Jesus is coming at the end of our lives, for our individual particular judgement. So, regardless of when the end of time will be, which will herald his final coming, we will have His judgment. And we do not know when we will die. It could be many years from now, and it could be today. Tempus fugit, momento mori.
To paraphrase a friend, unless you treat every allegation of misconduct as worthy of investigation, then no allegation is worthy of investigation. No one is incapable of doing monstrous things, and no one should get a pass from scrutiny just because they code Trad or Lib.
And that's the rub of this whole thing. People want to believe Fr. Martins is innocent because he's on "their side." And maybe he is innocent. But that doesn't mean he just gets handwaved on accusations.
Nobody should get "handwaved on accusations," but when the parish priest basically does the same thing at the same event, then things start to look like two-tier justice is being applied. Also, when clarifications and definitions are not offered, it isn't unreasonable in the context of historical abuse scandals for many people to jump to conclusions.
I think the Pillar's reporting contributed to the issue by going out of its way to express skepticism of Fr. Martins overall ministry. If someone said that a priest was "allegedly" acting in-persona Cristi and "claiming" that the bread and wine were turned into the body and blood of Christ, people might not take it very well. Using claimed and alleged regarding sacramental ministry in a single sentence can be perceived as fighting words to those who believe in the efficacy of a particular sacrament.
Just to clarify, exorcism is not a sacrament and not one of our fundamental beliefs as Catholics, as the Eucharist is. The Church takes a "verification needed" stance toward even the holiest people who report apparitions of Christ and Our Lady--I think verification should go double for those (priests or not) who say they've encountered demonic forces.
Elinor, Excellent point that exorcism isn't a sacrament, but to say that it isn't a fundamental belief of the Catholic Church would, I think, go a bit far. The office of exorcist was historically one of the four minor orders of the church with exorcist ordination rites going back at least as far as the Fourth Council of Carthage in 398 AD, and much further when you consider that Carthage was merely formally approving what had already been practiced from time immemorial.
Anytime someone is ordained for a ministry and given formal rites to follow, I think it is safe to assume that such a ministry is considered a foundational part of the Church's function on earth and part of her core belief structure.
the issue with anything pertaining to an exorcism is that its unfalsifiable. It's doubly challenging when you have a dramatic retelling of an exorcism. We have no way of whether they're accounts of actual exorcisms or not, and thus, we'd feel obliged to use similar language even in the case of Benedict XVI or something.
I can see how, in the context of a story about a priest under suspicion, it seemed like we were adding fuel to fire and that's a good insight. I'm not sure how else to talk about exorcisms though, since no one can really know whether they were accomplished or not.
Were the issues in this case exorcisms? It appears that it began with something else. Not that there’s another thread to tug on, but to stay on point and to direct your point would be helpful I think.
This is in response to a person who is concerned that we referred to the priest's podcast as doing dramatic reanactments of "reported" exorcisms. some readers felt that we were demonstrating a lack of trust in the priest, so I'm just aiming to explain why we use that language.
I hear what your saying, but I still have questions. By that logic, almost every story about things in the past is unfalsifiable. So, when Pope Francis tells a story about an interaction that he had with someone as a young priest, would a journalist say "Francis allegedly spoke with a woman about her difficult marriage situation..." I have a hard time imagining that any journalist would do that. Now, maybe they would if the Pope produced a documentary of it, but I can almost guarantee that any journalist using that language would be called crass and accused of insinuating that the pope is a liar. How should a journalist draw that line?
Honestly, I love your reporting overall and would support you if the subscription price was double what it is now. You are the only news organization willing to consistently report honestly about issues like this. I just wonder if there was a way to appear more neutral in this particular situation? Maybe there isn't: I'm not sure on that point, though I suspect there is in a world of perfect hindsight. Frankly, I'm glad it is you doing this job and not me, because I can guarantee that I'd offend more people than you, Ed, and the other great reporters on your team.
we would say, "Francis reported speaking to a woman about her difficult marriage," or "Francis said he .. " or "Francis reportedly ..." Maybe even "Francis allegedly..."
We would never say, "Francis spoke to a woman about her difficult marriage situation" because we have no way of knowing it was true!
You did it! We have a solution for more neutral wording above! If you had said "Fr. Martins said he..." it wouldn't carry nearly the emotional weight as the words "allegedly" and "claimed", both of which tend to insinuate disbelief in today's culture (especially when used redundantly in the same sentence). Maybe that's just me, but I don't think I'm alone in that assessment.
The words have been used to neutralize things when it is quite clear that the things are not neutral, so that they are losing (if they have not already lost) their neutralizing capacity.
There are a number of investigations that have declared a bishop innocent of sexual misconduct but said that they were "imprudent". Any bets on how long it will take for that to become a euphemism?
To remain on the Fr. Martins incident just a bit: Does JD really think that “inappropriate” behavior that violates diocesan policy is something to call the police about? To me, this seems well inappropriate, excessive, and misdirected. Police should be called when it’s possible that a crime has been committed. And while good people can disagree about the appropriateness or prudence of Fr. Martins’s behavior, I think it’s clear that at least in the facts we have been told, it was not a matter necessitating law enforcement. That is why no arrest or charges were made.
What JD thinks about that is immaterial, for what it's worth. And as long as we're reporting on it, and until I know more facts, I'd be loathe to weigh in on whether someone should or should not have called the police.
Well, the thing is, it doesn't really matter whether or not a journalist thinks the police should or should not have been called. It's a journalist's job to report on whether or not the police have been called and why they were or were not called. Readers can then judge for themselves whether they think that the police ought to have been called.
Well let me clarify. We really haven’t known the story. The fact is that the police were called on an internationally known priest and the local diocese essentially kicked him out. That is certainly newsworthy. Was I criticizing? I suppose a little. I might have sat on the piece a day or cut it way down.
One hates to assume the worst of people, but when one see The Pillar sternly and repeatedly attacked on grounds of "journalistic ethics" by Catholic journalists who one can't recall ever having broken a major story, one begins to wonder how much of the "concern" is actually driven by jealousy and professional envy more than anything else.
After the extreme stance you've taken so far, are you going to call for Fr. Michael Lane, the parish priest who threw Fr. Martins under the bus, to be investigated as well for putting his hands on a girl's shoulders *at the same event*? Should he be suspended and have the police called on him? Why was he let off and Fr. Martins reputation trashed?
Well Danny, the first place I would start with that is to look at the Diocese of Joliet's Standards of Behavior policy (linked at the bottom of this comment)which enumerates a number of examples of appropropriate physical contact between adults and minors. Since they specifically include on that list "Pats on the upper back" and "Arms around shoulders", it seems reasonable that placing hands on shoulders is acceptable under the diocesan policy. So no, based on what you have shared at this time, I do not see any reason why Fr. Lane should face discipline.
Now, looking at the original incident, even the most charitable interpretation of events would seem to me to place the kind of hair touching that Fr. Martins committed in a grey zone of ambiguity between "definitely acceptable" and "definitely unacceptable". And there's the rub. It is simply not good enough merely to refrain from "definitely unacceptable" actions. All adults, cleric and lay, have a grave duty to refrain from entering the grey zone in their interactions with children. This is an essential part of maintaining a safe environment, and anyone who is negligent is their duty in this regard is in need of stern correction.
Is it just me or is there something oddly political about the people criticizing Pillar coverage of the Fr. Martins brouhaha?
Or maybe political isn't quite the right word. Maybe culture war-ish?
The most prominent critics of your coverage tend to... let's say, jump with both feet into any area of politically tinged culture war-ness. And there's a lot of that very distinctive online culture war energy in the criticism of your coverage. (Like the commenter in one of the articles who kept accusing the Pillar of being woke. Of all the words to go for, why *woke*?)
Maybe that's what you're getting at when you say that not everyone online wants to deal in good faith.
I don't think you're imagining things. Who can say for sure, but I have wondered, if the priest in the incident was Fr. James Martin and not Fr. Carlos Martins, would the response be different? One suspects it would be.
I've been thinking the same thing. There are times where some of what I've read in response to this topic feels like somebody put "generate response with a well-educated but politically charged tone characteristic of 2018 America, that references at least two culture war topics" into an AI generator.
Eh, you can't please all of the people all of the time.
It's obvious that most of the folks who are mad just don't like their favorite priest getting disciplined for clearly breaking a rule that prudent priests can and do easily follow. The fact that they are now insinuating that Fr. Lane, the parish priest, is doing something nefarious in the picture of him venerating the relic with small children shows just how unhinged they are. If the priest who messed up was a priest they didn't like, they'd all be dancing a jig and giving you a cookie.
It's also obvious that a couple of the "journalists" criticizing you are trying to feather their own nests.
I sincerely hope Fr Martins gets everything sorted out, but at the same time, if these relic tours are becoming more about himself than about the saints, to the point where a different priest can't pick up the ball and run with it, perhaps it's time he stepped away.
> It's obvious that most of the folks who are mad just don't like their favorite priest getting disciplined for clearly breaking a rule that prudent priests can and do easily follow.
What's the evidence for this assertion? I'm sure there are some mad for this particular reason, but taking them to be "most" seems hard to support.
I've been reading what's happening on four different social media platforms with about half a dozen different journalists and bloggers and dozens of their commenters. It doesn't take a weatherman to see which way the wind blows.
I think you are in the right for publishing the story. Also, even if it wasn't sexual in nature, Fr. Martins should have known better than to touch a student, that's like safe environment 101. Those guidelines are in place to protect children and to prevent even the inkling that something sexual happened.
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.
KEEP. GOING... At first I thought the reporting took a pretty hard line on the incident, but upon reading the available facts, I think it is completely fair. The Pillar has not indicted the priest, but reported what is known. Also - even if this was just a careless mistake by a well-known priest, what is the point of the safe environment procedures if we allow an environment to be unsafe. What is ALL OF THIS FOR except to not allow the occasion for abuse to occur. If the Church says the standard should be high, we must be unwavering in holding it accountable to be high.
You are absolutely right not to cede “inappropriate” to just a sexual euphemism. Even if you’re not, boundary violations are seen as a way to get in someone’s personal space and make them less defensive of their bodies, which can lead to sex abuse. So yeah, no matter how you slice it, your wording was appropriate.
Before I look it up in the golden chain I have a divisive question that is way more interesting than anything hair-related. How come only the Father knows what time Jesus is coming back? Doesn't Jesus have it penciled in on his memorandum book like this: "GANDALF TEA WEDNESDAY"? Do not the Son and the Holy Spirit cosign on everything? Will he indeed come like a thief in the night OR will he come like a throng showing up on one's doorstep asking for tea, cold chicken, pickles, seed-cake, knowing as much about the contents of one's pantry as one does oneself? Okay but my first question was serious (in return I will answer the question "why did God make mosquitoes".)
"Behold I stand at the door and knock... if anyone hears my voice and opens the door I will enter his hobbit-hole and have tea with him, and he with me, and we will go on an Adventure"
Good morning! We don't want any adventures here, thank you!
Allegedly (meaning, I am currently alleging this) St. Thomas Aquinas explains this by saying that by saying [only the Father knows, not the Son] was that the Son wasn't given the knowledge in order to reveal it. I suppose if you think of Jesus as the Word of God, with no speaking on this particular subject, this might make sense?
I already know why God made mosquitoes, and I also know the answer to this one.
It's meant to be a surprise party.
Yes, it's the kind where you sort of suspect something's going on because there's a lot of giggling and people acting arch. But still ultimately a surprise party.
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.
That element of the online reaction to your story also reminded me: rash judgment is a sin for a reason, and it's been noticeable for years that more and more Catholics (among others) fall into this trap. A peril of an age where everyone is expected to form a view on every issue they stumble upon (otherwise, what would they have to post about on their social media?). For what it's worth, when I read your initial report, the language and context gave away to me that the alleged conduct may not have been sexual in nature, but given the scarcity of actual facts at the time, any reasonable person should have withheld coming to any firm conclusion either way.
I can understand that some people think that the word Inappropriate is exclusively tied to some sin against the 6th Commandament. Generally speaking that is its only use in confession, i.e. inappropriate touching, inappropriate content, inappropriate movies/video, inappropriate FaceTime, inappropriate social media posts. Certainly inappropriate can indicate something other than something sexual but I would be hard pressed to say that based on my confessional experience.
I just took Virtus training in my archdiocese. If the priest touched the girl’s hair and the father thought it was inappropriate they tell you to report it to the police first and let them investigate it. Then normally you report it to the diocese.
I think this is even true when not in confession - sex is an intensely private thing so we euphemize it pretty much always, even when not discussing our own behavior. But you can discuss other major sins without that stigma - e.g. murder (we even have whole genres of entertainment devoted to it that little old grandmas will willingly say they enjoy! But the joy of a whodunit is figuring out the puzzle, or enjoying how it's constructed if you already know the solution, not vicarious enjoyment of violence.)
I mean it can’t be so euphemistic father doesn’t know what you mean right? Like you can’t be hiding it on purpose. Also asking follow up and clarifying questions for something Presumably mortifying defeats the purpose of trying to be polite on the first place. But I’m sure your average priest doesn’t WANT to ask clarifying questions on these sins so it definitely needs to be clear enough what you mean 😂
I don’t know about anyone else but explicit sexual language is extremely difficult to physically get out. Especially to either a stranger or a man whom you know, a man who is not your spouse, and ESPECIALLY when it’s sinful behavior.
It’s challenging to discuss topics medically with a same sex stranger or better known provider, but confession adds layers.
It’s theologically and philosophically interesting bc the difficulty must clearly be rooted in shame and yet the verbal expression of more serious sins isn’t nearly so difficult (for many. Maybe holier people are not this way). Why is not difficult in ones physical body to spit out the words in violation of the first commandment or third, or even the fifth in the same way as sixth and ninth?
I feel like there is TOTB/nakedness reveals the whole person situation here?
But anyways. It is REALLY REALLY hard to “just say” the words. Ahem.
Holier people than us are more-deeply sorry for even venial sins and imperfections than we are, but also they have less vanity about bringing sins clearly and succinctly to confession. However I think what they also have is the most important thing (in comparison to which the aforegoing does not matter), which is knowledge of and habitual use of *better cheat codes*, e.g. *demanding* assistance from the Holy Spirit or from Jesus, in full confidence of receiving it, fully *willing* to receive it (because sometimes the assistance is painful on arrival; we are after all talking about sins and Christ died for even the very little ones), and exhibiting to Him one's interior destitution (I have nothing, I cannot do this, You have to do it, You have to help me) which attracts the outpouring of grace like a vacuum being classically abhorred by nature in some science demo. St Teresa recommends (elsewhere for something else) "determined determination" and that would be a fine thing to ask for too (I am thinking about non-confession situations e.g. therapy-adjacent-"coaching", or therapy properly-speaking, where I have a sentence that I want to say because I have just realized something, and am just trying to physically be able to say it without sobbing and have to hold up a hand like "wait for it". The spirit is willing but the flesh is having a moment.)
Oooh yes the vanity part for sure but what I actually meant was they are holier so their shame is more properly ordered. As in there are objectively much more serious sins than masturbation or some other unchaste decisions so we SHOULD be more embarrassed of those in that sense. As in Dante’s circles of hell in which lust related activities are the outer most circle and the truly bad is much further in.
But yes less vanity in general would mean less self surprise at sin in the first place!
So far as I know, there are no canonical crimes regarding a priest absolving a person with whom he plotted and committed a murder or theft. Or even a blasphemy. But there is for sins against the sixth commandment. Euphemisms are a different layer of protection than law, but they're still a layer of protection.
I expect part of the reason is more difficult to say sexual sins explicitly, is because it renders a person more vulnerable *to the priest*, should the priest be the sort of person who advises gays to keep to one partner, or to consider the seminary, or who tries to get women to fornicate with him. This is especially the case if it is really hard for the person to struggle against sexual sins. A Saint might confess sins of the same type, but they are less vulnerable to them. People who have fewer wounds, either by never having them, or by having them healed, tend to be less vulnerable to spiritual abuse. Their confidence is not strictly related to a lack of vanity.
I was thinking about some of this too. I have never experienced even a whiff of unprofessional behavior from a priest anytime, including in the confessional, but I am still (maybe especially as a woman) incredibly aware that I am in a small, confined space with a man talking about very private things, even if a wall separates us. I'm sure that affects my manner of speaking, especially if I need to confess sins against chastity.
I have never experienced such behavior either. But I and a friend have both gone to Confession with a priest who was later removed from ministry and laicized for seeking sexual relationships with women and who had a reputation for very providing long, conversational Confessions.
Even if most priests are trustworthy, you can never find out if one isn't until afterwards. I can't imagine how that could fail to affect our way of speaking.
Jesus is coming at the end of our lives, for our individual particular judgement. So, regardless of when the end of time will be, which will herald his final coming, we will have His judgment. And we do not know when we will die. It could be many years from now, and it could be today. Tempus fugit, momento mori.
To paraphrase a friend, unless you treat every allegation of misconduct as worthy of investigation, then no allegation is worthy of investigation. No one is incapable of doing monstrous things, and no one should get a pass from scrutiny just because they code Trad or Lib.
And that's the rub of this whole thing. People want to believe Fr. Martins is innocent because he's on "their side." And maybe he is innocent. But that doesn't mean he just gets handwaved on accusations.
Nobody should get "handwaved on accusations," but when the parish priest basically does the same thing at the same event, then things start to look like two-tier justice is being applied. Also, when clarifications and definitions are not offered, it isn't unreasonable in the context of historical abuse scandals for many people to jump to conclusions.
https://roddreher.substack.com/p/child-touch-for-me-but-not-for-thee
I think the Pillar's reporting contributed to the issue by going out of its way to express skepticism of Fr. Martins overall ministry. If someone said that a priest was "allegedly" acting in-persona Cristi and "claiming" that the bread and wine were turned into the body and blood of Christ, people might not take it very well. Using claimed and alleged regarding sacramental ministry in a single sentence can be perceived as fighting words to those who believe in the efficacy of a particular sacrament.
Just to clarify, exorcism is not a sacrament and not one of our fundamental beliefs as Catholics, as the Eucharist is. The Church takes a "verification needed" stance toward even the holiest people who report apparitions of Christ and Our Lady--I think verification should go double for those (priests or not) who say they've encountered demonic forces.
Elinor, Excellent point that exorcism isn't a sacrament, but to say that it isn't a fundamental belief of the Catholic Church would, I think, go a bit far. The office of exorcist was historically one of the four minor orders of the church with exorcist ordination rites going back at least as far as the Fourth Council of Carthage in 398 AD, and much further when you consider that Carthage was merely formally approving what had already been practiced from time immemorial.
Anytime someone is ordained for a ministry and given formal rites to follow, I think it is safe to assume that such a ministry is considered a foundational part of the Church's function on earth and part of her core belief structure.
the issue with anything pertaining to an exorcism is that its unfalsifiable. It's doubly challenging when you have a dramatic retelling of an exorcism. We have no way of whether they're accounts of actual exorcisms or not, and thus, we'd feel obliged to use similar language even in the case of Benedict XVI or something.
I can see how, in the context of a story about a priest under suspicion, it seemed like we were adding fuel to fire and that's a good insight. I'm not sure how else to talk about exorcisms though, since no one can really know whether they were accomplished or not.
Were the issues in this case exorcisms? It appears that it began with something else. Not that there’s another thread to tug on, but to stay on point and to direct your point would be helpful I think.
This is in response to a person who is concerned that we referred to the priest's podcast as doing dramatic reanactments of "reported" exorcisms. some readers felt that we were demonstrating a lack of trust in the priest, so I'm just aiming to explain why we use that language.
I hear what your saying, but I still have questions. By that logic, almost every story about things in the past is unfalsifiable. So, when Pope Francis tells a story about an interaction that he had with someone as a young priest, would a journalist say "Francis allegedly spoke with a woman about her difficult marriage situation..." I have a hard time imagining that any journalist would do that. Now, maybe they would if the Pope produced a documentary of it, but I can almost guarantee that any journalist using that language would be called crass and accused of insinuating that the pope is a liar. How should a journalist draw that line?
Honestly, I love your reporting overall and would support you if the subscription price was double what it is now. You are the only news organization willing to consistently report honestly about issues like this. I just wonder if there was a way to appear more neutral in this particular situation? Maybe there isn't: I'm not sure on that point, though I suspect there is in a world of perfect hindsight. Frankly, I'm glad it is you doing this job and not me, because I can guarantee that I'd offend more people than you, Ed, and the other great reporters on your team.
we would say, "Francis reported speaking to a woman about her difficult marriage," or "Francis said he .. " or "Francis reportedly ..." Maybe even "Francis allegedly..."
We would never say, "Francis spoke to a woman about her difficult marriage situation" because we have no way of knowing it was true!
And thanks for the great and very kind note.
You did it! We have a solution for more neutral wording above! If you had said "Fr. Martins said he..." it wouldn't carry nearly the emotional weight as the words "allegedly" and "claimed", both of which tend to insinuate disbelief in today's culture (especially when used redundantly in the same sentence). Maybe that's just me, but I don't think I'm alone in that assessment.
it's helpful feedback.
This is actually a good point. I think the words had different connotations even a decade ago.
The words have been used to neutralize things when it is quite clear that the things are not neutral, so that they are losing (if they have not already lost) their neutralizing capacity.
There are a number of investigations that have declared a bishop innocent of sexual misconduct but said that they were "imprudent". Any bets on how long it will take for that to become a euphemism?
To remain on the Fr. Martins incident just a bit: Does JD really think that “inappropriate” behavior that violates diocesan policy is something to call the police about? To me, this seems well inappropriate, excessive, and misdirected. Police should be called when it’s possible that a crime has been committed. And while good people can disagree about the appropriateness or prudence of Fr. Martins’s behavior, I think it’s clear that at least in the facts we have been told, it was not a matter necessitating law enforcement. That is why no arrest or charges were made.
What JD thinks about that is immaterial, for what it's worth. And as long as we're reporting on it, and until I know more facts, I'd be loathe to weigh in on whether someone should or should not have called the police.
I will say that priests don't call the police on priests very lightly.
I would definitely be most interested in how the incident was viewed by adults present in the room who witnessed it directly.
I think one question to figure out is if there even are any adults who witnessed it
Clearly the girl's father thought a crime had been committed, it's the job of the police to decide whether or not there's evidence that one did occur.
Well, the thing is, it doesn't really matter whether or not a journalist thinks the police should or should not have been called. It's a journalist's job to report on whether or not the police have been called and why they were or were not called. Readers can then judge for themselves whether they think that the police ought to have been called.
thanks. correct.
Well let me clarify. We really haven’t known the story. The fact is that the police were called on an internationally known priest and the local diocese essentially kicked him out. That is certainly newsworthy. Was I criticizing? I suppose a little. I might have sat on the piece a day or cut it way down.
One hates to assume the worst of people, but when one see The Pillar sternly and repeatedly attacked on grounds of "journalistic ethics" by Catholic journalists who one can't recall ever having broken a major story, one begins to wonder how much of the "concern" is actually driven by jealousy and professional envy more than anything else.
Mr. Gannon,
After the extreme stance you've taken so far, are you going to call for Fr. Michael Lane, the parish priest who threw Fr. Martins under the bus, to be investigated as well for putting his hands on a girl's shoulders *at the same event*? Should he be suspended and have the police called on him? Why was he let off and Fr. Martins reputation trashed?
https://roddreher.substack.com/p/child-touch-for-me-but-not-for-thee
Well Danny, the first place I would start with that is to look at the Diocese of Joliet's Standards of Behavior policy (linked at the bottom of this comment)which enumerates a number of examples of appropropriate physical contact between adults and minors. Since they specifically include on that list "Pats on the upper back" and "Arms around shoulders", it seems reasonable that placing hands on shoulders is acceptable under the diocesan policy. So no, based on what you have shared at this time, I do not see any reason why Fr. Lane should face discipline.
Now, looking at the original incident, even the most charitable interpretation of events would seem to me to place the kind of hair touching that Fr. Martins committed in a grey zone of ambiguity between "definitely acceptable" and "definitely unacceptable". And there's the rub. It is simply not good enough merely to refrain from "definitely unacceptable" actions. All adults, cleric and lay, have a grave duty to refrain from entering the grey zone in their interactions with children. This is an essential part of maintaining a safe environment, and anyone who is negligent is their duty in this regard is in need of stern correction.
https://catechesis.diojoliet.org/documents/d/child-protection/doj-standards-of-behavior-for-those-working-with-minors-and-vulnerable-adults-rev-12-20-2023-_with-transportation-policy-pdf
"including “What Women Want” star Mel Gibson"
Was that movie chosen just for the provocation? 😅
Henceforth "Pillar reader Mel Gibson"
I take full accountability for this omission and apologize 🤣
In a good way? Let’s pray for him. Stay strong JD!
I read that and heard the Mortal Combat "FATALITY!!" line in my head.
Is it just me or is there something oddly political about the people criticizing Pillar coverage of the Fr. Martins brouhaha?
Or maybe political isn't quite the right word. Maybe culture war-ish?
The most prominent critics of your coverage tend to... let's say, jump with both feet into any area of politically tinged culture war-ness. And there's a lot of that very distinctive online culture war energy in the criticism of your coverage. (Like the commenter in one of the articles who kept accusing the Pillar of being woke. Of all the words to go for, why *woke*?)
Maybe that's what you're getting at when you say that not everyone online wants to deal in good faith.
I don't think you're imagining things. Who can say for sure, but I have wondered, if the priest in the incident was Fr. James Martin and not Fr. Carlos Martins, would the response be different? One suspects it would be.
I've been thinking the same thing. There are times where some of what I've read in response to this topic feels like somebody put "generate response with a well-educated but politically charged tone characteristic of 2018 America, that references at least two culture war topics" into an AI generator.
Eh, you can't please all of the people all of the time.
It's obvious that most of the folks who are mad just don't like their favorite priest getting disciplined for clearly breaking a rule that prudent priests can and do easily follow. The fact that they are now insinuating that Fr. Lane, the parish priest, is doing something nefarious in the picture of him venerating the relic with small children shows just how unhinged they are. If the priest who messed up was a priest they didn't like, they'd all be dancing a jig and giving you a cookie.
It's also obvious that a couple of the "journalists" criticizing you are trying to feather their own nests.
I sincerely hope Fr Martins gets everything sorted out, but at the same time, if these relic tours are becoming more about himself than about the saints, to the point where a different priest can't pick up the ball and run with it, perhaps it's time he stepped away.
> It's obvious that most of the folks who are mad just don't like their favorite priest getting disciplined for clearly breaking a rule that prudent priests can and do easily follow.
What's the evidence for this assertion? I'm sure there are some mad for this particular reason, but taking them to be "most" seems hard to support.
I've been reading what's happening on four different social media platforms with about half a dozen different journalists and bloggers and dozens of their commenters. It doesn't take a weatherman to see which way the wind blows.
That is not very compelling evidence.
I think you are in the right for publishing the story. Also, even if it wasn't sexual in nature, Fr. Martins should have known better than to touch a student, that's like safe environment 101. Those guidelines are in place to protect children and to prevent even the inkling that something sexual happened.
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.
KEEP. GOING... At first I thought the reporting took a pretty hard line on the incident, but upon reading the available facts, I think it is completely fair. The Pillar has not indicted the priest, but reported what is known. Also - even if this was just a careless mistake by a well-known priest, what is the point of the safe environment procedures if we allow an environment to be unsafe. What is ALL OF THIS FOR except to not allow the occasion for abuse to occur. If the Church says the standard should be high, we must be unwavering in holding it accountable to be high.
You are absolutely right not to cede “inappropriate” to just a sexual euphemism. Even if you’re not, boundary violations are seen as a way to get in someone’s personal space and make them less defensive of their bodies, which can lead to sex abuse. So yeah, no matter how you slice it, your wording was appropriate.
All the whiners and complainers about your reporting: Tell them to grow up and get a life!
Before I look it up in the golden chain I have a divisive question that is way more interesting than anything hair-related. How come only the Father knows what time Jesus is coming back? Doesn't Jesus have it penciled in on his memorandum book like this: "GANDALF TEA WEDNESDAY"? Do not the Son and the Holy Spirit cosign on everything? Will he indeed come like a thief in the night OR will he come like a throng showing up on one's doorstep asking for tea, cold chicken, pickles, seed-cake, knowing as much about the contents of one's pantry as one does oneself? Okay but my first question was serious (in return I will answer the question "why did God make mosquitoes".)
Well, now I'm going to have "Blunt the Knives" stuck in my head the rest of the day.
"Behold I stand at the door and knock... if anyone hears my voice and opens the door I will enter his hobbit-hole and have tea with him, and he with me, and we will go on an Adventure"
Good morning! We don't want any adventures here, thank you!
Allegedly (meaning, I am currently alleging this) St. Thomas Aquinas explains this by saying that by saying [only the Father knows, not the Son] was that the Son wasn't given the knowledge in order to reveal it. I suppose if you think of Jesus as the Word of God, with no speaking on this particular subject, this might make sense?
So, why did God make mosquitoes? To ensure Alaska would have a state bird?
Because He loves us.
I object to this answer, and would like to withdraw my own and substitute in "Because God is ipsum esse essens". ;)
I already know why God made mosquitoes, and I also know the answer to this one.
It's meant to be a surprise party.
Yes, it's the kind where you sort of suspect something's going on because there's a lot of giggling and people acting arch. But still ultimately a surprise party.
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.
That element of the online reaction to your story also reminded me: rash judgment is a sin for a reason, and it's been noticeable for years that more and more Catholics (among others) fall into this trap. A peril of an age where everyone is expected to form a view on every issue they stumble upon (otherwise, what would they have to post about on their social media?). For what it's worth, when I read your initial report, the language and context gave away to me that the alleged conduct may not have been sexual in nature, but given the scarcity of actual facts at the time, any reasonable person should have withheld coming to any firm conclusion either way.
I can understand that some people think that the word Inappropriate is exclusively tied to some sin against the 6th Commandament. Generally speaking that is its only use in confession, i.e. inappropriate touching, inappropriate content, inappropriate movies/video, inappropriate FaceTime, inappropriate social media posts. Certainly inappropriate can indicate something other than something sexual but I would be hard pressed to say that based on my confessional experience.
that's good insight, thank you. I wonder why people don't just say the words.
I just took Virtus training in my archdiocese. If the priest touched the girl’s hair and the father thought it was inappropriate they tell you to report it to the police first and let them investigate it. Then normally you report it to the diocese.
It is easier to confess one’s sexual sins euphemistically. It soothes the embarrassment.
I think this is even true when not in confession - sex is an intensely private thing so we euphemize it pretty much always, even when not discussing our own behavior. But you can discuss other major sins without that stigma - e.g. murder (we even have whole genres of entertainment devoted to it that little old grandmas will willingly say they enjoy! But the joy of a whodunit is figuring out the puzzle, or enjoying how it's constructed if you already know the solution, not vicarious enjoyment of violence.)
I just didn't know this was an option! I wish I'd known!
I mean it can’t be so euphemistic father doesn’t know what you mean right? Like you can’t be hiding it on purpose. Also asking follow up and clarifying questions for something Presumably mortifying defeats the purpose of trying to be polite on the first place. But I’m sure your average priest doesn’t WANT to ask clarifying questions on these sins so it definitely needs to be clear enough what you mean 😂
I don’t know about anyone else but explicit sexual language is extremely difficult to physically get out. Especially to either a stranger or a man whom you know, a man who is not your spouse, and ESPECIALLY when it’s sinful behavior.
It’s challenging to discuss topics medically with a same sex stranger or better known provider, but confession adds layers.
It’s theologically and philosophically interesting bc the difficulty must clearly be rooted in shame and yet the verbal expression of more serious sins isn’t nearly so difficult (for many. Maybe holier people are not this way). Why is not difficult in ones physical body to spit out the words in violation of the first commandment or third, or even the fifth in the same way as sixth and ninth?
I feel like there is TOTB/nakedness reveals the whole person situation here?
But anyways. It is REALLY REALLY hard to “just say” the words. Ahem.
That's helpful. Thank you.
> Maybe holier people are not this way
Holier people than us are more-deeply sorry for even venial sins and imperfections than we are, but also they have less vanity about bringing sins clearly and succinctly to confession. However I think what they also have is the most important thing (in comparison to which the aforegoing does not matter), which is knowledge of and habitual use of *better cheat codes*, e.g. *demanding* assistance from the Holy Spirit or from Jesus, in full confidence of receiving it, fully *willing* to receive it (because sometimes the assistance is painful on arrival; we are after all talking about sins and Christ died for even the very little ones), and exhibiting to Him one's interior destitution (I have nothing, I cannot do this, You have to do it, You have to help me) which attracts the outpouring of grace like a vacuum being classically abhorred by nature in some science demo. St Teresa recommends (elsewhere for something else) "determined determination" and that would be a fine thing to ask for too (I am thinking about non-confession situations e.g. therapy-adjacent-"coaching", or therapy properly-speaking, where I have a sentence that I want to say because I have just realized something, and am just trying to physically be able to say it without sobbing and have to hold up a hand like "wait for it". The spirit is willing but the flesh is having a moment.)
Oooh yes the vanity part for sure but what I actually meant was they are holier so their shame is more properly ordered. As in there are objectively much more serious sins than masturbation or some other unchaste decisions so we SHOULD be more embarrassed of those in that sense. As in Dante’s circles of hell in which lust related activities are the outer most circle and the truly bad is much further in.
But yes less vanity in general would mean less self surprise at sin in the first place!
So far as I know, there are no canonical crimes regarding a priest absolving a person with whom he plotted and committed a murder or theft. Or even a blasphemy. But there is for sins against the sixth commandment. Euphemisms are a different layer of protection than law, but they're still a layer of protection.
I expect part of the reason is more difficult to say sexual sins explicitly, is because it renders a person more vulnerable *to the priest*, should the priest be the sort of person who advises gays to keep to one partner, or to consider the seminary, or who tries to get women to fornicate with him. This is especially the case if it is really hard for the person to struggle against sexual sins. A Saint might confess sins of the same type, but they are less vulnerable to them. People who have fewer wounds, either by never having them, or by having them healed, tend to be less vulnerable to spiritual abuse. Their confidence is not strictly related to a lack of vanity.
I was thinking about some of this too. I have never experienced even a whiff of unprofessional behavior from a priest anytime, including in the confessional, but I am still (maybe especially as a woman) incredibly aware that I am in a small, confined space with a man talking about very private things, even if a wall separates us. I'm sure that affects my manner of speaking, especially if I need to confess sins against chastity.
I have never experienced such behavior either. But I and a friend have both gone to Confession with a priest who was later removed from ministry and laicized for seeking sexual relationships with women and who had a reputation for very providing long, conversational Confessions.
Even if most priests are trustworthy, you can never find out if one isn't until afterwards. I can't imagine how that could fail to affect our way of speaking.