Government Intervention and The Catholic Church

Following the increased allegations against members of the Catholic Church, Pope Francis and the Catholic Church have worked to create more transparency and accountability of those who have been “credibly accused of sexually abusing a minor.” In addition to being under the age of 18, the Catholic Church also defines a minor as: “ includes individuals over the age of 18 who lack the mental faculties of an adult.” In 2019, the Diocese of Lubbock, in accordance with a new decision by Catholic Bishops in Texas, released a list of individuals, who “based on Catholic Church law and in accordance with internal church investigations, were credibly accused of sexually abusing “minors” as defined by Catholic law” (Beckett). Former Deacon Jesus Guerrero was included on the list. In 2003 Guerrero was suspended and then four years later permanently suspended from his position for “alleged sexual misconduct with a woman who has a history of mental and emotional issues” (Beckett), and is therefore classified as a minor under Catholic Law. Guerrero has sued the Diocese of Lubbock because he was named on the list. Guerrero is arguing that  “his inclusion is defamatory, because the person he is accused of abusing was not under 18 years of age at the time of the alleged misconduct” (Beckett).

This case, Diocese of Lubbock v. Jesus Guerrero brings to light an issue of the Establishment Clause. Guerrero is asking for the court to discuss & determine  “whether the Catholic Church’s religious understanding of “minor” is reasonable, and, as applied to his conduct, true” (Beckett). The question at hand is whether or not the government is allowed to interfere within church matters by determining whether or not the Catholic Church’s definition of a minor is “reasonable” and therefore asking the government to question and examine specific beliefs and rationale of the Catholic Church. Beckett Law is arguing on behalf of the Texas Catholic Conference of Bishops that “allowing courts to decide religious questions would open a Pandora’s box of lawsuits over internal church affairs, obliterating the separation of church and state” (Beckett). While reading this case, I was instantly reminded of Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Agnes Morrissey Berru and Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC because of the critical “ministerial exception” these cases discussed. Within both of the cases, the courts grappled with whether or not the government has the ability to hear and decide on the employment claims of teachers at religious schools. Although these two cases are different within the details, I was reminded of the entanglement that occurred between both of them and whether or not the government was able to interfere in the employment decision that was based on the church’s definition of a minister. 

This case is complicated. On the one hand, I understand the concerns that the Catholic Church has over the government making such a decision in religious affairs instead of the church. It sets a dangerous precedent many are concerned about. On the other hand, failure to act could also set another dangerous precedent of the government unable to intervene in potential criminal activity, therefore enacting the “slippery slope.” As Alee Corralles from UA Little Rock points out, “The Diocese of Lubbock decision will set one of two potentially harmful precedents: one allows a religious institution to publicly defame an individual under the guise of religious autonomy; the other condones government oversight of religious institutions in self-governing according to its beliefs.”  In accordance with Justice Thomas’ concurring opinion in Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC, the Diocese of Lubbock is arguing they have “good faith to be transparent about clergy with credible accusations of child abuse,”  but how do we know for sure? Either way, the court is setting a dangerous precedent, and reminded me of the extensive discussion we had earlier this week on entanglement. 

    If I was on the Supreme Court, I am not sure what I would decide. The weight that this case holds to create precedent for the First Amendment is heavy. In the unanimous decision in favor of the Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC, Chief Justice Roberts writes, “the members of a religious group put their faith in the hands of the ministers” (Munoz, 576). In his majority opinion in Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Agnes Morrissey Berru, Justice Alito writes, “The Religion Clauses protect the right of churches and other religious  institutions  to  decide  matters ‘of  faith  and  doctrine’ without government intrusion” (Alito). Both of these quotes reflect the importance of the Establishment Clause and separation of church and state. Although I understand the fear of good faith versus bad faith, fear for survivors to come forward, and fear of government involvement in religious affairs and regulations outweighs the potential that the Church will abuse their power when the government is unable to intervene. Similar to the Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Agnes Morrissey Berru and Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC, another case could come along in a few years with different details to sway the decision, however, for now I side with the Diocese of Lubbock.