Carter v. Papineau
| Decision Date | 27 January 1916 |
| Citation | 111 N.E. 358,222 Mass. 464 |
| Parties | CARTER v. PAPINEAU et al. (two cases). |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Exceptions from Superior Court, Suffolk County; Frederick Lawton, Judge.
Two actions by Effie A. Carter against Arthur B. Papineau and another. Verdicts were ordered for defendants, and plaintiff brings exceptions. Exceptions overruled.
Wm. Reed Bigelow, of Boston, for plaintiff.
Charles F. Choate, Jr., William H. King, Jr., and Robert Hale, all of Boston, for defendants.
The evidence would have amply warranted the jury in finding that the defendant Papineau as priest in charge declined to administer to the plaintiff the rite of ‘Holy Communion’ or to permit her to partake thereof, and that by his authority and order she had been refused admission on the Lord's Day to the building in which religious services were being held. It is contended that for these acts he and the defendant Lawrence, Bishop of the diocese, are responsible in damages, and the verdicts in their faovr were wrongly ordered. The record shows that the Protestant Episcopal Church of which the parties are members has a body of canons or ecclesiastical law of its own, by which the plaintiff upon baptism and confirmation agreed to be bound, and under which her rights of worship must be determined. Fitzgerald v. Robinson, 112 Mass. 371;Grosvenor v. United Society of Belivers, 118 Mass. 78. By the ‘Rubric in the Order for the Administration of the Lord's Supper or Holy Communion’ the ‘minister’ is given authority to refuse the rite to those whom he deems ‘open, notorious, evil livers, or to have done any wrong to his neighbors by word or deed.’ By ‘Canon 40’ ‘Of Regulations Respecting the Laity,’ section 11:
‘When a person to whom the sacraments of the Church have been refused or who has been repelled from the Holy Communion under the Rubrics shall lodge a complaint with the Bishop, it shall be the duty of the Bishop unless he sees fit to require the person to be admitted or restored because of the insufficiency of the case assigned by the minister, to institute such an inquiry as may be directed by the canons of the Diocese or Missionary District, and should no such canon exist the Bishop shall proceed according to such principles of law and equity as will insure an impartial decision, but no minister of the church shall be required to admit to the sacraments a person so refused or repelled without the written direction of the Bishop.’
The plaintiff has not availed herself of this right of appeal to the only personage having the requisite ecclesiastical authority to review her standing as a member and communicant or to pass upon her ceremonial rights in accordance with the principles of ‘law and equity.’ Grosvenor v. United Society of Believers, 118 Mass. 78, 91. The letter of her counsel to the Bishop to which no reply appears to have been made cannot be considered as an appeal which had been denied. It contains only recitals of all her grievances, for the rectification of which his friendly intercession is requested. But if an appeal had been properly taken and the decision had been adverse, the plaintiff would have been remediless, for in this commonwealth her religious rights as a communicant are not enforceable in the civil courts. Fitzgerald v. Robinson, 112 Mass. 371, 379;Canadian Religious Association v. Parmenter, 180 Mass. 415, 420, 421, 62 N. E. 740. It is unnecessary for the same reason to decide whether at common law as the plaintiff contends a member of the Church of England could sue if unjustifiably denied participation in the communion. See Rex v. Dibdin, L. R. (1910) P. D. 57; Thompson v. Dibdin, L. R. (1912) A. C. 533.
Nor can the action be maintained for defamation. Undoubtedly she suffered mental distress, and the omission was in the presence of the other communicants. The plaintiff, however, was not publicly declared to be ‘an open and notorious evil liver,’ or as a person who had done wrong to her neighbors by word or deed. The act of ‘passing her by’ without comment was within the discipline or ecclesiastical polity of the church, and does not constitute actionable defamation of character. Farnsworth v. Storrs, 5 Cush. 412, 415;...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Antioch Temple, Inc. v. Parekh
...261 Mass. 462, 466-467, 159 N.E. 453 (1928); Krauthoff v. Attorney Gen., 240 Mass. 88, 92, 132 N.E. 865 (1921); Carter v. Papineau, 222 Mass. 464, 467, 111 N.E. 358 (1916); Grosvenor v. United Soc'y of Believers, 118 Mass. 78, 91 (1875).6 But cf. Jones v. Wolf, 443 U.S. 595, 99 S.Ct. 3020, ......
-
Eustace v. Dickey
...and the trust reposed in them by the deed of January 25, 1898, and the duties placed upon them by the church itself. Carter v. Papineau, 222 Mass. 464, 111 N. E. 358, L. R. A. 1916D, 371, Ann. Cas. 1918C, 620;Attorney General v. Armstrong, 231 Mass. 196, 120 N. E. 678. The Board of Director......
-
Moustakis v. Hellenic Orthodox Soc. of Peabody
...a strong appeal. Fitzgerald v. Robinson, 112 Mass. 371, 379, 380;Grosvenor v. United Society of Believers, 118 Mass. 78;Carter v. Papineau, 222 Mass. 464, 111 N. E. 358, L. R. A. 1916D, 371, Ann. Cas. 1918C, 620;Watson v. Jones, 13 Wall. 679, 722 to 729, 733, 20 L. Ed. 666;Bonacum v. Harrin......
-
Dittemore v. Dickey
...229 Mass. 458, 461, 118 N. E. 868, and cases there collected. Eustace v. Dickey, 240 Mass. 55, 84, 132 N. E. 852;Carter v. Papineau, 222 Mass. 464, 111 N. E. 358, L. R. A. 1916D, 371, Ann. Cas. 1918C, 620. [13] 4. The Church Manual contains no regulation whatever as to the method of removal......