Goodbye Good Men: How Liberals Brought Corruption into the Catholic Church

[Rising_Suns]

Brethren,
I was curious if anyone here has read this book, and what your reaction to it was. My mother has requested that I read it before entering religious life. But I suspect I already know about much of what it says regarding how liberals and homosexuals infiltrated the Church (namely, seminaries and religious communities) over the past 40 years.

My suspicion (and hope) is that this book is becoming dated. As we enter a new spring time in the Church, what we are witnessing is a much needed pruning of dead branches.

If you have read this book, please post in this thread.

Blessings,

-Davide

 

[WarriorAngel]

I didnt read it...but I wanted to post in here to say so.

And to possibly keep this on top so if someone sees this.

 

[Skripper]

Good luck with this thread, Davide. Put your armor on, as it's likely you're going to need it, my friend.

BTW, I've not read the book, but have heard it's good.

 

[BillH]

I've never read it. My understanding from people in the know, though, is that while the basic arc of the thesis is probably right, he plays fast and loose with a lot of facts. Here's a review by Fr. Rob Johansen, who's far from a liberal (read his blog if you like) and has personal knowledge of one of the stories cited in the book.

 

[Rising_Suns]

Fr. Rob's primary criticism seems to be on the authors "approach" more than anything else. I can see the shortcomings of writing anechodotals stories, one after the other, without subsequent "analysis". Perhaps that was the authors intent, though; to let his research stand on its own without adding his own opinions?

-Davide

 

[Voegelin]

I've read it. Looking at Chapter 13 right now in fact: "Where the Men are: Why Orthodoxy Begets Vocations (or, How to Learn from the Succesful Dioceses and Seminaries)"

Rose writes:

Returning to those dioceses that have a proven record of success--Arlington, Lincoln, Peoria, Wichita, Bridgeport, Omaha, Atlanta and Rockford, for starters--one common denominator is that these dioceses primarily, although not exclusively, send their seminarians to one particular seminary: Mount St. Mary's in Emmitsburg, Maryland . . .

Bella Dodd's "School of Darkness" and her congressional testimony, if you can find it, are good companion reads.

 

[Rising_Suns]

Returning to those dioceses that have a proven record of success--Arlington, Lincoln, Peoria, Wichita, Bridgeport, Omaha, Atlanta and Rockford, . for starters--one common denominator is that these dioceses primarily, although not exclusively, send their seminarians to one particular seminary: Mount St. Mary's in Emmitsburg, Maryland . . .

Wow. The two places I have lived are both on his list of best dioceses; Bridgeport and Atlanta. And indeed, my parish priest went to Mount St. Mary's. : )

I always knew I was blessed to live in extremely loyal and orthodox dioceses, but it is surprising to hear someone else confirm this. For me, this adds alot to his credibility.

-Davide

 

[geocajun]

I haven't heard anyone complain about the author, other than my suspicion that he airs a lot of dirty laundry that many would rather ignore. His book is an expose of sorts. I have not read it, as I feel like I get enough of that sort of information from the news media, and from online forums. I already know there are many corrupt leaders in our church so I don't need the book to tell me that. I know they are positioned at virtually every level.
Also, from the bits I've read about it, I think the book does not provide comfort to the reader, and that really wasn't its objective anyway. It seems to me the book set out to bring things to light which should never have been hidden such as they were.
My prediction is that the value you would get out of reading this book, is only that you may find some peace when facing persecution for your "radical adherence" to what you believe is orthodoxy, vs what others in powerful places consider to be orthodoxy.

 

[PolskiKrol]

I must admit becoming tired on the whole conservative/liberal labeling. In my experience very few people who label themselves liberal believe in all the same things.

And if you teleported our most conservative cleric back in time, he would seem like the most liberal priest on the planet. Its just how the climate changes.

It is better to take each problem by itself and not just label it a "liberal" thing.

 

[Voegelin]

I haven't heard anyone complain about the author, other than my suspicion that he airs a lot of dirty laundry that many would rather ignore. His book is an expose of sorts. I have not read it, as I feel like I get enough of that sort of information from the news media, and from online forums. I already know there are many corrupt leaders in our church so I don't need the book to tell me that. I know they are positioned at virtually every level. . .

What you know but many non-Catholics do not know is the church depicted in the media and the church as we in New England, for example, see represented by many Catholic elected officials is not the Church.

Protestants face this same problem when this or that high profile minister becomes the face of evanglicalism.

I use the book to defend Catholicism. It shows those on the outside with a superficial knowledge of Catholicism that their inclination to believe Catholicism by its nature will give rise to and cover up abuses is not true. Everyone I've loaned the book to becomes sympathic to the Church. Deeply so. They feel terrible for the seminarians who had psychologists tell them there were too "rigid". And they feel empathy with Catholics shaken by the scandals. Everyone knows what happened but most non-Catholics do not know or have an erroneous idea of why. Michael S. Rose tells them why.

 

[nyj]

Fr. Rob's primary criticism seems to be on the authors "approach" more than anything else. I can see the shortcomings of writing anechodotals stories, one after the other, without subsequent "analysis". Perhaps that was the authors intent, though; to let his research stand on its own without adding his own opinions?

Then it's not proper research. Anyone can do a background check. Giving things relevance, is research.

 

[Rising_Suns]

I use the book to defend Catholicism. It shows those on the outside with a superficial knowledge of Catholicism that their inclination to believe Catholicism by its nature will give rise to and cover up abuses is not true. Everyone I've loaned the book to becomes sympathic to the Church. Deeply so. They feel terrible for the seminarians who had psychologists tell them there were too "rigid". And they feel empathy with Catholics shaken by the scandals. Everyone knows what happened but most non-Catholics do not know or have an erroneous idea of why. Michael S. Rose tells them why.

This is what my mother seems to have taken from the book as well. Although I do see by her reaction, the risk of becoming bitter against all liberals and homosexuals for causing such great harm to the Church. The accounts are really quite shocking, and it would be easy to blame an entire group of people, while forgetting that there are those who are docile to the Church, especially those with homosexual tendencies who have subdued their flesh and live a life of celibacy for the Lord. Such a penance certainly has great merrit in the eyes of God, although not in the eyes of man.

-Davide

 

[Voegelin]

This is what my mother seems to have taken from the book as well. Although I do see by her reaction, the risk of becoming bitter against all liberals and homosexuals for causing such great harm to the Church . . .

That is certainly a danger and perhaps one of the reasons why this book has been, so to speak, put on the shelf. Not only might those close to the church risk becoming bitter but enemies of the church can use it selectively to advance their agenda.

That is why I posted the postive excerpt above.

My take on it is what Cardinal Ratzinger has described as a cultural revolution in the 1960s mixed with a certain strain of psychology became dominant in some seminaries. The confluence of these things, not homosexuality, liberalism or psychology in themselves, led to abuses which were manifested in homosexual behavior. There is nothing inherent in the church which destined this to happen. Nothing inherent in homosexuality, liberalism or psychology which mandated it occur either. As such, it is the past, those circumstances are not with us today and becoming bitter is, as it always is, a natural inclination but counterproductive.

Didn't get much attention but there is a post today with a essay by Pope Benedict on the era. He speaks of the cultural revolution of the 1960s and the time immediately after Vatican II. He says it reminds him of the '"total chaos" after the Council of Nicaea'. But then he goes on to outline the postive and how the church navigated between forces which tossed it here and there. The essay is here if you would like to take a look:

http://www.christianforums.com/t579...counted-by-ratzinger-theologian-and-pope.html

I do have another short excerpt from "Goodbye Good Men" which tells the postive. I'll post it later.

 

[QuantaCura]

I haven't read this book. But one expose I have read is St. Catherine of Siena's The Dialogue. And it really is an expose. But the reason why she provides the expose is to show the proper response to the problems. I don't know if Mr. Rose does that, but even if he attempts to, I doubt it measures up with St. Catherine's advice. I believe this book is a must read for our times. She addresses the risks that Davide mentions and other bad responses too. I highly suggest it to all those who are troubled or scandalized by things that have happened in the Church.

(St. Basil the Great's many letters are also similar, providing an expose of his times that makes ours seem tranquil--he does not give much advice in the letters (the example of his life does, however), but they do help me to keep things in proper perspective).

 

[Irenaeus]

Quanta,

That's a good way to put it. It has been much worse in the past. It's getting much better in the Seminaries, Chanceries, and Religious Communities in the past decade at least.

There were a handful of Seminaries in the United States who "did not bend the knee to Baal". They used psychology but did not substite theology for it, or forget the emphasis on ascesis and healthy human formation that every successful formation program contains.

 

[Maggie893]

Davide,

Honor thy mother.......read the book.

If nothing else you may be able to discuss it with her and help remove some of the bitterness she may have developed. You're good at balance.

 

[Rising_Suns]

Davide,

Honor thy mother.......read the book.

If nothing else you may be able to discuss it with her and help remove some of the bitterness she may have developed. You're good at balance.

Thank you Maggie. Yes I will read the book eventually, to put my mother's heart at ease. Perhaps your right that I will be able to add balance for her (pressuming I don't end up getting outraged myself).

-Davide

 

[Michelina]

I read the book, Davide, and it was a very good book to read. It is well done. It is also a very sad book. I personally have known many seminarians who went through similar things while in seminary.

But things have changed a great deal since the time those seminarians went through what they did.

 

[stray bullet]

Brethren,
I was curious if anyone here has read this book, and what your reaction to it was. My mother has requested that I read it before entering religious life. But I suspect I already know about much of what it says regarding how liberals and homosexuals infiltrated the Church (namely, seminaries and religious communities) over the past 40 years.

My suspicion (and hope) is that this book is becoming dated. As we enter a new spring time in the Church, what we are witnessing is a much needed pruning of dead branches.

If you have read this book, please post in this thread.

Blessings,

-Davide

I think it'll be a long time before they clean up all seminarians and bring them back to orthodoxy.