Fr. Z sees red and does black deeds against Bishop Williamson
While I think a light jab here and there about the well-funded hobbies of Fr. Z can be overdone, I think it's valuable that people take it into account when he calls Bishop Williamson names and insults the man's intelligence and ideas.

As far as Fr. Z goes, and his contribution, I have mixed thoughts on  it.  On one hand, you can get in clear English what the "Vatican Line" is for the current issues.  The downside of that is that his very usefulness reflects a deliberate murkiness on the part of Rome, a place where "yes" should mean "yes" and "no" mean "no."  So in that sense, he points to a symptom of what is wrong in Rome.

On the other hand, his unwillingness to admit the realities of the modernist infiltration all the way up to and including the Popes shows he's not going to be accurate when it comes to placing the blame at the root of the problem.  A penchent for pre-conciliar vestments and liturgical preferences doesn't purge a person of modernistic tendencies.  Fr. Rahner and Fr. Kung probably said the Old Mass beautifully as far as the externals go. 

I'd rather deal with a McBrien or Chittester and not have them dress and behave like Catholics while spreading their nonsense.

And the worst part is the dishonesty of it all.  Bishop Williamson is "irrelevant" and "old news" one day, but when Fr. Z has to defend his posting of the rumors that Bishop W was near death.  It was his responsibility to report on "such a pivotal figure."  Well, which is it?  Or does the story and needs of the day determine the characterization? 

Listen to Bernard Janzen's audio interviews with Bishop Williamson from the early 80's to today, before and after the consecrations, the only thing that changes is the timbre of Bishop W's voice as he got older, not the content. 

Williamson says what he says, to persuade people that he is right when he believes he is right,  because the Truth is of God. 

Fr. Z says what he says to manipulate people to believe what he wants them to believe for the purpose of control and being right is incidental.

Otherwise he wouldn't misrepresent Williamson, he wouldn't stack the decks in the comments boxes by deleting the strongest arguments in favor of Williamson's position and leaving slurs from alleged "self-admitted fans" of Williamson in order "to show people the kind of followers Williamson has." 

No. The man is a dishonest scourge of the truth and if he doesn't repent, he will burn in hell for all eternity for the crimes he's committed against a good man.  It's not Williamson he's offending first and foremost, it's God who is offended by the lies, distortions and attacks, veiled or overt. 

Messages In This Thread
Re: Fr. Z sees red and does black deeds against Bishop Williamson - by Gerard - 12-16-2009, 02:15 PM

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)