Replies

From the article Rose wrote:

The third article was published by Culture Wars. E. Michael Jones, not only the Editor but the personification of Culture Wars, admitted to me that he hadn’t read Goodbye, Good Men when he published a five-page review of the book studded with many factual errors written by recently ordained Fr. Robert J. Johansen. Curiously, the majority of his criticisms — much of it based on erroneous second-hand information — focused on events and issues that weren’t even mentioned in the book he was supposedly reviewing. Despite the numerous and blatant inaccuracies of the Johansen broadside (pointed out by me and by others), it has been quoted or cited uncritically by everyone from the National Catholic Register to "gay" apologist Andrew Sullivan. [See the article by Jay McNally in this NOR — Ed.]

Nary a word of mention of the fact that Rose’s lawyer started threatening this priest with a libel suit, and when that wasn’t sufficient, he also apparently threatened the priest’s Bishop. From the NOR article:

What's Michael Rose to do when an authority figure such as a priest is spreading serious misinformation about him, and other Catholic journalists are spreading these falsehoods? Rose told me this: "Just about every time I tried to communicate with Fr. Johansen either by phone or by e-mail, he wound up twisting things I said and imputing the worst motives to me. I'd say things to him in good faith, and I'd see my comments in print, twisted into some incredible conspiracy to lie and cheat. He's called me a liar repeatedly and ascribed to me motives that were simply not true. I decided I had had enough and, in consultation with other well-known Catholic journalists, decided my only recourse was to claim my rights and discuss a formal retraction for the falsehoods he wrote about me." 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.

Hey, at least this one mentions the libel claim that Rose sent to Johansen, but it too fails to note that Rose’s attorney also apparently threatened the Bishop.

From Johansen’s Blog, before Rose got to the Bishop, who ordered Johansen to silence:

>[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.
[Johansen’s words] Of course, it is absurd to hold my bishop responsible for the private opinions expressed by me in book reviews, articles, or on my website. My bishop "ratifies" my opinions about Mr. Rose and his book no more than he does my opinions about the Chicago Cubs' pennant prospects. So why drag him into this? Well, I think that Mr. Rose has taken a lesson from the recent fate of Fr. Brian Sibley and his blog, A Saintly Salmagundi. Fr. Sibley was silenced by his bishop for creating too much controversy in his blog. It seems clear to me that Rose and his attorneys hope, by threatening the prospect of legal action involving the diocese, to manipulate my bishop into silencing me. It's my guess that they hope my bishop will not want to deal with a potential legal hassle, and tell me to leave Mr. Rose alone. In other words, this is an attempt at intimidation.

It worked, Fr. Johansen’s Bishop ordered him to silence:

Friday, September 06, 2002
Rose Matter Under Review
Just so it is clear what is actually happening:
My bishop, James A. Murray of Kalamazoo, has asked me to make no further public statements about Michael Rose, Goodbye! Good Men, or Rose's threatened legal action until he has had the opportunity to review the matter. I am meeting with him next week, when, I imagine, he will render a judgment about how he would like me to proceed.
Please pray for me, Michael Rose, and my bishop, that we will act with prudence, fairness, and wisdom in this matter.

Thursday, October 03, 2002
My friends, I also want to take this opportunity to tell you that I am taking a blog vacation for a short time to attend to my pastoral responsibilities and to work on a manuscript for a Catholic magazine. I will return when time and energy permit me.

Rose not only got Johansen silenced, he got him off the internet entirely! Now, various people have tried to claim Rose could have had legitimate reasons for threatening the Bishop. So, in good faith, I sent Rose an e-mail asking about it. I also asked if he would release copies of the letters. He didn’t reply. I e-mailed again. He didn’t reply. Apparently he doesn’t care to defend his actions.

Many of you wanted to wait for Rose’s side of the story. He won’t provide it, which only means one thing. I was right, this is pure, immoral, intimidation of a priest. What say you know?

All the available evidence indicates that Rose actually and successfully threatened a Bishop with a lawsuit, and successfully used that to shut down a priest. I cannot imagine anyone thinking that a Bishop approves everything a priest writes, and is therefore legally liable for those words. Moreover, I do not think it to be a legitimate principle to say that simply because people associate a priest with his Bishop, the Bishop should be used to shut the priest up whenever he issues an unpopular opinion. The result is to treat our priests like subhuman serfs.

I mean, my word, our priests issue such tepid, weak homilies as it is! What on earth is going to happen if everyone who doesn’t like something the priest does threatens the Bishop with litigation? Our priests will become even worse. I would have a far different opinion here if Mr. Rose had written to the priest’s Bishop and simply asked him to intervene. He didn’t do that, according to the letter, he threatened that the Bishop was responsible.

Again, this is not Traditionalism. A traditionalist might ask the Bishop to consider the issue. He would not say “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.” That is absurd.

You all can continue to support his man. I find him unethical, and have no use for “catholics” like this. Various folks have said a great deal in defense of Mr. Rose, but nearly everyone indicates that if his actions are intimidation, they are improper. Despite this, and despite how clearly this is intimidation, I suspect he hasn’t lost a single fan over this, just as I predicted. A couple quotes from last time:

To: patent

Don't be too quick to judge Rose's actions as intimidation.
If that is what it turns out to be I will personally admonish him. He is a bright guy and he's young one of the few bright spots of the Church in the future.

-- BBarcaro

33 posted on 09/06/2002 0:01 AM CDT by BBarcaro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

So, Mr. Barcaro, have you even asked him why he did this? Have you “admonished” him as you claimed you would? We here very little from you on this, but your website still promotes him.

From Polycarp:

To: patent

What is your opinion of his efforts to contact the Bishop then?
Simple. Having myself recently been the victim of lies publicly posted on a Catholic website read by some orthodox Catholics, I know first hand the utter frustration and anger at being powerless in having said slanders removed.
There's far more to this than meets the eye, Patent.

115 posted on 09/06/2002 2:30 PM CDT by Polycarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

Well, OK, what is it that we aren’t seeing in Rose’s actions? He threatened the Bishop, the Bishop silenced the priest. Flat out intimidation, unethical and immoral in my view, and Rose won’t even respond to requests for an explanation.

Sitetest said, on that last thread, that:

If it is a bluff, if he is merely trying to silence a man who is telling the truth, then may he be exposed and ruined.

I responded:

No, he won’t be exposed and ruined. No chance. If I’m wrong he will respond clearly and publicly, and I will retract. However, knowing how this play works, even if I’m right he’ll be fine. He will either ignore this issue, or if he speaks he will issue some vague statement, lots of words, little substance. Fr. Johansen isn’t going to sue him because most normal people don’t do that, nor do they run around waiving lawyers everywhere, especially when they can’t afford them.
There really is no scenario that Mr. Rose, if even remotely competently advised, will be hurt by this. It’s an entirely safe mud ball to throw.

So I’m curious to see your reactions. Has this action affected his reputation with you, and if so how? I somehow doubt it, and am willing to bet I was largely right. AT most, a few of the Freeper denizens who’ve read these threads have second thoughts, but in the world at large, his play was entirely safe, and entirely immoral.

Johansen may have said things he shouldn't have, but he can no longer defend himself due to his Bishop's instructions. Rose, on the other hand, after silencing Johnasen so that he can't respond any longer, helps NOR put out a hit piece on Johansen.

Despicable.

patent +AMDG

Has this action affected his reputation with you, and if so how?

I never had an respect for Michael Rose to begin with, as you know. His refusal to honestly sit down with rectors and seminary officials of seminaries he was about to scorch told me all I needed to know about his one-sided screed.

And, yes, I've read the book.

Bull. Rose wrote to the bishop as a professional journalist and had every right to sue to redeem his reputation. The priest was out of line and so was the bishop. When a priest or a bishop supercedes his authority, he ought to be subject to the same consequences as anyone else. The Church gives no one authority to malign another's reputation.

The internet is a cold world isn't it?

I finally met Michael Rose a couple of months back. He was one of the few adults dressed up for the All Saints Party at our church, Old Saint Mary's. (The others were religious from the Father and Brothers of Pentecost.) His kids are sweet, like most homeschooled kids. And lots of them. His wife is intelligent. His daughters are in Little Flowers. He goes to the Latin mass. He looked awful young to me:-) They sure seem like good Catholics.

We met again about 2 weeks ago. He asked me if I was in line for the bathroom after Mass. I was holding my daughter's hand and he was holding his daughter's hand. I told him, "no." :-)

Funny, he does not come across as "despicable" or "immoral." In fact I think he just got elected to the Parish Council. I guess we seem him as one of our own; and no one else at Church seems to see him as "despicable" and "immoral." Though must've us I suspect have read his book. In fact I think most of the clergy respect him. (We don't have any pansy's either, they wouldn't work in Over-The-Rhine.)

I suspect he's a better Catholic than I am, though I'm trying. I don't know you, so I won't say he's a better Catholic than you. But I will ask this, are you taking on the fags?