd T he r e s e h a d t a ken

— an d can eng age i n re l i gi ous a nd r el ate d w or k o utside o f conve nts, al though, as we sai d, bot h si ste rs chos e l i ke nuns to l i ve the c l oiste re d, conve nt l i fe. I n any eve nt, l i ke nuns and p riests, r el i gi ous s i ste rs ar e m em ber s o f re l i gi ous o rder s. The am i cus cur i ae bri efsubm i tte d by the Hol y S ee at our re quest s tat es th at “f orthe pu rpos es ofthi s br i ef, the H ol y S ee w i l l n ot acc or d si gni fi cance to an y d ist in c tio n be tw ee n th e t er m s ‘n u n ’ an d ‘sis te r.’ ” The Contem pla ti ve Si ste rs o fthe I nd w el l i ng Trini ty, th e co ng r eg at i o n f o unde d b y S i st er s Ephr em an d Theres e, o perat es out ofFo sto ri a, O h io. S i ste r Ep hrem d i r e c t e d it u n til h er d ea th in 2 00 0. Sh e a lso fou n d ed in Fos tor i a, and dir ected untilherdeath, an o rg ani zati on th ats he c al l ed O ur Lady o fAm er i ca Ce nt er . S he r e g i s t e r e d the n a me wi th the s t a t e o fOh i o a s a t r a de nam e. S ist er T h er ese ( re fer re d to i n the com pla i nt byher4 N os. 12

- 2157, 12

- 2257, 12

- 2262 birth n am e of Pa trici a Fuller) suc ceed ed to Si ster E p hrem ’s di r ec ti o n o fthe two o r g an i za ti o ns upo n the l at te r ’ s dea th

. Si ste r Ep hrem wil l ed al l herpro pertyto S i ste r Theres e. M osto fthe proper ty

— m ay b e a l l o f it

— was r el at ed to the dev o ti o ns t o OurL adyo fAm er i ca a nd ha d b ee n b o ug ht w i th m oneydonate d to the Cont em p lati ve Si ste rs o r to the Cente r. The pro pertyincl ud ed docum ents, such as Si ste r Ep hrem ’ s di ar y ( w hi ch Ful l ercla i m s S i ste r Ep hrem had copyr i ghted, al ong w i th a song, a pai nti ng, and scul pture, al l r el ati ng to Our Lad y of A m er i ca) , a nd a r t i f a c t s tha ti nc l ud e d me da l l i o ns , p l a qu e s , a nd a sta tue o fOur Lady ofA m er i ca. S i ster T here se tr adem ar ked a num bero fthe ar ti f acts upon ass um i ng di re ction of th e C ont em p lative Si sters an d the C en ter. In20 0 5 K ev in M c C ar th y, a la w ye r an d C at h olic l a y m a n, a n d A lb e r tH
. L a n g s e n k a m p , w h o c l a i ms ( w hethertr uthful l y o r not i s in dis pu te) to be a Papal Kni g hto fthe Hol y S epulc he r, a ppr o ac he d F ul l era nd offer ed t o h elp herwith the devo ti ons to Ou r Lad y o f A m er i ca. S he acc epted thei r offerand th e thre e work ed tog etherunti l 20 07, wh en the y had a f al l i ng o ut that er up ted the f ol l owing yea r i nto thi s bi tte r l aw sui t. L an gs en ka m p e st ab lish ed th e L an gs en ka m p Fa m ily A posto l ate i n Rom e Ci ty , Indiana, the si te ofthe chapel i n whi c h the V i r g i n M a r y i s a l l e g e d t o h a v e a ppear ed to Si ste r E p h rem . Vi gor ousl y s eco nd ed and assi ste d by M c C ar th y, L an gs en ka m p cla im s t o b e t h e a u th en tic prom ote r ofdevot i ons to Ou r Lad y o fA m er i ca a nd to be enti tl ed to poss ess i on o fthe docum ents and art i f acts
. M cCarthy and Langsenk am p br ought thi s s uitag ai nst F ul l erc ha r g i nga ll m an ne r o ft o r ti o us c o nduc t, i nc l udi ngN os. 12

- 2157, 12

- 2257, 12

- 2262 5

c o nv e r s i o n ( the ft ) o f b o th ph y s i c a l a nd i nt e l l e c t ua l p r o perty, fraud , and de fam ation. Full er cou nt erclaim ed vigorou sly, accu sin g th em of th e sam e thin gs, includ ing the ft ofthe sta tue o fOur Lady ofA m er ica a nd o fthe w ebsi te of Ou r La dy o f Am e r i c a Ce nt e r, a nd o f de f a mi ng her by calli ng her a “fake nu n.” She jo in ed La ng sen kam p ’s A posto l ate as an a dd i ti onalco unterc l ai m defendant, th o ug h thi s was r ea l l y a thi r d- par tyc l ai m since the A posto l ate was not a par ty to the l i ti gat i on unti l Ful l er na m ed i t as a d e fen d an t in her cou nt erclaim s. T he re are oth er pa rties to both th e com p laint and the cou nt erc l a i ms , b u tth e y a r e pe r i p h e r a l a n d w e c a n i g n o r e th e m. To si m p li fy, we’l l ge nera l l y r eferto j ust M cCarthy as th e plaintiffand Fuller as th e d efend an t-cou nt erclaim an t. B oth seek d am ages an d equ itable rel ief

. M cCa r th y a rgue s t ha t no t o nl y di d he a nd La ng se nkam p not s tea l pro perty o fFul l er, but that the pr oper ty i n dis pu te bel ongs to the Congre gat i on of the S i ste rs o f the Pr eci ous Blood o fJ esus because , am ong othe r thi ngs, havi ng ta ken a vo w o f p ove rty S i ste r Ep hrem did noto w n and so coul d not be queath to Ful l erany of the pr oper ty i n questi on. M cCa rt h y h as no a uthor i ty to l i ti gat e o n behalf of the Congr ega ti on, but he can ar gu e t h at Fu ller’ s c h ar ge th at h e s to le fro m h er fails bec au se sh e w as th e thief. H e co nt es ts the c l ai m o fde f amat i o n b y de ny i ng ( am ong othe r thi ngs) t h at h e l i ed i n say i ng F ull eri s no t a nu n. W he th er or not tha t’s accu rate ( g iv e n th e un certai nty that w e note d concer ni ng the pre ci se m eani ng o f “n un” i n the Ca th o l i c r el i g i o n) , c al l i nghe r a “ f ak e nun”6 N os. 12

- 2157, 12

- 2257, 12

- 2262

co ul d r ea di l y b e unde r stood t o de ny tha t sh e ha d a ny re l i gi ou s vocati on wh ats oev er

— an d i n f ac t M cCa r th y d oe s d en y t h is, an d ob ta in ed f ro m th e A p os to lic N unc i atur e o fthe Hol y S ee a statem en t th atF ul l eri s no lon ge r ei th er a n u n or a relig iou s s ist er . L oc at ed in the V a t i c a n, the H ol y S e e i s the c e nt r a l g o v e r ningb o dy of t h e R om an C at h olic C h u rc h , a n d th e A p os to lic N uncia ture i s the H ol y S ee’ s di p lom ati c m i ssi on t o the Unite d Sta tes
. M cCarthy as ked the di str i ct j ud ge to take j ud i ci al not ice of( an d thu s d efer to) th e A p ostolic N un ciatu re’s st at em en t o f th e H oly See ’s ru lin g on Fu ller’ s s t a t u s in the Church. M cCa rt h y’s gr ound w as that the c ourt, b ein g a s ec u lar bo d y, co u ld n otree x am in e t h e H oly S ee ’ s r ul i ngb utmusta cce pt i t as a utho r i ta ti ve . The j udg e r efus ed, pr ec i pi ta tinga pp eal No. 1 2- 22 57, the o nl y a ppea l we ne ed to c o ns i dera t l en g th

. Th e a pp e a l i s i nt e r l o c ut o r y, b uti s wi thin o ura ppel l at e j ur i sdi ct i o n un derthe c o l l at er alo r derdo ct r i ne dec l ar ed i n Cohe n v . Be ne f i ci al Indu s t r i al Lo an Corp
. , 3 37 U. S

. 5 4 1 , 54 6

- 4 7( 1 9 4 9 ) (J a c k s o n, J
. )

. T h e d o c t r i n e a l l o ws an i nt erlocuto ry ap p eal th at ch all en ges a low er-court ruling (f in a l in tha t cou rt

— ra therthan a t entat i ve o r dertha t th e di st r i ctj udge m ight dec i de to r ev i si t i n the co ur se o fthe l i ti g at i o n) tha t wi l l harm the a ppel l an t i rr ep arabl y i fthe chal l enge i s pos tponed to an a pp eal f ro m the fi n al j ud gm ent, and that can be adj ud ged cor re ct or i ncor re ct w i thout a furtherev i denti ar y hea ri ng. C on ve n tio n al fo r m u lat ion s o f th e d oc tr in e t yp ica lly add ano therr equi re m ent: thatthe rul i ng so ught t o beN os. 12

- 2157, 12

- 2257, 12

- 2262 7 appeal ed have “r eso l ve[ d] a n i m port an t is sue c o mp le te ly separatefro m the m er i ts ofthe acti on. ” Wi l l v. Hallock, 5 46 U. S

. 3 45, 3 49 ( 20 06 ) ( emphas i s adde d)

. But “co m ple tel y” i s a n ove rs tat em ent, since the p rinci pal curr ent app l i cati on o fthe doctr i ne i s t o appeal s fro m d en ials of offic i a l i m m u n ity . See , e.g., M it chel l v. Fors yth , 47 2 U .S. 51 1, 52 5-3 0 (1 98 5); A post ol v. Gal l i on , 87 0 F
. 2d 1335 , 13 38 ( 7th Ci r. 19 89)

. Li ke the pr ote ction confer re d on crim in aldefendants bythe double j eopar dy cl ause, Un i t e d S t a t e s v . Ka s h a mu , 656 F. 3d 679, 682 ( 7th C ir. 2 0 1 1 ), or on f or ei gn g ove rnm ents by sov er ei gn i m m unity, A bel e s z v. M agyarNe m ze t iBan k, 69 2 F
. 3d 661, 66 7 ( 7th Ci r . 2 0 1 2 ) , the i mm un i t y c o nfe r r e d b y the do c t r i ne o f offi ci al i m m uni ty i s i m m uni ty f r o m th e tr av ai l s o f a tr i ala nd n ot j ust f r o m a n a dve r se j udg m en t. I fthe defe nse o fim m u n ity i s e rr oneo usl y deni ed and the defend an t has t o u nd ergo the tri al before th e error i s corr ec ted he ha s be eni r r ev o cabl y de pr i ve d o fo ne o fthe benefi ts

— f re edom fro m havi ng to undergo a tr i al

— that hi s i m m unity was i ntended to gi ve hi m . That s ati sfi es the r equi re m ent that to be a pp eal abl e a s a co l l ate ra l or d er th e o rd e r m u s t (u n les s re ve rs ed ) w re ak irre p ar ab le harm o n the appell ant. N o w ofte n the que st i o n o fi m m un i tyc o nc erns the s a me c o nd uc to fthe de fe nd a nttha tthe s ui tc ha l l e ng es as u n law fu l, ra th er th an b e in g “ c om p let ely se p ar at e.” T h at m ay be w h y t h e is su e o f im m u n ity is r eq u ire d on ly to b e “ c on c ep tu ally d ist in c t” from th e m er its , M it chel l v. Forsyt h , sup ra , 472 U .S. at 5 27, rat h er th an liter ally “co m ple tel y separ ate ” f ro m them

. A s the Courtexpl ai ned i n that case , i f “any f actual ove rl ap between a col l ate ra l8 N os. 12

- 2157, 12

- 2257, 12

- 2262 i ssue and the m er i ts ofthe pla i nti ff’ s cl ai m i s f atalto a claim of im m ed iate ap p ealabili ty, non e of th ese m a t t e rs coul d be a pp eal ed, f oral l o fthem r equi re an inquir y into whe the r the p l a i nt i ff’ s ( o r, in the do ub l e j e o pa r dy si tuati on, the Gover nm ent’ s) f actualal l ega ti ons state a claim that f all s out side the sc op e of th e d efend an t’s i m m unity. There i s no di sti ncti on i n pri ncip le b etween th e i nqui ry in su chc as es a nd the i nqui r y wher e th e iss u e is qu alifie d im m u n ity
. . . . [M ]er ito riou s d ou b le j eo p ar d y a n d ab so l u te im m u n ity cla im s a re n ec es sa rily di r e c t l y c o n t r o l l i n g o f th e q u e s t i o n whet he r t he defen dan t wi l l ul ti m at el y b e l i ab l e. I nde ed, i fo ur ho l di ng s o n th e appe al ab i l i tyo fdo ubl e j eo par dy an d ab so lu te im m u n ity r u lin gs m ak e a n yt h in g c lea r it is that the fact that an i ssue i s o utcom e dete rm i nati ve does not m ean th at it i s no t ‘ col l ate ra l ’ f orpurposes ofthe C o hen te st. ” Id

. at529 n . 10
. W e a dd the further condi ti on that the er ro r be d et erm i nabl e without a n evi denti ar y hear i ng si m ply as a re m i nd er th at appel l ate cour ts don’tco nd uct such hea ri ngs. T he cond iti ons f or coll ateral orde r review are sat i sfi ed w i th r espectto appe al N o. 12

- 2257
. The di str i ct j u d ge ’ s r u l in g c h alle n ge d by th e p lain tiffs is clo se ly a kin to a deni alo fo ffi cial i m m unity. A se cul arco urt m ay n otta ke sid es on iss u es of re ligiou s d oc tr in e. H o s ann aTa b o rE v a n ge l i c a l L u t h e r a n C h u r c h & S c h o o l v . E E OC, 13 2 S. C t. 69 4, 70 2-0 7 (2 01 2); Serbia n E a stern O rtho do x D io c ese v. M il ivoje vich , 426 U .S

. 6 9 6 , 708 -20 (19 76 ); Kedroff v. St. Ni c h o l a s C a t he dr al , 344 U .S. 94 , 115 -16 (19 52 ); Aske w v. Trustees of G enera l A ssem bly o f C hu rch of th e Lo rd Jesus C hrist of t he Apo st olic Fa it h Inc. , 684 F.3d 413 , 415 (3d Cir. 2012).N os. 12

- 2157, 12

- 2257, 12

- 2262 9 The dis tr i ct j ud ge i n thi s ca se has r ule d t hat a fe de r a l j ur y s ha l l de c i de wh e the r P a t r i c i a F ul l er is a m em b er of a R om a n C a t h olic relig iou s o rd er , th ou gh if th e j ur y de ci des tha t sh e i s i t wi l l b e reje ct i ngthe contr ar y rul i ng ofthe re l i gi ous b ody ( the Hol y S ee) autho

ri zed by the Ch urch t o deci de such m att er s. A secu lar cou rt m us t be all ow ed to dec ide, how ever, w hether a partyi s co rr ect i n ar gui ng tha t there i s a n author i tat i ve church r uling o n an i ssue, a rul i ng tha t re mov e s the i s s ue f r o m the j ur i s di c t i o n o f tha tco urt. Tomi cv . Ca t ho l i cDi oc e s eo f Pe or ia , 4 42 F. 3d 1036 , 10 39 (7t h C ir. 20 06 ); Se r b i an East e r n Orthodox D ioces ev. M i li vojevic h , sup ra , 4 2 6 U. S

. a t7 1 5

- 1 6 a n d n . 9 ; S t e ffe nN. J ohnson, “Expressi ve A sso ci ati on a nd Orga ni zati onal A u to n om y, ” 8 5 M inn . L. R ev . 1 6 3 9 , 1 6 5 0 ( 2 0 0 1 )

. ( On e o f o urho l di ng s i n Tom icwas dis approve d i n the H os ann aTaborcas e, but the di sapprove d hol ding i s unre l ate d to the h o l di ngf o r wh i c h we j us tc i t e d Tom ic

. ) B ut o nce th e cour t ha s sa ti sfi ed i ts el ftha t th e au th o r i ze d r el i g i o us body has r eso l ved the re l i gi ous i ssue, the c ou rt m ay no t que st i o n the r es o l ut i o n. I t is tru e tha t the error of the secu lar cou rt

— o fthe dist ri ct c ourti n thi s ca se

— i n deci ding that w hether Ful l eri s a m em bero fa re l i gi ous o rderi s a pro per qu es tion to pu t to a j ury, all ow ing the j ury to d isregard the r uling bythe H oly See, can i n pri nci ple be cor re cted o n a ppea l fr o m a fi na l j ud g m en t. Butpr ac ti ce a nd pr i nc i pl e ar e l i k el y to di ve r g e i n th i s ca se . S up p ose the re ligiou s q u es tio n on w h i c h t h e jur y w as (w ro n gly ) all o wed t o r ul e tu r ned out n o t to b e g er m an e to the10 N os. 12

- 2157, 12

- 2257, 12

- 2262 ap p ea l, or th at th er e w a s n o a p p ea l. T h en th er e w ou ld be a fi n alj ud gm ent o fa secul arco urt re sol vi ng a r el i g i o us i ssue. S ucha j udg m en t co ul d c au se c o nfus i o n, c o n s t e r n a t i o n, a n d d i s ma y i n r e l i g i o u s c i r c l e s . T h e c o mm i ngl i ng o fr el i gi ous a nd se cul arj usti ce woul d viola te no t o nl y the i nj unc ti o n i n M a tthew 22 : 21 to “r ender unto Cae sa r the thi ng s whi cha r e Cae sa r ’ s, a nd un to God th e thi ngs that a re God’s, ” but als o the F i rs t Am endm ent, w hi ch f orbi ds the go ve rnm ent t o m ake r el i gi ous j ud gm ents. The har m o fsu ch a gov er nm entali ntrusi on i nto r el i g i o us a ff ai r s would b e i r r epa r ab l e, j us t as in the othe r types ofcas e in w hi ch the coll ate ra l o rder doctr i ne al l ows i nter l ocuto ryappeal s. That no re l i gi ous insti tu tio n is a partyto thi s ca se i s o f no m om ent. M cCarthy i s a sking us to re ver se a d istri ct j ud ge’ s r uling tha t i fi t s tands will requir e a j ury to an sw er a re ligiou s q u es tio n . (H e h a s s ta n d in g t o c h allen ge th e r u lin g b ec au se it be ar s d ire c tly on h is c laim .) Reli gio us que st i o ns a r e to b e an swe r ed byr el i g i o us bo di es . S o we as k ed th e H o l y See t o a dvi se us o n the m at ter, a nd i n r es po ns e i t ha s fi l ed a 51

- pag e ami cus cur i ae b r i efwhi chc o nc l ude s th atF ul l er, s i nc e l ea ving the Congr ega ti on o fthe Si ste rs o fthe Prec i ous Bl ood i n 1 9 7 9 ( o r a t th e v e r y l a t e s t s i n c e 1 9 8 3 ) , h a s n o t b e e n a m em bero fany re l i gi ous o rg ani zati on r eco gni zed by the Ho ly Se e. She i s no t a nun ( she m ay neverhave bee n on e, as w e n ot ed ea rlier ) , no t a m em b er of th e C at h olic Si ste rho od or of any Cathol i c re l i gi ous or der, and not enti tl ed und erCathol i c l aw to cal l her sel fS i ste r Theres e. A s t he Ho l y S e e ’ s b r i e f e xp l a i ns , F ul l e r ha d b e c o m e a m embe r ofthe Cong r eg at i o n o fthe S i st er s o fthe Pr ec i o usN os. 12

- 2157, 12

- 2257, 12

- 2262 11 Blo od i n 196 5, ente ri ng the co n tem pla ti ve cl oi ste r that w e m enti oned ea rl i er . I n 197 0 s he pro fess ed pe rp et ual vo ws o fpo ve r ty, c ha st i ty, a nd o be di en ce . Buti n 1 97 7 th e Supe rio r Generalo fthe Congre gat i on o rder ed herto tak e a l eave o fabs ence f ro m the cl oi ste r f orat le as t a y ea r b ec au se o fhe r “ seem i ngs at i sf ac ti o n wi thmin i m um spi r i tu alg r o wth a nd .

. . ove rcon ce r n f o r e xt erna l s an d ph y s i c a l c o mf o r t a n d n i c e n e s s , ” “ e ff o r t s t o c o n t r o l a nd do m i na te o ve r the o th er m embe r s o fthe c o m m uni ty, ” an d “d isr eg ar d for c on gr eg at ion al p olic ies an d p ro c ed u re s.” F o urda y s l at ers he a nd t wo o th ers i st er s, i nc l udi ng Si ste r Ep hrem , peti ti oned the Superi or Gener alf or“s eparation” from the C ong regation. Th ey w an ted to f orm thei r own co m m unity

— th e Con te m pl at i ve S i st er s o fthe I nd w el l i ng Trini ty

— and w ent a head and did so

. The H oly S ee rej ecte d t h eir peti ti on f orse parat i on the fol l owing year, o n the gr ound that three was “to o sm al l [ a num bero fsi ste rs ] f or a wel l

- f or m ed com m unity” a n d in a d d i t i o n th a tth e i r p r o p o s a l f o r th e n e w c o mm u n i ty “la c k[e d ] th e d ist in c tiv e c h ar ism [ca llin g or ap titude f ora re l i gi ous c ar eer ] and w ay ofl i fe r equi re d fo r th e appr o va l o fa r el i g i o us i ns ti tu te
. ” H o wev er, the H o l y S e e r e mi nd e d the Co ng r e g a t i o n o fthe S i s t e r s o f the Pr eci ous Bl oo d t h at the si ste rs co uld peti ti on f or
“ e xc l a us t r a t i o n, ” wh i c h mea ns p e r mi s s i o n t o l i v e o ut s i de a cloi ster w h il e rem aining a m em ber of a reli gious ord er, i n thi s ca se th e Con g r eg at i o n o f th e S i st er s o fthe Pr ec i o us Blo od. S i ste r Theres e pet i ti oned i n 197 9 for a o ne- yea r excl austr ati on, w h ich was gr anted, as was her peti ti on th e f o l l o wi ngy ea r for a s ec o nd o ne - y ea r e xc l au st r at i o n. Bu t the H ol y S ee to ld herther e would be no further12 N os. 12

- 2157, 12

- 2257, 12

- 2262

ex te nsio ns

— th atwhenthe s ec o nd o ne e xpi r ed sh e woul d e i th erha ve t o r etur n t o the Co ng r eg at i on o fthe Sis te rs of th e P re c io u s B loo d “a n d live fu lly u n d er ob ed ie nc e t o the s up e r i o r g e ne r a l, ” o r h a v e t o “ r e quest a d isp en sa tio n f ro m you r vo w s a n d se p ar at e y ou rs elf fro m yo u r C on gr eg at ion .” T h e H oly See ga ve h er till M ay 31, 19 81 , t o de ci de. S he di d no t r es po nd, a nd the f ol l owing yea r the Hol y S ee, atthe re quest o fthe Congre

gat i o n, di s pe ns e d he r f r o m h e r v o ws a nd di s mi s s ed her fro m th e C on gr eg at ion on th e g ro u n d of “ i n c or rig ible di sobe di en ce . ” A ye arl at erthe Hol y S ee a dvi se d the Congre gat i on that Ful l er“has notm ade any re cour se, so th e c as e is clo se d .” S o m at t e r s s t o o d u n t i l 2 0 0 8 , wh e n a b i s h o p o ft he dio cese i n w hi ch Fo sto ria is l oca ted wrote Ful l er

— a ppar en tl y a t M cCa r th y ’ s pr o m pting

— i nquir i ng ab out her “st ate o fl i fe in the C h u rch. ” S he r epl i ed to the bi shop that she r em ai ned a m em bero fa re l i gi ou s or d er under can on law , pre sum abl y r efer ri ng to the Contem pla ti ve S i st er s o fthe I ndwel l i ngTrinit y . Unper su ade d, the bi shop i ss ued a st ate m ent in w hi ch he s ai d that F ull er “i s no t a m em bero fa canoni cali nsti tute ofco nsecrate d l i fe, h avi ngb ee n di smi ss ed f r o m the S o ci ety o fthe P re c iou s B loo d co m m u n ity in 1 98 2.” Thr e e y e a r s l a t e r the Co ng r e g a t i o n f o r I ns t i t ut es of C on se c ra te d L ife, th e b ra n c h of th e H oly See res p on sib le f orsuperv i si on o f“r el i gi ou s Insti tutes , ” a cat ego rythat w ou l d i ncl ud e bo th the Congr ega ti on o fthe Si ste rs o f th e P r ec i o us Bl o o d a nd the Co nt empl at i ve S i st er s o fthe I nd w el l i ng Tri ni ty, endors ed the f ol l owin g d ecl ar a-N os. 12

- 2157, 12

- 2257, 12

- 2262 13 tio n by A rc hb ish op Jos ep h W . To b in

— th e Archbi shop Se cre tar y o fthe Congre gat i on f orI nsti tutes o fConsecr ate d Li fe: “ M i ss Patr i ci a Ann F ul l eri s no t a m embe r o fa ny re ligiou s In st itu te , form ally r ec og n ize d by th e C at h olic Ch urch. ” In M ar ch 201 2 the A posto l i c N uncia ture , speak

i ng f o r the Hol y S ee , c o nfi r m ed th e au th o r i tyo fthe a r ch

bi shop’ s decl ar ati on a nd r equeste d “ th at the Unite d S ta te s o fA m erica a nd i ts c o ur ts a cc o r d ful l f ai tha nd cre ditto ” i t. The questi on o fFul l er ’ s r el i gi ous s tatus r el ate s t o se ve ra l i ssues i n the l i ti gat i on. W e m enti oned heral l ega ti on tha t M c C arthy def am ed herby cal l i ng hera “f ake nun,” w hi l e a s par t o fhi s cl ai m o ffra ud he a l l ege s that sh e m i sr epres ented hers el f as bei ng a nun and l i vi n g in a co nvent. S he chal l enges t he H ol y S ee’ s r ulings with the c laim that she profess ed “pri vate vo w s” backi n 197 9 and as a r esul t o fthes e v ows has “r em ain [ ed] a per m ane nt l y p r o fes se d r el i g i o us s i st ero fthe Ca th o l i c Chur ch, i n pri vate vo w , to the p re se nt day. ” S he ar gues that eve n if sh e w as d ism iss ed from h er co n gr eg a t ion sh e is en titl ed to refer to he rself as a sister bec au se th e te rm ma y b e u s e d b y a l a y p e r s o n w h o t a k e s a p r i v a t e v o w. T h e C at h olic C h u r c h rejec ts th e a rg u m en t. T h e H oly See’s briefstates th a t “ Fu ll er w as ne ither a nu n n or a si ste r i n the Ca tho l i c Ch ur c h o nc e s he wa s di s pe nsed f ro m herr el i gi ous v ows and d ism isse d fr om her re ligiou s o rd er on A u gu st 11 , 198 2.” F ul l era l so a r g ue s th atthe Co nt em p lative S i st er s o fthe I nd w el l i ng Trini ty, as the succes sorto the conte m pla ti ve cloi ster e s t a b lishe d i n 19 63, i s a pa p al enclosu re, a term14 N os. 12

- 2157, 12

- 2257, 12

- 2262 that usual l y denot es a s tr i ctl y c l ois te re d exi ste nce, as ofa nun. Bu t o nce ag ai n, i nsof aras she i s s i m p l y di sag r ee i ngwi ththe H oly See ’ s den i altha t sh e i s a nun o r a s i st er, the fede r alj udi ci ar y h as no a utho r i tyt o e nter tai n the ar gum ent. S he furtherar gues that A rchbi shop T ob in ’s ru lin g t h at Fu ller h as be lon ge d to n o C at h olic re l i gi ous o rdersince herexpuls i on fro m the Congre gat i on ofthe Sister s o fthe Prec i ous Bl oo d w as base d on f o r g ed do cument s su bmi tt ed to hi m b y M cC ar th y

— who i nd eed, she cl ai m s, has been engag ed i n an o rgy o f f o r g er y i n h i s eff o r t to pl ac e co nt r o l o ve r a l l de vo ti o ns to O ur Lad y of A m erica in th e ha nd s of L an gsen kam p ’s A p os to lat e. B u t a ga in th is a rg u m en t c an n otp re va il in th e f ac e o fthe Hol y S ee ’ s r ul i ng, c o m m uni ca te d t o us by th e am icus cu riae bri ef. Yet the di strict j ud ge, r ej ecting M cCarthy ’ s m oti on t o tak e jud ici alnot i ce o fA rchbi shop Tobi n’s r uling o n F u l l e r ’ s r e l i g i o u s s t a t u s , s a i d th a tMc C a r th y h a d n ’ td e monst ra t e d tha te i the r the a r c hb i s ho p o r the Co ng r e g a t i on f orI nsti tutes of C on secr ate d Life “ has the autho ri ty to m ak e an y s uch‘ dec i si o n, ’ ” th ati s, a de ci si o n r ega r di ng Fu ller’ s re ligiou s s ta tu s. L a te r, aft er th e A p os to lic N un cia t ure ’s statem en t, con fi rm ing the archbishop ’s r ul i ng, i n Mar ch2 01 2, he s ai d tha t “b ec au se the Cat ho l i c C h u r c h i s n o t a p a r t y t o th i s c a s e , . . . i ft he j ur y ult i m at el y de ci des tha t F ul l eri s a Catho l i c nun, that deci si on s i m plywillnotaffect the Catho l i c Church in an y w ay .” H e a d d ed “t h at th e d et er m in at ion se t fo rt h in th e [a r c hb ish op ’s] D ec lar at ion w as n otm ad e a s a res u lt ofan a dj ud i cati on m ade f orr el i gi ous or church gov er nance purpose s. ” The j ud ge al so note d disa pp ro v-N os. 12

- 2157, 12

- 2257, 12

- 2262 15 i ng l y tha t i t was M cCa r thy w ho had r eque st ed th e ar ch

bi shop to decl ar e F ull er ’ s r el i gi ous s tatus. I n o th erwor ds, the j udg e ne ither co ul d s ee ho w the Cathol i c Church coul d be har m ed by all owing a j ury to deter m i ne Ful l er ’ s r el i gi ous s tatus nor w as sati sfi ed that the Church’ s dete rm i nati on wa s va li d, i n the sense o f b ei ng bo th co nsi ste nt with canon l aw and proc edural ly r e g ul a r . T he j ud g e ’ s fi r s tr e a s on wa s , a s we s a i d, er r o ne o us ; s ubmi tt i ngthe que st i o n o fF ul l er ’ s r el i g io us st atus t o a j ur y woul d unde r m i ne the a utho r i tya nd autono m y o fthe Chu rch. H i s seco nd r eas on

— his con cern w i th va l i dity

— has been l ai d t o re st by the am i cu s curi ae br ief, whi chthe j udg e di dn’ t ha ve the b en efi t o f

. The br i efi s th e unqu es ti o nabl y a uthe nt i c st at emento fthe H ol y S ee. I n i t th e Hol y S ee has s poken, l ayi ng to r est any pr evi ous doubts : Ful l erhas n ot been a m em bero f any C at h olic r el i gi ous o rderf orm or e than 30 yea rs . Peri od. The di strict ju dge has no a uthor i ty to questi on th a tr u l i n g . A j u r y h a s n o a u th o r i t y to q u e s t i o n i t
. We have no a uthor i ty to questi on i t. A l l thatthi s m eans, however, so f aras the l i ti gat i on i s co ncer n ed , i s that F ull er ’ s r el i gi ous s tatus i s no l onge r a litig ab le iss u e. Sh e is n ota m em b er of an y C a t h olic re l i gi ous or der, and has n’t been si nce 1983 at th e la tes t, w hen she exhausted herr em edi es w i thi n the Ch urc h by f ai l i ngt o s ee k“ r ecourse” fr o m he r e xpul si o n b y the H o l y S ee fr o m the Co ng r eg at i o n o fthe S i st er s o f th e Pr e c i o us Bl o o d. A t a ny poi nt i n the tr ial or o therpro ceedin g s atwhi chhe r r el i g i o us s ta tu s be co m es r el ev an t to a l egal i ss ue , the j udg e m us t i ns tr uctthe l awy er s, a nd16 N os. 12

- 2157, 12

- 2257, 12

- 2262 i fther e i s a j ury the jur or s as w el l, thatthe Rom an Cathol i c Ch urch has deter m i ned that Ful l er has n ot be en a m em bero fan y C athol i c r el i gi ous o rdersince 19 83 at the l ate st; thatshe i s no t a nun or a s iste r and does no t l i ve i n a conve nt, cl oi ste r, or othe r re l i gi ous p roperty own ed orused bythe C h urch; and that these r ulings b y th e Chur chmay no t be que st i o ne d i n the l i ti g at i o n. W hat be ar i ng the r ulings hav e o n part i cul archar ges an d co u n te rc h ar ge s is for t h e d ist ric t c ou r t t o d ec id e in th e fi r sti ns ta nc e. Ob vi o us l y i t i s r el ev an t to th e pl ainti ff’ s char ge of fra ud , tho ugh not necess ar i l y dete rm i nativ e, as Fu lle r m ay try to p ro ve th at sh e b elie ve d , albe it er ro n eo u s l y , th at sh e re m ain ed a sis te r aft er h er ex p u lsi o n b y th e C o n g r e g a t i o n o fth e S i s t e r s o fth e P r e ci o us Blo od. But she w i l l notbe perm i tte d to ar gue oro ffer evi den c e t h at she is a si ste r. The H ol y S ee’ s r uling has r emov ed th ati ss ue fr o m the l i ti g at i o n. T h is c om p let es ou r an aly sis oft h e p rin c ip al a p p ea l. W e turn briefl y t o the o thertwo appeal s. One ofthem ( N o . 1 2- 21 57 ) i s r ea l l y t wo a ppea l s. I t chal l en g es the dist ri ct j ud ge’ s d eni alo fM cCarthy ’ s m oti on f ora sta y p en d in g re so lu tio n of a p e tit ion to th e H oly See as kin g it t o d e t e r mi n e th a t th e d i s p u t e d p r o p e r t y b e l o n g s to t he C hu rch, rather th an to Full er, bec a u s e o f Sister Ep hrem ’s vo w ofpo ver ty
. Tha t ch al l en g e be ca m e m o o t when th e H ol y See d ecl i ned to deci de w ho o w ned the di sputed pr o per ty, a nd s o di smi ss ed th e pet i ti o n. B ut the ap p eal al so ch all en ges th e j ud ge’s d e n ialof a m o ti o n b y M cC ar th y f o rpa r ti als um m ar y j udg m en t th atth e d i st r i ctc o ur t “l ac k s j ur i sdi ct i o n t o make o r c o n-N os. 12

- 2157, 12

- 2257, 12

- 2262 17 d u c t a fa c tu al in q u iry int o t h e s ta tu s/ ow n er sh ip of ec c les iast i cal proper ty. ” The dist ri ct j ud ge denie d the m ot ion on the gr oun d t hat the pro pertydi spute ca n be re sol ved w i thout get ti ng in to r el i gi ous ques ti ons. That m ay i nd e e d b e poss ib l e . Co nc e i v a b l y the c o ur tmi g hth o l d, f o r exa mpl e , tha te v e n i fF ul l e r o b t a i ne d t i t l e t o the p r o per ty i n questi on ( the r el i gi ous a rt i f acts , et c. ) upon Si ste r Ep hrem ’ s death, she cannot pro ve conve rs i on b ec au se (M c C ar th y m ay be ab le t o p ro ve ) sh e v olu n ta rily g av e th e pr o per tyt o M cCa r th y a nd La ng senkam p . The H o l y Se e ’ s b r i e fe x p r e s s e s d o u b tth a tr e s o l u t i o n o fthe p ro p er ty d isp u te s w ill en ta n gle th e d ist ric t c ou rtin re l i gi ou s i ssues , and i ftheywil l notther e i s no bas i s f or re n ounci ng j ud i ci alj uri sdic ti on o verthe disputes

. S ee Jones v. Wolf

, 443 U .S. 59 5, 60 4 (1 97 9); P resb ytery of O hio Val l ey, In c . , v. OP C, Inc. , 97 3 N
. E. 2d. 10 99, 11 05- 07 (In d . 201 2); Ser bian O rthod ox C hu rc h C ongregation of St. D em etrius v. Kelem en , 256 N .E . 2d 21 2, 21 6-1 7 (O h io 1970 ). U nless an d un tilsuc h en ta ng lem en t loom s, th ere i s no bas i s f orthe re l i efso ught byM cCarthy ; and so w e di sm i ss appeal N o. 12

- 2157as pre m atur e. T he rem aining ap p eal, N o. 12-2262, fil ed by Fuller, see ks to ov er tu rn s om e o fthe dist ri ct j ud ge’ s r ulings. The se a r e no t fi na l r ul i ng s an d F ul l erdi d no t o bt ain a R ule 54(b) certification au th orizi ng an interlocu t ory appeal

. N ori s there a n y otherbas i s f orj uri sdic ti on ov er th e a p p ea l. So, to con clud e, th e d istri ct court’s d en ialof M cC arth y’s m otion th at th e cou rt ta ke j ud ici al n otice of th e H oly See’s ru li ngs o n Ful l er ’ s s tatus i n the Ch urch

— the de ni al18 N os. 12

- 2157, 12

- 2257, 12

- 2262 appeal ed fro m i n appeal N o. 12

- 2257

— i s r eve rs ed, with a r em i nd erto the dist ri ct c ourtthatfedera l courts ar e no t e m pow er ed t o deci de ( orto al l ow j uri es to decid e) reli gious que stions. T he oth er tw o ap p ea ls are di s mi s s e d.

4- 10- 13