I was going to do this privately, but I’ve decided not to. Since by now, about 7 people have sent me this story.

I’m looking for a retraction from Dale Vree of the New Oxford Review. I imagine I will have about as much luck with that as I have had with requesting retractions from Andrew Sullivan. Go figure.

The occasion? Vree has written a rather snide piece about me in the current New Oxford Review. No link. But here’s the piece:

In a New Oxford Note (Sept. 2002), we told you about a book review in Our Sunday Visitor trashing Michael S. Rose’s Goodbye, Good Men, which was an exposéé of the "gay" subculture in many of our Catholic seminaries. The review was written by Amy Welborn (who is now a well-known Catholic blogger). The title of the New Oxford Note was "Killing Michael Rose."

Amy called Rose’s book "incendiary" and a "purported exposéé." She said the book should be read with a "healthy dose of skepticism." She claimed that the thesis of the book is a "churchwide conspiracy against the orthodox and straight" in the seminaries. Rose never used the words "conspiracy" or "churchwide."

But Amy has finally seen the light. In The New York Times (Sept. 28, 2005), she writes about the Apostolic Visitations of all of the seminaries in the U.S. She says: "Judging by press accounts, the effort is all about uncovering and expelling homosexuals — a purge, simply put." She notes "the presence in seminaries of gay subcultures," which was exactly what Rose brought up in his book, and she says: "Why is it considered unfair to expect priests and seminarians to live by the values of the institution they serve? Others may call it a purge, but I call it truth in advertising." Yes, Amy has seen the darkness.

On the other hand, Amy has stopped writing for Our Sunday Visitor, so maybe she doesn’t have to sugarcoat things anymore. Maybe that explains her pooh-poohing of Rose’s book. Whatever the case, we’re glad she now stands in the light, for "the light shines in darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it" (Jn. 1:5).

Of course, Amy was writing when there were those false reports that all homosexuals (active or chaste) would not be allowed into seminaries. Now we know there will be no purge. But we’re happy to see that Amy has seen the light — and the darkness.

Now, here’s my review, as it appeared in OSV:

For several years, Michael Rose has been making small waves in the Catholic periodical and Internet worlds with his articles and publications critiquing various aspects of modern Church life, particularly catechesis and church architecture.

Over the past months, however, Rose’s waves are getting bigger, thanks to the publication of two provocative books and the fortuitous timing of one of them.

The two books are "Ugly as Sin" (Sophia Institute Press, $25), an examination of contemporary Catholic church architecture, and "Goodbye! Good Men" (Aquinas Publishing, $22), a purported exposé of the shortcomings of Catholic-seminary recruitment and formation. Both books have received due notice, but the latter, in particular, has attracted a great deal of attention over the past months, as the media and the general public have scrambled to try to understand the roots of the sex-abuse scandal currently rocking the Church.

Rose, who holds degrees in architecture and fine arts, wrote an earlier book called "The Renovation Manipulation," in which he argued that in the years since the Second Vatican Council, many renovation programs of traditionally designed Catholic churches have been forced upon the laity by deceptive and imperious Church leaders and liturgists. Despite what its title might indicate, "Ugly as Sin" takes a more positive approach to the same problem (see box).

Far more incendiary is Rose’s most recent book, "Goodbye! Good Men," subtitled, "How Catholic Seminaries Turned Away Two Generations of Vocations From the Priesthood."

Rose’s thesis is that over the past 30 years, many seminaries, diocesan vocations offices and religious orders have come to be dominated by people with heterodox beliefs and sympathy with, and even overt participation in, various immoral lifestyles, particularly homosexual activity. The result, Rose maintains, is an atmosphere in many seminaries and religious houses in which a heterosexual man of orthodox Catholic beliefs would feel, at the very least, uncomfortable and out of place. At worst, it’s created an environment in which potential seminarians who don’t buy the heterodox agenda (doctrinal liberalism, ethical relativism), practice traditional Catholic devotions and piety, or are uninterested in what Rose calls a "gay subculture" thriving at some seminaries, are rejected as candidates for the priesthood on the grounds that they are "rigid," "dogmatic" or not "collaborative" enough.

Rose backs up his thesis with data culled from the public record — newspaper accounts of seminary faculty and textbook controversies, and even court cases involving accusations of sexual harassment at seminaries. He also uses many personal anecdotes and interviews from men who have either been turned away from the priesthood or persisted through great obstacles to ordination.

Typical of the cases Rose cites is that of Father William Hinds, who was ordained for the Diocese of Covington, Ky., in 1987. Father Hinds maintains that because of his orthodox views, particularly on sexual morality, he was singled out by a particular seminary professor who insisted on his meeting additional requirements — independent studies, extra psychological testing — to discourage him from pursuing ordination, despite his excellent academic record and positive reviews from the staff of the parish in which he interned.

"Goodbye! Good Men" is a book that all Catholics concerned about the present and future state of the priesthood should read. You’ll probably be shocked, for Rose holds nothing back, including uncomfortable details and the names of seminaries in which he says Catholic doctrine takes a back seat to contemporary academic fads and that, for example, seminarians were transported, with interested faculty, to gay bars on the weekends.

There is, however, a notable weakness in "Goodbye! Good Men" that should prompt the reader to bring a healthy dose of skepticism to Rose’s claims, implied in the book’s title, that he’s offering an analysis of the complete picture of seminary education in the United States. "Goodbye! Good Men" may contain lots of stories, and most of those stories may be true, but the fact is, this book is not a comprehensive look at all seminary education in the United States, and shouldn’t be read as such.

In order to really prove his thesis that there has a been a churchwide conspiracy against the orthodox and the straight, Rose would have to get data from many dioceses, seminaries and religious orders about how many candidates have applied, how many of those have been turned away and what the reasons for dismissal were. He might even have had to personally visit some of the seminaries he critiques and do on-site reporting, rather than relying on the testimony of only the dissatisfied. As it is, all we have in "Goodbye! Good Men" is the story of what happened to a self-selected group of men who attended particular seminaries. It’s their stories, more often than not anonymously related. It’s their side of their stories.

Michael Rose is doing important and courageous work, revealing truths that many would rather keep in the dark. But it’s important to remember before being caught up in the sweep of salacious detail and wholesale condemnation of an entire system in "Goodbye! Good Men" that, even though the stories he tells are valuable and important to hear, they’re not, by any means, the whole story.

Now. You all are smart people. I’m not going extend this post any longer than necessary. Would you describe my review as "trashing" of the book? A book that I recommend and for which I commend the author for doing "important and courageous work?"

My only cricitism was methodology. When you do "reporting" that is dependent upon the testimony of the dissatsified, and when those who caused the dissatisfaction are prohibited from commenting on cases because of confidentiality issues…yes, I do not apologize for saying that such testimony should be taken with a grain of salt. Not disbelieved, not discredited, but simply read and assimilated knowing that there might be more to the story. As my husband has written on several occasions, he has known a few men dismissed from seminary who bleated that is was because they were "too orthodox" but in actuality (in one case, for example)  it was because they had been caught in a neighboring farm, having their way with livestock. I am not making that up.

(And it should be clear from context – my use of "incendiary" didn’t have negative connotations. Fire is not inherently bad.)

Vree has mischaracterized the original review, mischaracterized my work since, as well as my general attitude toward the issue, and made me out to be some sort of patsy at the mercy of Big Catholic Publishing. As if. Someone give the man a truth pill.