High court arguments
will not comment on the litigation, but spokeswoman Dianne Laubert said, “We feel the appellate court’s decision speaks for itself.”
In that May 9 opinion, a panel of judges for the Fourth District Court of Appeal overturned a trial judge’s refusal to dismiss the 51-year-old priest’s lawsuit.
“Father Gallagher’s defamation claim, which arises out of an employment dispute between him and the diocese, cannot be resolved without the courts excessively entangling themselves in what is essentially a religious dispute,” the opinion said. Facebook, through letters and in comments in newspaper articles.
The diocese made it clear that it didn’t hesitate to fully cooperate with the sheriff ’s office in the Palimattom matter.
And church leaders accused Gallagher of alienating Hispanic congregants by harassing a Cuban priest, and also criticized his decision to add a bar and piano in his former living room at the church rectory.
The diocese said Gallagher was “blatantly lying” about the Palimattom case and said the priest was “in need of serious professional help.”
Gallagher’s lawyers say those remarks are the basis for his defamation lawsuit. “He also alleged that his ability to serve as a priest had been greatly diminished or eliminated and sought past and future lost income,” according to a pleading to the Supreme Court.
The question now is whether the high court will accept Gallagher’s request
to review the case. Gallagher’s goal is for the justices to take the case and eventually order Gallagher’s lawsuit to be reopened in Palm Beach County Circuit Court.
Within the past month, lawyers for Gallagher and the diocese have outlined their positions in pleadings. The Supreme Court could decide at any time whether it will consider the case.
Gallagher’s lawyers say the high court should step in because there’s a conflict in how appellate courts in the state have treated lawsuits against a diocese.
And Gallagher argues that his defamation claim can be decided in the courts based on “neutral principles” in the law, without delving into the private, inner workings of the church.
“Father Gallagher did not … ask the court to order any relief which would interfere with the Diocese’s selection, retention, or assignment of him,” the lawyers wrote.
But the diocese argued the Supreme Court should reject the case because the other appellate court cases do not “involve a dispute between a priest and his direct religious authority.” So there’s no conflict for the justices to sort out.
As for the comments implying Gallagher needs a psychiatrist, the diocese’s attorneys explained it was done to “correct the record” and chastise “its priest for his untruthfulness.”
Finally, the diocese urged the court to deny Gallagher because Florida law “holds that matters of internal clergy discipline are off-limits to civil courts.”
mjfreeman@sun-sentinel .com or 561-243-6642