Why I'm glad I'm an ex-Catholic, reason #139. This one's not about the Times, though the institution in question does take a similar stance on its own infallibility:

The Rev. Thomas P. Doyle, the most ardent champion of priestly sex abuse victims among America's Roman Catholic clergy, has been fired by his archbishop and is currently forbidden to lead public Masses.

Doyle said Thursday that Archbishop Edwin O'Brien of the Archdiocese for the Military Services withdrew his endorsement of Doyle as a U.S. Air Force chaplain last Sept. 17. Doyle remains a priest, but cannot celebrate sacraments until his career as an Air Force major ends this summer.

The stated reason was disagreement over providing daily Catholic Masses at military bases with few priests. But victim advocates see payback for Doyle's 18 years of activism and sharp criticism of the hierarchy's handling of molestation scandals.

AP, "Archbishop fires abuse victim advocate"

More precisely, that "disagreement" involves Doyle, a degreed expert on canon law, having written a memorandum clarifying the Archbishop's guidelines on the provision of daily Masses, as those provisions related to the staffing of the chaplaincy. (Keep in mind the dire state of priestly vocations throughout the Catholic Church and the increasing difficulty finding celebrants for a full slate of Sunday and daily Masses.) The Archbishop decided to construe the memorandum as contradicting his directive, calling it an "attempt to provide an alternative authority," and dismissed Doyle forthwith. The dismissal has only now come to light.

Sound trumped up to you? Like the Bish found an opening to do a number on Doyle, and jumped at the chance? Let His Excellency, commenting to Daniel Wakin of the Times, disabuse you:

Speaking from Bamberg, Germany, Archbishop O'Brien rejected suggestions that he was punishing Father Doyle. He said that since he became archbishop seven years ago, he had tolerated the priest's criticisms of the hierarchy even if they were sometimes "over the top."

He also said he could have waited until Father Doyle retired in August and avoided the turmoil. "But I can't abdicate my pastoral responsibility because of what some others who are rather deeply involved in the sex-abuse issue would conclude," he said.

"Catholic Priest Who Aids Church Sexual Abuse Victims Loses Job"

As if butter wouldn't melt in his mouth. But, Excellency, isn't that exactly the point? With Doyle set to retire in a few months, O'Brien could have waited and spared himself all the tsuris. Except that wouldn't have sent anybody any messages, would it?

O'Brien's action, says Wakin, came after a lay employee of the Catholic ministry at Doyle's base found the memorandum and became concerned, thinking "it meant she would lose her daily Mass." (Wakin, by the way, bends over backwards to put O'Brien in the best possible light.) This is a Church, let's remember, whose episcopacy has historically discharged its "pastoral responsibility" by quietly shifting pedophile priests from parish to parish over decades, rendering the entire hierarchy morally if not legally complicit in the resulting abuse. The victims of that abuse the good bishops treated with malign neglect, if not actual contempt. But a technical disagreement over whether Catholics have the right under canon law to daily Masses? An upset laywoman? That, my friends, is a call to arms.

Googling around, I notice that O'Brien's name has frequently arisen in stories speculating on replacements for bishops who've been removed or retired over the sex abuse scandal—he was mentioned, among others, for Law's place in Boston. Think maybe the Archbishop's bucking for a promotion?

posted by michael  5:52:29 PM  
tell me about it []