By Richard R. Hammar, J.D., LL.M., CPA
© Copyright 1994, 1998 by Church Law & Tax Report. All rights reserved. This publication is designed to provide accurate and authoritative information in regard to the subject matter covered. It is provided with the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering legal, accounting, or other professional service. If legal advice or other expert assistance is required, the services of a competent professional person should be sought. Church Law & Tax Report, PO Box 1098, Matthews, NC 28106. Reference Code: m19 m16 c0294
Key point: Most courts regard
a church's membership determinations to be a purely ecclesiastical
matter beyond the review of the civil courts.
A Pennsylvania court refused to order church
officials to explain why they refused to admit a person as a
member. A member of an Episcopal church asked his church to
transfer his membership to another Episcopal church pursuant to an
established church procedure. The rector of the second church
rejected the transfer of membership without explanation. The member
filed a lawsuit asking a court to order church officials to "show
cause" why he should not be admitted as a member. A trial court
dismissed the lawsuit on the ground that the dispute was doctrinal
in nature. The member appealed. A state appeals court ruled that
the civil courts are bound by the first amendment guaranty of
religious freedom to accept the decisions of religious
organizations on matters of "discipline, faith, internal
organization, and ecclesiastical rule, custom, and law." On the
other hand, the civil courts can intervene in church disputes that
do not implicate such concerns. The court concluded that this case,
which involved an individual's right to membership in a church, was
the kind of ecclesiastical matter that was beyond the authority of
the civil courts to resolve. It observed: "[M]embership in a
congregation is purely an ecclesiastical matter subject to the
church rules and controlled by the decisions of the appropriate
church tribunals in so far as they do not contravene the civil law.
The heart of [the member's] case is that he desires to become a
member in [another church]. Accordingly, it is clear that this case
involves a purely ecclesiastical matter." The court quoted with
approval from an earlier decision of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court
in Presbytery of Beaver-Butler v. Middlesex, 489 A.2d 1317 (Pa.
1985):
[T]he right to practice one's belief and worship as one chooses is so deep a root of our constitutional culture that a court, even one with the best intentions, ca be no more than a clumsy intruder into the most delicate and sensitive areas of human life. When Caesar enters the Temple to decide what the Temple believes, he can leave behind only his own views. The view of a court as to who are heretics among warring sects is worth nothing, and must count as nothing if our cherished diversity of religious views is to prevail. Gundlach v. Laister, 625 A.2d 706 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1993).