I commented this earlier, and will put it here as well: The prayers of the Auxilium Christianorum (which is a daily prayer regimen) are made to help our exorcists combat demonic wrath. The opening prayers to The Virgin Mary asks for aid in blinding evil from seeing our good works and protecting those who are working hard against demonic forces.
“…Blind them so that they know not on who to take vengeance…”
I hope Fr. Martins gets justice. Thank you for reporting on this Rod!
The latest update from The Pillar seems to indicate there's still more information to come out. At this point, they aren't retracting anything they said.
The actions described in the attorney's letter sound entirely legal and harmless. They also sound a little stupid, as is often the case in controversies like this. He really didn't need to get into "Did you ever floss your teeth with your hair?" If nothing else had happened, no complaint, no investigation, he might have felt a little sheepish afterward about saying that. Most of us would find lifting a strand of a person's hair to also be harmless, although technically any physical contact with a person can be construed as battery. Clearly every hug, every handshake, is not battery, and to demand evidence of consent is beyond reason.
Maybe there is more to this than appears in the letter. I rather doubt it -- but lawyers are trained to lay out the facts most helpful to their client in the most strident terms, while leaving out any facts that are not so helpful, even if they are not downright criminal. An investigation does not mean Father Martin did anything wrong, a letter from a lawyer is not exoneration.
The fact that police found no violation the first time is significant.
I doubt very much that Father Martin has any legal basis to sue for libel. If the paper said "there is reason to believe a child was sexually abused" that would be a basis to sue. Reporting that there is an investigation and that allegations were made of whatever was alleged is not defamation. Possibly the angry father could be sued, but not the paper who reported that the angry father said what he said and the police investigated. But it depends on what the paper actually printed.
As to the diocese... I can hardly blame them for playing safe. After decades of extensive negative publicity about clerical abuse of horrific proportions and church authorities turning a blind eye, transferring perpetrators to repeat their crimes... a common antidote, probably with advice of legal counsel, is to always over-react. Take no chances. Shut down anything taking place on church premises or with church sponsorship or invitation that might in any way be compromising or later appear to have aided abetted anything alleged to have happened. They can always issue a press release later saying "We are happy to report that Father Martin had been fully exonerated by the police investigation, but where the safety of children in our parish is concerned, we acted with an abundance of caution...
Its unfortunate that this is the safe course, and it is all the more important not to interpret acting with an abundance of caution as evidence of guilt.
I don’t have a horse in this particular race, but, it absolutely galls me the ‘guilty until proven innocent’ attitude.
There’s no real ‘right way’ of handling situations like this, but, there are ways of handling it that show maturity and discernment of both parties. And this is not it. The father in question made some dangerous assumptions and it seems to me, none of the adults acted with discernment…simply lawfare.
But clickbait outrage is default now…perhaps Dad was looking forward to the talk show circuit. I doubt it, but, one wonders.
I’m sure Fr. Martin will come out better for this, but, the whole thing leaves a bad taste of all parties involved.
Very much an overreaction. But also very poor judgement on Fr. Martin’s part. You can no longer touch a child; especially if you’re a R.C. priest. The tragic result of a terrible history that is all too recent.
I find it pretty despicable to send out a letter like this as an attempt to attack the press. The Pillar's article reported something that was already public, and was very careful to stick strictly to the facts, without rushing to judgment. I sympathize with Fr. Martins; there are obviously a lot of people who are going to assume the worst about any priest with any accusation. But as someone who has been teaching in Catholic schools for over a decade, I know better than to go touching the hair of children I don't even know. I certainly hope there is nothing more to the story than an overreacting parent (I've dealt with a few of those over the years). But even if Fr. Martins did absolutely nothing wrong in any of his interactions with children, I don't care for his lawyer's letter.
An update: if neither the diocese nor the priest responded to requests for comment by The Pillar before publication, then that puts the publication in a better light, morally and maybe legally (again, don't trust legal advice from a journalist who only has one undergraduate media law class behind him). I have personal experience on how a bad actor in the Church used hiding from a reporter to try to prevent publication of a story unfavorable to him.
Back in 2002, when I was at National Review, a Dallas Morning News journalist reached out to me to see if I could convince Fr Benedict Groeschel to talk to him. I told him I didn't know the man. The reporter said he was working on a story about (if memory serves) how Fr Groeschel's treatment program recycled accused abusers who went on to re-offend. He didn't want to publish without talking to Fr Groeschel, who refused to take his many calls. Eventually he did publish, and noted in the article that he had tried repeatedly to reach Fr Groeschel.
After the story appeared, Fr Groeschel whined to everyone that the journalist had never sought his side of the story. It was a straight-up lie. I can only assume that Groeschel thought that by avoiding the journalist, he could stop the story.
Let me be clear: I am NOT saying that this was what either Father Martins or the Diocese did! I don't know. I can imagine it is very hard to reach Father Martins if one doesn't have his phone number, but the Diocese does have a communications staff. I am just offering this comment to let you know why journalists might be willing to go with a story based only on an official press release from a diocese, even if they don't have other reporting. It is assumed within the business that a press release from a government official or other official source (like a diocese) is sufficient to warrant a news story.
Good grief, didn't Father Martin know he is very much in Satan's cross-hairs, and that the devil was intently watching for the slightest misstep he could use to destroy him? So just put "priest", " touch", and "child" in the same sentence and the devil was off to the races. And it didn't take much to incite the father, as most parents understandably don't want priests touching their kids unless it's to pull them out of a burning building. Fr. Martin picked a fight with a very clever adversary, and now he needs to stay on his toes if he wishes to survive.
I know this is not the subject matter but considering this priest is an exorcist can anyone explain to me why do demons posses people? I know it happens but I have never understood why they do it. Why don’t they instead tempt those people and lead them to hell and have them for eternity? By possessing them they are lessening their culpability. It seems to be an unforced error.
Sigh. So much stupid between all parties involved, assuming that what is now being reported through Father Martin's shysters is accurate.
The father's overreaction is completely ridiculous and, having been in their shoes on many occasions, I have the most sympathy for the police officers having to deal with this idiocy.
That said, you don't f*cking touch other people's kids in 2024 unless it's some kind of v an emergency. You just don't do it.
Not only that, you don't single out an individual kid, especially girls, for multiple rounds of interaction as seems to have been the case here. It is unclear how old the girl in question is, but the older she was, the more awkward and embarrassing she probably felt.
I'll go ahead and go there: the celibacy requirement is part of the problem here. A normal man with a wife and daughters of his own would "get" how the prolonged interaction with a strange female child could cause her discomfort. That's not to say that normal men aren't capable of making women uncomfortable, but as a husband and, particularly, a father, your understanding of how situations can upset the women in your care is exponentially greater than that of someone whose opportunity to learn those lessons is foreclosed by the demands of his vocation.
A good Catholic priest of excellent character in my area went through something sort of similar. He’s youngish but traditional-minded about Church teachings. After he sounded a no-nonsense warning in addressing teenagers about what constitutes mortal sexual sin, at least one parent cried foul with feverish anger and unfounded insinuation. The parent was clearly leveraging the cultural momentum to suspect all Catholic priests of sexual sickness if they say anything about human sexuality at all. Even if all they’re doing is explaining the Church’s teachings on such matters.
Sure enough and soon enough, several other parents joined in the protest. The bishop suspended the priest from active ministry, investigated the complaints and found the priest had done nothing deserving of defrocking or anything even close to that. The bishop eventually reassigned this priest to another parish, using full transparency with the people of the second parish and, if I recall correctly, with the whole diocese via a news item in the diocesan newspaper.
Today that very good man and solidly small-o orthodox priest—a frankly great guy of normal, relatable masculinity—is back in ministry elsewhere in the diocese. So where does he go to get his reputation back?
Anyway, in my opinion, that priest’s absence from his first parish has been a real loss to that parish. It’s terrible to think how much dark power there can be in a parent’s overreaction given the current climate.
I commented this earlier, and will put it here as well: The prayers of the Auxilium Christianorum (which is a daily prayer regimen) are made to help our exorcists combat demonic wrath. The opening prayers to The Virgin Mary asks for aid in blinding evil from seeing our good works and protecting those who are working hard against demonic forces.
“…Blind them so that they know not on who to take vengeance…”
I hope Fr. Martins gets justice. Thank you for reporting on this Rod!
The latest update from The Pillar seems to indicate there's still more information to come out. At this point, they aren't retracting anything they said.
If you're not already praying for our priests, please consider adopting a priest. https://opusangelorum.org/pray-for-priests-how/
The actions described in the attorney's letter sound entirely legal and harmless. They also sound a little stupid, as is often the case in controversies like this. He really didn't need to get into "Did you ever floss your teeth with your hair?" If nothing else had happened, no complaint, no investigation, he might have felt a little sheepish afterward about saying that. Most of us would find lifting a strand of a person's hair to also be harmless, although technically any physical contact with a person can be construed as battery. Clearly every hug, every handshake, is not battery, and to demand evidence of consent is beyond reason.
Maybe there is more to this than appears in the letter. I rather doubt it -- but lawyers are trained to lay out the facts most helpful to their client in the most strident terms, while leaving out any facts that are not so helpful, even if they are not downright criminal. An investigation does not mean Father Martin did anything wrong, a letter from a lawyer is not exoneration.
The fact that police found no violation the first time is significant.
I doubt very much that Father Martin has any legal basis to sue for libel. If the paper said "there is reason to believe a child was sexually abused" that would be a basis to sue. Reporting that there is an investigation and that allegations were made of whatever was alleged is not defamation. Possibly the angry father could be sued, but not the paper who reported that the angry father said what he said and the police investigated. But it depends on what the paper actually printed.
As to the diocese... I can hardly blame them for playing safe. After decades of extensive negative publicity about clerical abuse of horrific proportions and church authorities turning a blind eye, transferring perpetrators to repeat their crimes... a common antidote, probably with advice of legal counsel, is to always over-react. Take no chances. Shut down anything taking place on church premises or with church sponsorship or invitation that might in any way be compromising or later appear to have aided abetted anything alleged to have happened. They can always issue a press release later saying "We are happy to report that Father Martin had been fully exonerated by the police investigation, but where the safety of children in our parish is concerned, we acted with an abundance of caution...
Its unfortunate that this is the safe course, and it is all the more important not to interpret acting with an abundance of caution as evidence of guilt.
I don’t have a horse in this particular race, but, it absolutely galls me the ‘guilty until proven innocent’ attitude.
There’s no real ‘right way’ of handling situations like this, but, there are ways of handling it that show maturity and discernment of both parties. And this is not it. The father in question made some dangerous assumptions and it seems to me, none of the adults acted with discernment…simply lawfare.
But clickbait outrage is default now…perhaps Dad was looking forward to the talk show circuit. I doubt it, but, one wonders.
I’m sure Fr. Martin will come out better for this, but, the whole thing leaves a bad taste of all parties involved.
Very much an overreaction. But also very poor judgement on Fr. Martin’s part. You can no longer touch a child; especially if you’re a R.C. priest. The tragic result of a terrible history that is all too recent.
I find it pretty despicable to send out a letter like this as an attempt to attack the press. The Pillar's article reported something that was already public, and was very careful to stick strictly to the facts, without rushing to judgment. I sympathize with Fr. Martins; there are obviously a lot of people who are going to assume the worst about any priest with any accusation. But as someone who has been teaching in Catholic schools for over a decade, I know better than to go touching the hair of children I don't even know. I certainly hope there is nothing more to the story than an overreacting parent (I've dealt with a few of those over the years). But even if Fr. Martins did absolutely nothing wrong in any of his interactions with children, I don't care for his lawyer's letter.
An update: if neither the diocese nor the priest responded to requests for comment by The Pillar before publication, then that puts the publication in a better light, morally and maybe legally (again, don't trust legal advice from a journalist who only has one undergraduate media law class behind him). I have personal experience on how a bad actor in the Church used hiding from a reporter to try to prevent publication of a story unfavorable to him.
Back in 2002, when I was at National Review, a Dallas Morning News journalist reached out to me to see if I could convince Fr Benedict Groeschel to talk to him. I told him I didn't know the man. The reporter said he was working on a story about (if memory serves) how Fr Groeschel's treatment program recycled accused abusers who went on to re-offend. He didn't want to publish without talking to Fr Groeschel, who refused to take his many calls. Eventually he did publish, and noted in the article that he had tried repeatedly to reach Fr Groeschel.
After the story appeared, Fr Groeschel whined to everyone that the journalist had never sought his side of the story. It was a straight-up lie. I can only assume that Groeschel thought that by avoiding the journalist, he could stop the story.
Let me be clear: I am NOT saying that this was what either Father Martins or the Diocese did! I don't know. I can imagine it is very hard to reach Father Martins if one doesn't have his phone number, but the Diocese does have a communications staff. I am just offering this comment to let you know why journalists might be willing to go with a story based only on an official press release from a diocese, even if they don't have other reporting. It is assumed within the business that a press release from a government official or other official source (like a diocese) is sufficient to warrant a news story.
Defamation - not easy to prove. Out of curiosity, I gave The Pillar article a look . I doubt you’d win at trial on a defamation claim here.
Good grief, didn't Father Martin know he is very much in Satan's cross-hairs, and that the devil was intently watching for the slightest misstep he could use to destroy him? So just put "priest", " touch", and "child" in the same sentence and the devil was off to the races. And it didn't take much to incite the father, as most parents understandably don't want priests touching their kids unless it's to pull them out of a burning building. Fr. Martin picked a fight with a very clever adversary, and now he needs to stay on his toes if he wishes to survive.
Hoping this blows over quickly. So unfair to a wonderful priest who is doing such good work for Our Lord. Praying.
In America, defamation suits are difficult to win.
I know this is not the subject matter but considering this priest is an exorcist can anyone explain to me why do demons posses people? I know it happens but I have never understood why they do it. Why don’t they instead tempt those people and lead them to hell and have them for eternity? By possessing them they are lessening their culpability. It seems to be an unforced error.
Sigh. So much stupid between all parties involved, assuming that what is now being reported through Father Martin's shysters is accurate.
The father's overreaction is completely ridiculous and, having been in their shoes on many occasions, I have the most sympathy for the police officers having to deal with this idiocy.
That said, you don't f*cking touch other people's kids in 2024 unless it's some kind of v an emergency. You just don't do it.
Not only that, you don't single out an individual kid, especially girls, for multiple rounds of interaction as seems to have been the case here. It is unclear how old the girl in question is, but the older she was, the more awkward and embarrassing she probably felt.
I'll go ahead and go there: the celibacy requirement is part of the problem here. A normal man with a wife and daughters of his own would "get" how the prolonged interaction with a strange female child could cause her discomfort. That's not to say that normal men aren't capable of making women uncomfortable, but as a husband and, particularly, a father, your understanding of how situations can upset the women in your care is exponentially greater than that of someone whose opportunity to learn those lessons is foreclosed by the demands of his vocation.
A good Catholic priest of excellent character in my area went through something sort of similar. He’s youngish but traditional-minded about Church teachings. After he sounded a no-nonsense warning in addressing teenagers about what constitutes mortal sexual sin, at least one parent cried foul with feverish anger and unfounded insinuation. The parent was clearly leveraging the cultural momentum to suspect all Catholic priests of sexual sickness if they say anything about human sexuality at all. Even if all they’re doing is explaining the Church’s teachings on such matters.
Sure enough and soon enough, several other parents joined in the protest. The bishop suspended the priest from active ministry, investigated the complaints and found the priest had done nothing deserving of defrocking or anything even close to that. The bishop eventually reassigned this priest to another parish, using full transparency with the people of the second parish and, if I recall correctly, with the whole diocese via a news item in the diocesan newspaper.
Today that very good man and solidly small-o orthodox priest—a frankly great guy of normal, relatable masculinity—is back in ministry elsewhere in the diocese. So where does he go to get his reputation back?
Anyway, in my opinion, that priest’s absence from his first parish has been a real loss to that parish. It’s terrible to think how much dark power there can be in a parent’s overreaction given the current climate.