Fr. Z sees red and does black deeds against Bishop Williamson
#63
(12-18-2009, 02:30 PM)Dust Wrote: My point, Kakhur, was that Baskerville (and others here and at other times) seemed offended by anyone doubting +Williamson on anything... I know he has a personality cult going (as do many others, including Fr. Z as I am now discovering) and was warning against it as a matter of principle. 

No, it's not that at all.  It's not a matter of being offended by people disagreeing with Bishop Williamson, it's the offensive manner in which they attack him.  Is it a characteristic of a cult of personality to actually think about someone's point of view and either agree with it or disagree with it on its merits? 

If there is any cult of personality regarding the Bishop, it is occupied the plethora of feeble-minded haters who think tossing a few insults, make a few mischaracterizations and avoid an actual thoughtful debate or discussion. 

My whole point in putting up this thread is to show that Fr. Z is a member of the cult of personality against Bishop Williamson. 

Quote: While I like and agree with Williamson in some respects, and have a great admiration for his determination and spine, I always thought he mixed Faith and his personal opinion a little too much in a way that tended to make opinion look like dogma in some people's eyes.  No distinction was made that he was talking about the bishop's writings on Faith only.  Maybe that was implied by the whole nature of the thread, and the particular writing of his that started all this.  If that was the case, I apologize.

I think an examination of Williamson's text proves that he is not speaking as if he's proclaiming dogma.  He's exercising the liberty that the Church allows on the matter of "intention" until the issue is settled, which will be a good sign that we are coming out of the crisis. 

Quote: It just seemed that this whole thread was turning into (or judging by the title, which was amusing but less than kind, maybe started out as) a big Williamson cult get together, angrily ripping on some priest who read something he wrote and called him out on some potential trouble spots. 

No.  This is a pattern on the part of Fr. Z.  He doesn't call people out on the substance of what they wrote.  He mischaracterizes as he did with Williamson's defense of the validity of the form of the rites and then spins it to seem as if Williamson is doing just the opposite.  Then he whines about the "tone" of the people that don't fall for his schtick. 

That would be like Fr. Z writing a brief definition on Transubstantiation carried over from a previous letter and someone commenting, "Oh my.  I haven't read his previous letter but I hope he's not denying the Real Presence of Our Lord. "

Quote: Going just off what was written in this one letter, father's comments did not seem all that out of place.  Fr. Z obviously disagrees with the SSPX, and thus he's not a member, but I don't hold that against him.

Fr. Z is intellectually dishonest.  He wants to keep it along the lines of, "the SSPX consecrated, therefore, they are excommunicated"  He won't admit that the Church has actual guidelines and teachings on the validity of excommunications,  he won't address St. Thomas' teaching on perfect, true and false obedience.  But he rails on an on about "disobedience"  In fact, "servility" the very word used by St. Thomas to describe false obedience is a "buzz word" for Fr. Z in which he launches into attacks against any of the poor, angry, bitter followers of Bishop Williamson use to "attack" the Holy Father, (who can never be wrong, no matter what) and to bring up impeccability and creeping infallibility is just another example of "This is what Pope Benedict is up against."  As if Fr. Z is a friend of the Holy Father as Pope or a friend to the Catholic Church by promoting ignorance.  The contrary is true Fr. Z is an enabler of modernist propaganda.  He's a salesman for the impeccability of the Holy Father and his predecessors and he tries to sell the crisis in the Church as a cosmetic problem caused by a few bad apples who got carried away.  No responsibility goes to the Popes during that period.  And opposing the Pope when it gets like that, is not "the last thing a Catholic should do.'  A Catholic should never do it according to him. 



Quote: It also seemed that no one else here would ever call anyone out on it. 

You'd have to argue for its existence first.  Your impressions of the cult of personality may actually be just a consensus of opinions based on the same arguments.  Williamson comes to  his conclusions from Catholic premises.  The  problem for the anti-Williamson peronsality cult is that they have a tough mountain to climb when Willamson's positions are built on solidy philosophy and solid observation and clear logic. 

But conceding points is not their style.  They are outcome oriented, they don't want Williamson's conclusions, they don't want Catholic premises, so they resort to distraction and ad hominems. 

Like Chesterton described G. Bernard Shaw in Heretics (ironically) they are all looking to something that has never existed and cannot exist.  If they can just "implement the Council correctly" it will be the Utopia they have imagined.  They are just like the Communists and the Atheists and the Secularists in this regard.  If something true gets in the way of their Utopia, they have to liquidate it, and the morality of the tactics used is justified by the allure of the Utopian outcome. 

Reply


Messages In This Thread
Re: Fr. Z sees red and does black deeds against Bishop Williamson - by Gerard - 12-19-2009, 03:29 AM



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)