This is along the lines of what I was thinking.


1. The fact I forgot about it, but I certainly remember all the stuff Fr. Hewko said and did -- INCLUDING SLANDER AGAINST THIS FORUM IN GENERAL -- shows that his apology was inadequate. It's been many years; I don't remember what all he said against CathInfo and/or the people on it -- but the cause of truth demands that he at least TRY to repair the damage. After all, the discussions on CathInfo (about Pablo, Boston, Fr. Pfeiffer, etc.) were apparently right and he was wrong -- according to him! So how many people did he drive away from the truth, and other truths, by slandering the forum? Was God's cause hurt or helped?

2. Just for starters, he never addressed any of the particular things he was sorry for. That's a bit too easy, a cop out, don't you think? That's like going into the confessional and saying, "I was a bad sinner. Please give me absolution." Would that show any level of contrition or sorrow, any kind of repentance? No, it would not.

3. Taking the attitude "let's just not talk about it" is the opposite of the attitude of conversion, repentance. If you truly wake up, convert, become repentant, you FULLY AVERT to what you've done, you are anxious to make amends, ask forgiveness, and are "broken up" about it (which is what contrite literally means in Latin).

4. As far as I know, he's not done anything to repair any damage to the apostolate of Bp. Zendejas or others who he caused harm to by his words, his silence, etc. (see list below)

5. You're spot-on about Fr. Hewko's participation in the evils of Boston, KY. He primarily was guilty of being a BLIND FOLLOWER, an ENABLER, putting his head in the sand. As we know in our Catholic doctrine, there is more than one way to commit a sin. Read this list, and tell me Fr. Hewko wasn't guilty of actual sins, public sins, during his years in Boston, KY:

According to Catholic teaching, there are 9 ways of being an accessory to another’s sin.

• By counsel.
• By command.
• By consent.
• By provocation.
• By praise or flattery.
• By concealment.
• By partaking.
• By silence.
• By defense of the ill done.

No apologies are needed.
What is needed is a public abjuration.

Not sure this is true.  Many times I heard justification of evil from his mouth.

This is actually a pretty solid point.  Bishop Williamson isn't really accepting submission from priests.  As for this "totally novel idea," I actually think it's very fitting given the Crisis.  Bishop Williamson sees the danger of bishops setting up as if they had real authority or jurisdiction.  He COULD have started a new rival Society, of which he would have been the unquestioned leader, but he chose not to.  Even before he was expelled from SSPX, he would often say that the SSPX was an artificial authority structure and that the only thing that was holding it together was the person of Archbishop Lefebvre.  This speaks well of Bishop Williamson's humility, as he has no desire to form some organization that he believes will "save" the Church ... whereas you have +?Pfeiffer believing that his group IS the Church (for all intents and purposes).  Great contrast there.

This is actually a pretty solid point.  Bishop Williamson isn't really accepting submission from priests.  As for this "totally novel idea," I actually think it's very fitting given the Crisis.  Bishop Williamson sees the danger of bishops setting up as if they had real authority or jurisdiction.  He COULD have started a new rival Society, of which he would have been the unquestioned leader, but he chose not to.  Even before he was expelled from SSPX, he would often say that the SSPX was an artificial authority structure and that the only thing that was holding it together was the person of Archbishop Lefebvre.  This speaks well of Bishop Williamson's humility, as he has no desire to form some organization that he believes will "save" the Church ... whereas you have +?Pfeiffer believing that his group IS the Church (for all intents and purposes).  Great contrast there.

Or petty Pfeifdoms ...