Goodbye, Good Journalism? The Problem of Michael Rose

If I had a family member serving in the military right now, there’s only one thing I’d dread more than a knock on the door in the middle of the night:

“Friendly fire,” they call it. Such a congenial term for so bitter a pill — one that no mother, father, son, daughter, sister or brother should ever have to choke down.

The way I see it, when one of our boys is cut down by the enemy, his family can take consolation in the honor bestowed on all those who die fighting for a just and noble cause. When he’s accidentally killed by his own buddies, all the surviving relatives are left with are unanswered questions. Who? Why? How?

That’s the best analogy I can come up with to convey how I felt when I opened the May issue of the New Oxford Review.

There, right up near the monthly journal’s front end, a priest who happens to be a personal friend of mine comes under withering fire from a letter-writer who holds him responsible for a litany of outrageous offenses against Catholic orthodoxy. The most despicable of the allegations describes his presiding over ersatz, anything-goes liturgies at which the Blessed Sacrament is “crushed into the floor [as] the electric guitars shatter what should be a sacred silence.”

The letter-writer is a student at a Catholic high school in Rhode Island. My friend, one of the most steadfast and dedicated priests I know, is chaplain at the school.

I probably wouldn’t have bothered to answer the charges this wacky rant levels against Father Marcel Taillon, who also serves as vocations recruiter for the Diocese of Providence, had the salvo been fired in isolation. But the letter represents the third shot in what has become a sustained volley.

The hostilities began with a less hysterical, but equally irresponsible, section in one of the hottest-selling books on the Catholic bestseller lists right now — Goodbye, Good Men: How Liberals Brought Corruption into the Catholic Church by Michael S. Rose. Shot No. 2 was an excerpt from the book that ran as a guest column in the February issue of the New Oxford Review. These, too, falsely accused Father Taillon (pronounced “Tie-own”) of offenses against orthodoxy.

A book, a column, a letter. All adding up to a hail of badly misguided missiles finding their mark in the reputation — and thus the ministries — of one very faithful priest.

As a Catholic, I’m hopping mad about the evident lapses in judgment that led to a scurrilous and damaging barrage being unleashed on a priest whose fidelity to the Church is exemplary. As a journalist, I’m irritated by how hastily the escalating bombardment was carried out, with so little regard for the facts. So I’m going to set the record straight on Father Taillon. And pontificate, with all due apologies for any presumption on my part, about the responsibilities of Catholic journalists and publishers to serve the Church by serving the truth.

Space restrictions prevent me from giving an adequate accounting of all the ways Father Taillon has impressed me over the past seven years as one of the holiest priests I’ve ever had the privilege to know. Suffice it to say that he is a priest profoundly in love with Christ and a man whose very life is rooted in, and centered on, his trust in the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Blessed Sacrament. I’ve seen him consecrate and adore and reverence and preach the Eucharist so zealously and so often that I can no longer call one to mind without thinking of the other.

That’s why the rubbish about his having anything to do with desecrations of the Blessed Sacrament proved the stink bomb that finally drove me to my keypad.

Meanwhile, Michael Rose’s main beef with Father Taillon is over a 30-second recruitment commercial the Providence Diocese occasionally runs on MTV, the raucous cable network aimed at teens and young adults. Rose wonders if the innovative ad placement is a sign that “the diocese is trying to attract ‘unchurched’ men that they can then mold easily into their ‘re-envisioned’ image of the priest.” Then he fills in the holes on his speculation by quoting an anonymous former seminary candidate from the diocese who presents himself as “an orthodox Catholic” and claims the seminary rejected him specifically because of his orthodoxy. Rose quotes the young man as saying he “wouldn’t be caught dead watching MTV” and concludes: “Thus, amidst an expensive media campaign to attract ‘suitable’ candidates, the Diocese of Providence rejected as ‘unsuitable’ a young man who watches EWTN instead of MTV. This perhaps partly explains why this diocese of 700,000 Catholics had just 25 seminarians in 2001 and will be ordaining not even one man to the priesthood in 2002.”

In fact, Providence did have an ordination this year and, indeed, by the end of 2004, the diocese’s office of vocations will have had one of the best five-year periods in its history: 23 new priests.

That’s just one important and telling detail Rose would have gotten right if only he had done what any good reporter needs to do before running with a story — any story, but especially an accusatory one: Interview multiple sources. Only quote people willing to give their names and speak on the record. And check facts.

Instead, Rose pits his conjecture and the anonymous source’s hearsay against snippets from articles in Providence’s diocesan newspaper. So it is that Rose sees fit to lump Father Taillon in with the book’s lineup of Church dissidents and dissenters. So it is that he gets the story so wrong. So it is that he does injury to a great priest’s thriving ministries.

Why did Rose, billed on his book’s sleeve as an investigative reporter, fail to interview Father Taillon? Why did he not call on the seminary’s rector, Auxiliary Bishop Robert J. McManus, to ask about the ad campaign? What kept him from scheduling time with Providence Bishop Robert Mulvee, who appears prominently in the ad, to talk about the seminary and the state of vocations in the diocese?

Those are questions only Michael Rose can answer. (When I contacted him to ask if he had interviewed, or attempted to interview, anyone from the Providence seminary, he referred me to the footnotes in his book that cite the diocesan newspaper snippets. I took that as a “No.”)

I do know that Rose’s star is rising — he’s been turning up with his sensational, sordid accounts on secular news shows — and his book is doing some brisk business. And I believe it’s a shame that, in taking on such a potentially worthwhile assignment, he has, with his slapdash reporting, shot his own credibility squarely in the foot. There may well be some fine reporting elsewhere in the book. But I, for one, will never see it. I don’t have time to sift through unreliable information. (The May 2002 issue of Culture Wars magazine — which would otherwise be a booster of the book — claims there are more problems with its reporting.)

As for the monthly journal, its editor should have checked the facts on its letter-writer’s accusations before presenting the tirade without disclaimer or comment. I’m speaking firsthand when I tell you that publications get all kinds of mail from all kinds of people. Religious publications seem to get more than their fair share from individuals who either have axes to grind or are unbalanced mentally or emotionally. Teen-agers who rail against the authority figures in their life should be at the top of the list of those whose accusations should never run unchecked.

We Catholic editors who read the mail need to pray for all the aggravated souls who write in, but we don’t need to publish whatever they write. And we need to be especially wary about letting them use our publications to hurt the Church and libel its people.

“Was MTV a good place for our ad? That’s a fair question to ask,” said Father Taillon when I called to ask about how he’s been affected by the hubbub. “It’s too bad we didn’t get a chance to answer it for this book, because we’ve given it a lot of thought and prayer.

“This situation is especially sad since I probably agree with a lot of what Michael Rose is trying to accomplish,” he added. “As it is, he’s hurt our ministry. We’ll recover, but, for the time being, he’s taken the focus off Christ around the school and the seminary, and put it on me. It only makes recruiting good candidates that much harder.”

Memo to Catholic publishers and news directors: In order for Catholic journalism to serve the truth, Catholic reporters must strive to be guided not only by the Church’s teachings on morality and ethics in the workplace, but also by the highest standards of the journalism profession. Sacrifice journalistic excellence for the sake of sounding off, increasing sales or conducting a crusade — no matter how well-intentioned — and you’re in the propaganda business. And propaganda in Catholic publishing is a sure way to sabotage the Church’s communications mission: evangelization, catechesis and formation of conscience.

I believe there’s a lesson in this series of rear-guard gaffes that have dinged up Father Taillon’s front-line ministries, and it’s not just for the journalists, writers and editors in our ranks. At a moment of siege and scandal like the one the Church is suffering through right now, we have to ask ourselves every day: Are we using our words to build up the Body of Christ — or to hand the enemy just the ammunition he needs to bring it down?

Well, that's strike three.

First we had Fr. Mahan criticizing Rose's sloppiness at culturewars.com.

Then, we had the rector of the American College at Louvain say that Rose never bothered to talk to anybody at the College.

Now, we've got a conservative Catholic newspaper showing that Michael Rose is, in fact, not a journalist at all, but a man with an agenda.

And he'll shoehorn his facts to fit that agenda.

Why in hell did Rose not speak to seminary officials?

And, sitetest, do not quote from Rose's book. Who can believe anything he writes in it?

No, I haven't read Goodbye, Good Men, and won't.

Dear sinkspur,

Well, sinkspur, if you don't buy the book and read it, it will be difficult for you to sort truth from fiction.

Fr. Taillon is briefly mentioned at the bottom of page 237, once at the top of page 238, and most of page 238 is devoted to a critique of the MTV campaign, and the statements of the anonymous attempted seminarian who says he wouldn't be caught dead watching MTV.

Frankly, this piece by Mr. Pearson is disgusting. It ties the following from a letter to the editor to NOR by a high school student to the rather mild criticism in the book by Mr. Rose:

"The most despicable of the allegations describes his presiding over ersatz, anything-goes liturgies at which the Blessed Sacrament is 'crushed into the floor [as] the electric guitars shatter what should be a sacred silence.' " This is certainly a vicious allegation. But it has nothing to do with Mr. Rose's book. Mr. Pearson is just ranting when he adds Mr. Rose's book to his laundry list of imagined grievances against his fave priest.

Including Mr. Rose's criticism in a piece that also includes the above borders on defamatory. For your benefit, sinkspur, I will actually type the entire page and a half in which Fr. Taillon is mentioned, and YOU can decide whether or not this is "friendly-fire".

sitetest

Tell me, my friend, why Rose did not deign to talk to seminary rectors, the very men in charge who could add some perspective?

Rose is not interested in perspective. He's interested in trashing a seminary system that, largely, no longer exists.

Read the link from the article above. Yes, there are still gays in seminaries, but there are far fewer of the blatant examples of the type Rose revels in.

Including Mr. Rose's criticism in a piece that also includes the above borders on defamatory.

Yea. You called the rector of the American College at Louvain a "liar," when, in fact, he, like every other rector in every other seminary profiled in Rose's book, was never contacted by Rose.

Rose is NOT an objective journalist. He started with a conclusion, and found ample evidence to prove his conclusion.

He did not, from what I'm reading, seek contradictory opinions or contradictory evidence.

Let's not pretend that Michael Rose has done anything but present anecdotal evidence of a seminary system that has been on the wane since 1992.

Dear sinkspur,

Here is what Mr. Rose actually says about Fr. Taillon:

"The billboard approach was also adopted by the Diocese of Providene, one of the more liberal East Coast dicoeses, when they initiated a major mediat blitz to 'target' potential candidates to the priesthood. The campaign, explained Providence vocations director Father Marcel L. Taillon, 'will bring Christ to the young people of [Rhodie Island] by meeting them where they are.' In addition to billboards, a Web site, and newspaper advertisements, the diocese has been running television commercials on MTV, a crass rock music-video cable channel that doesn't by any stretch promote Catholic life, thought, or teaching. Taillon explained that "the best place to reach potential candidates would be on MTV and the Comedy Channel," presumably because studied viewing patters show that these are the two most popular networks with men ages eighteen to thirty-five.

"Skeptics wonder why a Catholic diocese would advertise to an audience that sits on the couch tuned into video musick from bands such as Marilyn Manson, Godsmack, Limp Bizkit, and Porno for Pyros - the ultimate in 'cold call' marketing techniques that makes faithful Catholics wonder if the diocese is trying to attract "unchurched" men that they can then mold easily into their "reenvisioned" image of the priest.

"And editorial in the Providence Visitor, however, claims that the media campaign 'isn't an endorsement of the MTV-style of life, but rather an attempt to deliver the message of Jesus Christ to our young people in the midst of it.

Patrick Simmons* [this means that this isn't his real name], who said he "wouldn't be caught dead watching MTV," wonders who the diocese would find suitable. "Maybe there's a reason why they're advertising on MTV instead of more suitable venues," he suggested. Simmons, an orthodox Catholic, applied to the priestly formation program in the Diocese of Providence in 1999 around the time the media blitz hit the streets and airwaves in Rhode Island. After being interviewed by a woman he described as a "radical ex-nun," he was declared "rigid," "hostile," and "reactionary," for holding to Church teaching on essential issues of the faith. In other words, he said, he was not a "suitable" candidate. He soon received a rejection notice. Thus, amidst an expensive media campaign to attract "suitable" candidates, the Diocese of Providence rejected as "unsuitable" a young man who watches EWTN instead of MTV. This perhaps partly explains why this diocese of 700,000 Catholics had just twenty-five seminarians in 2001 and will be ordaining not even one man to the priesthood in 2002."

There ends all reference to Providence or Fr. Taillon.

Now, Mr. Pearson defends Fr. Taillon, in part, with:

"In fact, Providence did have an ordination this year and, indeed, by the end of 2004, the diocese’s office of vocations will have had one of the best five-year periods in its history: 23 new priests."

I can't say who is right, Mr. Rose or Mr. Pearson, whether the number of ordinations in this fairly large diocese was one or two. Mr. Pearson states that 23 men will be ordained over the five-year period ending in 2004 (assuming no one leaves in the next two years - not a sure thing). Mr. Rose reports almost as much by citing that there are 25 seminarians currently enrolled.

But what's funny is Mr. Pearson seeming to believe that 23 ordinations in five years is such a successful number! And this is the high-water mark for the diocese! Fr. Taillon is a saint among men for such an achievement!

LOL!

My gosh, in my little ol' Archdiocese of Washington, Catholic population of 510,000, we had a slow year with FIVE ordinations of men to the priesthood, and FIVE transitional deacons. I won't quote the total number of seminarians in our Archdiocese, because we have the Catholic University of America, and men come from all over to attend here. However, between men in our seminaries, and men in the seminaries of the Archdiocese of Baltimore (we share), we have FORTY-FIVE active seminarians studying for the priesthood FROM OUR ARCHDIOCESE.

Looked at another way, if the average age at ordination is 35 (probably on the low side), and each priest serves until age 70, then over a period of years, this level of ordination will sustain a population of about 160 priests. For seven hundred thousand souls. That's about one priest for every 4300 Catholics. In my own Archdiocese, with 40% fewer Catholics, we have 300 priests, and are fretting because we know that at the current rate of ordinations, we will have only something over 200 priests within the next decade or so. That will be about one priest for every 2000 - 2500 Catholics.

Fr. Taillon may be a very nice, devout, decent, orthodox priest. I have no idea. But his diocese is not an overachiever in terms of vocations, and I think it's fair to wonder why these folks are advertising on MTV.

I have my own issues with Mr. Rose's book. However, in this case, nothing inaccurate has been reported, and to take Mr. Rose to task in the same article as the young letter writer to NOR is grossly unfair.

sitetest

Simmons, an orthodox Catholic, applied to the priestly formation program in the Diocese of Providence in 1999 around the time the media blitz hit the streets and airwaves in Rhode Island. After being interviewed by a woman he described as a "radical ex-nun," he was declared "rigid," "hostile," and "reactionary," for holding to Church teaching on essential issues of the faith. In other words, he said, he was not a "suitable" candidate. He soon received a rejection notice. Thus, amidst an expensive media campaign to attract "suitable" candidates, the Diocese of Providence rejected as "unsuitable" a young man who watches EWTN instead of MTV.

This is the most ridiculous paragraph I've read in quite a while. Look at all the code words. "Orthodox." "Radical ex-nun." "Reactionary." "suitable."

Of course, the "candidate" is never named, so who knows if this guy even exists.

I don't watch MTV or EWTN, and I'm 50. I can't imagine myself, at the age of 25, watching either.

Keep posting excerpts from Rose's book, however. You make my point that Rose is a man with an agenda.

Dear sinkspur,

"You called the rector of the American College at Louvain a 'liar,' when, in fact, he, like every other rector in every other seminary profiled in Rose's book, was never contacted by Rose."

The rector in question stated that Mr. Rose had interviewed no seminary rectors or others in authority at seminaries.

That statement is, indeed, false. Mr. Rose quotes seminary faculty that he personally interviewed, as well as vocations directors. He says as much on page 8. There are actual quotes of these folks in the book. Thus, the rector's statement is quite false. So easily corrected, it certainly constitutes calumny. Fr. Codd, the rector, went further:

"The publication of these accusations now in Mr. Rose’s book is tantamount to calumny. Mr. Rose himself did not investigate the charges but accepted them at face value solely on the basis of the former student’s testimony."

As I stated to you, this just isn't true. Mr. Rose DID investigate the ex-seminarian's charges further. He interviewed a number of his fellow seminarians relating to all this. Mr. Rose did not, in this case, interview the rector or other officials, probably because, as both Fr. Codd and Mr. Rose agree, they had already made up their minds that the ex-seminarian was a liar.

Fr. Codd, being aware of the charges against the seminary, knew that Mr. Rose did actually investigate these charges further. Last I checked, knowingly passing falsehoods is a lie.

As to why Mr. Rose didn't interview the seminary rectors, Mr. Rose can speak for himself on that point.

My own perspective is as follows: I would have. Why? Because I wouldn't have written the same book as Mr. Rose. He's telling a side of the story that hasn't been widely reported. You accuse him of having an agenda. Of COURSE he has an agenda! So what? He's telling stories that haven't been widely told, and are important to tell. And it is not a story that largely ceased in 1992. READ THE BOOK. He did the interviews in March 2000, and interviewed men relating horrible problems right through NINETEEN NINETY-NINE.

My own problems with the book are that it is too anecdotal, and thus doesn't provide much context. I would have preferred that he conduct some surveys, and publish results identifying numbers of problem seminaries, numbers of problem seminarians, faculty, and numbers of good seminaries, etc., and a whole range of other useful statistical information. But he's a journalist. Most journalists find a good story, find a good frame for the story, and away they go. If you want a detached book, grounded in scientific research, look for one written by a social scientist. Not from a journalist. Most journalists wouldn't know how to spell "statistics", no less how to identify which ones would be relevant, and how to accurately generate them.

Mr. Pearson, another journalist, is another proof of that, making an idiot of himself with some of his comments above.

Also, at the end of the book, Mr. Rose reports on the GOOD seminaries. But he still doesn't put it all in context. And I think that makes the book more pessimistic than it need be. He doesn't do the simple arithmetic which would likely tell the following story: there are many bad seminaries, and there are many good ones in the US. But the GOOD ones are bursting at the seams, and the BAD ones are empty. You do the math.

Again, though, Mr. Rose is a journalist. Journalists are almost congenitally incompetent with basic addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division. Savvy statistical analysis is beyond all but a few of them.

So, yeah, I don't think the book's perfect.

But it's a damn sight better than some of its critics are making it out to be. Which calls into the question the integrity of these critics.

sitetest

Dear sinkspur,

I would prefer that Mr. Rose use a little less breathless language, as well.

But strip away all the loaded adjectives. If the bare facts are true, they are terrible. Frankly, if he was interviewed by any ex-nun at all, radical or otherwise, in determining whether or not he ought to be accepted to the priesthood, that's unacceptable. If I were running a seminary, I would prefer that most of the folks with a big influence on whether or not to accept a candidate would be senior priests of wisdom, experience, and orthodoxy (Oh my! I've used a "codeword"! Strike me dead!!). I would not entrust to anyone these sorts of decisions who could be described as ex-nun or ex-priest. No matter how well they've adjusted since becoming an ex, they've got baggage that is inappropriate to bring to this situation.

As to "suitable" being a codeword, if you read the book, you'll find Mr. Rose is merely reporting the language written by various seminary authorities when rejecting men.

Frankly, sinkspur, I've responded to a few of your threads and/or posts accusing Mr. Rose of terrible things. I'm happy to tell you, it ain't a perfect book. But the critics are accusing Mr. Rose of more than imperfections. They are accusing him of things like calumny and dishonesty, poor journalism and the like. The charges don't hold up. An irony is the book would be BETTER, in my opinion, if it has been less a journalistic enterprise.

And if you want to make any more (likely untrue) assertions about the book, UNLESS YOU READ THE BOOK FIRST, don't look for me to respond. You haven't read the book, and thus, you are reporting second- and third-hand distortions about the book. READ THE BOOK, and then we can engage in dialogue about its flaws, which do exist.

sitetest sitetest

Dear sinkspur,

"Why? Because they raise legitimate objections to some of Rose's sources, and to his agenda?"

I've seen objections, none legitimate.

As demonstrated on this thread and another, one objector, Fr. Codd by name, is actually caught telling falsehoods about the book and Mr. Rose. Why in the WORLD would I give credibility to a man who tells two or three falsehoods (at least one of which is likely knowing) in the space of a two-page letter??

As demonstrated on THIS THREAD, RIGHT HERE, Mr. Pearson is engaged in a smear job by tieing an unrelated letter to the NOR, which is quite clearly libelous and outrageous of a certain Fr. Taillon, to the mild criticism of the same priest in Mr. Rose's book. That's disgusting. Mr. Pearson has no credibility, either.

The outrageousness of their remarks, the blatant falsehoods, the smears, are what call into question the integrity of the critics.

I haven't yet seen a substantial question raised about the book.

As to identifying all his sources, gee whiz, sinkspur, you criticize the man because he's not enough of a JOURNALIST and you want him to reveal all his sources?? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

I know you don't like the book or the author, but are you so blind in your attempt to discredit this man that you would criticize him for not being enough of a journalist, and then criticize him for not revealing all his sources? Hello?? Sinkspur?? Anyone home?!? ;-)

If you will READ THE BOOK, you will find some of the most devastating testimony is given by men who gave their real names. But you wouldn't know that because YOU HAVEN'T READ THE BOOK. However, Mr. Rose's critics alledgely have. But I notice that none of Mr. Rose's critics mention that some of the most telling tales are sourced to priests who went on the record with their real names. I wonder what agenda they may be pursuing?

sitetest

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.