Episcopal Press and News
Vermont Civil Suit Raises First Amendment Issues About Bishops' Leadership with Clergy, Congregations
Episcopal News Service. December 4, 1997 [97-2036]
(ENS) A civil suit judgment handed down by a Vermont jury against the Diocese of Vermont has raised questions regarding First Amendment separation of church and state authority and the confidential relationships among bishops, clergy and congregations.
The case involves a civil suit filed by the Rev. Richard Lacava, former vicar at the Church of Our Saviour, Sherburne, who claimed that Vermont Bishop Mary Adelia McLeod had discriminated against him, intentionally caused emotional harm, breached a contract, invaded his privacy, portrayed him in a false light, and defamed his character. He sought $2.2 million in damages.
By the time the jury awarded Lacava $200,000 in his claim of invasion of privacy, all but three of his original claims had been dismissed. Lacava's charge that McLeod had discriminated against him because he is homosexual and a man was dismissed in a pre-trial hearing in July 1996, on the grounds that the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects religious institutions against interference by the state in decisions regarding clergy employment. The claim of intentional emotional harm also was dismissed.
"The First Amendment's guarantee of the free exercise of religion includes the free exchange of religious thought and dialogue between a bishop and members of a parish," said Thomas Little, vice chancellor for the diocese who represented McLeod during the trial. He warned that the court's decision has "a substantial chilling effect on that free exercise, not for the Episcopal Church only, but also for any denomination, any organized religious group."
During the trial in early November, Vermont Superior Court Judge Alan W. Cheever dismissed claims of breach of contract and punitive damages. The jury decided on November 10 that there was no liability for defamation of character or portraying the priest in a false light.
Little has renewed a motion to dismiss the verdict on First Amendment grounds, and if that is denied, will file an appeal with the Vermont Supreme Court.
Lacava filed the suit shortly after McLeod met with him in April 1995 to say he would not be permitted to continue to serve as vicar of the Sherburne congregation. She then met with the congregation to explain why Lacava -- who had been on a three-month leave of absence in order to reconcile conflicts between him and the parish -- would not return.
During the leave, Lacava underwent therapy and treatment for severe depression, and the congregation worked with a consultant to develop congregational skills. At the end of the leave, Lacava was evaluated at McLeod's request by a second psychologist.
McLeod testified during the trial that when she told Lacava of her decision she asked for, and received, his permission to tell the congregation "the truth." Lacava denied giving permission.
Of the meeting with the congregation, McLeod testified, "It began with prayer, and then, with a pounding and really sad heart, I told them that it was not in their best interest or Father Lacava's that he return and that I had told him that."
McLeod said she responded to a number of questions from parishioners, but denied making the specific statements Lacava alleged were defamatory.
In response to a trial question about her pastoral responsibility to Lacava, McLeod said she was "exercising tough love. I learned that raising five children. When hard issues need to be confronted, it is pastoral to confront them, to love and care about the person enough to raise those issues, even though it is incredibly painful for both people concerned."
Lacava asserted during the trial that McLeod's explanation of her decision to the congregation included false statements, "violated his space, reputation, and character, and ruined his career." He denied allegations that he had betrayed the confidences of parishioners and that he failed to maintain appropriate boundaries.
The evaluating psychologist testified during the trial that she had recommended a new supervised situation because of difficulties Lacava had with role boundaries.
At several points during the trial, Little entered motions to dismiss the claims on First Amendment grounds.
In his opening statement, Little said the core of the case involved the relationship between a bishop and a priest and that the bishop was acting "within the spirit and canon law of the church."
Little reiterated the ecclesiastical context of the bishop's actions in arguing for his dismissal motions, saying that the statements she did make about Lacava were in response to questions from parishioners in a situation for which she had a pastoral responsibility, and that Lacava had not shown "clear and convincing evidence" that the bishop had acted with malice or recklessness.
Judge Cheever said that contradictory evidence had been introduced about what the bishop had said, and believed one could argue that the bishop's alleged statements may have exceeded the First Amendment privileges. Cheever said he did not want to "invade the jury's opportunity to weigh the facts."
In closing arguments, Little reinforced his argument that the bishop had a legal, constitutional privilege under the First Amendment to speak to the congregation about Lacava's qualification as a priest and that she had done so with care and concern.