ROCOR-MP vs Belya: How the SCOTUS Rejection of ROCOR-MP’s Stance Opens the Door to Sergianism in the United States
On Monday, the Supreme Court refused to accept the objections of the Synod of the ROCOR-Moscow Patiriarchate against Father Alexander Belya, a defrocked priest who fled to Ecumenical Patriarchate and is suing ROCOR for defamation. The ROCOR-MP has staunchly maintained its position, contending that the First Amendment’s jurisprudence and the ministerial exemption, effectively shielding religious employees from legal claims against the Church, oblige the courts to dismiss the lawsuits. As a result, the ROCOR argued that the internal dispute should be left within the purview of the ROCOR, and not in court.
According to a Washington Times report last year, a Federal Appeals Court rejected ROCOR-MP’s arguments:
“[S]imply having a religious association on one side of the ‘v’ does not automatically mean a district court must dismiss the case or limit discovery,” Judges Denny Chin, Raymond Joseph Lohier Jr. and Beth Robinson said in their ruling.
Earlier, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York also had ruled against the defendants associated with ROCOR, including its then-regional leader Metropolitan Hilarion, 18 months after the suit had been filed. (ROCOR is based in New York City and Metropolitan Hilarion died in May.)
Individuals within the Russian Orthodox Church had challenged Father Belya’s election to Bishop of Miami in 2019, circulating letters and social media posts claiming he had forged documents to gain the position.
The Supreme Court’s declination of the case means that discovery can proceed in Belya’s defamation lawsuit, first filed in 2021 against the ROCOR-MP. 14 states filed an amicus brief in 2021 arguing that such a lawsuit against a church from a former minister would undermine the foundations of religious liberty.
The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, who took up the ROCOR-MP’s defense, argued in their brief that “This lawsuit strikes at the heart of the First Amendment’s protection for church autonomy. The Supreme Court has long held that disgruntled clergy members cannot sue their churches over matters of church discipline or appointment to ecclesiastical office. See Bouldin v. Alexander, 82 U.S. (15 Wall.) 131, 139 (1872); Gonzalez v. Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila, 280 U.S. 1 (1929). Ever since, disgruntled clergy members have tried to evade this rule by repackaging ecclesiastical disputes as church property, breach of contract, or tort claims.”
If successful, Belya’s lawsuit will open the door to lawsuits and prosecutions of Church leadership under United States statutes as opposed to Church statutes: in theory, if Belya can sue for defamation, why wouldn’t a homosexual clergyman not sue a Church for discrimination? What motivation would a former pastor who became a transsexual NOT have to sue his former church on a variety of grounds? Thus, in an incredible twist of irony, the court system’s handling of the ROCOR-MP’s case has inadvertently opened the door to state control of churches through the civil courts. If successful, every satanic movement in America could sue churches into the ground. We’d say that Belya should be ashamed of himself, but we know– as a clergyman in good standing with the Ecumenical Patriarchate– that shame is beneath these people.
