Opinion ID: 1859955
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: issues

Text: The appellants contend that the First Amendment of the United States Constitution [4] and Article 1, § 3, of the Alabama Constitution [5] forbid any court from adjudicating the claims presented in this action because, they say, those issues involve spiritual, ecclesiastical issues. The First Amendment prohibits a court from resolving disputes on the basis of religious practice or doctrine. Presbyterian Church v. Mary Elizabeth Blue Hull Mem'l Presbyterian Church, 393 U.S. 440, 449, 89 S.Ct. 601, 21 L.Ed.2d 658 (1969). Despite these constitutional limitations, the courts still have jurisdiction to decide cases concerning questions of civil or property rights. Abyssinia Missionary Baptist Church v. Nixon, 340 So.2d 746, 748 (Ala. 1977); Trinity Presbyterian Church v. Tankersley, 374 So.2d 861, 865 (Ala.1979). [T]he courts must decide the property disputes by looking at so-called `neutral principles of law' and not resolve [any] underlying controversies over religious doctrine. Tankersley, 374 So.2d at 866. The issue of who holds title to church property is a civil matter and is not ecclesiastical in nature. Id. Although it is arguable that spiritual issues prompted the division in the York congregation, this case involves the civil conflicts of trusteeship and property ownership. Because the resolution of these issues requires a court merely to review church records and incorporation documents, without delving into spiritual matters, there is no constitutional bar to a court's hearing this case.