The Clergyman's Hand-book of Law: The Law of Church and Grave

by Charles Martin Scanlan

380. Priest, Pastoral Duties.—Where a priest published from the altar that “Peter Servatius is excommunicated, because he laid hands on the priest to put him out of the church, and he has no more benefit of the prayers of the church. I will not pray for him, and consider him a lost sheep and withdraw all my pastoral blessings from him. If he die, the burial rights of the church will be denied him,” such remarks were held defamatory, unless they were spoken in the proper discharge of the priest's clerical and pastoral duties and without malice; and the case should have been submitted on the evidence to a jury.[677]

381. Church Record, Excommunication.—An entry of a church record that “A report raised and circulated by A. B. against Brother C., stating that he made him pay a note twice, and proved by A. B. as false,” [pg 205] is libelous.[678] But an entry of excommunication of a member made in the record and shown to other members, is not libelous, the latter being properly a part of the record and the former extraneous.[679]

382. Will, Libel, Action.—The will of a priest contained a statement that a relative had received $300 from him for clothing, maintenance, education, etc., and promised to repay it, but paid no part of it. Then testator bequeathed said $300 to two legatees to collect for their own use. The relative filed a petition asking the estate of the priest to be held liable for a libel in the sum of $50,000 and the court held that as the right of action did not accrue until after the death of the testator, there was a right of action against the estate. As the case never got beyond the probate court, its authority is doubtful.[680]

383. Language, Insane, Good Faith.—Unless the language is used by the bishop in the line of his duty, a statement that a priest is irresponsible and insane, that he was removed from his position of priest for good reason, and that he has been guilty of ecclesiastical disobedience, is slanderous [pg 206] per se. To make a communication between a bishop and priest privileged it must have been spoken in good faith and in belief that the speaking of it came within the discharge of the bishop's duty.[681]

384. Rector, Bigamy, Tobacco, Liquor.—In a case where the rector of an Episcopal church called upon a man charged with bigamy and after a private conversation the minister wrote a letter to the district attorney on behalf of the prisoner, it was held not privileged because it was not made in confidence of the relation and was not kept as a secret.[682] A letter from a church member of one congregation to the elders of another congregation advising them of the unfitness of a clergyman appointed to the latter parish, and stating that he used tobacco and liquor, that he was an untruthful man, and that his family was no credit to the community, was quasi-privileged; and in the absence of proof that the charges were false and malicious was not actionable.[683]

385. Newspapers, Criticisms, Priest.—A newspaper has a right to publish criticisms of the conduct of a priest in certain services held in his church if no false statement [pg 207] of facts is given, since such conduct is a proper subject of discussion; and if such article contains a statement that if certain published accounts of the conduct of the priest are true he acted in an improper manner, etc., it is not libelous because such facts are not true, as it is not an affirmation of the truth thereof. Where the alleged libel was published in a foreign language and the correctness of the translation was disputed, it was an error for the judge to instruct the jury that if the translation introduced in evidence was correct, the defendant was liable, since plaintiff's right to recover should not be made to depend on the absolute accuracy of the translation.[684]

386. Clergyman, Discipline, Tribunals, Testimony, Argument.—What a clergyman says in the administration of the discipline of the church or what is said in tribunals to enforce discipline of the church, including testimony and legitimate argument within the scope of the case, if said in good faith and without malice, is not actionable in the civil courts.[685]

387. Physical Discipline, Imprisonment, Courts.—A clergyman who claims to have been slandered by a parishioner can not administer [pg 208] physical discipline nor put the offender under restraint without leaving himself liable for damages for assault and battery or false imprisonment. If the clergyman desires to treat the charge as a church matter, he must go into the church tribunal; otherwise, his proper course is to bring an action for slander in the State court.[686]

388. Sermon, False Statement, Crime.—A clergyman may, by words used in a sermon, slander a member of his congregation. However, if he makes no false statement and does not falsely or maliciously charge a crime, what he says in the way of discipline is privileged.[687] The meaning of the words “she is a dirty, vile woman,” can not be extended by innuendo.[688]

389. Charges, Robbed, Hypocrite.—Charges that a person has robbed a church or has stolen from a church, are actionable.[689] Also, charging a person with being a hypocrite and using the cloak of religion for unworthy purposes, is slanderous.[690]