Out of Whole Cloth? A Constitutional Analysis of the Clergy Malpractice Concept, 19 Cal. W.L.Rev. 507, 516 (1983) (noting that pastoral counseling is a religious, not secular, activity in which ”[i]t is impossible to separate the 'cure of the minds' from the 'cure of the souls' ”) (quoting S. Ericsson, Clergyman Malpractice: Ramifications of a New Theory, 16 Val. U.L.Rev. 163, 166 (1981)); Comment, Clergy Malpractice: Making Clergy Accountable to a Lower Power, 14 Pepperdine L.Rev. 137, 139 (1986) (“While some degree of overlap and similarity may exist, the religious counselor remains distinct and unique from his secular counterpart, approaching therapy from an entirely different perspective.”). 5 . Although Watson was decided before application of the Fourteenth Am 3-95 (5th Cir.1974) (<HOLDING>); McClure v. Salvation Army, 460 F.2d 553,
holding that title vii proscribes racial discrimination against whites upon the same standards as racial discrimination against nonwhites holding that claim under connecticut law for employer discrimination based upon the employees exercise of privacy and free speech rights not preempted holding application of civil rights act to pastors claim of racial discrimination would encroach upon the churchs right to be free from secular interference and to decide for themselves matters of church government holding that although courts must not become embroiled in interpreting or weighing church doctrine a claim of negligent hiring of a minister is actionable because it does not require such interpretation or weighing of religious belief but instead is merely application of a secular standard to secular conduct holding official immunity is available in claims of discrimination if plaintiff fails to establish his treatment by defendants was so at variance with what would reasonably be anticipated absent racial discrimination that racial discrimination is the probable explanation