distinguishing the relatively new ministerial exception from the "far older" church autonomy doctrine; and concluding that Hosanna-Tabor only stands for the proposition that the ministerial exception is an affirmative defense, whereas the 1871 Supreme Court decision in Watson , *1209in which the church autonomy doctrine was first recognized continues to stand for the proposition that it is a jurisdictional bar
How later courts described this case
- distinguishing the relatively new ministerial exception from the "far older" church autonomy doctrine; and concluding that Hosanna-Tabor only stands for the proposition that the ministerial exception is an affirmative defense, whereas the 1871 Supreme Court decision in Watson , *1209in which the church autonomy doctrine was first recognized continues to stand for the proposition that it is a jurisdictional bar
- noting that “a church has no defense of ecclesiastical jurisdiction for a claim brought by a non-member . . . where it is undisputed, . . . that ‘by admission of both parties, [a party] did not ask to become a full member and otherwise be bound further by the numerous rules of the church and its denomination’” (quoting Guinn v. Church of Christ of Collinsville, 775 P.2d 766, 778 (Okla. 1989))
- noting the church-autonomy doctrine “operates as an affirmative defense” (quoting Hosanna-Tabor, 565 U.S. at 195 n.4)
- including cases from Tennessee, South Dakota, Kentucky, Florida, and the United States District Court for the District of Columbia
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
REIF, J., dissenting
¶ 1 John Doe seeks to hold the Presbyterian Church liable for harm that was perpetrated against him by the independent acts of third parties who oppose Christian teachings. He contends the Church is liable because it posted news of his baptism on the internet when he did not want that information disclosed. To be sure, the law does protect and enforce the confidentiality of religious communications "made privately and not intended for further disclosure." 12 O.S.2011, § 2505. However, John Doe's baptism was an *299 act, not a communication, and sharing news of this act is part of the religious doctrine of the Presbyterian Church. If a societal need does exist to keep conversion to a religious faith confidential, it would be more appropriate for the Legislature to address this subject by general legislation like § 2505, rather than for this Court to create a new cause of action in response to extraordinary facts.