A group of parishioners, led by their parish priest, sought approval from the presiding bishop to build a new church. Thinking that the bishop granted approval, the parishioners raised about $1.4 million for the project. Plans were drawn up and city permits obtained. But then the bishop left town and new man came in. The new man looked at the project and didn’t like it. Instead, in 2019 he issued a decree dissolving the parish and a neighboring one and creating a new parish in their place. He then transferred the parish’s assets, including the $1.4 million, to the new parish.
These are the facts of Nora Salado, et al. v. Roman Catholic Diocese of El Paso, Mark J. Seitz, Bishop of the Roman Catholic Diocese of El Paso (No. 08-22-00204-CV; delivered August 2, 2023). Plaintiffs filed suit alleging promissory estoppel, fraud, DTPA violations, and conversion. The Diocese moved to dismiss based for lack of subject matter jurisdiction based, among other things, on the doctrine of ecclesiastical abstention. The trial court granted the motion. Plaintiffs appealed.
In an opinion by Justice Rodriguez, the court of appeals affirmed. Rooted in the First Amendment’s anti-establishment and free exercise clauses, the doctrine of ecclesiastical abstention directs courts, “in resolving civil claims, [to] be careful not to intrude upon internal matters of church governance” (citations omitted). Courts, however, can resolve disputes involving church parties if such resolution may be resolved “on neutral principles of law that will not collide with church doctrine” (citations omitted). Though the line between ecclesiastical and non-ecclesiastical claims may be somewhat blurred, courts must determine “whether a judicial resolution will encroach on the institution’s governance and affairs.” If such resolution “calls the court to interpret or rely on religious precepts or ecclesiastical doctrine, then the First Amendment bars civil adjudication, but if neutral principles of law, standing alone, resolve the dispute, then the court may adjudicate the dispute” (citations omitted).
Looking to the substance of the claim—that the diocese and Bishop Seitz had misappropriated funds—the court found that evaluating the claim would require delving into canon law governing diocesan authority over local parishes, their finances and expenditures, and decisions about capital expenditures. Consequently, plaintiff’s claims directly involve a question of church government and may not proceed in a civil court.
