Vox Cantoris blogged about « Father » Rosica.

1) Vox Cantoris blogged about « Father » Rosica., 2) Update Vox Cantoris / "Father" Rosica

Incriminated material:

Vox Cantoris : label : Rosicanisms
http://voxcantor.blogspot.com/search/label/Rosicanisms

Legal reaction:

ChurchMilitantTv : copy of legal letter from « Father » Rosica's attourneys
http://www.churchmilitant.tv/documents/spec-2015-02-19.pdf

Explanation of story:

Vox Cantoris : YOUR BLOGGER VOX CANTORIS IS THREATENED WITH A LAWSUIT BY VATICAN OFFICIAL AND PAPAL ADVISER - FATHER THOMAS ROSICA, CSB
http://voxcantor.blogspot.com/2015/02/this-blogger-being-threatened-with.html

Let's take another story. CMI refuted Reasons to Believe :

CMI : Ethiopian ‘earliest humans’ find
A severe blow to the beliefs of Hugh Ross and similar ‘progressive creationist’ compromise views.
by Carl Wieland and Jonathan Sarfati, CMI-Australia : 12 June 2003
http://creation.com/ethiopian-earliest-humans-find

Which led to a correspondence shown here:

CMI :‘Factual errors and distortions’ about early humans?
4 July 2003
updated 12 July 2003
http://creation.com/factual-errors-and-distortions-about-early-humans

Has Fuz Rana behaved better or worse than « Father » Rosica?

A quote from the latter’s legal response: “various entries on your blog that are false, defamatory, or both” … Now, a public servant (and the Church is a Public space, not a private club) has to try to stand statements that are defamatory, unless they are also false.

The statements might be false, if they logically do not follow as real conclusions of the behaviour of « Father » Rosica that Vox Cantoris was commenting on. But as long as the conclusions are somewhat closish to what was commented on and as long as Vox Cantoris cited no false facts to comment on, it would seem to be within the legal rights of public debate.

Now, « Father » Rosica had two other options (apart from ignoring). Take the way of Fuz Rana with CMI (and risk exposing himself with own words quotable on blog) or consider the attack on himself as an attack (objectively if not intention) on the Church and therefore something he could and even should denounce from the chancel. He could even have levelled canonic action against Vox Cantoris blogger – since both acknowledge same « Pope Francis» they have « superiors » in common. I am not sure Pope Michael would not have asked such a road of action even from those acknowledging him in a similar case.

I consider the action of « Father » Rosica extremely cowardly and unbecoming to a civilised discourse on the internet.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Vigil of St Matthias
23-II-2015

St Matthias Apostle, update:

Rosica seems to have said the following:

"Will this Pope re-write controversial Church doctrines? No. But that isn't how doctrine changes. Doctrine changes when pastoral contexts shift and new insights emerge such that particularly doctrinal formulations no longer mediate the saving message of God's transforming love. Doctrine changes when the Church has leaders and teachers who are not afraid to take note of new contexts and emerging insights. It changes when the Church has pastors who do what Francis has been insisting: leave the securities of your chanceries, of your rectories, of your safe places, of your episcopal residences go set aside the small minded rules that often keep you locked up and shielded from the world."

Source:

More Pieces of the Puzzle- Fr. Rosica
De Omnibus Dubitandum Est. ...the existential consequences of assuming
http://marklambert.blogspot.co.uk/2015/02/more-pieces-of-puzzle-fr-rosica.html

Hardly looks as if Vox Cantoris was wrong, does it?/HGL