With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". emotional distress. 103 So.3d at 42. After the lay member’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction was denied, the lay member filed a petition for a writ of mandamus with this Court. This Court granted the lay member’s petition, holding that the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the pastor’s claims. 103 So.3d at 72. We stated: “It is clear that [the pastor’s] claims were intertwined with the underlying investigation by the Conference, with the resolution, and with the Conference’s ultimate decision to remove [the pastor and his son, a senior member]. Any attempt to adjudicate [the pastor’s] claim would require an impermissible inquiry into the Conference’s investigation of the complaints against [the pastor and his son],. 63 N.W.2d 434, 445 (1997) (<HOLDING>); Pritzlaff v. Archdiocese of Milwaukee, 194

A: 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
B: 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
C: recognizing fiduciary relationship under connecticut law between parishioner and diocese where parishioner had been sexually abused by diocesan priest
D: 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
A.