Replies

It's been reported that it wasn't Rose's refusal. It was the rector's.

He didn't ask them. Instead, he used the lame excuse "Well, we know what they would have said, so why talk to them?"

But, then, as it's been pointed out to me, Rose is not a journalist. He's an author with a point of view, so why include anybody who opposes his point of view?

"Instead, he used the lame excuse "Well, we know what they would have said, so why talk to them?""

UK's Channel 4 TV did an expose on gays in the priesthood last year and they did in fact get some seminary rectors to talk openly about the issue. At least one of them acknowledged that the phenomena of the homosexual cliques was a problem that needed monitoring, but he was one who ran a seminary where the wufters were in the minority.

The guy who runs Ushaw College in England would probably deny its a problem (now) but that's only because he was driving home from a late night sick call when he noticed the seminary transit parked outside a gay nightclub. 12 "men" packed their bags the next morning.

From my experience I would say that the stories recounted by Rose are not that unusual and could soon be dug up by anyone who wanted to make the effort to find out.

Rose may have a "point of view," but you and I both know that his thesis is spot-on (at least in a few seminaries, and maybe more than just a few.)

If he was sloppy, that is his shame--OTOH, he's certainly managed to draw attention to a certain problem--which Rome has recently tried to correct, to wit: no more homos in the seminary.

Document to follow by diplomatic pouch likely June '03.