Exorcist Files vs. Jesus 911 Libel Suit

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.