"Why Are They Going After Michael Rose?" & "The Astounding Naïveté of Crisis Magazine"

New Oxford Review via CruxNews ^ | Various

[Sursum Corda]

Thanks for posting this. I have forwarded it on to another list and to a Canonist friend.

I continue to marvel at the level of personal vitriol directed at Michael Rose. Few here directly deny the overall facts and conclusions of "Goodbye Good Men" so they attack him professionally.

Different thrust but same result. Sometimes those 'sneaky' folks with their long knives are sooo obvious.

Also, the critters are reduced to yammering about Rose not meeting with rectors and other named individuals.

Piffle! Is that all they have left, given the ever evolving stories at Louvain and in Michigan? Most new facts would seem to break in the favor of Mr. Rose.

Will any of the Rose critics on FreeRepublic admit that they might have been wrong about the facts of those two matters?

Sursum Corda

[Tantumergo]

"the assumption that he has either tacitly or expressly permitted one of his own priests to initiate and publish the above mentioned website"

Maybe Rose and his lawyer knew that the bishop was indeed expressly permitting, or even leaning on, the priest to take this line against Rose.

Even some of the most apparently conservative priests are men who have difficulty keeping their zippers fastened.

We know from the Dallas meeting that the majority of the US bishops desperately wanted to keep the queer priest issue shut firmly in the closet. (Apart from the occasional hero like Bruskewitz).

[patent]

"the assumption that he has either tacitly or expressly permitted one of his own priests to initiate and publish the above mentioned website"

Maybe Rose and his lawyer knew that the bishop was indeed expressly permitting, or even leaning on, the priest to take this line against Rose.

I doubt it, but if that was true it would have been overly easy for Rose to demonstrate that. He won’t even respond to e-mails, much less support his actions. He won’t produce the letter he sent the Bishop, or the letter he sent Johansen. I’ve said from the start of my criticism on this that I would like to hear Rose’s side, and if its valid I’ll retract my criticism. The fact that he can’t be bothered to respond to this, but did get all upset about things posted to a blog, demonstrates with crystal clarity what the truth is.

He has no good reason for his actions.

The articles above provide further evidence of bad faith. To repeat what I said above:

It just amazes me that they ask this question, then mention the libel charge made to Johansen, but then they don’t bother to mention that pesky little detail about what really seems to have shut Johansen up, threatening the Bishop:

Rose's efforts to communicate with Fr. Johansen proved futile, so Rose took up a Catholic attorney's offer to challenge Fr. Johansen to the either back up his claims or face a federal lawsuit for libel.

To ask that question, and then give that half answer, is in my view, intellectually dishonest. If you want to ask what Rose is going to do in response to Johansen, then admit all of what he did, not the part you find most helpful.

If your going to slam the man, at least admit you made it so that he can’t respond to you.

patent  +AMDG

[sitetest]

Dear patent,

You may wish to entertain the notion that Mr. Rose's view of his letter to Fr. Johansen's bishop is similar to that of many of the non-lawyers here at FR. You, as a lawyer, find the letter to the bishop to be reprehensible. I understand your explanation of why it's so terrible, though as a non-lawyer, frankly, it doesn't strike me in the same way.

Perhaps Mr. Rose doesn't have the same view of the letter to the bishop as you do. Thus, he didn't think it was important to mention it.


sitetest

[Diago]

hudson@crisismagazine.com

People need to contact Hudson and complain about this. Disgraceful is the only word for this. Disgraceful.

hudson@crisismagazine.com

[Tantumergo]

"Instead, he used the lame excuse "Well, we know what they would have said, so why talk to them?""

UK's Channel 4 TV did an expose on gays in the priesthood last year and they did in fact get some seminary rectors to talk openly about the issue. At least one of them acknowledged that the phenomena of the homosexual cliques was a problem that needed monitoring, but he was one who ran a seminary where the wufters were in the minority.

The guy who runs Ushaw College in England would probably deny its a problem (now) but that's only because he was driving home from a late night sick call when he noticed the seminary transit parked outside a gay nightclub. 12 "men" packed their bags the next morning.

From my experience I would say that the stories recounted by Rose are not that unusual and could soon be dug up by anyone who wanted to make the effort to find out.

[ninenot]

IMHO: he crossed the queers.

Until you've been in the position of having a homosexual problem in your Diocese, you cannot understand how devious, sneaky, and vindinctive these creatures really are.

They will use ANY method at their disposal including innuendo to friends, lying to the press, and complex manipulations to 'get back at you' and/or get you out of the way.

The Devil himself could be a better adversary--but that's only a matter of degree.

You cross the queers and you lose.

BTW, they also employ Clintoncide--just in case you don't go quietly and easily...

[ninenot]

I've read a number of pieces by Deal Hudson, and have NEVER been comfortable with any of them. Mostly OK--but there's a little red flag waving somewhere which is hard to pin down...

[Maximilian]

I see absolutely nothing wrong with Michael Rose's defense of his legal rights. Rod Dreher has written a whole article about this issue, and he came down on Rose's side and said that Johansen ought to be an object lesson to other internet bloggers who are tempted to post libelous material. As to involving the bishop, that seems like a no-brainer. Of course, the bishop has to become involved in a legal issue regarding one of his priests. What if I posted libelous material on my company web site? Don't you think my boss would get involved if I were sued?

[ninenot]

Rose may have a "point of view," but you and I both know that his thesis is spot-on (at least in a few seminaries, and maybe more than just a few.)

If he was sloppy, that is his shame--OTOH, he's certainly managed to draw attention to a certain problem--which Rome has recently tried to correct, to wit: no more homos in the seminary.

Document to follow by diplomatic pouch likely June '03.

[Maximilian]

People need to contact Hudson and complain about this. Disgraceful is the only word for this. Disgraceful.

hudson@crisismagazine.com

Good point. And while they're at it, they can also mention the scurrilous article in the current issue of Crisis that attacks every traditional Catholic as an anti-semite if they continue to believe what the Church has always taught for the past 2000 years.

It's basically, "Get on board with Cardinal Keeler's new doctrine that Jews don't need to be saved, or be prepared to be slandered as an anti-semite."

[ninenot]

You know some of these characters (mentioned in the articles.) What's going on here? Rose writes about the obvious and gets hammered. Refutes his interlocutor and gets hammered. Demonstrates that his sources are accurate and gets hammered.

Rose seemingly legitimately asks someone to stop with the defamation and gets hammered.

Whassup, mon??

[Catholicguy]

<> I Am with you there. I heard wonderful things about Crisis and I subscribed. I am not renewing.<>

[Salvation]

**Why Are They Going After Michael Rose?**

Because he did not include ALL the story in his book.

[ninenot]

He won’t even respond to e-mails, much less support his actions

You evidently have never been party to legal action.

It is SOP for an attorney to advise his client to ZIP THE LIP about ANYTHING having to do with a legal action, once initiated (and the letter sent is the initiation.)

Rose cannot send documents or emails if he is properly advised by counsel.

His article defending his work is proper, BTW. Johansen fired a round, now it's Rose's turn.

Seems fair to me.

[Polycarp]

You, as a lawyer, find the letter to the bishop to be reprehensible. I understand your explanation of why it's so terrible, though as a non-lawyer, frankly, it doesn't strike me in the same way.

Bingo.

As a non-lawyer myself, it strikes me as a major victory for laity against a culumnious attack-dog priest who is protecting the status quo, at the behest of an institution obsessed with maintqaining the status quo, regardless of the method employed.

Fr. Johanson was full of crap, and willfully undermining the credibility of Rose. I'm glad Rose was successful in silencing one of the attack dogs trying to cover up the filth in the Church's seminaries.

[ultima ratio]

Not only Crisis. EWTN sold out a while back--not on this issue, but in its reluctance to even honestly deal with the scandals until it actually became an embarrassment for them not to. Even then it was half-hearted and somewhat painful to watch. There is a horror I think of looking at the gay problem too closely. It is deep and it is wide. Nor has it only to do with the seminaries. It reaches to the Vatican.

[ultima ratio]

Bull. Rose wrote to the bishop as a professional journalist and had every right to sue to redeem his reputation. The priest was out of line and so was the bishop. When a priest or a bishop supercedes his authority, he ought to be subject to the same consequences as anyone else. The Church gives no one authority to malign another's reputation.

[Tantumergo]

"When a priest or a bishop supercedes his authority, he ought to be subject to the same consequences as anyone else."

Funny how post Vatican II clerics cling to pre Vatican II models of authority when they want to keep the turbulent laity under wraps! ;)

[Zviadist]

EWTN sold out a while back--not on this issue, but in its reluctance to even honestly deal with the scandals until it actually became an embarrassment for them not to.

Not to mention EWTN's embracing the charismatic movement.... What a poison organization.