I agree with the above. I've generally tried to stay out of the mud-slinging and have refrained from responding to the many sanctimonious (when they weren't outright hateful) posts from certain forum members. But I also agree that some "Grumpy Old Oysters" have written bad things as well that I've not been comfortable with. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter "which side is nastier", though.

Today is a sad day, and I've been feeling more exhausted than usual. But I'd like to address a few of the accusations against Bp. Williamson. PATRICIUS wrote:

Quote

Had he stuck only to what he was consecrated to do, he probably wouldn't be in this mess now.

I suppose this begs the question: what was Bp. Williamson consecrated to do? To only confer sacraments and keep his mouth shut? Or to only speak about "spiritual" matters as if he and his flock are angels?

I don't really understand this mentality that BpW, or any cleric for that matter, is somehow no longer allowed to speak of things other than religion. No wonder there are so few vocations among Traditionalists if this is a widely held view, since it is scarcely a human existance to be forced to have Asbergers-syndrome-like obsession with one topic to the exclusion of all else. I suppose this same logic would condemn Vivaldi for daring to compose music (not something he was ordained to do) or certainly Copernicus ought not to have meddled in astronomy (according to Dr. Woods' How the Catholic Church Build Western Civilization, Copernicus was a priest).

But setting all that aside, given the timing, it is clear that Bp. Williamson's sounding of the alarm against the latest dealings with Rome and opposing a deal along with two other bishops is the reason for expulsion at this time. And thus, it seems to me, that it is precisely because of doing what he was consecrated for (teaching and defending the faith) that Bp. Williamson is "in this mess now".

To John McFarland, I think it is true that Bp. Williamson had a lot of influence on the U.S. during his years there, although I would call his influence positive. I would also ask, who sent Bp. Williamson to the U.S. in the first place? The same man who put Bp. Williamson's name forward as the candidate for sole bishop of the S.S.P.X under the 1988 agreement: Abp. Lefebvre.

It would also seem that there has been a certain "de-Williamsonizing" in the U.S., although I disagree with the terminology. I would call it a de-integralizing, since it was intergral Catholicism not "Williamsonism" that Bp. Williamson taught. To call his insistance on a Catholicism that is not compartimentalised and which informs all of our life, I would argue, is mischaracterized to be called "socio-political enthusiasms". On the other hand, I would call this supposed "mere" Traditionalism minus the "socio-political enthusiasms" a brand of 1950s Catholicism where Catholicism is relegated to Sunday but has nothing to to with the rest of our lives.

I think it is also unjust, and unsupported by evidence, to suggest that Bp. Williamson's opposition to a deal with Rome has anything to do with his exile to Argentina. Anyone who knows Bp. Williamson knows that he is without ambition or the sort of monstrous pride/egomania suggested by such an accusation. As one former seminarian said, Bp. Williamson would be perfectly happy if he were locked in a dungeon. No, having known and worked with Bp. Williamson personally over several years, I say that Bp. Williamson is a man of principle, concerned with truth and personalities or egotism did not play into this.

Rebellion is a word anathema to Bp. Williamson, and although his enemies frequently accuse him of a "rebellious spirit" this is not the case at all. The amount of abuse he has put up with humbly and meekly since 2009 would shock many and to me has been proof positive that he is no rebel BUT he is a bishop doing what he believes to be his job.

Now, John McFarland and others may accuse me of "idolatry" towards Bp. Williamson. Well, nemo iudex in causa sua so I cannot say this is true or false, but I would offer as evidence in my defence that I recognize that Bp. Williamson is not infallible or impeccable. I disagree with him on certain things but at the end of the day it is Bp. Williamson's teachings not his person that attracts me to him.

I think it is true that Bp. Williamson had a lot of influence on the U.S. during his years there, although I would call his influence positive. I would also ask, who sent Bp. Williamson to the U.S. in the first place? The same man who put Bp. Williamson's name forward as the candidate for sole bishop of the S.S.P.X under the 1988 agreement: Abp. Lefebvre.

I say that Bp. Williamson is a man of principle, concerned with truth and personalities or egotism did not play into this.

That's the lip-service Father Rostand paid it!

From Nicholas Wansbutter, Esq (on IA forum):

Quote

I agree with the above. I've generally tried to stay out of the mud-slinging and have refrained from responding to the many sanctimonious (when they weren't outright hateful) posts from certain forum members. But I also agree that some "Grumpy Old Oysters" have written bad things as well that I've not been comfortable with. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter "which side is nastier", though.

Today is a sad day, and I've been feeling more exhausted than usual. But I'd like to address a few of the accusations against Bp. Williamson. PATRICIUS wrote:

Quote

Had he stuck only to what he was consecrated to do, he probably wouldn't be in this mess now.

I suppose this begs the question: what was Bp. Williamson consecrated to do? To only confer sacraments and keep his mouth shut? Or to only speak about "spiritual" matters as if he and his flock are angels?

I don't really understand this mentality that BpW, or any cleric for that matter, is somehow no longer allowed to speak of things other than religion. No wonder there are so few vocations among Traditionalists if this is a widely held view, since it is scarcely a human existance to be forced to have Asbergers-syndrome-like obsession with one topic to the exclusion of all else. I suppose this same logic would condemn Vivaldi for daring to compose music (not something he was ordained to do) or certainly Copernicus ought not to have meddled in astronomy (according to Dr. Woods' How the Catholic Church Build Western Civilization, Copernicus was a priest).

But setting all that aside, given the timing, it is clear that Bp. Williamson's sounding of the alarm against the latest dealings with Rome and opposing a deal along with two other bishops is the reason for expulsion at this time. And thus, it seems to me, that it is precisely because of doing what he was consecrated for (teaching and defending the faith) that Bp. Williamson is "in this mess now".

To John McFarland, I think it is true that Bp. Williamson had a lot of influence on the U.S. during his years there, although I would call his influence positive. I would also ask, who sent Bp. Williamson to the U.S. in the first place? The same man who put Bp. Williamson's name forward as the candidate for sole bishop of the S.S.P.X under the 1988 agreement: Abp. Lefebvre.

It would also seem that there has been a certain "de-Williamsonizing" in the U.S., although I disagree with the terminology. I would call it a de-integralizing, since it was intergral Catholicism not "Williamsonism" that Bp. Williamson taught. To call his insistance on a Catholicism that is not compartimentalised and which informs all of our life, I would argue, is mischaracterized to be called "socio-political enthusiasms". On the other hand, I would call this supposed "mere" Traditionalism minus the "socio-political enthusiasms" a brand of 1950s Catholicism where Catholicism is relegated to Sunday but has nothing to to with the rest of our lives.

I think it is also unjust, and unsupported by evidence, to suggest that Bp. Williamson's opposition to a deal with Rome has anything to do with his exile to Argentina. Anyone who knows Bp. Williamson knows that he is without ambition or the sort of monstrous pride/egomania suggested by such an accusation. As one former seminarian said, Bp. Williamson would be perfectly happy if he were locked in a dungeon. No, having known and worked with Bp. Williamson personally over several years, I say that Bp. Williamson is a man of principle, concerned with truth and personalities or egotism did not play into this.

Rebellion is a word anathema to Bp. Williamson, and although his enemies frequently accuse him of a "rebellious spirit" this is not the case at all. The amount of abuse he has put up with humbly and meekly since 2009 would shock many and to me has been proof positive that he is no rebel BUT he is a bishop doing what he believes to be his job.

Now, John McFarland and others may accuse me of "idolatry" towards Bp. Williamson. Well, nemo iudex in causa sua so I cannot say this is true or false, but I would offer as evidence in my defence that I recognize that Bp. Williamson is not infallible or impeccable. I disagree with him on certain things but at the end of the day it is Bp. Williamson's teachings not his person that attracts me to him.

I would also ask, who sent Bp. Williamson to the U.S. in the first place? The same man who put Bp. Williamson's name forward as the candidate for sole bishop of the S.S.P.X under the 1988 agreement: Abp. Lefebvre.

Bp. Williamson is a man of principle, concerned with truth and personalities or egotism did not play into this.

he is no rebel BUT he is a bishop doing what he believes to be his job.