You said before it was a LACK OF EVIDENCE that supported the claim that he wasn't a priest, so which is it??
Having said that, I find it odd, but oddly encouraging, that otherwise vociferously anti-Catholic believers of various stripes are endorsing, sight unseen, a movie starring a Catholic man and a Jewish woman, directed by a traditionalist schismatic Catholic man (whose position re Protestantism is infinitely less irenic than the Pope's, BTW)
Hard to say, but after viewing the show, if I find it has a definite catholic flavor to it, I will let folks know. But on the other hand if I find that it is right on the money, I will let folks know that too.
And your argument can be piggy-backed on by saying this: The one person who brought us a Bible that has lasted for over 300 years is the same person who tortured and killed hundreds. Guess we can find a rose in a bryer patch if we just look hard enough huh?
I'd have to reread the Christianity Today article to refresh my memory. As I recall, there was no evidence that he was a bishop, a Jesuit, a seminary graduate, or that he was stationed at specific places he claimed to be stationed at. There was evidence that he was other places, doing other things, during times he claimed to be this dark, nasty, Jesuit secret agent carrying out Rome's awful orders.
Nonsense. St. Jerome never tortured or killed anyone. He did chew some people out in a remarkably venomous style, though.