[sitetest]

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

[patent]

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