Lawsuit against Jesuits asks: Is church above the law? By Bob Egelko ASSOCIATED PRESS September 2, 1999 SAN FRANCISCO -- All John Bollard wanted to do was live his life by the laws of the Jesuits -- poverty, obedience and chastity. Now his lawsuit may decide whether the Jesuits live by the laws that apply to everyone else -- particularly the law that makes employers responsible when supervisors sexually harass employees. Bollard is suing the California Province of the Jesuits for sexual harassment, claiming he was sent pornographic cards, invited to cruise gay bars, and subjected to unwanted advances by a dozen priests during his last 5½ years in a Jesuit seminary in Berkeley. But the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals must decide whether Bollard can sue at all. Federal courts, in a long series of rulings, have refused to allow clergy to sue churches for discrimination, saying judicial interference in religious decisions was either unauthorized by Congress or forbidden by the First Amendment's guarantee of religious freedom. Bollard's lawsuit was dismissed last year by U.S. District Judge Susan Illston, who said the application of civil rights laws would amount to an "interfer once of federal government in church autonomy." But Bollard's lawyers argue that a harassment case involves a secular question -- whether sexually offensive conduct occurred and was permitted -- that does not require delving into religious doctrine. Bollard's case marks the first time an ex-seminarian has sued the Jesuits for sexual harassment. It is also the first time a federal appeals court has been asked to decide if a religious organization is covered by the same sexual harassment laws that govern employers and schools. Bollard, who left the Jesuits in 1996 and now teaches at a college in Southern California, is seeking an apology and $1 million. "I want the Jesuits, and at some point the Catholic Church, to face the issue of integrity here," he told the San Jose Mercury News. The priests he accused have denied his factual claims in court papers. But the question before the court, which heard arguments in June, is not whether Bollard was harassed but whether the government has any power to regulate a religious organization's treatment of its clergy. It is a simple question with complex and widely divergent answers. The court's response may determine whether numerous churches are legally vulnerable in a time of increasing complaints of sexual misconduct by clergy. For Bollard and his supporters, if a subordinate can't sue a religious employer for allegedly permitting sexual harassment by high-level supervisors, then anything goes -- rape, assault, maybe even murder. The immunity the Jesuits claim "means that if they engaged in torture, they're exempt as well," said Burt Neuborne, a New York University law professor and veteran constitutional analyst. The Jesuits "cannot be allowed to use the First Amendment as a shield for illegal activities that have nothing to do with religious beliefs," Bollard's lawyer, James Wagstaffe, said in court papers. But the Jesuits and their supporters say that if Bollard can sue them over their response to his alleged harassment -- failing to fire or discipline the priests or otherwise protect him -- nothing is sacred. The suit, if allowed to proceed, would interfere with "the core religious act -- the selection, assessment, retention and discipline of those who are designated to engage in a religion's mission," Paul Gaspari, lawyer for the Jesuit organizations in California and Oregon, said in court papers. "It's exactly the same claim that a female excluded from the Jesuits would bring," said Patrick Schiltz, an associate professor of law at Notre Dame University. He noted that both suits would be filed under the same federal civil rights law, since sexual harassment is legally considered a form of sex discrimination. Discrimination suits that have been dismissed by the courts include a female Buddhist minister whose funding was cut off, a female Salvation Army minister who was fired, a female chaplain dismissed by Presbyterian hospital and a nun denied tenure by the Catholic University of America. In the chaplain's case, a federal appeals court declared in 1991 that a church-affiliated institution's personnel decisions affecting clergy "are ... "religious matters and cannot be reviewed by civil courts." Bollard, who entered the seminary in 1988, said the harassment started in mid-1991, when he got a birthday card from priest Drew Sotelo showing a naked man, with suggestive language. Another pornographic card from Father Anton Harris, Bollard's supervisor, read, "Thought this might inspire some theological thoughts," the suit said. Bollard also said he turned down Harris' invitations to go to gay bars. Thomas Gleeson, then president of the seminary and now the Jesuits' national training director, propositioned him twice and told him that "if we are going to remain friends, we are going to have to deal with sex," Bollard said. He said his complaints eventually went to Father John Privett, the Provincial or head of the West Coast Jesuits, who gave him a coffee cup inscribed "No Whining," advised him to avoid lawyers and asked him to release the Jesuits from liability. The Jesuits and most of the accused priests have refused to comment on the allegations. One exception is Harris, who was a priest at a Jesuit high school in Beaverton, Ore., when Bollard filed his suit in 1997. Without detailing his actions, Harris told a reporter then that he had meant no harm. "Some of the cards I sent to him were meant to be humorous," he said.