There is no such requirement. They tend to do so, since exorcisms are looked upon by most in society as quite strange, spooky, made up, superstitious, etc. Kind of the same reason that many priests travel in "civvies".
St. Pio never performed exorcisms, and I had never heard of St. John Vianney doing so either. They both dealt with demonic attacks against themselves, but so did St. Catherine of Sienna, St. Teresa of Avila, and St. Faustina.
Fr Martins decided on the podcast due to his concern for the gap between the loss of faith and the increase in spiritualism in the younger generations (approx 18-35 year olds), so he is appealing to them through the medium that they use. If you had listened you would have known this. Plus he is, or was, doing the relic tour which is, or was, helping thousands of people. Therefore he has to be in the public domain. It's dangerous and misleading to class people when you don't understand their mission, and it's folly to suspect a person without due diligence. He won't work without the permission of Bishops, which should tell you enough. The devil is so good at disorientation and sowing doubt in the uninformed and gullible through media that can't be bothered to do their own due diligence or just plain ignore facts.
I find this reporting to be imprudent and unlike the Pillar's usually well-planned and investigated reporting. I have come to rely on the Pillar to take their time and wait for investigations to be complete before coming out with an inflammatory story, so I am disappointed that it is not the case this time.
It's not "inflammatory" to report the news. The parish priests at Queen of Apostles have a public statement up on their parish website and are being backed by their bishop, Bishop Hicks of the Diocese of Joliet, IL. I frankly can't understand why you think the Pillar should keep quiet and sweep it under the rug. Isn't that the behavior that already got the Church into dozens of bankruptcy lawsuits?
I think they should report on it once it's been investigated. Zero tolerance policies mean that accusations should be handled in exactly this way by a parish or diocese, but reporting on it makes people assume it is fact before an investigation has been completed. I fully agree that the parish and diocese is doing what they are supposed to do. It's when it comes to external reporting that patience and prudence should be encouraged while we wait for the facts to come out.
With the tour being canceled for the forseeable future, people are going to want to know why. A non-sensational news article like this one is absolutely called for.
I hope people won't make those assumptions. For what it's worth, I certainly haven't. I certainly think the fact of the investigation is news, but I don't think anyone should jump to conclusions.
// According to a statement from Queen of the Apostles parish in Joliet, Illinois, Martin was accused Thursday of an unspecified āincidentā involving students which prompted Fr. Michael Lane, parish moderator, to contact the police.
Martins āwas confronted with the information,ā Lane wrote, and āwe informed the priest that he must depart from our parish and our diocese.ā //
"Accused is guilty" is now standard procedure? One accusation practically killed a cardinal in Australia. Same standards apply here now?
It doesn't seem like a good idea for someone who has been witnessed doing seemingly inappropriate behavior around children to continue being around children until the situation is resolved.
Nope. The story needed to be reported NOW. It doesn't matter whether the alleged acts are secular or religious, canon law or Criminal Code. If it's news, you report it. The facts are not sensationalist or inflammatory.
A pilgrimage/tour being halted by a bishop after allegations against the priest in charge is definitely news.
What would be imprudent would be NOT reporting it.
Just because someone is accused doesn't make them guilty. My former much beloved bishop was falsely accused and made sure everyone knew he had been. He was then exonerated.
I think the issue is that there isn't anything concrete to sweep under the rug just yet. An "incident involving children" could mean just about anything, even something as relatively innocuous as a parent getting angry that an imprudently graphic martyrdom story was told to their kid in class.
yes, it most certainly could mean a great many things.
From our point of view, when a nationally known priest who gives frequent public interviews faces an accusation, which will cancel a national series of events of ecclesial importance, and a parish makes a public statement about it, that very fact is news.
We wouldn't claim this is a investigative reporting. it is a simple account of known facts. But when a well-known figure is under police investigation, that is, by its very fact, news.
If the priest is cleared or charged, we'll report as much as we can at every step of the way. but this step is news.
It is inflammatory to report the news when the news is little more than preaching for points of view. Remember, we are living in a completely relativistic age, when our authorities - both secular and religious - never tire of telling us that there are no objective facts.
Not OK. Was it a developing story that could ruin a man's reputation and ministry without proof? Because as this story 'develops' we're seeing something very different. In the current times much investigation needs to be done before accusing a priest of 'inappropriate conduct'. This was no more than click bait, and click baiters don't care who they affect or throw under the bus for those clicks.
You're not from around here, are you? Welcome to Substack. Substack authors are funded by users who are willing to pay an annual or monthly subscription, not by ads that pay based on page views (Pillar does allow users to run an ad, but it is a flat rate, not based on views. Good way to wish someone a happy anniversary or tell everyone to reread some classic book). Every year they lose some who forget to update their credit card expiration date, and some who got mad about something. Make a bowl of popcorn and settle in.
Because not everything they say is accurate, the Devil is not a source of divine revelation, and the bishops are our chief exorcists. We form under them, not our favorite influencer, one body in Christ.
To be fair, not everything ANY preacher says is accurate. His podcasts are measured, with caution and explanations, and I found them to be helpful. This news, however, is unsettling.
Yah, that's very often what "the news" now is meant to be: unsettling. The news was not long ago, in my lifetime, supposed generally to inform, not to inflame.
I think we need a more precise definition of celebrity exorcists. Is Fr. Carlos Martins, with his podcasts simulating exorcisms, a celebrity exorcist? I think so.
Fr. Ripperger, who teaches and preaches about exorcism and spiritual warfare, is a celebrity exorcist? I donāt think so. The difference in approach is huge. Fr. Ripperger gives sober, very āboringā lectures on the subject and he gained notoriety because heās a good teacher, not because he was trying to be a āsuperstarā.
We live in a society where few believe in the existence of the devil. We need priests to teach about spiritual warfare and the reality of demonic. We donāt need spectacularization.
Regarding Fr. Carlos Martins, he has the right to due process and the investigation is ongoing. The parish priest and the bishop acted prudently.
From my perspective: He is necessarily a celebrity, since I have heard of him from people I converse with face-to-face (without my ever having watched any of his content or knowing how to spell his name, in the same way that I have heard of famous actors whose movies I have not seen), and since the people I hear about him from also sometimes mention to me that he is an exorcist, this would necessarily make him a celebrity exorcist.
It's good that we have exorcists but I would not wish on any of them the perilous state of having a fan base.
I was doing extra research and Fr. Ripperger has said some odd things: he said itās a mortal sin for a woman to work outside the house without a good reason; he also seems to deny some Vatican II teaching on other religions. I suspect this is something ultra traditionalists defend, but Iām not a theologianā¦
Celebrities are merely people with unusually large followings. John Paul II was a celebrity pope. So, God help us, is Francis. God save us from acceding unthinkingly to the temptation to believe whatever we learn from "the news", which is - at least in our time - nothing better than a very large and very powerful gossip factory.
Fr. Martins brought the relic to one of our parishes in September... We reached out to his Society and they promptly provided a letter of good standing that prompted no concerns. Let's hope things are cleared up promptly.
There have been cases where a priest has been accused of inappropriate contact for touching a boy on his forehead while blessing him. Another priest I know would not let a kid into his rectory who had not been picked up from the parochial school on a cold winter evening because of fear of being later accused of something. Now we have a reverse, hypervigilant atmosphere where a priest can be accused of anything by anyone at anytime and be immediately suspended. 99% of the time the priests are innocent, but they have to be publicly accused and their names are forever tainted even when publicly exonerated. Typical work of the devil against good priests. Comments about "suspecting celebrity exorcists" are ridiculous and should never be made by true Catholics, who should judge any person to be innocent until guilt is proven.
Ever since Father Corapi, these types of personalities make me nervous. Further, if the Holy See asked him to do this catechesis, the request should be explicitly published.
That you do not like this priest does not make him a pervert (by the way, Father Corapi was not a pervert and did not abuse any children--having an affair with a woman for a priest is horrible, but not equivalent to child abuse). It is best to not judge people until proof is provided because you may find out that someone may falsely accuse you of something because they don't like the way you look or the way you sound. It is best to withold judgment until the Church and civil authorities (who are often more objective than the Church) investigate this occurence and makes a decision.
Youāre not wrong. I do hope heās cleared, but my spidey senses have been raised several times listening to his podcast and interviews. And it irks me when he claims the Holy See asked him to do this without providing proof. By the way, is the revenue from his podcast, newly released book, relic tour, and interviews going to his fraternal order or his own pocket? How much has Fr āmadeā? He spends a lot of time on a āroadshowā it seems. Canāt be healthy for a priest.
Good points worth looking into, but child abuse is such a higher degree of crime that going from a priest who may be falling into temptations of pride and greed to some one who is abusing children is like saying someone is probably guilty of murder because you saw him driving 90 miles an hour on the highway in a red Ferrari.
If the accusation of Father Martins was financial, your comments would be perfect, but when a priest is accused of child abuse and you make it seem like Father Martins maybe lying about the Vatican promoting him, then it seems you are implying that Father Martins has several skeletons in his closet without any proof.
My comments have to do with impropriety. This incident provided a gateway for other concerns. I donāt think you should be able to claim you are acting under a charge from the Holy See without being able to produce or publish explicitly that charge. Also, precisely because he is so public makes him a fair target for scrutiny. Power, honor, pleasure, wealth. I think these temptations are especially primed for ācelebrityā priests. Canāt think of a juicier target for the Enemy than a celebrity exorcist priest.
I have loved the Pillar and enjoy the podcast discussions but as a priest I find the way the parish reported this concerning. They describe an āincident with childrenā. I also attended the bringing of the relic to a church in our Diocese last year. I find the events described odd. A priest during a public event when usually hundreds of people are present has an incident with a child? I went to seminary with the associate there and the current Bishop Hicks was the priest residing on my seminary hall. So I don't know what to make of this. I also know a young priest in neighboring chicago after being ordained for only like 3 months was accused during a penance service by parents of some children of an incident and the diocese as a precaution removed him from his position. The details left out was the parish was radically liberal and they had a history of trying to drive out conservative priests. By the way the Bishop of Jolietās last assignment was working under Cardinal Cupich in Chicago. So I think your reporting is not deep enough. Something is off about this and I would not have reported it until you interviewed in person the parish leaders involved and got them on record. For you are possibly spreading a story before the police report has been released and the facts have been established. Your excuse that it is ānewsā seems weak to me. It becomes news when reports are confirmed and verified. Reporting now risks destroying the reputation of a priest. And Im not the only one pointing this out. A simlle search on X shows a lot of concern on your reporting: https://x.com/breeadail/status/1860489564395110853?s=46
// Something is off about this and I would not have reported it until you interviewed in person the parish leaders involved and got them on record. For you are possibly spreading a story before the police report has been released and the facts have been established. Your excuse that it is ānewsā seems weak to me. It becomes news when reports are confirmed and verified. Reporting now risks destroying the reputation of a priest. And Im not the only one pointing this out. //
I completely agree. Thank you for saying it so clearly.
Afterthought: Pillar could have reported that the tour had been suspended or cancelled, but it also should have made it clear that the Church authorities had acted in haste and it should have looked into why they did that.
It would be presumptive for the Pillar at this stage to say that Church authorities acted in haste. Rod Dreher claims to have information that shows the parish's actions were unfounded. I hope he is right. But we have no way of knowing that right now. What are the allegations? Does Rod actually know them or is he mistaken or misinformed? Would his private information conclusively exonerate Fr. Martins in civil law? In canon law? Could reasonable minds differ on that point? Is his own judgment compromised?
This is not a case the Pillar is dragging into the public eye. A parish has taken a public action against a public figure and issued a public statement. More importantly, they took this action during an ongoing tour through other parishes and dioceses. How long should the Pillar have waited to report on it? What does it mean to wait until reports are "confirmed and verified"? Until the parish publishes the accusations? Until the police do? Until an arrest is made? Until a grand jury indicts him? Until he is found guilty? Until he has lost all appeals? How long could could that take? Will the tour still be ongoing? Will public opinion freeze until then? Will Fr. Morris's reputation be unaffected until reporters can get to the bottom of it?
What if Fr. Morris is innocent of all wrongdoing? What if Church authorities did act too hastily? Is that likely to be flushed out before the tour ends if no one is reporting on it? Is the parish or the diocese likely to come under scrutiny for their actions or respond to requests for information weeks or months later?
Worse, what if the allegations are serious and credible? What if Church authorities did act appropriately to prevent future harm?
It seems to me the only appropriate response is for reporters (like the Pillar) to report this situation as objectively and promptly as possible. And that seems to be what they are doing.
Another Catholic reporter emailed the diocese of Joliet and they confirmed to her that the incident with the students was NOT of a sexual nature. They called it a āboundary violation.ā Joliet failed to include this known detail in their public letter of report.
That is good information. But an incident can be non-sexual and still be inappropriate. Whatever this "boundary violation" was, it was reported to the police and a police investigation appears to be ongoing.
In addition to the police taking action on it, there are also two levels of Church action: The parish cancelled its event. And the Diocese went even further to cancel two other events. So the pastor and the bishop both thought this "boundary violation" warranted it.
What I'm also interested in: Did the parish or diocese report the incident to the next dioceses or parishes on the tour? If they did not, then why --- considering the action they felt was warranted in Joliet? And if they did, then are other dioceses or parishes going to cancel events too? Or are they going to reach a different conclusion about the allegations?
Edit: I missed the fact that the Diocese of Gary cancelled today's event. So the question is: Is that related to the allegations in Joliet? How much information did the Diocese of Gary receive about those allegations? If they received all of the information available to Joliet, then that would be two bishops and a pastor who thought the alleged "boundary violation" was serious enough to take action on.
Consider this possible scenario: the relic of St Jude is in a protective glass cabinet. Maybe some of their students were trying to get into it and Fr Carlos grabbed their arm to pull them away. It wouldnt surprise me.
Lets let the police report come out and Rodās report.
OSV and CNA are both independently chasing the story themselves now. Are Bree Dail and everybody else concerned going to go criticize those outlets too?
Also, Father Michael Lane has a tendency to succumb to the false ideas of parents. When he was Pastor of St. Jude's Parish in Joliet, he removed a Dominican Sister of St. Cecilia from being principal of St. Jude's Elementary School because some parents accused her of scaring the children (she taught the kids about the existence of the devil). The fact that the main accusing mother F-bombed the sister in front of a group of 2nd grade kids (one of them was my daughter) did not matter to Father Lane (nor to Bishop Hicks" predecessor, Bishop Conlon), nor the fact that the Superior of the Dominican Sisters found no fault in the Sister and refused to replace her with another principal. Not that Father Lane is a bad priest, he is definitely orthodox, but he does seem to have a tendency to believe certain parents a little too much when they make false accusations.
Whether or not that's true is irrelevant to this story, since if the accusation was made to him, Father Lane would be both morally and legally (civilly and canonically, for good measure) to report it to law enforcement as the proper investigating authorities, not to try to use his own judgement about any of the parties' credibility
Legally yes, morally no. The Church has always investigated cases first until the recent neglect caused them to give to Caesar what is not Caesar's right. Saint Thomas Becket was martyred because he refused to subject his priests to civil courts.
All of us are subject to the law, whether clerics or laypeople. Becket's case has long struck me as anomalous - his canonisation at the time was understandable, but his views would now be regarded as unjustifiable.
Saint Paul specifically opposed Catholics bringing cases against each other to a secular court. Unfortunately, diocesan courts have been reduced to marriage tribunals, but canon law is quite elaborate and the Church could handle at least simple cases like this one before calling in the cops
St. Paul opposed Catholics bringing disputes between each other to civil courts. The problem is more with how the bishops cannot find ways of being objective. If the bishops did not interfere these days to force any decision in their favor (like regarding parish closures), diocesan courts could objectively handle many cases without the need for civil courts to take care of them, and that includes priest abuse cases.
Whether or not you approve of Father Lane, he's a mandated reporter, and when he hears about something that he's mandated to report, then he needs to report it or he risks severe consequences under both civil law and Church law for not reporting.
It's not his choice to make. I also don't see how defaming Father Lane while complaining about people allegedly defaming Father Martins makes any sense. A priest is a priest is a priest, you need to respect them all, not just the ones you're a big fan of.
I only heard Father Martins once on a youtube video and I have really no opinion about him. As far as reporting, it matters what the accusation is. For example, "my son was touched on the forehead, priests should not touch kids at all" (I actually heard this once from a parent at a Virtus class) or was it actually obviously sexual. All I know is that Father Lane already once defamed a wonderful and innocent nun whose reputation was ruined in the school she ran and the Diocese of Joliet. I actually think Father Lane was for many years a great pastor who was the first to promote Perpetual Adoration in the Diocese of Joliet, but I also know he is too quick to react to unsubstantiated accusations.
Brother, I'm confused by this comment because people familiar with the Diocese of Joliet or with the young priests of the Diocese of Joliet would know that they love their bishop and don't see him as some sort of Cupich pawn at all as you're implying.
I would highly disagree with this comment. Bishop Hicks is not as bad as Cardinal Cupich, but he is not liked by many of his priests and has the nickname of "hide and seek bishop" because he can almost never be reached by most of his priests. The previous Joliet Bishop Conlon gave out his cell phone number to all his priests. When Bishop Hicks calls a priest, it is restricted so the priests do not even know the bishop is calling. He has also restricted the ministry of several priests, demoting them from pastor to administrators or associate pastor for saying homilies where homosexual acts, contraception, or divorce were called sin. He has even sent such priests for "pastoral sensitivity" training. On the other hand, he will not tell priests who give Communion only on the hand that Communicants have a right to receive on the tongue if they want to. My 84 year old mother cannot attend Mass at her parish and another one nearby to her home because of this and that causes her hardship in getting to Mass on Sundays.
I didn't say anything negative about Bishop Hicks. He was a priest formatator at seminary living on our hall as the priest hall priest for one year. Then he was sent to serve at the chancery by Cardinal Cupich for the next few years before being ordained a auxiliary Bishop for Chicago and then made Bishop of Joliet. I never had any bad experiences with Bishop Hicks. But I dont get a good impression that Hicks was under Cupichās mentoring for years before becoming a Bishop. Rod states that Joliet had a pretty poor record in priest abuse cases before Hicks arrived. So, I dont know if that impacted the context of Joliet being extra aggressive when a report comes from a parish. Anyway, someone reached out to the diocese of Joliet and they have confirmed via email that the incident with students was not of a sexual nature. They called it a āboundary violationā. But their failure to include this detail in the initial report letter when they had known this before reporting, undermines their credibility in my judgement.
And that is my point. There is a priest who prepared many of my kids for First Holy Communion and many kids loved him, so they would run up to him and hug him, though he never initiated the hugs. Was he supposed to push the kids away because of "boundary issues?" Bishop Hicks and Father Lane may have been obligated to report this to the police and investigate it, but I am not sure about the need to propagate it publicly right away.
Another accused child abusing priest. For me, these ongoing "revelations" smell strongly of a hostile culture's attacks on the Church - to which the institutional church seems always meekly to submit - and little of genuine "abuse", however one may define that notoriously ambiguous word. A Catholic church intentionally weakened by its own "leaders" has, I fear, been pushed under the wheels of an aggressively materialistic bus. I wonder how many of these witch priests are, in fact, martyrs. A few? A great many? Surely not none.
*Sigh* better to be falsely accused and cleared than the alternativeā¦ for the victims and the accused. Letās see what happens.
I enjoyed the podcasts. They had some good boo scares that helped the doctrinal asides stick better. Of all the ācelebā exorcists running around he struck me as orthodox, without any weird āfrills and laceā in liberal or radtrad directions, humble and grateful for the unique ministry he was called to. That doesnāt mean he wasnāt a sinner though and I guess we canāt have nice things this side of heaven *sigh*.
I think the reporting itself was fair, but the byline is misleading. The editors should know that "inappropriate conduct involving children" in this day and age has sexual connotations. Just from reading the parish's statement, it should be evident that whatever happened was not of a sexual nature. Much damage has already been done by the byline. If it's not too late to change it, I would. And I await further, responsible reporting about what actually occurred.
It looks like your decision to be first to report ānewsā will turn out to reveal a lack of discretion and diligence on your reporting ethic. I think there is need for a meeting as a team to discuss whether you are meeting ethical journalism standards: https://roddreher.substack.com/p/smearing-father-carlos-martins
Where do you gather that he is citing anecdotes? He said he has evidence and information that he will release when the police release their report. Also how do you judge Rod as unreliable? Rod does not have a history of defending priests with substantiated abuse conduct. In fact, he moved to the orthodox from being scandalized by the abuse and coverup. I don't believe that decision was justifiable but it can still be seen sympathetically.
Mr. Dreher titles his post "Smearing Father Carlos Martins," but he never specifies who precisely he is accusing of doing the "smearing." Is it the Pillar? Is it the parish? Is it the diocese? Other news outlets? All of the above? None of the above?
He starts with a conclusion that he jumped to, that "inappropriate conduct involving children" involves sexual misconduct, then says his own conclusion is not true and calls it "nonsense," then declares that it's an example of holding an innocent priest up to "humiliation and contempt...in a hysterical overreaction by people," then calls it "slander". It's unclear who is slandering anybody, or if they are, or how exactly.
That isn't information, let alone reliable news. He may indeed have gathered information about the case, but so far, none of his writing on this topic actually conveys anything besides his feelings.
Another Catholic reporter emailed the diocese of Joliet and they confirmed to her that the incident with the students was NOT of a sexual nature. They called it a āboundary violation.ā Joliet failed to include this known detail in their public letter of report.
Given that Rod Dreher based on his posts appears to be friendly with Fr Carlos and just posted a very long glowing review of his book, he doesn't exactly appear to be an unbiased reliable source on this matter. Just sayin'.
The whole problem here is the report is built on speculation. It was reported before the police report was released. Rod says that he has reports that will line up with the police report and this will turn out to be a baseless smear. I dont know Rod or Fr Carlos. But Rod does not have a history of defending priests with abuse allegations.
This implies that there ever was a need for them and I reject this
It is my impression that exorcist are supposed to keep a very low public profile.
This seems to me be very prudent, as the devil often uses pride as his go to weapon against us.
Have you listened to any of the Exorcist Files podcasts?
Iāve listened to every episode and find Father Martins to be orthodox and humble.
There is no such requirement. They tend to do so, since exorcisms are looked upon by most in society as quite strange, spooky, made up, superstitious, etc. Kind of the same reason that many priests travel in "civvies".
St. Padre Pio and St. John Vianney were celebrity exorcists visited by thousands of people.
St. Pio never performed exorcisms, and I had never heard of St. John Vianney doing so either. They both dealt with demonic attacks against themselves, but so did St. Catherine of Sienna, St. Teresa of Avila, and St. Faustina.
I respect and appreciate the work of exorcists, but I am suspect of all celebrity exorcists.
Martins says the Holy See asked him to give public catechesis on exorcism.
Echoing the comment below, let's see that request.
Fr Martins decided on the podcast due to his concern for the gap between the loss of faith and the increase in spiritualism in the younger generations (approx 18-35 year olds), so he is appealing to them through the medium that they use. If you had listened you would have known this. Plus he is, or was, doing the relic tour which is, or was, helping thousands of people. Therefore he has to be in the public domain. It's dangerous and misleading to class people when you don't understand their mission, and it's folly to suspect a person without due diligence. He won't work without the permission of Bishops, which should tell you enough. The devil is so good at disorientation and sowing doubt in the uninformed and gullible through media that can't be bothered to do their own due diligence or just plain ignore facts.
St. Jude, Patron of the Impossible, please intercede for the Church as it often seems impossible to resolve this ongoing problem.
I find this reporting to be imprudent and unlike the Pillar's usually well-planned and investigated reporting. I have come to rely on the Pillar to take their time and wait for investigations to be complete before coming out with an inflammatory story, so I am disappointed that it is not the case this time.
It's not "inflammatory" to report the news. The parish priests at Queen of Apostles have a public statement up on their parish website and are being backed by their bishop, Bishop Hicks of the Diocese of Joliet, IL. I frankly can't understand why you think the Pillar should keep quiet and sweep it under the rug. Isn't that the behavior that already got the Church into dozens of bankruptcy lawsuits?
I think they should report on it once it's been investigated. Zero tolerance policies mean that accusations should be handled in exactly this way by a parish or diocese, but reporting on it makes people assume it is fact before an investigation has been completed. I fully agree that the parish and diocese is doing what they are supposed to do. It's when it comes to external reporting that patience and prudence should be encouraged while we wait for the facts to come out.
With the tour being canceled for the forseeable future, people are going to want to know why. A non-sensational news article like this one is absolutely called for.
I hope people won't make those assumptions. For what it's worth, I certainly haven't. I certainly think the fact of the investigation is news, but I don't think anyone should jump to conclusions.
// According to a statement from Queen of the Apostles parish in Joliet, Illinois, Martin was accused Thursday of an unspecified āincidentā involving students which prompted Fr. Michael Lane, parish moderator, to contact the police.
Martins āwas confronted with the information,ā Lane wrote, and āwe informed the priest that he must depart from our parish and our diocese.ā //
"Accused is guilty" is now standard procedure? One accusation practically killed a cardinal in Australia. Same standards apply here now?
It doesn't seem like a good idea for someone who has been witnessed doing seemingly inappropriate behavior around children to continue being around children until the situation is resolved.
Nope. The story needed to be reported NOW. It doesn't matter whether the alleged acts are secular or religious, canon law or Criminal Code. If it's news, you report it. The facts are not sensationalist or inflammatory.
A pilgrimage/tour being halted by a bishop after allegations against the priest in charge is definitely news.
What would be imprudent would be NOT reporting it.
This seems good reporting to me. Plus it shows the contrast between the statement from the tour and Queen of the Apostles.
Just because someone is accused doesn't make them guilty. My former much beloved bishop was falsely accused and made sure everyone knew he had been. He was then exonerated.
I think the issue is that there isn't anything concrete to sweep under the rug just yet. An "incident involving children" could mean just about anything, even something as relatively innocuous as a parent getting angry that an imprudently graphic martyrdom story was told to their kid in class.
yes, it most certainly could mean a great many things.
From our point of view, when a nationally known priest who gives frequent public interviews faces an accusation, which will cancel a national series of events of ecclesial importance, and a parish makes a public statement about it, that very fact is news.
We wouldn't claim this is a investigative reporting. it is a simple account of known facts. But when a well-known figure is under police investigation, that is, by its very fact, news.
If the priest is cleared or charged, we'll report as much as we can at every step of the way. but this step is news.
That's fair, thanks for the clarification.
Thanks for asking!
And I think itās a fair question
It is inflammatory to report the news when the news is little more than preaching for points of view. Remember, we are living in a completely relativistic age, when our authorities - both secular and religious - never tire of telling us that there are no objective facts.
I've seen them post a developing story before.
Not OK. Was it a developing story that could ruin a man's reputation and ministry without proof? Because as this story 'develops' we're seeing something very different. In the current times much investigation needs to be done before accusing a priest of 'inappropriate conduct'. This was no more than click bait, and click baiters don't care who they affect or throw under the bus for those clicks.
You're not from around here, are you? Welcome to Substack. Substack authors are funded by users who are willing to pay an annual or monthly subscription, not by ads that pay based on page views (Pillar does allow users to run an ad, but it is a flat rate, not based on views. Good way to wish someone a happy anniversary or tell everyone to reread some classic book). Every year they lose some who forget to update their credit card expiration date, and some who got mad about something. Make a bowl of popcorn and settle in.
Just preached the prior weekend against celebrity exorcists. Even should these allegations prove false, God save us all from celebrity.
Why would you preach against "celebrity" exorcists? Like Fr. Rossetti? Like Fr. Ripperger?
Because not everything they say is accurate, the Devil is not a source of divine revelation, and the bishops are our chief exorcists. We form under them, not our favorite influencer, one body in Christ.
To be fair, not everything ANY preacher says is accurate. His podcasts are measured, with caution and explanations, and I found them to be helpful. This news, however, is unsettling.
Yah, that's very often what "the news" now is meant to be: unsettling. The news was not long ago, in my lifetime, supposed generally to inform, not to inflame.
I think we need a more precise definition of celebrity exorcists. Is Fr. Carlos Martins, with his podcasts simulating exorcisms, a celebrity exorcist? I think so.
Fr. Ripperger, who teaches and preaches about exorcism and spiritual warfare, is a celebrity exorcist? I donāt think so. The difference in approach is huge. Fr. Ripperger gives sober, very āboringā lectures on the subject and he gained notoriety because heās a good teacher, not because he was trying to be a āsuperstarā.
We live in a society where few believe in the existence of the devil. We need priests to teach about spiritual warfare and the reality of demonic. We donāt need spectacularization.
Regarding Fr. Carlos Martins, he has the right to due process and the investigation is ongoing. The parish priest and the bishop acted prudently.
> Fr. Ripperger
From my perspective: He is necessarily a celebrity, since I have heard of him from people I converse with face-to-face (without my ever having watched any of his content or knowing how to spell his name, in the same way that I have heard of famous actors whose movies I have not seen), and since the people I hear about him from also sometimes mention to me that he is an exorcist, this would necessarily make him a celebrity exorcist.
It's good that we have exorcists but I would not wish on any of them the perilous state of having a fan base.
I forgot to mention: some of Rippergerās ideas are controverse, like generational spirits, but that topic serms to be common in charismatic circles
I was doing extra research and Fr. Ripperger has said some odd things: he said itās a mortal sin for a woman to work outside the house without a good reason; he also seems to deny some Vatican II teaching on other religions. I suspect this is something ultra traditionalists defend, but Iām not a theologianā¦
Celebrities are merely people with unusually large followings. John Paul II was a celebrity pope. So, God help us, is Francis. God save us from acceding unthinkingly to the temptation to believe whatever we learn from "the news", which is - at least in our time - nothing better than a very large and very powerful gossip factory.
Fr. Martins brought the relic to one of our parishes in September... We reached out to his Society and they promptly provided a letter of good standing that prompted no concerns. Let's hope things are cleared up promptly.
There have been cases where a priest has been accused of inappropriate contact for touching a boy on his forehead while blessing him. Another priest I know would not let a kid into his rectory who had not been picked up from the parochial school on a cold winter evening because of fear of being later accused of something. Now we have a reverse, hypervigilant atmosphere where a priest can be accused of anything by anyone at anytime and be immediately suspended. 99% of the time the priests are innocent, but they have to be publicly accused and their names are forever tainted even when publicly exonerated. Typical work of the devil against good priests. Comments about "suspecting celebrity exorcists" are ridiculous and should never be made by true Catholics, who should judge any person to be innocent until guilt is proven.
Very well put. Thank you.
Glad you are covering this story, and I have no problem with the content and timing of this article.
Ever since Father Corapi, these types of personalities make me nervous. Further, if the Holy See asked him to do this catechesis, the request should be explicitly published.
That you do not like this priest does not make him a pervert (by the way, Father Corapi was not a pervert and did not abuse any children--having an affair with a woman for a priest is horrible, but not equivalent to child abuse). It is best to not judge people until proof is provided because you may find out that someone may falsely accuse you of something because they don't like the way you look or the way you sound. It is best to withold judgment until the Church and civil authorities (who are often more objective than the Church) investigate this occurence and makes a decision.
Youāre not wrong. I do hope heās cleared, but my spidey senses have been raised several times listening to his podcast and interviews. And it irks me when he claims the Holy See asked him to do this without providing proof. By the way, is the revenue from his podcast, newly released book, relic tour, and interviews going to his fraternal order or his own pocket? How much has Fr āmadeā? He spends a lot of time on a āroadshowā it seems. Canāt be healthy for a priest.
Good points worth looking into, but child abuse is such a higher degree of crime that going from a priest who may be falling into temptations of pride and greed to some one who is abusing children is like saying someone is probably guilty of murder because you saw him driving 90 miles an hour on the highway in a red Ferrari.
Where did I claim he was a pervert? Thatās not the point.
If the accusation of Father Martins was financial, your comments would be perfect, but when a priest is accused of child abuse and you make it seem like Father Martins maybe lying about the Vatican promoting him, then it seems you are implying that Father Martins has several skeletons in his closet without any proof.
My comments have to do with impropriety. This incident provided a gateway for other concerns. I donāt think you should be able to claim you are acting under a charge from the Holy See without being able to produce or publish explicitly that charge. Also, precisely because he is so public makes him a fair target for scrutiny. Power, honor, pleasure, wealth. I think these temptations are especially primed for ācelebrityā priests. Canāt think of a juicier target for the Enemy than a celebrity exorcist priest.
I have loved the Pillar and enjoy the podcast discussions but as a priest I find the way the parish reported this concerning. They describe an āincident with childrenā. I also attended the bringing of the relic to a church in our Diocese last year. I find the events described odd. A priest during a public event when usually hundreds of people are present has an incident with a child? I went to seminary with the associate there and the current Bishop Hicks was the priest residing on my seminary hall. So I don't know what to make of this. I also know a young priest in neighboring chicago after being ordained for only like 3 months was accused during a penance service by parents of some children of an incident and the diocese as a precaution removed him from his position. The details left out was the parish was radically liberal and they had a history of trying to drive out conservative priests. By the way the Bishop of Jolietās last assignment was working under Cardinal Cupich in Chicago. So I think your reporting is not deep enough. Something is off about this and I would not have reported it until you interviewed in person the parish leaders involved and got them on record. For you are possibly spreading a story before the police report has been released and the facts have been established. Your excuse that it is ānewsā seems weak to me. It becomes news when reports are confirmed and verified. Reporting now risks destroying the reputation of a priest. And Im not the only one pointing this out. A simlle search on X shows a lot of concern on your reporting: https://x.com/breeadail/status/1860489564395110853?s=46
// Something is off about this and I would not have reported it until you interviewed in person the parish leaders involved and got them on record. For you are possibly spreading a story before the police report has been released and the facts have been established. Your excuse that it is ānewsā seems weak to me. It becomes news when reports are confirmed and verified. Reporting now risks destroying the reputation of a priest. And Im not the only one pointing this out. //
I completely agree. Thank you for saying it so clearly.
Afterthought: Pillar could have reported that the tour had been suspended or cancelled, but it also should have made it clear that the Church authorities had acted in haste and it should have looked into why they did that.
It would be presumptive for the Pillar at this stage to say that Church authorities acted in haste. Rod Dreher claims to have information that shows the parish's actions were unfounded. I hope he is right. But we have no way of knowing that right now. What are the allegations? Does Rod actually know them or is he mistaken or misinformed? Would his private information conclusively exonerate Fr. Martins in civil law? In canon law? Could reasonable minds differ on that point? Is his own judgment compromised?
This is not a case the Pillar is dragging into the public eye. A parish has taken a public action against a public figure and issued a public statement. More importantly, they took this action during an ongoing tour through other parishes and dioceses. How long should the Pillar have waited to report on it? What does it mean to wait until reports are "confirmed and verified"? Until the parish publishes the accusations? Until the police do? Until an arrest is made? Until a grand jury indicts him? Until he is found guilty? Until he has lost all appeals? How long could could that take? Will the tour still be ongoing? Will public opinion freeze until then? Will Fr. Morris's reputation be unaffected until reporters can get to the bottom of it?
What if Fr. Morris is innocent of all wrongdoing? What if Church authorities did act too hastily? Is that likely to be flushed out before the tour ends if no one is reporting on it? Is the parish or the diocese likely to come under scrutiny for their actions or respond to requests for information weeks or months later?
Worse, what if the allegations are serious and credible? What if Church authorities did act appropriately to prevent future harm?
It seems to me the only appropriate response is for reporters (like the Pillar) to report this situation as objectively and promptly as possible. And that seems to be what they are doing.
Another Catholic reporter emailed the diocese of Joliet and they confirmed to her that the incident with the students was NOT of a sexual nature. They called it a āboundary violation.ā Joliet failed to include this known detail in their public letter of report.
That is good information. But an incident can be non-sexual and still be inappropriate. Whatever this "boundary violation" was, it was reported to the police and a police investigation appears to be ongoing.
In addition to the police taking action on it, there are also two levels of Church action: The parish cancelled its event. And the Diocese went even further to cancel two other events. So the pastor and the bishop both thought this "boundary violation" warranted it.
What I'm also interested in: Did the parish or diocese report the incident to the next dioceses or parishes on the tour? If they did not, then why --- considering the action they felt was warranted in Joliet? And if they did, then are other dioceses or parishes going to cancel events too? Or are they going to reach a different conclusion about the allegations?
Edit: I missed the fact that the Diocese of Gary cancelled today's event. So the question is: Is that related to the allegations in Joliet? How much information did the Diocese of Gary receive about those allegations? If they received all of the information available to Joliet, then that would be two bishops and a pastor who thought the alleged "boundary violation" was serious enough to take action on.
Consider this possible scenario: the relic of St Jude is in a protective glass cabinet. Maybe some of their students were trying to get into it and Fr Carlos grabbed their arm to pull them away. It wouldnt surprise me.
Lets let the police report come out and Rodās report.
OSV and CNA are both independently chasing the story themselves now. Are Bree Dail and everybody else concerned going to go criticize those outlets too?
Also, Father Michael Lane has a tendency to succumb to the false ideas of parents. When he was Pastor of St. Jude's Parish in Joliet, he removed a Dominican Sister of St. Cecilia from being principal of St. Jude's Elementary School because some parents accused her of scaring the children (she taught the kids about the existence of the devil). The fact that the main accusing mother F-bombed the sister in front of a group of 2nd grade kids (one of them was my daughter) did not matter to Father Lane (nor to Bishop Hicks" predecessor, Bishop Conlon), nor the fact that the Superior of the Dominican Sisters found no fault in the Sister and refused to replace her with another principal. Not that Father Lane is a bad priest, he is definitely orthodox, but he does seem to have a tendency to believe certain parents a little too much when they make false accusations.
Whether or not that's true is irrelevant to this story, since if the accusation was made to him, Father Lane would be both morally and legally (civilly and canonically, for good measure) to report it to law enforcement as the proper investigating authorities, not to try to use his own judgement about any of the parties' credibility
Legally yes, morally no. The Church has always investigated cases first until the recent neglect caused them to give to Caesar what is not Caesar's right. Saint Thomas Becket was martyred because he refused to subject his priests to civil courts.
All of us are subject to the law, whether clerics or laypeople. Becket's case has long struck me as anomalous - his canonisation at the time was understandable, but his views would now be regarded as unjustifiable.
The courts we have now are quite different, with requirements for legal counsel, innocence presumed until guilt is proven, a ban on torture, etc.
Saint Paul specifically opposed Catholics bringing cases against each other to a secular court. Unfortunately, diocesan courts have been reduced to marriage tribunals, but canon law is quite elaborate and the Church could handle at least simple cases like this one before calling in the cops
The Church has a substantial and recent history of being incapable of figuring out when they need to call the cops.
St. Paul opposed Catholics bringing disputes between each other to civil courts. The problem is more with how the bishops cannot find ways of being objective. If the bishops did not interfere these days to force any decision in their favor (like regarding parish closures), diocesan courts could objectively handle many cases without the need for civil courts to take care of them, and that includes priest abuse cases.
Whether or not you approve of Father Lane, he's a mandated reporter, and when he hears about something that he's mandated to report, then he needs to report it or he risks severe consequences under both civil law and Church law for not reporting.
It's not his choice to make. I also don't see how defaming Father Lane while complaining about people allegedly defaming Father Martins makes any sense. A priest is a priest is a priest, you need to respect them all, not just the ones you're a big fan of.
I only heard Father Martins once on a youtube video and I have really no opinion about him. As far as reporting, it matters what the accusation is. For example, "my son was touched on the forehead, priests should not touch kids at all" (I actually heard this once from a parent at a Virtus class) or was it actually obviously sexual. All I know is that Father Lane already once defamed a wonderful and innocent nun whose reputation was ruined in the school she ran and the Diocese of Joliet. I actually think Father Lane was for many years a great pastor who was the first to promote Perpetual Adoration in the Diocese of Joliet, but I also know he is too quick to react to unsubstantiated accusations.
Brother, I'm confused by this comment because people familiar with the Diocese of Joliet or with the young priests of the Diocese of Joliet would know that they love their bishop and don't see him as some sort of Cupich pawn at all as you're implying.
I would highly disagree with this comment. Bishop Hicks is not as bad as Cardinal Cupich, but he is not liked by many of his priests and has the nickname of "hide and seek bishop" because he can almost never be reached by most of his priests. The previous Joliet Bishop Conlon gave out his cell phone number to all his priests. When Bishop Hicks calls a priest, it is restricted so the priests do not even know the bishop is calling. He has also restricted the ministry of several priests, demoting them from pastor to administrators or associate pastor for saying homilies where homosexual acts, contraception, or divorce were called sin. He has even sent such priests for "pastoral sensitivity" training. On the other hand, he will not tell priests who give Communion only on the hand that Communicants have a right to receive on the tongue if they want to. My 84 year old mother cannot attend Mass at her parish and another one nearby to her home because of this and that causes her hardship in getting to Mass on Sundays.
I didn't say anything negative about Bishop Hicks. He was a priest formatator at seminary living on our hall as the priest hall priest for one year. Then he was sent to serve at the chancery by Cardinal Cupich for the next few years before being ordained a auxiliary Bishop for Chicago and then made Bishop of Joliet. I never had any bad experiences with Bishop Hicks. But I dont get a good impression that Hicks was under Cupichās mentoring for years before becoming a Bishop. Rod states that Joliet had a pretty poor record in priest abuse cases before Hicks arrived. So, I dont know if that impacted the context of Joliet being extra aggressive when a report comes from a parish. Anyway, someone reached out to the diocese of Joliet and they have confirmed via email that the incident with students was not of a sexual nature. They called it a āboundary violationā. But their failure to include this detail in the initial report letter when they had known this before reporting, undermines their credibility in my judgement.
And that is my point. There is a priest who prepared many of my kids for First Holy Communion and many kids loved him, so they would run up to him and hug him, though he never initiated the hugs. Was he supposed to push the kids away because of "boundary issues?" Bishop Hicks and Father Lane may have been obligated to report this to the police and investigate it, but I am not sure about the need to propagate it publicly right away.
Another accused child abusing priest. For me, these ongoing "revelations" smell strongly of a hostile culture's attacks on the Church - to which the institutional church seems always meekly to submit - and little of genuine "abuse", however one may define that notoriously ambiguous word. A Catholic church intentionally weakened by its own "leaders" has, I fear, been pushed under the wheels of an aggressively materialistic bus. I wonder how many of these witch priests are, in fact, martyrs. A few? A great many? Surely not none.
*Sigh* better to be falsely accused and cleared than the alternativeā¦ for the victims and the accused. Letās see what happens.
I enjoyed the podcasts. They had some good boo scares that helped the doctrinal asides stick better. Of all the ācelebā exorcists running around he struck me as orthodox, without any weird āfrills and laceā in liberal or radtrad directions, humble and grateful for the unique ministry he was called to. That doesnāt mean he wasnāt a sinner though and I guess we canāt have nice things this side of heaven *sigh*.
I think the reporting itself was fair, but the byline is misleading. The editors should know that "inappropriate conduct involving children" in this day and age has sexual connotations. Just from reading the parish's statement, it should be evident that whatever happened was not of a sexual nature. Much damage has already been done by the byline. If it's not too late to change it, I would. And I await further, responsible reporting about what actually occurred.
Why was it the priest and not the bishop who said he must leave the Diocese?
Exactly. The priest has no authority there. This whole thing has such a bad smell to it and feels targeted against Fr. Martins.
Iāll pray to Saint Jude that, for Father Martins, this isnāt a hopeless case.
It looks like your decision to be first to report ānewsā will turn out to reveal a lack of discretion and diligence on your reporting ethic. I think there is need for a meeting as a team to discuss whether you are meeting ethical journalism standards: https://roddreher.substack.com/p/smearing-father-carlos-martins
How so? Rod is not really a reliable news source and he's just citing anecdotes.
Where do you gather that he is citing anecdotes? He said he has evidence and information that he will release when the police release their report. Also how do you judge Rod as unreliable? Rod does not have a history of defending priests with substantiated abuse conduct. In fact, he moved to the orthodox from being scandalized by the abuse and coverup. I don't believe that decision was justifiable but it can still be seen sympathetically.
> how do you judge Rod as unreliable?
Mr. Dreher titles his post "Smearing Father Carlos Martins," but he never specifies who precisely he is accusing of doing the "smearing." Is it the Pillar? Is it the parish? Is it the diocese? Other news outlets? All of the above? None of the above?
He starts with a conclusion that he jumped to, that "inappropriate conduct involving children" involves sexual misconduct, then says his own conclusion is not true and calls it "nonsense," then declares that it's an example of holding an innocent priest up to "humiliation and contempt...in a hysterical overreaction by people," then calls it "slander". It's unclear who is slandering anybody, or if they are, or how exactly.
That isn't information, let alone reliable news. He may indeed have gathered information about the case, but so far, none of his writing on this topic actually conveys anything besides his feelings.
The fact that he jumped ship because things got difficult is why I deem Rod unreliable.
Catholic News Agency: https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/260667/illinois-diocese-halts-st-jude-relic-tour-amid-incident-involving-priest-students
OSV News: https://www.osvnews.com/2024/11/24/st-jude-relic-tour-halted-over-incident-involving-students-visiting-priest/
Those just repeat the reporting of the Pillar and came about before Rodās post today.
Another Catholic reporter emailed the diocese of Joliet and they confirmed to her that the incident with the students was NOT of a sexual nature. They called it a āboundary violation.ā Joliet failed to include this known detail in their public letter of report.
Given that Rod Dreher based on his posts appears to be friendly with Fr Carlos and just posted a very long glowing review of his book, he doesn't exactly appear to be an unbiased reliable source on this matter. Just sayin'.
The whole problem here is the report is built on speculation. It was reported before the police report was released. Rod says that he has reports that will line up with the police report and this will turn out to be a baseless smear. I dont know Rod or Fr Carlos. But Rod does not have a history of defending priests with abuse allegations.