|
|
|
|
|
« Return
|
|
Court finds church autonomy doctrine permits firing of Colorado youth minister
2002-113-5
5/7/2002
|
[Episcopal News Service]
The church autonomy doctrine prevents a Colorado youth minister, terminated because she is a lesbian, from bringing claims of sexual harassment and violations of civil rights against the Episcopal Diocese of Colorado.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit ruled April 30 in Bryce v. Episcopal Church in the Diocese of Colorado (10th Cir., No. 00-1515, 4/30/02) rejecting the claims of youth minister Lee Ann Bryce and her partner, the Rev. Sara D. Smith, against the Colorado diocese and St. Aidan's Episcopal Church on the grounds that religious institutions are protected under the church autonomy doctrine that allows churches and religious organizations to make decisions about their own internal affairs.
Neither Bryce nor Smith are members of the Episcopal Church. Smith is an ordained minister in the United Church of Christ (UCC). Bryce and Smith had a civil commitment ceremony in November 1998. In January 1999, St. Aidan's priest and lay leaders learned about the commitment ceremony and informed her that she would be terminated as youth minister because she violated Episcopal doctrine that opposed sexual relationships outside of marriages. She was offered an adult education position until the end of 1999.
'The plaintiffs ask this court to insert itself into a theological discussion about the church's doctrine and policy towards homosexuals[,] one of the most important ongoing dialogues in many churches today,' Judge Deanell Reece Tacha wrote for the court. 'We decline to do so.' The court found that the church autonomy doctrine 'prohibits civil court review of internal church disputes involving matters of faith, doctrine, church governance, and polity' and that as long as the hiring decisions were made for 'ecclesiastical' and not secular reasons, the courts should not interfere with the decisions of a church. In rejecting the appeal, the Tenth Circuit found that, although some comments by church leaders could be viewed as 'offensive' and incorrect, the statements 'fall squarely' into church governance and First Amendment rights.
|
|
|
|
|
|
