Exorcist Files vs. Jesus 911 Libel Suit

"The Defendants intentionally or recklessly invited public critique and scrutiny over Plaintiff's title as an exorcist by repeatedly asserting that the Plaintiff is not an exorcist."

From the Complaint in Martins v. Romero (E.D. Mich.), filed Monday:

This is a defamation and false light action stemming from false and misleading statements published on the Jesus 911 podcast on the November 20th, November 27th, and December 4th, 2024 episodes. The Defendants intentionally or recklessly invited public critique and scrutiny over Plaintiff's title as an exorcist by repeatedly asserting that the Plaintiff is not an exorcist. The Defendants' statements have perpetuated a narrative that undermines the Plaintiff's credibility….

The Exorcist Files is a podcast co-created and co-hosted by Ryan Bethea and Fr. Martins…. Due to the popularity of the podcast, Fr. Martins published a book, also titled The Exorcist Files, where he provides a comprehensive view of the 2,000-year-old Catholic ministry of exorcism, examining spiritual dangers lurking in modern society, to help readers understand how to remain free from their influence and control….

Jesus 911 published an episode of the podcast titled "What Is the American Model of Exorcism?" …. In this episode, Romero and Clement continue their discussion from the November 20th Episode on exorcisms…. Romero praised Clement's position in Liber Christo and Clement's teachings at the Pope Leo XIII Institute, a private non-profit organization recognized for the "total education and training of priests in the holy ministry of exorcism and deliverance." Romero, on behalf of Clement, asserted that the field of exorcism is small and Clement knows, and has access to, every exorcist in every diocese worldwide. There are more than 3,000 dioceses worldwide. This characterization bolsters Clement's credibility as a set up for him to then criticize and undermine Fr. Martins' credibility and experience as an exorcist….

Romero later explained that part of the reason he reached out to Fr. Martins' religious Order was due to a conversation he and Clement had a few years prior to 2024 regarding Fr. Martins. In recounting that conversation on the November 27th Episode, Romero articulated that Clement previously told him "[Fr. Martins is] not an exorcist" due to the fact that Fr. Martins does not appear in the Liber Christo database. Both knew that a priest does not need to appear on this "database" to perform exorcisms.

Romero received a response from Dede Ayotte, Secretary to the General Superior of Companions of the Cross, which confirmed that Fr. Martins performs exorcisms. The response reads as follows:

"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."

… In this email, Companions of the Cross accurately described Fr. Martins' status as an exorcist. However, at or around the 14:42 minute mark of the November 27th Episode, Romero does not read the full response he received from Companions of the Cross. Instead, knowing he was lying, he only read aloud the following portion: "Hello Jesse, 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."

At or around the 17:14 minute mark, Romero continued to intentionally and recklessly publish false statements on the November 27th Episode about Fr. Martins: "I just don't understand why he's purporting to be an exorcist when his Order says he's not." Romero knows Fr. Martins is an exorcist but intentionally or recklessly chose not to read the rest of the email response from Companions of the Cross to perpetuate a false narrative on his podcast that Fr. Martins is a fraud.

My quick reaction: Many allegations about a person's qualities as an exorcist wouldn't be actionable, for instance because they are opinions or because resolving them would require resolving claims about theology or the supernatural, e.g., "X is an incompetent exorcist," "X's techniques don't actually exorcise demons," "X is a damned heretic," and so on.

But a false allegation that a particular organization says he's not an exorcist may be actionable, even if less concrete statements would be just statements of opinion. An analogy: Saying a rabbi "isn't really Orthodox" or "doesn't really know the Talmud" wouldn't be actionable, but saying the rabbi didn't actually graduate from a particular rabbinical seminary would generally be a factual assertion that could be defamatory if false.

In any case, so far we're just at the Complaint stage; we'll see what develops.

Comments

[Michael P]

examining spiritual dangers lurking in modern society, to help readers understand how to remain free from their influence and control....

Now I have a mental image of Giorgio Tsoukalos: "I'm not saying it's demons, but it's demons."

[MickeyFitz]

The Devil is in the details.

[santamonica811]

Damn it...I was going to post that. 🙁

[The Margrave of Azilia]

As the post says, it's a narrow issue - did the defendant make a false claim to be affiliated with a particular group which is said to be associated with exorcisms?

To somewhat paraphrase the prof, it would be like saying that someone is *not* in fact a graduate of Harvard Divinity, but he sues, claiming he *is* a graduate.

No spectral evidence needed.

Just as a jury can hear a dispute over whether someone has a degree in English from a particular university, without going into technical issues of literary analysis.

Saying that someone made up his degree or certification is a serious, reputation-damaging charge regardless of the field, and a jury needs no expertise in the field itself, just on whether the degree or certification actually exists.

[not guilty]

If this lawsuit survives summary judgment and proceeds to trial, voir dire should be interesting.

And as for cross-examination of the plaintiff, I am reminded of Jed Clampett's expression: "Weee, doggies!"

[skeptical scientist]

Quick summary of the relevant facts:
1) According to Catholic Canon Law, only bishops and people authorized by bishops may perform the rite of exorcism. The catholic church provides for authorization for either a single rite of exorcism, or a permanent position of 'exorcist', but uses the word 'exorcist' for both.
2) Fr. Martins has been authorized on multiple occasions to perform rites of exorcism.
3) Fr. Martins has not been authorized for a permanent position of 'exorcist'
4) Neither Fr. Martins nor the Catholic Church possesses a divine power to cast out demons.

I suspect the court case will hinge on the muddiness of the distinction between 2 and 3. But when I say he's not an exorcist, I'm protected against libel claims because I mean it in sense 4. 🙂

[Incunabulum]

But someone who performs exorcisms is an exorcist. I mean, you fuck one goat . . . 😉

[ReaderY]

No American civil court has the power to address claim #4. And how do you know? Do you see them sitting around waiting for parts in plays with no-one to cast them? Or are they all still in the closet?

[Incunabulum]

I mean, do exorcists have membership cards?

[John Mosby]

The people on both sides of this are Roman Catholics. Why is this in a civil court, instead of some sort of canon-law proceeding? I can't imagine the Jesus 911 podcast is rolling in dough. What does the plaintiff priest hope to gain from them? If he wants his reputation protected, a favorable ruling from a Church body or official would be more useful to him than a verdict from a secular court that most of his potential clients wouldn't trust anyway. Very strange.

[ReaderY]

So unless the bishop gives special permission, only closeted demons can act in parish plays?

[SRG2]

This brought to mind this famous exchange:

"The name of the song is called ‘Haddocks’ Eyes.’”
“Oh, that’s the name of the song, is it?” Alice said, trying to feel interested.
“No, you don’t understand,” the Knight said, looking a little vexed. “That’s what the name is called. The name really is ‘The Aged Aged Man.’”
“Then I ought to have said ‘That’s what the song is called’?” Alice corrected herself.
“No, you oughtn’t: that’s quite another thing! The song is called ‘Ways and Means’: but that’s only what it’s called, you know!”
“Well, what is the song, then?” said Alice, who was by this time completely bewildered.
“I was coming to that,” the Knight said. “The song really is ‘A-sitting On A Gate’"