If I were Bishop Williamson, I would have responded with an open letter that, "For the good of the faithful who depend upon you, I will grant your request for the Holy Oils, but this should not be construed as an endorsement by myself of your various theological positions."  I think that His Excellency should rise above the personal disagreements with Father Hewko for the sake of the faithful.

At the same time, Fathers Pfeiffer and Hewko should also have kept their disagreements with Bishop Williamson much more civil than they ended up being.  It's obvious that the primary animus driving their hostility was Bishop Williamson's refusal to consecrate Father Pfeiffer and to endorse his seminary, and so various matters that should have been respectful disagreements transformed into hostile attacks, and Father Hewko was largely dragged along by Father Pfeiffer's stronger will.

Precisely the argument which proves my first comment in this thread (ie., Williamson is merely telling Hewko to buzz off, by stipulating a condition he knows Hewko will not accept):

Does anyone believe that Williamson would really give Hewko oils if the latter acknowledged that NOM miracles were possible? 

Of course not. 

There’s still several other statements, positions, and conditions Hewko would need to retract or amend before Williamson would agree to associate with him (eg., Hewko’s heretical notion that a well-disposed Novus Ordo communicant receives no increase of sanctifying grace at a valid Mass).

OK, but that seems like he's playing proverbial "mind games" there and he should just be more transparent.  "I'm not inclined to give you the Holy Oils for reasons A, B, C".  When this letter gets out, it does make it sound like he's turning belief in the NO Eucharistic miracles into a dogmatic necessity that disqualifies someone from being in the same Church he's in.  He didn't really articulate this well.

Bishop Williamson is simply asking F. Hewko to accept physical realities and the impossibility of certain things. 

Fr. Hewko can easily draft a statement saying that he accepts these realities while saying it is a mystery to him as to why God would do it. 

Bishop Williamson is simply asking F. Hewko to accept physical realities and the impossibility of certain things.

Fr. Hewko can easily draft a statement saying that he accepts these realities while saying it is a mystery to him as to why God would do it.

Why should he have to do even that if he doesn't believe they are true miracles?  You're asking him to agree to something he doesn't believe just so he can obtain the Holy Oils.  Despite his hypocrisy I noted in the previous page, I happen to agree with him here.

Williamson is merely telling Hewko to buzz off, by stipulating a condition he knows Hewko will not accept

If so, then this is a horrible lack of leadership skills and an immature way of resolving conflict.  He should have kept the debate focused on matters of principle; instead he allowed it to veer off course, into matters of opinion and speculation.  No one can win such a debate.  

Fr Pfeiffer is 100% insane, while I think Fr Hewko is sincere but too extreme in some areas (which is rather common in Trad circles).  But +W's response to this situation has hurt his integrity by not addressing the key areas of dispute.  Had +W known such letters would be made public, he may have responded more politically, but in this day and age, how do you NOT expect such to be made public, especially when Fr Hewko often publicizes many things?  +W needs a PR manager, because this is just messy.

The "parents" forget the standards demanded of their high calling, take their fights public, so then the children are drug into it, and voila, a dysfunctional shit-show, driving unnecessary division in traddie-land. Another fine job, Clergy. 

The "parents" forget the standards demanded of their high calling, take their fights public, so then the children are drug into it, and voila, a dysfunctional shit-show, driving unnecessary division in traddie-land. Another fine job, Clergy.

Agreed, but let us not forget who the one was that took it public.

If I were Bishop Williamson, I would have responded with an open letter that, "For the good of the faithful who depend upon you, I will grant your request for the Holy Oils, but this should not be construed as an endorsement by myself of your various theological positions."  I think that His Excellency should rise above the personal disagreements with Father Hewko for the sake of the faithful.

At the same time, Fathers Pfeiffer and Hewko should also have kept their disagreements with Bishop Williamson much more civil than they ended up being.  It's obvious that the primary animus driving their hostility was Bishop Williamson's refusal to consecrate Father Pfeiffer and to endorse his seminary, and so various matters that should have been respectful disagreements transformed into hostile attacks, and Father Hewko was largely dragged along by Father Pfeiffer's stronger will.

Yes, why air your dirty laundry in public?  FYI holiness is attractive, say no more.