Reliable, professional Church-basher: Rev. Thomas P. Doyle, O.P.
[This is first in a continuing series of profiles of individuals whom the media often cites in its coverage of the Catholic Church abuse narrative.]
When the media is seeking a voice to blast away at the Catholic Church over the sex abuse issue, one reliable source is often Rev. Thomas P. Doyle, O.P., a Dominican priest and canon lawyer. What the media will never tell you, however, is that Doyle has a storied history of contempt for the Church and a penchant to misrepresent the faith.
Fr. Doyle's desire to seek justice and compassion for innocent victims of Catholic clergy abuse is to be commended, and Catholics can learn much from his seemingly unrestrained fervor to provide healing. However, Doyle's open disdain for the Catholic Church is so exaggerated and over the top, one cannot help but wonder why he still remains a Catholic priest.
A troubling record
Almost without exception, journalists never mention Doyle's very lengthy record of dissent and animosity against the Catholic Church. In the past Doyle:
- has essentially conceded that he is really not even Catholic by declaring that while he is "still legally a priest," he freely acknowledged that he has "nothing to do with the Catholic Church," he has "nothing to do with the clerical life," he is "not associated with the Church in any way," he operates on his own, and his beliefs are "about as far away from the Vatican as you can get";
- has dismissed Catholic thought as "childish, unrealistic beliefs" and "magical thinking";
- has likened the Catholic Church to the Nazi party by writing "the [Catholic] hierarchy is about the most corrupt political entity on the globe. At least with the Nazis you knew what you were dealing with";
- has falsely claimed that the Catholic Church was established by Constantine;
- has been banned from acting as a canon lawyer in the Archdiocese of St. Louis for committing serious canonical crimes;
- has been formally reprimanded as a military chaplain after he was arrested for drunk driving;
- has been removed as a military chaplain because he contradicted his archbishop regarding the Mass;
- has once sought an endorsement from the "Holy Orthodox Catholic Church," unrelated to Rome, as a way to keep his military job, salary, and benefits.
- has demeaned priestly vestments as "dresses";
- has actively participated in the error-laden, anti-Catholic film, Deliver Us From Evil;
- has misrepresented Catholicism, either intentionally or unintentionally, on numerous important issues, including the history of the Church, the role of the laity, the training of seminarians, and the Church’s requirement of celibacy;
- has wildly claimed in a 2012 commentary that "Nothing has changed since 1985" in the Church's handling of abuse cases;
- has stated in a 2010 television interview that the Catholic Church "ought to sell the Vatican to the Mormons or to Disney or something, and go out and start all over again";
- has falsely claimed to a worldwide audience that a 1962 Vatican document was "an explicit written policy to cover up child sexual abuse by the clergy" (read the truth here); and
- has apparently denied the historicity and doctrine of the Real Presence of the Eucharist by referring to it merely as a "symbol".
"With friends like these …"
Doyle has also been a close cohort and ally of the anti-Catholic group SNAP (Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests), often appearing as a speaker at their annual conferences. In July 2007, the group even awarded Doyle its "Red Badge of Courage" award.
More recently, Doyle has submitted an affidavit (pdf) (scroll down) as an expert witness for the plaintiff in a lawsuit against the Vatican. In other words, Doyle is presumably getting paid in supporting an effort by a plaintiff to collect millions of dollars from his very own employer.
A look at Doyle's Curriculum Vitae (pdf) reveals his political leanings and may explain his interest in attacking the Church over decades-old abuse claims. His academic studies uncover a devout interest in Marxist-Leninist thought, as his Masters' dissertations include the titles, "Organized Religion in Marxist-Leninist Philosophy," "Vladimir Lenin's Theory of Social Revolution," and "Liberation Theology in the Context of Social Needs in South America."
Doyle also authored a book, Comrades in Revolution: Christian-Marxist Dialogue, in which Doyle shows influence from Communist ideas in arguing for a "from the bottom" movement against "institutionalized" Christianity.
Again, Catholics and non-Catholics alike can admire Doyle's zeal to support badly needed healing for victims of atrocious abuse committed by clergy. However, the media should finally come clean and reveal that Fr. Doyle most certainly does not deliver a reliable representation of the Catholic faith and the Catholic Church abuse narrative. As an angry leftist and professional dissident, Doyle is hardly the unbiased "expert" that the media purports him to be.
(This article contains additional information since its original posting.)
Many thanks for this. I think I can understand now why so many people make such sweeping and negative assertions about the Church, who yet don't seem to know much about the Church and who respond with so much surprise when confronted with accurate comments (and also with such disdain): they may truly feel they already have been educated into the 'real inside' scoop because they have read (or in SNAP meetings heard) such assertions and assurances from a presenter like Fr. Doyle.
The Marxist-Leninist tie-in is an eye-opener. If religion is merely "the opiate of the masses" then what can be expected other than the hostility and almost visceral antipathy that so many commenters (not on this site) display.
But this article helps me understand how some folks can sincerely feel all that negativity and believe they are right to feel it and act accordingly.
Again, thanks for this.
David,
Last fall I read your self-published book claiming there's a double standard in the media and read your recent piece in CWR on the internet a two days ago.
As I mentioned to you in two phone conversations last fall, I think you are focusing too tightly on what you think is media bias and you are missing the broader and more important issues. The scandals continue and the public has a need and a right to know what's going on.
Anyway, I came to your web site today because:
1) I was wondering if you had posted anything about the revelations in the last day or so about the Legionaries. Yesterday (May 15) a priest said to be the most internationally Legionaire admitted that he had fathered a child and had relations with other women. He made the admission only because AP was preparing to report on this scandal and asked him to confirm or deny. AP is also working on news tips they had received from a former LC priest who says there's yet more scandal in Maciel's order.
The Legion also revealed that something like six priests are under investigation for alleged or apparent sex crimes. So, I'm wondering if this would be new for you: It's not decades old news and in this case "the media" is not lying, obviously, since the Legion itself admits the priest fathered the child.
2) I was also curious if you've picked up anything about the scandals swirling about Ireland for more than a year. You may have heard that the government of Ireland shut down its embassy at the Vatican, ending something like 700 years of a formal relationship between Ireland and the Vatican. The prime minister complained before Parliament that he thinks the Church doesn't give a damn about victims of pedophile priests. I did a search on your site for the word "embassy" and there's nothing there, not a sentence about the mess in Ireland regarding the embassy and the various government and Vatican reports and papers that are fueling the controversy.
I also haven't seen anything on your site so far about Cardinal Brady in Ireland. Although he admitted eight days ago — (read that again David, he admitted eight days ago, not decades ago) — that he interviewed a 14-year-old who had been repeatedly molested by a priest in 1976 and did nothing substantive to put the priest on the sidelines, he is not resigning.
According to an Irish website The Journal.ie, Brady "also apologised directly to Brendan Boland, who said he had given the inquiry the names of other children at risk. Brady also offered to meet Boland to offer his apology in person."
Isn't that news for your web site? This is a pretty prominent Catholic, the Primate of All Ireland, saying he wants to meet the boy he abandoned 36 years ago. He is making that claim THIS MONTH, not decades ago.
So, instead of seeing something about the current scandals OF THIS MONTH — the LCs and Brady — I see your bizarre hit piece on Fr. Doyle.
You are really overreaching by trying to demonize those who object to preistly pedophilia. That photo is ghastly. Why not get a pic of him with the papal nuncio and the cardinals?
If the titles of Doyle's research papers are problematic, doesn't that reflect more on the judgment of the Vatican, the papal nuncio and Cardinal Cody and Krol?
Doyle made his mark in 1986 by writing a report and giving it to all US bishops that the Church needed to change its culture of secrecy regarding pedophilia. He was fired for his report, which was rejected by the Vatican and the US bishops.
Simple question David: Was Doyle correct or was he wrong in 1986?
Here's are more complex questions: When the LCs announced today that Fr. Williams had fathered a child they offered not timeline on how old the child is, or where. Nor did the LCs — or the Vatican — reveal the names of the LC priests being investigated or their locations. Do you think AP reveals a deep-seated hatred of Catholicism by having a reporter ask about Fr. Williams and his child?
What should "the media" do regarding the admission that the LCs have some priests under investigation? Should they forbid reporters from going near the LCs to avoid being anti-Catholic? Should they prowl around looking for victims or court cases that have info about the priests? Should they instead just quote the Vatican spokesman and report, "this is all old stuff, according to the Vatican and therefore it is not news."
Below are links about Doyle that have additional info about Doyle:
http://www.bestofneworleans.com/gambit/the-sacrifice-of-father-thomas-doyle/Content?oid=1242501
http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1888&context=ulj
Jay -
1. Do you even know what this site is about? This site does not chronicle the entire Catholic Church sex abuse narrative. This site monitors the media’s coverage of the scandals. When the media gets something wrong, ignores wrongdoing elsewhere, or misrepresents something, that’s where we try to step in and correct the record. See: TheMediaReport.com :: About. The … Media … Report.com … Get it?
So as far as the LC and Brady stories, you acknowledge that the media is not lying and it has the stories right. Good! Isn’t the media supposed to get them right? Where’s the story for me? There doesn’t appear to be one.
If people want to read about the latest scandal in Ireland, then they can pick up the NY Times. That’s not what this site is about.
You asked, “Do you think AP reveals a deep-seated hatred of Catholicism by having a reporter ask about Fr. Williams and his child?” Well, if I thought that, then I would have written a post indicating that. So the answer is, “No.”
You also wrote, “I think you are focusing too tightly on what you think is media bias and you are missing the broader and more important issues.” Well, maybe you can start your own web site and publish what you want. I recommend WordPress.
2. As for Fr. Doyle, the media has been trumpeting this guy as an expert in Catholic matters for years now. Meanwhile, as I chronicle in the post, his record is very problematic. Do you think the average follower of the Catholic scandals knows his troubling record of dissent and misrepresentations of Catholic teaching? Likely not. Hence, I published my post. My post contains information which is not compiled in one place anywhere else.
3. You also wrote, “I was also curious if you’ve picked up anything about the scandals swirling about Ireland for more than a year.”
Actually, I have. But they’re probably not the scandals you’re thinking of that you can read about in the NYTimes:
a. “Irish TV Network Defames Innocent Priest, Issues Apology”
b. “Huge Sex Abuse Scandal in Ireland, Scant Media Coverage”
Did you know about these scandals before? If not, then you see part of the mission of my site.
4. Also, you smear me by claiming I am “trying to demonize those who object to preistly (sic) pedophilia.”
If you read the post, I wrote, “Fr. Doyle’s desire to seek justice and compassion for innocent victims of Catholic clergy abuse is to be commended, and Catholics can learn much from his seemingly unrestrained fervor to provide healing” and “Catholics and non-Catholics alike can admire Doyle’s zeal to support badly needed healing for victims of atrocious abuse committed by clergy.”
Just because someone speaks out against wrongdoing (a good thing), that doesn’t give that person the right to misrepresent Catholicism and attack the Church with falsehoods. That’s my point.
5. I see you linked to Jason Berry. I’ve done my own posts on him: this and this.
6. Lastly, you wrote, “If the titles of Doyle’s research papers are problematic, doesn’t that reflect more on the judgment of the Vatican, the papal nuncio and Cardinal Cody and Krol?”
Well, you actually wrote a comment that adds to the discussion. Congratulations. You raise a good point.
-
Father Thom Doyle is one of my heroes! He is a "priest of integrity," and he has proven this, time and time again. It takes a lot of courage to speak out if one is a priest in the Roman Catholic Church. Few men have had the courage to do so! I applaud his efforts as well as his honesty. The Church will never reform, until thousands of men stand up to tell the Church that the Hierarchy as well as the Papacy, have been sinfully and criminally wrong for years! It won't be until the Roman Catholic Church is brought before the Hague for allowing the Pedophile Priest Scandal to continue, unabated, that people will recognize Thom Doyle for the prophetic man of God that he is! He predicted this would happen over 25 years ago, and now the world can see that he was right, and the Hierarchy, as well as the Vatican, were WRONG and criminally negligent!
Fr Doyle sounds like a nut
Fr.Tom Doyle was secretary at the Vatican Embassy in WDC, serving as a canon lawyer, and directed by the then papal nuncio, Cardinal Laghi, to monitor the case of the Louisiana pedophile priest, Gilbert Gauthe. Doyle did his job too well! It led, in collaboration with others, to his 1985 report, "The Problem of Sexual Molestation by Roman Catholic Clergy: Meeting the Problem in a Comprehensive and Responsible Manner."
(note his approach: meeting the problem, comprehensively, responsibly)
Had the hierarchy listened accordingly then, the present church would not be in the shambles it is because of the ongoing clerical sexual abuse scandal and its costly fallout in terms of persons, personnel and payments.
No need to kill the messenger, listen to the message. Even if a messenger is despicable, the message may be the truth. We need the maturity to separate the two, not to morph them into one.
Unfortunately, this article by David Pierce is an "ad hominem" argument to discredit Doyle. We all carry the message in vessels of clay. We need humility to listen to the message, not hubris to hound the messenger and cause sin by attempting character assignation.
In our house, Father Doyle is affectionately known as Saint Tom. Seriously.
Humility? LOL Charity? LOL
Have you listened to or read any of the statements by Fr Doyle? I don't think you have. That is the problem.
The problem of clerical abuse has been solved. But like racism, liberals want to keep the acrimony, hate and resentment alive as it fits their agenda to make the church more to their liking.
The piece simply exposes a truth which is never told by the media.
Your problem is with the truth not with Pierre.
Seeing the letters in defense of Fr Doyle takes my breath away. It shows the deep divisions in our Church. How anyone could defend a Roman Catholic 'priest' who shows contempt for the institution (it was established by Constantine), its present leaders (banned from acting as a canon lawyer for committing serious canonical crimes and removed as a military chaplain because he contradicted his archbishop regarding the Mass), and its Head (the Eucharist is a symbol), among so many other outrageous expressions of utter hatred that he has shown, is beyond me. We must pray AND row the boat – meaning continue to get the entire message out – not just the part that the media want the world to see. Thank you for what you are doing on behalf of priests and the entire Church.
Susan: you ask, "How anyone could defend a Roman Catholic 'priest' who shows contempt for the institution [... ] is beyond me." Is it also beyond you how Roman Catholic bishops could defend priests who are child rapists?
Todd,
I read the study by Doyle I cited.
How can you cavalierly dismiss this, assuming I haven't read anything by Doyle?
The problem of clerical sexual abuse continues to wound the Body of Christ.
Todd, you (we) can't blindly wish it away.
It is still in the forefront of the public internationally, with new cases and ongoing court cases.
We might want to wish it away, but the facts belie the reality that is hard to acknowledge.
RE: racism, I can't follow logically what you are saying!
Sweeping, unfounded generalizations resolve nothing.
Let's talk specifics, not generalities.
"The problem of clerical abuse has been solved" would appear to be a wish or an exaggeration. The recent seminar in California about the problem indicated from the testimony that the problem has NOT been solved but requires more study and action. Select from the incontrovertible facts that Doyle and others have adduced and go forward, prescinding from the ad hominem attacks. Since most victims have not come forward, we may only be at the half way point unfortunately.
Just as an FYI: “The recent seminar in California about the problem” was attended by Fr. Doyle, and he was a speaker at it.
I think the article is a sham and a shame as well! What can one make of your remark [Doyle] "has dismissed Catholic thought? What is your definition of "Catholic thought?" What do you mean by "anti-catholic?" If someone disagrees with YOUR thoughts? Or can you claim all Catholics agree with you, or even with each other?
Are you just incensed over Fr. Doyle being called a priest in the media? Isn't it official CATHOLIC DOCTRINE that a priest is always and forever a priest regardless?
So SNAP is "anti-catholic?" You must then believe that anyone with a complaint or abuse charge against the Catholic Church is ipso facto "anti-catholic." The piece is pitiful IMO.
Dear mediareport whoever you are. You don't know the half of it!! Tom
Tell me where kids are getting abused by Catholic priests TODAY–not in 1965.
You have no evidence–only sweeping uninformed generalizations.
Regarding racism: it too was a big problem in 1965. Today not so much. But don't tell that to the racial grievance opportunists like Al Sharpton as they have to keep the problem alive in order to make a living. Same as sex abuse.
What is Tom Doyle going to do if he admits that the sex abuse problem was solved? Who would hire him for anything else? No one as he is a malcontent.
Ergo his need to stoke and overstate the issue. Just like Sharpton.
There is a vigorous refutation if I ever heard one.
I know very little about Fr. Doyle, and I grant that you may be correct in your negative evaluation of him. But one bit of "evidence" I have to take exception to. An interest in Marx and Lenin doesn't prove that one is sympathetic to Marx and Lenin. Why, J. Edgar Hoover was interested in Marx and Lenin. And anybody interested in the history of the 19th and 20th centuries could not afford to be ignorant of Marx and Lenin. I myself have an interest in Attila the Hun.
Point well taken; and I had thought the same but didn't mention it. Again, the article is pitiful!
About the McNally comment:
First, the media are part of what is keeping the ball rolling. So to separate the media from the 'scandal' is actually not so easily done in reality as it is on (virtual) paper.
Second, the US government has abducted and even assassinated people - and rather recently – and yet there is no media outcry similar to the sustained focus on old material from a Catholic Church that has been busily reforming its practices for the past 10 years.
Third, there is the example of MADD (you recall Mothers Against Drunk Driving?): an ad-hoc advocacy that wanted to see drunk-driving – already a crime – taken more seriously and prosecuted more robustly and legislated-against more proactively. They accomplished that agenda and those goals and we are all the better for their efforts. Did they then stick around to insist that drunk-drivers (even if they had killed people in crashes) from decades ago be dug up and prosecuted? Did they demand that cops, DAs, even judges who decades ago handled the drunk-driving cases less robustly than the post-reform practice does, be prosecuted for what was truly another 'era'? (You can very legitimately divide the pre-MADD and post-MADD era's when it comes to drunk-driving.) And yet this is precisely what constitutes – especially since the reforms of the past decade – the SNAP (and Doyle) agenda. Why?
It is inaccurate or worse to characterize the relevant information about Fr. Doyle as 'demonizing'. Just because accurate information is put out there that doesn't support a certain agenda, does that mean that the subject of that information is being 'demonized'?
Ditto that Fr. Doyle is said in the comment to merely "oblect to priestly pedophilia". Because a) that fromal diagnostic term 'pedophilia' is not generally applicable to most of the cases involving Catholic clerics (although it may well apply to some cases); and b) Fr. Doyle appears to object-to much more about the Catholic Church than simply the sexual-abuse; and c) since he has – if I recall correctly – made the statement that "SNAP is the People of God" he is a bit off in his theology and his ecclesiology, and in a way that ties him to an organization that is certainly an 'interested party' in keeping the ball rolling; and d) he seems not at all consoled at the reforms of the past decade which have gone quite a way (if extant report figures are to be believed) toward reducing the very problem he is claimed to be concerned about.
So who is trying to "kill the messenger"? Fr. Doyle has amassed a corpus of public actions and statements and that material is fairly and clearly relevant to the matter under discussion. One could make the case very legitimatately that "Jay McNally" is trying to kill the TMR messenger. Certainly, SNAP and its adherents have done more than a little of such 'killing': anybody who proposes ideas or material that interfere with the agenda and framing it is trying to control are subjected to ad-hominem attacks and slurs, global assertions that are utterly unsupported by any reasoning or facts, and so on. Just go to a site like NCR or the Philadelphia trial site and you can see that in glaring (virtual) print.
Lastly (although I am cautious here because there's no way of knowing for sure) there is a comment right on this thread here from a commenter named "tom doyle" who says to TMR that "you don't know the half of it!", signed "Tom". If this is indeed a comment from Fr. Doyle (again, there's no way of knowing for certain and I acknowledge that eternal internet complication) then the comment is perhaps revealing in a way that the commenter might not have intended: that TMR doesn't know the half of what irritates Fr. Doyle about the Church and has ignited his (apparently limitless and endless) ire.
Your criticisms of Fr Doyle are slanderous. He has been a vehicle for the movement of the Holy Spirit within the Catholic Church and the institution will recover itself and move in tune with the Holy Spirit once again if it pays attention to Fr Doyle's recommendations.
I am not going to be getting into it with individual commenters in online-snits. But I see an opportunity for genuine illumination here; I am posting my thoughts as a 'reply' simply to ensure that the site machinery puts my thoughts close to the example – in this case, the 'santos' comment of May16 at 8:54pm.
If I were to ask if the commenter could provide some examples of precisely what qualify as "slanderous", I think that there is a strong possibility that there would be no specific response. The word is catchy and expressive of great emotion, and it is that sense that it – and so many words like it – are used by far too many folks nowadays, especially in the Catholic Clergy Abuse matter.
B-u-t, the word is also a legal term and denotes a specific legal Charge. It has specific 'elements' required to qualify in law as 'slander'. I think there is wayyyy tooooo much conflation of the offhand/emotiive and the conceptual/legal uses of such words. One thinks of 'holocaust', 'survivor', 'killing' (as in spirit and zest for life) and even 'murder' as being used in this way.
In the current Philadelphia trial, for example, I think the prosecution has tried to have it both ways: bringing Charges that carry an emotional 'zetz' and then trying to put some sort of legal foundation under that gambit. The prosecution is assisted informally (although if Mr. Pierre is even partially accurate in his observations, perhaps also more deliberately) by the mentality – which seems very prevalent among SNAP-friendly commenters – of trying to keep the focus on the emotions and not on the more formal legal aspects.
To achieve this, a toxic misch of tactics are deployed: useful and convenient inaccuracies asserted as facts; factoids asserted as dispositive and conclusive 'proof' through a web of irrational thought-process; the mantra-like repetition of 'stories' to engage the limbic system and bypass the reasoning capabilities of the prefrontal-cortical capabilities; and so very often, ad-hominem slurs and attacks on whomever raises a point that it is not useful to the continuation of the stampede.
There is also a remarkablly consistent tendency to make substantial theological assertions about Catholic thought and dogma by persons who often claimed to have been deluded into thinking that priests were themselves 'gods' and who apparently left the Church not long after they reached their teens and have made no further efforts to learn the theology or the dogma. Thus the assertion here about what the Holy Spirit most surely is thinking and – not here but recently encountered – that God "will be vicious to" this or that human being, or praying that God will be so, or asserting that this or that person or class of people most surely will be or are in hell.
Frankly, I personally think that the Spirit can reform the Church using the painful rod of public scrutiny and even humiliation. And as is true for individuals so it is true for the Church: sometimes that's the best way for the Spirit to proceed with the process of on-going growth. And that this is what has been happening for the past 10 years.
Whether Fr. Doyle and others see this as the work of the Spirit or whether they are willfully refusing to see the reformative power of the Holy Spirit at work or refuse to acknowledge the fruits of that work over the past 10 years … that is to me a vital question.
I suspect – but I state it as a merely personal opinion – that far too many are not really conformed to the Holy Spirit but rather are using that term as merely a handy and high-sounding bat to continue whacking the Church like a pinata at an all-night party. And I think they'd like the night to last a long long time.
For something to be “slanderous,” there must be patently false information posted.
If there is something false, I would certainly like to know about it. But, so far, nobody has raised a single factual objection to anything I have written.
I do understand, however, that people view Fr. Doyle’s approach differently.
Thank you.
Today, May 16th, is Dominican Father Thomas Doyle's 42nd anniversary of his priesthood. He must have been shocked in the early eighties, you can be sure, when he learned that Father Gilbert Gauthe was not alone in his serial child molesting ways, and that the bishops were aware of the problem, and so were the cardinals and even the pope, and nothing much was being done except the protection of pedophile priests who remained on altars, in the classrooms, etc. etc. etc.
When Father Doyle met with then Bishop William Levada and discussed his research, Levada took notes. It was 1985. Levada knew it all as it was happening.
Since then Father Doyle has stood with the least among us and tackled a kind of ecclesiastic opposition that is impossible to exaggerate. I like to think that Mr. Pierre really does not understand what it is he is doing by slandering the noble Father Doyle. While it is so that " Men may discourse like angels but they live like men," Father Doyle is a fine example of a follower of Our Lord Jesus who taught that those who violated children deserved millstones around their necks, not promotions to a cathedral.
How does anything you say dispute the cited evidence of Doyle's angry dissent and crazy statements-most of which have nothing to do with abuse?
I heard Tom Doyle speak at the meeting in CA last week and was able to thank him for his work in support of victims of clergy abuse, including my sister. He did not appear to be either a saint or an evil man bent on tearing down the church. He was insightful, intelligent, articulate, angry, and cynical that the church has changed. He said he trusted bishops Bernard Law and Anthony Bevilaqua when they said they were going to address this problem in the church, and seemed disappointed and even scandalized that it continues 25 years later. He also recommended that the church's response be more focused on the victim/survivor and less on the priest. I don't agree with everything that Tom says about the church, but I respect his tireless work in support of victims and his courage in speaking truth about this issue.
WOW….I don't truly know where to begin. Firstly Mr. Pierre if you want to truly separate fact from fiction I would be more than wiling to provide you the information on the hundreds of cases which are NEVER reported by the media. I have represented zCanadian victims of sexual abuse for a decade and the ones that make it to the paper are the tip of the iceberg. Check out http://www.ledroitbeckett.com.
If you want your site to be true and unbiased I would very much like to provide you undisputed FACTS. Why don't you publish the American Grand Jury findings or the outcomes of Canadian Public Inquiries on this issue. If you did the conclusion that would be reached is that the media is actually under-reporting the severity of this problem. That reality is very relevant to what you site is supposed to be about.
Wait…stop….hear that? That is the sound of water pouring over the decks of the vessel S.S. Roman Catholic Church. The Church is being piloted to the bottom of the ocean by a group of medieval thinking, out of touch, old men. I purposely did not include the word celibate because they are not. It is a shame that an global institution with the potential to do such good is being mismanaged to death. If the Church was a publically traded company the shareholders would have fired the entire Board of Directors decades ago. Can a Pope get Unemployment benefits? Good luck with your efforts to bail out the ship. See you at the bottom.
Your views on other issues and your hate for the church give you away and only prove the premise of the site: you don't give a hoot about child abuse you simply hate the Catholic church for whatever twisted reasons you have and abuse is an afterthought.
I will pray for you but after 2000 years no institution is older and we ain't goin nowhere.
Sorry.
Of all the things that, at the judgment, resolute – truth rejecting Catholics will stand most guilty of IMO—
is their habit of accusing those who refuse to accept their religion of "hating them."
How do we square this circle?: Church canonical documents show quite clearly that the Church has known about and has been dealing with clergy sexual abuse of children since the 4th Century.
There is somewhat of an urban legend that the Council of Elvira (early 4th c., c. 306 AD) met for the purpose of clergy sexual abuse. This is not actually true.
One of the canons (#71) states, “Those who sexually abuse boys may not commune even when death approaches.”
(Council of Elvira canons)
Notice that it does not single out the clergy. Also keep in mind that sex with boys was not uncommon in the cultures of ancient Greece and ancient Rome, so the Church’s message can actually be considered countercultural in its day.
In response to Todd (May 16, 2012 at 10:21 pm): sadly, The Tablet – to name but one publication – regularly reports on cases of sexual abuse by priests that are still under investigation. It is important to consider that although these cases may not have happened recently, child victims of sexual abuse frequently reach adulthood before they have the courage to speak up. This is, in part, because paedophiles know how to choose victims who will a) blame themselves or b) be too afraid to speak up until many years have put distance between them and the crimes visited upon them by men who should be above reproach. It is therefore quite possible that today’s victims may not come forward for several years.
Given this pattern of victims’ fearful silence, it is NOT safe to assume that the rape of children by priests is a thing of the past. Indeed, if the Roman Catholic Church ever hopes to put an end to the problem of paedophile priests, it must consistently take swift and open action against them so that they cannot continue to abuse children ANYWHERE. This course of action will make clear to paedophiles that in future, becoming a priest will no longer provide them with the perfect hiding place where they will have both access to children and be protected by the silence of the Church hierarchy.
In answer to Todd’s final questions about Tom Doyle. IF the Church solves is sex abuse problem, there are no end of organizations who would be delighted to put his expertise and integrity to good use. He need not overstate the issue at all; sadly, our world is teaming with victims of injustice.
I just took the time to read your list of complaints against me….or whatever they are supposed to be. I have no intention of offering a point by point rebuttal…its not worth my time or my energy. I will say this much though, just about everything you say is either taken out of context, exaggerated or false…..I'm not sure where you get your information and don't really care but if you purport to be watching the media and this is an example of your work then you rank with the former News of the World. I was particularly amused by your conclusions about my Communist leanings or whatever you call them….a conclusion you reached with absolutely no idea as to my academic background and my reason for pursuing studies in Sovietology, which by the way, were inspired by two of the leaders in the study of Soviet thought…..Innocent Ivan Bochenski, O.P., and Gustave Wetter, S.J.
The next time you decide to slander someone at least try to get some of the information correct.
1. For something to be “slander,” something must be shown to be false. You have not done anything like that at all. You have taken the time to respond to this post twice, yet you have not pointed out a single falsehood.
2. You wrote, “I’m not sure where you get your information.”
Do you not know how to click links? I provide my sources.
3. I did not write that you have “Communist leanings.” I did write that your work “shows influence from Communist ideas.” I am not sure how you can deny that. Your 1969 book proposes that Christians (which you repeatedly write with a lowercase ‘c’ throughout the book) and Marxists can be “Comrades in Revolution” and “each can come to some understanding with regard to courses of action to be followed in constructing a better world” (p. 100). This, plus your proposal that a movement should rise “from the bottom” against institutional authorities sure smells a lot like “liberation theology,” which has wreaked incalculable damage to the Church.
By the way, I think a Christian trying to “come to some understanding” with a Marxist is akin to a person trying to come to an understanding with a fish about life on land. The last 40 years have undoubtedly proven that.
4. You wrote, “The next time you decide to slander someone at least try to get some of the information correct.”
Again, you have not provided even a single example of incorrect information.