findings that formed the basis of the petitioners’ decision regarding Reverend Greer, and, ultimately, into the petitioners’ decision to retain Reverend Greer in his capacity as a minister. Under Ex parte Bole, the circuit court, is without subject-matter jurisdiction to hear those tort claims. I note that the plaintiffs argue that Ex parte Bole is distinguishable from the present case. Specifically, the plaintiffs argue, in part, that Ex parte Bole is distinguishable because they filed their tort claims as third parties who are completely outside the purview and ecclesiastical supervision and jurisdiction of the church. This distinction is insignificant. This Court’s decision in Ex parte Bole holds that a circuit court does not have jurisdiction over certain types of t -48 (Mo.1997) (<HOLDING>); H.R.B. v. J.L.G., 913 S.W.2d 92, 98-99
holding that first amendment barred consideration of negligent supervision claim against diocese for sexual relationship between adult parishioner and priest while the priest was counseling the parishioner in his position as a hospital chaplain holding that first amendment barred child victim of sexual abuse by priest from bringing breach of fiduciary duty claim against priest church official and church 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 first amendment barred negligent hiring and supervision claim against archdiocese for alleged sexual abuse of minor by priest holding that first amendment barred child victim of sexual abuse by priest from bringing negligent hiring and supervision claims but that first amendment would not be violated by adjudication of claim of intentional failure to supervise priest