Court Opinion

ID: 9529316
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:49:45.621495+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:27:44.144457
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE SCHMIDT, dissenting in part and concurring in part: I dissent only from that portion of the majority decision dealing with the defamation count. I think it is clear from the record that constitutional strictures prevent the court from exercising jurisdiction over the defamation count against Abatie. For purposes of this review, we must, of course, accept the allegations of the complaint as true. Count I of the complaint seeks damages against Abatie for defamation. The relevant allegations in count I are as follows: “2. Defendant RODGER E ABATIE (‘ABATIE’) resides in Fekin, Tazewell County, Illinois; and at all times stated herein Defendant ABATIE has been employed by the Defendant TRINITY as administrative pastor, a position in which he has served since June, 1990. * * * 16. During the period of January 30, 1999 to the present, ABA-TIE has often stated to persons in the TRINITY congregation, in Lutheran community and in the Lutheran Church — Missouri Synod of Rev. JENKINS that ‘he had an affair...{a female congregant}’, that Rev. JENKINS ‘did the nasty’ with...{a female congregant}, and that Rev. JENKINS’ conduct was ‘bad, very bad’, and that Rev. JENKINS had to resign because his actions with a congregant had disgraced JENKINS and TRINITY. 17. In committing the acts set forth above, Defendant ABATIE acted with the knowledge that the statements were false and with reckless disregard as to whether the statements were false or not and maliciously spread rumors and false statements in the community.” The majority stays the decision on the defamation count pending arbitration and then instructs the trial court to review the arbitration proceedings to determine “whether Abatie’s remarks were inextricably involved in the discipline, faith, administration or rules of the church.” 356 Ill. App. 3d at 512-13. I disagree. I would affirm the dismissal of the defamation count. While I do not pretend to be an expert on scripture, I feel confident that Reverend Abatie did not find the phrase “did the nasty” in the book of Genesis or the four Gospels. Nonetheless, I see no qualitative difference between the statements allegedly made and a hypothetical statement that “Reverend Jenkins is no longer with us because his conduct did not comply with that expected of Lutheran ministers.” Very significantly, plaintiff alleges that the defamatory statements were made by Abatie, the administrative pastor, and solely within the Lutheran church community. I find a statement from the United States Court made over a century ago to be relevant here: “But it is a very different thing where a subject-matter of dispute, strictly and purely ecclesiastical in its character, — a matter over which the civil courts exercise no jurisdiction, — a matter which concerns theological controversy, church discipline, ecclesiastical government, or the conformity of the members of the church to the standard of morals required of them, — becomes the subject of its action. It may be said here, also, that no jurisdiction has been conferred on the tribunal to try the particular case before it, or that, in its judgment, it exceeds the powers conferred upon it, or that the laws of the church do not authorize the particular form of proceeding adopted; and, in a sense often used in the courts, all of those may be said to be questions of jurisdiction.” Watson v. Jones, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 679, 733, 20 L. Ed. 666, 678 (1872). Because the comments were made by a pastor in the church solely to the church community and related to why defendant was no longer a pastor at the church, I cannot fathom a set of facts in which the civil courts would have jurisdiction to hear this dispute. Reverend Abatie’s remarks, made solely within the church, were either proper under church policy, or they were not. Either way, the first amendment, in my opinion, dictates that this matter be resolved within the Lutheran church. The general rule is that courts should be loath to assert jurisdiction over internal church disputes. Presbyterian Church v. Mary Elizabeth Blue Hull Memorial Presbyterian Church, 393 U.S. 440, 21 L. Ed. 2d 658, 89 S. Ct. 601 (1969); Serbian Eastern Orthodox Diocese v. Milivojevich, 426 U.S. 696, 49 L. Ed. 2d 151, 96 S. Ct. 2372 (1976).