A Study on Scope and Limits of Judicial Review in Church Disputes
Il-Yeob Chu
Graduate School of Law
Chungnam National University
directed by Professor Jae-jin Myung
Religious freedom is one of the freedom rights that have been recognized and claimed first. It is a basic human right. The influence of religion, especially that of Christianity, on the constitution is widely known and recognized. The most representative one herein, is “dignity and value of human beings,” which is the prescribed goal of basic human rights. The state realm and the religious realm should coexist following the principle of mutual respect.
The Supreme Court of the United States of America respects the decision of the Supreme Court of the Church, judging that “The First Amendment excludes the social courts from interfering in matters related to the governance of the church and religious institutions.”
The greatest limitation of the state trial on church disputes is the principle of separation of church and state. The court cannot intervene in matters specific to the church, such as the doctrine of the church as a religious organization or religious ceremonies such as worship, disciplinary trials, and the status of members in the church. In other words, the disciplinary trial of a religious organization does not regulate the rights and obligations of the general public or legal relations. It is an internal sanction within a religious organization that disciplines and sanctions members of a religious organization according to religious methods in order to practice doctrine and maintain order in the organization and faith.
Therefore, in principle, the court cannot determine whether or not the disciplinary action is effective or not, based on the interpretation of the doctrine and the internal norms of religious organizations.
Recently, in the United States, the position of the neutral theory is now regarded as the majority, and it appears in judgments. Disputes that are not subject to judicial review by the court, such as disputes over religious freedom and separation of church and state, disputes over church property and finances, and disputes over church responsibilities, which appear in court decisions, have to be resolved by church trials.
Disciplinary trials for church disputes have their own substantive law, procedural law, and evidence law. However, in reality, there have been cases where this is not applied legally or abuse of rights occur frequently, greatly damaging the reliability and fairness of the church’s disciplinary trials. The institutional device and autonomy within the church must be secured through a fair and objective disciplinary trial. Even if you do not file a lawsuit in the national court, you will have to thoroughly follow the church’s constitution for internal dispute resolution, gradually reducing structural contradictions to prevent in advance while establishing firm procedural justice.
The U.S. Supreme Court maintains the ambience of accepting the judgment of the church, taking the position that it cannot deal with matters of doctrine, politics, trial, and system within the church. However, the court considers that it can intervene in property disputes and general social problems under the neutral principle of the law. It does not intervene in religious division in the church, but does intervene in property disputes caused by church disputes. Korean courts do not intervene in matters within the church, but they do intervene when disputes over the rights and legal relations of the parties continue.
In light of the fact that the constitution guarantees freedom of religion and strictly separates religion and state functions, the Supreme Court should ensure the maximum autonomy of the organization and operation of religious organizations. In addition, with respect to matters related to the internal relations of religious organizations, the autonomous decision of religious organizations on related matters is respected as much as possible, unless they govern the rights and obligations of ordinary citizens or legal relationships.
If the decision making of a religious organization is deeply related to the interpretation of religious doctrine or belief, there is a need to suppress judicial involvement in the decision making even if such decision making affects an individual’s position within the religious organization.
In resolving church disputes, religious and secular governments must be clearly distinguished from each other, but there are some things that need to be complemented and cooperated within the common boundary of each other. The principle of separation of church and state, which consists of the disapproval of state religion and separation of politics and religion, is not easily standardized because of the abstraction of the constitutional provisions that declare it as well as the historical and cultural background of the separation of church and state.
In the case of the United States, the nature of religious freedom should be limited only when there is a clear and present danger to a fundamental right in the psychological realm, and its principle of separation of church and state regulates that individuals in the state should be kept to a minimum. In this regard, it is deemed appropriate to consider that it can be applied to the restriction of religious freedom only in the case of a last resort (provided that other less-restrictive alternatives do not exist).
The church-trial solution minimizes conflicts, greatly reduces disputes, and increases the preventive effect on disputes more efficiently than the state-court solution on church disputes. Nevertheless, it is more preferable to resolve the matter by methods other than litigation or filing a lawsuit directly with the court, such as arbitration or mediation.