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

Dear patent,

"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."

Part of the problem may be that many of the tactics accepted by most lawyers as ethical, even required as a part of good representation of their clients, seem immoral to me.

This tactic doesn't seem worse than some other tactics, tactics defended to me by my lawyer-friends.

Again, patent, it may be a tactic which can be differentiated from others as being especially wrong. But I think one needs a lawyer's view to make that differentiation. It may be that Mr. Rose lacks that view.

"Put plainly, do you consider it proper to intimidate a priest into silence by threatening his Bishop?"

It's all in context. If the priest is doing something that is clearly wrong, I don't think that addressing the bishop is wrong, even trying to put some pressure on him. If the activity were completely unrelated to his status as a priest, it would be a little murkier. However, the conversation at hand revolves around church issues. It's difficult to say that the issues at hand are unrelated to Fr. Johansen's status as a priest.

Unlike the employee to the employer, the priest is bound in obedience to the bishop. If I notify the bishop of wrongdoing on the part of one of his priests, and it is serious wrongdoing, I expect him to tell the priest to stop. And that is binding on the priest. Much of the current scandal revolves around the failure of bishops to act as bishops in this way.

If the bishop fails to instruct the priest to cease his wrongdoing, the bishop either:

- doesn't think the priest is doing wrong, in which case the bishop is, in effect, endorsing the activity;

- doesn't want to do his job, in which case he is negligent.

In which case, if I think my cause is just, applying legal pressure doesn't seem too out of line to me.

"If you have a dispute, take it up with your target."

In the NOR piece, Mr. Rose says that he tried to deal with Fr. Johansen directly, but that his efforts were non-availing. The appropriate next step is to address the bishop.

sitetest

Unlike the employee to the employer, the priest is bound in obedience to the bishop. If I notify the bishop of wrongdoing on the part of one of his priests, and it is serious wrongdoing, I expect him to tell the priest to stop.

Of course, as I’ve previously said, this is different. I would not at all object to Mr. Rose or his attorney writing the Bishop and asking him for help. In fact, I would suggest the Bible compells that approach whereever it can be used.

A threat, to me, is different.

If the bishop fails to instruct the priest to cease his wrongdoing, the bishop either:
- doesn't think the priest is doing wrong, in which case the bishop is, in effect, endorsing the activity;
- doesn't want to do his job, in which case he is negligent.

Or doesn’t want to micromanage his priests opinions all them time, especially on something like this that isn’t an argument over Church doctrine, just whether the seminary is doing a good job or not.

Dominus Vobiscum

patent +AMDG

Dear patent,

"A threat, to me, is different."

I understand what you're saying, there. Personally, that isn't where I would have started. If I'd been in a similar situation, I'd have suggested to my attorney that we write the bishop a nice letter imploring him for assistance. However, it may be that Mr. Rose sent the letter he sent at the urging of his attorney.

My own attorneys, over the years, have advised me to send, or have sent on my behalf, letters and things which I would not initially have sent, or had sent on my behalf. But part of hiring an attorney is placing some trust in him to do what is best on your behalf. If you aren't prepared to take your attorney's advice most of the time, you should have a different attorney.

"Or doesn’t want to micromanage his priests opinions all them time, especially on something like this that isn’t an argument over Church doctrine, just whether the seminary is doing a good job or not."

Here, I disagree. Mr. Rose wasn't accusing Fr. Johansen of having an opinion of how well the seminaries are doing. Mr. Rose was accusing Fr. Johansen of violating the Eighth Commandment against Mr. Rose, concerning Mr. Rose's book about the efficacy of seminaries.

If a bishop is unconcerned about publicly-made calumnies made by his priests against other Catholics, then the bishop is failing in his duties. To ask the bishop to intercede is not to ask him to micromanage his priests.

sitetest

All I KNOW is that Rose's thesis is absolutely correct, and that he's talked with a few (or more) individuals who support it.

I agree. Catholicguy mentined that “’Crisis’ also pleaded those FEW errors be corrected so they could enthusiastically promote Rose's important work.” I think I’ve said the same here, that I’d like to see him issue a second edition even better than the first. That I disagree with the one action doesn’t mean I disagree with the whole. His thesis (as I understand it anyway) is correct, we all know it.

God bless,

patent +AMDG

The title of this Post would seem to invite intelligent responses,just as the substance of Michael Rose's book should have elicited thoughtful reviews,especially from concerned Catholics.

The sad fact is that there was a whole lot of print "full of sound and fury,signifying nothing". Amazing!! What do you think?

I think that all of the reviews weren't worth one short paragraph between them. Two seemed to be so personal that I was rather embarassed reading them. I would have expected Crisis to have done an article about the pitiful state of the Louvain seminary,defending the indefensible is hardly what I expect from Crisis. The Sunday Visitor was kind of par for their course,I think they never quite know where they are headed.

With regards Johannson and his Bishop,I think Rose and his lawyer just cut to the chase.There is only so much time one has to spend and they probably knew that after sending a letter which would ge lost in the bureaucracy they would have ended up sending the first letter they sent anyway. Saved time,saved money.

I wish I had seen this thread sooner. Although I failed to notice the controversy when I had originally read the referenced article in the September issue of Crisis, I was very put off by the author's response to Joseph Kellenyi's letter in the December issue. Looking back, I am now disappointed that Dean Hudson placed such a one-sided article in the feature section. I would have hoped that a periodical like Crisis would have attempted to present the disagreement under at least the pretext of objectivity. Have there been any new developments in this dispute?

Also, you all mentioned Crisis magazine in your comments. I have been subscribing for six months now and still haven't been able to figure out exactly what angle the editors are coming from. Is Crisis worth reading? I appreciate your opinions.

I just have to chime in here about Deal Hudson. We are having a heck of a time here in Boston with the dissenting group "Voice of the Faithful" and a lot of dissenting priests who are aiding and abetting them (and some who actually formed it). About a month ago, Deal Hudson flew to Boston to meet with a group of orthodox Catholics in the Holy Cross Cathedral. He did this to see exactly what was going on himself instead of reading about it in the newspapers. He met with some of the protesters before Mass and afterwards met with this ortho group. There were home made sandwiches and soda and cupcakes, nothing fancy. Mr. Hudson ate with us and spent a couple of hours discussing ways that we could try to combat heresay in our own parishes. He did this on his own time and his own dime. He struck me as being very orthodox, very faithful to the pope and very humble. He's a convert and he used to be a Presbyterian minister, now he runs "Crisis" and is the Catholic advisor to George Bush - meets with him once a week. IMO, we are lucky to have him, I didn't see an agenda and I guess his opinion on Michael Rose is just that.

The "World over Live" on EWTN had a 2002 year in review show with Pat Buchanan and Deal Hudson as the guests last Friday night. I think you can watch tomorrow (Monday) at 10 AM and 11 PM ET. I just looked and it doesn't look like that show has made it to the downloadable archives yet. Worth checking out if you can.

"editorial intent" of anyone is usually over my head, I have to admit. But I do like Mr. Hudson although I don't agree with everything he says or does.

I thank God for Michael Rose and his book. Personally, I believe most of what he wrote, but there are a few facts that may be incorrect or at least partially true and partially false. I'm thinking of the "MTV" priest down in Rhode Island and also the stuff about Mr. Kellyani (sp) - Mr. Rose should probably clean those things up with a preface in any new editions.

His book was timely and informative and eye-opening and a lot of respected, orthodox, "in the know" Catholics endorse it, good enough for me! The back and forth stuff I read at least every other week in magazines and blogs drives me nuts. I'm not sure what it accomplishes.

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".

Still waiting for a rebuttal book to refute "Good bye! Good Men.

Doing some old searching around and came across some great old threads... liked your post on this one. :-)

Still waiting for a rebuttal book to refute "Good-bye,Good Men".

And you will wait until the cows come home. As I try to point out Truth is the only "right".Truth is compelling. Truth is;lies are not. Without Truth there can be no freedom. Truth can smother error.

The enemy is far more aware of this than we are,and they know that to attempt to refute a book that is in essence an accurate and true reflection of the state of seminaries in this country would juxtapose truth with untruth and their lies would be hanging out for all to see. They are not ready for that yet.

If one were to pull out the facts in the five articles criticizing the Rose book,and you can throw in all the comments from posters of FR too,it would be reduced to five short paragraphs. The enemy knows that and are not stupid enough to expose that,so they had to satisfy themselves with little flurries of furious attacks that were "full of sound and fury,signifying nothing".And,they let folks who are considered to be more conservative and orthodox wield the sword. They are clever.

Those who tried to point out the shortcomings with so many words and so little content,probably were more motivated by trying to protect persons they liked and/or knew rather than a desire to join in the destruction of the Church. BTW,I still think all Catholics who want to save Catholicism in the western world need to read a good book on guerrilla warfare,if more Catholics reallized that we are fighting the evil one and his minions who are very "street smart",we would be where we should be almost two years after the initial shocks. But we are not,I have seen very little growth,even among Catholic Freepers,they are still arguing with their feet glued to their very own position.It is both strange and sad and scary.

We have a gas shortage out here,they had a blackout in the east last week,one hundred and thirty people are running for governor in California,the Episcopalians have ordained a "gay" bishop,the catholics are still dithering around with the homosexual abusing priests and cover-up bishops,confusions reigns and people who say they are catholic fight with one another,Oklahoma City,the TWA flight,Waco,9/11 and heat and rains and fighting all over,you have to wonder how many wake-up calls God is going to give us.

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.