Unfortunately there are no guarantees about the quality of these tests or the "experts" conducting them. Back in 2018 Father David Marsden wrote an open letter to the Bishops of England and Wales about the grim problems at Oscott Seminary (North edge of Birmingham, England). Yes, the St Luke's he mentions is the UK branch of the US organisation.
"The problem begins at St. Luke's Institute in Manchester where a number of seminarians are asked to undergo a psychological assessment as part of the selection policy. The director of the institute, Br. Gerard Fieldhouse-Byrne, has some very strange views on homosexuality himself and seems happy to admit homosexual men into the formation program. This is a problem that the bishop of Salford needs to address."
The rector of Oscott, Canon Oakley, has fortunately moved on. Unfortunately he is now the Bishop of Northampton.
Fr David mentions three seminaries in England in 2018. One of the three, Winnersh, closed in 2021. It looks as if Oscott may close soon as the national vocations statistics collapse ever lower. That would leave only Allen Hall in central London. It is named in honour of the 16th century Cardinal Allen. It is also known as Alice Hall.
And maybe there should just be a regular process of cycling priests in and out of the role of exorcist? I don't know enough about it but it seems to me that like 5 years on, 5 years off might give them a chance to recover from the mental/ spiritual strain of having to deal with such evil constantly. But maybe there just aren't enough priests to do that.
Ewww. Hopefully we’ll see the complaint and have a sense of the incident as it occurred. Since there were many witnesses, and the police proceeded to charge him after investigating, it wasn’t nothing. I’m already seeing some very nasty comments from his fans directed toward the victim and her father. This priest has problems, clearly. For now, just ewww.
Unless the Joliet PD are a fantastically bored department, they didn't interview a bunch of witnesses. Given the lag of time between the incident and the charge, it seems to me more likely than not that the parents wanted a charge, hired a lawyer, and he started pulling strings at the department, gathering affidavits from people who witnessed it, etc. Doesn't mean it's not true. But IMHO, it would be naive to think this charge was the result of a rigorous investigative process.
I and others filed FOIAs that were rejected on the grounds of "active investigation" going on, so I presume that means they were investigating. Most likely interviewing every person who was there and might have seen or heard something.
I also honestly don't get how people would think the police would just blow off a complaint that a priest did anything inappropriate whatsoever with a minor in today's environment. I understand Fr Martins has many supporters who, based on his attorney's statement, think this was nothing, but law enforcement is not going to just accept the statement of a potential defendant's attorney. Plus there have been enough other cases of priests acting unlawfully with minors that I would think the police would be leaving no stone unturned lest they get accused of not doing their jobs.
I'm pretty sure the difference between "active investigation" and any other kind is the filing of a bit of paper. I wouldn't read much into that. I hope they did cross-check some statements while memories were fresh.
My hypothesis for any delay was that this was all happening over holiday time, there was no one in immediate danger, and several of the persons interviewed were minors whose parents might well have sought legal counsel beforehand, given that there's been much online backlash to the accusation against this popular celebrity priest.
I can't know what happened in this case. But based on general observations from interactions with police departments: They are over-taxed and have way more people asking for things than they have time to give. "Your case" is never as important as some other thing they could be doing with their time. Thus, police do the least amount of work possible, as often as possible.
I think it's highly unlikely the Joliet Police "interview[ed] ever person who was there and might have seen or heard something." Why the heck would they do that? All they need is the claimant's statement to submit it to the state's attorney's office. If they really want to beef it up, they could take another or statement or two.
You have a point about police paying attention to priests, though. The fact that this case involves a priest, and was getting media attention, is surely the only reason they even submitted it to the state's attorneys' office and got a charge. I'm not making any evaluative comment about the claim. Could be true, could be false. But what motivated them was potential bad press.
Unless I hear more, I am filing this under hoax/panic/satan's payback. I know how unfounded rumors and hoaxes can destroy a life and reputation. Innocent until proven guilty is good practice.
Innocent until proven guilty does not require a member of the clergy to claim that allegations of misconduct are a “hoax.” If nothing else, bless us with your silence.
If you as a Catholic clergyman are going to immediately yell "hoax" and "Satan" when a priest is criminally charged with an offense against a minor, then to me you seem to be part of the problem.
Which part is a hoax? His side already admitted that he picked up a lock of the girl's hair and talked about flossing with hair, so that part is (I assume) not a hoax. That he is alleged to have put it in his mouth (rather than only talking about flossing) is new and surprising to me and perhaps that allegation is the hoax?
Great! Did you give your eye witness account to the police, or did you direct the police to who they could speak with that told you this eye witness account? Because that seems like a big deal.
Well, I guess we'll see how it plays out. I'm not reflexively in his corner, but some elements of the response seem harsh. Getting to justice may be hard, here; we've gotten so bad at it!
I don’t really see the response as harsh. The press report was vague but stated that the detectives gave their findings to the state’s attorney who agreed to the charge of one count of misdemeanor battery. Whether, as a parent, I would have pressed charges would depend on the actual circumstances, but they may have done Father Martins a favor. I have met or know of several itinerant priests doing parish retreats and so forth who gather a following but are really accountable to no one. If this incident happened in my parish I doubt anyone would have jumped up and confronted him, because we are, like most congregations, polite to visitors. But there would have been complaints to the pastor who would have dealt with him privately and he would not have been asked back. The report said there were 200 people in a classroom setting, which is hard to imagine, but it is less likely that anyone would confront him in front of students. When this incident became known Father Martins lawyered up and punched back when he could have apologized. Prideful. Celebrity is dangerous, especially to a priest.
I didn’t take the immediate incarceration seriously because warrants are worded that way. I believe the appearance to determine conditions of release is likely, but yes, any imprisonment would be harsh.
I doubt Fr Martins if found guilty would get more than a slap on the wrist, although this situation is likely to adversely affect his ability to minister outside his home country of Canada and to visit dioceses and parishes, as no diocese or parish wants the risk. The accounts by the students suggest a somewhat troubling pattern of overfamiliarity with minors, especially given that he had just met them and does not appear to have been abiding by the normal safeguarding rule to have another adult besides himself present at all times, which is for the priest's protection as well as the minors' protection. He may well have seen his actions as just being friendly, but those who work in parishes with youth and have been through safeguarding training see his alleged actions as very imprudent at best and grooming at worst.
Oh, and people: don't touch the kiddoes in the course of intusive banter about personal bodily functions or hygiene! At all! That's not "rapport." It's *creepy*.
Maybe not criminal, exactly; but definitely the sort of thing you don't let a stranger do twice.
Based on *his* lawyer's account, I would never invite him to be near kids.
Don't judge others lest ye be judged. In our society if you can go to jail for touching a girl's hair briefly in front of many people where no one found it offensive at the time, then there are a lot of gestures that you will go to jail for, while certain self righteous individuals will call it creepy. You pat a kid on the back as a couch for scoring a goal: battery. You hold a kid's shoulders while looking at the relic theat Father Martins brought like Father Lane, the pastor of the parish where the incident occurred: battery. You poured water on a baby and made them cry during baptism: battery. If the Church cooperates with authorities in persecuting priests for anything they do, then the civil authorities will gladly destroy our Church with our stupid cooperation.
**touching a girl's hair briefly in front of many people where no one found it offensive at the time***
You don’t know whether the touching was brief, or the context. While there were reportedly many people present, there is no information on how many people saw it. And there is absolutely no evidence that no one found it offensive at the time.
Whether something is offensive does not automatically make it criminal. I was at a store with my kids and there was a guy with his kids f--bombing every 2 seconds. My kids and I found it more offensive than if the guy touched my kids' hair, but I would find it wrong to call the police on him. It was offensive, but not criminal: big difference.
Your examples aren't battery, however. For baptism, it has specifically been requested, so it is not "without consent." Patting a kid on the back as a coach (it's easy to get couch and coach misspelled and mixed up) is not "offensive" within the context of a game (it is an objective AND subjective standard, usually, as to what is offensive).
Holding a kid's shoulders while looking at the relic is very context specific. Is it a priest who you are close with? Then probably done with consent. Is it the priest of the parish who you've only spoken with once or twice? Yeah, it might be a battery.
What does consent have to do with battery? If I consent to someone slapping my kid full force on the face then it is not battery because I consented to it? A behavior like touching someone's hair may be awkward if done by a stranger, but it is not a criminal act.
In almost all cases a criminal battery is a battery in all situations, whether consent is given or not (only a few exceptions like spanking a child or washing a naked toddler would be battery if not done by a parent or with direct consent from a parent). It is like a stranger touching my hair or patting me on the back so strongly it actually hurt a bit. I can say "I would prefer you not do that" or even "stop it," but if I called in the police for that, it would both be an act of injustice on my part as well as a sin against the 8th commandment because I am harming someone's reputation over something that was not meant to cause me harm.
Wait, do you really think consent doesn't have anything to do with battery? "What does consent have to do with battery?" I have to assume you typed this quickly and didn't take some time to think about it. Let's say I am in a theatrical play. During that play, I and another actor get into a "fight." I tell the other actor that, for the sake of making the scene appear as real as possible, the actor is allowed to actually slap me. This would not be battery.
So, too, it would not be battery to baptize a screaming child, if you have parental consent. Of course, there is also the issue of how the baby is supposed to testify whether he or she found it offensive or was just crying because it was hungry.
Whether it would be battery or not to slap your 1yo child if you gave me permission is an interesting question, and it is the reason states have Child Cruelty and other such laws, to cover the issue so that your consent on behalf of your child does not matter.
*Please note: every State has different battery laws. I am speaking of my state, which shares a lot of similarities with the state in question.
All I know is if a priest goes to jail for 1 year for touching a girl's hair while Chicago Children's Hospital less than an hour away routinely mutilated children through "sex change" operations then we are living in a bizarre world where people, including the Catholics throwing mud at Father Martins, simply have lost the ability to distinguish what is truly evil and what at worse is an imprudent act.
I would not trust prosecutors in a wicked state like Illinois that routinely releases violent criminals from any criminal sentence. My wife was sexually assaulted by a man at a gas station in the same Will County that Father Martins is accused in and the police did nothing to even make a good investigation, but they so quickly go after a man for touching a girl's hair. Pure insanity!
No need to trust prosecutors. Just also don't be a creeper. This guy's own lawyer's language suggests someone who should not be invited to work with children.
There is a fair amount of daylight between "belongs in prison" and "fit for ministry"--or should be, anyway. Obviously, sadly, madly, our episcopacy is full of people who are too corrupt to make such distinctions.
I did say "probably not criminal," though you seem not to have read that.
An injustice in one situation does not make void a justice in another. In addition, simply because one has committed a crime does not make it or them truly evil. In some states, speeding is a criminal act. That doesn't make them evil. It just means they have violated the law, and should be punished accordingly. The fact that within said state abortion might be legal does *not* invalidate the crime of speeding. No one is saying that Fr. Martins is the same as a doctor who mutilates children, or even a priest who sexually abuses children (no one that I have read, at least). I think you are taking people's criticism of Fr. Martins and looking at it too emotionally, instead of actually reading what is written.
I'm sorry about what your wife went through. Again, though, it does not invalidate whether what Fr. Martins did was a crime or not, nor does it invalidate whether it was very inappropriate or not.
But putting a priest in jail for touching a girl's hair is not a speeding ticket. The problem is that Americans growing up in Calvinist-Puritanical American culture do not truly understand who a priest is. A priest is not some minister or nobody important. He is called Father because he is our Father and no good son or daughter would agree with their Father going to jail for innocently touching a girl's hair. In Poland a priest is treated in his parish like royalty as he should be. In Mexico, when we traveled with a priest restaurants, museums and stores would let us in after closing because Padrecito was with us. It is simply inconceivable to any Catholic born and raised among other Catholics instead of among people who think the Constitution and democracy are god to believe that a priest could be treated with such disrespect simply because some secular prosecutors and some evil parent want to destroy an innocent priest who brings us God in the flesh and is a representative of Christ on earth.
It seems that this incident occurred in a room with multiple witnesses (minors, yes but not really young as best as I can tell from the stories). So if the matter goes to trial witnesses will clarify the facts. Defendants often choose to accept a plea deal when confronted with anticipated testimony, so if the facts are against him I suspect we will never know exactly what happened. I imagine if he is not guilty of impropriety there will be a trial and we will hear from both sides.
The information about this case seems awfully sketchy for an event that happened in front of many people. That said I can only give my thoughts on a hypothetical situation. If my child came home from a similar event and said a priest made a joke about flossing with my hair, but the child was not upset, I probably would have thought that’s a stupid joke and left it at that. There are few among us who have not put their foot in their mouth with a stupid remark.
I might have taken the opportunity to tell my daughter that as she had very pretty long hair, people might at times touch it, and that it was totally ok for her to request people not touch her hair - a teaching moment. If I was really put out, I would go down and talk to the priest. If my child was disturbed by the event, I would arrange for the priest to apologize and admit his error. Case closed.
I would not bring the police into such a situation. I would not make my daughter the center of a controversy and the center of attention in the community and the school - note, this is a boundary issue not a sexual issue which would of course take any parent to the police. In a country with a multitude of culture living side by side, boundary issue abound, and it is most gracious to assume that the intent was not bad and nearly point out that you would appreciate not being hugged, having your hair touched or that most annoying habit of strangers, patting ones pregnant tummy.
Somewhat. I would have demanded a written apology to be given to my child rather than have her speak to the priest in person. I would have demanded a mental health and physical health evaluation of the priest. I am aware this priest has celebrity status but I personally have not followed or listened to his podcast - Fr. Lampert is my go to YouTube exorcist:). If this behavior was out of the blue I would wonder at a health issue - early onset dementia, tumor or adverse drug reaction. I would explain this to my child. I'm not seeing how my going public, or pressing charges or prison would be helpful for the priest, or the notoriety good for my child. I would want the case documented by the Church so if this was an ongoing issue - mental health, bizarre personality or whatever, that it was not simply brushed under the carpet. I would want for the sake of my child's faith for her to be assured the Church was supportive of her and took her discomfiture seriously. We are told biblically how to deal with such matters and following Biblical teachings isn't always easy. I'm a parent. I've never had to deal with something like this, but I have had to sort things out my children told me in part because more than one has a processing problems affecting the telling of events - not the situation in this case, but I've learned best thing all around is to chill, and work out the situation as a Christian adult.
thanks for weighing in. I do not think anyone should anyone should second guess the choices made by this girl's parents, but I do think it's an important discussion to have.
I know that you are responding to a hypo about how you would personally respond to a similar situation, and I am trying not to pre-judge Fr. Martins here. But your response did get me thinking.
What if some touring celebrity priest did what was alleged here and refused to the demands you sketched above? No apology. No evaluation. We could ask the diocese to document it, but I expect any report would only be "known" to the diocese (unless the bishop or a staffer shares it or knowledge of it - perhaps to an intrepid reporter). I am not aware of any archdiocesan, state-wide, national, continental, or global "database" for these kind of reports.
So what happens if the touring celebrity priest does it again in another diocese? Is that diocese expected to investigate? To contact previous dioceses that the priest has visited for reports of similar behavior? How many? Which ones? It seems like a pattern of grooming behavior --- which can be difficult to identify and document --- could continue for a long time under the radar by avoiding going public.
And tragically, given how the Church has responded to allegations in the past, I think it is worth asking whether a parent should trust in the fallible prudential decisions of the Church on how to evaluate and respond to these claims, or seek recourse to civic authorities.
That a lot of "Ifs" to consider but I get your point. I think that there is nothing that will set off a Dad faster than a suggestion of mistreatment of a daughter - which is right and proper in its way. I would not make a public to do because it would adversely affect my child - possibly resulting in bullying or other unwanted attention. I would only consider that after many attempts to handle it privately had failed. I do think that most diocese in the US are pretty good now (not so much in the past) about taking these sorts of events seriously.
I guess when I look over my comment, it really comes down to the last "if": What if this was not the first offense? (Because it seems a touring celebrity priest could always privately apologize and agree to get evaluated, but still escape accountability by simply never returning.) I think in most cases (like Fr. Martins) the answer is not known, and may be difficult to find.
I agree that the additional variable of it being a touring celebrity priest makes the question of how to deal with it (from a parent’s perspective) trickier than if it were a diocesan priest clearly under the jurisdiction of a particular bishop. Going to the local priest or bishop to file a complaint or request an apology wouldn’t really cover this scenario and it does add a layer of complication. Overall this whole thing is so unfortunate but the fact of it being a touring celebrity priest does add a dimension of “could this have happened before/could it happen again?” No one knows.
This was the concern I had in mind in my comment about accountability of traveling priests, especially those with celebrity status. There is an assumption that they’ve been vetted. I appreciate this discussion because I am dealing with something similar in a community where there is no support for a child whistleblower. As I have followed this case I have come to believe that the child is better off for having the backing of her parent and pastor. It is far worse to have the violation minimized. Let’s remember that this took place in public, so it was not her parents who placed her in the spotlight.
The bishop of the diocese and the pastor of the parish obviously cared. The pastor called the bishop to report it, and the bishop told Fr Martins to leave Joliet diocese and not come back.
The attorney using the fact that the girl giggled as evidence of this being a wholesome interaction is incredibly tone deaf (at best, intentionally dishonest, at worst). Have they really never seen a person, especially a preteen or teen girl, giggle when uncomfortable? Even reading about this makes me uncomfortable.
Agree. I have giggled and placated men when I was a young woman, just wishing I could get out of the situation with as little confrontation as possible
Such an important point. (I really don't have much to say about the actual situation--it's much too heated for my taste), but just wanted to underscore Grace's point.
When confronted with a threat, in addition to fight and flight, there's also freeze and fawn. All are instinctual strategies to try to mitigate the threat. This would be textbook example of the fawn response if the girl felt threatened, uncomfortable, or violated.
I cannot believe the level of mud thrown at this priest for something completely innocent. He was only imprudent not realizing how self-righteous and judgmental fellow Catholics are these days and bishops are too wimpy to protect him.
Shame on everyone who accuse Father Martins in this way: it is the sin of calumny assuming that he had any motivation for evil and thinking that it is alright to send a person to jail for something like this. Who wants to be a priest these days: why would anyone want to help self-rightous Pharisees, like the Catholics criticizing Father Martins, get to Heaven through the Sacraments?
Maybe one day, when Americans have to do what Catholics did in the Soviet Union, putting on the altar priestly vestments while weeping and praying the Rosary because they had no priests, will American Catholics consider it wrong to throw mud at priests for something that was innocent.
If it was so "innocent" then why is he being charged with a civil law crime and suspended by his order? Why indeed does the church even have safeguarding policies forbidding the type of behavior he engaged in? Have you even thought about this or are you so sucked into the personality cult of this celebrity priest that you can't see how what he did was wrong?
“He was charged so he must be guilty” is how we got to a world where the allegation is as bad as committing the actual crime itself. It is a seductive trap and one we should be constantly on guard to defend against.
Father is innocent until proven otherwise, either beyond a reasonable doubt or on a balance of probabilities, depending on if criminal or civil standards apply.
First of all I would say the same about any priest, even one I personally did not like. I have watched only one YouTube video with Fr. Martins and though he seemed like a nice priest, but he was not interesting enough for me to watch another video with him.
The diocese may have rules forbidding certain behaviors, but those behaviors are not necessarily criminal (one should not say a cuss word in a school, but one should not be criminally charged if one did).
His order has suspended him because of the investigation. Every priest these days has his ministry suspended for any accusation of improper conduct, even if flimsy, until the investigation is concluded.
Civil or criminal investigations are often unfair. The pro-life activists recently released from jail after a pardon from President Trump can attest to that.
Weird incident. My guess is that he mimed flossing, holding the hair in front of his open mouth, not in his open mouth. Because actually getting someone else’s hair into your own mouth to pretend to floss is both a rather challenging feat to accomplish in the moment and massive overkill for joke about pretending to floss. Yet, a statement like “he pretended to floss with her hair” would apply equally to both. I also guess applicability of the criminal charge depends upon that hair having actually entered that mouth.
The uncontested fact is that he touch, lifted, and manipulated some strands of her hair. He apparently did this without verbally asking for permission first. That’s perfectly normal human behavior, but you just can’t do that as an adult working with children.
The harsh lesson is that different people have different boundaries. And parents often have different boundaries for their children than the children do for themselves. People who work with children cannot simply trust their own sense of boundaries, or try to sense the children’s boundaries in real time. People have to protect themselves from any possible perception of impropriety.
“The uncontested fact is that he touch, lifted, and manipulated some strands of her hair. He apparently did this without verbally asking for permission first. That’s perfectly normal human behavior….”
That is NOT perfectly normal behavior, even among friends. Males do not touch the hair of females unless they are assisting in styling or in an intimate or close family relationship. A man touching the hair of a teenage girl he does not know is not normal.
It’s entirely normal for one person to touch another person, using a matrix of information from their existing relationship, present circumstances, ongoing interactions, and non-verbal communication to determine whether or not this is appropriate. While this differs in degree between cultures, this is universal human behavior.
The mere fact that one person touches another is never, in and of itself, a problem. It is always the additional details—the circumstances, the relationship between the two individuals, the location and manner of contact, the particular cultural norms, the regulations of consent, etc—that inform the appropriateness of the contact.
In this case, the salient factors are 1) two people are strangers, 2) one is an adult and one is a child, and following from those two, 3) the norm of verbal consent. It can be relevant that one is male and the female, and that one is an official or some sort, but these do not seem to be doing much work in this scenario.
Perhaps I missed it, but did Fr Martins ever apologize? Doubling down without an apology trends rather more towards predatory behavior rather than an innocent misunderstanding (and goodness knows I’ve accidentally crossed lines many times).
As for the defenses of it because she giggled: Freeze or fawn is a well known reaction.
That was my exact reaction too. I don’t know him or what he was actually thinking but using this as the evidence of it being acceptable is just wild. The fact that the other children/teens present also laughed is also not evidence of it being perfectly fine. I have laughed many times when I didn’t know how else to react to an awkward situation.
Well, if Father Martins is truly a companion of the cross, I hope this period of scrutiny is spiritually beneficial to him and those for whom he prays.
This is absolutely ridiculous. Read the full account. This priest did nothing wrong. There were 200 parents there and only the Catholic hating father of the girl who heard about the ‘hair touching’ incident from his daughter raised a stink. I’m ashamed that this has gone so far.
The priest did do something wrong. Based on his attorney’s account, he engaged in the touching that resulted in the misdemeanor battery charge.
* There were 200 parents there*
That statement does nor align with any account of the incident.
* only the Catholic hating father of the girl who heard about the ‘hair touching’ incident from his daughter raised a stink*
We don’t know how he heard about the incident or what he heard. We don’t know that he is Catholic hating.
Father Carlos Martins can be a good priest who made an unfortunate mistake with the wrong child. And the child might just have a father who has no ulterior motive than to protect his daughter. Both can be true. I, for one, think Fr. Martins could have made this go away if he showed remorse and apologized.
Also, he was a guest at this Parish and he has created this mess.
The previous Pillar articles restated the statement of the diocese and the account provided by Father Martins’ attorney who provided the information on the estimated number of people present. I have no information on how many of them were parents, but this occurred during the school day I believe.
I know of no reliable source that provides the information about the feelings of the father toward the Church. I personally think it is irrelevant to the facts, but may have caused him to escalate his complaint.
I have seen secondhand information that indicates that the students were in line to view the relic when the incident occurred. If that is the case, it is unlikely that more than a dozen or so students would have been able to see much.
I guess we should stay tuned. I hope Father shows a little humility and compassion, and perhaps learns to conduct himself with the proper amount of decorum in the future.
The "200 parents" and "Catholic hating" father didn't come from the Pillar. You're just repeating all the hearsay that the fans of Fr Martins have been spreading since day 1.
The details on the father may have come from Armor of God, who hosted him regularly. For a father to call on the arrest of a priest who touches his little girl’s hair in front of an entire audience is absurd. That the diocese and everyone else went along with it, is even more absurd.
Ugh. May truth be told and justice done. This level of scandal is a win for Satan. Perhaps we need routine psychological checks for priests, too
They give psychological tests before allowing men into the seminary.
They do now, yes. But routine checks are used in the military because people's states can change.
Unfortunately there are no guarantees about the quality of these tests or the "experts" conducting them. Back in 2018 Father David Marsden wrote an open letter to the Bishops of England and Wales about the grim problems at Oscott Seminary (North edge of Birmingham, England). Yes, the St Luke's he mentions is the UK branch of the US organisation.
"The problem begins at St. Luke's Institute in Manchester where a number of seminarians are asked to undergo a psychological assessment as part of the selection policy. The director of the institute, Br. Gerard Fieldhouse-Byrne, has some very strange views on homosexuality himself and seems happy to admit homosexual men into the formation program. This is a problem that the bishop of Salford needs to address."
Here is the link to Fr David's open letter on the catastrophic state of Oscott seminary.
https://www.corrispondenzaromana.it/international-news/an-open-letter-to-the-bishops-of-england-wales-and-scotland/
The rector of Oscott, Canon Oakley, has fortunately moved on. Unfortunately he is now the Bishop of Northampton.
Fr David mentions three seminaries in England in 2018. One of the three, Winnersh, closed in 2021. It looks as if Oscott may close soon as the national vocations statistics collapse ever lower. That would leave only Allen Hall in central London. It is named in honour of the 16th century Cardinal Allen. It is also known as Alice Hall.
And maybe there should just be a regular process of cycling priests in and out of the role of exorcist? I don't know enough about it but it seems to me that like 5 years on, 5 years off might give them a chance to recover from the mental/ spiritual strain of having to deal with such evil constantly. But maybe there just aren't enough priests to do that.
Huh, I haven't thought about that idea. It's a good one.
Ewww. Hopefully we’ll see the complaint and have a sense of the incident as it occurred. Since there were many witnesses, and the police proceeded to charge him after investigating, it wasn’t nothing. I’m already seeing some very nasty comments from his fans directed toward the victim and her father. This priest has problems, clearly. For now, just ewww.
Unless the Joliet PD are a fantastically bored department, they didn't interview a bunch of witnesses. Given the lag of time between the incident and the charge, it seems to me more likely than not that the parents wanted a charge, hired a lawyer, and he started pulling strings at the department, gathering affidavits from people who witnessed it, etc. Doesn't mean it's not true. But IMHO, it would be naive to think this charge was the result of a rigorous investigative process.
I and others filed FOIAs that were rejected on the grounds of "active investigation" going on, so I presume that means they were investigating. Most likely interviewing every person who was there and might have seen or heard something.
I also honestly don't get how people would think the police would just blow off a complaint that a priest did anything inappropriate whatsoever with a minor in today's environment. I understand Fr Martins has many supporters who, based on his attorney's statement, think this was nothing, but law enforcement is not going to just accept the statement of a potential defendant's attorney. Plus there have been enough other cases of priests acting unlawfully with minors that I would think the police would be leaving no stone unturned lest they get accused of not doing their jobs.
I'm pretty sure the difference between "active investigation" and any other kind is the filing of a bit of paper. I wouldn't read much into that. I hope they did cross-check some statements while memories were fresh.
My hypothesis for any delay was that this was all happening over holiday time, there was no one in immediate danger, and several of the persons interviewed were minors whose parents might well have sought legal counsel beforehand, given that there's been much online backlash to the accusation against this popular celebrity priest.
I can't know what happened in this case. But based on general observations from interactions with police departments: They are over-taxed and have way more people asking for things than they have time to give. "Your case" is never as important as some other thing they could be doing with their time. Thus, police do the least amount of work possible, as often as possible.
I think it's highly unlikely the Joliet Police "interview[ed] ever person who was there and might have seen or heard something." Why the heck would they do that? All they need is the claimant's statement to submit it to the state's attorney's office. If they really want to beef it up, they could take another or statement or two.
You have a point about police paying attention to priests, though. The fact that this case involves a priest, and was getting media attention, is surely the only reason they even submitted it to the state's attorneys' office and got a charge. I'm not making any evaluative comment about the claim. Could be true, could be false. But what motivated them was potential bad press.
Unless I hear more, I am filing this under hoax/panic/satan's payback. I know how unfounded rumors and hoaxes can destroy a life and reputation. Innocent until proven guilty is good practice.
Innocent until proven guilty does not require a member of the clergy to claim that allegations of misconduct are a “hoax.” If nothing else, bless us with your silence.
If you as a Catholic clergyman are going to immediately yell "hoax" and "Satan" when a priest is criminally charged with an offense against a minor, then to me you seem to be part of the problem.
Which part is a hoax? His side already admitted that he picked up a lock of the girl's hair and talked about flossing with hair, so that part is (I assume) not a hoax. That he is alleged to have put it in his mouth (rather than only talking about flossing) is new and surprising to me and perhaps that allegation is the hoax?
It does come down to *someone* shaving points off the truth. I hope the process yields clarity rather than further obscurity.
He did not put it in his mouth. That’s false.
Great! Did you give your eye witness account to the police, or did you direct the police to who they could speak with that told you this eye witness account? Because that seems like a big deal.
I heard the official letter from the diocese based on the eyewitness accounts of those present.
Well, I guess we'll see how it plays out. I'm not reflexively in his corner, but some elements of the response seem harsh. Getting to justice may be hard, here; we've gotten so bad at it!
I don’t really see the response as harsh. The press report was vague but stated that the detectives gave their findings to the state’s attorney who agreed to the charge of one count of misdemeanor battery. Whether, as a parent, I would have pressed charges would depend on the actual circumstances, but they may have done Father Martins a favor. I have met or know of several itinerant priests doing parish retreats and so forth who gather a following but are really accountable to no one. If this incident happened in my parish I doubt anyone would have jumped up and confronted him, because we are, like most congregations, polite to visitors. But there would have been complaints to the pastor who would have dealt with him privately and he would not have been asked back. The report said there were 200 people in a classroom setting, which is hard to imagine, but it is less likely that anyone would confront him in front of students. When this incident became known Father Martins lawyered up and punched back when he could have apologized. Prideful. Celebrity is dangerous, especially to a priest.
I think that promisimg he'll be jailed awaiting trial is a bit over-the-top.
And I heartily agree that celebrity is dangerous.
I didn’t take the immediate incarceration seriously because warrants are worded that way. I believe the appearance to determine conditions of release is likely, but yes, any imprisonment would be harsh.
Fair enough!
It's not a promise, it's just warrant language indicating that there is no pre-set bond. It's standard, and does not indicate anything about the case.
As Emily explained a couple days ago....
Yup.
I doubt Fr Martins if found guilty would get more than a slap on the wrist, although this situation is likely to adversely affect his ability to minister outside his home country of Canada and to visit dioceses and parishes, as no diocese or parish wants the risk. The accounts by the students suggest a somewhat troubling pattern of overfamiliarity with minors, especially given that he had just met them and does not appear to have been abiding by the normal safeguarding rule to have another adult besides himself present at all times, which is for the priest's protection as well as the minors' protection. He may well have seen his actions as just being friendly, but those who work in parishes with youth and have been through safeguarding training see his alleged actions as very imprudent at best and grooming at worst.
Do we know that there was not another adult present at the time? I hadn't seen where it said he was alone in the entire room with the kids.
This whole thing is bizarre. Just pray for everyone involved.
Oh, and people: don't touch the kiddoes in the course of intusive banter about personal bodily functions or hygiene! At all! That's not "rapport." It's *creepy*.
Maybe not criminal, exactly; but definitely the sort of thing you don't let a stranger do twice.
Based on *his* lawyer's account, I would never invite him to be near kids.
*intrusive
Don't judge others lest ye be judged. In our society if you can go to jail for touching a girl's hair briefly in front of many people where no one found it offensive at the time, then there are a lot of gestures that you will go to jail for, while certain self righteous individuals will call it creepy. You pat a kid on the back as a couch for scoring a goal: battery. You hold a kid's shoulders while looking at the relic theat Father Martins brought like Father Lane, the pastor of the parish where the incident occurred: battery. You poured water on a baby and made them cry during baptism: battery. If the Church cooperates with authorities in persecuting priests for anything they do, then the civil authorities will gladly destroy our Church with our stupid cooperation.
Or just don't be a creep.
Your comment is uncharitable.
**touching a girl's hair briefly in front of many people where no one found it offensive at the time***
You don’t know whether the touching was brief, or the context. While there were reportedly many people present, there is no information on how many people saw it. And there is absolutely no evidence that no one found it offensive at the time.
It’s better not to misstate or create facts.
Whether something is offensive does not automatically make it criminal. I was at a store with my kids and there was a guy with his kids f--bombing every 2 seconds. My kids and I found it more offensive than if the guy touched my kids' hair, but I would find it wrong to call the police on him. It was offensive, but not criminal: big difference.
Your examples aren't battery, however. For baptism, it has specifically been requested, so it is not "without consent." Patting a kid on the back as a coach (it's easy to get couch and coach misspelled and mixed up) is not "offensive" within the context of a game (it is an objective AND subjective standard, usually, as to what is offensive).
Holding a kid's shoulders while looking at the relic is very context specific. Is it a priest who you are close with? Then probably done with consent. Is it the priest of the parish who you've only spoken with once or twice? Yeah, it might be a battery.
What does consent have to do with battery? If I consent to someone slapping my kid full force on the face then it is not battery because I consented to it? A behavior like touching someone's hair may be awkward if done by a stranger, but it is not a criminal act.
In almost all cases a criminal battery is a battery in all situations, whether consent is given or not (only a few exceptions like spanking a child or washing a naked toddler would be battery if not done by a parent or with direct consent from a parent). It is like a stranger touching my hair or patting me on the back so strongly it actually hurt a bit. I can say "I would prefer you not do that" or even "stop it," but if I called in the police for that, it would both be an act of injustice on my part as well as a sin against the 8th commandment because I am harming someone's reputation over something that was not meant to cause me harm.
Wait, do you really think consent doesn't have anything to do with battery? "What does consent have to do with battery?" I have to assume you typed this quickly and didn't take some time to think about it. Let's say I am in a theatrical play. During that play, I and another actor get into a "fight." I tell the other actor that, for the sake of making the scene appear as real as possible, the actor is allowed to actually slap me. This would not be battery.
So, too, it would not be battery to baptize a screaming child, if you have parental consent. Of course, there is also the issue of how the baby is supposed to testify whether he or she found it offensive or was just crying because it was hungry.
Whether it would be battery or not to slap your 1yo child if you gave me permission is an interesting question, and it is the reason states have Child Cruelty and other such laws, to cover the issue so that your consent on behalf of your child does not matter.
*Please note: every State has different battery laws. I am speaking of my state, which shares a lot of similarities with the state in question.
All I know is if a priest goes to jail for 1 year for touching a girl's hair while Chicago Children's Hospital less than an hour away routinely mutilated children through "sex change" operations then we are living in a bizarre world where people, including the Catholics throwing mud at Father Martins, simply have lost the ability to distinguish what is truly evil and what at worse is an imprudent act.
I would not trust prosecutors in a wicked state like Illinois that routinely releases violent criminals from any criminal sentence. My wife was sexually assaulted by a man at a gas station in the same Will County that Father Martins is accused in and the police did nothing to even make a good investigation, but they so quickly go after a man for touching a girl's hair. Pure insanity!
No need to trust prosecutors. Just also don't be a creeper. This guy's own lawyer's language suggests someone who should not be invited to work with children.
There is a fair amount of daylight between "belongs in prison" and "fit for ministry"--or should be, anyway. Obviously, sadly, madly, our episcopacy is full of people who are too corrupt to make such distinctions.
I did say "probably not criminal," though you seem not to have read that.
An injustice in one situation does not make void a justice in another. In addition, simply because one has committed a crime does not make it or them truly evil. In some states, speeding is a criminal act. That doesn't make them evil. It just means they have violated the law, and should be punished accordingly. The fact that within said state abortion might be legal does *not* invalidate the crime of speeding. No one is saying that Fr. Martins is the same as a doctor who mutilates children, or even a priest who sexually abuses children (no one that I have read, at least). I think you are taking people's criticism of Fr. Martins and looking at it too emotionally, instead of actually reading what is written.
I'm sorry about what your wife went through. Again, though, it does not invalidate whether what Fr. Martins did was a crime or not, nor does it invalidate whether it was very inappropriate or not.
Thanks for this very sane comment.
But putting a priest in jail for touching a girl's hair is not a speeding ticket. The problem is that Americans growing up in Calvinist-Puritanical American culture do not truly understand who a priest is. A priest is not some minister or nobody important. He is called Father because he is our Father and no good son or daughter would agree with their Father going to jail for innocently touching a girl's hair. In Poland a priest is treated in his parish like royalty as he should be. In Mexico, when we traveled with a priest restaurants, museums and stores would let us in after closing because Padrecito was with us. It is simply inconceivable to any Catholic born and raised among other Catholics instead of among people who think the Constitution and democracy are god to believe that a priest could be treated with such disrespect simply because some secular prosecutors and some evil parent want to destroy an innocent priest who brings us God in the flesh and is a representative of Christ on earth.
It seems that this incident occurred in a room with multiple witnesses (minors, yes but not really young as best as I can tell from the stories). So if the matter goes to trial witnesses will clarify the facts. Defendants often choose to accept a plea deal when confronted with anticipated testimony, so if the facts are against him I suspect we will never know exactly what happened. I imagine if he is not guilty of impropriety there will be a trial and we will hear from both sides.
I'm wondering what the effect will be on the child's faith. It doesn't seem like the adults in the room care about this.
Her dad did, I think he was the one who reported it to the police. So some adults are definitely taking this seriously.
The information about this case seems awfully sketchy for an event that happened in front of many people. That said I can only give my thoughts on a hypothetical situation. If my child came home from a similar event and said a priest made a joke about flossing with my hair, but the child was not upset, I probably would have thought that’s a stupid joke and left it at that. There are few among us who have not put their foot in their mouth with a stupid remark.
I might have taken the opportunity to tell my daughter that as she had very pretty long hair, people might at times touch it, and that it was totally ok for her to request people not touch her hair - a teaching moment. If I was really put out, I would go down and talk to the priest. If my child was disturbed by the event, I would arrange for the priest to apologize and admit his error. Case closed.
I would not bring the police into such a situation. I would not make my daughter the center of a controversy and the center of attention in the community and the school - note, this is a boundary issue not a sexual issue which would of course take any parent to the police. In a country with a multitude of culture living side by side, boundary issue abound, and it is most gracious to assume that the intent was not bad and nearly point out that you would appreciate not being hugged, having your hair touched or that most annoying habit of strangers, patting ones pregnant tummy.
I'm curious. Would that approach change if, as in this case, the allegation was that the priest put the girl's hair in his mouth?
I'm just curious, as I think about how I would respond as a dad.
Somewhat. I would have demanded a written apology to be given to my child rather than have her speak to the priest in person. I would have demanded a mental health and physical health evaluation of the priest. I am aware this priest has celebrity status but I personally have not followed or listened to his podcast - Fr. Lampert is my go to YouTube exorcist:). If this behavior was out of the blue I would wonder at a health issue - early onset dementia, tumor or adverse drug reaction. I would explain this to my child. I'm not seeing how my going public, or pressing charges or prison would be helpful for the priest, or the notoriety good for my child. I would want the case documented by the Church so if this was an ongoing issue - mental health, bizarre personality or whatever, that it was not simply brushed under the carpet. I would want for the sake of my child's faith for her to be assured the Church was supportive of her and took her discomfiture seriously. We are told biblically how to deal with such matters and following Biblical teachings isn't always easy. I'm a parent. I've never had to deal with something like this, but I have had to sort things out my children told me in part because more than one has a processing problems affecting the telling of events - not the situation in this case, but I've learned best thing all around is to chill, and work out the situation as a Christian adult.
thanks for weighing in. I do not think anyone should anyone should second guess the choices made by this girl's parents, but I do think it's an important discussion to have.
I know that you are responding to a hypo about how you would personally respond to a similar situation, and I am trying not to pre-judge Fr. Martins here. But your response did get me thinking.
What if some touring celebrity priest did what was alleged here and refused to the demands you sketched above? No apology. No evaluation. We could ask the diocese to document it, but I expect any report would only be "known" to the diocese (unless the bishop or a staffer shares it or knowledge of it - perhaps to an intrepid reporter). I am not aware of any archdiocesan, state-wide, national, continental, or global "database" for these kind of reports.
So what happens if the touring celebrity priest does it again in another diocese? Is that diocese expected to investigate? To contact previous dioceses that the priest has visited for reports of similar behavior? How many? Which ones? It seems like a pattern of grooming behavior --- which can be difficult to identify and document --- could continue for a long time under the radar by avoiding going public.
And tragically, given how the Church has responded to allegations in the past, I think it is worth asking whether a parent should trust in the fallible prudential decisions of the Church on how to evaluate and respond to these claims, or seek recourse to civic authorities.
That a lot of "Ifs" to consider but I get your point. I think that there is nothing that will set off a Dad faster than a suggestion of mistreatment of a daughter - which is right and proper in its way. I would not make a public to do because it would adversely affect my child - possibly resulting in bullying or other unwanted attention. I would only consider that after many attempts to handle it privately had failed. I do think that most diocese in the US are pretty good now (not so much in the past) about taking these sorts of events seriously.
I appreciate the response!
I guess when I look over my comment, it really comes down to the last "if": What if this was not the first offense? (Because it seems a touring celebrity priest could always privately apologize and agree to get evaluated, but still escape accountability by simply never returning.) I think in most cases (like Fr. Martins) the answer is not known, and may be difficult to find.
I agree that the additional variable of it being a touring celebrity priest makes the question of how to deal with it (from a parent’s perspective) trickier than if it were a diocesan priest clearly under the jurisdiction of a particular bishop. Going to the local priest or bishop to file a complaint or request an apology wouldn’t really cover this scenario and it does add a layer of complication. Overall this whole thing is so unfortunate but the fact of it being a touring celebrity priest does add a dimension of “could this have happened before/could it happen again?” No one knows.
This was the concern I had in mind in my comment about accountability of traveling priests, especially those with celebrity status. There is an assumption that they’ve been vetted. I appreciate this discussion because I am dealing with something similar in a community where there is no support for a child whistleblower. As I have followed this case I have come to believe that the child is better off for having the backing of her parent and pastor. It is far worse to have the violation minimized. Let’s remember that this took place in public, so it was not her parents who placed her in the spotlight.
The bishop of the diocese and the pastor of the parish obviously cared. The pastor called the bishop to report it, and the bishop told Fr Martins to leave Joliet diocese and not come back.
The attorney using the fact that the girl giggled as evidence of this being a wholesome interaction is incredibly tone deaf (at best, intentionally dishonest, at worst). Have they really never seen a person, especially a preteen or teen girl, giggle when uncomfortable? Even reading about this makes me uncomfortable.
Agree. I have giggled and placated men when I was a young woman, just wishing I could get out of the situation with as little confrontation as possible
Such an important point. (I really don't have much to say about the actual situation--it's much too heated for my taste), but just wanted to underscore Grace's point.
When confronted with a threat, in addition to fight and flight, there's also freeze and fawn. All are instinctual strategies to try to mitigate the threat. This would be textbook example of the fawn response if the girl felt threatened, uncomfortable, or violated.
Not only did the little girl giggle, but the entire audience of 200 people. Not tone deaf, common sense.
I cannot believe the level of mud thrown at this priest for something completely innocent. He was only imprudent not realizing how self-righteous and judgmental fellow Catholics are these days and bishops are too wimpy to protect him.
Shame on everyone who accuse Father Martins in this way: it is the sin of calumny assuming that he had any motivation for evil and thinking that it is alright to send a person to jail for something like this. Who wants to be a priest these days: why would anyone want to help self-rightous Pharisees, like the Catholics criticizing Father Martins, get to Heaven through the Sacraments?
Maybe one day, when Americans have to do what Catholics did in the Soviet Union, putting on the altar priestly vestments while weeping and praying the Rosary because they had no priests, will American Catholics consider it wrong to throw mud at priests for something that was innocent.
If it was so "innocent" then why is he being charged with a civil law crime and suspended by his order? Why indeed does the church even have safeguarding policies forbidding the type of behavior he engaged in? Have you even thought about this or are you so sucked into the personality cult of this celebrity priest that you can't see how what he did was wrong?
“He was charged so he must be guilty” is how we got to a world where the allegation is as bad as committing the actual crime itself. It is a seductive trap and one we should be constantly on guard to defend against.
Father is innocent until proven otherwise, either beyond a reasonable doubt or on a balance of probabilities, depending on if criminal or civil standards apply.
First of all I would say the same about any priest, even one I personally did not like. I have watched only one YouTube video with Fr. Martins and though he seemed like a nice priest, but he was not interesting enough for me to watch another video with him.
The diocese may have rules forbidding certain behaviors, but those behaviors are not necessarily criminal (one should not say a cuss word in a school, but one should not be criminally charged if one did).
His order has suspended him because of the investigation. Every priest these days has his ministry suspended for any accusation of improper conduct, even if flimsy, until the investigation is concluded.
Civil or criminal investigations are often unfair. The pro-life activists recently released from jail after a pardon from President Trump can attest to that.
Weird incident. My guess is that he mimed flossing, holding the hair in front of his open mouth, not in his open mouth. Because actually getting someone else’s hair into your own mouth to pretend to floss is both a rather challenging feat to accomplish in the moment and massive overkill for joke about pretending to floss. Yet, a statement like “he pretended to floss with her hair” would apply equally to both. I also guess applicability of the criminal charge depends upon that hair having actually entered that mouth.
The uncontested fact is that he touch, lifted, and manipulated some strands of her hair. He apparently did this without verbally asking for permission first. That’s perfectly normal human behavior, but you just can’t do that as an adult working with children.
The harsh lesson is that different people have different boundaries. And parents often have different boundaries for their children than the children do for themselves. People who work with children cannot simply trust their own sense of boundaries, or try to sense the children’s boundaries in real time. People have to protect themselves from any possible perception of impropriety.
“The uncontested fact is that he touch, lifted, and manipulated some strands of her hair. He apparently did this without verbally asking for permission first. That’s perfectly normal human behavior….”
That is NOT perfectly normal behavior, even among friends. Males do not touch the hair of females unless they are assisting in styling or in an intimate or close family relationship. A man touching the hair of a teenage girl he does not know is not normal.
It’s entirely normal for one person to touch another person, using a matrix of information from their existing relationship, present circumstances, ongoing interactions, and non-verbal communication to determine whether or not this is appropriate. While this differs in degree between cultures, this is universal human behavior.
The mere fact that one person touches another is never, in and of itself, a problem. It is always the additional details—the circumstances, the relationship between the two individuals, the location and manner of contact, the particular cultural norms, the regulations of consent, etc—that inform the appropriateness of the contact.
In this case, the salient factors are 1) two people are strangers, 2) one is an adult and one is a child, and following from those two, 3) the norm of verbal consent. It can be relevant that one is male and the female, and that one is an official or some sort, but these do not seem to be doing much work in this scenario.
My comment was specific to hair touching.
Perhaps I missed it, but did Fr Martins ever apologize? Doubling down without an apology trends rather more towards predatory behavior rather than an innocent misunderstanding (and goodness knows I’ve accidentally crossed lines many times).
As for the defenses of it because she giggled: Freeze or fawn is a well known reaction.
Yeah, uh, I was amazed the lawyer was so tone deaf as to say "she giggled" as proof it was all OK. Have these people *seen* nervous children before?
That was my exact reaction too. I don’t know him or what he was actually thinking but using this as the evidence of it being acceptable is just wild. The fact that the other children/teens present also laughed is also not evidence of it being perfectly fine. I have laughed many times when I didn’t know how else to react to an awkward situation.
Well, if Father Martins is truly a companion of the cross, I hope this period of scrutiny is spiritually beneficial to him and those for whom he prays.
This is absolutely ridiculous. Read the full account. This priest did nothing wrong. There were 200 parents there and only the Catholic hating father of the girl who heard about the ‘hair touching’ incident from his daughter raised a stink. I’m ashamed that this has gone so far.
Just curious: I have read the defense lawyer's account. Is there some other full account out there?
Please provide your source for the full account.
To your points:
*This priest did nothing wrong.*
The priest did do something wrong. Based on his attorney’s account, he engaged in the touching that resulted in the misdemeanor battery charge.
* There were 200 parents there*
That statement does nor align with any account of the incident.
* only the Catholic hating father of the girl who heard about the ‘hair touching’ incident from his daughter raised a stink*
We don’t know how he heard about the incident or what he heard. We don’t know that he is Catholic hating.
Father Carlos Martins can be a good priest who made an unfortunate mistake with the wrong child. And the child might just have a father who has no ulterior motive than to protect his daughter. Both can be true. I, for one, think Fr. Martins could have made this go away if he showed remorse and apologized.
Also, he was a guest at this Parish and he has created this mess.
What evidence do you have that the father of the girl is "Catholic hating"?
I got my information from a previous Pillar article, for one.
The previous Pillar articles restated the statement of the diocese and the account provided by Father Martins’ attorney who provided the information on the estimated number of people present. I have no information on how many of them were parents, but this occurred during the school day I believe.
I know of no reliable source that provides the information about the feelings of the father toward the Church. I personally think it is irrelevant to the facts, but may have caused him to escalate his complaint.
I have seen secondhand information that indicates that the students were in line to view the relic when the incident occurred. If that is the case, it is unlikely that more than a dozen or so students would have been able to see much.
I guess we should stay tuned. I hope Father shows a little humility and compassion, and perhaps learns to conduct himself with the proper amount of decorum in the future.
The "200 parents" and "Catholic hating" father didn't come from the Pillar. You're just repeating all the hearsay that the fans of Fr Martins have been spreading since day 1.
The details on the father may have come from Armor of God, who hosted him regularly. For a father to call on the arrest of a priest who touches his little girl’s hair in front of an entire audience is absurd. That the diocese and everyone else went along with it, is even more absurd.