I doubt it, but if that was true it would have been overly easy for Rose to demonstrate that. He won’t even respond to e-mails, much less support his actions. He won’t produce the letter he sent the Bishop, or the letter he sent Johansen. I’ve said from the start of my criticism on this that I would like to hear Rose’s side, and if its valid I’ll retract my criticism. The fact that he can’t be bothered to respond to this, but did get all upset about things posted to a blog, demonstrates with crystal clarity what the truth is."the assumption that he has either tacitly or expressly permitted one of his own priests to initiate and publish the above mentioned website"Maybe Rose and his lawyer knew that the bishop was indeed expressly permitting, or even leaning on, the priest to take this line against Rose.
He has no good reason for his actions.
The articles above provide further evidence of bad faith. To repeat what I said above:
It just amazes me that they ask this question, then mention the libel charge made to Johansen, but then they don’t bother to mention that pesky little detail about what really seems to have shut Johansen up, threatening the Bishop:Rose's efforts to communicate with Fr. Johansen proved futile, so Rose took up a Catholic attorney's offer to challenge Fr. Johansen to the either back up his claims or face a federal lawsuit for libel.To ask that question, and then give that half answer, is in my view, intellectually dishonest. If you want to ask what Rose is going to do in response to Johansen, then admit all of what he did, not the part you find most helpful.If your going to slam the man, at least admit you made it so that he can’t respond to you.
patent +AMDG