bp williamson 8/1 column on the crisis in the Middle East
#11
(08-03-2014, 01:48 PM)liebestat Wrote: Indeed. Bishop Williamson is a wonderful asset for the Church. I heartily agree that if interjections are not intelligent, if they are merely repetitive snarks week after week, then it would be better to just keep silent. Bishop Williamson tells many uncomfortable and important truths, he puts himself at risk for the truth, he has given his life (and still going) to the Church and thereby to the faithful, and he deserves respect.

And he also uses his column to regular calumniate and attack his former superiors and continuing to perpetuate false rumors and outright lies. This column is actually a refreshing break from the calumny and fear-mongering.

I would agree that Clare's comments do not necessarily add much here, but if you're going to apply that standard to her, and call for her to be silent, then I would say we should apply the same standard to Bishop Williamson's letters. If he can't say something nice (or true), then he shouldn't say anything at all (i.e. the letters should be censored).

Pot. Kettle. Black.
Reply
#12
(08-03-2014, 04:56 PM)lumine Wrote:
(08-03-2014, 12:56 PM)Dirigible Wrote:
(08-03-2014, 12:47 PM)lumine Wrote: Bishop Williamson is a proven anti-semite, so anything he says on this subject will be absurd.

If you're going to criticise his views, go ahead, but don't slander him so lazily.

I didn't slander him.  His statements are on public record.  There is nothing lazy about my statements, either.  By the way, my prayers are for those people unfortunate enough to be living in the Gaza strip, God bless and protect them.

If his statements are on public record and his position is obvious, then your observation/accusation is unnecessary.

(08-03-2014, 04:58 PM)lumine Wrote: He deserves as much respect as Martin Luther.  He deserves respect as a child of God, not as a bishop.

Except that he is a bishop.  Martin Luther preached open and outright heresy.  Bishop Williamson has said a lot of imprudent and rather pointless things, including potentially dangerous advice about when to go and when not to go to objectively valid Masses, but not open heresy.  Your comparison of him to Martin Luther is uncharitable, unnecessary, and, frankly, offensive.

(08-03-2014, 05:23 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: I would agree that Clare's comments do not necessarily add much here, but if you're going to apply that standard to her, and call for her to be silent, then I would say we should apply the same standard to Bishop Williamson's letters. If he can't say something nice (or true), then he shouldn't say anything at all (i.e. the letters should be censored).

Pot. Kettle. Black.

It would be the pot calling the kettle black if Bishop Williamson himself were to ask Clare (or anyone else here) to keep silent.  "What's good for the goose is good for the gander" might be the more appropriate idiom, but even that fails because Bishop Williamson is a prominent figure in today's traditional Catholic movement, while Clare is not.  I think posting his column here is appropriate, as that column goes out to hundreds (or thousands) of email recipients weekly, and it will "get around."  So it might as well end up here where we can read and debate his points (like we're sort of doing now).  And the point wasn't for Clare to be silent anyway.  It was a request for a little less sarcasm and a bit more constructiveness, a request I probably should have made in a PM, in all honesty.

(08-03-2014, 04:45 AM)Clare Brigid Wrote: My quote from Proverbs alludes to Bishop Williamson's imprudent decision to hold forth publicly about Jews once again.  He cannot seem to stay away from this subject.

This is a great point.  It stands fine on its own and doesn't need snark or satire for emphasis.
Reply
#13
I just erased what I had originally written about the person in question and started over. It seemed the charitable thing to do, even though I had an association with him from my years of daily Mass attendance at St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary and what I think is an accurate understanding of his true character and nature. Each week I have wondered why his continued rantings are posted here, pleased, however, by how few people commented on them, hopefully because so few actually read them. I have to say I was surprised at how many here and on other sites supported this man for so long (some actually continue to do so!!!). The Society was purified by its expulsion of him. Thank you BISHOP Fellay. I have been to Dachau, Auschwitz I and Auschwitz-Birkenau. I have long questioned whether he actually believed what he said about the holocaust. But I do know he used revisionism of that terrible experience to promote his overall personal anti-Semitism. Believe me, this is much milder than my original post was.  Frankly, some of the postings of others here being criticized as too critical don't really go far enough in reflecting reality, as far as I'm concerned.
Reply
#14
(08-04-2014, 07:55 PM)tradprof Wrote: I just erased what I had originally written about the person in question and started over. It seemed the charitable thing to do, even though I had an association with him from my years of daily Mass attendance at St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary and what I think is an accurate understanding of his true character and nature.

I was confirmed by him some 20+ years ago and have heard him speak on many occasions.  You seem to have had more exposure to him than I, but his theology always seemed sound to me.  It's when people (often purposely) steered his conversation into the realms of politics, conspiracies, fringe theories, etc., that he seemed unable to control his tongue.

(08-04-2014, 07:55 PM)tradprof Wrote: Each week I have wondered why his continued rantings are posted here, pleased, however, by how few people commented on them, hopefully because so few actually read them.

I think many folks do read them, but are either too disinterested, too angry, or too worried about the political ramifications of siding with him or against him (he's very polarizing).  I wish more folks would post meaningful rebuttals for his arguments.  I think that would be beneficial. 

(08-04-2014, 07:55 PM)tradprof Wrote: I have to say I was surprised at how many here and on other sites supported this man for so long (some actually continue to do so!!!). The Society was purified by its expulsion of him. Thank you BISHOP Fellay.

On this, I agree with you, though we probably differ on why we think it was a purifying experience.  I think he was a distraction.  I think he was affronted by never having been considered for the job of Superior General.  He clearly disagrees with the SSPX leadership about the direction the SSPX should be headed, and I think he was surprised and disappointed that he didn't receive more sympathy when he began to be excluded from important SSPX functions.  But his personal views on Jews or any other ethnic group are and should be irrelevant as far as his ecclesiastical functions are concerned.

(08-04-2014, 07:55 PM)tradprof Wrote: I have been to Dachau, Auschwitz I and Auschwitz-Birkenau. I have long questioned whether he actually believed what he said about the holocaust. But I do know he used revisionism of that terrible experience to promote his overall personal anti-Semitism.

You mean you assume he used revisionism to promote what you perceive as his overall personal antisemitism.  You must have had a reason to visit all those locations, whether it be for reasons of heritage, curiosity, academics, or whatever.  As such, your view on the matter could also be biased, just in the other direction, at least more so than those of us who "don't have a dog in this fight," as they say.

(08-04-2014, 07:55 PM)tradprof Wrote: Believe me, this is much milder than my original post was.  Frankly, some of the postings of others here being criticized as too critical don't really go far enough in reflecting reality, as far as I'm concerned.

Look back at the thread.  Nobody was attacked for being too critical.  It was merely the manner in which the criticisms were delivered that was objected to.  Personally attacking the man when it is the man's words that should be the point of criticism is simply poor form.  I criticize him almost exclusively, but I try to do it politely and with some semblance of neutrality.  I would have no problem defending his point of view at any time, if only he would stick to the good Catholic theology for which he was originally renowned, and for which he was probably selected for episcopal consecration in the first place.  But, alas, it seems all he has breath for anymore is drum-beating, politicking, and controversial fringe theorizing.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)