Can a diocese be found in breach of fiduciary duty when an assistant priest engaged in sexual relations with a parishioner while counselling and advising her on personal matters?

In Moses v. Diocese of Colorado, (1993), 863 P. 2d 310 (Colo.S.C.), the assistant priest of a parish engaged in sexual relations with the mentally unstable plaintiff while counselling and advising her on personal matters. When his conduct became known to other priests, he was warned to be more careful and the diocese became involved in the matter. The bishop undertook personally to look after the plaintiff whilst promoting the assistant priest after a warning and assurance that his new parish would not be told. The bishop told the plaintiff not to tell anyone except her husband and took no further action to assist her. While the Colorado appeals court recognized that a clergy-parishioner relationship is not necessarily fiduciary in nature, it does create an interaction that involves trust and reliance. The diocese assumed a duty to act in the plaintiff's best interests when they acted to resolve the problems that were the result of the relationship between the plaintiff and the priest. The court found that there was no error in the conclusion that the diocese was in breach of fiduciary duty in these circumstances.

Moses v. Diocese of Colorado, supra provides an interesting comparative case on the facts. It was the failure of the bishop to act after the disclosure and undertaking to do so that led to a breach of fiduciary duty. This was done to promote secrecy about the issue within the church. While the actions of the bishop were more detailed and direct that here, the case is helpful to an appreciation that the conduct of religious personnel is not only about pure spirituality as was suggested before me. Further, it shows that undertakings made within the religious realm can have implications within fiduciary relations.