Posted on 06/27/2004 9:27:55 PM PDT by MegaSilver
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.