28] State courts may not interfere in matters concerning religious doctrine or organization. See Swanson v. Roman Catholic Bishop of Portland, 1997 ME 63, ¶ 7, 692 A.2d 441, 443. A religious organization’s decisions and actions when providing advice, counsel, or religious discipline to its members will be based on the particular religious beliefs of the organization, and thus, like the decisions and actions with respect to the organization’s government, cannot by themselves form the basis for secular liability. See id. ¶ 12, 692 A.2d at 445 (quoting Pritzlaff v. Archdiocese of Milwaukee, 194 Wis.2d 302, 533 N.W.2d 780, 790 (1995) and Schmidt v. Bishop, 779 F.Supp. 321, 332 (S.D.N.Y. 1991)). Allowing a secular court or jury to determine whether a church and its clergy have sufficient (<HOLDING>). [¶ 32] We have never recognized a
holding that the unique nature of psychotherapistpatient relationship gives rise to a duty of care to the patient holding that relationship between executor and estates beneficiaries is one that gives rise to fiduciary duty as matter of law holding that a hospitals relationship to the family of deceased gives rise to a duty to avoid emotional harm from handling of remains recognizing that the nature of the therapistpatient relationship gives rise to a duty  to refrain from  causing emotional or mental harm to the patient holding that a physicianpatient relationship gives rise to a duty to avoid emotional harm from failure to provide critical information to patient