Tom Doyle Comments on “Vengeance Time”

June 4, 2007, Commonweal Magazine

Dear Editor:

I am responding, though a bit late, to Mark Sargent's article, “Vengeance Time,” which appeared in your April 20, 2007 edition.

I am surprised that you published an article containing so many inflammatory statements and factual errors about the gravest crisis facing the institutional Catholic Church in centuries. Had Mr. Sargent taken the time to check some important facts or had he contacted the leadership of SNAP directly he might not have made such statements. It appears obvious that his involvement with the clergy sexual abuse problem is secondhand and from quite a distance.

He criticizes the victims for being angry and accuses them of seeking vengeance. This is ludicrous in light of the vicious and dishonest tactics employed by the many bishops and certainly by their attorneys. He tries to shift the guilt to the victims' attorneys, claiming that they take a significant percentage of settlements. Does he know that a number of these attorneys either work “pro bono” or have sacrificed significant amounts of personal funds to continue to represent victims?

Is he aware that the church attorneys regularly drive the litigation costs through the ceiling with endless stone-walling tactics while continuing to collect very “high dollar” guaranteed hourly fees? For example, one plaintiff attorney submitted a bill for $50,000.00 in the Spokane bankruptcy process while one of the many Church attorneys who did equal work, submitted a statement for just over $600,000?

Is he aware that Church attorneys have regularly used a variety of backroom tactics to try to discredit and slander victims, their supporters and even their witnesses? These have included sending private investigators to spy on victims, question neighbors, rifle through trash and make anonymous phone calls.

Is he aware of the stone-walling and deception that the Philadelphia District Attorneys faced in conducting their investigation? He criticizes them because they voiced their anger and frustration but he apparently has no clue as to the lengths the bishops and their attorneys will go to in their efforts to thwart the investigations into the Church's history of cover-up. Nor does he seem to have a clue about the vast amounts of money these attorneys burn up in their seemingly endless battles to prevent Church cover-ups from being exposed and the victims from ever seeing any justice. The Church regularly claims it is extending a compassionate hand to victims. This is mostly public relations myth because the dioceses continue to fight and protest every inch of the way. They boast about the newly created policies, procedures, review boards, counseling provided, etc. None of this would have ever happened had not their been massive and intense pressure placed on the bishops by the media and by the courts and the civil lawyers who did for the victims what the Church officials failed to do, namely, take them seriously.

Mark Sargent's article contains some very valid statements about the bishops but these are buried and meaningless within the overall context of his biased and highly erroneous diatribe against the victims.

Sincerely,  (Rev.) Thomas Doyle, O.P., J.C.D.