Doyle vs. VOTF, bishop vs. bishop.
Item one: Fr. Tom Doyle recently penned an open letter to and about Voice of the Faithful–to which VOTF Board Chair Bill Casey responded. The exchange is not exactly a lovefest. I’d post Doyle’s letter here, but it is long. You can read it at Voices in the Desert (scroll to the bottom of the post; the blogmaster has highlighted certain sections of the letter). Casey’s letter can be found in the most recent VOTF newsletter.
Item two: The former archbishop of Dublin, Cardinal Desmond Connell, is suing to prevent the current archbishop, Diarmuid Martin, from releasing archdiocesan documents related to clergy sexual abuse. So that’s unusual. The Irish Times has the story.
The cardinal claims the documents in question are legally privileged and his lawyers today secured an interim High Court injunction restraining the Commission from examining the documents to decide whether they attract legal privilege and/or a duty of confidentiality.
The proceedings arise from an order by the Commission last December compelling Archbishop Diarmuid Martin, as the current Archbishop of Dublin, to produce to the Commission all documents listed by him in an affidavit of discovery of June 2006. That affidavit listed documents dating from 1975 to 2004 relating to claims of child abuse against a representative sample of 46 priests in the Dublin Archdiocese.
Archbishop Martin delivered the documents in disc format on January 15th last and the Commission had indicated it intended to begin examining the documents from Monday last to decide whether they are, as Cardinal Connell claims, legally privileged or subject to a duty of confidentiality.
The Commission has refused a request from Cardinal Connell’s solicitor not to begin that examination process pending the outcome of the Cardinal’s legal action, Mr Roddy Horan SC, for Cardinal Connell, told the High Court.
John Cooney of the Irish Independent has more on the what the legal dispute means.
(N.B.–Keep the comments civil.)
Readers here who are unfamiliar with VOTF need to know that this matter is in the context of the shortly forthcoming election of officers in VOTF and has been a source of debate for a few weeks already there.
There needs to be said that there’s a clear divide in VOTF betwen those underscoring victim support and aggressive action and those who underscore structual change and are more careful and perhaps more trusting of the institution.
Whether whoever wins the election can close this divide seems quite fuzzy to me. I do think it’s clear that:
-Fr.Doyle has been the most outstanding advocate for victims of sex abuse by clergy and the need to hold all who promoted or condoned it accountable
-there is a deep recognition (as a recent VOTF cartoon post showed) that the many in the pews are too ovine and need to be reached.
I think that many in the pews are really not ovine but sad and discouraged – look at the new on-line America article “Our Broken Parish” which speaks volumes not only in content but the fact it had to be published anonymosuly.
I would posit that the issue of clericalism (deeply tied to the sex abuse scandal) also is tied to how little hope of reform is felt in many more quarters than you think.
On Item 1 [VOTF] there is wide agreement that the bishops second strategy = ‘rope-a-dope’ has worked much better [for them]; Their first strategy was to bann VOTF.. VOTF won that round; Fr Tom Doyle, a VOTF hero, has suffered what the ‘Rope-a-dope’ policy was designed to effect. He has ‘punched himself out’ in a twenty year bout;;But Champs recover;
and like all champs he and VOTF will be back for the rematch. When I was raised in the Bronx we always said.. “I’m back and spitting blood “
If there’s any chance of reform, it will come from below.
VOTF has always impressed me as too timid and too naive.
The average pew-sitter does not want to get involved, period.
Concerned Catholics either remain in frustration or, like the dissatisfied customer, leave the church without complaining to the customer service department.
In the meantime, we have Benedict XVI in Rome, Burke in St. Louis, Chaput in Denver, ad nauseum.
Tom Doyle is telling it like it is………….and the response from VOTF is empty.
Are there any examples in the history of the Catholic Church of reform coming “from below”? I am not challenging this assumption but merely asking the question, and I would be delighted to find that there are examples of such change beginning from below–especially some major, widespread type of reform (as opposed to something rather small and regional).
It does seem to me, however, that the church is indeed a monarchy–an absolute monarchy when it chooses to be so. Thus, unless some future group of cardinals elects a new John XXIII-type pontiff, there will be little substantive change. Right now, though, the trend certainly seems to be in the other direction.
Perhaps I am misreading the materials, but it seems to be the case that the “bombshell” documents are indeed privileged? So that means the only question to be resolved is who owns the privilege?
As one of those ovine parishioners that the VOTF’s call to action has failed to impress, I am not surprised to see that the membership is beginning to “punch themselves out” – on each other.
As I have asked many times, why should I, as a Catholic, put my trust in these self-appointed arbiters of “what’s good for the Church,” and why should I not be concerned that their calls for change won’t just distintigrate into internecine rivalries?
What do I know . . . Baahhhhh
Just a few points:
In recent times, not only have the laity become more educated bu talso recognized as ” the people of God.” an essential part of Church life and movement.
Saying things have and will always be the same is disengenuous.
I’d also note that VOTF leaders are not self apponited, but elecyted.
Their division smacks, to some degree, of division within the Church and I’d hope folk would address that issue.
Fr Doyle is a real hero who has exhausted himself in the struggle over sexual abuse in the Church. He deserves assurance from VOTF that his battle for the justice and support survivors of abuse need will be carried forward vigorously. And that letter to him should certainly have been more supportive and sympathetic in tone. At the same time, VOTF has a point in wishing to address broader structural problems in the Church that, after all, enabled the abuse to continue for so long and made it so easy to cover up. The decision to concern itself with these broader issues was not lightly taken. It involved a good deal of consultation.
As to the VOTF as “self-appointed arbiters of ‘what’s good for the Church”, it is a good old American tradition for like-minded folks to band together to work for what they consider a good cause. As far as I know, VOTF would not expect anyone who did not agree with their aims and/or methods to support them. So Sean can relax.
It is easy to criticize VOTF. It is so polite, so consultative and deliberate as to act slowly, and given the forces it is contending with, it seems to have made less progress than any of us might wish. But VOTF is trying, and it has no intention of giving up. That’s worth something, surely.
Sad.
Paul – Original Faith
As I understand it, the great reform-movement of the eleventh century originated from below, that is, in reformed monasteries, which led to a renewed papacy after the disasters of the ninth and tenth centuries. But the reform-movement made a general impact when it became a papal program, and the theory that was elaborated to defend it, Yves Congar often said, led to a juridicizing of ecclesiology and ever-greater emphasis on the papacy. He regards the eleventh century as the great turning-point in the history of ecclesiology.
The machinery of the hierarchy was established by the secular government, the revolutionary change under Constantine and followers, and is now being dealt a serious blow by the secular courts. Bottom line the hierarchy only buckles to greater authority. The lesson that every Catholic should be keenly aware of is there would have been no stoppage of priests being re-sent out to abuse children and no payment given to victims without the secular courts intervention. This holds true today where the hierarchy is mostly concerned about fostering its authority and reputation and taking advantage on its direct line to every parish to ridicule its critics.
VOTF, like any organization , has internal conflicts about direction and policy. Progress is difficult when dealing with the giant that the hierarchy is and the natural tendency of people to remain passive. It is important to note here that Tom Doyle and others want VOTF to be more radical while the majority on this blog feel that VOTF is too agressive. How much is our opposition to VOTF an act of our subservience to the hierarchy? So it is always a matter of insight and information.
Voice of the Desert Blog Owner,Frank Douglas, is a very serious reformer who has gotten discouraged with the internal conflicts within VOTF. This is unrealistic, in my opinion. In any human institution there is the same human nature working. Yet VOTF is the most viable, accross the board, reform group of our times and we should work with it rather than to roam into off the cuff criticisms.
No one has worked harder than Tom Doyle in stopping and preventing abuse of children by the clergy. As he frequently points out, if the bishops listened to him from the beginning much abuse would have been prevented and the hierarchy would have saved a lot of money and reputation. At the same time, the counter attack by the bishops and others in the church has taken its toll on Tom. I understand his disillusionment but he should stay within the church and work for reform. Perhaps his wounds are too great for that to happen.
In the midst of all this we must not forget that VOTF educated so many of us into becoming adults rather than Father knows best Catholics. VOTF will have its growing pains but it is our most visible collective voice in letting unruly clerics know that the gospel comes first over privilege and aristocracy.
Bob,
They are elected by themselves – I still consider that self-appointed.
How exactly do you tell the difference between those that are “sad and discouraged” and those that just plain don’t support the VOTF? There is an underlying arrogance to the whole discussion – the idea that all “reasonable” Catholics agree with them, and those that don’t are either co-opted by a corrupt leadership, ignorant (ovine if you wish), or discouraged.
Could the reason that they have been unable to advance their agenda be that many, if not most rank-and-file Catholics just don’t agree with what they are proposing?
Susan,
It is not about being forced to support VOTF. The problem is that VOTF avowedly wants to “Change the Church,” and I happen to be part of that particular entity. So, I hope you don’t mind if I partake of the good old American tradition of opposing them.
The response of VOTF’s board of trustees to Tom Doyle’s essay betrays a lack of sophistication in understanding what Tom was saying. Tom’s points were exaggerated and misunderstood. Of course he believes structural reform is fundamentally related to VOTF’s other goals of support for survivors and priests of integrity. His focus is certainly not against structural reform, but how the methods of pursuing it can compromise advocacy for survivors.
For example, when a high chancery official or bishop indicates he will not speak to a VOTF affiliate or meet with members if they agree to march with survivors or otherwise speak out, then a choice must be made. Survivor support, like working for statutes of limitation (SOL) reform, or seeking document releases, is much more risky than promoting pastoral councils. VOTF members and the rare courageous priests involved in supporting legislation are characterized by other priests and even bishops as doing the work of the devil. Often the pressures are quite subtle, but unmistakable.
So, there is a price to pay for survivor advocacy, and how willing is VOTF to seek a cardinal’s resignation when his archdiocese broke mandatory reporting laws, was astoundingly (criminally?) negligent in monitoring an abuser, and more children were sexually molested as a result – in 2005, not 1995! There are varying opinions: it’s a useless move and better to meet with him, or it’s a matter of principle to seek removal, whether success is possible or not. When is episcopal good faith a reality or chimera?
Many survivors believe VOTF has backed off almost to the point of betrayal. How forcefully or diplomatically, frequently, and widely will VOTF speak out on issues that affect survivors? Or are people tired of anger (of course we are, and…then what?), and what of a feared reputation of “bishop bashing”? Many recommend a decoupling of VOTF’s identification with the sexual abuse issue if it wants to grow. Inconvenient truths can be inconvenient.
Tom’s bottom line is the countless number of survivors he helps who are hurting, today, now, and are revictimized by the hierarchy with hardball legal tactics. That is his measuring rod: the impact of the viciousness he sees close up – you’re only after money or destruction of the church, or the effects on them of denials by clergy when they are exposed as lies in secret documents. For those who think the story is history, please read the daily abuse tracker at http://www.BishopAccountability.org . Milwaukee documents are being released now to the distinct embarrassment of the chancery there.
I am thinking of writing a paper on the clever dissembling of image and fact in the USCCB audits. We have a unique laboratory for that in comparing their results to truly independent audits done by the NH Attorney General – subsequent to a plea bargain not to prosecute the Diocese for child endangerment. The conflicting findings are mind-boggling. In any common sense understanding, transparency and truth from church officials are vapors long dispersed. Bishops annually trumpet their compliance, and the laity and media seem satisfied. It’s an old story and people prefer good news. Should VOTF tilt at windmills?
These are hard questions encountered in the early stages, as people of good faith disagree because the realities they see differ. I feel a special sadness, though, since I am the one who introduced VOTF to Tom and Tom to VOTF. In typical fashion of the most secure, disidentified ego I know, Tom’s reaction to all this is to move ahead pastoring survivors, emphasizing he is not the issue; the marginalized people he loves and reaches out to are the issue. God bless you, Tom. I hope in time there will be softening overtures with better understanding and communication.
In the end, I am reminded of a quote from Jacques Maritain: “The important thing is not to be a success. The important thing is to be in history bearing the witness.”
First, thanks to carolyn, who has herself been an oustanding victim advocate.
I’d like to note an NPR piece last night on “All Things Considered” about Viral Marketing and its impact on the campaign political.
The thesis is that discourse is moving from around the kitchen table to the internet and the effect is to move from top down to bottom up with more transparency.
The Republicans are cited as being frightened by this and trying to keep control as hard as possible.
So be it I submit with the Church , desperately tryong to avoid losing control top down but facing more and more the broad discouse/information the internet provides.
To some degree, the discussion/debate inside VOTF will be and will continue to be part of this tension, as Bill properly pointed out.
Here’s a real life example that may help to explain the issues surrounding Tom Doyle’s passionate plea to Voice of the Faithful. Although this is but one instance, the implications are universal.
In late September 2007, ten of us (members of VOTF, SNAP, STTOP, and other supporters of justice for victims/survivors of sexual abuse) distributed leaflets to parishioners at Our Lady of Victory Church in Cape Cod, MA. Our leaflets contained a letter to parishioners in which we asked them to join us in calling for Rev. Paul Miceli (part-time pastor at OLV) to tell the truth and be responsible and accountable for his past actions. From 1994 to 2001, Rev. Miceli was employed as Cardinal Bernard Law’s Secretary for Ministerial Personnel. Court documents have revealed Miceli’s participation in the cover up and transfer of clergy child molesters in the Archdiocese of Boston.
The next day, the Boston Globe ran a front page story about our presence at OLV. A VOTF member from Boston was quoted in the story. On the very same day, this person was “called in” and reprimanded by a high ranking Voice of the Faithful official for identifying himself as a VOTF member in the news story. He was told that his presence outside the parish severely impacted the hard work of the Cape Cod VOTF affiliate, whose members have been meeting privately with the OLV pastor, Rev. Mark Hession, in an effort to get his approval to hold VOTF meetings at the parish.
In April 2003, Rev. Hession was quoted in a story published in the National Catholic Reporter: “As for the crisis, he said, “I can’t wait to get off the sex abuse piece of it.” Hession said that there are many other issues that need attention. “And when we put all the numbers together in this particular crisis, it’s almost indecent, frankly, that we are still tearing at it ourselves.”
Rev. Hession was also quoted in the Globe story. In a prepared statement, he described (and defended) Miceli as a trusted colleague and “true blessing for our parish family.”
“None of us can do enough to repair the heinous breach of trust affecting the Church and the communities in which we live and minister,” he said. “Unfortunately, in the wake of such a ferocious scandal, other persons also end up being painted with the broad brush of association.”
Quick update:
Bishop Gumbleton also endorsed Kris Ward for ythe new presidency, along with Fr. Doyle. Many of the more consevative members of VOTF seem to be opposed.
How this will play out is less than clear.