The Clergy as Counselors

Kenneth Nally was a depressed young man who killed himself in 1979 after several months of counseling at the Grace Community Church in Sun Valley. His parents, Walter and Maria Nally of Tujunga, brought suit against the church, charging “clerical malpractice.” Last week Superior Court Judge Joseph R. Kalin in Glendale wisely threw the case out of court, arguing that under the First Amendment the state could not inject itself into religious counseling.

It is true that other mental-health practitioners, including psychiatrists and psychologists, may be held liable for damages if they are negligent, and some people may ask why clerics should not also be held accountable for their professional advice. The important difference is that religion is a constitutionally protected activity. However bad a clergyman’s counsel, and however foolish people may be to rely on that advice, the state may not step in, as it would against a fraudulent business. The overarching principle of the separation of church and state weighs more heavily than an individual case in which an injustice may have been done. Freedom of religion is an important tenet of the American experiment, and may not be lightly brushed aside.

The case of Kenneth Nally is heart-rending, and the frustration and bitterness of his family are understandable. Of course, there is no guarantee that medical treatment would have produced a different outcome. The ills of the psyche are among the most intractable and puzzling that doctors face. Nor was it demonstrated that the Rev. John F. MacArthur and his colleagues at the fundamentalist church acted negligently. The Nallys charged that the pastors had misrepresented their qualifications for dealing with schizophrenia and severe emotional distress. The court’s decision means that it is up to the individual who seeks religious help to make sure that it is appropriate. If it isn’t, he may not seek redress from the state.

Religious leaders throughout the country had watched the Nally case with great concern thata decision against the church would open a new field of clerical liability. The outcome allays that fear, but it should also remind them to be extremely cautious in dealing with troubled individuals who may be better served by others more qualified for the task.