{ "id": 2978247, "name": "GEORGE W. MAY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JOHN J. MYERS, Roman Catholic Bishop of Peoria, et al., Defendants-Appellees", "name_abbreviation": "May v. Myers", "decision_date": "1993-12-30", "docket_number": "No. 3\u201493\u20140386", "first_page": "210", "last_page": "214", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "254 Ill. App. 3d 210" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "328 N.E.2d 265", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "60 Ill. 2d 168", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5415289 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/60/0168-01" ] }, { "cite": "305 N.E.2d 746", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1974, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "16 Ill. App. 3d 277", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2523132 ], "year": 1974, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "280" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/16/0277-01" ] }, { "cite": "442 N.E.2d 195", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "92 Ill. 2d 344", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 3097134 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "352" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/92/0344-01" ] }, { "cite": "499 N.E.2d 666", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "148 Ill. App. 3d 844", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3642792 ], "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "847" }, { "page": "847" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/148/0844-01" ] }, { "cite": "614 N.E.2d 496", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "245 Ill. App. 3d 402", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 5386643 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "405" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/245/0402-01" ] }, { "cite": "607 N.E.2d 201", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "154 Ill. 2d 1", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 4820830 ], "weight": 3, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "10" }, { "page": "10" }, { "page": "10" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/154/0001-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 534, "char_count": 8053, "ocr_confidence": 0.744, "pagerank": { "raw": 6.135432583323292e-08, "percentile": 0.3818214884342678 }, "sha256": "cee3e26b3a434477e5413097c490ccf1b9931d1f66bde93ff9203143b6079b47", "simhash": "1:c96a50db8a8b318e", "word_count": 1322 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:17:01.484927+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "GEORGE W. MAY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JOHN J. MYERS, Roman Catholic Bishop of Peoria, et al., Defendants-Appellees." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "JUSTICE LYTTON\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nIn this case, plaintiff appeals the trial court\u2019s dismissal of his complaint for defamation. We affirm.\nPlaintiff, George May, was a priest serving defendant Roman Catholic Diocese of Peoria at St. Anthony Parish, Hoopeston, between March 24, 1976, and May 5, 1982. Plaintiff was removed from the parish in May 1982 by then-Bishop O\u2019Rourke because of the \u201cextreme animosity\u201d between him and members of the Layden family over the Layden Fund (Fund).\nThe Fund was created by the will of Tade Layden, who left 160 acres to \u201chis son and daughter for the perpetual use and benefit of the catholic church in Hoopeston.\u201d According to plaintiff, the parish was never notified of this interest. Plaintiff became aware of the Fund in 1978 and notified O\u2019Rourke.\nA lawsuit was filed in the Vermilion County circuit court to determine the ownership of the 160-acre parcel and the $160,000 profits derived from the farming of this parcel. The court found that the land belonged to the church and to the Layden heirs and ordered the property to be sold and the funds distributed.\nDuring the litigation, it was revealed that the Fund had executed three promissory notes to Schlarman High School Foundation, totaling $75,000. Schlarman High School is an Illinois not-for-profit corporation subsidiary of the diocese located in Danville.\nA stipulated final judgment order was entered on December 20, 1989, that provided, in part, for the creation of a trust agreement between the Fund and the parish. The trust agreement stated that \u201cpart of the assets of the trust are debts owing to the trust in part by Schlarman High School Foundation.\u201d However, the agreement also states that \u201cthe trustees are under no duty to collect said sums from Schlarman High School Foundation.\u201d\nWhile the Fund litigation was still pending, plaintiff contacted O\u2019Rourke and then-Chancellor Myers and advised them that, in his opinion, their actions were contrary to canon and civil law because they had been aware of the nature and source of the Fund and had approved the diversion of Fund monies to Schlarman High School without \u201cdue process or authorization.\u201d The basis of plaintiff\u2019s accusations was a May 23, 1979, telephone call that Myers had allegedly made in which he gave \u201cofficial approval of the diversion of funds.\u201d Plaintiff recorded that information in the 1979 annual parish report by stating, \u201cTade Layden Estate Trust changes its beneficiary from St. Anthony Parish to Schlarman High School, with approval of Bishop O\u2019Rourke.\u201d\nOn November 21, 1991, Bishop Myers issued a canonical decree, imposing the censure of suspension on plaintiff. This decree is the basis of plaintiff\u2019s instant action of defamation against Myers and the diocese. This decree states, in relevant part:\n\u201cFather May has repeatedly declined to meet with the Bishop of Peoria, most recently on October 22, 1991.\nFather May, in addition to severe exhortations and admonitions, has received warnings that he will be suspended if he refuses to cooperate.\nFather May\u2019s wild charges have not been upheld by ecclesiastical courts or higher authorities.\nFather May threatens to continue his untrue and disruptive public statements.\u201d\nThe canonical decree also contained language that indicated the basis of plaintiff\u2019s discipline,\n\u201cFurthermore, since Father George May is engaged in a secular profession without the permission of the diocesan bishop, he is forbidden to wear clerical garb or to present himself as in any way representing the Catholic Church.\nMoreover, since he has been absent from priestly assignment for a number of years, *** he will be considered a departed priest ***.\u201d (Emphasis added.)\nThis court notes that plaintiff is now a licensed attorney in the State of Illinois.\nPlaintiff sued Myers and the diocese on two counts of defamation. Specifically, plaintiff claims that Myers\u2019 statements characterizing him as a person who has made \u201cwild charges\u201d and who \u201cthreatens to continue his untrue and disruptive public statements\u201d were libelous per se. Defendants moved to dismiss the action pursuant to section 2 \u2014 614 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1991, ch. 110, par. 2 \u2014 615). This motion was granted with prejudice, and plaintiff appealed.\nPlaintiff argues that the trial court erred in dismissing his action because Myers\u2019 statements constitute libel per se. A statement is considered defamatory if it tends to cause such harm to the reputation of another that it lowers that person in the eyes of the community or deters third persons from associating with him. (Kolegas v. Heftel Broadcasting Corp. (1993), 154 Ill. 2d 1, 10, 607 N.E.2d 201.) Statements that are considered to be defamatory per se occur when the defamatory character is apparent on its face and are typically within one of four classifications, two of which are at issue here. They are (1) words that impute an inability to perform or want of integrity in the discharge of duties of office or employment, or (2) words that prejudice a party, or impute lack of ability in his trade, profession or business. (Kolegas, 154 Ill. 2d at 10.) Per se statements are so obviously and materially harmful to the plaintiff that injury to his or her reputation may be presumed. Kolegas, 154 Ill. 2d at 10.\nWhether the particular language used in Myers\u2019 decree is defamatory per se is a question of law to be determined by the trial court. (Homerin v. Mid-Illinois Newspapers (1993), 245 Ill. App. 3d 402, 405, 614 N.E.2d 496.) In determining whether a statement is defamatory per se, courts apply the modified innocent construction rule. (Powers v. Delnor Hospital (1986), 148 Ill. App. 3d 844, 847, 499 N.E.2d 666.) The modified innocent construction rule is as follows:\n\u201c[A] written or oral statement is to be considered in context, with the words and the implications therefrom given their natural and obvious meaning; if, as so construed, the statement may reasonably be innocently interpreted or reasonably be interpreted as referring to someone other than the plaintiff it cannot be actionable per se.\u201d Chapski v. Copley Press (1982), 92 Ill. 2d 344, 352, 442 N.E.2d 195.\nA reviewing court must consider all parts of the publication in order to ascertain the true meaning of the words. (Valentine v. North American Co. for Life & Health Insurance (1973), 16 Ill. App. 3d 277, 280, 305 N.E.2d 746, affd (1974), 60 Ill. 2d 168, 328 N.E.2d 265.) From a reading of the statement as a whole, it appears that the thrust of the censure is based on plaintiff\u2019s secular employment without the permission of the diocese, his absence from the diocese for a number of years, and his lack of regard for the warnings issued by the diocese. Plaintiff does not dispute these charges or even claim that they are defamatory. Myers\u2019 statements that plaintiff has made \u201cwild charges\u201d and \u201cthreatens to continue his untrue and disruptive public statements\u201d do not on their face indicate that plaintiff is unable to discharge his duties for lack of integrity or impute a lack of ability to be a priest. Additionally, we find that a reading of these statements as not being actionable per se is reasonable under the modified innocent construction rule, because they are directed to plaintiff\u2019s relationship with Myers and the diocese and do not pertain to his knowledge or ability to perform the duties of his profession. See Powers, 148 Ill. App. 3d at 847.\nBecause we have found that the statements at issue were not defamatory per se, it is unnecessary , to address the remaining arguments of the parties.\nThe order of the circuit court of Peoria County is affirmed.\nAffirmed.\nMcCUSKEY, P.J., and STOUDER, J., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "JUSTICE LYTTON" } ], "attorneys": [ "George W. May, of Peoria, appellant pro se.", "Karen L. Kendall and Brad A. Elward, both of Heyl, Royster, Voelker & Allen, of Peoria (Timothy L. Bertschy, of counsel), for appellees." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "GEORGE W. MAY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JOHN J. MYERS, Roman Catholic Bishop of Peoria, et al., Defendants-Appellees.\nThird District\nNo. 3\u201493\u20140386\nOpinion filed December 30, 1993.\nGeorge W. May, of Peoria, appellant pro se.\nKaren L. Kendall and Brad A. Elward, both of Heyl, Royster, Voelker & Allen, of Peoria (Timothy L. Bertschy, of counsel), for appellees." }, "file_name": "0210-01", "first_page_order": 228, "last_page_order": 232 }