Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 08-19-2002, 03:20 PM

From the newswire: <a href="http://www.startribune.com/stories/462/3167771.html" target="_blank">Minnesota Supreme Court allows trial in marriage counseling case</a>

It seems that Steven and Diane Odenthal went to their Seventh Day Adventist minister for marriage counseling. The minister told them they were not meant for each other, and ended up marrying the former Mrs. Odenthal. Mr. Odenthal sued. (For what, it doesn't say, but possibly for malpractice in psychotherapy.) The Minnesota Supreme Court allowed the suit to go forward against a charge that it would violate church state separation.

Quote:

Patrick Schiltz, an associate dean of the University of St. Thomas School of Law, said the ruling "opened a Pandora's box."

"They have put clergy of Minnesota at risk of being sued for what clergy do most of the day. That is to provide help and counsel to those who are troubled," he said.

So clergy spend most of their day starting affairs with married women who come to them for counseling? And they get paid for it? I don't know if this argument helps or hurts.

Quote:

"I don't know of any state anywhere that comes anywhere near the degree of intrusion this decision permits or sanctions," said Schiltz, who studies lawsuits involving religion.

. . .

Writing for a unanimous Supreme Court, Chief Justice Kathleen Blatz said Rideout went beyond offering spiritual guidance and delved into psychotherapy.

"In this case," she wrote, "the standards of conduct for those providing mental health services apply to all who meet the definition of unlicensed mental health practitioner, regardless of whether the relationship is one of clergy and church member."

She said there is no entanglement problem when the dispute can be resolved "by rules or standards that have been developed and are applied without particular regard to religious institutions or doctrines."

Odenthal's attorney, Ronald Meshbesher, said the ruling is precedent-setting.

"We don't think the minister should be beyond the law simply because he was clothed in clerical garb," Meshbesher said.

Stephen Maturin · 08-19-2002, 04:50 PM

<a href="http://www.courts.state.mn.us/opinions/sc/current/c101278.html" target="_blank">Odenthal v. Minnesota Conference of Seventh-Day Adventists</a>.

Looks as though the original causes of action against the "pastor" sounded in "clergy malpractice, intentional infliction of emotional distress, breach of fiduciary duty or confidential relationship, and negligence * * *." All those COAs are history now except the negligence claim, which is based on the "pastor" acting as an unlicensed mental health practitioner as defined by Minnesota statutes.

The Court held that the statutory standards are sufficiently neutral to avoid any "excessive entanglement" problems under the First Amendment. The statutes also allowed the plaintiff to do an end run around the abolition of amatory actions.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-19-2002, 04:50 PM	#2
Stephen Maturin Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Broomfield, Colorado, USA Posts: 1,295	<a href="http://www.courts.state.mn.us/opinions/sc/current/c101278.html" target="_blank">Odenthal v. Minnesota Conference of Seventh-Day Adventists</a>. Looks as though the original causes of action against the "pastor" sounded in "clergy malpractice, intentional infliction of emotional distress, breach of fiduciary duty or confidential relationship, and negligence * * *." All those COAs are history now except the negligence claim, which is based on the "pastor" acting as an unlicensed mental health practitioner as defined by Minnesota statutes. The Court held that the statutory standards are sufficiently neutral to avoid any "excessive entanglement" problems under the First Amendment. The statutes also allowed the plaintiff to do an end run around the abolition of amatory actions.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.