The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Exorcist Files vs. Jesus 911 Libel Suit Can Go Forward
From Martins v. Romero, decided today by Judge Kay Behm (E.D. Mich.) (for more on the Complaint, see this post):
According to the Complaint, Fr. Martins is a well-known priest of the Catholic Church and has built a large social media following 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 co-host of The Exorcist Files, Fr. Martins recounts many years' worth of real-life stories where Fr. Martins has helped "set people free all over the world." Due to the popularity of the podcast, Fr. Martins published a book, also titled The Exorcist Files, on November 19, 2024.
The Complaint explains that certain priests are authorized to perform the exorcism ritual either by "mandate," where their ministry is limited to a single diocese, or "ad actum," where the priest is permitted to officiate this ritual in any diocese, under the authority of the local diocesan bishop. Fr. Martins is authorized by his Order, the Companions of the Cross, to perform as an exorcist ad actum.
Defendant Jesus Romero hosts a rival podcast called "Jesus 911" which is broadcast nationwide. Co-Defendant Kyle Clement is a frequent guest on Romero's podcast. The Catholic Resource Center owns and operates the podcast network that broadcasts Jesus 911.
According to the Complaint, during several episodes of his podcast during the fall of 2024, Romero and Clement defamed Fr. Martins and cast his ministry in a false light. On the November 20 podcast, Clement claimed that Fr. Martins "is not who he says he is." In the subsequent episode of the podcast, dated November 27, Romero revealed that he had made a request to Fr. Martins' religious Order to verify Fr. Martins' qualifications. In an email reply, the Order 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 ritual 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.
Instead of reading the entire email reply during their podcast, Defendants claimed that their view that Fr. Martins was not an exorcist was shared and endorsed by his Order, the Companions of the Cross. Defendant Romero did so by only reading the first part 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 part ("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 repeated his false claim that his Order said 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 Plaintiff, Romero's failure to read the email's entire content was false. And his misrepresentation of the actual words of the email was a false statement of fact. Thus, says Plaintiff, his disparagement of Fr. Martins' character and reputation was defamatory. As a result, Fr. Martins claims that his reputation as a "priest, author, podcaster, and exorcist" have been greatly injured. Fr. Martins claims that Defendants statements have caused him to suffer "severe emotional distress, including anxiety, sleeplessness, depression, dread, grief, and a sense of hopelessness." Fr. Martins fears "he will never be able to regain credibility as a priest, author, podcaster, and exorcist[,]" and "he fears people believe him to be a fraud, who is not worthy of the priesthood and not to be trusted as an exorcist."
The court allowed the case to go forward. It concluded that the lawsuit wasn't barred by the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine:
"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 lawsuit would require the court to consider 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 question the Order's conclusions or challenge Church doctrine. The Defendants said the Order stated that Plaintiff was not as an exorcist when the Complaint alleges that the Order said in the email that he was an exorcist. The allegation is that Defendants defamed Plaintiff by stating that his Order said he was not an exorcist, contrary to the email. The email does not say that Plaintiff is not an exorcist.
Accordingly, the court concludes that it would not need to resolve whether Plaintiff is a qualified exorcist under Church doctrine. The court need not, nor the parties in discovery, delve into thousands of years of church doctrine to examine whether Fr. Martins is an exorcist or how he might be qualified to be an exorcist. Rather, the issue before the court "can be resolved through application of secular standards without any impingement upon church doctrine or practice" because the court need only resolve whether Defendants' statements that Plaintiff's Order said he was not an exorcist were untrue and thus 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 motion to dismiss stage) the argument that 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 (regarding whether the permissions were appropriate) to a statement of fact (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 plaintiff.
Facts Only
* Fr. Carlos Martins is a Catholic priest, author, and co-host of the podcast The Exorcist Files.
* Ryan Bethea is a co-creator and co-host of The Exorcist Files.
* Fr. Martins published a book titled The Exorcist Files on November 19, 2024.
* The Companions of the Cross is the religious Order to which Fr. Martins belongs.
* Jesus Romero hosts a podcast titled Jesus 911.
* Kyle Clement is a frequent guest on Jesus 911.
* The Catholic Resource Center owns and operates the podcast network for Jesus 911.
* In November 2024, Romero and Clement made statements on Jesus 911 regarding Fr. Martins' status as an exorcist.
* The Companions of the Cross sent an email stating Fr. Martins was not appointed by a particular diocese but had "appropriate permission" to perform rituals by request of the corresponding bishop.
* Judge Kay Behm of the E.D. Mich. ruled that the libel suit may proceed.
Executive Summary
Fr. Carlos Martins has filed a defamation lawsuit against Jesus Romero and Kyle Clement following statements made on the "Jesus 911" podcast. The dispute centers on an email from Fr. Martins' religious Order, the Companions of the Cross, which clarified that while Fr. Martins was not appointed as an exorcist by a specific diocese, he possessed the appropriate permission to perform exorcisms globally upon request of local bishops. The defendants are accused of selectively reading only the first portion of this email to claim that the Order endorsed the view that Fr. Martins is not an exorcist.
The court rejected the defendants' attempt to dismiss the case based on the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine, ruling that the matter is a secular dispute over the accuracy of a statement of fact rather than a theological conflict. Additionally, the court found that the defendants' claims crossed the line from protected opinion to actionable statements of fact. The case proceeds to determine if these misrepresentations caused injury to Fr. Martins' reputation and emotional well-being.
Full Take
The strongest version of this narrative is a straightforward legal victory for transparency: a court ruling that "context matters" and that selectively editing a primary source to create a false factual claim is not protected as "opinion" or shielded by religious privilege. It asserts that secular courts can adjudicate truth-claims about what an organization *said*, without needing to adjudicate the theological validity of the underlying religious role.
This situation reveals a pattern of "selective curation," where a source is used as a shield to provide a veneer of authenticity while the actual meaning is inverted. By omitting the qualifying second half of the email, the defendants attempted to transform a nuance of ecclesiastical administration (mandate vs. ad actum) into a binary of "fraud vs. legitimate." This is a common rhetorical tactic in digital discourse: utilizing the authority of a formal institution to validate a conclusion that the institution itself did not reach.
The root cause is the tension between specialized internal hierarchies and public-facing personas. The defendants assumed that a lack of a specific type of appointment equaled a lack of qualification, then attributed that assumption to the Order.
Implications for agency suggest that as niche ministries move into the "attention economy" of podcasting and social media, they become vulnerable to traditional character assassination amplified by digital reach. The second-order consequence is the increased likelihood of secular litigation being used to define the boundaries of religious credentials.
Patterns detected: none
Bridge Questions: How does the distinction between "mandate" and "ad actum" reflect broader tensions in institutional vs. charismatic authority? If the court had ruled that this *was* an ecclesiastical matter, how would that impact the ability of religious figures to protect their reputations in secular spaces?
Counterstrike Scan: A coordinated campaign would weaponize the "fraud" narrative by flooding social media with the partial quote and ignoring the full email to destroy the target's credibility before a legal remedy could be sought. The actual content here is a legal summary of a court's refusal to allow such a narrative to stand unchallenged.