When you write a book as controversial as "Sin, Shame & Secrets," you know you're going to rattle a few cages. I expect that, but am glad to report, the vast majority of responses have been favorable thus far. I've also been surprised by how many Catholics have thanked me and said that this book "needed to be written." I've even heard from some of Father Robinson's friends and relatives who thought the book was fair. I've had to naysayers at book signings, but they were polite. A few anonymous people sent nasty emails but any time someone writes without including their name, their comments are essentially worthless.
Searching around the internet, I've run into a few blogs where people have proclaimed their criticisms of my book -- even though it's clear they have not read it. That's the nature of blogs (web logs), I guess. The blog world attracts strong-minded (and often narrow-minded) people who are quick to judge, usually have a distinct bias, and feel a compulsion to bless the world with the profundity of their thoughts.
I welcome legitimate, informed criticism. Only a few papers have reviewed the book so far -- more are on the way -- and they were a mix of praises and informed criticisms. But newspapers are different than blogs. Newspapers have a time-tested system of checks and balances between writers and editors. Bloggers can just throw their thoughts into cyberspace with nobody checking the facts or challenging them to actually think about what they are saying.
Blogging is a new and evolving medium and overall a positive development in modern communication. But you have to consider the source and decide how trustworthy a particular writer may be.
Here are a few comments I found on blogs that I consider irresponsible:

1. I'm "kicking the church while it's down" by writing this book. This kind of comment is almost not worth the dignity of a response. When a Catholic priest is convicted of murdering a nun and the diocese is implicated in a cover-up that let the cleric go scot-free for 24 years, are we supposed to ignore it for a few decades? Should we wait until the church "recovers" from the scandal it created by covering up for priests who raped and sodomized minor boys and girls? What kind of lame reasoning is that? Who holds the church accountable, if not for the media? How many more children would now be at risk if not for journalists who forced the Catholic bishops to deal with the issue instead of sweeping it under the rug? Applying the blogger's logic, would the media please leave President Bush alone for a few months because his ratings are down?
2. Robinson was wrongfully convicted. Some people will never believe that a priest could kill anyone, let alone a 71-year-old nun. They will never be convinced he's guilty and will automatically reject the verdict rendered by a jury of his peers. But those who talk down their noses about the "circumstantial evidence" that led to his conviction are usually ignorant of the fact that according to Ohio law, circumstantial evidence is equal in weight to direct evidence. Those who actually paid attention to the details and reviewed all the evidence know that the jurors reached the only possible conclusion when presented with all the facts. The priest is appealing the verdict and I wish him luck -- he's going to need it to find anything in the case that could possibly win an appeal. And that's not just my opinion but the opinion of many legal experts I've talked to. We'll find out in due time.
3. The state put an exorcist on the stand and offered satanism as a motive. The first part of that statement is only partially correct, and the second part is completely wrong. The priest who testified was not an exorcist, but an assistant to the exorcist for the Chicago archdiocese, and his actual title is "associate vicar for canonical services." He was called to the witness stand to review the many religous symbols found at the murder scene. Prosecutors wanted his expertise to show jurors that the killer must have been familiar with religious ritual, liturgy, and symbolism, and that the killer was not some burglar or street person who just happened to wander in off the street, as some people had suggested. Prosecutors never did say the nun was killed in a satanic ritual and when they did offer a possible motive, they said it was simply this: "a man got angry at a woman and a woman died."
I have tried to interview Father Robinson to get his side of the story but he's not talking. I don't blame him because of the pending appeal. But one attorney told me that even if he had been acquitted, he would not have talked to the press.

I've got a book-signing today at Barnes & Noble. It should be interesting to see what kind of turnout there is. This is one of the three biggest bookstores in the Toledo area and my signing at Borders was quite an event -- a HUGE turnout and I signed for two hours. But Beth Karas of Court TV, who wrote the foreword, was there (bless her heart) and that was a big draw for people. Today I'm on my own. (The third big one is Books-a-Million, which I have just booked for a signing on Saturday, Nov. 25, at 2 p.m.)
My friend and jack-of-all-trades Jon Stainbrook will be taking photos. I plan to report back to you after the signing and hopefully post some of Jon's photos.

Update: A very successful book-signing! Thanks to everyone who turned up. I would guess I signed 60 to 70 books and people were lined up down the aisle waiting for the first hour or so. Thanks to the great staff at B&N for making it all work so smoothly.
Sylvania, Ohio, Nov. 4, 2006