Fr. Thomas Doyle - who foresaw the Scandal - interviewed by canon lawyer Vere

As promised earlier this week, Fr. Tom Doyle graciously accepted my invitation to be interviewed for CLOG [Canon Lawyers Obstructing Gremlins] concerning the Dallas policy. In what follows, Fr. Doyle provides some excellent insights into the whole situation, and I thank him for the time and effort he put into keeping St. Blog's informed. What follows is the text of the interview, my questions in italics and Fr. Doyle's responses:

As a canonist, how and when did you first become aware of the severity of clerical sexual misconduct against children?

I was working at the nunciature in 1985 and handled the first US case to become big time public (Gil Gauthe, Lafayette LA). Very quickly other cases were popping up all over. I was working with Fr. Mike Peterson, a psychiatrist and director of St. Luke Inst. on the LA case. I sensed that the ecclesiastical system...the bureaucracy...would want to hide the problem, thus allowing it to continue to grow. Fr. Peterson was aware of many other cases of priests with serious sexual disorders. Together we surmised that there were probably a lot more undiscovered cases "out there" . Fr. Peterson knew that from a psychological standpoint, men who suffered from pedophilia or ephebophilia had multiple victims. Therefore we believed the numbers were great. By 1988 I was in enough contact with victims around the country that I believed that the problem was far more extensive than was previously known. When church officials countered with aggressive denials and assertions that only a small number offended, then I really believed that something was being hidden. In 1991 I was involved in the formation of LinkUp, a survivors support network. Jeanne Miller, the woman behind the organization, reported that not long after she had the group up and running (and this was before email) she had received thousands of calls from victims. So, by 1991 I was convinced that the numbers of victims and perpetrators was probably staggering.

Now you initially had a lot of problems raising awareness among the hierarchy with regards to this issue. Do you feel, with the recent meetings in Dallas, that the Church hierarchy is finally taking this issue seriously?

I believe that some of the hierarchy have always taken the issue seriously and I believe that more are taking it seriously after the Dallas meeting but I also believe that in general, the hierarchy does not grasp the enormity of the issue and still sees it from their perspective, i.e., primarily in terms of the damage it can and has done to the "church" as they perceive the "church" to be, which is the institution. Many of the victims are angry and dismayed at the information that a Public Relations Firm had much to do with orchestrating the meeting. This causes many to seriously wonder just how sincere the bishops are about realizing what has happened. I believe that the limited access of the victims to the bishops in Dallas, the limited involvement of the victims in writing the charter (if any real involvement at all), the absence of any of the victim's attorneys, any of the key psychologists who have served as their counselors over the years and the very limited attendance of parents and family members has severely limited the credibility of the meeting.

One of your main concerns in the past has been the poor treatment by the Church hierarchy of victims who come forth with a credible allegation. Do you feel the proposed legislation in Dallas addresses this problem?

The hierarchy's history in dealing with the issue and its poor to hostile treatment of victims has been consistently dismal. I have been an expert witness and consultant on hundreds of cases and can say that from my perspective, the treatment has been scandalous. The proposed norms in the charter offer promise. The victims/survivors and many others have experienced a series of broken promises and empty statements, etc. which has resulted in very strong skepticism at this time. It matters not how flowery and sincere sounding the language of the charter is.....it DOES matter if the words are backed up by consistent action and an obviously change in fundamental attitude.

Is it realistic to believe the legislation agreed upon in Dallas will receive the required recognitio from the Holy See? Secondly, is it realistic to believe that the proposed legislation, should it receive recognition from the Holy See, will be enforced over the long-term?

I do not believe that the Holy See will grant the recognitio to the section on the disposition of priests and deacons who have been accused. The Holy See is rightly concerned about due process and the subjugation of rights to a seeming hysterical response to the events of the past few months. The section on dealing with priests and deacons is very problematic from a canonical point of view. Will it be enforced if approved? I think that there are some many problems with it and the backlash which is now starting will be so strong that full enforcement will not happen.

You have also mentioned that children and teenagers are not the only victims of clerical sexual abuse. In fact, you claim that sexual abuse and/or misconduct against women by clergy is much more prevalent. Can you back up this claim, and if so, what needs to be done to address this problem?

I do not have hard statistics in front of me but I make that statement based on other information I have received from therapists who have worked with clergy abuse victims for long periods of time. I cite especially Dr. Gary Schoener of Minnesota. The media and public have focused on the abuse of children and mistakenly believed that most victims are pre-pubescent children. In fact, most minor victims are young adolescent boys with a significant minority who are girls. It is ridiculous to claim, as some have done, that the young adolescent victims share in the responsibility for the abuse. A factor that must always be figured into clergy sexual abuse is the two-edged issue of power differential and traumatic bond. The trauma bond is a recognized psychological and emotional phenomenon that arises between a victim and an abuser who has some sort of power over the victims, e.g., father-daughter incest, spouse abuse, priest-young victim.

The claims of age appropriate women victims refers not to consensual romantic relationships but truly abusive relationships. The first step in dealing with problem is recognizing it. This should not take years and years as it did with the sexual abuse of children and minors. If you want more authoritative information and input on the abuse of women I can provide people much more "in the know" than I. I have however, spoken with, counseled with and been aware of a great many women victims.

While you have very firmly stood up for the rights of victims, even testifying on their behalf against dioceses when need be, you also express reservations about the current trend towards "zero tolerance" policies and attempts to laicize perpetrators through a summary administrative procedure. What are your concerns in this area? Do they affect an accused cleric's canonical right of defense? Why is so important to both safeguard and preserve this right?

My concern with the "zero tolerance" concept is that it is a buzz word that is misunderstood by public, hierarchy and clergy. I believe that there should be zero tolerance for proven sexually abusive behavior by clerics. Sexual abuse is a crime no matter who commits it. My grave concern is that bishops, in their rush to try to re-establish their lost credibility, will (as many have done) make decisions over the future of any cleric with an accusation of any kind of sexual contact without objectively determining if the contact is harassment, abuse, gesture, a misunderstanding etc. and once having made a subjective determination, terminate the cleric's career. I believe that even the appearance of a subjective process with no due process is just destructive as the way that abuse victims have been mishandled in the past.

I do not believe that the US bishops or any individual bishops should be given the power to laicize priests by an administrative procedure because I fear that this will quickly lead to gross miscarriages of justice. The Code contains provisions for the investigation of reports of wrong-doing and the processing of complaints including the awarding of damages to victims. These canons have been consistently either ignored or subjectively applied in an incorrect manner. There is nothing to assure that any new norms would be objectively and fairly applied basically because we do not have in the Catholic church a separation of powers.

Why is it important to safeguard the clerics' rights to due process? Suspending the concept of justice and the norms for the protection of justice in an attempt to try to recover from a lengthy period of the same with regard to victims only makes the problem worse. Priest morale is low enough as it is. There have been many, many instances where priests have been denied due process by their bishops and had penalties imposed without process or sufficient cause. Why? Usually because the primary concern is the protection of the hierarchical system or to respond to subjective whims of the bishop. The institutional church is in the mess its in in great part because of a complex miscarriage of justice. More injustice will surely not help!

Do you think the proposed legislation in Dallas compromises an accused cleric's right of defense? If so, what would be a reasonable balance between the rights of the alleged victim and the rights of the accused?

I certainly believe the proposed norms compromise a cleric's right of defense and right to a fair trial or hearing. It appears that statute of limitations issue are avoided. I believe the most important issue however is the fact that the document seems to set up a presumption that every accusation means an automatically guilty cleric. I realize that the framers will argue against this impression but this is how it appears when one read though it.

I believe that there are two basic issues: the first is the most obvious and was the easiest for the bishops to deal with (or try to deal with!): that is the disposition of abusing priests and deacons.

The other issue and the one that has caused the most scandal and anger is the consistent mishandling of cases, the cover-ups and the abusive tactics by diocesan attorneys. These issues pertain not to the abusers but to the ecclesiastical superiors. The bishops did not adequately address their own role in the scandal. They did not honestly look into why this has all happened. They have not accepted the fact that the civil courts have proven many times over that the ecclesiastical leaders have been culpably negligent in the manner with which they handled abuse accusations.

What is needed are not more public statements, blanket apologies, procedures, norms or committees. There have been plenty of all of these and nothing has worked nor has achieved any level of credibility. What is needed is a fundamental change in attitude about the incredible emotional and spiritual damage done to victims and the widespread spiritual damage done to the faithful in general. As far as victims are concerned, the single most important way to rebuild or re-create any small degree of trust would be if individual bishops were to begin to seek out the individual victims, young and old, recent and long past, and get to know them, listen to them and honestly apologize to them for what has happened.

The bishops seem to have knowingly created a bigger problem. Established Canon Law procedures for these scandals are willfully being ignored or avoided. Why? Does anyone know just what process/form the established Canon Law proceedings would take?

Michael Rose recently suggested that the bishops are avoiding the proper canon law route because it would, by its very process, out the homosexual subculture in a diocese where such proceedings occur.

Anyone have further insight on this?

The catholic church is going out of its way to obfuscate this whole issue. The proper resolution of this problem is simple.

Any priest who is accused of a sexual crime should be immediately turned over to the local authorities for investigation and (if warranted) prosecution. If the accused priest is granted bail, they should be suspended from their priestly duties and confined to their residence until the criminal disposition of their case is complete.

If found guilty, they should serve their prison punishment like any other convicted criminal and should be expelled from the priesthood.

If not found guilty, they should be returned to their priestly duties and allowed to live their lives like any other innocent person.

Wasn't my intent to restrict who can present an accusation to the police.

I'd call the cops. However, it appears that in some cases people have called the cops but the catholic hierarchy has refused to turn over the priests. This cannot be allowed to continue.

If the catholic church wishes to become a haven for, and advocate of, the homosexual subculture, then the catholic church should lose its tax exempt status and be treated like any other nest of political perverts.

Many of us did, years ago. See these comments from my local bishop, published in his diocesan newspaper:

May 15, 2002

RE: RESPONSE TO ATTACKS ON DIOCESE

Dear Sisters and Brothers of the Household of God,

You may or may not be aware of a campaign under way in our region that seeks to discredit our Diocesan Church. As our diocesan leadership and the United States Catholic Bishops continue to address the scandal within our Church in the United States, it is truly regrettable that a small faction has chosen to mount an attack on the Church to serve its own designs. Most regrettably, those involved tarnish local parishes and the faithful by presenting a distorted interpretation of Church teachings. Consequently, while not wishing to carry on a public debate, I deem it necessary to respond publicly in order to protect the Faith that I share with so many of you....

...The paid ad that was carried by a number of newspapers throughout the region appears to represent Catholics who contribute regularly to the Diocese. In fact, our records show the contrary to be true. Their use of the word “our” is, therefore, inappropriate. This, in itself, diminishes their right to speak out as they do....

...And, paid ads in newspapers are not the total extent of the attacks. There is an Internet website that continually attacks our Diocese and me, using the name of the Diocese, no less. Some of the same people are involved in that particular endeavor...

...The faith of our people is strong and can withstand diabolical attacks upon it....

Us laity are fighting these corrupt bishops so fiercely that this bishop calls us diabolical!

Not every Catholic is sitting idly by in the face of these evils.

I am not a big fan of Father Doyle,primarily because I thought one of the co-authors of the Doyle,Mouton,Petersen Report had an agenda vested with self interest.

However,in this interview,he offers some ideas and cautions that those of us truly interested in our beautiful and holy Church need to consider carefully.There is a terrible danger in policies that seek retroactive justice with a one shoe fits everyone size.

If found guilty, they should serve their prison punishment like any other convicted criminal and should be expelled from the priesthood.

If not found guilty, they should be returned to their priestly duties and allowed to live their lives like any other innocent person.

There are 4 possibilities:
Guilty, and found so.
Innocent, and not found guilty.
Innocent, and found guilty.
Guilty, and not found guilty.
Except as modern-day Salem Witch Trials come into vogue (e.g., sensational child-abuse accusations which become their own proofs of guilt), the US judicial system is designed to risk the acquittal of a guilty person much more than the conviction of an innocent one.
Unless the church is standing up against a witch hunt in progress (and is it unduly cynical to wonder if that is the most likely scenario?), therefore, equating "not found guilty" with "innocent" leaves something to be desired in the way of protecting the flock. That, of course, does nothing for the innocent who was rightly found not guilty . . . as [resigned, tried, acquitted, Reagan Labor Secretary] Ray Donovan put it, "What office to I go to get my good name back?"

So, what's your point?

Our legal system is based upon a guilty or not guilty finding by a jury. If you're found guilty - you suffer the punishment. If not, you are free to resume your life.

If the priests are found guilty, they should be punished. If not, they should be freed. Unless you wish to assume any accusation = guilt, something the normal person would believe is not justice but tyranny.

That's our system. If you don't like it, go create your own country with a legal system of your own design but don't expect freedom loving people to participate.

Does your bishop sell 'the blood of Christ', 'splinters of the true cross', or indulgences? His letter reminds me of the clerical diatribes of the 14th and 15th century against anyone who dared question the abuses by church officials in that age. The major motivator of Martin Luther was clerical abuses of the type we are enduring today.

Hopefully, your bishop doesn't know anyone by the name of Torquemada...

The hierarchy obviously have proven they cannot or will not do the right thing

Polycarp, they cannot do the right thing and they won't because they are more of a problem themselves than these sex criminal priests who have been caught.

Bishops Adamec, Pilla, Pilarczyk, Wuerl, and the other homosexual bishops simply need to be removed by Rome before God removes them to hell.

< / banshee rant >

If the priests are found guilty, they should be punished. If not, they should be freed.

Yes, and so should the butcher, the baker, and the candlestick maker be freed if they are not found guilty.
My point was simply that failure to prove to a jury "beyond a reasonable doubt" is one thing, and what a reasonable man would conclude from the same evidence may sometimes be different.
If a jury acquits a defendant it almost inevitably will be unhappy about the case--either because jurors suspect but are not certain that the defendant was guilty, or because (rarely, let us hope!) the defendant obviously was not guilty, and the prosecutor should never have put the defendant through the ordeal of a trial. (I discount as Perry Mason fantasy the ending in which the apparently guilty defendant is suddenly cleared by unexpected developments).
Thus if a priest is accused and "beats the rap," the church is stuck with an employee whose reputation--thus his utility for his function--has been compromised. The church really, in such case, needs to put the employee in a less sensitive position. (If a bank teller beats the rap on a embezzlement charge his employer will be likewise be cautious . . .)
To treat "not proven" as an "innocent" verdict would be to compromise the church's own reputation. I seriously doubt that half--nay, even a third--of those acquitted of a charge actually are not the perpetrators thereof.

I agree. Priests are the perfect targets for the current fad in psychology of dredging up repressed memories...closed confessions, working with the young. It is very tempting for a failed adolescent or adult to grab on to the excuse of childhood sexual abuse. Not only does this diagnosis absolve an individual of accountability for their own wrong choices, it pleases a therapist who leads a patient in this direction for their own sense of accomplishment, and it transforms the "failure" into a culturally acceptable, even "heroic" victim. The opposite of truth.

Most of these "victims" only remember details after careful coaching by these therapists...and the stories are usually untrue, very sad for the real victims of sexual abuse, and for the priests and other adult caregivers who are often destroyed by these pornographic, detailed though false accusations.

Our society is quick to join the lynching, to bear false witness and murder others with our thoughts...dragging down our neighbors to protect our own egos. False memory syndrome is real. It's pervasive. It's demonic, imho.

Curious how the press ignores two of the biggest aspects of the Catholic abuse story....homosexuality which is rampant and accepted in the church, and false accusations by emotionally troubled adults.

repressed memories

"Recovered memories" is, I think, the standard term . . .
When my son was in HS he was having trouble getting started on a required paper on George Orwell / 1984. Somehow I hit on the idea of looking at "recovered memory," and went to the library and found a bunch of microfilmed articles and copied a few of them for him.
The thing that sticks in my mind is that someone remembered seeing their aunt's body, and the emergency vehicles, the whole scene of her drowning. Very vividly. This person turned out to have been somewhere else and could not possibly have seen this scene as a child. When s/he (she I think) found that out she became the poster child against the "recovered memory" movement.
My son took that bit of research of mine and ran with it; he instantly informed me that Orwell had dismissed psychoanalysis as nothing but brainwashing.
The other thing I remember about recovered memory is that the best predictor of a dad being "remembered" to have committed child sex abuse was being wealthy enough to afford psychoanalysis for his child. Talk about "sharper than a serpent's tooth"!!

Curious how the press ignores two of the biggest aspects of the Catholic abuse story....homosexuality which is rampant and accepted in the church, and false accusations by emotionally troubled adults.

All print is "the press," not just newspapers--and none of broadcasting is "the press" under the meaning of the First Amendment.
Even the printer on your computer is "the press", but if you try to compete with Dan Rather's broadcast employer the government will come after you for not getting the government's permission (an FCC license) first.
But as to journalism in general, it sells the sizzle of truth (in The Odessy, what did the Sirens tempt Ulysses with but "to know all"?) but delivers the steak of mere sensationalism and group-think. And nowhere more so than on the front page, nowhere less so than on the editorial page.

Well said. While researching "false memory syndrome," I discovered another group now calling themselves ritual abuse survivors who refuse to believe that the memories created with help from their therapists were not real...choosing the fantasy of Satanic/Priest/parental sexual abuse over the reality of a humdrum past and present. Even Orwell would agree that this is at the very least pitiful, if not nuts. I blame TV...especially those Lifetime victim of the week movies...and parents with videocameras and a penchant for drama (halfway kidding). Real victims, meanwhile, are not getting necessary help, often lost among too many emotional hypochondriacs who confuse the psychiatrists and distort any potential treatment results.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.