[sitetest]

Dear patent,

You may wish to entertain the notion that Mr. Rose's view of his letter to Fr. Johansen's bishop is similar to that of many of the non-lawyers here at FR. You, as a lawyer, find the letter to the bishop to be reprehensible. I understand your explanation of why it's so terrible, though as a non-lawyer, frankly, it doesn't strike me in the same way.

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.


sitetest

[Polycarp]

You, as a lawyer, find the letter to the bishop to be reprehensible. I understand your explanation of why it's so terrible, though as a non-lawyer, frankly, it doesn't strike me in the same way.

Bingo.

As a non-lawyer myself, it strikes me as a major victory for laity against a culumnious attack-dog priest who is protecting the status quo, at the behest of an institution obsessed with maintqaining the status quo, regardless of the method employed.

Fr. Johanson was full of crap, and willfully undermining the credibility of Rose. I'm glad Rose was successful in silencing one of the attack dogs trying to cover up the filth in the Church's seminaries.

[patent]

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