But for defamation I did study enough law that the only defense for defamamation was if the information wasn't true, if she was fornicating away she can't argue its not true and so they aren't defaming her. Harrassment may be more legitimate but again if they only tell the congreation in the sactuary or to the membership its likely not going to be a case either. The First Amendment offers a fair amount of protection from interference in religious matters internal to a Church.
Uhm... your statements on defamantion defense is well, patently wrong.
Here are the valid defenses:
Truth - the statement is and can be proven to be true.
Privledge - It was made in court by a witness, lawyer, or judge. Or made on the floor of the legislature by a legislator.
Opinion - If you simply state an opinion, it is not defamation. This one relies mainly on context in how this 'opinion' was phrased and disseminated.
Fair Comment on a Public Matter - Basically if something holds the public interest you can pretty much say whatever you want. So you could say, 'Yeah, that lady is a morally bankrupt whore.' and since the matter is a public one now, you're not likely to be found against.
Innocent Dissemination- if you passed a letter saying something terible, you ca't be held accountable if you didn't know the contents of the letter. So you can't sue the post office for delivering say, magazines that have libelous articles in them.
Anyway, to me this church is out of line. She isn't a member. She joined a new church, has made it clear she is not a member. I view this as harassment plain and simple. This woman is NOT a public figure and therefore to me, throwing out this kind of stuff into public is unfair and unwarranted. Were I a judge and this case brought before me, based on what I've read on the matter, I'd find against the church and make them pay damages. *shrug* Not that my opinion has any legal weight, I don't want to be a judge, those robes aren't that comfortable really.