From the case Martins v. Romero, a ruling issued today by U.S. District Judge Kay Behm of the Eastern District of Michigan (for more on the Complaint, see this post):
The Complaint portrays Fr. Martins as a well-known priest within the Catholic Church who has attracted a large social media audience due to his work as an exorcist. The Exorcist Files is a podcast co-created and co-hosted by Ryan Bethea and Fr. Martins. As a co-host, Fr. Martins shares many years of real-life accounts in which he has helped “set people free all over the world.” Owing to the podcast’s popularity, Martins released a book bearing the same title, The Exorcist Files, on November 19, 2024.
The Complaint explains that certain priests are empowered to carry out the exorcism rite either by “mandate,” which restricts their ministry to a single diocese, or “ad actum,” which authorizes the priest to officiate this ritual in any diocese with the approval of the local bishop. Fr. Martins is authorized by his religious order, the Companions of the Cross, to perform exorcisms ad actum.
Defendant Jesus Romero hosts a competing nationwide podcast called “Jesus 911.” Co-Defendant Kyle Clement frequently appears as a guest on Romero’s program. The Catholic Resource Center owns and operates the podcast network that broadcasts Jesus 911.
According to the Complaint, during several episodes in the fall of 2024, Romero and Clement defamed Fr. Martins and presented his ministry in a misleading light. In the November 20 episode, Clement claimed that Fr. Martins “is not who he says he is.” In the following episode, dated November 27, Romero disclosed that he had sought verification of Fr. Martins’ qualifications from Martins’ religious Order. An email response indicated that Fr. Martins was not appointed as an exorcist by mandate (“by a particular diocese”), but that he had “appropriate permission” to perform the rite in any diocese “by request of the corresponding bishop.” The full body of the email reads:
In answer to your inquiry Fr. Carlos has not been appointed as an exorcist by a particular diocese. His full-time ministry is Treasures of the Church, however, due to his travels, he has been involved in exorcisms with the appropriate permission and or by request of the corresponding bishop.
Rather than reciting the entire email during their podcast, the Defendants asserted that their view—that Fr. Martins was not an exorcist—was shared and endorsed by his Order, the Companions of the Cross. Romero accomplishes this by reading only the first portion of the email (“In answer to your inquiry Fr. Carlos has not been appointed as an exorcist by a particular diocese. His full-time ministry is Treasures of the Church”) and omitting the latter portion (“however, due to his travels, he has been involved in exorcisms with the appropriate permission and or by request of the corresponding bishop”). Later in the podcast, Romero reiterated his erroneous claim that his Order stated Fr. Martins is not an exorcist: “I just don’t understand why he’s purporting to be an exorcist when his Order says he’s not.”
According to the Plaintiff, the omission of the email’s complete content was false. And his misrepresentation of the actual words of the email amounted to a false statement of fact. Consequently, the Plaintiff argues that these statements disparaged his character and reputation as a “priest, author, podcaster, and exorcist,” causing him to endure “severe emotional distress, including anxiety, sleeplessness, depression, dread, grief, and a sense of hopelessness.” He fears he “will never be able to regain credibility as a priest, author, podcaster, and exorcist,” and worries that people will believe him to be a fraud, unworthy of the priesthood and not trustworthy as an exorcist.
The court allowed the case to proceed. It held that the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine did not bar the lawsuit at this stage:
“Rooted in the First Amendment, the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine cautions against courts weighing into internal church matters that involve ‘questions of discipline, or of faith, or ecclesiastical rule, custom, or law [that are decided by] church judicatories.’ The ecclesiastical abstention doctrine looks to whether the suit would require the court to examine disputes involving ‘theological controversy, church discipline, ecclesiastical government, or the conformity of the members of the church to the standard of morals required of them.’ …
[T]he alleged defamatory statements did not challenge the Order’s conclusions or the Church’s doctrine. The Defendants asserted that the Order stated that the Plaintiff was not an exorcist when the Complaint alleges that the email stated he is an exorcist. The claim is that Defendants defamed the Plaintiff by asserting that his Order claimed he was not an exorcist, contrary to the email. The email itself does not say that the Plaintiff is not an exorcist.
Thus, the court concluded that it would not need to determine whether the Plaintiff is a qualified exorcist under Church doctrine. The court need not, and the parties in discovery need not, delve into thousands of years of church doctrine to assess whether Fr. Martins is an exorcist or how he might be qualified as such. Rather, the issue before the court “can be resolved through the application of secular standards without any encroachment on church doctrine or practice” because the court only needs to determine whether Defendants’ statements that Plaintiff’s Order said he was not an exorcist were untrue and, therefore, defamatory. Whether Fr. Martins is qualified under Catholic doctrine as an exorcist is irrelevant to this inquiry.”
And the court rejected (at least at this stage of the motion to dismiss) the argument that the defendants’ statements were nonactionable opinions:
[W]hen Romero stated that “I just don’t understand why he’s purporting to be an exorcist when his Order says he’s not,” he appears to have crossed the line from opinion (about whether the permissions were appropriate) to a factual assertion (that his Order says he is not an exorcist). Romero further stated that Fr. Martins “also said his role as an exorcist throughout, implying he has been an exorcist throughout the whole time he’s been a Catholic priest. Well, I’ve established that’s not true based on the email I received.” [and] “Father Carlos Martins in a podcast on Reason and Theology said he’s been an exorcist for almost as long as he’s been a Catholic priest, about 20 years. Well, that’s not true, according to Companions of the Cross, the email they sent me.” …
[A]ccording to the Complaint, such statements are demonstrably false based on the email itself, which does not say that Fr. Martins is not an exorcist….
Michael Turco and Michael Price (Brooks Wilkins Sharkey & Turco PLLC) and Todd McMurtry (Hemmer Wessels McMurtry, PLLC) represent the plaintiff.
