A new course for the SSPX
#8
(07-17-2018, 07:57 PM)Mark Williams Wrote: You totally misunderstood my post. Advertising is not the issue here. The issue is that the SSPX has mistreated Bp. Williamson. Do you deny this?

Well you did post a non-descript link without the text that we could discuss here, meaning if we wanted to discuss it, we had to visit that site, and thus bump their ad revenue, while using this free platform as the means to do so.

As regards your question : Yes, nego simpliciter.

A member of a religious society who goes on public record calling for the illicit deposition of his major superior is arguably a canonical crime, not only a serious public sin. Punishment is only fitting for such. 

A fitting canonical remedy is to warn the person to retract their comments and make restitution publicly, then face some penance to repair. If recalcitrant, then to expel such a person from their congregation is a necessary fitting penalty. That is what happened in the case of Msgr Williamson.

If a member of a religious society refuses to follow the rules of the society as regards communications, by running a public circular letter or blog which is prohibited, then he is also guilty of a canonical crime and justly punished. If he refuses the punishment and the correction, and is recalcitrant in ending this violation of the rules, he is justly punished by expulsion. This also happened with Msgr Williamson who had, since his removal as seminary Rector continued a public circular letter/blog, which was prohibited by the SSPX rules which he approved as a member of the 2006 General Chapter which issued such rules and confirmed previous rules made by the Superior General and his General Council during the 1990s.

This was a canonical crime because Canon Law demands that members of a religious institute have approval for what they publicly publish. It was this public letter, among other venues, in which he called for the illicit deposition of the Superior General (which the 2012 "Business Chapter" from which he was excluded for his crimes, did not have standing to change).

That is not mistreatment. If anything the superiors of the SSPX erred in allowing Msgr Williamson such latitude and not clamping down on his insubordination and criminal actions previously.
[-] The following 1 user Likes MagisterMusicae's post:
  • jovan66102
Reply


Messages In This Thread
A new course for the SSPX - by Mark Williams - 07-17-2018, 01:24 AM
RE: A new course for the SSPX - by HeadRusch - 07-17-2018, 11:21 AM
RE: A new course for the SSPX - by Mark Williams - 07-18-2018, 07:08 PM
RE: A new course for the SSPX - by Dominicus - 07-18-2018, 07:42 PM
RE: A new course for the SSPX - by Mark Williams - 07-18-2018, 07:54 PM
RE: A new course for the SSPX - by francisco - 07-17-2018, 01:00 PM
RE: A new course for the SSPX - by Mark Williams - 07-17-2018, 07:57 PM
RE: A new course for the SSPX - by MagisterMusicae - 07-17-2018, 08:10 PM
RE: A new course for the SSPX - by Dominicus - 07-17-2018, 08:34 PM
RE: A new course for the SSPX - by jovan66102 - 07-17-2018, 11:57 PM
RE: A new course for the SSPX - by Mark Williams - 07-18-2018, 01:11 AM
RE: A new course for the SSPX - by Dominicus - 07-18-2018, 06:24 AM
RE: A new course for the SSPX - by Poche - 07-17-2018, 11:40 PM
RE: A new course for the SSPX - by Mark Williams - 07-18-2018, 06:09 PM
RE: A new course for the SSPX - by Dominicus - 07-18-2018, 08:02 PM



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)