Court Ruling That Freed Clergy From Liability for Advice Allowed to Stand

The Supreme Court, settling a clergy malpractice dispute that originated in Los Angeles, Monday refused to review a California decision holding that pastors and church workers have no legal duty to send troubled parishioners to licensed psychiatrists.

The high court action ends a 10-year legal battle over whether church counselors and unlicensed church therapists can be held liable for their advice. When a mid-level appellate court ruled that church officials could be forced to pay damages for inadequate advice, the case was cited as evidence of how far California courts had gone in stretching the limits of legal liability.

The case was based on the April 1, 1979, suicide of 24-year-old Kenneth Nally. Despondent because he had broken up with his girlfriend, Nally had already attempted suicide once and had been treated by physicians and a psychiatrist. He also had confided in pastors of the 10,000-member Grace Community Church in Sun Valley.

After the death of their son, Walter and Maria Nally of Tujunga filed a suit against four officials of the church, charging that they actually had encouraged the suicide by telling Nally that he would be accepted into Heaven even if he took his own life. They also contended that the clergy were guilty of malpractice because they had failed to insist that the young man seek additional counseling from a psychiatrist.

On two occasions, a Superior Court judge dismissed the suit, but a state appeals court reinstated it both times. The appellate court said church officials should not be immune from liability if they knowingly failed to obtain aid for an obviously suicidal person.

Last November, the California Supreme Court ruled against the Nallys on a 5-2 vote. While describing the young man’s death as a “profound tragedy,” the court noted that neither the California Legislature nor the court had ever imposed a legal obligation to take affirmative steps to prevent the suicide of a person who is not under the care of a physician in a hospital.

John McArthur, senior pastor at the church, said Monday’s decision “vindicates the church, the integrity of the church and the standing of the congregation in the community.”

MacArthur added: “I feel sympathy for the Nally family. But I never believed that the church was responsible in any way for what happened.”

Walter Nally said Monday that he was disturbed but not surprised by the decision. “This whole fight has been in vain as far as the courts are concerned,” he said. “It’s unfortunate that young people can die as a result of church counseling, and they don’t have a voice in our courts.”

One of Nally’s lawyers, Edward Barker, said, “I can’t imagine anything else I can do.” But Barker and Nally said the lawsuit had raised the issue of how responsible a church should be in counseling its members. “Lots of people are aware now of the need for accountability by clergy,” Barker said.

Alarm about the potential implications of the Nally case had spread throughout organized religion--from mainline and conservative Christian groups to unconventional religious movements, said J. Gordon Melton of Santa Barbara, director of the Institute for the Study of American Religion. Melton, who had joined with others in actively opposing the case, applauded the ruling.

H. Newton Malony, professor of psychology at the Fuller Seminary Graduate School of Psychology in Pasadena and a member of the American Assn. of Pastoral Counselors, also praised the decision.

Freedom of Religion Cited

“I think the Supreme Court has done the proper thing,” Malony said. “It has everything to do with freedom of the practice of religion from state infringement.” He added that “more people have been saved from suicide by talking to pastors than have been saved by talking to physicians, psychiatrists or psychologists.”

But Scott Sullender, a pastoral psychotherapist in Diamond Bar who is a past regional president of the American Assn. of Pastoral Counselors, said he had mixed feelings about the decision.

“I’m pleased because if the court had entered into that issue it would have put such a wet blanket over pastors and clergy and their desire to help people . . . in times of crisis and grief,” he said.

“The other side of the coin is that the issue of clergy competency is still to be resolved,” Sullender added. “There is great diversity of opinion about clergy competency in counseling. Just quoting a few Bible verses at somebody and calling it counseling is not adequate. A lot of clergymen are not trained very well but they think they are. That’s the frightening thing.”

The ruling was based on an interpretation of California law, not the U.S. Constitution, leaving little ground for appeal. Nevertheless, lawyers for the Nallys asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case because of the profound issues it raised. Without comment, however, the appeal was rejected (Nally vs. Grace Community Church, 88-1142).

Meanwhile, officials in Whittier lost a bid to use a highly restrictive zoning law to rid the city of its one adult movie theater.

Even though the high court ruled three years ago that cities have broad zoning powers to move adult theaters away from churches, schools and residential neighborhoods, they said that a theater must be given a “reasonable opportunity” to operate somewhere in the city.

U.S District Judge Manuel Real had ruled that a Whittier ordinance that made nearly 99% of the city off-limits to a Pussycat theater was too restrictive and violated the First Amendment rights of the theater owner. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed but the city urged the high court to intervene. Without comment, the justices rejected the appeal (Whittier vs. Walnut Properties, 88-1322).

Despite the court loss, the theater is now closed, damaged by the October, 1987, earthquake.

Times staff writers Greg Braxton and Russell Chandler in Los Angeles contributed to this article.