[patent]

This says a lot more about the reliability of Crisis than it does about Michael Rose.

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

>[From Rose’s lawyer’s letter to Johansen] Furthermore, I am concurrently corresponding with the Most Reverend James A. Murray, Bishop of the Diocese of Kalamazoo, under the assumption that he has either tacitly or expressly permitted one of his own priests to initiate and publish the above mentioned website.... In the event that this is not the case, said correspondence will clearly indicate to the diocese that this office considers any and all future wrongful publications by you to be published with the expressed or implied authorization and ratification of the diocese of Kalamazoo.

patent  +AMDG

[Maximilian]

I see absolutely nothing wrong with Michael Rose's defense of his legal rights. 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. 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. What if I posted libelous material on my company web site? Don't you think my boss would get involved if I were sued?