of the elements of the offense involve review of church doctrine. The statute is based on legislative judgments about the power imbalance inherent in the clergy-counseling relationship that negates true consent and does not incorporate church doctrine. The First Amendment requires that civil courts abstain from resolving church disputes that would necessitate an adjudication of controversies over religious doctrine. Serbian E. Orthodox Diocese v. Milivojevich, 426 U.S. 696, 708-09, 96 S.Ct. 2372, 49 L.Ed.2d 151 (1976) (stating that civil courts must defer to “the decisions of the highest ecclesiastical tribunal within a church of hierarchical polity”); Presbyterian Church v. Mary Elizabeth Blue Hull Mem’l Presbyterian Church, 393 U.S. 440, 449-50, 89 S.Ct. 601, 21 L.Ed.2d 658 (1969) (<HOLDING>). But civil courts are not required to abstain
holding that civil courts could not determine whether the general church departed from its doctrine holding that appellate court could not determine whether trial court abused its discretion in denying relators motion to compel the other party to produce documents because it could only speculate whether there was evidence to support the trial courts denial holding that a church was entitled to employ only members of its faith holding that members of a church congregation lacked sufficient interest to support intervention in an action by the church itself challenging the designation of the church as a landmark holding the federal unemployment tax act section exempting service performed in employ of church after which florida molded its unemployment law was meant to apply to schools that have no separate legal existence from the church and therefore employees working within such schools are in employ of the church