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.
Rose understates the case for his thesis. There are far more scandalous stories out there, some known personally by credible witnesses, which would mortify readers if they knew. If the best critics can come up with is, well, he's a sloppy journalist and didn't interview anyobody that hardly proves the opposite of the main point. Liberalism, theological dissent, homosexual counter-culture, and anti-Catholic secret societies weakened and damaged the church by infiltrating key institutions and positions of authority. This applies to universities, colleges, and some high schools as well as the seminaries, chanceries, and bishops' conferences.
The other position is "Well, the situation isn't quite as bad now and the seminaries have been cleaned up a lot since the 1970s." That hardly is reassuring as the Hubbard case continues to demonstrate.
And there is one glaring example which I'm not sure makes it into GB,GM but is definately in his book about good priests. The story of how St. John Provencial Seminary was shut down and moved to Sacred Heart is a corker! Its the story of a faithful young priest, a young seminarian who was currently at that seminary, and another priest who was Polish and translated the compiled information for the Vatican representative into his native Polish!!! Why did these men have to go to such lengths? Because of lies. They are very good these progressives at covering their tracks and making themselves look Catholic when it suits their agenda.
I just don't follow your post.
You're right I need to tell the story but its late and I need sleep. Will try to in the next few days.
MegaSilver,Read the Saints,they had worst.If you have a vocation you will go forward.
Bump.
narses,Trying to follow along,Which other side did the the Vatican accept?
You "know"?
Okay, I'll buy it. Can you cite your source and the text? Please be more specific.
I recommend the book.
Several evenings ago I promised an explanation of the story about the priest in Detroit getting St. John's Provincial Seminary closed. For those who might not know St. John's was notorious as a hothouse of homosexual activity and the theology taught was not only non Catholic, (more Protestant in nature), but very detrimental to Catholic spirituality and toxic to the soul. Rudolf Bultmann and Albert Schweitzer were considered more important than Aquinas.
Well, in 1981 because of the on-going complaints about many seminaries throughout the U.S., (not just St. John's in Michigan), Pope John Paul II ordered an investigation of U.S. seminaries and appointed Bishop John Marshall of Burlington, Vermont to coordinated the project. As you can imagine there were many rectors and seminary faculty who were upset by this turn of events. The team that investigated St. John's in Michigan was headed by Bishop Strecker of Kansas City. A young priest only several years ordained convinced some of his friends who were still at the seminary to dictate to him what they experienced at the seminary and then the priest wrote an expose based on their story. One of the members of the investigating team was Polish and the young priest had the document translated into Polish, a language the current Cardinal Szoka of Detroit also spoke fluently. He signed his name to the document and entered the seminary very early one morning at about 3 A.M. to push the document under Bishop Strecker's door. The next morning Bishop Strecker was in the Cardinal's office. You might think Szoka would be relieved that the truth was discovered but instead he was very upset that the priest had made this intervention.
Why you might wonder would a priest feel the need to go to all of this trouble to get a report to an investigating team that was, after all, on the premises and could easily see and ask questions? Well, the staff of St. John's knew when the investigators were coming and they were prepared, priest professors who hadn't worn their Roman collars in years put them back on. I have been told that the offensive text books were removed and in general a Catholic veneer was put on for he benefit of the investigators. Needless to say homosexual activity came to a halt while the visitors were there. But, even more importantly, those in charge of St. John's made it difficult for the seminarians to talk to the investigators privately and if it hadn't been for this priest's intervention the reality of what went on at this seminary might never have been known by the investigators.
In 1986 St. John's was closed and moved to Sacred Heart Seminary within the city limits of Detroit. The official reason given was economic, but many figured that Sacred Heart was just easier for the Cardinal to control. And, even though the professors that taught at St. John's were moved to Sacred Heart, as these same professors have taken other positions, retired or died their replacements are much more orthodox Catholics. I know that St. Thomas Aquinas has replaced the Protestants and that the student body is much more conservative.
My point in telling this story is to give an example of the subterfuge and mis-leading actions of rectors and seminary professors than can suffocate the truth. Also, I am not so sure that Michael Rose did not interview rectors of seminaries. And, if he didn't perhaps it is because he was refused and not because he was trying to present only one side of the story.
That kind of Gestapo-like tactic makes me wonder what kind of person Rose is.
What is "Gestapo-like " about filing a civil suit Deacon?
Thank you.
He was not refused. The rector of Louvain took him to task over some of the statements made by the lone seminarian he interviewed. No less than the National Catholic Register sided with the rector of Louvain against Rose.
Rose was intimidating Johanssen into silence by threatening a lawsuit, instead of answering his objections.
How is that a "Gestapo-like" tactic? Your biased connotation aside, Mr. Rose threatened to use the law to settle a dispute. How is that a "Gestapo-like" tactic?
That is Gestapo-like.
Wow, you KNOW he couldn't answer the charges, right? And the Priest, with God and Truth on his side shut up rather than go into court? Perhaps the facts are far less clear than your slanders Deacon. Do tell, how is a civil suit "gestapo-like"? Is every lawyer therefore a Nazi? Are all litigants Nazis? Or just those who EXPOSE the corrupt sodomites who run the Seminaries?
Rose never answered them. If he could have, he would have.
And the Priest, with God and Truth on his side shut up rather than go into court?
His bishop told him to be quiet. The bishop was threatened with a lawsuit if the priest continued to challenge Rose.
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?
narses,Are you saaying the Pope did not n read this book?
No, rather the "investigation" by the Vatican prior to the book that whitewashed the lavender mafia.
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.