Edit: this influential Vatican official never intended to follow through with the case? Wise move but it's more like he didn't have a case, and the apparent removal of one of his associates for defaming Cardinal Burke might have made him rethink his course of action. In any event, in a recent public statement he is attempting to back away from the situation, apparently complaining about the true statements made about him being vitriolic. Sounds like damage control.
Father Rosica is at the head of Salt and Light, a three million dollar a year operation with 25 employees that enjoys the support of Tony Gagliano, CEO of Saint Joseph Communications and had the pro bono support of one of Canada's high end law firms, according to Michael Voris.
In any event it's hard to see how making empty threats will discourage bloggers from criticizing the heretical Basilian in the future. We assume Vox Cantoris has neither removed the offending posts nor apologized.
Rather than being concerned about the professional destruction of people harmful to the Church, like perhaps Father Timothy Scott who deserves to be fired, perhaps Father Rosica should reflect on the irreparable damage to souls done by his endorsement of heresy?
Crux News covers the story thus (As predicted, btw):
ROME — Despite a frenzy in the conservative Catholic blogosphere, a high-profile priest who volunteers as an English-language assistant to the Vatican press office says he’s not planning to take legal action against a Canadian blogger who had criticized him, and considers the matter closed.
The Rev. Thomas Rosica, also a Canadian, said Wednesday he never planned to sue the blogger, and also insisted that he’s not a “high-ranking Vatican official” and hence there was never any prospect of the Vatican taking action.
On Feb. 17, Rosica sent David Domet, a musician who runs a blog called “Vox Cantoris,” a letter through the Toronto-based law firm Fogler, Rubinoff demanding the removal of nine statements that Domet had posted about Rosica. The letter said the statements were “false and defamatory for suggesting that the priest is dishonest, untrustworthy, and willing to act unethically to further his own agenda.”