Speaking of Rod’s piece…

Somebody wants to know why I described myself as a “non-revisionist” Catholic and if I was cribbing from Marxist jargon. Nope. I was cribbing from Peter Kreeft. He might be aware of the Marxist origins of the term. I wasn’t. I just think it’s apt.

Also, a number of readers are noting that it’s not Johansen’s volubility that is torpedoing Rose’s credibility for them, it’s Rose’s threat of suit. That’s pretty much where I sit. I’m afraid I just don’t buy Rose’s claim that Johansen is obsessing over him or out to destroy him. I think Rose is doing a pretty good job of destroying himself at present.

Next, I don’t think Rod is acting as advocate for Rose. I think he’s doing his job as a reporter, covering a story of real interest, particularly to the cyber-community. He seems to me to have done a fine job of keeping his balance.

Finally, a priest commenter echoes a thought which has occurred to me as well: The parable at Mass last Sunday is all about the servant who was forgiven a huge sum then turning and throttling another servant who owes some piddly amount. Johansen’s incautious volubility has incurred him a small debt to Rose. Fine. Let him say “Sorry” and be done with it. But, judging from the Crisis article (and a dumb luck encounter recently with a sibling of one of the priests whom Rose accuses of being gay–a sibling who laughs hysterically at the charge), it seems to me that Rose is pursuing folly to bring suit against somebody for defamation. Not to mention simply not behaving Catholicly.