Memo to Father Thomas Doyle

In today's Boston Globe, you tell us a little of yourself, and the role you played in combatting clerical sexual abuse:

"I was ordained a priest in 1970. I became the canon lawyer at the Vatican Embassy in Washington in 1981. I believed in the good of the church in 1984, when two colleagues - a priest-psychiatrist and a civil attorney - collaborated with me on a 100-page document advising the bishops on steps to take to halt the damage caused by pedophile priests. Our report was ignored... Most of my early confidence in the hierarchical system has been shattered by my experiences with sexual abuse victims. Why, many ask, do you stay? Fundamental to my motivation is a belief that the church really is the body of Christ and not a string of fiefdoms belonging to bishops. I believe that in Christ's view, the most important people are the disenfranchised and rejected, not bishops and cardinals. I learned about faith, courage, and persistence from the victims-turned-survivors. The awareness spurred on by the survivors has awakened the laity. The most visible show of concern is an organization known as Voice of the Faithful."

You won't get an argument on the last sentence there, Father. They've certainly been visible. Let's keep reading, though...

"Voice of the Faithful's existence is solidly justified in the Code of Canon Law, Roman Catholic theology, and the documents of the Second Vatican Council. This notwithstanding, the lay group's simple agenda apparently is a threat to some bishops as well as to some self-described orthodox Catholics. However, the bishops and others who have been so critical and judgmental have betrayed true orthodoxy by failing to engage in dialogue or discussion with Voice of the Faithful. They simply decided that its agenda was against the interests of their own power."

Whoa, back up the truck, Padre!!!

First of all, if VOTF's existence is "solidly justified in the Code..." and whatever, so is that of any "self-described orthodox Catholics," especially if the latter are correct in pointing out how the former has misled people up to this time.

"Voice of the Faithful is a movement of lay people who are authentic, thinking members of the Catholic Church. They are disgusted by the abuse scandal and the bishops' failure to protect our youth. It took an avalanche of negative publicity caused by a couple of thousand lawsuits for these bishops and the self-styled guardians of orthodoxy to wake up and smell the spiritual stench. This mess started in 1984, but it was not until 2002 that the real awakening happened. That's a 17-year delayed reaction, spurred not by their own consciences but by the courts and the secular media."

Soooo... Your solution is to call on the advice of Debra Haffner, a former president of SEICUS and former Planned Parenthood official, as well as Anthony Massimini, who flat-out lies about the Church's teachings on human sexuality and the role of women in the Church. (Go ahead, make me prove it. I dare ya...) Maybe it's not YOUR solution, but it's the one upon which VOTF has relied so far.

You still wanna call that "authentic"?

"The arguments against Voice of the Faithful are a smokescreen. The real issue is power. Voice of the Faithful is a reaction to the horror of sexual abuse and the betrayal of trust that came with it. It has nothing to do with dissent on women's ordination, birth control, or letting priests marry."

Wanna look again? They could have stopped at their outrage over "bishops breaking the most basic rules of moral conduct time and time again." But they didn't, Father. VOTF has indeed been a platform for promoting "dissent on women's ordination, birth control, or letting priests marry." It is a matter of public record, to be found among the "recommended reading" on their own website.

Repeating this is not a "smokescreen." It is the Truth.

That is why some of those "self-described orthodox Catholics" to which you refer (and I suspect you would have labeled Catherine of Siena no differently), have been busy trying to reason with VOTF leaders. Why? Maybe it's because we too are reacting to "the horror of sexual abuse and the betrayal of trust that came with it." Maybe we too believe that "the church really is the body of Christ and not a string of fiefdoms belonging to bishops." (Is there an echo on the Internet?)

We've had conference calls. We've had e-mail exchanges. By the grace of God, and a sense of genuine humility among a few of them, they've been starting to listen.

"What's at stake is way beyond the mind games and wordy debates over authentic orthodoxy."

And what would that be?

"Orthodoxy" is from the Greek, meaning "right belief." Are you suggesting that "right belief" would not have prevented the grave sin of sodomizing young boys? Isn't that what YOU claimed to be about in your 1984 report?

You know where to find me.