Court Opinion

ID: 6955038
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-24 01:36:36.438588+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:08:13.998470
License: Public Domain

Mr. Chief Justice Lawrence and Mr. Justice Sheldon: We concur in the decision of the case at bar, announced in the foregoing opinion, and we also concur in the opinion itself, except as to one principle therein. We understand the opinion as implying, that in the administration of ecclesiastical discipline, and where there is no other right of property involved than the loss of the clerical office or salary, as an incident to such discipline, a spiritual court is the exclusive judge of its own jurisdiction, under the laws or canons of the religious association to which it belongs, and its decision of that question is binding upon secular courts. This is a principle of so grave a character, that, believing it to be erroneous, we are constrained to express our dissent upon the record. We concede, that when a spiritual court has once been organized, in conformity with the rules of the denomination of which it forms a part, and when it has jurisdiction of the parties and the subject matter, its subsequent action in the administration of spiritual discipline will not be revised by the secular courts. The simple reason is, that the association is purely voluntary, and when a person joins it he consents, that for all spiritual offences, he will be tried by a tribunal organized in conformity with the laws of the society. But he has not consented that he will be tried by one not so organized, and when a clergyman is in danger of being degraded from his office, and losing his salary and means of livelihood by the action of a spiritual court, unlawfully constituted, we are very clearly of opinion he may come to the secular courts for protection. It would be the duty of such courts to examine the question of jurisdiction, without regard to the decision of the spiritual court itself, and if they find such tribunal has been organized in defiance of the laws of the association, and is exercising a merely usurped and arbitrary power, they should furnish such protection as the laws of the land will give. We consider this position clearly sustainable, upon principle and authority.