Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
to make such ecclesiastical decisions was vested was impermissible under First and Fourteenth Amendments); Gonzalez v. Roman Catholic Archbishop, 280 U.S. 1, 16, 50 S.Ct. 5, 74 L.Ed. 131 (1929) (determination of qualifications of a chaplain is canonical in nature); Kedroff v. Saint Nicholas Cathedral, supra, 344 U.S. at 118, 73 S.Ct. 143 (appointment of Archbishop is a matter of ecclesiastical government with which courts could not interfere); Protestant Episcopal Church v. Graves, supra (dispute between breakaway local parish and hierarchical parent church over church property is unquestionably doctrinal in nature, the ecclesiastical determination of which only incidentally affects the control over local church property); Elmora Hebrew Center, supra, 125 N.J. at 420, 593 A.2d 725 . Without doubt, matters of church discipline
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a state official can be held individually hable under  1983 for acts taken within the scope of his or her official duties
B. holding that only religious authorities can determine scope of duties of orthodox rabbi
C. holding that the amount of time devoted to managerial duties and the significance of those duties present factual questions
D. recognizing similar duties
E. holding that a breach of duties that a fiduciary contractually assumes beyond those duties imposed by law is considered to arise out of contract
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.