are matters of ecclesiastical concern, over which this court has no jurisdiction.”); Schmidt v. Bishop, 779 F.Supp. 321, 332 (S.D.N.Y.1991) (”[A]ny inquiry into the policies and practices of the Church Defendants in hiring or supervising their clergy raises the same kind of First Amendment problems of entanglement discussed above, which might.involve the Court in making sensitive judgments about the- propriety of the Church Defendants’ supervision in light of their religious beliefs,”). 2 . I note that numerous courts from other jurisdictions have held that a trial court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over negligent hiring, supervision, and retention and other negligence claims when clergy are involved: "State courts: Louisiana: Roppolo v. Moore, 644 So.2d 206, 207 (La.Ct.App.1994) (<HOLDING>); Maine: Bryan R. v. Watchtower Bible & Tract
holding that negligence claims against clergy member and religious organization for alleged sexual relationship during the course of a counseling relationship were tantamount to impermissible clergy malpractice claim holding that first amendment barred parishioners negligent hiring and supervision and breach of fiduciary duty claims against pastor and church for sexual contact that occurred between pastor and parishioner during the course of a counseling relationship holding that first amendment barred adult parishioner who engaged in sexual relationship with priest during the course of pastoral counseling from bringing intentional infliction of emotional distress negligence and breach of fiduciary duty claims holding that first amendment barred negligent supervision claim against a church regarding sexual relationship between adult parishioner and priest during the course of a marital counseling holding that claim of breach of fiduciary duty against pastor for sexual relationship with parishioner during the course of pastoral counseling was tantamount to impermissible clergy malpractice claim