In the case of prophecy - I never have espoused such a view.
If you're trying to backward apply a linkage made through prophecy 35 years before the prophecy came about, then I will agree that is an incorrect usage. If you are suggesting you'd like to debate where Peter was when he wrote from Babylon at the same time Paul was sending out for Timothy some 1400 miles away to go after Mark and bring him to Rome - no problem. One doesn't send someone 1400+ miles out of the country to persuade another to go fetch a guy that's supposedly just across town. That's like me sending someone to California to roust the guy next door.
Doesn't take much brain power to figure out - does it.
</p>
So in your reading, the "Babylon" of 1 Peter does not refer to Rome, but the "Babylon" of Revelation does. I don't really have a problem with that, as the authors likely used the terms independently, and with different intentions. I was just curious to see if you have modified your opinion on the matter of Peter.
Of course, this dual usage of "Babylon" presents as much difficulty to the Catholic interpretation, but in reverse. Those who want to identify the Babylon of 1 Peter with Rome must explain why the Bablyon of Revelation does not refer to Rome.