Browse Our Articles & Podcasts

Blasphemy From the Patheos Catholic Channel Manager

I admit it, I like to argue. If I didn’t, this would be the wrong line of work for me. That said, I also try to be a professional. I worked in PR and corporate communications for years, and while it’s hard to be the guy who absorbs all the negativity from irate customers and clients and then responds with careful diplomacy, it does wonders for an organization’s reputation.

This week, I’ve been feeling the weight of a long and difficult few months, and I’ve been less scrupulous about pulling my punches. I’ve been more combative and less conciliatory. I can feel the Irish in me creeping up, and I have to be on guard against it.

Last night, I failed to do that. I read a post — one I’m not going to link to because it doesn’t deserve our traffic — from Artur Rosman, the new Patheos Catholic Channel manager. Rosman replaced Elizabeth Scalia when she went to Aleteia a couple months ago. Like most of you, I don’t read Patheos much. It’s rarely worth it. But this post caught my eye. It was about the ABC television show Scandal, which recently aired an episode featuring the mistress of the President of the United states (in that show’s universe) getting an abortion to the dulcet strains of “Silent Night” while a bill to defund Planned Parenthood was being filibustered in the Senate.

Rod Dreher, writing at The American Conservative, summed it up:

On ABC’s hit show Scandal last night, the main character, the US president’s wife, had an abortion while a gospel version of “Silent Night” played. According to Breitbart, Planned Parenthood released a statement after the program praising the episode.

It’s not enough to present a pro-abortion episode of a prime time television show. They have to choreograph it to “Silent Night,” a hymn celebrating the birth of the Christ child.

There’s no other word for this: diabolical. If this is what America stands for, no wonder other people hate us so much.

Rosman took issue with this:

He seems to be saying, “I don’t support ISIS [there is no other interpretation given the timing of this post and the content surrounding posts], but I understand” in response to a TV show.

Granted, there is no indication he actually watched Scandal. After this unconsidered gut reaction worthy of Spengler’s The Decline of the West the likelihood of him watching it is probably pretty low.

There’s another person who didn’t watch the show, but embodied a much more Christian response, what Alan Jacobs calls a hermeneutics of love…

The whole post is just an insulting mess of an analysis. The idea that Dreher is insufficiently Christian because he called this episode “diabolical” is simply ludicrous. I realized when I read it that Rosman was among my Facebook “friends”. I have hundreds of “friends” I don’t know, who join me on Facebook because they know my writing. In a feisty mood, I fired off a less-than-charitable assessment, fully intending to burn that particular bridge:


Please note: This was not the proper Christian way to have handled the situation. I was feeling particularly fed up with all the dissimulation and open embracing of heterodoxy that is so rampant in the Church, and I pulled out a sledgehammer because I wanted to break something. I have had serious and repeated disagreements with Elizabeth Scalia’s views on Catholicism — and have gone rounds with her through email trying to get her to rein in some of her slanderous writers in the past — but I needn’t have brought her into it. I wanted catharsis, and so I was being purposefully inflammatory, and quite frankly, a jerk. I’ll own that.

Then Rosman showed up, game for a fight, and off to the races we went. If you’ve ever played this game, you know how it goes. Back and forth, cleverly-worded insults flying, all of it making you look like an idiot no matter how many points you score because you’re arguing on the Internet in the first place.

Why am I telling you this? Because what followed grew increasingly surreal. In a short time, our little brawl somehow spilled over into Twitter, where this salvo was fired:


(Somehow, I doubt that Fr. James Martin, SJ, will come to my defense.)

On and on it went. Are you bored yet? After an hour or two, I was. I started to taper off my responses, but Rosman refused to let it go. As I tried to go to bed, my phone kept buzzing with more little jabs, baiting me to respond. (This, boys and girls, is why you don’t start social media fights. Learn from me. Learn from my time-consuming forays into futility.)

I finally fired back with a screencap of one of his obscene Facebook posts — of which there are too many — and told him he should stick to that kind of humor. I’m not going to post it here, because it’s vulgar, and visually so. Nothing could have prepared me for what he responded with:


I’ll admit it: I’m a Gen Xer steeped in pop culture. My friends and I tend to be a little too comfortable with ribald humor (amongst ourselves in private, not published for the world to see.) I’m not above off-color jokes. But This?

This is blasphemy. And a particularly vile kind of blasphemy at that.

The post it links to is irrelevant. The insinuation in the tweet itself, along with the title of the post and the accompanying image…let’s just say I’m really hard to offend, but this did the trick.

I don’t care if a guy wants to make adolescent jokes at my expense. I put my big boy pants on every day. Heck, I started a fight with a guy trying to defend perhaps the most pro-abortion television episode in history from a Catholic perspective. I didn’t have high expectations for the debate. But when you blaspheme Jesus Christ by using Him as the means of delivering your insulting sexual innuendo, you’re off the rails.

Isn’t He offended and abused enough? Why scourge Him even more? For the sake of a put-down, of all things.

Patheos Catholic has been a damaged brand for years now. This, though, is a new low. And this isn’t just some writer – he’s the best candidate they could find to run the channel.

If Patheos were an authentically Catholic publication rather than a big amalgamation of all faiths and none (Atheism and Paganism both have their own channels) it might be worth appealing to higher management to have him removed. As it is, I don’t expect they care. Personally, if I were a Catholic Patheos writer, I’d refuse to be associated with Rosman. He should resign. His contempt for Christ, made clear in this Tweet, would, in a sane world, disqualify him from being in a position of authority as a commentator on Christian topics. (His history of obscene social media posts, which he makes no attempt to hide, only accentuates the problem.)

Alas, this is the world we live in. When vulgar prelates like Cardinal Kasper and Cardinal Daneels enjoy the pope’s favor, what possible redress can we expect when it comes to Catholic writers?

So instead, I will commend to you the only truly effective course of action I can: this Act of Reparation to the Sacred Heart of Jesus. Our Lord is incessantly profaned, and we can ask Him to forgive Artur and those others — including ourselves — who so constantly offend Him.

O sweet Jesus, Whose overflowing charity for me is requited by so much forgetfulness, negligence and contempt, behold us prostrate before Your altar (in Your presence), eager to repair by a special act of homage the cruel indifference and injuries to which Your loving Heart is everywhere subject.

Mindful, alas! that we ourselves have had a share in such great indignities, which we now deplore from the depths of our hearts, we humbly ask Your pardon and declare our readiness to atone by voluntary expiation not only for our own personal offenses, but also for the sins of those, who, straying for from the path of salvation, refuse in their obstinate infidelity to follow You, their Shepherd and Leader, or, renouncing the vows of their baptism, have cast off the sweet yoke of Your Law. We are now resolved to expiate each and every deplorable outrage committed against You; we are determined to make amends for the manifold offenses against Christian modesty in unbecoming dress and behavior, for all the foul seductions laid to ensnare the feet of the innocent, for the frequent violations of Sundays and holidays, and the shocking blasphemies uttered against You and Your Saints. We wish also to make amends for the insults to which Your Vicar on earth and Your priest are subjected, for the profanation, by conscious neglect or terrible acts of sacrilege, of the very Sacrament of Your Divine Love; and lastly for the public crimes of nations who resist the rights and teaching authority of the Church which You have founded. Would, O divine Jesus, we were able to wash away such abominations with our blood. We now offer, in reparation for these violations of Your divine honor, the satisfaction You once made to Your eternal Father on the cross and which You continue to renews daily on our altars; we offer it in union with the acts of atonement of Your Virgin Mother and all the Saints and of the pious faithful on earth; and we sincerely promise to make recompense, as far as we can with the help of Your grace, for all neglect of Your great love and for the sins we and others have committed in the past. Henceforth we will live a life of unwavering faith, of purity of conduct, of perfect observance of the precepts of the gospel and especially that of charity. We promise to the best of our power to prevent other from offending You and to bring as many as possible to follow You.

O loving Jesus, through the intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary, our model in reparation, deign to receive the voluntary offering we make of this act of expiation; and by the crowing gift of perseverance keep us faithful unto death in our duty and the allegiance we owe to You, so that we may one day come to that happy home, where You with the Father and the Holy Spirit lives and reigns, God, world without end. Amen.

266 thoughts on “Blasphemy From the Patheos Catholic Channel Manager”

  1. This post is perfectly timed. I really appreciate your honest “mea culpa” for your part although hopefully it won’t be as superficial as the Mea Culpa of another popular blogger a few years back. I have been struggling with this near constant barrage of back and forth ugly in-fighting among Catholics on social media. None of us are serving the right Master when we give into our pride and let our words turn to insults. I appreciate One Peter Five and your perspectives. Others would do well to stop and reevaluate their honest motivations when posting opinions on matters of Truth. And there is NOTHING funny about insulting Christ. I wasn’t a big fan of Patheos before, now I’m even less inclined to read anything they promote.

      • That’s just life. A person who brought in a fresh assortment of previously untried sins every time to the confessional would be extremely weird. People don’t all have the same besetting temptations.

      • Whenever I take God’s name in vain, or hear someone else do it now, I say this abbreviated Act Of Reparation: “Our Father who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name.”. Re same old sins in confession: I’ve been married 42+ years, and if my wife would just figure out I am right, I might have something different to confess. Guy McClung

  2. I’m not much of a pearl-clutcher myself. But that was, to quote one of my favorite movie characters, “OVER THE LINE!”


  3. I’ll be very honest with you, and I mean this with true charity — meaning, I mean it for your good, and the good of others.

    Neither you nor Mr. Rosman comes out of this looking very good. I agree that the use of the image our Lord, after being taken down from the cross, is deeply offensive. Given the context, in which it appears each of you was repeatedly poking each other, rhetorically, in the eye, I am disinclined to accuse anyone of anything. I’d like to think that Mr. Rosman, had he kept his cool better, would never have done it.

    It may be that Mr. Rosman, you and I have something in common. I can be quick to offer a quip, a cutting jibe, particularly when I’m riled. And, I admit, that I often come back for one more go-round, and then another, and then another. I started to say, “It’s hard to disengage,” but decided instead that the true statement is, I choose not to. Indeed, when I’m really worked up, I’ll keep the back-and-forth going in my head, revisiting earlier jibes, thinking of what really cutting and insightful things I ought to have said.

    Anyway, that’s my weakness. I don’t know if that is you, or Mr. Rosman, but after looking this column, plus his Facebook page, plus his Twitter feed and yours (all of which I sought out in order to flesh out this post), it seems to me a fair surmise. If you think I am unfair, I readily admit it was only a surmise, and don’t insist.

    But I’m laying the foundation for this question for you to ponder: is it possible that this post, the offending use of the image notwithstanding, is greatly motivated by you choosing to go just one more round? And if so, maybe some even greater introspection is called for?

    Of course, I may be off base. But the good work you aim at is not helped, but rather hindered, by rage and anger and sarcasm.

    FWIW, I read your site regularly, and without agreeing with everything, I often do agree, and share what you write elsewhere. I do mean my comments to be constructive.

    EDIT: Sorry, I meant to say along the way — that I do appreciate you owning up, in this post, to several of your own missteps. I didn’t mean to overlook that.

    • Am I being fair in guessing you don’t catch the sexual connotation of that tweet as a response to me? The suggestion of a sexual act I should perform on the body of Christ? Because if you think that’s in any way equivalent to the argument that preceded it, we don’t have anything to discuss.

          • Could you perhaps take it down? That is an image that would not have entered my head if it had been left on your Twitter war. I don’t follow either your or ASR’s tweets. I was expecting words when I linked on your post, not an image. Big difference; we can guard ourselves against words, but not as well against images.

          • Take it down? Why? What’s wrong with it? According to you, it’s just plain, good old hearty Rabelaisian humor. Just part of a lusty tit-for-tat knockabout between a couple of blokes engaged in verbal fisticuffs. We’re supposed to be the weird ones, taking offense at your friend’s perfectly fair response, but your FIRST reaction was to hide your eyes and reach for the brain-bleach.

          • Of course that was my first reaction. I saw it after the headline of “Blasphemy” and then Steve’s side of a story about an exchange of insults begun by Steve. Only later, after reflection, did I remember that I had seen Artur’s blogpost before–when it first came out–and then I reread his remark about “theological heft” i.e. his article. The painter did not intend blasphemy, and hopefully Artur did not intend blasphemy but Steve shouted “LOOK AT THIS BLASPHEMY” so naturally that’s what it looks like here, guaranteed. The question is now, Why does a traditionalist blog continue to post an image it finds blasphemous?

      • Whoa, slow down. I’m not your enemy.

        Yes, I certainly caught the sexual connotation. But I was not trying to create any equivalencies in the comments. Trying to assign comparative blame is exhausting, and it’s not my job, to be honest.

    • Sounds like you’re just here to poke the bear. Steve owned up to his faults over and over again in the post, and he takes it to confession over and over.

      If we’ve learned anything in the last two years, where there’s smoke there’s fire. It’s obvious to those with discernment that many prelates, priests and lay apologists have a weak faith, that is often more worldly than deeply Catholic. However, these poor wretches rarely lay their cards on the table (that’s the “genius” of modernism” after all). So when they do it’s important to call them on it. As Coach Denny Green put it, “They are who we thought they were!”

      • I mean Mr. Skojec nothing but well. I’m not interested in being in a fight with him, with you, or Mr. Rosman. I took (and still take) Mr. Skojec to be sincere in his regret, and offered a comment I hoped would be helpful. If it isn’t helpful, I will delete my comments if he asks me to do so.

    • One point that needs to be stressed here is that this is not new territory for Rosman. He has a history of resorting to innuendo-laced (if not obscene) remarks to attack those with whom he disagrees. He has also taken to social media on his own to besmirch people he is jealous of. For instance, when I wrote a modest piece for Ethika Politika a month ago, he kept Tweeting EP and its editor, David Mills, sarcastic cracks about my background (I am a lawyer) and how “lucky” they were to have me writing for them. He is childish, uncouth, and intellectually vapid. There isn’t much room to give him a charitable reading here.

      • Well, here’s the thing. I am not bothering to reach out to Mr. Rosman. I don’t wish him ill, but I don’t hold him, or his site, in any particular regard. I do, however, think well of this site.

        I am not defending Mr. Rosman, and I’m not interested in taking sides.

  4. One of the biggest problems with electronic social media is it is so easy to post something off the cuff. And I do admit there were a few occasions where I found myself wasting a few hours arguing with a fellow cyber-bot (which is what we are when it is all said and done). In that case I simply shut down my PC and left the matter hang; for there will never be a resolution.

    Since, I am not a well studied theologian, or even amateur pretending to be an expert on Things Catholic, I leave it to others (like you) to do the fighting. It is never good for one’s piece of mind to get sucked into these combox wars, or Twitter fights. Life is too short. And besides, the Cloud is filled with the ignorant and the sophists. One Peter Five is a breath of fresh air in this regard. Rosman and his ilk aren’t worth the effort.

  5. Steve, why are you wasting your time with this guy? If I have learned anything in my twenty-four years of existence, it is this thing: Stay away from toxic people.

    Keep doing what you’re doing.

    • Because the denizens of the Catholic Internet should know what they are dealing with when they follow links to various websites. No different than our warnings about bad prelates or corrupt Catholic charities.

      • Steve, recognise this for what is, It is a Demonic attack against you, to discourage you . Step back from this , learn from what has happened . You do some very important work here. You tell the truth warts and all and as you have previously said, you have been shown contempt for doing so. You are doing something very important here with this Apostolate, this is why you are being attacked. Peace be with you Steve.

          • Actually, he’s a Polish-American translator who is both an authority on the Catholicity of Czesław Miłosz and a happily married Catholic father of three. He’s not evil, he’s not a filthy animal. He is, however, potty-mouthed.

          • He’s not evil, he’s not a filthy animal, he’s not sick. Nor am I sick. He seems to have responded in a very short-sighted way to a crude tweet from Steve. It is just possible that he meant for Steve, who had used a cartoon of male genitalia to insult him, to read his article about artistic emphasis of the humanity of Christ. Steve certainly interpreted this as a blasphemy and, indeed, that is what it looks like to someone who knows nothing about Artur’s scholarly interests. Artur should have known better.

          • Look more closely at my response to him. It was a screen capture of something he posted. The point I was making was that for all his preening about erudition, he should probably stick to dirty jokes: [INSERT PICTURE OF HIS DIRTY JOKE.]

            I have more of his dirty jokes and images if you want to see them. He seems fond of putting them out in public.

          • No, thanks. I really don’t share Artur’s sense of humour. I believe Artur described himself on his blog as a “Catholic Rabelais.” I don’t share Rabelais’s sense of humour, either.

          • You guys are both better than this nonsense. I can see guys having a good old clear-the-air punch-up (if only), but all this stuff is not worthy of thework you do.

          • Give it up, Dorothy. Your pal is a swine. Perhaps he drinks fine wines and blathers on in Polish, French, and Latin, but still he proved himself in this exchange a swine.

          • Dorothy , look at this man’s twitter from today and tell me that this man is not sick or evil . LOOK AT IT.

          • I’ve done more than look at it. I’ve talked to him about it. He’s not sick, he’s not evil. He’s a pigheaded son-of-a-gun. I first saw that painting ages ago when Artur first wrote a blogpost on the subject. It’s a historical fact that artists emphasized the male physicality of Christ to underscore His humanity. Artur didn’t just tweet the photo: he tweeted his article. I really hope Artur didn’t mean what you take it to mean. I hold out the possibility that he meant Steve to “bite into” his theological article. Of course, it was at best patronizing and imprudent. But Artur is neither sick nor evil. In my opinion, he had a lapse in judgement.

          • There is a line that should not be crossed.
            If a person has no line, then others should be warned that his work will reflect that.
            No person who works for anything that represents the Catholic Church should have the ability to cross this line and who knows when it will pop up again. Talk to him about that because when this hits Pewsitter, he will have to explain this “theological” stance.

          • “I hold out the possibility that he meant Steve to “bite into” his theological article.” Madam – You have raised “Pollyanna-ism”
            to the idiot level.

          • This is almost exactly the way I look at this… conversation, I guess it was, sort of. When people who live in different theological and cultural milieux have a ‘conversation’, lots gets lost in the ‘translation’, if you will, unless they are patient at their listening.

            (I don’t understand why ASR thinks we have to be much worried about what he calls ‘Docetism’, on the one hand, and, on the other, agree pretty much with SS here about the deficits associated with Patheos/Catholic– and with Dreher about that awful television program. But am not a close reader at 1Peter5– although I’m commenting here, and not at Rosman’s site. Many comments here are no more than many comments there: less than charitable ad hominems; but that’s par for the course online, alas.)

          • And sometimes, Dorothy, blasphemy is just blasphemy. Not an interpretation. But you are correct in that Artur should have known better.

            The fact that the head of Patheos seemingly ‘didn’t’ know better rings too close to the excuses given for prelates within the Church who blaspheme, promote error, and usher in that which is sinful under the banner of – I didn’t know when that, friend, is precisely their job.

          • “Potty-mouthed”????? THIS is what you call his post? I suppose, then, that you think ISIS beheadings are “forceful statements of belief.” The man, Dorothy, is a swine, and I really don’t care if he speaks ten languages, he remains a perfect swine.

          • As I actually know him, and you don’t, I am better able to judge if he is “a swine” or not. To reiterate my own porcine imagery, he’s pigheaded. And, yes, anyone who knows Artur knows that he is positively 18th century in his use of colourful language. It’s not to my tastes. However, I do not think that Artur intended blasphemy. Of course it is natural to think that he did–I was shocked by that tweet, and shocked that Steve presented it for a wider audience than it was meant for–but on sober reflection, I realized that there is indeed a more charitable interpretation. I am not saying this to defend Artur, who would thank me only for helping continuing a conversation that is generating more hits for Patheos, but because I don’t like the spectacle of fellow trads emphasizing their hatred for sin by demonizing the sinner. Artur probably finds it hilarious, but then he’s not a trad. WE should all be rejoicing at the possibility that an erring brother did NOT intend blasphemy and that this is all a misunderstanding arising from imprudent and intemperate messages.

          • “I know him” is not really an indicator of whether or not a person is a swine.
            How many times do we hear mothers crying about how their killer sons are “Nice boys” or neighbors of serial killers proclaim that a man was “a quiet guy who was friendly but distant”.
            You know the side of him he shows you Dorothy. This is another.
            Or if he shows you this side and you know it then your definition of Swine is different than the people here.
            Oh and it’s not really generating more hits to Patheos. Like myself, people are asking for summaries and refusing to go there. If they are getting a spike, more likely it’s from Pro-Choicers than 1P5 readers.

          • If Artur did not intend blasphemy, what did he intend? To taunt Steve, certainly. The whole thing seems to me rather like an old-fashioned fight between men. From reviewing some of Artur’s recent twitter fights–which ended with blockings and expressions of outrage from opponents, including heavyweights like Damian Thompson and Rod Dreher–it seems to me that when Artur fights, he fights to win, as men who fight generally do. And Artur hits way harder than his opponents expect him to. Tweeting (or returning) a cartoon of male genitalia to Artur is like a rag to a bull, and it was stepping into Artur’s home territory, as Artur doesn’t find such things shocking or shameful but delightfully funny. Tactical error.

            If Artur were to get into a nasty twitter fight with a gentle and pious old lady, I would say that this was certainly swinish behaviour. However, as far as I know at the moment, Artur only gets into these twitter bar fights with other men. If Artur did not intend blasphemy, then are we to call him a swine merely because he accidentally delivered a knock-out punch to Steve? The lesson, if there is one, is don’t initiate social media wars with Artur Rosman because he will nuke you while you’re still debating over whether or not it is Catholic to use nunchucks.

            It is a pity it is impossible to set up a Skojec-Rosman boxing match, as it would provide an interesting spectacle, clear the air, and give both wounds they could proudly show off to horrified women before toddling off to have a scotch. Artur weighs about 230 lbs–but Steve looks like a pretty big guy, so it would probably be a fair fight. Amateur boxing is a lot cleaner than Twitter, that’s for darned sure.

          • Please. A tactical error? A knock-out punch?

            I found it offensive, but I hardly cried myself to sleep. I’m not so fragile as that.

            Really, the tactical error was Artur’s. I did wave a flag before a bull — if you can call such a man a bull — and he charged right out into the open where everyone could see. The Internet is a forgiving place with a short memory, but only to the repentant. Catholics have little tolerance for vulgar blasphemers posing as defenders of the faith.

            If he knocked anyone out, it’s him.

            As for the physical contest, well, I’m a former defensive lineman – 6’4″ and closer to 300 lbs. I’m not still in prime condition, but I’m no easy target.

          • Well, you did put it on your blog so we could all see what that awful Rosman boy did: not up to the level of your excellent podcasts. Your readers can’t stand Patheos anyway. So what was the point?

            Speaking as the fictional boxing promoter, I’d have get your fictional people to talk to Artur’s fictional people. He’s also built like a linebacker, but admittedly not 300 lbs. I hate it when boxers are overmatched; my heart sinks to my shoes, and no decent coach lets it happen. If we could fatten up Artur somehow, you would be a much better ring opponent than, say, Damian Thompson, who is wee.

          • It’s not a matter of liking and/or not liking Patheos, Dorothy. It’s important to understand that Patheos, while purporting to be Catholic, has one who seems to have no qualms about offending Christ, in a crass and grotesque manner, as a vehicle to one up somebody as the editorial head of their organization. (That is demonic disorientation.)

          • Dorothy, please grow up and see that it was indeed blasphemy and in his job, should know better.

            God help us all. Lord knows we need to help ourselves too

          • Dorothy,please stop making excuses for this blasphemy and just say a prayer for your friend. One thing I agree on. This picture and tweet should not have been posted. If I was so concerned about this blasphemy I would do everything in my power to shut this tweet and picture down so that others can not be led into an occasion of sin by seeing Satan at work. It has to do with modesty of the eyes. And now we must all make reparation to our Lord. His poor Holy Mother!! What she still has to endure.

          • “However, I do not think that Artur intended blasphemy.” Then it’s the classic dilemma: the man is either a fool or a knave. Regardless, the fact that someone put him in charge of Patheos, assuredly someone who knew him at least as well as you, says volumes about that website. And I wouldn’t impugn the reputation of Henry Fielding and his literary contemporaries by implying they offered us anything like what this bloke deems acceptable. It’s a mistake to confound ribaldry and occasional coarseness with this kind of guttersnipe “humor.”

          • You’re right about the 18th century. They were more subtle. 16th century then: Francois Rabelais. Rabelais is really not to American Catholic tastes (nor mine), but Hillaire Belloc admired him, as Wikipedia has just this moment informed me.

            I suppose the question is, is there room in American Catholicism for a Rabelaisian sense of humour and fist-fights on Twitter? Patheos thinks so; Patheos seems pretty all-embracing. Personally I don’t find the Incarnation as hilarious as Artur does. God became man–it’s astonishing, but I don’t think it’s funny. I think it’s important that God became a male human being, but I don’t find that funny either. Artur does; he seems to view the Almighty as a drinking buddy.

          • Dorothy: You seem like a nice person. Don’t waste time defending the indefensible. If you know this guy, tell him no-ifs-ands-or-buts-about-it that he stepped way, way over the line of decency, and walked square into the minefield of blasphemy; he needs to go to Confession…soon. I got to thinking about what I wrote after I posted and it came to me that there was at least one 18th century writer he resembles, Voltaire. But few true Catholics want to be placed in his company.

          • Matthew 15:18Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)

            18 But the things which proceed out of the mouth, come forth from the heart, and those things defile a man.

          • Hello Phil, Steve’s calling out Rosman and Rosman’s reaction are telling . The Truth is a sword, it divides it exposes it illuminates, and Rosman’s reaction, and the fact he has no problem to post obscene pictures, references to Our Lord and Our Lady tell what he stands for. What Catholic would find this acceptable, well apart from Dorothy.

          • Hello Joseph , It is amazing to behold some “Catholics” like Rosman that can’t see how bad they have become, and lash out when criticised. A case of a bad conscience I think.

    • Well said Harp of the Spirit and Chris P.
      Steve, continue to speak truth, refute fallacy, but if your opponent continues to be obnoxious, let his own actions destroy him – surely God’s chastisement will be far more severe than your’s.
      Christ told us to expect deception and persecution if we follow Him, but He promised to be with us to the ends of the earth. Kim Davis is a shining example for all of us – she has been betrayed even by some of the Church hierarchy !
      The louder your opponent shouts, the greater is your victory over him. Peace.

      • I always get this creepy feeling that the defenders of Catholicism aren’t really Catholic. Stories like this only confirm my paranoia.

        You do great work Steve. I actually trust your site.

        How much do you really need social media? I got off it years ago (except for Disqus) because it brought out the worst in me. A couple of glasses of wine and a perch in front of the PC and I turn into an even bigger lunatic.

          • I really enjoy your site, Steve. I sympathize with your concerns about social media. That’s why I haven’t put up a Facebook page or Twitter Whatever for my Catholic prayer site. I don’t have the time to referee food fights and such. Happy Thanksgiving and a Blessed Advent to you. Keep up the good work!

          • I wouldn’t describe what gets thrown in these fights as food! lol I think you’re on to something though- social media is just a lot of wasted time especially Facebook and Twitter – they seem to be portals for otherwise nice people to become under the influence of the devil if not magnets for the outright completely possessed. No exaggeration – Steve’s post confirms it!

  6. I hope Rosman follows you lead in the apology department as well, Steve. I pray that he does. After a tweet like that, dear God, I’m no longer surprised he supported that filthy program. That is one of the most abhorrent things a Catholic could say. Really scary.

  7. >>Then Rosman showed up, game for a fight, and off to the races we went. If you’ve ever played this game, you know how it goes. Back and forth, cleverly-worded insults flying, all of it making you look like an idiot no matter how many points you score because you’re arguing on the Internet in the first place.<<


    Oh man, can I relate to this.

  8. >>He seems to be saying, “I don’t support ISIS [there is no other interpretation given the timing of this post and the content surrounding posts], but I understand” in response to a TV show.<<

    How does this even apply to Rod Dreher?

    • “Never argue with an idiot because first they will shout you down and then beat you with experience”

      so i’m not the only one still wondering what that line meant???

  9. Forgive me for putting a fine point on this, but it’s even worse when you reflect that he used an image of the DEAD Christ with words referring to His genitalia.

    It becomes some sort of mash up of cannibalism (eating dead human flesh; not consuming Eternally Live Divinity) and necrophilia.

    The man who posted that is bent in the head.

  10. What Tara said, perfectly timed. While reading I did check my Facebook and twitter to keep from getting bored. I too was part of a twitter war; but the liberal progressive started it who is a Practicing Pagan and was rambling about what a good life is, morals and to her abortion was one of them; so I began quoting back to her some of the greatest Pagan Philosophers and Teachers; Aristotle and Cicero on what is a true good life. She asked what did those two have to do with it, I told her because they believe in Truth and the actual Moral Good Life, plus it is best to respond with those who also of Paganism. It didn’t work too well, it got her more upset, so I had someone else try to help.

  11. Just because you make an “uncharitable” comment once in a while does not necessarily negate the truth. Sometimes we are compelled to say things that aren’t normally “nice” in order to shock the fools out of their slumber. I seem to recall Jesus calling certain people a ” brood of vipers” among other things So if Jesus who is Our Savior, perfect in all ways, could do that, then we too may have occasion to use strong language. We hope we have prudence and wisdom before it comes to that, but if you are in the Truth, there’s nothing to apologize for.

  12. We have allowed the pagans (and worse) to take over tv and film. Catholics now feed on the shit of the culture and try to pretend that it’s nutritious. I’m guessing most folks upset with the tv show “Scandal” have scandalous viewing habits. We helped create this cultural beast. We must fast from evil, as a first step, if we hope to reform the world of literature, arts, tv, film, etc…

  13. Thank you for that. I have been feeling horrible all day just from reading his post. It’s hard to fathom, but I guess this is the world now.

  14. Good job Steve. It just goes to show how far Arthur has drifted (flown) from the Catholic faith and why no good Catholic should read anything from Patheos. Arthur should go to confession immediately but, unfortunate for him, he may no longer believe in it.

  15. No, no, no, no. That tweet didn’t mean that, did it?

    I’m going to be sick. It was bad enough when I discovered a Reformed pastor I used to support bogging links to porn videos yesterday. But this s infinitely worse.

    Lord Jesus, come quickly!

  16. Calm down, Steve, and know that your anger was totally justified. I had to stare at the image for several seconds; my mind REFUSED, ABSOLUTELY REFUSED to believe that anyone even remotely connected to Catholicism could post something this blasphemous! What a lousy ********* (I won’t bother because you wouldn’t let me post what is behind those asterisks or those that follow) that ******** is! If Patheos doesn’t fire this ******** now, then they condemn themselves along with this ********* Art Rosman.

  17. You already know this, but I’ll say it anyway, this dude and everyone like him just.ain’

    I used to read crap like his to be fair and understand and engage. Not any more. The only people I care about are faithful Catholics …. Like yourself. The rest, I ignore. I leave them to God and his judgements. The time for persuasion is OVER. Now we faithful few band together and glorify God as he deserves

  18. There’s a classic saying about things like this – avoid the near occasion of sin. As the Gospel says, if a blog on the internet causes you to sin, block it out. Of course that is a modern hi-tech version of the original parable.

  19. Careful Steve, Patheos may sic Bill Donahue and the Catholic League on you and 1P5. They will issue a nasty press release and get you disinvited from the Archbishop’s Christmas reception. Happy Thanksgiving.

  20. Steve, the guy is not worth your time or angst. May I offer you the sage advice of Dilbert when confronted with people or situations you describe?
    “Never argue with an idiot because first they will shout you down and then beat you with experience”
    After a charitable reply or two, Invoke Dilbert. It works every time. Btw. Great Blog.

    • ^^^^ “Never argue with an idiot because first they will shout you down and then beat you with experience” — as the above exchanges – both in Steve’s post and in the comments above yours – so clearly demonstrate!!!

  21. Tough love but well put Mr. Skojec. Thank you again for your insightful writings. Please continue your endeavor to spread God’s Word in print and deed.

    • So I assume you’ve taken appropriate steps in regards to the blasphemous tweet by “Artur”? I don’t read aletia, but I assume it is a Catholic blog so content like this is a problem for you as the new editor providing content for unsuspecting Catholics.

      Our Lord is a “jealous God” and he does not like to be mocked. That is a dangerous position to be in if you are in a position of authority there. Please tell me you have taken meaningful steps to rectify this outrage against the Precious Name of Jesus.

      • Skojec, as you will see below, has a penchant for trolling Rosman’s FB account and doing screen shot warfare. Skojec tried to do that by posting a cartoon hairy scrotum linked to a silly news story that Rosman posted on my wall as a way to imply that Rosman was vulgar and childish (a charge he would not deny). He here doesn’t seem to own that part of the process to which Rosman upped the ante with a thoughtful post on Christ’s genitalia (a very ancient question, which includes questions about feces and others bodily things). I do not find this beyond the pale, especially for people who claim to believe in the Incarnation and the Real Presence.

        • That hole isn’t nearly deep enough. You want a larger shovel? Maybe a glass of water while you recoup your strength?

          As for my “penchant,” it’s pretty simple: I never paid any attention to Artur before this arose. I had no idea who he was – and why should I?

          But a kind reader sent me an entire file they had compiled on his lewd — and entirely public — posts. It was pretty informative. Not exactly the sort of thing a person in a position of prominence on a Catholic website should be trafficking in.

          • I can’t help noticing the similarity between Rocha’s response and Brandon Vogt’s on the Barron article. In both cases, we are treated to effeminate nitpicking and cavilling where we might expect either a forthright defense or honest engagement. This is what happens when your primary loyalty is to an institution (Patheo$ or Word on Fire, respectively) rather than to–say–truth or honor.

        • Steve did not own his part in upping the ante? You cannot be serious? The post was precisely an apology for his participation in this unfortunate business.

          I would ask if you are well, but when your response to a subordinate’s blasphemous vulgarity is to complain about how it’s not fair to document other instances of his depravity, res ipsa loquitor.

          • It may be worth noting that I said that Rosman upped the ante. And if this is a mea culpa by Skojec, it is a very unique one, since the ire of it all seems to fall on Rosman (and me here). All of this is fine, of course, but is also telling to me that no one seem to have read Rosman’s post or offered an informed argument against it.

          • Are you honestly this obtuse, or are you playing a game? It wasn’t about his post at all. It was about responding to his own phallic joke (that I simply sent a screenshot back to him of) by doubling down, and essentially telling me to “bite Jesus.”

            I don’t care if the link went to the Catechism of Trent. The context of the tweet, combined with the image and headline, was incredibly clear.

          • I probably am very obtuse, but I am sane enough, I think, to notice how many times people on your site have called me names, which is very cute of you all to do. I hope you’re enjoying it. In the meantime you may want to review John chapter 6 and consider that perhaps Rosman’s response to your gotcha was to indicate that the effect you wanted to have could be directed in a more substantial direction, which you would only be able to find out by reading the post and engaging with it. I’m sure you or one of your friends here will hurl another insult at me, just try to make it a bit more clever this time.

          • You may not realize it, but when you say things like “are you honestly this obtuse?” or “I refuse to believe you’re this stupid”, I generally count those in the general category of calling people names. My only request would be to keep them witty.

          • They aren’t names, they’re attributes. And both were phrased conditionally. “Are you honestly this obtuse” means I think you’re dissimulating. “I refuse to believe you’re this stupid” means you’re dissimulating.

            I’m not calling you stupid. I’m accusing you of playing stupid – which you clearly are. Your friend crossed a line, and you’re apparently not enough of a professional — or a Catholic man — to call him on it.

          • Attributes, eh? Nice move there, that was actually fairly clever of you. Well done. I’ve not refused to call him on it, I’ve done something quite different: I don’t buy your line-crossing story and I quite like the post itself. The edginess of biting Christ is lost on me when Christ himself offended the Jews when he told them to eat his flesh and drink his blood. So, no, I am not refusing to call someone out, I am calling you out for (a) not quite knowing the present Patheos leadership (hope we cleared that one up), (b) not representing the exchange as I read it, and (c) until just now hosting a fairly dull forum of name/attribute calling.

          • The original post itself is unfortunately quite dim. It presents Leo Steinberg’s work as unassailably correct when, in fact, it’s quite controversial.

            The value of Steinberg’s work (as I understand Dianne Phillips to have suggested in First Things in 2011) is that it reintroduces theological readings into art history…not that his particular theological readings were correct. In fact, at the time of publication and today, Steinberg’s conclusions were and are controversial. But in his “enthusiasm” Rosman passes over that controversy entirely.


          • …how many times people on your site have called me names…

            My goodness, were there toxic levels of estrogen in the water supply where you grew up? What is with all the whining about meanies?

          • More whining? Really? Touched a nerve, I guess. And without calling you a single name.

            All right, I’m done responding to your dainty little bon mots. Feel free to have the last word.

          • “Are you honestly this obtuse”

            Rocha is of the Fr. Martin type crowd – a dissident Catholic who masks his dissidence through elusive and evasive language so as not to be categorized for the type of Catholic he is.

          • “…tears, poop, and pee are my daily bread…” is part of Rosman’s first sentence. Yeah, I read the whole article, including the comment in which Rosman expressed excitement over the fact that St. Thomas mentioned “urine” in the Summa. Could Rosman be more theologically juvenile if he tried? Getting back to that first sentence: the perversion of Our Lord’s Prayer strikes me as blasphemous, especially in light of the fact that many Saints equated “daily bread” with the Holy Eucharist.

          • Sam let’s rehash so we’re not talking past each other:

            1. Steve made a mean and un-Catholic comment about Rosman which led to a social media flame war.

            2. Rather than burning itself out as these things often do, Rosman took it to a vile and blasphemous level by suggesting that Steve perform a sex-act on Our Lord.

            3. Steve, rightly horrified, and also ashamed of his own conduct, made the decision to (1) apologize for his conduct, but also (2) to warn others that Rosman, as the Channel Manager of an extremely popular Catholic website, is a sick puppy.

            4. You show up to (1) complain that Steve lacks credibility for documenting another instance of Rosman’s vulgar puerility, (2) to say that you think this second instance was just meant to be silly, (3) to say that, whatever it actually was meant to be, Rosman nevertheless owns his childishness and vulgarity, (4) to say that Steve didn’t own his part in the process which Rosman escalated, and (5) to say you think the article linked to the image — that was used as a prop to suggest that Steve perform a sex-act on Our Lord — is actually a thoughtful article and not beyond the pale.

            Here’s the rub. It’s not about Rosman’s article. The article is inconsequential. What we’re objecting to is that Rosman is comfortable using Our Lord’s genitalia as grist for his flame wars and toilet humor. It’s evil, it’s abhorrent, and it’s blasphemy.

          • There are eleven points and sub-points listed there, Brian, and your take on the whole thing is rather reductionistic. So the rehash here is a form or talking past each other. About the whole “sex act” thing: I never took that to be the case in the original postings nor here. And I think the post itself proves that.

          • My only point was to correct the Patheos leadership question, I never quite gathered the idea that Steve (or you) thought Rosman was trying to suggest that one give Christ felatio until you wrote about the “sex act,” and at that point I objected.

          • Quite easily. It simply never occurred to me. You called it blasphemy and sexual innuendo, but I never got the gist of exactly what sort you had in mind until Brian clarified. Quite the imagination you’ve got there. Not the image that came to my mind — I guess I’m a prude.

          • The context made it clear. You’re being coy, and doing a terrible job of it. The tweeted post and image was a direct response to the t-shirt screenshot, which was also phallic in nature. There was precisely zero other context in our entire conversation for him to send me that post, let alone to tell me to “bite into” something about Christ’s genitalia.

            Of course, you’re friends with the man. Why not just ask him why he did it?

          • I did ask and he very simply pointed out that he wanted you to read his more substantial work on genitalia, since you posted the post he put on my wall. But *you* provided the context with the screenshot, and the idea that biting comment was suggesting felatio is your own (rather bleak) reading.

          • Last chance to prove you’re not one of the most astonishingly stupid men on the planet:

            Give me one good reason why his response — an article about Christ’s genitalia, with a picture focusing on it — would say that he had something more “theologically robust” for me to “bite into” if it wasn’t intended as sexual innuendo. One reason why he didn’t phrase it in a less obviously provocative and condescendingly clever way.

            Everyone else here read it the way I did. I didn’t see a single person come to his defense on Twitter. You’re it. And you know you’re wrong.

          • There you go again with the “astonishingly stupid” stuff. Grow up. Do you really think the implication of the innuendo was that you perform felatio on Christ? And don’t you see that the phallic prompt was your posting of the screenshot? If you want context, you were being routinely called simplistic in that exchange and you posted the screenshot to show that Rosman was shallow, too, then he replied by showing that he has given the question of genitalia some theological thought. *That* progression makes sense to me, although I’m not sure why two grown men are fighting over this in public. De gustabus, I guess.

          • Sam has demonstrated that he’s unable to continue this conversation. He’s been removed. There is absolutely no doubt that what little credibility Patheos may have had has long since been tossed in the shredder.

          • A message from an alternate-universe Patheos Channel Editor:

            Hi Steve. I’m the Channel Editor for Patheos Catholic (Artur is actually the Channel Manager). I’ve asked Artur about that tweet, and he’s assured me that he didn’t intend it as a vulgar double-entendre, still less as a blasphemy against Our Lord. His intention, rather, was to redirect your exchange towards a more fruitful discussion. I’ve worked with Artur for a while, and I take him at his word.

            That said, I completely understand how, in the context of a heated exchange, you took a different meaning from Artur’s tweet than the one he intended. Please accept my assurance that Patheos Catholic would never associate itself with any kind of blasphemy or irreverence, and I would terminate any writer who definitively crossed that line. In this instance, I accept Artur’s assurance that his intent was misconstrued, and so I won’t be taking further action.

            Thanks for allowing me the opportunity to clear things up. God bless.

            My goodness, that was easy.

          • Here’s what interesting. Two days ago, on Mr. Rosman’s blog — in the comments on the post that gave rise to this whole imbroglio — I asked Mr. Rosman about the tweet.

            His responses, over two days (to me and others), have varied between emphasizing how smart he is, how sad he is that no one appreciates his gift of irony, and how happy he’d be to explain, except that I was so unfair in how I framed my question, and then he begged off answering, because he had to tend to his children. At one point, he said: “You do eat the WHOLE body in the Eucharist.” That cleared up nothing.

            What hasn’t happened, yet, is a straightforward explanation, such as Mr. Ramos gave, both to me, above, and in the email which you supplied.

            Shouldn’t the person who actually sent the message be capable of giving a succinct explanation? Failing to provide one does not inspire confidence.

          • One clarification: I was not actually quoting Mr Rocha, but an alternate universe Patheos Channel Editor. (I believe that his suitably science-fictionish name is Mas Achor.) In that far distant land, our good Mr Achor happens to be that rare thing in our time: a man who deals with controversies such as this one in a forthright, honest, and charitable manner.

            Interesting to hear about Rosman’s evasions, though I expect it’s the Patheos house style under his managership.

          • Oh, sorry! Well, that’s disappointing. What you imagined him writing is what he ought to write, based — at least — on what he said in passing, here.

          • Oh, now I understand the source all this confusion; you didn’t read Steve’s post very carefully (or at all?), which not only explains why you incorrectly accused him of “not owning his part”, but also why you were in the dark as to the whole source of the offense.

        • So, to be very clear, you do not find it offensive that Mr. Rosman invited Mr. Skojec to “bite” the genitals of the Lord?

          • To be clear: I do not think Rosman was saying “Bite Jesus’ genitals” so much as offering him to “bite into” his post on the genital of Christ. That is a charitable reading, of course, and I am not surprised that you all here find it outrageous.

          • Ok, thank you for answering my question. I agree yours is a charitable interpretation, and there is much to commend that. It could be overly generous, you might concede?

          • It *could* be, but I also think there are other possible reading that range in charity, but the being argued for here is something of a worst case scenario. I do appreciate your serious and kind tone.

          • Mr. Rocha:

            I don’t know if you are still around, but — as I noted in a comment to Mr. Skojec, elsewhere in this thread, I’ve concluded from my own interactions with Mr. Rosman, that your explanation of his actions won’t wash.

            Namely: I asked Mr. Rosman directly. He fenced, he evaded, he complained about how I asked my question, he offered veiled insults, he made a bizarre comparison of his own controversial posting to receiving the Eucharist…but ultimately refused to answer me.

            Then he deleted all but one of my comments on his blog (I deleted the remaining one), and banned me from his blog. I said nothing offensive, but I was politely persistent.

            You seem to be an honest man; I can understand you being very generous to your employee in a public forum. I had absolutely no opinion of Mr. Rosman till this thread. His own behavior has led me to think very little of him.

      • Sure. He is the channel manager and I am the editor. You’ll note that Scalia’s position was editor and Rosman doesn’t use that title. Plain to see, really.

        • Except that the Facebook post clearly indicates he’s taking over Scalia’s job. And nothing I could find on Patheos says anything about you being the editor.

          A bit suspicious, I’m afraid.

          • Again, as I said. No harm in being confused (that FB post is confusing) but I also don’t see why reject my point of information.

          • Well, you need only to see that Scalia’s title was “editor” and Rosman’s is “manager” to get a sense of there being *some* difference.

          • Like I said: he posted that he was taking over the “helm” from Scalia lat montg. Why should I have believed he was a liar?

            You also haven’t posted, as far as I can see, since January. No announcement of you taking over, nothing.

            How are things done over there? Is there any process?

            And if you are the editor, then the responsibility for allowing a vulgar blastphemer are the editor, then the responsibility for allowing a vulgar blasphemer manage the Catholic channel rests with you. I hope you’ll actually do something about it.

          • I’m not a blogger there anymore, thanks for checking. So no fanfare or announcement. The roles at the channel have changed, that’s all. It’s not wrong or silly for you to think Artur was Scalia’s replacement; it is just odd that you’d doubt me when I made the point of information.

            About Rosman’s post, which is over a year old: I don’t plan to do anything about it, except encourage him to write a follow-up on the Sistine Chapel.

          • What an inane conversation. Rocha, you are prevaricating. People not acquainted with the heady realms of the Patheos media empire might understandably be surprised to learn that you apparently need both a “channel editor” and a “channel manager”, particularly when the channel manager himself seems confused on this point. For all we know, you might also have a “channel managing editor” or a “channel subaltern”. (Please, let it be so.) Just speak plainly, like a man, rather than performing this ludicrous Dance of the Seven Veils about a straightforward personnel matter.

            Let me help you out. Perhaps Mrs. Scalia held both positions during her tenure? Did the Patheos conglomerate decide to create an extra position after her resignation to lighten the burden? Is Mr Rosman simply delusional?

            And after you answer that simple question, perhaps you could address the actual question at hand, rather than daintily pecking away at matters of terminology.

          • Actually, Scalia hired an assistant towards the end of her tenure and Rosman was hired in part to fill that role, with slightly more responsiblity to allow me to see to some other things. Sorry it is not exciting or manly to you, but it simply is the case.

            I’ve already responded to the matter at hand here.

          • Again with the Dance.

            It’s not your job title that is unmanly (though having said that, you do work at the execrable Patheos); it is your craven refusal to address matters head-on, preferring instead to nitpick ad infinitum at what are, in the final analysis, irrelevancies.

            Do I need to simplify it further for you? Rosman is employed in some capacity at your clickbait portal. Rosman engaged himself, in that capacity, in a public feud which ended with him making a grade-school taunt illustrated by a detail of a picture of Our Lord’s genitalia. And what is the Channel Editor’s response to this blasphemy? He whines about the fact that Steve got Rosman’s job title wrong. If that isn’t the last word about Patheos, I don’t know what is.

          • Oh, I didn’t expect you to remove Rosman. The more discredit he brings upon Patheos, the better. But your response does confirm what many of us had long suspected: Patheos is happy to continue employing writers who wallow in the mud of blasphemy and calumny as long as they bring in the eyeballs.

            This has been a most informative exchange. An honorable man in your position might have at least acknowledged the legitimacy of people’s reaction to Rosman’s behavior, but that’s just not the way Sam Rocha, Company Man! rolls. For him, the most appropriate response is to play an interminable game of peekaboo over job titles.

  22. “This, boys and girls, is why you don’t start social media fights. Learn from me. Learn from my time-consuming forays into futility.”

    It’s actually (part of) the reason I’ve completely disconnected from social media. I’m under 30, and I’ve been clean for 7 years now. Haven’t regretted the purge for a minute. Granted you have legitimate reasons for maintaining a social media platform.

    In Fr. Ripperger’s talk on road rage, he reminds us that when we get behind the wheel of a car we have to recognize that we’ve willingly entered a “sphere of idiots.” I think that applies to social media as well. It’s a 6-minute homily, really worth a listen:

    • Matt K, so I’m not the only one that dumped Twitter and Facebook! I don’t like to fight but I do love the truth- and truth haters seem to find you on those Social media sites no matter how many filters you use! even friends and family turn out to hate the truth. so sad. better off praying as an earlier commenter observed.

  23. Steve, you are above this kind of nonsense. I agree with your final response. And of course this Rosman character is the worst kind of person. Agreed. But honestly [in my opinion, which is definitely not infallible] you should have avoided the mess entirely by not starting the initial confrontation. It is beneath you and you diminish your [OP5] brand by engaging in it.

    Sound advice from St. Josemaria Escriva, founder of Opus Dei: “Don’t waste your time throwing rocks at the dogs that bark at you along the way”.

      • Gotcha. You’re right that you already admitted:

        “This, boys and girls, is why you don’t start social media fights. Learn from me. Learn from my time-consuming forays into futility.”

        Emphasis on “start” and “futility”. Lesson learned. Thank you.

    • It occurs to me that while what you say is true on one level, and I agree with it, in this particular case it is not just a normal internet spat.

      This “Artur” guy committed really nasty blasphemy against our Saviour; as a CATHOLIC blogger on a popular “Catholic” site. I think it is time we defended Jesus’ Holy Name and stop letting this pass,

      If a man insults my WIFE, if he makes lewd sarcastic sexual comments about her, I can’t imagine I would be anything less than vigorous in defense of her honor. But this is our LORD! We have reached this point, and it is time to stop taking it. No more.

      I think, in this case, it speaks well for Steve’s “brand”. I, for one, am through letting this stuff pass. It’s time for Christians to stand up for their Saviour. Steve did, and good on him.

      • The point is that the [subsequent] blasphemy never would have happened if Steve didn’t post the initial Facebook post calling Rosman “brain dead”.

        And, look, Steve himself admits [direct quotation]: “Please note: This was not the proper Christian way to have handled the situation” (about this initial Fb post).

        So, your argument is as much with Steve himself as it is with me. With all respect.

        Of course, AFTER THE FACT, when the grotesque blasphemy has been made, then the proper thing is to point that out and warn his readers. But the whole spat [and blasphemy] would have been precluded if he had not called Rosman “brain dead” in the first place. And that was my point.

        • Once the Tweet was posted, anything anyone wrote prior to that is irrelevant. That needs to be addressed by responsible people at “aletia”. Preface conversations mean nothing. Nothing.

          • “aletia” ? “preface conversations” ? prior tweets? Dude, WTF are you even talking about? Again, you sound completely retarded. Don’t reply to my comments going forward.

        • By the way, how Mr. Skojek chooses to handle his personal affairs and inter-personal/forum relationships to a large extent is none of our business.

          I think he shared his story for one reason: as a warning to us and not so that we could give him advice.

          • None of our business? That’s completely retarded. It’s on his blog, you Dumbass. And therefore it’s any blog reader’s “business”. You’re an idiot. Don’t reply to my comments anymore.

          • Yeah you’re right, of course. I did exactly what you did and exactly what I lectured you for doing. You’re right. But, I will say this: like you, I knew I was doing it and freely chose to do so. Knowing full well it was ‘wrong’ and a waste of time, I reacted in anger just to make a point. I won’t bother apologizing because it would not be sincere. But I will acknowledge that your remark is exactly correct.

          • Trust me, I know, as we all do, it’s tough to keep it civil. I’ve apologized more than once myself. It is kind of ironic, but no hard feelings.

            REALLY, the only thing that bothers me are those that profane our Lord on alleged catholic portals. That is beyond offensive and the only real issue here.

          • lol you’re a classy guy/gal, Aqua. You have a new admirer. And, seeing your reply, I do apologize (sincerely) for being so rude. And yes of course it IS hypocritical of me to be so impatient and uncharitable with someone when I profess to be a Christian, I admit that too. Good day.

      • Hey, Pope Whatshisname said if you make a dirty crack about his mother, you’re getting a punch in the nose, and serve you right! Lewd jokes about the Saviour, though… well, that’s just good clean fun, according to the wits at Patheos.

  24. Mr. Rosman’s tweet was certainly inappropriate. That being said, I feel it necessary to share something. Mr. Rosman was kind enough, after I was conned and made homeless by “traditional Catholics” (in good standing in their community), to offer me help in finding financial assistance. He was one of very few. I will always be grateful to him, for reaching out.

    • While Mr. Rosman certainly did some good works in the past, he now needs to confess and do extraordinary penance. What he did to Mr. Skojec, and to the public, is one of the worst things, ever. “Inappropriate”? No, it was demonically evil.

      • Due to the personal involvement of a corrupt “abbé”, the case has been (since 10 August) in the hands of the Archdiocese of Milwaukee and the ICKSP. Because the investigation is ongoing, I am not sure if it would be appropriate for me to publicly share the full details at this time.

  25. Mr. Skojec:
    Re: Professional Catholics

    Pope Benedict once warned of professional Catholics – folks who make their living in full or part from the Church yet fail to defend her doctrines.

    He also urged the world’s bishops not to take money from Caesar. Professional Catholics are essentially paid by Caesar, and not just in Germany. According to the Economist some 85% of the American Church’s budget comes from the taxpayer (or Chinese loans) while only about 15% comes from the pews; while the Bishops only return about 6% to the parishes.

    Perhaps your new friend is a professional Catholic?

    God bless & a great Thanksgiving for your family

    Richard W Comerford

  26. Dang. I’m not easy to shock, but that tweet with Christ was shocking, disgusting, and yet typical of a progressives mindset.

    One thing I wish you would add to the beginning of the article when discussing the abortion scene in Scandal, is that after she is listening to AVE MARIA.

    Again, I’m not easy to shock, and wasn’t surprised this scene was written, wasn’t even surprised at the Silent Night music knowing their mindset, but when I read that then she was sipping wine after and Ave Maria was playing, now that’s shocking.

  27. I’ve been right about Patheos and Rossman for years. It’s incredible that he holds a credible position as a Catholic anything, but then we live in the age of Cardinal Kasper.

  28. I’ve been done with Patheos for some time now. I too went on several email rounds with “Mean Lizzie” Scalia over her twisted exultation of the state of homosexuality until she finally blocked me. To put it succinctly- Scalia typified the entire shallow premise that infects Patheos – which is the priority of personal feelings over the inconvenient objective reasonableness of true faith. The entire place confuses and conflates Christian love with emotional accommodations. Like so many things these days – belonging to the Catholic Church no longer means practicing the Catholic faith. God help us all…

  29. “Hope has two beautiful daughters. Their names are anger and courage; anger at the way things are, and courage to see that they do not remain the way they are.” ~ St Augustine of Hippo

  30. i’ve come to the realization that when I run across a blog or FB post that I disagree with I try to compose a concise response. No matter how many people then I respond to what I wrote I won’t join into the fight. does no good. my point was made in the first response. I’m not going to sway them they are looking for a fight an argument not a discussion. and no matter how much I show where they are off-base they won’t admit

  31. Generally not worth it. If we gave an equal proportion of our debating and internet time to prayer, I think we could overcome this problem. Even though this individual seems disturbed, let us all pray for him. Give this to someone much greater than us

  32. I.Am.Absolutely.Stunned.With.Horror…

    God help us all; God forgive us.

    We are now in the land of the body snatchers with demons taking full possession of even those who *claim* to be Catholic.

    Rosman needs to make a huge act of public reparation (and us for him) for this unimaginable blasphemy. How could he even have considered it, let alone publish it………..

    It seems like an act of diabolical wickedness…..

  33. Strike the shepherd and the sheep scatter…
    What can we expect of reverence for Our Lord when our shepherd indulges in all kinds of modernist faith-bashing.

  34. Modern catholics are so bent on trying to be cool and hipster (at the expense of being Catholic) that even the Little Flower probably wants to slap them.

  35. Rosman has spoken what not should be said before God and man. He needs to repent, quickly, before he does more damage to his eternal soul.

  36. This is an experience that too many of us have gone through in defense of Christ and Truth. And it sucks sometimes. But this is what we HAVE to do. To not challenge these heterodox Catholics, to allow them to lead legitimate seekers of the Truth away and to prevent sincere conversions to the Faith is completely unacceptable!

    As a fellow Gen-Xer, I am use to being attacked, to have traditions ripped from me and to have PC dictates tell me that all of a sudden the movies I grew up with are all now rated R. But I am a fighter. I like to fight because only a just war will get me to fight, so I know that I am fighting for the right reasons. This is the right reason.

    To paraphrase Lincoln, the Church cannot continue half Orthodox and half Heterodox (though I believe the numbers different than those above).

    Steve, your contributions are sincere and necessary. Keep using everything at your disposal to fight this fight.

    Also, please visit my blog. I am trying to fight the same fight as Steve, been banned a long and distinguished list of “Catholics” on Twitter and just doing what I can.

  37. This is a disgusting thread. Sorry, Steve, but as a convert I have seen such a general lack of piety in the Catholic faith I really don’t know where to start. Simple godlessness exists everywhere and the leadership not only does nothing to purify the Church but indeed encourages it by lack of discipline of its own with the result that wretched godlessness has now become a hallmark of Catholicism.

    I do understand that a steady drone of heresy has worn down the sensitivites of believing Catholics for 50 years. I get it. But we need a revolution of righteousness in the Catholic Church. We need personal piety. We need the hot coal of God’s Spirit to touch each and every tongue, to purify the words and the thoughts.

    Internal war has cost us very much. I BELIEVE the warnings and prophesies of Pope Leo XIII, Our Lady of Fatima and Pope St Pius X. It is obvious to see!

    There is no use even addressing this reprobate Rosman but it is obvious, Steve, that you have been worn down yourself by this seemingly endless spiritual civil war.

    Take heart. Yeah, I am scolding you but only because I want to reinforce what you yourself have said. You jumped into the cesspool here. Climb out and shake yourself off.

    Been there myself all too many times.

    At confession a week ago my Priest {FSSP} told me: “Jesus. Jesus. Jesus. Focus on Jesus”.

    We all need to.

      • Agreed.

        It would not hurt my feelings one bit if he pulled down this entire thread. Simply leaving up the picture in question is offensive. He’s done his job in offering his warning but leaving that picture up in my opinion only perpetuates the offense.

  38. Steve, I’m not sure that you used a sledgehammer. I think that your initial comment was more of a stinging swat. You didn’t go to how his review reinforces infanticide — that he is an accomplice to murder, and all that entails particularly when being done in Christ’s name.

    You were comparatively gentle.

    Don’t beat yourself. You do splendid work. Holy work. Focus on the big targets, perhaps, but you are stronger by the day.

    People do not understand the hate that lives in the bergoglio faction of the Church. You exposed more. That is extremely instructive, if simultaneously grotesque. But how do describe evil without describing it? How do you face it without looking? How do you look without feeling enraged?

  39. Honestly, I think this post should have been left off the website. I was revolted by the blasphemy, but now have that image and thought in my mind, which was not there beforehand. It is important that we stay as pure as possible, and not let ourselves be defiled by this age. This requires special vigilance and prudence in discussing evil. The existence of Rosman’s views are not so relevant that all need know about them – but this post forced us to imagine the grotesque evil of his blasphemous thought. I hope you will reconsider allowing your site to present such detailed filth again.

    I appreciate the fact that we need to expose evil (Eph 5:11-13), but you could have handled this on your own, and not drawn us into the details of these evil thoughts. I say: be a bit more vague in the future with the details. I want to be able to look at my Savior and not be reminded of this grotesque concept, as presented in Rosman’s blasphemous post, with words and image.

    Otherwise, your work is highly praiseworthy and I benefit immensely from your site.

    • I have sympathy for your thoughts, Charles, and I agree with much of what you say. To defend Steve’s actions, however, I think it was important to show what is happening among the “hipster catholics”. Their worldliness has become so extreme as to appear demonic. Their activities must be shown for what they are.

    • Sorry, Charles, but sometimes we have to be confronted with these horrors. Like images of the holocaust in Germany (or the more recent one in abortion mills); like photos of the “Piss Christ” and the elephant dung Madonna, or even like the flood of brutality coming back from ISIS-controlled territories, these things serve to rouse our consciences and our righteous anger.

      I will never post something pornographic here. This image, by itself, was not. It’s a renaissance painting, and I’ve seen it before.

      It was the juxtaposition of words and image that was offensive, and it signaled intent. And that intent needs to be made clear.

      Someone else here said (sorry, I don’t have time to go looking for it) that this should have been handled privately. I disagree. Patheos is one of the top 500 websites in the country by traffic. (We’re ranked #39,000-and-something, and that’s pretty good, to give you a matter of perspective.) Patheos is an enormous traffic funnel, and it caters to people of all faiths. Those who go there and decide they want to know something about Catholicism are going to find that they are in the hands of people like Rosman and Rocha. This deserves to be known and spread as widely as possible.

      I can’t make Patheos correct their staffing errors. I can’t get them to hire actual Catholics to do the jobs there. I can’t stop their writers from attacking me, or the other writers here, which has happened repeatedly in the past. And I don’t have the kind of traffic they have (not that any of the writers on the Catholic Channel actually built that following themselves; it’s part of the benefit of signing on to a big conglomerate: built-in traffic for sub-par writers.) but I will take the influence I do have and use it to the fullest extent possible to combat this kind of thing.

      Trust me, it would have been easier not to bother mentioning I decided to get into a stupid Twitter fight with a professional troll. Didn’t exactly reflect well on me and my ability to exercise self-restraint. But what Rosman produced was filthy, not because of how it *looked* but because of what it was meant to evoke.

      I’ve made it my life’s work to combat enemies of the Church wherever I find them. This is no exception. I’d like to say I’m sorry that it offends delicate sensibilities, but I’m not. This is the world we live in, where individuals who are perceived as influential Catholics are producing this kind of filth.

      It should upset you. It should stay with you. And it should inform your will to fight back.

  40. Anyone who coninues to use Patheos to host their blog is approving of this sick garbage. At least we now without question where they really stand.

  41. I strongly suggest that those on this thread besiege Patheos with demands either to suspend or dump Rosman. Forget demanding an apology; he, like Mark Shea, will issue a theologically correct “mea maxima culpa” before returning to the same behavior. I also recommend doing directly to the top: Kathleen Mulhern is the executive editor and Deborah Arca is the director of content — for the whole site, not just the Catholic channel!. I don’t know their business e-mail addresses but both have Facebook and LInkedin accounts. Here’s Patheos’ mailing address:

    383 Inverness Pkwy Ste 260
    Englewood, CO, 80112

    Phone: 303-909-7939

    Let’s not just complain among ourselves and do nothing more substantial and practical to address these problems.

    And, if you haven’t yet, please sign my petition to boycott Patheos and EWTN until they drop Mark Shea as a contributor. It needs only eight more signatures to reach 100.

    • Great ideas. But can we stop supporting the left’s network of web sites with our petitions and use Catholic and pro life petition sites instead? LifeSitePetitions and CitizenGO come to mind. Something to consider. God bless

      • salesgirl, I wasn’t aware of LifeSitePetitions and CitizenGo. Thanks for the input. I’ll take a look at these sites. Meanwhile, please sign my petition and encourage others to do so. This kind of public pressure is the only way to stop jerks like Shea and Rosman.

  42. Frankly, I pleased you had your spate with Rosman & C.P. It confirms something,

    For one, that the recent Family Synod in Rome will be used (was0 a Trojan Horse. Inside that stead is homosexuality and all things Queer. Any concern for divorced/remarried Catholics will be (was) so much canon fodder. And will have if it means trampling on the Body of Christ, himself.

    I say, take it to them – with or without Pope Francis’ bugling call.

    • CV, I have no use either for Rosman or the recent synod but how does Steve’s spat relate to the synod? Am I missing something?

      • Granted, a bit of a stretch. But the man does represent the rippling effects of the synod’s muddled conclusion. One would have hoped that the synod would have taken the stale blustery wind out of certain blowhards. Seems they have taken heart and are sailing forward – or, into the storm of God’s wrath.

  43. So you don’t like Patheos or Artur. Fine. You want to use your platform to discredit them? Go right ahead. You’re free, white, and 21. But there’s no reason to be so sanctimonious about it. You picked the fight. Whatever reluctance you may claim now, you traded him post for post like an old pro. And yes, you raised the subject of dick jokes. By upping the ante, Artur handed you victory. Instead of puffing up yourself with fake piety about the futility of social media wars, why not be honest enough to thank him?

  44. Can Rosman be called a Catholic? The answer is obviously, “No.” And Catholic (sic) media is most often not Catholic either. It is syncretistic pus.


    The painting used by “that person” over at C.P. – in his effort to slyly post a blasphemy against Our Lord in his rumble against Steve – was created by Andera Mantegra. Com0leted in the late 1500’s in Venice. The work is known as the “Lamentation of Christ”.

    Mantegra was expertly skilled in various techniques and formats. Throughout his career he experimented much with perspective (of which this “Lamentation” is a suburb witness). As a true artist of his time he devoted that interest upon the human figure: especially in working out the proper perspective in allowing the figure command tight, nearly squeezed-in point of view..

    No surprise (if one is least bit educated!) that the artist accented Christ’s groin. Doing so was standard iconograpic practice in depicting the humanity of Christ, of God in the Flesh. Had been so for hundreds of years. For instance, paintings narrating the birth and infancy of Jesus usually set his gentilia center stage to both the painting’s composition and its storytelling. Often the Virgin is pointing to the penis of her infant son.

    So where does that leave us? With a most revolting thought.

    It took the likes of “that person” over at C.P. to pervert this long (and well understood) iconographic tradition into a crude, rude blasphemy. On top of that, to vacate the painting of meaning (in short, of its original solitude as a work of art), the person and work of its creator (whom his family and the City of Venice held in high regard), and, not the least, the insult he heaped (in his blasphemy) upon the fundamentals of historiography.

    In this particular “Lamentation” Mantegra included portraits of the Virgin and John the Beloved. If traced, their sight-lines (like the viewer’s) rests on the Byzantine, Medieval, Early & Late Renaissance signage of Christ’s humanity – his manliness. (There was point & purpose in that.) As noted above, it was the same pictorial sight-line that occupied innumerable works of art depicting the Virgin holding the infant Jesus, as she directed the viewer’s attention to his groin – the great sign that God had become Man, and dwelt among us for our salvation.

    Mr. R. (that person) knew the Virgin and St. John were much a part of the painting. Was Mr. R. also suggesting that the Mother of our Lord (& John) should “take to biting” on the Dead Christ in their lamentation over Him.

    In this ribaldry against Steve S. “that person” (however subtle & implied) was performing a sexual tease. (That is told in “that person’s” method of selection.) Does his malignant tease migrate also to the Virgin and the Beloved Disciple?

    I’d hate to think that C.P. – already laid prone – has fallen through the floor.

  46. Mr Skojec:

    After reading about all this here, I went over to Mr. Rosman’s blog, and asked him about it. It was a very interesting exchange. Mr. Rosman fenced, complained, made a rather odd suggestion that there was some connection between his comment to you and receiving communion…but never answered my question.

    MOST interesting thing is that he deleted his whole exchange with me, and banned me.

    Not that I’m anyone…but I thought you might find it interesting.

  47. Re “Back and forth, cleverly-worded insults flying, all of it making you look like an idiot no matter how many points you score because you’re arguing on the Internet in the first place.”

    I disagree. Though much messier, I look at today’s social media as a modern version of the Federalist Papers – with the people of the Tower of Babel commenting. Point being, do not underestimate the impact of truth on the silent because the demonic remain unaffected.

  48. There were signs earlier than this that Patheos was not a true Christian web site. I’ve been mocked, flamed, defriended etc. for being “too sensitive” ( or something far less charitable) for charitably suggesting boycotting or complaining about web sites. Sad it had to go this far to make it plain to everyone. I hope it doesn’t have to go this far before people understand the problems Facebook itself presents.

  49. Hello,
    I have listened to 1P5 and thank Our Lord for the ability to do so.
    Strangely I was led to this site because of looking or information regarding a Priest and being in need of what his character was as I had no knowledge of what him and was sent to the Patheo site. Being blessed to have had an amazingly good Catholic father who maintained the faith of generations knew in the 1960’s to pull us all out of “Catholic” school. Original Priest searchers and actual apologists for the unchanging Catholic faith. Patheos is an abomination as it has no actual regard for the Catholic faith, how could it when all the abominations that are on the site are so wonderful with all the half truths. I followed the thread to you so see who it was that she could not understand why you offended her when she had not done anything to you. Of course false teachers are always offended with truth. This brings me to two points about this now old conversation.
    First you are doing penance with having to deal with so many of apologists for sheer evil. Second I had no idea that such an image would appear. Pictures that enter into our brain seem to be seared into our visual and written memory. I did immediately pray prayers of reparation for the seeing of such and image with the comment intact to it. Understanding that truth is needed I believe you could have explained the outrage and no visual would have been needed. A reference to the work itself could also have given one the choice to check if it was an outrage should they doubt you.


Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Popular on OnePeterFive

Share to...