I shouldn't have to spend hours of my time beating back slanders and calumnies ... yet this place has been an open forum for such for a very long time now, and nothing is done.

Of course, to make a point, I listed some of the misdeeds / mistakes / poor judgments of Bishop Richard Williamson which are all well known, well docuмented, secret to no one, and widely publicized ... so that there was hardly anyone here who's not heard about them, and it didn't so much as constitute detraction.

But the Moderators was on top of that within seconds, editing out parts of the post, while he lets slander go on against Archbishop Thuc or Archbishop Vivano for years on end, ad nauseam, where some of us feel we need to spend hours of our time defending their honor against the hateful calumnies, and even after the stuff is thoroughly debunked, people continue spewing the same smears over and over again, just like the latest resurgence of the "Mason" slander.

Of course, the chief slanderer claims that the only reason I was defending +Thuc was because I availed myself of +Thuc Sacraments for years.  Truth is that I think I went to Holy Communion at a CMRI chapel (+Thuc line) precisely once in my entire 36 years of being Traditional Catholics, and the rest were all +Lefebvre-ordained or independent priests.

That has nothing to do with anything.  I have serious disagreements with CMRI, but will defend them against the smears of being Old Catholics or that their Orders are invalid, simply because other errors does not entitle people to smear them with malicious lies.  I'll even occasionally defend Prevost and Bergoglio against lies.

I've even taken the very unpopular position that Prevost/Tucho's decision on Our Lady's title of Co-Redemptrix was nowhere near the worst of what they had done, pointing out that even some theologians before Vatican II felt that the title was misleading, problematic, and best avoided ... for serious theological reasons, and also pointing out, in fairness to Prevost and Tucho, that they did NOT say the title was intrinsically incorrect, but just that the "correct meaning" required so much explanation that it was not considered useful or appropriate.  That comment implied that there could be a correct meaning, and Tucho followed up saying it's OK for private use, just they didn't put it into use in public liturgy due to it requiring too much explanation.

But because Tucho the Mouth Healer has become so despised, I guess it was considered OK to just make things about about what he actually wrote (or, rather, I doubt he wrote a word of it himself).  It's not.  There's plenty of real stuff to criticize them for, and when we make things up, it just discredits us as being bitter and irrational and grinding axes, just as the Catholic Answers and other pope-splainers went after Trads for on this topic.

Now, while there's certainly reason to question whether their stated motives (not illegitimate in themselves) were sincere, since ... when have they ever cared about causing "confusion" ever before?  Bergoglio reveled in causing chaos and "messes", thinking it was healthy, and Fiducia Supplicans + Amoris Laetitia were about as confusing as one could get.  Yet in those cases, they believed it was sufficient for Bergs to add a note in, say FS, that "marriage is still between a man and a woman, and don't allow these blessings to resemble wedding ceremonies", and that was sufficient to offset or dispel the confusion there ... but they couldn't come up with a sentence or two to define and explain "Co-Redemptrix", eh?  That smells of ulterior motive, but it's not proof.