Posted on 06/28/2002 8:19:57 PM PDT by Polycarp
Michael Rose: Hanging Judge?
By Stephen Hand
When Culture Wars magazine, published a critique of Michael Rose’s well publicized book, Good Bye! Good Men, Rose responded behind the scenes like a lover scorned. He didn’t seem to get that when one is making such a sweeping indictment against virtually the whole American seminary system one had better have the facts straight, include copious detailed documentation, and certainly not rely on any hearsay, innuendo, and the like.
Conspiracy theorists tend to broadbrush and turn real and serious problems into dark, gloomy, overreaching melodrama, which sells books. Sort of like the media today which mistakes a relative handful of tragic sex abusers, compared to the thousands of faithful priests who have labored quietly over the decades since the Council, and, in so doing, fans the flames of dissent.
Well, it happens on the right as well as the left. I was one of the ones that Michael Rose contacted when he first proposed doing such a book. He said he wanted stories of abuse in American seminaries and asked to use TCR. I thought the request odd since he sounded like he had reached his conclusions before the investigations. It reminded me of the way the schismatic right treats the Pope. His thesis ( and what a thesis! ), based on a quote, was that a conspiracy was at work to absolutely drive away vocations at American seminaries, and so turn the Church over to lay people. Now, TCRNews would be interested in such facts. We have spared none of the facts in our reporting on this scandal over a long period. But they had better be facts, not tractarian assertions or an unseemly mix of the two.
Michael Rose, I must say up front, is a difficult matter: he writes interesting things, but, alas, rather like a tractarian, not given to nuance and making fair distinctions. And if you look at his theological associations and links to date, say, at his web log, you will find that, as always, he links to notorious Pope-hating, extreme traditionalist sites (e.g., The so-called Diocese Report, which links to, breastfeeds, and supports all the main extremists / schismatics; also RCF / Roman Catholic Faithful which promotes the writings of the rabid Chris Ferrara, John Vennari of Fr. Gruner and The Remnant. He allows himself to be plastered at such notoriously irresponsible Integrist sites and behind the scenes he is in touch with these friends also.)
Michael Rose is not naive about all this. He has long acted as though conservatives and integrists are doing the same thing, which is clearly not the case.
Check out who Rose "hangs" with. It is understandable to want to stand to the right when so many are on the left, but he hangs with those who consider the Pope, Council and magisterium all heretical; he does not always make the proper distinctions between allies and foes or sufficiently nuance the territory he writes about. And we must beware especially any notion that there is little or no difference between, say, a Fr. Fessio and such extremists. Those who blur the distinctions are on a futile mission.
One must choose.The question must be asked: who do you choose, Mr. Rose? Fr. Fessio or Michael Matt? Cardinal Ratzinger or Archbishop Lefebvre? CUF or RCF? Please answer this in any reply to this piece.
One must judge between truths and errors of this kind. In the event that Rose, by some alchemy, attempts to square this circle, I am prepared for any absurd charge that I am an ultramontanist. Rose's book peddler, Rod Dreher, has made this charge in private. (That Dreher's National Review Online is bell-ringing for orthodoxy lately is a strange spectacle considering William F. Buckley's dissent at the ground zero of the clergy sex abuse scandals, i.e., Buckley's dissent against Humane Vitae, which dissent gave birth to every foul bird and thing....) (1)
Someone should try to disabuse Rose about this kind of thing. Some of us tried long ago. He got angry when we suggested (not in public at the time) that The Wanderer had been duped by RCF (the Integrist group which calls themselves wishfully the "Roman Catholic Faithful") into publishing excerpts of the trashy "Gone With the Wind at The Vatican" calumny by a man who was a friend of the notoriously unbalanced and sometime married Moonie, Archbishop Milingo, and who pretended to be a secret Vatican "group" (cf. http://www.geocities.com/romcath1/gengen.html). See the book, which RCF boasts they helped the publisher bring to America, and then the Vatican repudiation of its lies. The Wanderer has since, I believe, come to see they were in fact hoodwinked, since RCF has been publishing their out-of-the-closet pope-trashers like John Vennari, Ferrara, et al.
Michael Rose, I fear, has allowed himself to appear to have a many-tracked agenda that is too wide and it is careless of those who openly attack the Pope, charging the Holy Father overtly with actual heresies.
Rev. Robert J. Johansen, M.A, in that Culture Wars critique praised parts of the book, says that Rose has only stated the obvious where he is accurate, what has been said many times in many forums, articles, reports, etc. It is, however, I agree, flawed as future reviews, I am told, will show with other serious examples, without at all detracting from the truths in the book. The problems are not with what is true in the book, but with what is not true, and the rushed-methodology which overlooked, suppressed, or otherwise appears to have misrepresented facts.
Now comes the Rector of the American College who says Rose never visited or even contacted their college, a school Rose leveled the most serious charges against apparently based on hearsay, but relied entirely on a disgruntled person. Who would want to be treated that way on so little evidence? On so little effort to obtain the facts? Who would want Michael Rose as their judge / jury / and executioner?
But it's the way his friends treat the Pope too.
I've heard some unseemly things about some of TCR's critics, for instance, but I know the difference between hearsay and fact and I have no interest in pursuing these matters anyway, so long as they do not touch directly on their opinions which they represent as Catholic. Let their personal lives be. Shouldn't we extend the same courtesy in our debates and research wherever possible? Shouldn't we give others the benefit of the doubt if we do not have the facts to back up a charge (which may or may not be worth publishing anyway).
This is serious to the extent that Rose's broad stroke thesis / indictments require serious scholarship to substantiate them. His writing comes off, alas, like a far right propaganda tract. Rose himself, as we have said, appears to tend in that direction. He has long appeared to confuse the faith with his own brand of traditionalism and implicitly tries to fuse the two, an impossibility. He is apparently a far ultra-right man and this makes him prone to exaggerations and selective quoting which does not help in a crisis such as we are living through since he hurts the very cause he hoped to highlight.
Nor is it helpful to tailor what one says according to what a particular audience wants to hear as Rose is wont to do. In any case, the Johansen critique has to do with the book's faulty scholarship, not with the obvious particular truths which are unknown to few.
Michael Rose has received good press especially from politically conservative publications because of its timely publication coincident with the current crisis. Good for him! But it is a mistake to suggest that faith-loving scholars should not sift through the book to determine where he is right and where he shows other intentions, especialy in an indictment so broad, a thesis so wild. More learned reviews will be necessary, and will be forthcoming, without prejudice to the truths found in the book. Review by peers is crucial for truth.
Whatever the truth of these matters, it is a shame Michael Rose didn’t realize that serious scrutiny comes with wide publicity and he should have done more homework and documented his findings impeccably.
(1) When NRO begins obsessively pontificating on the Pope, of all people----like it was a Catholic magazine!--- and the Pope's handling of the Catholic bishops, and their fair Charter, in effect telling the Pope and bishops what to do and judging them for not meeting NRO's standard of orthodoxy, then that is weird enough for a secular magazine with a dissident, emblematic, founder. Coming under Buckley's theologically dissident coat of arms, dissident at ground zero where specifically Catholic teaching on human sexuality is concerned, well, this is downright bizarre! Why single out homosexuals, when sex without openness to procreation, per Humane Vitae, is simply mutual masturbation, which leads to all manner of unnatural sex? It is incongrous, rather like NPR lecturing us on chastity, or Margaret Mead lecturing us on how not to raise the kids. National Review has been all but libertarian (legalize drugs; birth control is ok; what about prostitution? I forget...) except where it is suddenly and oddly and selectively dogmatic about religion. At that point we pay attention. I have the same concerns when the Rev. Moon's paper, The Washington Times, attacks the Pope or the Dallas charter. Yes, yes, we all know about editorial "independence"...
Excerpts from Fr. Rob Johansen's web log
http://www.thrownback.blogspot.com/:
"Goodbye! Truth, Goodbye! Integrity
Michael Rose, the author of Goodbye! Good Men which I reviewed in the May issue of E. Michael Jones' Culture Wars, has again shown himself to be willing to stoop to unfair and unethical tactics by publishing his self-serving, inaccurate, and dishonest "response" to my review on his CruxNews.com website today, and further circulate his distortions and misrepresentations in an e-mail circulated to many of his readers today.
Mr. Rose published his response on the web knowing full well that it, and my rebuttal to it, would be published, along with other letters to the editor about my review, in the July/August issue of Culture Wars, which will go out at the end of June. For him to rush this "response" into publication without my rebuttal is just another example of his willingness to use selectively presented evidence in order to buttress his own position.
Rose further resorts to deception when, in his e-mail circular, he states that:
> Although Culture Wars editor E. Michael Jones has placed the review online
> (www.culturewars.com) he refused to post this response.
This statement is simply false. In it Rose is attempting to imply the E. Michael Jones is being one-sided or unfair, or attempting to "suppress" his response. This contention and implication is also false. Mr. Jones never "refused" to publish Rose's "response". When Mr. Rose submitted his "response" he was told that it would be published in the July/August issue of Culture Wars. He was also told that my rebuttal to it would also be published. Coincidentally, he even suggested in his covering letter that I should rebut him, stating that our readers might find the exchange "interesting".
If Mr. Rose contends that E. Michael Jones was being "unfair" in publishing my review on-line and not publishing his "response", that too is untrue. E. Michael Jones has always made his position clear that if material from the magazine is to be placed online, it be placed there only after it has been published in the print edition. My review was placed online more than a week after the printed edition "hit the stands". Mr. Rose's "response" has received no special treatment either in favor of it or against it.
I have written an exhaustive rebuttal to Mr. Rose, which is forthcoming in the July/August issue of Culture Wars. In it I chronicle Rose's attempts to manipulate and deceive E. Michael Jones and myself, his attempts to bully me and other reviewers, and his dishonest and manipulative use of e-mail communications between us. As I explain at greater length in this rebuttal, Mr. Rose's contentions in his "response" are another tissue of half-truths, self-serving misrepresentations, and outright lies. Firstly, he unethically makes use of, and distorts, material that is taken from private communications between himself, E. Michael Jones, and me. For those not familiar with such matters, private communications between private persons is confidential and may not be published without all parties consent. To do so without consent is unethical and, under certain circumstances. even illegal. Needless to say, Mr. Rose never obtained such consent from myself and Mr. Jones. Furthermore, Mr. Rose falsifies materials that he claims to quote, as I will show below.
Even more outrageously, Mr. Rose names individuals, such as Frs. Gawronski and Hudgins (Rose consistently misspells it as Huggins, although he has been repeatedly corrected on this point) in his "response", without their permission or knowledge, that were party to neither my review or his book, and unnamed therein. He further falsely attributes statements to them. I know Mr. Rose's representations are false because I have read documentation regarding them, and the two priests in question have complained both to Rose and myself that they have been misrepresented.
Innuendo is par for the course with Michael Rose. When he cannot back up his contentions directly and honestly, he does so by implication, hoping that readers, who may not be privy to the whole story, may draw the unwarranted conclusions he has in mind. He again engages in innuendo when he implies that I support the "covering-up" of the recent clergy scandals, and that I am some sort of apologist for the status-quo:
> If Fr. Johansen had his way, we lay faithful would just leave it to the bishops to
> resolve the problems on their own, no need for any expose pieces that shed light on
> why each day we read that yet another priest or bishop has been accused of sexual
> assault or molestation.
Anyone who reads my review with any attempt at objectivity will see that nothing in it even remotely implies that. Anyone who takes the trouble to read my blog will learn my real position on "The Situation", which couldn't be further from Rose's slanderous innuendoes. Rose has made a vicious attack on my character, for which I demand an immediate retraction and apology.
Mr. Rose is not above being dishonest in his representations of what I have written, for he writes, claiming to quote me:
> I am also very familiar with Fr. Halfpenny. He was my formation mentor during my
> years at [Sacred Heart]. I am aware of some of his faults, among them a tendency to
> micro-manage and to make mountains out of some molehills.
But what I actually wrote about Fr. Halfpenny is this:
> I am also very familiar with Fr. Halfpenny. He was my formation mentor during my
> years at SHMS. I am aware of some of his faults, among them a tendency to micro-
> manage and to make mountains out of some molehills. However, I always found him to
> be truthful, honest, and completely fair in his dealings with me. As the Vice-
> Rector and my formation mentor, he had tremendous influence over my evaluations.
> He never abused that influence. It is unfortunate that his role as the chief
> "disciplinarian" of the seminary necessarily made him the "heavy" in the eyes of
> many guys at SHMS.
Notice that Mr. Rose selectively edited the content of what I wrote! How can he possibly justify that? Note that Rose edited out the positive statements I made about Fr. Halfpenny, and left the critical statement. Rose homes in my assessment of Fr. Halfpenny’s personality flaws, while ignoring my assessment of Fr. Halfpenny’s character. This is a grave injustice to both Fr. Halfpenny and myself. Fr. Halfpenny comes out looking like two different persons depending on which you read. If this isn't evidence that Mr. Rose is willing to misrepresent statements to buttress his point, then what is? Such brazen falsification is unaccountable. Did he think I wouldn’t have a copy of the original e-mail? Did he think I wouldn't notice? Obviously, if he has any intelligence, he knows that I’ll notice. What I think he is counting on is that you, the reader, won’t be able to notice, not knowing the actual content of the original message.
Mr. Rose continually alleges that I am making ad hominem attacks. To Mr. Rose, it seems that any criticism of him or his book is ad hominem. But in my review I limited myself to what I knew and could demonstrate about Rose's use of sources and what he knew about those sources. To challenge an author's sources and his credibility is not ad hominem: it is necessary to get at the Truth. Indeed, verifying sources is at the heart of the journalistic enterprise. And Mr. Rose's method of frequent pseudonymous attribution could be seen as designed to stymie attempts at verification. It is unfortunate for Mr. Rose that, when he does provide real names for his sources, he can be shown not to have adequately verified them, but revealing that fact isn't ad hominem. If Mr. Rose, as I have shown and will further demonstrate in my rebuttal, can be shown to have knowingly perpetuated falsehood, revealing that isn't ad hominem either.
Everything I wrote in my review, and write in my rebuttal to Rose's response, is backed up by either documentation (much of it in Rose's own writings), my own experience (as can corroborated by multiple witnesses) or the testimony of independent, corroborated witnesses. In my initial review I actually exercised restraint, in not publishing material which I knew could not fail to further damage Mr. Rose's reputation. Mr. Jones and I did not make that information public because we wanted to protect the privacy of people like Frs. Gawronski and Hudgins, and did not want to engage in detraction by publishing negative facts about Mr. Rose and his book that were not of public concern. E. Michael Jones and I began by trying to treat Mr. Rose fairly, and for that we were rewarded with a campaign of lies and manipulation. Now that Mr. Rose has responded in the way he has, we have no choice but to fully disclose the facts surrounding Mr. Rose's book and my review of it.
Michael Rose has demonstrated that he is rash and reckless. He has published with reckless disregard for the truth and the reputations of innocent third parties. He has been shown to selectively edit material so as to ignore evidence which weakens his agenda. He can be seen, above and elsewhere, to be willing to distort the statements of others in order to bolster his own position.
In short, Michael Rose is dishonest and cannot be trusted:
He cannot be trusted to present evidence in a straightforward and non-manipulative way.
He cannot be trusted to observe ordinary standards of privacy and confidentiality recognized by journalists and all decent people.
He cannot be trusted to tell the Truth.
I will post more later tonight or tomorrow addressing some of the points raised by Fr. Walters and Mr. McNally."
Fr. Robert Johansen
TCRNews.com
Catholic Reflections & Reports (c)
www.tcrnews.com
On the other hand, The Diocese Report is run by a close personal friend of mine, so I'm not exactly unbiased either. I somewhat agree with the charges that Hand lays at the feet of The Diocese Report (I have had serious arguments with the Diocese Report over some of their associations with schismatic trads) as well as agreeing wholeheartedly with his denunciation of schismatic traditionalists in general.
However, I think Hand's scorn for Michael Rose is at least partly a result of his visceral hatred of the schismatic trads. I think Rose in this case might be collateral damage in Hand's battle against his former comrades.
Anyone out there care to take an unbiased look at Hand's comments here and give me your thoughts? Does his criticism have merit or is he simply condemning Rose for what Hand perceives as too friendly a relationship with faithful traditionalists who sometimes walk a dangerous path close to schism?
The criticism of Michael Rose's main thesis was confirmed by the independent research of the most respected orthodox Catholic publications and persons just this week, with more to come. If one loves the person and teachings of John Paul II one will appreciate the concerns expressed at TCRNews.com, where Hand is the editor (Please visit) precisely because that site, for which I also write, uplifts the Catechism of the Catholic Church, JPII, and the actual texts of Vatican II (not the liberal corruption of that Council) and makes these the touchstone of Faith, not private opinions.
Michael Rose is a good man but somewhat off balance / extreme in his views due to his associations with Polycarps friends. The goal is to reach Mr. Rose and him back to the balance and journalistic precision of the Church and away from their conspiratorial cynicism. Michael Rose engages in strong polemics and can take care of himself, without the help of people like Polycarp.
But thank you, Polycarp, for continuing to bring Stephen Hand and TCR up in this forum. It helps stir even more interest bring the curious and true seekers to TCRNews.com.
PS. Stephen Hand never held to the schismatic views of the people The Diocese Report promotes, even if, at one time, he, like your friends, allowed the SSPX to interpret JPII for him in some areas, instead of going to the sources directly himself. He admitted that mistake and has done penance for it ever since. Again, thank you for helping to spread the word to those who do not know and are curious due to your obsessions!
LOL. I regularly check Hand's web site for articles to post, or just for reading. I often disagree with some of his views, but I also often agree with him wholeheartedly at other times.
Simple constructive criticism does not make me a detractor or a shadower, unless Hand has a persecution complex.
By the way, Michael Rose accepts constructive criticism much more gracefully.
I'm assuming you are either Steven Hand or a close female friend or female relative, despite any protestation to the contrary on your part.
Tell "Steve" he could learn a lot from the humble way Rose accepts constructive criticism.
(And if he is going to insult me on this forum, tell him to do it himself instead of using his surrogate mommy.)
Feel free to offer proof of this slander, by the way.
Man, using such Poly-carp logic we should then not trust Augustine on Pagansim, Newman or Chesterton on Anglicanism or secular humanism, C.S. Lewis on atheism, Thomas Dr. Nathanson on abortion issues or even Michael Davies on the Church of England and Protestantism (he was involved in both).....
It is precisely because Stephen Hand is familiar with Integrist positions in considerable depth that his defense of JPII is all the more compelling. Please.
See his book Traditional, Traditionalists and Private Judgment published by The Wanderer Press a couple of years ago, after he had already seen the errors of that cul de sac. You will also find excerpts from that book at at TCRNews.com's section on Extreme Traditionalists (see margin links). Thanks again, Polycarp.
BTW, What did you think of Hand's call, in open defiance of JPII, for a married clergy?
What do I think? It shows that Stephen Hand can proffer an opinion which is not shared by the pope. It is a mere opinion. A lot of his friends do not agree with him on that.
Unfortunately, even Augustine, in his ardor to fight certain heresies that he determined were really bad, went overboard too. See, for instance, an examination of his errors regarding predestination, by Fr. Most. It was precisely because of his zeal to refute the errors of others that he made his one mistake regarding predestination. This mistake of course lead to the whole Calvinistic predestination dead end, as OrthodoxPresbyterian and strict Calvinists will vehemently attest. (Well, actually, he will go opposite my view, but his reliance on Augustine in his defense of absolute double predestination is my point.)
So I think at least Augustine in this particular issue is a good illustration of my view that Hand is biased, and takes upon himself to judge other men's orthodoxy.
Please! This bait and switch tactic is not doing you any good. You speak with forked tongue. I've seen your posts about him here for quite some time. Crocodile tears are dangerous.
The part where Mr. Hand shows the selective editing is a pretty good indictment to me because it does show bias. It's like the liberal press, they really THINK they're telling the truth because that is what they already believe but they leave out the parts they don't like. My SSPX friend has told me every thing I've heard about Rose's book for the last few years and I know she has an agenda!
I'd be curious to see them. I think you have me confused with another Freeper.
Time for bed now anyway. And a sweet vacation beginning the AM!! See ya when I get back!
Anti-Catholic non-Catholics are doing likewise. Yet I can assure you that Rose is in league with neither the SSPX nor the Jack Chick types.
Few People have been publicly criticized as much as Stephen Hand by the extreme Traditionalists. He answers well, even humorously.
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.
