circuit court to grant the petitioners’ motion to dismiss. The petitioners argue that this Court’s decision in Ex parte Bole controls the present case. Therefore, the petitioners argue, the circuit court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over the claims in the plaintiffs’ complaint. I agree. “Courts are constrained by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution from ‘intrud[ing] into a religious organization’s determination of ... ecclesiastical matters such as theological doctrine, church discipline, or the conformity of members to standards of faith and morality.’ ” Lott v. Eastern Shore Christian Ctr., 908 So.2d 922, 928 (Ala.2005) (quoting Singh v. Singh, 114 Cal.App.4th 1264, 1275, 9 Cal.Rptr.3d 4, 12 (2004)). Specifically, the First Amendment deprives a court o o.1998) (<HOLDING>), aff'd on other grounds 185 F.3d 873 (10th
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 breach of fiduciary duty claim against priest church official and church 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 negligent hiring and supervision claims but that first amendment would not be violated by adjudication of claim of intentional failure to supervise priest