For several years, I’ve had the privilege of knowing Father DeOreo. His presence at Our Lady of Mount Carmel (OLMC) in Carmel, Indiana was marked by a steadfast commitment to asceticism, prayer, and unwavering orthodoxy. The Masses he celebrated were deeply moving; his use of the Eucharistic Prayer I from the Roman Canon and the reverent elevation of the host during transubstantiation often brought me to tears.

Father DeOreo at OLMC was approachable yet reserved, — friendly, but not one for hugs. He maintained a clear boundary in his role as a priest, opting for privacy and reflection over public familiarity. His interactions with students were not to be their friends but to impart wisdom, even on occasion admonishing, particularly older students who needed correction, especially when he saw them bullying others.

He is a priest of profound reverence and piety, prioritizing the eternal well-being of parishioners over his own personal comfort or desires. My staunch advocacy for Father DeOreo stems from witnessing this traditional, orthodox priest face immense prolonged persecution and what has been revealed: diocesan protocols violated, investigation halted, misleading public statement that run contrary to the initial investigation conclusions, and a seeming bias against those who hold fast to tradition.  And the conclusion one can reach with this is that another good priest has been slandered, quite publicly this time, canceled, and what recourse does he have?  He tried for two years to work with the diocese to reinstate him despite all this.  What is going on?

In an era where everyone is quick to judge, where accusations seem these days to BE THE EVIDENCE, it’s crucial to uphold due process. Having worked as an auditor at a leading public accounting firm, I understand the importance of gathering corroborative evidence. The situation at hand after reading all of the documents filed Friday by Father DeOreo’s attorney raises quite serious concerns, especially considering the recent history of this diocese — three priests canceled, two others persecuted, and another compelled to leave the priesthood due to relentless persecution. Each one was known for holding the most traditional, orthodox values.

The fear that pervades among the clergy in the Lafayette of Indiana Diocese, where a single misstep could have dire consequences, is palpable. The priestly culture is simply dysfunctional. So then to read the content of these documents, it solidifies the impression of many Lafayette laity:  diocesan leadership deeply failed this priest.  And the result:  a damaged reputation of a good priest.  You cannot put the genie back in the bottle once it is out.  Irreparable harm has been done to this priest.

Let us focus on the most pressing matter at hand now — the most up-to-date situation concerning Father DeOreo.

Father James DeOreo, represented by counsel, has filed a Response (“Response”) in Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss presented by Defendants Father Theodore Dudzinski (Vicar General) and the Roman Catholic Diocese of Lafayette-In-Indiana. Here are the key points from his response:

Summary of Response
Father DeOreo is seeking relief in response to the false March Statement published by the Diocese of Lafayette, Indiana (“Diocese”). The March Statement, a public statement disseminated to OLMC and various news agencies, announced Father DeOreo’s suspension from priestly duties and alleged inappropriate conduct with a minor. Additionally, it indicated an ongoing investigation and implied that Father DeOreo’s suspension was related to this alleged misconduct. 

What is contained below is a synopsis of the Response.

The Response asserts the March Statement intentionally misrepresented the reason for Father DeOreo’s suspension and the status of the Diocese’s investigation, causing significant damage to his reputation. Here are the key points:

1. Public Square vs. Employment Relationship:
   • Fr. DeOreo’s claims focus on issues that spilled into the public domain, specifically the false March Statement.
   • His claims do not involve internal Diocesan matters related to his employment as a priest.
2. Ministerial Exception:
   • The Ministerial exception (that the Diocese is using as a defense) typically shields churches from civil legal intervention in matters related to their authority over priests, like hiring or firing and supervision.
   • However, Father DeOreo’s claims are solely about reputation damage caused by the publicized false statement, not employment decisions.  He did not anticipate or expect a public attack on his reputation based on fabricated allegations.
3. Liberty Interest in Reputation:
   • Father DeOreo’s reputation is protected by the Fourteenth Amendment and Article 1, Section 12 of the Indiana Constitution.
   • Expanding the Ministerial exception to include reputation damage would exceed the boundaries of First Amendment protections.
4. Limited Claims:
   • Father DeOreo expressly excludes any part of his employment relationship from his claims.
   • Therefore, the Ministerial exception does not apply to the present claims.
5. Church Autonomy Doctrine:
   • The Church Autonomy doctrine (another defense of the Diocese) protects internal church affairs.
   • However, the March Statement was not merely internal; it was publicized, making the doctrine inapplicable.
6. Neutral Principles of Law:
   • Indiana courts apply a neutral-principles-of-law approach when personal liberty is at stake.  This approach is explained in further detail below.
   • Dismissal under the Autonomy doctrine would be improper given the narrow allegations in the Complaint.
7. Review of Church and Diocese Documents:
   • Canon Law and Diocese policy protocols create a quasi-judicial structure.
   • The March Statement’s implications must be considered in light of these documents.

In summary, Fr. DeOreo’s claims focus on reputation damage caused by the publicized false statement, and the Autonomy doctrine does not shield the Diocese from scrutiny in this matter.

A hearing is scheduled for June 28 at 11 AM (EDT) on the motion to dismiss the case.  Please pray for Father DeOreo and consider fasting for him as this date approaches.

If you wish to support Father DeOreo, you can contribute to his legal fees through the page he has established.
 

Detailed Analysis:

1. Misstatements of Allegations: Father DeOreo argues that the majority of the Defendants’ Motion relies on misstatements of the allegations in his Complaint. He accuses the Defendants of ‘creating straw man arguments and attacking windmills’ rather than addressing the actual claims.

 

2. Reason for Suspension: Father DeOreo’s suspension in March was allegedly due to his perceived violation of the November Decree (i.e., may not engage in any act of public ministry with any person 23 years old or younger). Both Bishop Doherty and Father Dudzinski (Vicar General) testified under oath and confirmed this. However, the Diocese publicly suggested (through the March Statement) that Father DeOreo was suspended for inappropriate sexual contact with a minor and that an investigation was ongoing, despite their own internal investigation having already discredited those allegations in October.

 

3. Violation of Policies: The publication of the March Statement violated the Diocese’s internal policies (specifically its Child Protection Policy). It intentionally misstated the reasons for Father DeOreo’s suspension and unfairly damaged his reputation and personal liberty.

 

4. Claims Against the Diocese: Father DeOreo’s claims are solely based on the harm caused by the false March Statement. He does not seek to interfere with the Diocese’s employment decisions (under the Ministerial Exception).

 

5. Anti-SLAPP Motion: When the Diocese invoked and moved to dismiss under Indiana’s anti-SLAPP statute, the motion is treated as a motion for summary judgment. The Diocese argued the March Statement was a matter of “free speech”.  But all three anti-SLAPP requirements must be met: communication in furtherance of free speech, connection with a public issue, and made in good faith with a reasonable basis in law and fact. A statement aimed at “rebuilding trust” among parishioners does not fall within the scope of the “unfettered interchange of ideas for bringing about political and social changes” protected by the anti-SLAPP statute and therefore fails to meet the free speech element.

 
A key point in the Response is the argument that a) the March Statement was made public and b)  Father DeOreo has a right to protect his reputation under the 14^th Amendment and the Constitution.

To protect Father DeOreo’s liberty interest in his reputation, the Court may review certain church documents from a purely secular perspective. Here are the key points according to the Response:

1.     Public Statement and Church Documents:

• The March Statement, which falsely implicated Father DeOreo, was made public and specifically referenced church documents, including the Essential Norms, Diocesan Code of Conduct, and Code of Canon Law.
• The Complaint alleges that the Diocese did not comply with these protocols and procedures, rendering the Statement false and damaging to Father DeOreo’s reputation.

2.     Quasi-Judicial Structure:

• From a purely secular standpoint, the various church documents create a quasi-judicial structure.
• This structure includes elements of accusation, investigation, trial, and conviction, similar to the criminal court system.

3.     Implications and Understanding:

• Just as in criminal courts, a statement like “John Doe was convicted of child abuse” implies an investigation, protection of constitutional rights, and a jury finding guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
• Similarly, Canon Law and protocols enacted by the Catholic Church carry implications and understanding within their context, even though those details may not be explicitly stated in the statement itself.

Neutral Principles of Law
When personal liberty is at stake, the Neutral Principles of Law are applied.   Under a neutral principles-of-law review, the Court can examine Canon Law, the Code of Conduct, the Communication Policy, and other Diocesan and Church documents through a purely secular lens. The goal is to determine whether the Diocese was aware that the March Statement would create a defamatory understanding, given that it contradicted their own policies.

Under the standard of review based on neutral principles of law, the March Statement is false for two reasons:

1. Conclusion of Investigation:
   • The Diocese had already concluded its investigation into Father DeOreo and knew that he had not sexually abused the complainant.
   • The allegation received by the Diocese explicitly stated that there had been no “sexual contact.”
   • The subsequent investigation by Diocesan representatives Loftus and Wolf found zero corroboration for any “inappropriate conduct” in October 2021.
   • Therefore, the statement in March 2022 that “A preliminary investigation is ongoing, and precautionary measures are in place according to Canon 1722 of the Code of Canon Law” was clearly false.
2. Reason for Suspension:
   • The March Statement attributes the “allegations of inappropriate conduct” received in October 2021 as the reason for Father DeOreo’s suspension in March 2022.
   • However, as alleged in the Complaint and confirmed by the depositions of Bishop Doherty and Theodore Dudzinski, the actual reason for Father DeOreo’s suspension was an administrative matter: their assertion that Father DeOreo had violated a decree issued in November 2021.
   • Bishop Doherty, as the Diocesan leader, testified during his deposition regarding these matters:

Q: Was Father DeOreo suspended from public ministry on March 11, 2022 for violating your decree of November 19, 2021, or because you received allegations of inappropriate conduct by Father DeOreo with a minor?
A: Okay. The trigger was that he didn’t pay attention to the decree that I had issued for his safety.

Q: You told him it was because he violated the decree of November 19th …?
A: Mm-hmm … By violating the decree, he jeopardized his reputation and that of the church.

Q: So then why did you publish that he was suspended not because he violated the decree, but you published that he was suspended … for inappropriate conduct with a minor [?]
A: Well, that – that was what we were trying to find out. You don’t have to have a finding before you issue a statement like that. This is the policy. It’s – the allegation is enough.

Q: But what you’re telling me is that you told Father DeOreo that he was suspended because he violated your decree.
A: Yeah.
(Exhibit 1, pp. 11-12, ll. 23-6; pp. 18-19, ll.15-23; emphasis added).

Father Dudzinski confirmed that Father DeOreo “was punished because he did not follow the [November] decree that was issued to him. He was given that further suspension.” (Exhibit 2, p.83, ll.21-23)

The allegation in the Complaint, which must be taken as true at this stage, is that the March Statement, considered in its entirety (including references to church documents and procedures), creates a false and defamatory implication. Specifically, it implies that Father DeOreo engaged in sexual abuse of a minor and was suspended as a result.

This implication has had a different effect on the minds of readers, as evidenced by news articles and social media posts that conclude Father DeOreo must have committed sexual abuse and other illegal or immoral behaviors. The Diocese knew that these allegations were not true but still chose to make the March Statement public, resulting in significant damage to Father DeOreo’s reputation.

In summary
Father DeOreo contends that the allegations in his Complaint support claims for relief and do not require the Court to evaluate or overrule the Diocese’s employment decisions.

Despite not adhering to investigatory procedures, the March Statement publicly revealed details about the initial investigation, even after it had been concluded and the allegations were found unsubstantiated. This deliberate disclosure created a false impression that the Bishop had concluded that Father DeOreo committed the claimed abuse. Bishop Doherty confirmed this violation of the Communication Policy, Diocesan Child Protection Policy (CPP), and Canon Law during his deposition.

The March Statement creates a defamatory implication that Father DeOreo had been investigated, that the sexual misconduct had been substantiated, and that he was being suspended as a result. This determination can be made entirely through a secular lens by considering the Statement and documents referenced by the Diocese, which are publicly available.

As the Response indicates in a defamation action, it is the court’s duty to decide whether a statement, when considered in its entirety, possesses a defamatory meaning or implication. The United States Constitution requires a false statement of fact for liability in defamation. Therefore, the Defendant’s assertion that each part of the March Statement is true is irrelevant; what matters is the overall impression created by the entire statement.

Detailed Documents
If you wish to review each of the Detailed Documents you can find them here:

Excerpts from the Deposition of Bishop Timothy Doherty (Exhibit 1). Bishop Doherty:

• Admits reasons for Father DeOreo’s dismissal
• Acknowledges reason for the November Decree (no contact with minors):  it was not to protect minors … it was to protect Father DeOreo’s reputation and the Diocese’s reputation
• Admits he did not review any of the testimonies from any of key witnesses that in totality would not corroborate Sam Berendes’ testimony
• Acknowledges he wrote/approved Child Protection Policy (but did not follow it in this instance)

Excerpts from the Deposition of Fr. Theodore Dudzinski, Vicar General (Exhibit 2).  

• Fr. Dudzinski admits reasons for Father DeOreo’s dismissal
• Fr. Dudzinski admits he did not review the testimonies from the key witnesses that in totality would not corroborate Sam Berendes’ testimony
• The deposition highlights the divergence in Diocesan practice of public statements where Father DeOreo was named specifically in the public release in March 2022, yet Father Dudzinski went unnamed in the public statement in the Chuck Jansen investigation in Kokomo (when Father Dudzinski hired him directly).  Note Chuck Jansen, a teacher, was accused of multiple sexual abuse cases at two Catholic schools in Kokomo and a whistleblower reported this information to Father Dudzinski and Bishop Doherty and the whistleblower’s accusations went unanswered for a long period of time until people went public.  Father Dudzinski name was left out of the press release in Kokomo when the investigation finally ensued.

The Communication Policy for Allegations of Sexual Abuse by Clergy (Exhibit 3).

• The policy aims to maintain “respect for privacy and the reputation of those individuals involved.” According to this policy, a clergy member’s name should only be released publicly if criminal charges are filed by the District Attorney or after substantiation by an independent investigation.

Excerpts from the Code of Canon Law (Exhibit 4).

• Shows Cannon Law 1722 which can show the court that the diocese violated 1722.

Victim Assistance Counselor’s Timeline of Events (Exhibit 19).

October 6 Memorandum to Diocesan Review Board (Exhibit 20).

Diocesan Child Protection Policy (Exhibit 24).

• The policy when read against the actual practices that occurred illustrate multiple violations of the CPP by the VG and Bishop by releasing Father DeOreo’s name in the March Statement before their credible evidence had been obtained
• The policy notes that the the Diocesan Review Board should conduct an investigation but the Bishop’s requested they halt a review specifically in violation of protocol

November 19, 2021 Decree (Exhibit 26).