The right advice

MARY REICHARD, HOST: It’s Tuesday, the last day of August, 2021. Glad to have you along for today’s edition of The World and Everything in It. Good morning, I’m Mary Reichard.

NICK EICHER, HOST: And I’m Nick Eicher. First up: religious guidance for religious schools.

A federal court earlier this month upheld the right of an Indianapolis Catholic high school to fire a guidance counselor who violated church teaching by entering into a same-sex relationship.

Lynn Starkey sued Roncalli High School in 2019. She accused school officials of discriminating against her and creating a hostile work environment due to her sexual orientation.

REICHARD: Joining us now to fill us in on this case is Steve West. He’s an attorney and writes about religious liberty issues for WORLD Digital.

Good morning, Steve!

WEST: Good morning, Mary.

REICHARD: First of all, Steve, give us a little background on this case and how we got here.

WEST: Lynn Starkey worked for Roncalli High School a long time, about 40 years—from 1978 to 1999. But, you know, people's beliefs and behavior can change over their lives and that’s what happened here. Though she obviously subscribed to Catholic teaching on sexuality and marriage when she was hired—she had to in order to work there—that changed when she entered into a same-sex relationship. And when the school learned about it, it did what it had to do: It didn’t renew her contract. She was fired.

REICHARD: So as we mentioned, a federal court sided with Roncalli High School. How and why did the court arrive at that decision?

WEST: Starkey made a number of claims, but it all boiled down to “you discriminated against me by firing me based solely on my status as as gay person.” But the court relied on what’s called the “ministerial exception,” a doctrine courts have developed that flows out of the First Amendment. It’s part of the broader idea that churches and religious institutions—when they are acting like churches and religious institutions—should have a high degree of autonomy, and courts should not be second-guessing their decisions.

REICHARD: Let’s stop here and talk about what that “ministerial exception” means?

WEST: That refers to church doctrine, governance, and even firing and hiring. After all, if a church or religious ministry is going to fulfill its mission, it needs to be able to count on employees who believe in the mission. The ministerial exception applies to ministers, of course, but also to those employees who serve a vital religious function—like a principal of a school, an organist for a church, and a press secretary for a religious organization. And the court here said Lynn Starkey, as a guidance counselor, certainly fell in that category. She was to give spiritual advice to students. Shey prayed with them, and she served as a role model to them.

REICHARD: Seems pretty clear, doesn’t it. Will the school have to defend its rights there any further or is this case closed?

WEST: Unfortunately, it looks like it’s not over, yet. Lynn Starkey has appealed—not what the school wants, of course—but a favorable appeals court ruling could be helpful to many other schools in helping clarify the law in this area.

REICHARD: Steve, you wrote that the courts continue to wrestle with the scope of the ministerial exception. Explain what’s going on there?

WEST: No one believes that churches, religious schools, and religious ministries are completely autonomous, yet the ministerial exception arose as a way to protect their religious liberty and prevent government entanglement with religious doctrine and governance. And here is an area that can be very thankful for the way the Supreme Court has, to date, dealt with it. Yet defining the scope of the exception can be a challenge as you move farther away from someone who’s an actual minister. So, yes, it covers the minister, the teacher, even the guidance counselor, but at the other extreme it’d be a challenge to show it covers the custodian or school bus driver.

REICHARD: I know the Supreme Court’s with some recent cases dealing with the ministerial exception in recent terms.

WEST: Yes. Last summer, the Court issued a ruling upholding the right of two Catholic schools in California to fire elementary school teachers over discrimination claims, finding that they were both were “vital” because they were involved in teaching the faith. But decisions by two other courts that didn’t adopt the ministerial exception are up for review by the court. One involved a lawyer who sought a job at a legal aid clinic operated by Seattle’s Union Gospel Mission where the mission charges every employee with evangelization. Does he serve a vital religious function? Or what about a social work professor at Gordon College, a Christian college, where the college has a well-articulated vision of ministry for staff that requires integration of faith and learning? Does she serve a vital religious function? In both of those cases, state courts did not think so. Both are up for review by the Supreme Court. And then you can look further and look at the leaders of campus student Christian groups like InterVarsity. We’ve had some successes there in recent months, but I think we’ll next see the ministerial exception applied to them as we will continue to face challenges there. It will take time, but we will find some answers as to the scope of this protection as courts consider these kinds of cases over the next several years.

REICHARD: Steve West writes about religious liberties for WORLD Digital. You can read his work at WNG.org. You can also subscribe to his free weekly newsletter on First Amendment issues, Liberties. Steve, always great talking to you!

WEST: Always a pleasure, Mary.

WORLD Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of WORLD Radio programming is the audio record.