Posted on 06/27/2004 9:27:55 PM PDT by MegaSilver
After spending over two years interviewing ex-seminarians and ordained priests about the homosexual subculture dominating Catholic seminaries in the United States, Michael Rose could not have picked a better time to release Goodbye, Good Men (Regnery Publishing, 2002).
Some may say his timing is providential. Whatever you call it, this book is a "must-read" for Catholics who want the real story of how homosexual predators have become so notorious in the Catholic clergy and how liberal Catholicism brought corruption into the Catholic Church.
Trained as an architect, Rose gained a reputation as a thorough and insightful author of several successful books dealing with the deplorable state of modernist Catholic Church architecture. His new book on the priesthood is a shocking documentation of the homosexual infiltration of the American Catholic hierarchy, and accurately identifies widespread dissent from core Catholic teaching by the Catholic clergy in the seminaries as the root of the so-called vocation crisis.
Ironically, the Catholic media have been pretty rough on Rose. Critics have faulted him for the use of fictitious names; they have nit-picked petty details, and accused him of bad journalism. While many of Rose's sources have chosen to remain anonymous to protect themselves from retaliation, the consistency of the testimony, coupled with the sad stories of men who go by their real names, results in a highly credible and accurate account of the situation. One wonders whether the Catholic media's negative responses are an effort to save face because they remained silent while they were aware of the homosexual corruption in the seminaries.
Rose documents the bizarre exams administered by admitted anti-Catholic psychologists, the feminist nuns in charge of diocesan recruitment programs, and the openly homosexual formation advisors and faculty at the seminaries, all of whom systematically identified orthodox, truly Catholic young men and drove them away from the priesthood. Catholics will find the seminarians' stories -- Rose documents dozens of them occurring all over the country -- to be infuriating in light of the growing shortage of priests in America.
Some orthodox men left the seminary of their own accord after suffering sexual harassment by homosexual faculty and students. Others, who admitted to being against homosexuality or women priests, were drummed out as being "too rigid", for having a "lack of openness to new ideas", or for being "unaccepting of others as they are", often after they had completed years of study and sacrifice.
Those who survived the initial weeding out process often did so by posing as liberals. Having survived the first cut, the orthodox seminary student was then subjected to mandatory classes that included homoerotic films, pornography, heterodoxy in theology, and in some cases, outright heresy. Rose documents the case of one student who actually sued a seminary for falsely advertising they were Catholic, when the theology classes were openly hostile to well established Catholic teachings. To avoid the lawsuit, the heterodox theology professor involved was dismissed.
Because most seminaries continue to be overrun by dissenters and homosexuals, particularly in the area of formation and recruitment, it should come as no surprise that finding "straight" males willing to endure years of being cloistered in such an environment is nearly impossible. Rose provides a mountain of evidence that the shortage of priests has been effectively self-imposed by a liberal, feminist, and disproportionately homosexual clique dominating church administration.
My only criticism of Rose's outstanding book is that he fails to acknowledge any culpability or complicity on the part of Rome for the debacle in the church. The mess in the seminaries didn't just happen unnoticed or overnight. Since Vatican II, complaints to Rome about homosexual priests and bishops, sexually perverse seminaries, heterodox or heretical clerics, and the scandal of liturgical and sacramental abuses have been virtually ignored. In my own experience over the last 5 years, none of my letters regarding abuses in the church addressed to Rome or the Papal Nuncio have been acknowledged. I know too many other concerned Catholics who have had the identical experience, from Rochester, New York, to Oakland, California. When the Vatican finally did respond to the decades of complaints of rampant and unchecked homosexuality in U.S. seminaries, the process of investigation and the outcomes were highly suspect.
Rose identifies the fact that so-called Vatican investigations of the American seminaries during the 1980's (the Marshall report) were conducted by American Catholic Church insiders, who were treated to 'Potemkin village' tours of seminaries, and submitted their largely misleading, milk toast reports back to Rome. He quotes Notre Dame Professor Ralph McInerny, "Here indeed was a failure, and by churchmen, who had to make a determined effort not to acquaint themselves with the facts they were supposed to be investigating". To make matters worse, the homosexual infiltration of the Catholic Church does not stop in America. Veteran Catholic commentators have indicated a distinct possibility that there were highly influential homosexuals in Rome who helped to suppress the real story.
Part of the problem lies in the re-organized conciliar Catholic Church, in which the Vatican has effectively ceded away much of its authority to administer, regulate and discipline to regional councils like the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. These conferences are often part of the process of recommending candidates to the Vatican when episcopal vacancies occur. Typically, the Vatican accepts these recommendations, trusting that local prelates are in a better position to find "the right man for the job". But this system is also open to abuse, and abused it has been.
Rose stops short of saying so, but I doubt he would object if the Vatican began to assert itself in a more authoritative way regarding open dissent and disobedience by American clerics. In the absence of such discipline, the Catholic laity are left with the obvious impression that the refusal to accept certain Catholic doctrines is acceptable behavior. If the local priests and bishops can dissent from Church teachings and get away with it, what incentives are there for the laity to abide by the Catholic doctrines they object to?
Rose concludes with an upbeat assessment of how orthodox seminaries are succeeding in attracting vocations, and producing good priests. The crisis having reached a high water mark, Rose speculates things are turning around; good priests will emerge in greater numbers and the dissenting sub-culture in the Church will become extinct. It's true that seminaries like Mundelein, Illinois are not as bad as they were before, but there's a long road ahead for many seminaries before they begin to look Catholic inside and out.
Though the seminaries may be improving, the broader problem is the sorry state of the Catholic population in America. The most tragic consequence of dissent and this scandal has been has been the declining influence of Catholicism in the lives of American Catholics over the past 40 years. Mass attendance is now down to 20% of registered parishioners, and churches are being shuttered for lack of funds and parishioners; the sacrament of Penance is ignored, and not for lack of sinning; Catholic divorce and abortion rates are at the same levels as the general population. "Goodbye, Good Catholic Parents", is my suggestion for a Rose follow-up to his well timed, and much needed, "Goodbye, Good Men", which will hopefully spark reform now that it has caught the attention of the nation.
Anyone know anything about this?
Yes,
The name of his next book is called "The Lavender Mafia". It is supposed to be a follow-up to GB,GM.
Should be fairly interesting.
The word is milquetoast.
Rose's book was generally good, but he made many mistakes, and refused to correct them when confronted. Instead, he threatened one priest with a lawsuit.
He also, pointedly, never talked to one single seminary rector, using as his excuse "well, it would have been pointless."
Let's hope he has more integrity in the pages of his next book.
I can think of no reason for him to interview a seminary rector, nor for them to respond to him, any more than you would have to interview the CEO of General Motors if your Chevy breaks down.
He wasn't writing a book about seminary rectors, though they might turn up in his next book.
Sinkspur,
Have you read his replies to his critics?
Go to cruxnews.com and read them.
BTW, could you be specific about what you call his "mistakes" and his refusal to correct them?
I would like to see what you are alluding to.
I've read them. I also know that he had his hatchet-man attorney write to the bishop of a young priest in Wisconsin who questioned him, threatening the bishop with a lawsuit if he didn't silence the priest.
That kind of Gestapo-like tactic makes me wonder what kind of person Rose is.
He wrote a book about seminarians, who go to seminaries.
A small number of seminarians were his sources, and they made accusations.
If one wanted to maintain journalistic integrity, would not one seek out the rectors of the offending seminaries to get their sides of the stories? Or was he afraid his book wouldn't be sufficiently provacative if it was leavened by their perspectives?
Rose's book actually understates the problem and is a very modest appraisal of the situation. Modern liberal American counter-culture infiltrated the church along with people from anti-Catholic secret societies. These problems were not exactly accidental.
Funny, I never heard him accused of making many mistakes in the book. I heard there was some controversy concerning a few statements but that the vast majority of the book was spot on.
He also, pointedly, never talked to one single seminary rector, using as his excuse "well, it would have been pointless."
Well , he is right. What are these guys going to say, "You are so right Michael, this is a seminary with a terrible reputation!" Even if the current rector of a seminary is much better than his predecessors there is no way he would be able to publically agree and he certainly wouldn't disagree. If the rector was bad, well...again what's the point?
Integrity. He accused seminary authorities of laxities in admissions policies.
Should he not allow them to explain themselves, or justify themselves?
You really get anxious when the queer reality of the seminaries get brought up Deacon. Flashbacks? Bad memories? Rose wrote the book. He chose the format. He could have done what the Vatican did and let the rectors lie, but what would the point have been? Lies told by queers are well enough documented in his book.
According to our internet Deacon, he fails to do his job well. I wonder how many books the Deacon has written?
None. And I certainly would not write one side of a story, then refuse to listen to the other side.
I suppose in your book the filing of a lawsuit is evidence of bad character, in mine it is evidence that a controversy exists. How does that suit affect the validity of the facts in the book Deacon? Why the constant and relentless attacks you make on Michael Rose every time the subject comes up? You'll defend Kobe the adulterous sex criminal, you'll defend pro-abortion GOP politicians but when a book comes out the illustrates the hideous state of our seminaries, you attack the author. Why?
The Vatican listened to "the other side of the story" deacon, they heard the lies and accepted them. What "other side" did Michael Rose miss?
Kobe Bryant is not guilty of rape. If you've kept up with the evolving case, you would know that.
I don't "defend" pro-abortion GOP poliiticians; you deride them because they support GW Bush.
Rose is not journalistically honest.
Rose isn't a journalist. Kobe is an adultering liar whom you defend. Just as you defend Kay Baily Hutchison and the rest of the baby killers in the GOP. That a newspaper 'panned' the book says nothing, the question is the facts in the book. They are substantial, they've been corroborated and you hide from them. Why?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.