His level of mental illness can be discussed. But he was obviously not well in some respect at least.
Sure, Scuмmage ... the fact that you keep saying this over and over again just makes it true.
At no point have you ...
- provided even a shred of evidence that he was mentally ill to the point of being unable to validly confect the Sacraments
- even defined what that level of mental illness would be (so as to be able to provide evidence of it)
- refuted the mountain of evidence that has been provide to demonstrate that he remained in complete possession of his faculties, despite some arguably imprudent actions at times
Not a few have alleged that Bishop Williamson was off his rocker, crackers, inexplicably believing in Valtorta, ordaining known ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs, and harboring others.
But, unlike yourself, they all recognize that despite being perhaps "weird", that did not mean he was not intellectually competent so as to validly confect the Sacraments.
Even the secular legal system recognizes the same distinction, where no matter how bizarre, weird, and even deranged someone's behavior might have been, that does not constitute legal "insanity", which refers to be incapacitated so as to no longer be able to differentiate between right and wrong. Similarly, even if Archbishop Thuc had made some imprudent decisions, in order to validly confect a Sacrament, one need only have the necessary mental faculties to know what he was doing and intend to do what the Church does. That's it. If +Thuc knew that he's a Catholic bishop, that the Church does this thing called ordination or consecration, where the former turns a man into a priest, the latter a priest into a bishop according to the beliefs / teachings of the Church ... EVEN IF he didn't believe it himself and consider it bunk (though he clearly did not hold that, as this is just to help define the necessary mental faculties) ... and he realized, "I'm doing this thing the Church does to make bishops", that's ALL THAT IS NECESSARY FOR VALIDITY, and no loose colloqual allegation of insanity along the lines of "that guy's nuts" or "he's crazy" suffice to establish the standard that would rise to the level of positive doubt. He's have to be so "out of it" that he has no idea who he is, what he's doing, or where he's at ... which then later would result in having no memory of even having performed the action.
As for witholding intention ... zero actual evidence has bene presented. We have only hearsay, an undocuмented and unproven allegation in "The Angelus", repeated from somewhere else, which in turn came from a misunderstanding of what +Thuc intended. No record of +Thuc having himself said this, either by first-hand quotation, such as a letter, a note, or a public statement record, nor even a statement from a credible witness to the effect that "+Thuc told me personally that he had witheld his intention."
So, after that article in "The Angelus" ... Bishop George Musey asked +Thuc about the allegation personally. Here's the transcription of a speech that +Musey gave on April 22, 1985:
This Father is stating as a fact ... This had come out in the paper ( mainly one of the Lefebvrite publications .. I forget which one it was .. )anyway, one of the Lefebvrite publications carried sorne reference to that, as also did Walter Matt's strange little newsletter or paper, whatever they call it, the Remnant, or the Leftovers, or whatever. The story that the Archbishop had said, 'Well, I'm sorry I did this, I didn't know what I was doing, or I withheld my intention, or something silly like that; and so Paul VI said: Well, all is forgiven, and I'll lift the excommunication." Anyway, I asked Archbishop Thuc about this thing, and Archbishop Thuc laughed! And he said, 'Wasn't that a great story7! 'He said, 'Of course, it was all written without even my knowledge. 'He said, 'I first heard about it ... ' he first heard about this so-called declaration that he was supposed to have made when he was living in ( Cologne7 word unclear in France; and he said he didn't know whether to get amused or mad, and so he got sorne of both ... both amused and angry at it; he said because he had never even bothered to answer Paul VI's summons when Paul the VI sent for him ... While he was still in Italy, or still in Spain, I believe. And he said to his emissary that ... who was it he sent now? ... Golly, I'm going to be accused of being senile too! ( laughter ) ... But anyway, this was one of the Spanish prelates that Paul VI sent, and asked Archbishop Thuc did he perform consecrations and ordinations in Palmar de Troya? And the Archbishop said yes; and so the emissary said well then, you must come to Rome, the Holy Father wants to see you! And Archbishop Thuc said, 'Why should I ge to Rome7 There is no one there in Authority to receive me! 'And instead he went en to Toullone in France."
There's some choppiness and notations of "unclear", etc. due to this being a transcription. +Musey asked him directly, and +Thuc denied that he said any such thing. +Thuc signed official certificates attesting to the consecrations, but then afterwards renounced the group and the consecrations, but did not deny having done them by witholding his information.
I have personal experience with "The Angelus" not even bothering to ask you before publishing ... where one time they published something I had written up informally to a friend without any intention to have it published, when they knew perfectly well where I was staying and could have asked me with a simple phone call to Father Ronald Ringrose (an independent cooperator with SSPX at the time). I hadn't even put my name on the "article", since ... I gave it personally to my friend, and it was obvious to him (the intended audience) who had written it. So "The Angelus" put my name on it ... but MISSPELLED my name.
Topic: Angelus June 1982 (Read 2039 times)