And by many in vile places He is abandoned, borne about in a wretched manner and received unworthily and ministered to others indiscreetly.

– St. Francis of Assisi
http://www.franciscan-archive.org/patriarcha/opera/letters.html

Do you have a specific quote from Doyle promoting the replacement of hierarchy for an outright democracy? The Church has long had democratic elements in the selection process of shepherds, notably in monastic and religious life and traditionally, for bishops.

“However, why you should think, then, that the sex-abuse scandal implicates the discipline is a mystery to me.”

Again, can you find a quote? I think I was fairly explicit in stating otherwise:

“‘celibacy does not cause pederasty.’

Agreed.”

I leave it to the readers of CLS to assess if you’ve not fallen into the tack of obfuscation and misdirection by your misreading of what is in print on this thread.

Father Doyle, at every point, finds a glimmer of hope in the sex-abuse scandal because he thinks it is hastening, as puts it, “the age-old evolution of the Church from an institutional monarchy to the People of God.” This is to use the scandal for political purposes. He is clearly seeking something more here than a mere call for papal accountability. His statement exists in the long line of fantasy-ecclesiology that goes all the way back to the heretical segments of Corinth who expressed their scorn for Saint Paul because of the authority that he represented. The anti-Pauline mentality noted in Scripture has always lived on, since the death of Paul and Peter in Rome, in the anti-Petrine mentality. Indeed, all of the apostles, including Paul, recognized Peter as the Rock whose authority unifies the Church in a tangible way after Christ’s ascension into Glory. Hatred toward the authority that he carries has become acute in the modern age, and from reading the articles that David has linked, I fail to see how Fr. Doyle does not evince this hatred at every turn.

The Church has never been, nor is today, an institutional monarchy. Therefore, it is not now, nor never has been, “evolving” from such a forelorn condition. It has always been, first and foremost (as Paul understood), the Mystical Body of Christ. It is precisely the “People of God” because all who enter into communion with the Church through baptism are grafted into Christ Himself. They become one with Him who is the Head and with one another. The Petrine principle does not signify an “institutional monarchy” that has to be “evolved beyond” (frankly, Fr. Doyle is using the concept of evolution in a particularly stupid, though typical, way). Rather, it is the tangible sign of and instrument for Christ’s unified authority until the Eschaton. Through this authority Christ guides and protects His flock. Popes can and do fail on a personal level, but the ministry cannot be evolved beyond.

Thus, the sex-abuse scandal cannot be blamed on ecclesial “institutional monarchy,” as Doyle does. Again, there are certainly shepherds who fail their flock grievously. And malign forces in the Church may cover the backs of one another, as can and does happen in any social organization that has a human component. But that in no way signals the need for the “People of God” to rise up against the authority of the Head — which lives on, concretely, in a unified manner, in Peter’s successors. Doyle is calling for this movement. Or, at the very least, he sees its inevitable occurence. He calls for democratization. He has politicized the issue. He is dissenting from foundational ecclesiological doctrine that cannot be changed because Christ has willed it so.

As for mandatory celibacy, I am glad that you agree that it does not cause pederasty. I should hope you would agree, as well, that it does not cause sexual abuse in general. However, why you should think, then, that the sex-abuse scandal implicates the discipline is a mystery to me. Also, the emotional malfunctions that you list in the penultimate paragraph to your last reply do not stem from celibacy as such. Of course, covertly you are disagreeing with the assessment that celibacy causes pederasty, because you then implicitly link celibacy to the emotional disorders that do, in your opinion, lead to the problem. However, I am unsure if you are dissembling or simply emoting.

I think that Doyle proposes new ways for the hierarchy to function more openly, and more faithfully to God and to the flock(s) in their care. Is openness and accountability a “new way,” or is it just a more faithful rendering of Luke 22:24-27?

“This aligns with his obvious distrust of papal authority and of mandatory celibacy.”

I think we have to be careful here. There’s a huge difference between a distrust of a particular way in which papal authority has been exercised and a blanket distrust of everything papal. The former can be a reasonably held opinion, if someone, for example, thought that John Paul should have come in and cleaned house, so to speak, with Law and other bishops who sheltered sex offenders.

What might be “obvious” to some Catholics very often is not part of an actual truth. Claiming it as such, short0cuts the whole exercise in charitable correction, and itself needs to be confronted.

Mandatory celibacy merits a lot of discussion, but a faithful opposition to it and willingness to discern with the Magisterium is hardly a sign of dissent. Naturally, one can go to extremes and say that all priests should go out and get laid. But no sensible Catholic could conscientiously hold that opinion.

” … that celibacy does not cause pederasty.”

Agreed. But other things do: immaturity, a tendency to compulsive or addictive behavior, the experience of sexual abuse. And some institutional things work in favor of addicts hiding and being sheltered: lack of openness and due process, clergy assignments unexplained, advice from lawyers to stonewall against complaints, a willingness of some bishops to be hoodwinked by some of their brother priests.

Doyle is right to suggest that some peripheral aspects of the Catholic hierarchy are overdue for reform. Reform does not equal rejection, unless, that is, one is so coopted by the notion of power and prestige that the peripherals of authority are imprinted on unhealthy clergy as an essential part of the system.

The problem with Fr. Doyle comes when he uses the sex-abuse scandal as support for his a priori, romantic conviction that we need to propose a new way of being Church. This aligns with his obvious distrust of papal authority and of mandatory celibacy. Yet, Christ willed the essential structure of Petrine authority as it has come down to us(a fact about which there are going to be several blog-posts coming) and that celibacy does not cause pederasty.

My first argument, as I recall, was in part directed against yours and shelray’s avoidance of the issues Fr Doyle brought to your attention, including errors of content. You did ask for some clarification, and I provided it. My understanding is that shelray stated his practice of not editing errors, and we moved on from there.

You’ve avoided my suggestion that your arguments linking Doyle to dissent are, in fact, an exaggeration. I don’t believe I brought up the spectre of lack of charity, just that your arguments lacked “truth.”

I never came right out and said you were uncharitable, and neither did Doyle. In fact, I was clear to point out and endorse the track of his objection: the tone of fraternal correction in the Catholic blogosphere often (but not always) speaks of lifting up being right above that of showing care, concern, and Christian love. Please don’t put words in my mouth, especially when we can all read what we’ve written.

I think that many Catholic bloggers string together aspects of truth as well as suspicion and their own strong emotional reactions to create lines of reasoning that don’t quite hold together logically. In such cases, they would have lost a clear sense of the truth in permitting their passions to override an otherwise strong and inspired thought.

This is what I think happened here, and your use of inflamatory language to bolster your argument has weakened your whole line of thinking. It might well be uncharitable, but frankly, I’m not at ease going to that diagnosis. I’m sticking with the “prove it” suggestion.

The repeated assertion that the most extreme (and I might say intemperate) proposals of VOTF are reflective of reform groups or individuals by mere association is by no means a slam-dunk winner on your part. It is true that guilt-by-association can affect the credibility of a person or persons. That can be a more or less universal assessment. Or it can be particular, ie a person abused by a priest might distrust all clergy. There would need to be a personal assessment if a guilt-by-association stance is a logical or truthful one, or one polluted by emotions or other biases.

If you interpret my objections to the tone or poor logic in the blogosphere as a rebellion against authority, I think the discussion is stretched to near-breaking.

If you have a case against Doyle’s associations, by all means make it. But make it a clear and focused effort. It would be more convincing if you can avoid suggestions of “dissent” and “rebellion” against persons who have made an attempt to question or correct your own errors in truth.

You are right of course. I was hoping that Todd would recognize the “charity” extended in allowing him to avoid having to admit he did not have a defensible argument, but he seems to have missed it. Fail that, I was still hoping to show him that his appeal to charity itself did not hold water. He apparently still did not see that either.

Unfortunately, I fear that Todd does not realize that he falls into the fallacy of vague thinking; a fallacy that Msgr. Robert Sokolowski so ably describes in his Introduction of Phenomenology. This is the problem of not thinking logically but stringing together facts’/assertions that one has acquired without determining whether there is a logical/causal connection between them.

As with philosophical materialism/ virulent atheism, the spirit of dissent is a prior commitment that one then attempts to shore up with vague thinking. At root, it is a rebellion against authority and a radical self reliance. I know, I lived it for many years and have come to realize that it is only healed when one lets down his defenses and surrenders himself to God’s will regardless of what sacrifices this demands. I found that in making these sacrifices, one finds an ineffable peace and joy that can only come when one no longer carries the weight of the world on his shoulders and lets God do the heavy lifting. I do pray that Todd and Fr. Doyle are able to find this peace one day as well.

David,

In the principles of debate, to call your adversary “uncharitable” (or “mean,” or “judgmental,” etc.) is an ad hominem (”at the man”) attack that sidesteps the actual points of argument in the debate. One who goes ad hominem is no longer debating, but escaping.

I would encourage you, David, not to follow Todd’s defensive evasion of your original critiques of the writings and associations of Fr. Doyle.

As the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches, the Spiritual Works of Mercy — including admonishing, counseling, instructing — are charitable actions. When one judges (valid “judgmentalism”) that another has committed error, particularly in regards to Church teaching, charity itself makes it imperative to admonish, counsel, and instruct — because charity wants the salvation of the other.

We must judge whether actions or words are in error; we must do so out of charity towards the salvation of others — and the Lord in his Gospel makes that a mandate. What we are unable to judge is the interior condition of another’s soul — unless the other person reveals that condition (as in confession of sins).

Todd’s verbalized attempt at judging you to be uncharitable may be either a valid (though inaccurate) attempt to judge your words, or an invalid verbal attempt to judge the interior condition of your soul.

So, back to the issue. You have stated it already, pointing it out in at least three of your paragraphs above. Here they are.
- - - -

Truth and Charity have their fullest expression in the Catholic Church. The Church is the People of God, which means a hierarchical structure with authority given to the Pope, bishops and priests, along with the lay faithful. To pose hierarchical authority against communion and love or to undermine the hierarchical authority and trust puts one in opposition to this ecclesiological truth. To try to claim governing authority for the laity is to reject the revealed truth of the Church. To cast aspersions and caricature every faithful bishop and the hierarchy itself as power hungry, secretive, and self interested and to claim celibacy (which is much more than “just a discipline”) is at the root cause of the sex abuse crisis is not simply a distortion of the facts, it is a cause of scandal. Scandal means to cause any little one to sin, to fall away from the Catholic Church and Her spiritual leadership and especially Her Sacraments. This is tantamount to denying them the healing grace they need, and ultimately putting at grave risk, their eternal salvation.
This is what the acts of those such as A. W. Richard Sipe and Fr. Thomas P. Doyle have the effects of doing. Any one who reads Fr. Doyle’s articles (here are a few more for example: here and here) , his merciless attack of the “institutional Church,” and his support for the anti-Catholic organization Voice of the Faithful or Richard Sipe’s Freudian distortions of the meaning of the human person will have little trouble in agreeing that I have described their actions accurately….

[....]

While I did not label Fr. Doyle a dissenter, I think that this categorization is quite justified given his close association and support for VOTF, an organization that has been labeled as dissenting by a large number of US Bishops, together with his continual undermining of trust in Church authority by a calumnious painting of the entire hierarchy as complicit in the sins of a few. This badgering for the laity to rise up and reject Church authority and to claim it for themselves is clearly though, dissent.

>>I’m saying you are not alone in being able to give correction–that role and ability is one independent of one’s proclaimed or actual orthodoxy.

I am not sure the relevance of this statement to our discussion. You will have to point out to me where I suggested that I was immune from correction.

>>Labelling someone as a dissenter or their public position as dissent is far from an ironclad statement of the truth.

You seem to have a particular obsession with the fact that I chose to categorize a post under the label of dissent. Dissent is not a juridical category. Rather, it is a general observation gained from one’s writings and associations. While I did not label Fr. Doyle a dissenter, I think that this categorization is quite justified given his close association and support for VOTF, an organization that has been labeled as dissenting by a large number of US Bishops, together with his continual undermining of trust in Church authority by a calumnious painting of the entire hierarchy as complicit in the sins of a few. This badgering for the laity to rise up and reject Church authority and to claim it for themselves is clearly though, dissent.

>> I think Fr Stephanos falls into your trap on interpreting dissent.

Fr. Stephanos, as a pastor of souls, has a divine mandate to minister to the faithful and to help them discern their actions and motivations. I think the correct, and yes charitable, interpretation of his statements is as an offer to consider and reflect on whether this might apply to oneself in some way. However, it is well within his vocational mandate to make such an observation as well.

>> It seems convenient for you to dismiss so easily our suggestions that your tone appears to lack charity in our recent discourses.

I am at a complete loss here Todd. After you discerned the issue of charity to be the core issue that I should have been addressing, I yielded to your desires and spent quite a bit of time (and a post) directly addressing your “suggestions” and showing why I found them to be problematic. All I can figure is that you mean that because I did not agree with your “suggestions” that my “tone” is by definition lacking in charity?

This is ironic, I think, because it appears to me that you continue to beg special pleading as you assume the right to continue to accuse others of a lack of charity for intuiting ill intent from their statements but you simultaneously seem to assume immunity from the charge when you do it yourself.