Yes, you did not *have* to use the phrase "inappropriate conduct", but your decision (and the article itself) was totally justified based on the information you had. It was newsworthy. It was obvious there was impropriety of some kind, as you explained--a police investigation, suspended tour, expulsion from the diocese, notifying the ord…
Yes, you did not *have* to use the phrase "inappropriate conduct", but your decision (and the article itself) was totally justified based on the information you had. It was newsworthy. It was obvious there was impropriety of some kind, as you explained--a police investigation, suspended tour, expulsion from the diocese, notifying the order's superior. His identity was obvious as widely known celebrity priest leading a national tour. Nothing about this was "defamatory". If people read into that byline too much, it's because of the chronic dereliction of duty on the part of the hierarchy that we now associate "inappropriate conduct" with things far more severe than hair touching (which is still totally inappropriate, and a boundary violation). This isn't 1954. Clerics do not have the benefit of the doubt these days and they know that going into their vocation. Nobody needs to hold anyone's hand. Especially with the Príncipi story, we know the rot has not been cleared out of the Church, not by a long shot. I'd rather be overly vigilant than overlook minor infractions that pave the way for major infractions. I'm sure the online reaction is making you want to be more cautious in the future, but you did not act imprudently here, in my opinion.
What's really blowing my mind is the unbelievably hostile reaction on X. It almost feels like there's a cult of personality around this guy. People saying your article was a "hit piece" or a "demonic spiritual attack". Makes me even more skeptical of this whole subculture of deliverance ministry, how easily they can be provoked into wildly overspiritualized accusations.
I don't know. If you look at how Fr. Martins was treated compared to how the parish priest Fr. Lane was treated, when Fr. Lane basically did the same thing at the event, one understands how people can think ill of those who trashed Martins' reputation. Maybe some people did overreact, but I think any neutral observer would at this point consider this a two-tier hatchet job, pending further evidence.
See commenter Mike Gannon's response to this objection. The reality is, something this priest did (and we have only one account of it right now--the priest himself) made the father report him--even press for battery charges. Not so for the other priest. Therefore we can assume one was objectionable in some way, and the other was not. Until there is more detail, we can't conclude. Rod Dreher is also not an impartial source.
Yes, you did not *have* to use the phrase "inappropriate conduct", but your decision (and the article itself) was totally justified based on the information you had. It was newsworthy. It was obvious there was impropriety of some kind, as you explained--a police investigation, suspended tour, expulsion from the diocese, notifying the order's superior. His identity was obvious as widely known celebrity priest leading a national tour. Nothing about this was "defamatory". If people read into that byline too much, it's because of the chronic dereliction of duty on the part of the hierarchy that we now associate "inappropriate conduct" with things far more severe than hair touching (which is still totally inappropriate, and a boundary violation). This isn't 1954. Clerics do not have the benefit of the doubt these days and they know that going into their vocation. Nobody needs to hold anyone's hand. Especially with the Príncipi story, we know the rot has not been cleared out of the Church, not by a long shot. I'd rather be overly vigilant than overlook minor infractions that pave the way for major infractions. I'm sure the online reaction is making you want to be more cautious in the future, but you did not act imprudently here, in my opinion.
What's really blowing my mind is the unbelievably hostile reaction on X. It almost feels like there's a cult of personality around this guy. People saying your article was a "hit piece" or a "demonic spiritual attack". Makes me even more skeptical of this whole subculture of deliverance ministry, how easily they can be provoked into wildly overspiritualized accusations.
As to your final paragraph, exactly, I felt like the attacks on The Pillar on X seemed to be coming from cult members, rather than from Catholics.
I don't know. If you look at how Fr. Martins was treated compared to how the parish priest Fr. Lane was treated, when Fr. Lane basically did the same thing at the event, one understands how people can think ill of those who trashed Martins' reputation. Maybe some people did overreact, but I think any neutral observer would at this point consider this a two-tier hatchet job, pending further evidence.
https://roddreher.substack.com/p/child-touch-for-me-but-not-for-thee
See commenter Mike Gannon's response to this objection. The reality is, something this priest did (and we have only one account of it right now--the priest himself) made the father report him--even press for battery charges. Not so for the other priest. Therefore we can assume one was objectionable in some way, and the other was not. Until there is more detail, we can't conclude. Rod Dreher is also not an impartial source.
Especially given that Principi's misbehavior occurred while doing deliverance.