In the priests defense, I do understand why he would think The Pillar took a hostile approach. They basically went out of their way to suggest that his stories of exorcisms weren't true. There is no reason to use both the words "allegedly" and "claimed" in the following sentence if you aren't trying to emphasize skepticism toward his min…
In the priests defense, I do understand why he would think The Pillar took a hostile approach. They basically went out of their way to suggest that his stories of exorcisms weren't true. There is no reason to use both the words "allegedly" and "claimed" in the following sentence if you aren't trying to emphasize skepticism toward his ministry: its redundant. "a 2023 podcast series featuring dramatic audio portrayals of *allegedly* demonic encounters Martins *claims* to have experienced in ministry as an exorcist." The article in whole appears to not only besmirch his moral probity around children but also the reality of his ministry as an exorcist.
That said, I'm really glad The Pillar reported on this story, even if I don't like how it was framed. It is news. However, they should also dig a little deeper. For instance, Rod Dreher on his substack shows pictures of the priest who threw Fr. Martins under the bus touching a girls' shoulders at this very event. It is the double standards and hypocrisy that drives most people crazy. Everyone knows that this behavior of an itinerant preacher who will never see the girl again does not fit an abuse pattern. Throw in that the parish priest who attacked Fr. Martins did basically the same thing at the same event, and it starts to look like a hatchet job.
Also, these sorts of facts should be reported by the Pillar, as they learn of them. I hope they will raise such points and not leave it to the Drehers of the world.
Regarding exorcism, referring to what some said was an exorcism as “claimed” is NOT besmirching the claimant. The Pillar’s statement was factually and grammatically correct. The Church takes a very skeptical approach to demonic possession - as She must. And yes, there have been - and are - actual cases of possession.
I hadn’t heard of Fr. Martins, nor of this incident now gone viral. But, I am reminded of the Church’s advice regarding two mistakes to avoid with the devil: 1) denying his existence; and 2) paying too much attention to him. It seems this brouhaha is of the second kind. There are those who “see demons behind every tree”, and those who refuse to acknowledge that he is real. The first run the risk of becoming so focused on the demonic they lose sight of what the Good News is about. The second are in very real danger of being spiritually ambushed by him. Both are fools because they wind up focusing on what does not save us.
When I ended my ‘prodigal’ and was being catechised for Confirmation (at almost 30) the priest God provided to mentor me back home said, in answer to a question about the devil, “when you look toward the light (Jesus), shadows fall behind you”.
According to the code of behavior of the Joliet Diocese whose web URL has been posted above, what the diocesan priest's action obeyed the guidelines and Martin's did not.
In the priests defense, I do understand why he would think The Pillar took a hostile approach. They basically went out of their way to suggest that his stories of exorcisms weren't true. There is no reason to use both the words "allegedly" and "claimed" in the following sentence if you aren't trying to emphasize skepticism toward his ministry: its redundant. "a 2023 podcast series featuring dramatic audio portrayals of *allegedly* demonic encounters Martins *claims* to have experienced in ministry as an exorcist." The article in whole appears to not only besmirch his moral probity around children but also the reality of his ministry as an exorcist.
That said, I'm really glad The Pillar reported on this story, even if I don't like how it was framed. It is news. However, they should also dig a little deeper. For instance, Rod Dreher on his substack shows pictures of the priest who threw Fr. Martins under the bus touching a girls' shoulders at this very event. It is the double standards and hypocrisy that drives most people crazy. Everyone knows that this behavior of an itinerant preacher who will never see the girl again does not fit an abuse pattern. Throw in that the parish priest who attacked Fr. Martins did basically the same thing at the same event, and it starts to look like a hatchet job.
Also, these sorts of facts should be reported by the Pillar, as they learn of them. I hope they will raise such points and not leave it to the Drehers of the world.
https://roddreher.substack.com/p/child-touch-for-me-but-not-for-thee
Aren't there more important things out there for Rod Dreher to be writing about? And Mel Gibson, for that matter?
Regarding exorcism, referring to what some said was an exorcism as “claimed” is NOT besmirching the claimant. The Pillar’s statement was factually and grammatically correct. The Church takes a very skeptical approach to demonic possession - as She must. And yes, there have been - and are - actual cases of possession.
I hadn’t heard of Fr. Martins, nor of this incident now gone viral. But, I am reminded of the Church’s advice regarding two mistakes to avoid with the devil: 1) denying his existence; and 2) paying too much attention to him. It seems this brouhaha is of the second kind. There are those who “see demons behind every tree”, and those who refuse to acknowledge that he is real. The first run the risk of becoming so focused on the demonic they lose sight of what the Good News is about. The second are in very real danger of being spiritually ambushed by him. Both are fools because they wind up focusing on what does not save us.
When I ended my ‘prodigal’ and was being catechised for Confirmation (at almost 30) the priest God provided to mentor me back home said, in answer to a question about the devil, “when you look toward the light (Jesus), shadows fall behind you”.
According to the code of behavior of the Joliet Diocese whose web URL has been posted above, what the diocesan priest's action obeyed the guidelines and Martin's did not.