Horror of horrors: Yes, even Bishop Fellay is entitled to the benefits of the Church's teachings on detraction, calumny, and slander.
John Lane accuses people of such sins recklessly. The critics of Bishop Fellay are in for the hardest criticism from Mr. Lane. Why is that? Those who have been defending Bishop Fellay and the SSPX generally, (though there are many good priests in it) despite the evidence accuмulating over the years are the ones who have allowed things to reach this point.
Anyone who believes John Lane is an ally of Bishop Fellay in the matter of a sellout needs their head examined.
I wouldn't accuse him of being an ally of Bishop Fellay in the matter of the sellout - anymore than I would accuse him of being an ally of the SSPX in the matter of sedevacantism.
What is preposterous, is the belief that one can be a sede and against an SSPX sellout and not recognize that Bishop Fellay is 100% against your fundamental positions.
John Lane's position is absurd - condemning those he dislikes (for being right) as being slanderers strikes me as a holier than thou pose.
Disagree completely.
If Ghandi were being slandered by a Catholic, it would not be a contradiction of my principles to point out to my brother Catholic the theology surrounding calumny, slander, detraction, etc.
Neither would it be siding with Ghandi to do so.
That Ghandi opposes my principles does not deprive his benefitting from the moral theology of the Church.
In other words, that Bishop Fellay opposes sedevacantism is besides the point.
As if we are free to slander those who are our opponents?
One cannot be called a hippocrite for simply rendering justice to an adversary.
But one could be damned for refusing to do so.