"Why Are They Going After Michael Rose?" & "The Astounding Naïveté of Crisis Magazine"

The internet is a cold world isn't it?

I finally met Michael Rose a couple of months back. He was one of the few adults dressed up for the All Saints Party at our church, Old Saint Mary's. (The others were religious from the Father and Brothers of Pentecost.) His kids are sweet, like most homeschooled kids. And lots of them. His wife is intelligent. His daughters are in Little Flowers. He goes to the Latin mass. He looked awful young to me:-) They sure seem like good Catholics.

We met again about 2 weeks ago. He asked me if I was in line for the bathroom after Mass. I was holding my daughter's hand and he was holding his daughter's hand. I told him, "no." :-)

Funny, he does not come across as "despicable" or "immoral." In fact I think he just got elected to the Parish Council. I guess we seem him as one of our own; and no one else at Church seems to see him as "despicable" and "immoral." Though must've us I suspect have read his book. In fact I think most of the clergy respect him. (We don't have any pansy's either, they wouldn't work in Over-The-Rhine.)

I suspect he's a better Catholic than I am, though I'm trying. I don't know you, so I won't say he's a better Catholic than you. But I will ask this, are you taking on the fags?

It is interesting that so many busy men get so involved stomping out piss ants when quite soon an elephant is going to stomp on ther heads. The fact is that Michael Rose wrote a book about one of root causes of the critical issues facing the Church in America today. Nary a critic addressed the issue,they all focused on what I call "asides".

It's almost laughable if it wasn't so scary.It is almost like if you would post "I have information from unimpeachable sources that all paper money not secreted in metal boxes will be vaporized in two weeks". I would hope after I had placed my money in a tin box that I would request you give me some documentation of the information you conveyed,or the names of the sources.

On the chance that it is true and your warning was sincere and true,I would not tell you that you spelled a word wrong,that your grammar was atrocious, that there were no existing techniques capable of vaporizing your money,that Cicero said that centuries ago and he was wrong,that in the big picture it didn't make any difference,that your remarks were inflamatory and I was going to hire a lawyer,that you had posted before on FR and your post was not exactly correct blah,blah and yadda,yadda. And yet that is what so many people do,and I find it very strange since they all purport to love the Church,yet seem determined to redirect and place little detours in the way. Why?

I am very suspicious of good Catholics who divert attention and distract people seeking the Truth from the facts that can be determined.

I don't know Michael Rose. He is likely everything you say. Nobody I've read here has called him "immoral" or despicable," that I know of.

My objection to his book (I have no objection to him as a person) is that he made accusations against seminaries, and did not make a serious effort to interview the top official at each of them, or at any of them, for that matter. If the rectors then refused to talk to him, well, at least he gave them the opportunity.

I'm not doing anything to "take on the fags" except leave them alone.

Nobody I've read here has called him "immoral" or despicable," that I know of.

Check out patent's post# 8.

I really don't get what patent seems so exercised about. As a lawyer, Rose's attorney's actions in going to the bishop seem only slightly hardball to me; respondeat superior and all that. And I think they're completely understandable given the background of what appears to be a rather long series of libelous behavior on the part of Johannsen.

Your reaction to Rose, I get. patent's is a mystery to me.

Perhaps Mr. Rose doesn't have the same view of the letter to the bishop as you do. Thus, he didn't think it was important to mention it.

Clearly, few people have the same view I do. As for that being the difference between a lawyer and a non lawyer, I doubt I agree with my fellow shysters any more than the rest of you. I am apparently just very hard headed.

Put plainly, do you consider it proper to intimidate a priest into silence by threatening his Bishop? I don’t. I don’t think that has much to do with legal training. I would have the same view elsewhere. I would not consider it proper to intimidate my neighbor into silence by threatening his boss, or his dad, or anyone else close to him. I just consider that wrong. If you have a dispute, take it up with your target.

patent +AMDG

I see absolutely nothing wrong with Michael Rose's defense of his legal rights.

Please explain which of his legal rights the Bishop was violating, and which legal right justified threatening a Bishop of the Catholic Church?

Rod Dreher has written a whole article about this issue, and he came down on Rose's side and said that Johansen ought to be an object lesson to other internet bloggers who are tempted to post libelous material.

That is all well and fine. I’m not objecting to his going after Johansen for Johansen’s words. Dreher’s points are irrelevant to mine.

As to involving the bishop, that seems like a no-brainer. Of course, the bishop has to become involved in a legal issue regarding one of his priests.

Hardly. If you really want to debate that point I’ll dig up a few occasions when the Bishop has had nothing to do with legal issues regarding his priests.

What if I posted libelous material on my company web site? Don't you think my boss would get involved if I were sued?

Again, irrelevant. Unless you contend that Crisis magazine is owned by the diocese of Kalamazoo. If so, please prove that. Or if you contend that Fr. Johansen’s blog is owned by the diocese. Similarly, please prove that.

I’ll ask you the question again, as you don’t seem interested in directly answering.

Do you support threatening to sue a Bishop unless he silences a priest critic of Mr. Rose’s?

patent +AMDG

He won’t even respond to e-mails, much less support his actions
You evidently have never been party to legal action.

LOL. Do you realize what I spend 8-10 hours a day doing? (or 14, of late) Perhaps not.

It is SOP for an attorney to advise his client to ZIP THE LIP about ANYTHING having to do with a legal action, once initiated (and the letter sent is the initiation.)

No, the letter is not an initiation of a legal action. A legal action is a term of art. The letter can lead to a legal action, but until a complaint and summons issue, it is not one. As to SOP, if he had been told to zip his lip, what is with his willingness to be interviewed by NOR? Sure talks to them.

Rose cannot send documents or emails if he is properly advised by counsel.

LOL, contrast that with your next statement about his article, which so far as I can tell is a document he sent:

His article defending his work is proper, BTW. Johansen fired a round, now it's Rose's turn.

Which is it, can he send documents or not? It appears he is, at best, somewhat selective about who he talks to, not about what subjects he discusses.

patent +AMDG

I'm glad Rose was successful in silencing one of the attack dogs trying to cover up the filth in the Church's seminaries.

Say you are a member of a medical association. That association takes a strong stance against homosexuality, and makes various statements on the subject. It plans to hold a seminar on the subject.

Various homosexuals feel defamed. They write to your group asking you to stop. Your group refuses. Next, they write to the state medical board protesting your conference, and threatening to hold them responsible for the actions if they continue to issue continuing education credits for the conference.

The medical board cancels your association’s continuing education credits.

Do you consider this fair? Do you consider it right? If so, please explain the difference.

patent +AMDG

Funny, he does not come across as "despicable" or "immoral."

Good grief. I called one action immoral. I didn’t say he was. Have you ever done a single thing that was immoral. I know I have. Does that make me, as a whole, and immoral person? I hope not. I don’t wish to become a Calvinist.

I suspect he's a better Catholic than I am, though I'm trying. I don't know you, so I won't say he's a better Catholic than you. But I will ask this, are you taking on the fags?

In my own ways I have, yes. I agree with Mr. Rose’s premise. I find his threat to a Bishop to silence a priest, absolutely repugnant. It seems that most here can’t seem to accept something. I do not automatically agree with everything a man does, just because I agree with part of what he does. I agree with his writing the book, and his attempts to expose the homosexual culture in some seminaries.

patent +AMDG

Nobody I've read here has called him "immoral" or despicable," that I know of.
Check out patent's post# 8.

If your going to attribute things to me, you could at least try to get it right. I accused the action of threatening a Bishop to be immoral, and the action of issuing these articles when Johansen can no longer respond, due to Mr. Rose’s intimidation, to be despicable. You know, love the sinner, hate the sin. I do not know Mr. Rose, and on this little basis I would hesitate to call him “immoral” based on one letter. I have sinned far worse, and though I don’t consider myself and “immoral” man, I do consider those sins to have been “immoral.” No wonder you don’t understand where I’m coming from.

And I think they're completely understandable given the background of what appears to be a rather long series of libelous behavior on the part of Johannsen.

LOL. Care to give me a client list I can correspond with about you, and say in advance that whatever I say to them is completely understandable, given your libelous misstatement of my words here?

It would only be hardball on my part to win an argument!

patent +AMDG

<> I admire your patience and pertinacity on this point. You are absolutely correct but I don't think folks can "hear" you. I find it fascinating, in a weird way.

What Rose and his lawyer did was reprehensible and I congratulate you on your principled stand.

It ought also be noted that while "Crisis" attacked the attackable parts of his book, "Crisis" also pleaded those FEW errors be corrected so they could enthusiastically promote Rose's important work.

Distinctions can be made here, can't they<>

LOL. Care to give me a client list I can correspond with about you, and say in advance that whatever I say to them is completely understandable, given your libelous misstatement of my words here?

What libel? The sum total of what I said was, "Check out patent's post #8." If you can make libel out of my pointing to your own words, you're a better lawyer than I am, Gunga Din.

What's gotten into you, patent?

LOL. Care to give me a client list I can correspond with about you, and say in advance that whatever I say to them is completely understandable, given your libelous misstatement of my words here?
What libel? The sum total of what I said was, "Check out patent's post #8." If you can make libel out of my pointing to your own words, you're a better lawyer than I am, Gunga Din.

You get the point though don’t you? In your post, by stating “check out patent’s post #8” in response to sinkspur’s statement that “Nobody I've read here has called him "immoral" or despicable," that I know of.” would, to a normal reader, seem to intimate that I have “called him ‘immoral’ or ‘despicable’”, which I have not.

Libel is in the eye of the beholder, if I think you libeled me, why shouldn’t I start calling your clients and threatening them? They are your bosses, just like the Bishop is the priest’s boss. And if they are repulsed by your clearly horrible, libelous, inflammatory (etc., I’m trying to be hyperbolic here, but have run fresh out of imagination this morning) words, than they may remove business from you, which will clearly pressure you to stop “libeling” me, would it not?

Its exactly the same thing. Rose feels libeled by Johansen. I feel libeled by you (or could if I really cared to be offended). Rose went over Johansen’s head to his boss, the Bishop. I go over yours to your boss, your clients. The Bishop tells Johansen to quiet down. Your clients tell you to quiet down.

Please address the main point, which is not whether you actually libeled me or not, but whether if you had, if I could reasonably threaten your clients over the issue.

What's gotten into you, patent?

4-5 cases of Mountain Dew.

Dominus Vobiscum

patent +AMDG

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.