Yeah, except for his hit piece from April 4th, 2019 against +Williamson and the Resistance in general. The article smells of seething anger and frustration. Like a person who is insane angry, but calms down for a few days so he can think, but is still very much seething within himself.
He complains about +Williamson not supporting the Carmelite sisters and bewails all the "harm" that is being done to the Resistance, but his whole piece is emotional, angry, and basically consists of ripping the Resistance and its leadership to shreds. He has nothing positive or hopeful to say about the Resistance, its leadership, or its future.
This happens all the time in marriages: once a spouse is angry with the other, a whole litany of smaller offenses bubble up to the surface. Issue A causes anger and division between the spouses, but once the rift is there, the spouse finds a whole host of other things they don't like about the spouse. Issues b,c,d,e,f,g,h,i,j...
For example, Samuel actually criticizes +Williamson in this same article for "refusing to start a Resistance seminary". Seriously? What if it wasn't God's will to start a Seminary in 2013 when there were only a handful of Resistance priests and very few chapels? What would he respond to that? "I know it was God's will because it was certainly my will"? Oh, and your will is always God's will now? Here are the facts: In the early days of the Resistance, in a timely manner, His Excellency consecrated 3 more bishops, one of whom took care of starting a seminary. Oh, and Fr. Chazal, who works under +Williamson, has a seminary in Asia as well. So much for that charge.
Another example: he claims that since we pray "O Lord, grant us many holy religious vocations", we are hypocrites unless we support *this particular* controversial or up-and-coming group.
He also places his own judgment over Bishop Williamson's: "I have made the effort to try and find the source of the accusations, or at least the grounds to render them credible, but I have been unable to find either of the two. I also gave the accused a chance to defend herself, and based on the content and the tone of her replies I am satisfied that the rumours are not credible at all, worse, I believe they are are unfounded and unjust." If you can be logical for a minute: you didn't prove the accusations wrong. You just failed to prove them right. There's a big difference. Then you decide that Sister Irene is a victim of injustice based on your personal judgment, and your intuition/feelings.
And this is the basis on which Samuel is publicly criticizing and lambasting Bishop Williamson? Pretty shaky if you ask me.
What about Bishop Williamson's judgment? He's been a fervent defender of the Faith much longer than Samuel, and he has more age and wisdom than Samuel. Isn't +W just as likely to be objectively right -- if not MORE likely to be right -- as Samuel is?
Later, he defends Sister Irene's apparent instability, saying: "I don’t know many Catholics who in all honesty can say that they never had to reinvent themselves. I have reinvented myself several times, and even the good bishop has had to reinvent himself in his past life." Please! The Bishop kept responding to the movements of grace, eventually bringing him into the Church, which happened 4+ decades ago. The Bishop hasn't "reinvented" himself since then. He is one of the most stable men I know. Please don't confuse "conversion to the Catholic Faith" with the common problem of "instability". Such intellectual sloppiness doesn't do you any favors.
And let's not confuse "God forgiving a sinner" with "let's put this person in charge of a brand-new religious order." Even if there is nothing spiritually amiss with Sister Irene, even if she's in the state of Grace -- good for her. But that doesn't mean that it's God's will that she found a new religious house at this time. There are many other things which have to line up.
But even if Samuel were correct, and in-the-right, he is going about it all the wrong way. He complains about the Resistance being deficient in charity, while writing a hit piece against +Williamson and publicly tearing him down. How does that serve the building up of the Resistance and the Church, hmmm? I thought charity demanded that we give individuals the benefit of the doubt? Wouldn't the saints have striven to presume the best about the good Bishop?
Oh, but "Samuel truly loves the Resistance, he's just painfully, reluctantly, and sadly speaking the truth hoping that something will be resolved as a result of his public airing." Get real! We don't have a hundred other faithful Traditional bishops to turn to. God has provided us with 4 bishops. Samuel, in attacking +Williamson is being totally counter-productive to what he claims to desire, and in this one aspect is actually following the nefarious pattern of Fr. Pfeiffer! "+W went against my personal opinion and desires; I have judged +Williamson to be in-the-wrong; I attack him now!"
He doesn't even leave a 1% opening that +Williamson might be doing his best (e.g., trusting the reports of other Resistance priests). No, Samuel is extremely harsh on the Bishop; Samuel has tried, convicted, and sentenced him already. He leaves no opening for +W to be a "good guy".
Likewise, Samuel doesn't even leave a 1% opening that he himself could be wrong. That says a lot.
"Public good" blah blah blah "He's a public figure" blah blah blah Except Samuel is missing just one thing: +Williamson hasn't done anything against the Faith. He is an ordained minister of God, a successor of the Apostles (a bishop) who deserves our respect. One should only very reluctantly write or say anything critical of a priest or bishop. His opinion or prudence reaching a different conclusion than you is NOT sufficient reason to publicly lambast him. It's too much of a grey area.
Make no mistake: we could find small things to criticize about ANY holy priest or bishop. Go ahead and name your favorite Trad priest or bishops (living or deceased) and I'm sure we could find some flaws, which perhaps could have been attacked in an article.
In fact, that is what is totally lacking in Samuel's writing these days: hope. He has no hope. His actions are that of a Kamikaze pilot who decides that all is lost. Samuel doesn't care if his actions cause further destruction; to him, it's all over anyhow. Of course, for him it's personal: his daughter's vocation is at stake. It would have been so much better FOR HIM if +Williamson had supported Sister Irene.
You're not going to force Bishop Williamson to change his mind by lighting a public fire under him. Even if he were in the wrong, you're going about it all the wrong way *if your motivation is the future good of the Resistance, the Carmelite sisters, his daughter who wants to join the Carmelite sisters, etc.* Now if you are just a human being having a bunch of emotions -- well, mission accomplished!
I just fail to see what he really hopes to accomplish with an article like this. Unless the motive is revenge. Or unless he's just being emotional and doesn't have a rational reason for it.