Fr. Doyle Responds
A few days ago, we did a post on Richard Sipe in the context of a new book that he coauthored with two others. One of the co-authors, Fr. Thomas Doyle, took issue with some of our facts and the tone of our blog in an e-mail. Because we closed down comments and as a matter of fairness, I am posting his e-mail here (though of course, I will also have my own comments afterward):
Dear Mr. Delaney,
I am writing this to you because it appears that you are one of the directors/managers of the blog site on which the review of Sex, Priests and Secret Codes appeared. If I have your title or role wrong, please accept my apologies. I have no intention of continuing the debate that was apparently closed.
I had never heard of the site until someone sent me a copy of the review on line. I read it over and the attached comments. I happen to be one of the three authors and am disappointed that the review was not actually a critical review, which I would have welcomed, but rather and attack on the authors.
In this regard I’d like to point out that there are several factual errors in both the review and the ensuing comments. Mr. Sipe’s name is misspelled but more important, it is alleged that he is still obligated to celibacy. Mr. Sipe was dispensed and laicized before he initiated a relationship with his wife. He was validly married in the Catholic Church and has remained a close friend of his former abbey in Minnesota. The same is true of Patrick Wall, also validly dispensed and married.
I read with both interest and amusement the theory advanced as to why I have some of the supposed (but quite incorrect) attitudes toward the hierarchy and the Church. One of the statements held that it stems from my experience as a tribunal judge. I will not comment on my personal attitudes but I will say that this statement is totally false. It is true that I served for many years in various tribunal positions and it is also true that I did a great deal of research and writing into canonical issues related to marriage. It is also true that my experience with the Chicago tribunal where I did nearly all my tribunal work, was enriching and spiritually fulfilling. I was privileged to learn from the experience of some preeminent canonists and priests, all of whom are retired now or deceased.
My final thought or comment is this: I read with great interest the remarks attached to the review but also much of the other information that I was able to find on the blog page. I found much of it interesting and personally enlightening. But I was also struck by a tone that saddened me and it is this: a significant lack of charity manifested by many who disagree with the ideas or writings of others, especially the so-called ˜liberal or critical people. In my many years in the priesthood I have gone through many phases and perhaps the most painful one has been facing the fact that many of us have sacrificed charity, a core Christian virtue, for our concepts of orthodoxy.
God’s blessings on you.
Thomas Doyle
I have been familiar with Fr. Doyle for many years, though I have never met him. He was stationed as an AF chaplain at a nearby airfield to my assignment in the early 1990s. This is where I learned some things, second hand, about his background. This is perhaps also why almost every time I come across something written by him, I am saddened, as one is when an friend or near acquaintance goes astray. Perhaps the added camaraderie that is often shared among servicemen, especially from the same service, adds to this. However, more than that, the sadness also comes from his office as priest I suppose. That one who took a vow to help shepherd Christ’s people through the authority given to him by the Church, has taken it upon himself to misuse that authority to teach the sheep using his personal opinions about what he thinks the Church should be. Fore example, in June 2002 he wrote an article for the National Catholic Reporter in which he espouses a reductionist view of the Church. He states:
Medieval church is dying
All one has to do is take an impartial look at the traditional governmental model, clearly outlined in the Code of Canon Law, to see the concept of monarchy loud and clear. That model doesn’t work anymore! The false presumption of uneducated, sinful masses is a figment of history. The people, led by the abuse survivors, won’t tolerate an institutional church that puts looking good and the preservation of power and control above the emotional and spiritual welfare of persons. The medieval church is dying, terminally afflicted with the virus called “œclericalism.”
This is all a painful reminder of the fact that the Catholic church is centered on Jesus Christ, not any human structure. Furthermore, its claims to reflect the word and example of Christ must be present in the real life of the church, not just in sermons or theology books. It means little to a wounded survivor to say “the church is love unless we do it, not by word but by action.
To consider the hierarchical structure of the Church something separate from the constitution of the Church herself is clearly outside the bounds of authoritative Church teaching. In fact, his whole article can be understood as flawed expectations arising from a distorted ecclesiology. What I mean is that he espouses a caricature of the hierarchical aspect of the Church as a power hungry monarchy and then criticizes Her for not acting according to this caricature when it comes to problem of the abuse of minors by some priests. He then jumps to an unwarranted conclusion that it is this structure that is fundamentally the problem.
What I find most troubling is that it seems to me that the three authors of the book discussed in the earlier post, are in a sense complicit in further victimizing these abuse victims. Instead of helping them to heal through reconciling them to the Church of which they feel alienated and victimized because they were abused by one of Her representatives, they further fan the flames of distrust of the Church as an institution. In fact, it is becoming clear that they and others are raising the expectations of these victims to consider that unless the Church changes Her structure and Her teaching on priestly celibacy (among other things) then She is not adequately or sincerely responding to the victims. This is the message in Fr. Doyle’s article, the message I get from perusing the Doyle, Sipe, Wall book, and especially the message articulated by organizations like SNAP and VOTF (both of whom Fr. Doyle seems to have close ties with).
True healing for the victims of clergy sexual abuse requires many things, but it cannot come without an authentic understanding of the nature of the Church and their reconciliation with the Church in these terms. They must be helped to recognize, contra Sipe’s Freudian jibberish, that it is not celibacy, and contra Fr. Doyle erroneous ecclesiology, that it is not the Church’s hierarchical structure that led to their abuse. Rather, it was the crimes of sinful men in the most sinful abuse of trust imaginable. But abuse does not warrant disuse of a structure (the Church hierarchy) or gift (consecrated celibacy) that Christ suffered and died to give us.
The findings of the National Review Board make it obvious that celibacy and Church structure were not the problem. The John Jay Report makes it clear that while a problem has always and will always exist in the fallen world, the proportion of bad priests is returning to the extremely low rates, compared to the larger society from which the Church draws Her priests, that it saw prior to the turmoil of the 1960s.
To the extent that the three authors are motivated by authentic concern for victims I am not faulting them, but I do earnestly pray for them because good intentions alone are insufficient. That is why I also pray for their victims because they will not find the healing they need and deserve until they are freed from those who tell them to seek revenge and especially change in ways that cannot come. They need to hear from these people that they need to forgive and to return to the embrace of Christ through His Mystical Body–the Catholic Church and Her Sacraments.
.jpg)
While I may agree with Doyle that some pundits are uncharitable, I find his appeal to charity ironic. He’s leveraging the merciless accusations of abuse victims to remake the Church in his own image, and yet he cries out for charity from his critics. At best, the appeal to charity is disingenuous, at worst it’s diabolical.
Maybe it’s time for Doyle to reread Matthew 18, and pay attention near the end.
Comment by St. Jimbob of the Apokalypse — April 16, 2007 @ 9:10 am
On the other hand, he did point out some errors on your part, David, that as of this posting time you have yet to correct. It’s also clear even from your extraction of Doyle’s article that the man isn’t proposing a total rejection of a hierarchy, but a repudiation of certain questionable aspects of monarchy.
It might be time to attend to Jesus’ wish for the apostles and their successors as we read in Luke 22:25-27.
I think Doyle’s question of charity is a very apt one. How would you respond, outside of the frequent St Blog’s practice of obfuscation and misdirection?
Comment by Todd — April 19, 2007 @ 5:41 am
Todd,
If you’re referring to Mr. Sipe’s retirement, I thought it appropriate to leave his “retirement” in his own words.
“I retired from religious life and the priesthood with the permission of Rome in 1970.”
http://www.richardsipe.com/reports/sipe_report.htm
http://www.multiline.com.au/~johnm/ethics/sipe.htm
http://www.richardsipe.com/reports/sipe_report_2005.htm
God Bless.
Comment by shelray — April 19, 2007 @ 6:05 am
I think Doyle’s question of charity is a very apt one. How would you respond, outside of the frequent St Blog’s practice of obfuscation and misdirection?
Could you please give a specific example of St. Blogs practice of obfuscation and misdirection? because you must have one in mind in order to make this statement
Also, using the parameters you established, what would you consider an appropriate response to your own question?
This how we all learn Todd, and this would be an excellent teaching opportunity for you to share how you avoid this practice of St. Blogs as well as to have ideas on how to be more charitable. What is charity and what is it’s ultimate purpose?
thanks, I am open to your heart felt response.
Comment by shelray — April 19, 2007 @ 8:59 am
shelray, thanks for your post.
This post would be an obvious candidate for misdirection. David did post a contrary position from the original post and I admire his courage for doing so. Fr Doyle pointed out factual errors, including easy ones like spelling mistakes. I often see such errors popping up in my own posts on my blog, and when I do I correct them promptly. Certainly, I would correct something after a factual mistake was pointed out, and most recently, did so when an inquiry came about the observance of St Joseph Day for 2008.
Another example from the original post: Fr. Doyle was right to criticize the original insinuation that celibacy was still required for this laicized priest. Yet you’ve chosen to keep the link, though with words crossed out. What’s that about?
Instead of addressing the core issue of the post, namely a reasonable and polite response from a first-time visitor to your site, David instead veered into an excerpt from a five-year-old article, quoted a portion, and mistook the writer’s problem with the style of the institutional church for an attack on the very principle of hierarchy. Supposedly, this was to discredit the person, rather than address the input. I challenged David’s assumption, a challenge which as of now has gone unaddressed. Do you agree with me, but are bothered by the truth of it? Or do you have additional statements in which Fr Doyle expressly rejects any notion of Catholic hierarchy?
How many other blogs use this approach? Many of the more strident apologists aim to discredit the messenger, thus dismissing the message. I think of the selective quote of Bishop Trautman in the Adoremus Bulletin which I blogged on a few years ago: http://catholicsensibility.wordpress.com/2005/09/19/112713876436946968/
Another tactic of misdirection is to decline to answer the question and ask a question of the person pointing out the error, as you’ve done with me. For the moment I will presume your good will and direct you and David to respond to these questions in your next posts here:
- Why haven’t you corrected spelling errors on the original post?
- Why did you bring up an example of supposed opposition to hierarchy, and where exactly does Fr Doyle oppose any hierarchical form in any of his writings?
- Why didn’t you address the points of his e-mail to you, namely his accusation of factual errors?
As far as charity in the context of discussion among believers, it would be as the Catechism suggests in 2478, the avoidance of rash judgment, of taking care to interpret a neighbor’s words in a favorable way. Certainly, avoiding the label of “dissent” would be helpful.
The ultimate purpose is to foster an environment in which people, once they know and trust one another, can openly offer correction on important issues with a reasonable hope it might be well-considered and followed by the person one has in mind.
Comment by Todd — April 19, 2007 @ 11:15 am
continued … I think of the selective quote of Bishop Trautman in the Adoremus Bulletin which I blogged on a few years ago:
http://catholicsensibility.wordpress.com/2005/09/19/112713876436946968/
Bloggers sometimes avoid responding to questions, asking questions of their own, as you have done in this thread.
You ask for a definition of charity in this context, which I would say is a reasonable and respectful discussion among believers. The Catechism in section 2478 presumes we approach disagreement with presumption of good intent, reading positive purposes into the words of others whenever possible. I think your labelling this post under the title of “dissent” is questionable. Why did you do it?
The ultimate goal is to foster human relationships that attempt to model the love and holiness of the Trinity, and of God for human beings. In such relationships, people are more willing to receive correction, knowing the person has genuine best interests of the Body of Christ at heart, and not scoring debate points.
I have no doubt that my posts and suggestions here might make some bristle. I’m pointing out what I believe is a breach of good manners, and since we do not truly know each other, it is more likely we will treat this as a debate rather than an opportunity to grow in Christ and forge deeper bonds of belief and relationship in the context of the Church. On the other hand, maybe it’s a good starting point for us to get there. What do you think?
Comment by Todd — April 19, 2007 @ 11:28 am
Todd,
Perhaps you will not see this but it seems to me that your comments consistently succumb to the fault of which you wish to accuse me.
You say in the context of what you define as charity:
>>The Catechism in section 2478 presumes we approach disagreement with presumption of good intent, reading positive purposes into the words of others whenever possible.
But then you intuit nefarious intent on my part, saying:
>>Instead of addressing the core issue of the post, namely a reasonable and polite response from a first-time visitor to your site, David instead veered into an excerpt from a five-year-old article, …Supposedly, this was to discredit the person, rather than address the input.
Here you do not seem to exhibit the charity you described earlier with respect to my intentions of which you expect from me. I would argue that a charitable perspective on your part might have resulted in noticing that I explicitly did not attempt to assign motives to Fr. Doyle or to Mr. Sipe but instead criticized their actions because of what I see to be their actions scandalous and personally damaging effects. Given your criticism of me and Fr. Doyle’s merciless criticism of all bishops and what he calls “the institutional Church” and that you both appeal to charity, neither of you would seem to consider criticism itself as uncharitable. I would agree. But then, I am at a loss as to what you are getting at unless you are about the business of doing yourself what you think I am doing.
With respect to your criticism of my not addressing the core of Fr. Doyle’s letter, it is interesting that you consider the core what he terms a final thought in his letter. It is true that I did not address his view of charity in my post but I did address it in a return e-mail to him, though you would have no reason of knowing this. Nevertheless, it still seems to me that you seem to have established a protocol for blogdom whereby those who you perceive as not follow it are accused of illicit intent. Ironically, I have also been criticized for addressing every issue in a post instead of selecting just one or two. Fr. Doyle also criticizes C-L-S for not doing a book review in the original article but as with your case, neither am I sure I understand why we deserve criticism for not doing what he thinks we ought to be doing with our blog. Again, in neither of these cases am I sure that the criticism in meeting with your definition of charity. What I mean is that both are aimed at assessing intent as ill willed because we do not address what you intuit as the point that ought to be addressed.
I am also not sure of your further criticism of our not following your blog protocol for the right approach for correcting posts. You further seem to assign illicit intent in our failure to follow your suggested protocol. However, another possible motivation that might be intuited from one disposed to charity could be the desire to keep substantive content intact out of fairness to those who have already read, and especially those who have commented / criticized. In some cases we will correct things if they have not been up long but if there are comments already made then we use our judgment whether it is significant enough to either update the post and make a comment about it or make a new post. In this case, I judged that giving Fr. Doyle’s criticism central place in a new post took care of the matter. I’m sorry you do not agree but I fail to see how this falls into the category of a lack of charity.
Todd, don’t get me wrong. I am not trying to say that I am never guilty of trying to assume intent. Neither would I try to convince anyone or myself that I do not sometimes respond in appropriately or more out of emotion than a conscious desire for the good of the other. If I have ever done this to you, let me take this opportunity to apologize and ask for your forgiveness. I mean this with all seriousness. In general I think we agree with the goal of the Church though definitely not in all the particulars and certainly we probably are still far apart in understanding how this is achieved. While I would never knowingly mischaracterize someone’s statements, I realize at times I am guilty of misreading others’ meanings because of where I assume they are coming from, though I continually endeavor to do better in this regard. Having said that, I do not believe in this particular case I am guilty of that. I will save these thoughts for another time though.
I completely agree with your sentiments about civility in discourse and in honestly trying to understand one another’s point of view. I told Fr. Doyle that this is our blog’s intention but I also admit that we are not always will not always be successful. I admitted and continue to admit to being a sinner who wants to be a saint.
I do not disagree with all of Fr. Doyle’s criticisms but I the point of my post is that I do think that he has become more destructive than helpful to those who he wants to serve and to the Body of Christ as well. This pains me to no end. I do not think that my post will make any difference but my prayers and other’s may and that is the reason for my post.
Comment by David — April 19, 2007 @ 3:28 pm
Todd,
Spelling errors? O.k. if you fix yours on your blog, that’s your business. If someone points out errors, and they don’t get corrected, is it possible that others don’t manage their blog in the same way. It reminds me that I am human and make mistakes.
Fr. Doyle was right to criticize the original insinuation that celibacy was still required for this laicized priest. Yet you’ve chosen to keep the link, though with words crossed out. What’s that about?
Please read comment # 3 with the links.
Bloggers sometimes avoid responding to questions, asking questions of their own, as you have done in this thread.
Sounds A little presumptive on your part, unless you have the gift of knowing one’s intentions. FYI, you asked 5 questions in your comment.
You ask for a definition of charity in this context
No, I actually asked: What is charity and what is it’s ultimate purpose.
I took time to look it up and found: Fruit of the Spirit and fullness of the Law, charity keeps the commandments of God and His Christ. Charity upholds and purifies our human ability to love, and raises it to the supernatural perfection of divine love. Love is itself the fulfillment of all our works.
Charity demands beneficence and fraternal correction
There is the goal; that is why we run: we run toward it, and once we reach it, in it we shall find rest.
I think there is a misunderstanding of what true charity is. Charity is not apathy or appeasement, or remaining quiet while we see injustice to the Church being done. It is a virtue that one must pursue in order to love God above all else simply for the fact that He is God.
On the other hand, maybe it’s a good starting point for us to get there. What do you think?
God has performed bigger miracles, and anything is possible with God
Oh yeah, I almost forgot - Dissent:
This quote by Sipe led me in that direction: Likewise the idea that Jesus was a homosexual can also be anchored in the bible, specifically in the evidence of his closeness with the Apostle John, and a text in Mark’s Gospel. I am quite confident this is Not exactly in line with Catholic teaching.
God Bless
Comment by shelray — April 19, 2007 @ 4:15 pm
David, I still fail to see the relevance of the quoted portion of the article attributed to Fr Doyle from 2002. It didn’t seem to forward the conversation, except to bring up the issue of dissent which didn’t seem to be at issue in Fr Doyle’s reply to you. You’ve filed the post under “dissent,” even though it’s unclear exactly where the dissent actually is.
I wouldn’t say thay Fr Doyle has been “merciless” in his criticism of bishops. I am aware of some of the frustrations involved in urging bishops to deal with the pedophilia problem in the 80’s, and we’re all aware that it has taken significant legal and financial and moral damage to see the bishops collectively taking action against sex offender-priests.
An adjective like “merciless” is a personal judgment I’m not sure you can support. Criticism fits, but we’ve all criticized bishops from time to time.
“Charity is not apathy or appeasement, or remaining quiet while we see injustice to the Church being done.”
Well, is this what Fr Doyle is moving against with his criticisms of bishops? Or does this only apply when a pet issue of ours is being trampled, and we call out our own big guns?
Shelray, I don’t look very kindly on vain attempts to rewrite the meaning of the Bible. But this on particular thread, it was the issue of Fr Doyle’s alleged dissent, not Mr Sipe’s.
Thanks, however, for the replies.
Comment by Todd — April 19, 2007 @ 4:51 pm
[...] I’ve been having an interesting discussion today at Cosmos-Liturgy-Sex. RP might say I’m acting as sort of a shield for Father Tom Doyle, the priest who sounded some of the early warning bells for the bishops on sex predators among the [...]
Pingback by Getting to the Truth « Catholic Sensibility — April 19, 2007 @ 9:59 pm
[...] Our previous experience with Fr. Doyle and his response to our unfavorable view of his role as a Catholic priest can be read here. [...]
Pingback by Cosmos-Liturgy-Sex » Father Doyle get’s “clubbed” by canon law — April 14, 2008 @ 8:42 am