** SNAP CONFERENCE 2012 EXCLUSIVE ** Dissident Priest Doyle Trashes Bishops and Admits He Has ‘Nothing To Do With the Catholic Church’

Fr. Tom Doyle O.P. dissident priest

Hired gun for contingency lawyers … Fr. Doyle admits dissent, plasters the Church

In a blustery, half-hour talk that opened this year's SNAP conference in Chicago, Dominican priest and celebrity expert witness for contingency lawyers Fr. Thomas Doyle reiterated his contempt for the Catholic Church, according to sources present.

In a talk about the clergy scandals entitled, "1982 to 2012: Thirty years – What's changed, and what hasn't," Doyle did acknowledge that "there has been a lot of positive change" and "children are safer." But despite the unprecedented efforts that the Catholic Church has undertaken to protect kids, Doyle has still somehow concluded that the bishops' approach to victims has "gotten worse."

Admitting apostasy?

Fr. Doyle's most eye-opening remarks, however, came during a Q&A period following his talk, when Doyle essentially conceded that he is really not even Catholic.

Although he said he was still "legally a priest," he freely acknowledged that he has "nothing to do with the Catholic Church" and "nothing to do with the clerical life."

He added that 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."

When Fr. Doyle was ordained to the priesthood, he took a vow of obedience to the Catholic Church and to his order (the Dominicans). Sadly, if he were ever serious in his vows, it appears that he has now renounced them.

Laying into the bishops

Much of Doyle's talk was aimed at the nation's bishops, whom he accused of displaying a "disdain for the victims." He also accused bishops of "slandering" victims and trying to gain a "semblance of superiority" over them.

He claimed the bishops' assault on victims is aided by The Catholic League's Bill Donohue and other defenders of the Church, who have supposedly "defamed" leaders of SNAP. Yet he provided no specific examples of this alleged "defamation."

Wobbly on the facts

Doyle also asserted that the Church subjects victims to "embarrassing, humiliating, and victimizing treatment."

What Doyle apparently meant by this is that bishops have recently been opposing numerous states' efforts to lift the statutes of limitations for civil lawsuits, which would allow accusers to sue the Catholic Church for abuse committed 40, 50 or even 60 years ago, long after memories have faded, evidence has been destroyed, and often after the accused has died.

But Doyle failed to mention that these legislative efforts to lift such statutes are aimed squarely at the Catholic Church, as they explicitly exempt public schools from such legislation, even though massive abuse and cover-ups are happening in our public schools today.

Doyle even faulted the bishops for actually spending money and resources on defense attorneys, as if the Church does not even have the right to defend itself in court.

Much of Doyle's tempestuous presentation was a rant against the purported "power structure" of the Catholic Church (which was met by approving applause by the audience). He asserted that the scandals were not really about the abuse of children, but "ecclesiastical power" and "a radical misunderstanding of the meaning of the concept of Church."

Doyle has long worked as a professional witness for contingency lawyers suing the Catholic Church. However, from Doyle's own words, one can conclude that his work on behalf of lawyers is not merely an effort for accusers to gain monetary settlements for past abuse, but also an attempt to punish an institution for which he has a profound distaste and animus.

Doyle's efforts obviously mesh well with the anti-Catholic ventures at SNAP.


  1. jim robertson says:

    LOL well at least I and mine are having some effect on the old liar.
    Why do you call it the "purported power structure" It's an absolute monarchy in this case with a "real divine right of kingship".
    The reason Doyle and SNAP repeat their hostility to the hierarchs re . the sex abuse crisis.is to appear that there is a concerned element in the Catholic Church that a. is working for victims. and b. Understands that the scandal is about the coverups and transfers and not that the Church had sex abusing priests.
    The scandal is about the coverups not the priests.Doyle and SNAP are pretending to answer that concern. But read the "Manual", "the Project" that was Doyle's report to the Bishops in 82 and see who he really is.

    • jim robertson says:

      If it was you that was raped " 40, 50 or even 60 years ago" what would you do?

    • TheMediaReport.com says:

      Jim -

      After such a long period of time, memories have faded, evidence has been destroyed, and often after the accused has died.

      It is a point we have made before, and I just added a phrase to the pertinent line of the post to reiterate this.


  2. just wondering says:

    If he is not a priest anymore, why is he referred to as priest and addressed as Father?

  3. jim robertson says:

    How are you?
    Let's pretend that the Catholic Church has no mandate from it's founder to help people let alone help the people they have injured. Then we are truely only looking at the Church as a corporation.  And since corporations are now people lets sue the guy who refuses to compensate the people the "person" has injured.
    Just a arguement.
    Also I was abused by Catholic Brothers (Marianist) one at 13 the other at 16. I thought i would die, I told a high school friend who reported it. I was interviewed and believed. That friend to whom I barely spoke to afterwards out of shame, I called 40 years later and askedhim: "If he remembered what had happened to me?" He said" There isn't a week that goes by without me thinking about it. Jim your personality completely changed". I know not every victim has the same experience but seriously we took day long tests to see if we were lying. Therapists had to professionally authenticate our claims. No one wants fake claims. Not only is it stealing from you. It's stealing from us, the real victims.

  4. jim robertson says:

    Why would Doyle still be a priest "legally" if he was truley disaffected from the Church?

  5. Rondre says:

    He claimed the bishops' assault on victims is aided by The Catholic League's Bill Donohue and other defenders of the Church, who have supposedly "defamed" leaders of SNAP. Yet he provided no specific examples of this alleged "defamation."
    Just go to Bully Billy's webpage. A number of bishops in private have said that CL funds their efforts. Do you homework !!!
    Oh Billy is your boy right? mmmmmm

  6. Fitasafiddle says:

    Even the Nazis didn't keep the notes the Roman Catholic hierarchy has kept in their archives.  There is plenty of documentation on these old crimes.  Mr. Pierre, as you know, there is no statute of limitations on murder, and those of us who have regard for the children who were raped by these men calling themelves priests know full well that these children experienced a murder of their souls.
    Tom Neuberger reminds of this, after years spent prosecuting child raping priests and the bishops who kept them in business, in his soon to be released book " When Priests become Predators: Profiles of Childhood Sex Abuse Survivors, when he states:  "The trauma of rape or sex abuse rewires the mind of any child or adolescent so they can deal with the horror."   This is precisely why the Statute of Limitations must be changed so that monsters in clerical garb can be prosecuted and are kept off of altars and away from children.
    For the life of me I cannot imagine that you feel you must attempt to cast aspersion son the good and noble name of Father Thomas Doyle, O.P. There have always been two kinds of the ordained, Mr. Pierre: the ecclesiastics ( and their  wannabes, otherwise known as sycophants)  who rise to the top of the heap, most commonly leaving their consciences behind, and the men who are true priests.  How do we tell them apart? Easy.   Jesus was not an ecclesiastic, as I'm sure you must have heard by now. He did not, not even once, align himself with the religious powers of the day.  He spoke of millstones for those who hurt the young, and he lost his temper with those who turned his Father's House into a Den of Thieves. 
    Calling Father Doyle an apostate is absurd. Defending the ecclesiastics who raped children or enabled the rape of children is evil, pure and unadulterated.  The bishops spending millions to fight the change of the Statute of Limitations is more of the same evil.  And you must know this, Mr. Pierre, in your heart of hearts.
    You owe Father Thomas Doyle an apology, but I am certain he has enough of a sense of the absurd to chuckle a bit over your latest diatribe.


    • TheMediaReport.com says:

      Fitasafiddle wrote, “[Jesus] did not, not even once, align himself with the religious powers of the day.”

      That is not exactly true:

      1. Matthew 18:15-18: [Jesus said,] “If your brother sins [against you], go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have won over your brother. If he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, so that ‘every fact may be established on the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church. If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector. Amen, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

      2. Matthew 16:18-19: “[Jesus said,] ‘And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven.Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.’”

    • heartofhearts says:

      —-and in your own "heart of hearts" you conveniently ignore other individuals and organizations.

    • Marlene says:

      A priest on EWTN quoted a cononized saint who said, "The Church and Christ are one.  It is just that simple.  Don't complicate it."
      The Media Report quotes the scripture which says, "Whatsoever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
      Does this mean we (our bishops and those who always and everywhere support them) have loosed seducers and rapists in heaven?  Is our just and merciful God happy with this?

    • TheMediaReport.com says:

      Maybe these two resources will help you:

      1, 2 (both from the excellent catholic.com).

  7. drwho13 says:

    Sorry Dave, but I’d be less “on guard” playing cards with Tom Doyle. His veracity has been proven over the decades.

  8. J. McDonagh says:

    In 2006, New York State eliminated the Statute of Limitations entirely for the prosecution of rape.  So, apparently rape victims' memories of crimes committed against them 40 or 50 years ago are valid, but those ochildhood abuse victims are not valid, accofding to you.  To what do you owe your omnisicence ? It should be up to the courts and juries to determine if such memories are valid, not the armchair speclation of those who do not have experience with such matters.  The burden of proof is always with the plaintiffs. If you make broad assertions (e,g, "memories fade") without empirical evidence to back it up, don't waste out time.  Also using your priiveleged editorial postion to "refute" those who post is a form of bullying.

    • jim robertson says:

      Canada has had no statute of limitations for criminal and civil cases of childhood sexual abuse.

  9. Fr Jim Smith says:

    Perhaps the real reason "Father" Doyle is still legally a priest is because he gets a SUBSTANTIAL government pension from his time as an Air Force chaplain. He may not like the institution, but he does not seem to have any trouble collecting money he received from serving the institutional church and the Air Force; remember he needed a Church endorsement to serve as a chaplain.
    His pension is at least four times what a standard parish priest would receive after serving twice as long and under much more difficult circumstances.

    • drwho13 says:

      "Perhaps the real reason "Father" Doyle is still legally a priest is because he gets a SUBSTANTIAL government pension from his time as an Air Force chaplain."
      That's no reason for him to continue to legally be a priest; the pension is for service completed in the past, sour grapes father?
      "A veteran – whether active duty, retired, or national guard or reserve – is someone who, at one point in his or her life, wrote a blank check made payable to "The United States of America", for an amount of "up to, and including their life." 
      Father Doyle receives a pension for the service he provided this counrty.  He a veteran.

  10. jim robertson says:

    And why is it, other than faith, do we examine like they are the I Ching,1700 year old texts from a northern African tribe?
    If faith were not involved here, would you really care about any of the above?

  11. Publion says:

    Some thoughts on the comments and through them, the material in the article itself.
    Doyle’s own words indicate that he considers himself to have very little connection to the Church. That, I infer, would include that he has no responsibility as a priest or public intellectual (sort of) to connect his presentations to Church doctrine.
    But he is, as far as I can determine, properly ordained and remains by all Catholic theological standards a priest.
    I think what he’s up to here in this remarkable presentation of his position vis-à-vis the Church is this: he would love some bishop or perhaps the Vatican to consider defrocking him or otherwise censuring him. There would certainly be some very valid grounds – at least pastorally, perhaps canonically – for  considering such a possible course of action – although I’m not a canon lawyer so I won’t go more deeply into that.
    As soon as he could get a quote from any Church official that such a course or possibility was being even remotely considered, he and – but of course – SNAP could head for the fax machines and call for the cameras and declare that he is being ‘persecuted’ for being a ‘whistleblower’ and so on.  On the other hand, to ignore his comments to the SNAP conferees quoted in the article would leave the Church in the position of seeming to be unable to take any action against an ordained priest who claims he “has nothing to do with the Catholic Church” and “nothing to do with clerical life” (does that include “priestly” life and ministry?).
    This whole gambit would also distract from the logical question: if he is so self-distanced from the Church, why not apply for laicization and have done with it? It restores a certain integrity to his own life (how can he in conscience keep himself involved – and as a formally ordained representative – with an organization for which he clearly has no taste or use? If he were in the military, and made such claims, it would be a question that would instantly arise: if you don’t like it, why not just submit the paperwork to resign your commission? And he’s had some extended military experience as a commissioned officer, so this line of action could hardly be unfamiliar to him.
    In regard to the curious comment that it’s not about the (allegedly abusive) priests themselves  but rather about the “cover-ups” I would make the following observations, which I have made before on this site.
    For all the decades between the invention of the auto and the work of MADD in the late 1970s and early 1980s, drunk-driving was a crime on the statute books but wasn’t taken all that seriously by the law enforcement system, the legal system, or the public generally. During those many decades, numerous drunk-driving cases – including some that involved serious injury to others – were handled quietly and often indulgently. Could it be said that all those agencies – and the legislators who knew of this general approach to this crime – were involved without doubt in a “cover-up”?
    It is axiomatic among victim-advocates that before they began their agitations or activities ‘sex abuse’ was not considered such a big thing. So then, that ‘sex abuse’ was handled by all agencies involved – including the Church – as if it were ‘something’ but not a Huge Thing. But then the question arises: was the Church (and all the law enforcement agencies and the legal system and the legislators) involved in a great “cover-up”?  If you answer Yes to that question, then how is the sex-abuse matter different from the drunk-driving matter? If you answer No, then what’s all this about “cover-up”?
    I also point out – and I expect that many readers are old enough to remember the days of MADD – that when that organization had raised enough consciousness and attention, it simply accepted that it had succeeded and pretty much left the field – and the country is much the better for their efforts. Whereas in the case of SNAP (and similar organizations), the ‘consciousness-raising’ phase has been followed by something else altogether: a decades-long hunt for all of those from the pre-enlightened era who somehow are presumed to have been doing nothing except engaging in a ‘cover-up’. This has always struck me as a glaring Question, this difference between the priest-abuse advocacies and the drunk-driving advocacy of MADD.
    Rather than simply refer us to “the Manual” that Doyle wrote, it might be a useful exercise for everybody if ‘JR’ were to explain with quotations and analysis precisely what s/he thinks is so valuable in that work.
    Once again with the “raped” trope, although the vast proportion of Catholic abuse cases do not involve “rape”.  And from what s/he says, ‘JR’ was “abused” – which is a hugely broad, vague, and elastic definition, and one that has no set parameters but rather seems to expand to fit whatever the purposes of the individual case seem to require. And once again, on the internet who is to know how to credit any ‘story’?
    FAAF neatly tries to justify the un-boundaried extension of Statutes of Limitation (SOLs) by claiming that all of those “raped” children (and again with the “rape” trope) were soul-murdered, and so sex abuse (or at least rape) is a form of soul-murder, and thus since the same word appears in both formulations (murder and soul-murder) then legally the justice system should treat ‘rape’ as equal to ‘murder’. 
    But if that is an example of legal reasoning, then  a) why have separate crime-categories and b) should that SOL removal or unlimited-extension (which amounts to the same thing) apply only to ‘rape’ or also to any form of ‘sex abuse’? And c) given the very very few claims of ‘rape’ in all of the claims and allegations formally made against the Church, then how many cases would actually be helped by such an otherwise dangerously-fraught  dimunition of Constitutional precedents?  Is this a road the justice-system should continue to travel down?
    The new book (was this the book whose release was the pretext for the Santa Clara University conference just before the Lynch trial in Santa Clara County?) is, as its own title states,  merely a collection of “profiles” of clerical sex-abuse “survivors”. In other words, a collection of ‘stories’ – and I’m going to imagine that very little critical interrogation of those ‘stories’ has been conducted. (If I can find the book in a library I’ll read it, but so far no luck – and if I read it and discover that the author conducted careful and searching analysis and interrogation of the ‘stories’ selected for inclusion, I will report that pleasant discovery in a comment here; meanwhile, I will say outright here today that on the basis of everything I can see, my hunch at this point is that the book doesn’t do much or any of that.)
    I rarely place much confidence in folks who start a presentation with the bald and simplistic assertion that “there are two types of” … And then even more so when somebody claims to be able to make so God-like a distinction as that between “true priests” and “ecclesiastics” (who apparently by definition here include any cleric who has risen or seeks to rise “to the top of the heap”). John XXIII? John Paul II? Not “true priests”?
    And once again, persons who evince no affinity to, or substantial knowledge of, the Church’s doctrine and theology keep making such sweeping theological judgments. It’s one of the abiding curiosities of this whole thing. Yes, any rational person can analyze the Church’s performance in terms of the Church’s own theology and doctrine – you don’t need to be a Catholic to do that – but I have rarely seen such knowledgeableness evinced in any of the comments of this type that I have seen.  Even Fr. Doyle made – as I recall it quoted in an article on the NCR site – that “Snap IS the Church” … and that assertion is on its face grossly unsupportable in Catholic theology or doctrine.

  12. Fitasafiddle says:

    Drunk Drivers and Pedophile Priests. My, My.  Publion would have us believe that Father raping ten year old Tommy and then offering Mass and Holy Communion to his mother and father is the same as getting into the car with too much champagne.  Drunk Drivers get thrown in jail because of MADD. Catholic pedophile priests get pensions and promotions in spite of all the noble work of survivors and their supporters.
    It is so that some folks railed against MADD the way  Publion now rails against  SNAP.  Publion might prefer SNAP never existed, and all those victims would be multiplying without recourse by monsters in clerical garb. And this is understanding Catholic doctrine? My, My.

    • TheMediaReport.com says:

      Fitasafiddle wrote, “It is so that some folks railed against MADD the way Publion now rails against  SNAP.”

      Really? I never imagined that MADD was as controversial as SNAP.

  13. Publion says:

    One more point in regard to another comment I’ve just noticed.

    The reason for Statutes of Limitations is to set a basic general ground rule. Some States have in some ways expanded the time-limitations and perhaps some have removed or will remove them altogether – those changes have yet to be challenged in court, so we shall see. Prohibition, as many are aware, was also adopted as a great reform. In the meantime, the theory that individual courts and juries should be allowed to make their own determinations basically undermines the requirement for any basic general ground rules in jurisprudence at all, such as Constitutional first principles. Imagine if baseball had only those rules that particular umps in particular games consider to be in effect.

  14. alice norton says:

    Father Doyle is affectionately known as St Tom around our house.  A flippin' hero.

  15. Verity says:

    As I recall in the 1950s people thought that nothing could be done about drunk drivers because prohibition had been abolished. If someone was injured by such, people just thought nothing could be done. The same with child abusing professionals. They were just sinners.. They should go to confession, take some treatment and all might be better. Only the wise thought that they should nevermore be around children or vulnerable people. ISTM it was a much harder fight to uncover all the secrecy surrounding child abuse. Remember Crimen Solicitationis?

    I think Fr. Doyle is the scapegoat for the people who approved of the cover-up. Nothing cures a cover-up like transparency. Now that the extent of child abuse has been somewhat revealed, parents are wiser. No doubt about that.

  16. Julie says:

    I knew somebody would only halfway read and completely misunderstand Publion's post and accuse him of comparing drunk drivers and pedophile priests. Thanks Fit. You proved me right.

  17. Publion says:

    FAAF slyly uses the ‘rape’ trope, yet very very few of the actual allegations have to do with rape. And some of those drunk drivers not only seriously injured but even killed other people (rather than simply being John-Ford type likable drunks who had “had too much champagne” – which is a slyly self-serving minimization of drunk drivers).
    And once again – as we should now come to expect – we have a comment that evades the matter at hand by creating a distracting but completely fictional assertion: in this case, that I prefer that SNAP never existed. Which I did not say and never have said. What I did say was that MADD succeeded and let it go, while SNAP has gone on in a very different pattern indeed. And does FAAF care to address what I actually did say then?
    ‘Verity’ claims that in the 1950s, nobody thought they could do anything about drunk drivers “because Prohibition had been repealed”.  I don’t recall much discussion of Prohibition in the 1950s (Prohibition by then had been repealed for more 20 or more years); yet even so the laws were right there on the books and could have been enforced like any other law on the books. So it’s not that people didn’t think there was anything you could do about it; it’s that people didn’t think it was such a big thing as they did after MADD did some consciousness-raising, as I said. And we are talking here not about alcoholism (and nobody is sure even now how to eradicate or control that) but about drunk-driving, which is not the same thing.
    So again: was all that indulgent or less-than-robust approach to enforcing the drunk-driving laws a “cover-up” or not? If so, why? If not, why?
    And since SNAP has now done its consciousness-raising job rather well then why is it not following the MADD pattern now? Thoughtful discussion on that question seem to me likely to cover some interesting and useful ground.

  18. John son of John says:

    God bless you
    Keep on spreading the truth!!!

  19. Fitasafiddle says:

    Pedophile priests worked for the bishop who covered up the crimes. Drunk Drivers didn't work for the Judges who granted leniency. Those stubborn facts again, Publion. They just keep happenin'.

  20. Publion says:

    Sly FAAF. What is the relevance of your “stubborn-facts”  to the point I made?
    First, we have not yet established that there were ‘cover-ups’  as distinguished from the general tendency in society at that time to not treat sex-abuse crimes as particularly heinous. That was precisely the point of my prior comments – and all you have done is to slyly presume what has yet to be demonstrated. You have in effect merely walked across the field from first base to home-plate and seem to think you have thereby hit a home-run.
    Second, the relevance of my question is borne out by the fact that back in that era very few law enforcement agencies – if any – handled many such abuse cases from any source, Church or otherwise. As current sex-abuse and victim advocates have been pointing out for quite some time: before they got started, no public agencies or private ones took sex-abuse seriously.
    So again: how can ‘cover-up ‘ be demonstrated as opposed to the overall workings of a general public lack of prioritization of ‘sex abuse’ in any form and in any venue back in that era?
    Your comments keep happenin’ but they continually lead nowhere. Or rather, they keep leading away from the point.

  21. Julie says:

    Compare Tom Doyle with the Catholic priest Maximilian Kolbe: http://www.catholicvote.org/discuss/index.php?p=34577

  22. Publion says:

    I have no way of knowing if the above comment by screen-name ‘Tom Doyle’ is actually a comment by Fr. Doyle himself, or by somebody simply using his name for kicks, or somebody – in the manner of attributing authorship of Biblical books to known figures – who is putting up a comment that s/he thinks Fr. Doyle ‘would have said’ or ‘might say’. So my comment here is made with that set of difficulties in mind, and are addressed to the writer of the comment, and not necessarily to Fr. Doyle himself.
    There are two lesser points – I would call them – from this TMR article: first, whether Fr. Doyle is ‘employed’ by the Church, and the comment may well be correct that Fr. Doyle has not regularly received remuneration-for-contracted-or-agreed-upon-services from the Church in quite some time (his eligibility for military chaplain service and remuneration, by the way, could only have come after formal endorsement by the Church).
    Second – and not quite such a lesser-point – is this ‘spy’ trope. SNAP’s conferences are somehow formally ‘closed’ to the public, such that anybody who was not a member (or a sharer in the Kool-Aid) and attended the Conference was a ‘spy’? (For that matter, was it a formal SNAP member who passed along the material? Or – this being the post-Karl Rove era – did SNAP or even a Doyle-supporter do so?)
    In this regard I note again the distinction between the Scientific Mindset and the Ideological Mindset: the Scientific Mindset shares all its information and welcomes independent analysis and the open discussion such sharing would engender, while the Ideological Mindset seeks to tightly control its material (let’s not be overly generous by using ‘information’ here) and also considers any disagreement with its preferred Spin to be – in some form – ‘evil’.
    And those two points being made, I note that they do not address – and distract from – the larger Question:  Fr. Doyle is – employed or not – still an ordained priest of the Roman Catholic Church and why, given the quoted remarks he made, does he still remain so when applying for release from those obligations is an available option? What purpose does it serve to remain a formal representative of an organization he holds in such low esteem (presuming here that he was accurately quoted in the TMR article)?

    • TheMediaReport.com says:

      "Fr. Doyle is – employed or not – still an ordained priest of the Roman Catholic Church and why, given the quoted remarks he made, does he still remain so when applying for release from those obligations is an available option? What purpose does it serve to remain a formal representative of an organization he holds in such low esteem?"

      Excellent questions, Publion!

      And whether or not Doyle receives a W-2 from the Catholic Church is irrelevant to the issues at hand.


  23. jim robertson says:

    Tommy (since it in fact maybe you who posted here) Could you please explain the "Project" part of your 82 report to the National Conference of American Bishops?

  24. Fitasafiddle says:

    Yes, Publion, of course it has been established that there was a massive cover-up by bishops about their pedophile priests.  Have you not read the Philly Grand Jury Reports?  Do you pretend not to know that out in San Francisco  Cardinal William Levada, the newly retired Doctrine and Dogma prince, placed a known pedophile in charge of  establishing sex abuse policies for the wider church?  As Archbishop of San Francisco William Levada admitted under oath that he knew Father Gregory Ingels was a pedophile and yet made him the Chancellor of the archdiocese,  his chief canon lawyer, and then sent him around instructing the newly established review boards on church sex abuse policies.
    Does that sound like a massive cover up to you? Put the pedophile priest in charge of the policies  for the Church in the United States while you pretend to care for victims and Our Lord.? And then off to Rome with you where you end your tenure by investigating nuns  because they aren't following doctrine? And then preach to them about holy obedience?
    I gently remind you once again that these men hear confessions, bury our beloved dead,  transubstantiate all over the parishes, and still hold a sacred place in society, especially in our immigrant communities.
    There was a massive cover up, all right. And children were raped by priests with their bishops approval.  Those darned facts again, Publion. They just get in the way of all kinds of mischief.

    • jim robertson says:

      I have to share what I think is going on at any site that seriously dicusses any thing about SNAP or the sex abuse scandal and at this site as well.
      Up come the dull ; unfactual; scurillous smears of anyone who doesn't follow the "party line" That, negativety pushs people away from engaging intelligently with each other. It ends insight and at the sametime fosters idiocy. A pretense that verbosity is fact and fact is fiction.
      That fiegning intelligence is the samething as being intelligent. That complexity is some how always more intelligent than being simple and straight forward.
       Yet Eienstein wrote, E=MC2. ….
      What I'm getting to is:  Boredom and a search for ideas where there are none, nets frustration. Fight or flee kicks in and most folks flee.
      Debate stifled, and mission accomplished….Silence reigns.
      I intend to ignore the shrubery, It's hiding the view.

  25. Walter says:

    Doyle is a nut.

  26. jim robertson says:

    Please Tommy, why did you write about funding top secret commitees to control us victims and our families? What exactly do those commitees look like? Like SNAP or VOTF maybe?

  27. Julie says:

    Well, Walter nailed it.

  28. Fitasafiddle says:

    Thank you, Jim, for sharing your observations.  I think you are wise to not allow the shrubbery to obstruct the view. 
    I don't mind the insults thrown at me on this site by Publion and Company.   I come from a long line of folks for whom arrogance cloaked in religious authority has always tickled the funny bone.Much of my generation was taught it was our Roman Catholic duty to challenge this arrogance and have a high time while we do it. 
    I find it  important to understand ( as Publion continually demonstrates) that there are still men who defend the indefensible and use their  "vast knowledge" of  Catholic theology to do it. But when the indefensible is the global rape of children  sponsored by  Roman Catholic Hierarchy, it is more than difficult to keep our chins up. 
     And so we pray. May Our Blessed Mother and all the Angels and Saints lift our broken hearts while  courageous souls continue to expose the men who called themselves priests, bishops, and cardinals while they sacrificed the children to their pedophiles.  And then called it "holy obedience."

  29. Publion says:

    In regard to FAAF’s assertions: first, perhaps she would share precisely where in the Philadelphia Grand Jury Reports such evidence of “massive cover-up” or anything else was clearly and undeniably demonstrated. First, because it would be good practice for anybody in the habit of making sweeping assertions to provide a reference to the source material; second, because such smashingly conclusive material seems to have escaped the analysis of the Philadelphia prosecutors, whose actual case took 11 or 12 weeks to convince a jury to get just one of its seven charges to stick and that single charge will now be appealed on very strong ex-post-facto grounds.
    Then third you might explain how – even if we presume its accuracy – Cardinal Levada’s putatively outright admission of a crime has not resulted in charge being brought in that jurisdiction. And – as I inferred in the previous sentence – we could use a quotation or at least an identifying reference from the statement made “under oath” that supports what you have claimed. That should be simple: you’ve no doubt read all the relevant material and have the reference handy. I wouldn’t want to burden you with a special research session. Just the link to a document and the paragraph or line number will do.
    Then fourth, you might explain – even if your assertions about Cardinal Levada’s statement “under oath” are correct (which I will acknowledge when (and if) I see your reference that supports those assertions) –how such evidence from one Church official proves a “massive cover-up”, if by “massive” you mean widespread among the American Church. Or by “massive” did you mean something else? And if so, what? Or were you merely speaking ‘metaphorically’?
    I want to see the reference,  FAAF.  And I am asking for it in front of all the readership on this site. How hard could it be, assuming you were making validly-grounded assertions? I want to see the evidence of “those darned facts” of yours.
    And your evidence about the “pedophile” bit had better conform to the diagnostic parameters in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual – it’s a formal diagnostic term. Or were you simply speaking ‘metaphorically’?
    And again with the ‘raped’ trope – but what’s new there? I’ve dealt with that bit in prior comments.
    Meanwhile, ‘JR’ is upset about the type of commenting that “pushes people away from discussing intelligently with each other”. Which is the most accurate comment I have ever seen from ‘JR’ on this or any other site. I particularly support the bit about “un-factual, scurrilous smears of anyone who doesn’t follow the ‘party line’”.
    But then ‘JR’ – having demonstrated a noteworthy bit of general insight – reverts to his/her typical form: anyone who disagrees with his/her so-often-un-factual assertions (but what the heck, as s/he says in comments elsewhere on this site: “at least I was close”) is merely “feigning intelligence” as if that were the same thing as “being intelligent”. And then we get the bit about a “pretense that verbosity is fact and fact is fiction”. Are we to presume that ‘JR’ considers his/her material factual and his/her one-liners (expletives included?) to be merely free of ‘verbosity’? And that his/her simplistic and un-factual assertions, tossed-off in short zingies, are really nothing but “simple and straightforward”?  
    And does ‘JR’ wish us to compare him/her favorably with Einstein in that regard? Really – Einstein? (Is ‘JR’ familiar with the amount of calculations Einstein had to so very carefully work-out to support and justify the tiny tip of the deliberative and painstaking thought represented by that simple equation?).
    But ‘JR” – we are to be assured – will “ignore the shrubbery”, meaning all of the words (with which s/he clearly has some difficulty) and go straight for the most extraordinary simplistic and zingy assertions (for which s/he has evinced a clear fondness). And, if you hadn’t noticed, the “party line” nobody is following is his/her own – since, as best I can determine, ‘JR’ is a party all to him/herself and all by him/herself. Good luck with that, I say.
    I don’t raise these points in order to bother ‘JR’. I raise them because I believe this entire approach of ‘JR’s is shared by so very many of the types of folks who continue to ‘heroically’ (in their own mind) struggle to keep alive the phantasms about the Church that comments such as ‘JR’s and FAAF’s so vividly express.
    Imagine a meeting-room full of such types, all setting each other off like badly-tuned tuning forks. I believe that such a mental exercise will give a person a much clearer grasp of what has been driving so much of this ‘crisis’.
    And – I firmly believe – once we have cleared away such rogue and weed-ridden conceptual  shrubbery, then we can see a bit more clearly to tackling the genuine realities and issues.
    Weed-whacking. Gentlefolk, start your engines.

  30. heartofhearts says:

    Publion, you're capacity to think and write is outstanding.  I hope most readers  have the intellectual horespower to process the material.  The motivating factors for my interest in this topic are plain and simple:  justice and bullying.  Do most people detest bullies?  Please expose the bullies.  Bullies are those who would not have the guts to pursue these same cases in other organizations, or better yet, other countries with brutal regimes.  

    • jim robertson says:

      Say what?

    • jim robertson says:

      When your own country has one of the worst histories in world history regarding "bullying"  from pulpits to invasions of innocent countries, you "HOH" have balls or ovaries of steel to talk.
      Check the "beam" in your own eye.

  31. Fitasafiddle says:

    I do wish I had the time to do your homework, Publion.  Write to William Levada yourself. He will be residing at St. Patrick's Seminary in Menlo Park, Californa. Ask him why he placed an admitted pedophile priest to be his Chancellor in San Francisco.. Ask him why he made Father Gregory Ingels his chief canon lawyer and then put him in charge of the sex abuse policys for our nation.  No one else seems to have gotten his answer.  Why is that, you ask?  Find out. Ask him.
    You would be doing a great service for the church you purport to love.
    In the meantime, do your own homework. Check out  http://www.bishopaccountability.org   under Levada, William Cardinal.
    Oh, and this. A pedophile is an adult who forces his body into the body of a child. This is not the definition of a priest.

    • TheMediaReport.com says:

      Here’s an idea, Fitasafiddle:

      Why don’t you ask him! Or are you afraid of getting an answer that you weren’t hoping for?

    • heartofhearts says:

      Exactly!!!!!!    This is not the definition of a priest.
      So here is the million dollar question:  Which individuals are trying to create this perception???

  32. jim robertson says:

    Tom? Tommy ? Tommy? Tommy can you hear me?( I feel like a combination of Ann-Margret in Ken Russel's and the Who's rock opera and Phillip Seymor Hoffman just before he's killed in the Ripley movie.)
    When Doyle distains to reply to a victim who questions his role and or roles in the fraud called SNAP, I say let the truth be known though the heavens fall.
    Mao Tse Tung once called the West a paper tyger. Not a tyger to be afraid of but an illusion that belief alone supports.
    I see the Church as it stands as a paper tyger in regards to this horror of sex abuse cover-up; and this site as just one of it's paper paws.

  33. Publion says:

    Well, I don’t want to interrupt the tuning-forks as they vibrate together. Let such entertainments continue, I say.
    Meanwhile, let the record show that FAAF doesn’t have “the time to” to do my “homework”. But it wouldn’t be “my” homework; it would be the “homework” – otherwise known as validating research – that presumably any rational and serious person pursuing the truth would do before spewing streams of  assertions like a New York City fireboat on the 4th of July.
    So if FAAF doesn’t have the time to do “my” “homework”, then FAAF hasn’t really had the time to do her homework either – although she piously wishes that she had such time. But yet she has the time to hit the keyboard and spew all the stuff she spews. Perhaps it’s her priorities.
    The rest – about where Cardinal Levada resides and going to Bishop-Accountability – is distracting filler. And Bishop-Accountability, for those who do any homework, is the site that once maintained a database list of all sorts of priests – which NCR used to platform but then backed away from, and which the B-A site has had to preface now with a disclaimer that nobody (priests included!) is guilty until proven so and so the list isn’t … what they always said it was.
    And then we are treated – with amusingly self-confident snark – to this definition of a ‘pedophile’: “A pedophile is an adult who forces his body into the body of a child”. Try to picture that FAAF-y definition working out in actuality … it is physiologically phantasmagoric. (And a Freudian slip?)
    With this much inattention not only to accuracy and to detail but even to the implications of one’s own assertions, imagine what phantasms are flying around in the air when these mis-tuned tuning forks start setting each other off. This, I have been saying, is a key dynamic driving so much of the ‘crisis’.
    I have done a great service, I would say, to the Church I love simply by exposing FAAF’s un-grounded and it now appears defiant refusal to deal with her own assertions rationally and honestly and upfront. But she sees herself as ‘courageous’ and therefore doesn’t need to explain what she already presumes she knows. I would not buy a used car from this person.
    And to point all this (deceitful?) inaccuracy out somehow constitutes “insults”?  I will say that it is an insult to the intelligence and decency of the readership to have to be confronted with such whacky and daffy and yet slyly manipulative spewings and on top of that to be assured that they are “stubborn facts” and that there is therefore something wrong with anybody who won’t ‘see’ that.
    And point out, please, where in any of my comments, I have displayed “arrogance cloaked in religious authority”. I have no formal ecclesiastical authority and have never claimed to, nor have I analyzed any assertions made merely on the basis of their conformity to my religious beliefs. I look for the rationality in assertions,  and as I have made clear on numerous occasions  there appear to me to be many assertions floating around or tossed in everybody’s face that don’t pass the rationality-analysis (even if only because the asserter doesn’t have time to do any validating “homework”).
    Who is “defending the indefensible”? What is “the indefensible”? How is it being “defended”? But again, the Ideological Mindset assures itself that since it already “knows” , then all the folks that ‘just don’t get it’ are simply sad lumps who must be left behind as the true-believers (and true-knowers) carry on with their assorted excitements and illuminations.
    Clearly also – in the abyssal absence of so much homework – it doesn’t take much theological information on the part of somebody else to constitute to this type of mentality a “vast knowledge”.  But that’s easily written-off as “defending the indefensible” (with, of course, all terms left nicely undefined).
    “Global rape”? FAAF hasn’t even established how much “rape” is going on in this country’s abuse ‘crisis’. Nor, it seems, does she see the need to do any “homework” to ascertain that information in any rational way.
    But she will then retreat to the top of her tower of phantasm and pray, and slather on as much piety as her phantasmagoric confection will bear, like cheap lardy frosting to cover up her badly-mixed batter and badly-baked cake. Aren’t her sugar-roses lovely though? (Warning: don’t eat the cake.)
    And this is “courage”?  FAAF clearly hasn’t done her homework on that definition either.

  34. Publion says:

    With all that said, I’d like to step back for a moment and take a look under a different level of magnification.
    I think it can be seen at this point why we don’t see ‘debates’ between SNAP-types and so forth on the one side, and anybody who questions their claims and assertions on the other side: they don’t want to break the Oz-like spell of their presentations by demonstrating just how full of holes their position is.
    Instead, just keep repeating some variation of your ‘message’ – don’t run the risk of engaging questions (questions simply flag the questioner as ‘hostile’ anyway) and don’t answer questions because you are thereby merely acknowledging that the question deserves to be addressed in the first place .
    I think it has been demonstrated very nicely in comments on this site that to a certain mindset this approach to ‘maintaining your position’ is pure catnip: you don’t have to think about your assertions and claims because you won’t ever need to answer questions about them anyway. If your first toss doesn’t stick to the wall, just whomp up a second handful from the pile and toss that one at the wall. And on and on in that way until the questioners give up and you can then declare Victory and take another stiff shot from the Kool-Aid cooler to reward yourself before the next performance.
    Thus a few manipulative ‘expert’ types  can ‘program’ a whole bunch of ‘belief bots’ with the Message, and then send them all out onto the Web.  On sites they consider ‘friendly’, they will run riot, turning the comments section into a queasy sandbox of mutually-supporting whackeries: thus, I would say, so much of the commentary on the abuse-crisis on the NCR site and – especially in the past couple of months – the Philly trial site.
    Thus too the obvious consternation of certain types when they are ‘questioned’: as if ‘this isn’t supposed to happen because I’m Good and Right’.
    And this, I think, explains SNAP’s amazing ‘success’ and even its continued existence for all these years: it provides a handy collection-point  for both a) the tort-attorneys trolling for ‘victims’ and for b) the media looking for ‘stories’ and for ‘comments’ that are attention-getting and sound-bitey.
    Precisely the type of comments that appeal to certain mindsets: you don’t have to do any homework in order to prepare them and since you aren’t obstructed or hemmed in by any need for accuracy or anything more than an appearance of conformity to actuality,  then your comments can be confected with even more attention-getting capacity. And if you’ve got the right interior predispositions, then you will naturally have shielded yourself from questions by presuming that whoever questions you is a) attacking you, and b) is evil or deluded.
    And the result of that is what I think we have often seen: don’t answer the questions (which you can’t answer anyway, not having done the homework in the first place); just change the subject or try to mimic the appearance of rational analysis while actually performing no such analysis; and try to find out whatever you can about the questioner in order to throw some dirt and distract readers that way; and in general just keep throwing different versions of your basic stuff at the screen and hope that this time people will suddenly realize you were so very right all along. Or at least they’ll give up and you can claim Victory that way – it’s only by default but let’s not split hairs and anyway It’s All In A Good Cause so it has to be Good, right? (Precisely Bush 2’s defense of his Iraq strategy and the basis of his Global War On Terrorism, the now no-longer mentioned ‘GWOT’, if you recall.)
    And in that regard, David Clohessy let the cat out of the bag in his Deposition when he said that he thought there were two standards of Truthfulness: the strictly stringent one, which everybody should apply to the Church and then the much less stringent one, which should be applied to all those folks who are struggling against the Church. In other words, since the Church is presumptively Evil, then you must demand total Truth from it, but since your own Cause against the Church is – but of course – Good, then you must not be obstructed (or ‘re-victimized’) by being made to be Truthful yourself. After all, if the Cause is Good, then how can anything that serves the Cause be anything less than Good?
    Which is not only indication of an Ideological mindset but also of the old Leninist Revolutionary mindset: whatever supports the Revolution is by definition Good, and whatever doesn’t support the Revolution is by definition Evil. To question the Revolution and the Cause therefore immediately and completely reveals you as being Evil.
    And as I said, this is a seductive catnip (or far more addictive drug) to certain types: whatever I say is Good, and if you don’t agree with me then you are Evil.
    And in a roomful of folks like this, then the effect is amplified and intensified: Whatever we say is automatically Good, and any questions and questioners can simply be immediately dismissed as Evil.
    And so, as has been seen demonstrated amply in assorted comments on this site, anybody who questions what ‘we’ just ‘know’ to be Good must be Evil and if such Evil types use ‘rationality’ or ‘analysis’ or even ‘thinking’ to ground their questions, then rationality and analysis and thinking are Evil too (which, since many such ‘bots’ were never attracted to such values anyway, is a very very easy slope down which to slip and slide).
    But as I said, all this makes for good copy and sound-bites, and so SNAP is kept around by the tort-attorneys and the media for their own purposes. Thus an organization that seems to have been run by incompetents from just about Day One and seems – according to Clohessy’s own Answers in Deposition (“under oath”, I might add) – to be presently run by somebody with a simple Master’s Degree in Social Work although it offers no formal clinical or therapeutic assistance to ‘victims’, can continue its existence as if it were a major marquis victim-service organization offering a broad and deep range of helping modalities.

  35. heartofhearts says:

    http://www.azcentral.com—Priest offered a loan, and someone has a problem with it because
    on a "priests' salary" it could not be repaid.  Have I interpreted this accurately:  Does someone
    wish for priests to earn 70,000 a year with summers, Cristmas and Easter vacations off??
    I would vote for it.

  36. heartofhearts says:

    Forgive me, "Christmas".  
    It is SNAP's fault.

  37. kmc says:

    Snappy or "Slappy" (Goosebumps).
    If the name fits, use it.

  38. Publion says:

    To 'kmc':
    Please excuse me – I think that in all the comments I've been making I may well have missed a couple of yours to me in regard to Bishop Finn in Kansas City. I have not fully informed myself of that matter, and I haven't reviewed the material (trial docs, news reports) that may be available. I will get to that shortly.
    Sorry for not responding sooner.

  39. kmc says:

    Is this site and our insight and energy empowering our priests? Yes or No?
    I am so grateful to this webiste, because I recognize the slow and steady decline that will contine to 
    occur without it.  
    Please let us know if others percieve this necessity.  How?  Sign in and state: Yes, this is necessary.
    Or, No, it is not.
    Thank you.
    ("Publion"  Feel free to edit as you please.)

    • TheMediaReport.com says:

      Just to let you know: Publion has nothing to do with the operation of the site and cannot “edit” anything.

      We very much appreciate his comments, just like yours!

  40. heart of hearts says:

    Oh Yeah…..
    Frankly, our Dear Publion, we DO give a DA%#.

  41. catholic donor says:

    CBS Boston and Economist—-
    We understand the Church does not enjoy the luxury of sovereign immunity. Thank you, though, for the condescending assumption that we are unaware of our church's financial challenges for the past decade.  Did it occur to you that we are investing in our faith, and, in our dedicated, innocent priests anyway? Did it occur to you that most of us read that information over five years ago?  We did.  And, our response was to start an annual Priest Appreciation Dinner and second collection to replenish the Clergy Retirement Funds.   The "4th" annual dinner is scheduled for this September.   
     Please consider making a generous donation, versus rehashing old information.
    Thank you.

  42. Publion says:

    to 'Ken W': and double apologies for getting it wrong about whose email I was responding to!
    I have taken the cue, Ken W., and am looking at the Finn material.
    many thanks!