Opinion ID: 1433952
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The employment relationship between Ronan and the Holy See

Text: Under this understanding of the phrase commercial activity, Doe's negligence claims without doubt come within the commercial activity exception. Doe's amended complaint explains that the Holy See has both ecclesiastical and governmental functions. In its governmental role, the Holy See undertakes certain functions that are undoubtedly sovereign. It maintains a volunteer military to defend the territory of Vatican City, over which it has complete control; it may enact laws with domestic effect and enter into international treaties and compacts with other nations; and it sends and receives diplomatic representatives to and from other states. [2] Under the analysis we set forth in Holden, had Ronan been employed to perform any of these diplomatic, civil service, or military functions, his employment by the Vatican would have fallen outside the FSIA's commercial activity exception. 92 F.3d at 921. But, on the allegations in the complaint, Ronan was not a civil service, diplomatic, or military employee  the types of employees that only sovereign states can employ. Nor is there any evidence that Ronan was privy to any governmental policy deliberations or that he engaged in legislative work on behalf of the Holy See. Id. at 922. Rather, the Holy See hired Ronan to perform ecclesiastical and parochial services  to provide religious and pastoral guidance, education and counseling services to the Church's faithful. Providing religious, educational, and counseling services is not a peculiarly governmental function; it is something that non-governmental employers can do. To reach this conclusion, I do not rely at all on the consideration that churches receive financial support from their parishioners. Maj. Op. at 1075. The fact that Ronan's provision of pastoral services coincides with and depends upon his parishioners giving donations is neither necessary nor sufficient to show that the Holy See's employment of Ronan is a commercial activity under Weltover's nature-not-purpose test. Weltover, 504 U.S. at 614, 112 S.Ct. 2160. Instead, the critical factor in the commercial activity analysis in this case is that the Holy See's employment activities alleged in Doe's complaint are not distinctly sovereign in nature  that they are the sort of functions that private parties, not just sovereign governments, can perform. See Holden, 92 F.3d at 921. So approached, the application of the FSIA commercial activity exception to Doe's complaint is not an arcane question, see Maj. Op. at 1075, but a straightforward matter of applying our own binding case law. I recognize that the Holy See's dual role as not only a sovereign government but also the head of a worldwide church gives this case a peculiar complexion. But that sense of oddity comes about because the Holy See is a sovereign of a very unusual kind. Both in physical size and number of inhabitants, the land it governs is tiny. Its role as a traditional, sovereign government entity is correspondingly small, when compared to its role in running an extremely large international religious organization. The fact that the Holy See is unique among sovereigns in this respect does not, however, necessitate deviating from the rules we normally follow in construing and applying the FSIA. The operation of a huge international religious institution is a large task, and one of great importance to many people. But it is not an activity that may be undertaken only by sovereign states, which is the focus of the FSIA's commercial activity exception. Indeed, in most cases it is non-governmental entities, not governments, that operate international religious institutions, the Mormon Church and the Greek Orthodox Church being two prominent examples. The FSIA's purpose is not to insulate religious institutions from suit; it juxtaposes commercial activities not to religious activities, but to governmental activities. The Holy See differs from other foreign states in the nature of the non-sovereign activities it carries out and, in all likelihood, in the ratio of its non-sovereign activities to its sovereign activities. But it is like other sovereigns in the respect essential here: It engages in a range of non-sovereign activities in the United States, and the FSIA's commercial activity exception lifts the shield of immunity from such non-sovereign activities. The district court nonetheless expressed discomfort with characterizing the Holy See's employment of Ronan as commercial activity for FSIA purposes, observing that the Holy See's employment of clergy is widely viewed as the antithesis of commerciality. Doe, 434 F.Supp.2d at 941. Commerciality and religiosity are, indeed, often viewed as antithetical categories. But, as I have explained, the FSIA's commercial activity phrase, as it has been interpreted in the case law, is a term of art, not reliant on common usage, which reflects the special concerns of a sovereign immunity statute. The district court's discomfort notwithstanding, under well-established FSIA principles and our own binding case law the employment relationship that existed between Ronan and the Holy See does constitute commercial activity of a foreign state.