Father James DeOreo has been suspended from his priestly duties for more than two years, prompting questions from many of us. Legal documents submitted by Fr. DeOreo’s lawyer take action against the Diocese of Lafayette. These documents confirm that Fr. DeOreo was absolved of all accusations made by a minor, including those related to the minor’s anorexia and subsequent claims of sexual grooming (but without sexual contact). A recent revelation in the Diocese’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit does not dispute the fact that Fr. DeOreo was completely cleared of these allegations by the minor. Presumably, this was the reason for Fr. DeOreo’s cancellation.  So if he has been cleared, why has he not been reinstated?

We are strongly advocating for Father DeOreo’s reinstatement to his role as associate pastor at Our Lady of Mount Carmel. Please show your support by signing and sharing this petition to encourage the Bishop of Lafayette, Indiana, to reinstate Father DeOreo. 

 Urge the Bishop to Reinstate Father DeOreo, a Wrongfully Canceled Priest!

 
If you want to catch up on this matter that has attracted national attention, check out these three articles created and shared by CUP. 

 
We need Father DeOreo returned to his priestly ministry.  We ask three things of you:

1. Please sign the linked petition to reinstate Father DeOreo
2.  Financially support his pursuit to protect his good name
3. Pray for Father DeOreo.  Offer Mass Intentions, Rosaries, Divine Mercy Chaplets and sacrifices.

 
Diocese Files to Dismiss Fr. DeOreo’s Claims
In the legal document filed by the Diocese of Lafayette on April 29, 2024 is a motion to dismiss filed by the defendants, Father Theodore Dudzinski (the Vicar General) and The Roman Catholic Diocese of Lafayette-in-Indiana, Inc., in response to a lawsuit brought by the plaintiff, Fr. James DeOreo. The defendants are seeking dismissal of the lawsuit on two grounds:

They argue that the lawsuit should be dismissed under “Indiana Trial Rule” because of their First Amendment Rights to public speech (i.e., no defamation) and the Church Autonomy Doctrine and Ministerial Exception. They assert that the lawsuit seeks to interfere with internal Church governance matters, which civil courts are not permitted to adjudicate.

Anti-SLAPP statute: The defendants also seek dismissal of the defamation claim pursuant to Indiana Code chapter 34-7-7, known as the “anti-SLAPP statute,” which protects defendants’ constitutional right of free speech in connection with issues of public interest. They argue that the defamation claim targets an act in furtherance of the Diocese’s constitutional right of free speech and should therefore be dismissed.

The document provides a summary of the legal arguments and then presents a detailed analysis of why the plaintiff’s claims should be dismissed. It argues that the ministerial exception prohibits civil courts from interfering with a church’s decision to suspend a member of the clergy and that adjudicating the claims would violate the First Amendment’s protections for religious autonomy.

Overall, the motion seeks dismissal of the lawsuit based on both legal and constitutional grounds, primarily the First Amendment’s protections for religious autonomy and freedom of speech.

What is Church Autonomy Doctrine?  They claim it prohibits civil courts from interfering in internal church matters, including employment decisions regarding ministers. It cites the Supreme Court’s decision in Payne-Elliott v. Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Indianapolis, Inc. to support this argument. The document contends that the plaintiff’s claims should be dismissed based on this doctrine.

The Diocese argues that the Ministerial Exception prohibits civil courts from second-guessing a Church’s Decision to Suspend a member of the clergy.

The Diocese claims that “Resolving the defamation claim would require the Court to determine the truth or falsity of the Announcement (i.e., to suspend him for inappropriate conduct with a minor), which in turn would require the Court to evaluate canon law and other matters of Church doctrine—a task that it is not permitted or equipped to perform.”

Key Items Buried In the Document Noting Fr. DeOreo’s Innocence
I always look for what is NOT there.  The legal document outlines a sequence of events involving Father DeOreo, the plaintiff, and the actions taken by the defendants, the Vicar General and The Roman Catholic Diocese of Lafayette-in-Indiana, Inc. Here’s a breakdown of the relevant portion of the document.  They outline Fr. DeOreo’s claims:

1. Allegations of Anorexia and Review Board Investigation (January 2021)

•  A parishioner complained to the Diocese that they developed an eating disorder due to Father DeOreo’s encouragement of ascetic practices like fasting.
• The Vicar General oversaw an investigation into these allegations and suspended Father DeOreo during the investigation.
• An independent investigator concluded that Father DeOreo had not caused the parishioner’s eating disorder, and no abuse had occurred. Father DeOreo was returned to active ministry after this investigation.

2. Allegations of Sexual Grooming (September 2021)

•  The same parishioner alleged in a therapy session and subsequent letter that Father DeOreo had subjected them to “sexual harassment and grooming,” though not involving actual “sexual contact.”
• The Diocese launched an internal investigation into these allegations but found them not credible or substantiated after interviews with the parishioner.
• Father DeOreo alleges that the Vicar General concealed information about the investigation and his role in encouraging the parishioner’s report.

3. November 2021 Restriction of Father DeOreo’s Ministry; Diocesan Investigation:

• The parishioner complained again about Father DeOreo’s presence at a service with children.
• The Diocese received information regarding a possible violation of the Sixth Commandment with a minor … the information … restricting Father DeOreo from public ministry (but not non- ministry related communication) with youth or with any parishioner of St. Alphonsus
• Further investigation into the November decree’s allegations was alleged not to have been carried out.

Interestingly, nowhere in the Diocese filing do they refute Fr. DeOreo’s above statements  … that  Father DeOreo was fully cleared by the Diocese of the allegations whereby Sam Berendes claimed Fr. DeOreo caused his eating disorder nor that Fr. DeOreo sexually groomed Sam. However, despite being cleared, Father DeOreo faced further restrictions on his ministry based on a single subsequent complaint, leading to his suspension.  This nebulous, miraculously materialized, additional complaint said it related to the “Sixth Commandment”  This complaint has never been explained to Father DeOreo nor has a formal complaint been lodged against Father DeOreo.  There are no specifics, no support, no evidence.

And yet here we are.  The Church it seems can claim Church Autonomy Doctrine and its Ministerial Rule to dismiss a person without cause, without proper evidence or investigation, merely because they say “we are the Church and you civil court must leave us alone.”

Will the civil court allow the Church to wrongfully dismiss a priest without any evidence to support the termination, without even presenting Fr. DeOreo his accuser or any additional information for which he is being suspended?  How would he even know what to defend?  They are on a wild goose chase, where Fr. DeOreo is left to defend against baseless accusations.  We know what this is … a witch hunt.  He clearly has been unfairly targeted based on unfounded accusations all the way through this process.  Who will stand up for him and speak out for him?

Here are a few parishioners at OLMC who he touched deeply, some wishing anonymity because of the justified retribution that people have experienced there: