Rorate Caeli

Galarreta new head of La Reja


Local sources in Argentina confirm that Bishop Alfonso de Galarreta, one of the four bishops of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X, will run the Seminary of Our Lady Co-Redemptrix in La Reja, Province of Buenos Aires -at least temporarily, as a "Visitator".

The news has also been posted in the website of the excellent Argentinian Catholic publication Panorama Católico Internacional. 

Note: The father of Panorama's editor (Marcelo González) died this Friday: may he rest in peace.

35 comments:

Anonymous said...

The fast action and the fact the de Galarreta is also a bishop is a smoke signal from Fellay to Williamson: smarten up or you're history.

I expect that, at this hour, Fellay is trying to get W. to add something to the second apology. The deadline is tomorrow at midnight, European time, which is about twenty hours from now. If W. does not make a last-minute adjustment, and a large one, he'll be cleaning out his desk on a Sunday.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

I agree with P.K.T.P. Fellay certainly seems to be on the same page as the Vatican these days.

Williamson remains the wild card. In many respects, his conduct has been remarkable: he has submitted a humble apology, and, before that, has obediently accepted his silencing.

That said, it wasn't an apology that Rome requested, but rather that he RECANT his statements. That he has failed to do.

It's quite difficult to read his mind. Is he on board or not?

I do not know the man, nor have I ever met him. But I have learned a long time ago that not all people behave rationally. Many engage in behavior that is self-destructive, or otherwise inconsistent. Perhaps Williamson falls within this camp.

And as P.K.T.P. points out, the critical question is: what's Fellay to do? Perhaps he can get Williamson to revise his apology - but I fear that would be a bridge too far. It may very well boil down to staying in the cold, or proceeding with a reconciliation that doesn't include Williamson. And given Williamson's popularity and following within the SSPX, this is the proverbial rock versus hard place.

+DR

PS: When a say a reconciliation that doesn't include Williamson, what I'm envisioning here is a situation where the SSPX is regularized, but Williamson's episcopal -- and perhaps even his priestly -- authority remains suspended. He would certainly be invited back as a layman (indeed, as far as I can tell, he already has -- that's what the lifting of the excommunication did), but not as a member of the clergy. And, for what it's worth, that's exactly the right outcome here. Someone who denies the Holocaust ought not be excommunicated from the Church - that's ridiculous. But it's equally ridiculous to grant such a person with any position of authority within the Church.

Anonymous said...

To comment further. Here is one scenario:

1. Williamson refuses further recantations by tomorrow at midnight.

2. Fellay expels him on Tuesday next (not on a Sunday and not on Monday because that is W.'s birthday).

3. Rome moves really fast to extend faculties to Society priests, perhaps the same day or the next day. They won't want to wait until the 12th (Feast of St. Gregory the Great) for several reasons.

3. Fellay boots out a few hardliners who support W.

4. W. starts a new society.

5. Rome and the S.S.P.X engage in doctrinal discussions. At the very earliest, regularisation takes place on 29th June, the Feast of SS. Peter and Paul, but it may be the Feast in 2010 or 2011 or even 2012.


Why should Rome move so fast if Fellay expels W.?

1. It is too good an opportunity for the Pope to miss to shop the world emphatically that he supports Fellay and rejects what W. stands for (viz. Holocaust denial).

2. Once W. is gone, there is a danger of a large fissure in the S.S.P.X. Suddenly you have two groups of traditionalist priests offering Mass illicitly (in Rome's view). Some might prefer the illicit Masses of a hardliner who 'stands for truth'. W. does have his following. On the other side, F. has the property.

3. The Pope needs to take firm action as soon as possible in order to move towards regularisation of the Society. Why? Because Summorum Pontificum is now a dead letter and it's starting to show. It's one thing to grant a right to priests. But bishops still have the right to exile those priests to the gulags of Oklahoma.

4. Rome cannot afford to give the liberals time to dig up more dirt on the S.S.P.X.--and there's lost of dirt to find, Holocaust dirt. The Pope needs to distract the liberal scum in the press with a dramatic act. Once union with the Society is seen as a fait accompli, the reporters and other miscreants, and their liberal backers in the Church, will go back to sleep. They will turn their attention to the vacant speeches of Mr. Barry Soetero.

P.K.T.P.

Gerard said...

It doesn't seem to catch anyone as sinful that the Vatican is supposedly offering bishop Williamson a chance for an episcopal see in exchange for a political opinion. If true, this is Simony and it is sinful and should be condemned. It would be indicative of the continuing crisis and fully a legitimate reason for Williamson to either strike out on his own and consecrate bishops and rebuild or for the entire SSPX to back away from any more dealings while Rome is still sick with too much politics and too little faith.

Anonymous said...

P.K.T.P.:

First of all, you have an incorrect assumption that you are basing everything off of.

Bishop W was NOT given a deadline by Bishop Fellay. I believe that the "end of Feb" time-frame was given by Bishop W as the rough time he needed to look at the evidence and decide whether he was wrong or not.

Personally, I do not see how he has had sufficient time to do so, what with packing up and moving internationally. Maybe on the plane he did some reading, and it failed to convince him enough to issue a recant.

I say that everyone needs to give him more time - like a couple years.

Anonymous said...

Are you bishop Williamson?

Anonymous said...

Conspiracies abound!

Anonymous said...

Gerard:

Rome has never offered Bsp. W. an episcopal see. The possibility is that he would be appointed as an auxiliary bishop in an international structure. Auxiliary bishops have little power of governance.

The question is whether he is eligible to exercise clerical ministry. Imprudence has always been a barrier to that. There is nothing irregular in that.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said:

:Bishop W was NOT given a deadline by Bishop Fellay."


That it totally wrong. Fellay gave him to the end of this month and that was published on this blog or in a link to another interview about ten days ago. I am not going to pore through text looking for it. W. did indeed complain that that was not enough time to 'do research' but Fellay never responded to that complaint. Why do you think W. issued the second apology when he did? It's because of Fellay's deadline. Get with it.

I am betting that there are now some last-minute attempts being made to get W. to retract properly. But I doubt that they will succeed: three apologies would be too many. They would undermine his credibility too much.

The deadline is up in several hours. If Fellay does not issue a statement reacting to Williamson's, he will look weak and ineffective. It might not be appropriate to issue such a statement on a Sunday or on Williamson's birthday, which is Monday. That leaves tomorrow and Tuesday. I don't think we shall need to wait long. Fellay must appear to be decisive.

If Fellay expels W., there is a great hope that the Pope will act swiftly and issue a decree granting faculties to Society priests. He cannot go beyond that because regularisation cannot be imposed (since no one can be required to accept an appointment in Canon Law). If H.H. acts swiftly, this will all be forgotten and there will be time enough to deal with doctrinal problems appropriately.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

After the shameful and cowardly manner in which Bp. Fellay has thrown Bp. Williamson under the bus, Bp. Williamson has--for a second time now--offered Bp. Fellay the perfect opportunity to close ranks and support a fellow traditionalist Catholic bishop who will not bow to the New World Order, and who will not promote 'Holocaust' mythology to appease the servants of the Enemy.

What remains to be seen, is how Bp. Fellay will react. Will he back the bus over Bp. Williamson's body, lying humble and prostrate before the Holy Father? Or, will he be the man and leader he ought to be and tell the Pope, 'Sorry, that's all you're getting. I'm not going to attempt to command a brother bishop to lie just because you want to appease the world.'

Really, what has the FSSPX to lose? Official recognition by the Church? Big deal! The FSSPX got along just fine for the past 30 years; it will endure 30 more if need be.

And, if Bp. Fellay does cave, and it causes a rupture in the FSSPX, then the strategy of divide and conquer apparently being pursued by the Enemy will have worked, and the failure to stop it will be on Bp. Fellay's head.

God bless His Excellency Bishop Williamson and God help the Pope.

G

Anonymous said...

+Williamson didn't deny the holocaust, only the numbers and means of the 'official' version.

Hebdomadary said...

Bravo Rome, for a clear and quick response. This dog and pony show has gone on long enough.

"After the shameful and cowardly manner in which Bp. Fellay has thrown Bp. Williamson under the bus..."

Listen Bishop, since only the Bishop himself could harbour such delusions, you threw yourself under the bus, and no one else. If you wish to life in a fantasy that amounts to hiding in plain sight, do it at a distance from the Church. We're better off without you. There WERE gas chambers, the evidence is not that difficult to find. But don't apologize for scandalizing other people, admit you were wrong to believe it in the first place.

"Bp. Williamson has--for a second time now--offered Bp. Fellay the perfect opportunity to close ranks..."

It is not for Bishop Fellay to close Ranks with you, you're the one out on a limb, sawing away between yourself and the tree. Blame no one but yourself. Just because you're a Traditional Catholic doesn't mean you entitled to re-write history. Williamson you're mini-controversy is now a dead issue, politically, you spent its capital, you have made your bed. Your un-recanting non-apology met with the kind of quick response from Rome that indicates that they're not going to suffer a fool either gladly or any further, since the conditions for reconcilliation have now apparantly been extended to all of the faithful attached to the FSSPX. Good work. Well, now you'll earn your place either in the church or on the fringes of Christianity. I beg you to come inside, but if you like the cold, you like the cold.

Just don't be under the illusion that anyone has done this to you but you. No one will have injured the society but you. And if you pursue a rupture, no will have precipitated it but you. Not the enemy, but YOU. A humble admission that you were wrong in your opinions and historical convictions is all that's required. This test belongs not to others, but to you.

God Bless Pope Benedict XVI; Our Lady of Victories intercede for him.

Louis E. said...

Meanwhile,elsewhere in South America,a major appointment was announced,the new Archbishop of Rio de Janeiro.Google News has articles about him in Polish,German,Portugese,and Italian,but only a bare-bones announcement from CNA in English.
What sort of man is Orani Joao Tempesta,the 58-year-old Cistercian likely future Cardinal?

Hebdomadary said...

"+Williamson didn't deny the holocaust..."

Denying that Gas Chambers existed brings his whole mental viewpoint into disrepute. He's denying the well know reality, choosing to live in a world of his own. For a Catholic Bishop that's not an option. He is also associating with people such as David Irving who are well known as Holocaust deniers, and sanatizers of the Socialist atrocities of the Nazis. Socialism, in its various forms is the well known enemy of Religion in general, and of Judeo-Christian religion in particular. Why would a Catholic Bishop wish to attenuate the viscious inheritance of Nazi-ism? I can think of a few reasons, but the short answer is that his character is warped by irrationality. Now he's not the only man to suffer from such characteristics, either outside clerical life or in it, but considering what is trying to be accomplished here, he ought to be able to put his ego and opinions second to those of the greater society. Apparantly he cannot, more is the pity, but the reality remains. He is not, I think, entirely rational, and DOES deny the "H", as he puts it.

God Bless Pope Benedict XVI; Our Lady of Victories intercede for him.

Anonymous said...

G. has written:

"Really, what has the FSSPX to lose? Official recognition by the Church? Big deal! The FSSPX got along just fine for the past 30 years; it will endure 30 more if need be."

But it has not gotten along just fine for the past forty years. It has had a free hand to spread with no obstruction possible from the local bishops. What is the result? It barely exists in Latin America, where 46% of the faithful live. It has a small base in Argentina at La Reja. The further you get from there and from Buenos Aires, the weaker it is. After 40 uninterruped years, it can't even provide Mass every Sunday in Lima, Peru, one of the most populous Catholic cities on this planet. It has nothing at all in Venezuela, in Ecuador, in Bolivia; almost nothing in Brazil, in Peru, in Chile.

It has little in Mexico, noting in the Caribbean except one apostolate in the Dominican Republic.

In the U.S.A., there are now three approved T.L.M.s for every S.S.P.X Mass. It has a small base in India, another in South Africa, a base in Singapore, little in the Philippines.

The truth is that the Society gets all its strength from an area comprising France, Belgium, Southern Germany, and Austria. It hardly exists in Italy or Spain.

And its rate of growth is slowing, thanks to Summorum Pontificum and other factors.

P.K.T.P.

LeonG said...

This is a perfectly normal action to ensure that the seminary has a strong episcopal presence without controversy which it will have in de Galaretta. Far too much is being read into every move made.

It is also interesting to note that the Bishop of Augsburg, Mixa, has ruffled feathers by comparing the holocaust with the diabolical fruits of abortion. What utter recklessness to even begin to defend babies in the womb who are exterminated by various means in the chambers divinely designed to protect them. Perhaps he ought to go further and suggest it is worse than the comparison he has made. Doubtless, he will be pressurised by his episcopal brothers to apologise like Williamson for huh hum! "anti-semitism" and "religious bigotry". Oh dear! What price post-conciliarist openness to the evil liberal world. The modern Church has sold its birthright for a mess of potage.

On the contrary, the irrational reaction of those who attempt to deny for some they dislike, the freedom of speech they wish to monopolise for themselves, betrays not only the arrant hypocrisy that it is but also it reveals a thinly disguised curriculum of intolerance; the sowing of the seeds of neo-fascism and the gradual asphyxiation of the defense of life in any form. It also reveals that the public use of language is being increasingly controlled by an unrepresentative minority.

It is time to repeat the admonition that The Bible will very soon be bowdlerised according to the same perverse principles.

Jay said...

With all due respect to Bp Williamson as a Bishop, denial of Holocaust and gas chambers is like denial of all Catholic religious who were exterminated there, and there were a lot of them. It is not all about Jews, it also about all Catholics, priests, nuns, layman who lost their lives there. It may be the point for Bp W to consider. We should pray for him.

Anonymous said...

P.K.T.P.:

No, in fact you are wrong. Bishop Fellay did not give Bishop Williamson a deadline. This common mis-perception stems from the paraphrased reports of the interview given by Fr. Gaudron in German on German TV.

So far there has not been a transcript of this interview made available in English. But, if you know German, you can listen to the interview online.

Your information has been taken from news reports that have sensationalized Fr. Gaudron's interview and invented an ultimatum ("recant by end of Feb or be kicked out") where none existed.

This is what Fr. Gaudron actually said: Bishop Williamson has until the end of February to reconsider his position before other consequences can be considered.

Note that Bishop Williamson has been given time to "reconsider".
His superiors have asked him to take this time to study the issue, reconsider, in the hopes he would conclude that he can honestly reverse his opinion. They have not tried to force him with threats of dire consequences.

In fact, they have said they will wait until the end of Feb to decide what action to take based on the outcome of Bsp W's re-considerations.

The SSPX will now decide in what capacity (or not) Bishop Williamson can best serve the SSPX. Bishop Williamson is willing to voluntarily leave the SSPX if that is what is best for the SSPX. Remember his quote from Jonas? That is still his thought.

Hope this clears things up.

God bless, and take it easy, ok?

Ogard said...

He should resign from the Society and consider what is it that he believes make him Catholic.

I have nothing personal against him; but, frankly, his faith is diametrically opposed to mine, and we can't both be Catholic.

Anonymous said...

Anon. says:

"In fact, they have said they will wait until the end of Feb[ruary] to decide what action to take based on the outcome of Bsp W's re-considerations."

It amounts to the same thing. And since he has made his response before that *deadline*, the ball is definitely in Bishop Fellay's court, unless you imagine an endless number of apologies stretching off into the distant future.

He was asked to make the apology by the end of the month and he has done so, and it fails to satisfy the Vatican--and rightly so. Rightly so because he could have asserted that there was a planned genocide aimed at exterminating the Jewish people; he needn't have retracted on numbers or means if he had admitted A deliberate genocide and his revulsion for it in emphatic terms. Why does he not admit to a planned genocide? Presumably because he denies one. And that, in my view, is nuts. Granted, I'm not an historian either but we normally rely on authorities in such cases, and not on the claims of the handfull of exceptions, such as Mr. Irving, who has no academic credentials. This is particularly true when it comes to the exercise of judgement on widely-accepted matters. Really, anyone can deny just about anything and then demand that his opponents waste their lives proving that there really was a Second Crusdade or a French Revolution. I'd dispute on numbers and means too but there clearly was a Holocaust.

The question, then, is what will Fellay do, which was my point. The ball is in his court. He must act quickly and decisively on this: either support W. on the grounds that his apology is all he can honestly muster, or throw him out.

If Fellay does not throw him out, there will be no reconcilation with Rome until long after we all died of old age. Not a good outcome.

By scanning various secular websites, we can see that various leftists are now doing an in-depth 'study' of the S.S.P.X to dig up more dirt and prevent any rapprochement until the Second Coming.

Thanks, Bsp. Williamson. A devil from hell could not have done a better job of fouling things up.

I vote that Fellay expels W. tomorrow. It's not that his views are wrong. The problem is that he is a professional troublemaker and contrarian, probably doing it for attention. Notice that he 'just happens' to argue that women should not attend universities, that the Soviet tanks are acoming because the end of the Soviet Union was a "trick", and that 11-9 was an inside job. What is the chance at all three of these are right?


Trouble is not what we need: we have enough of it from the commies who have taken over the Church from within.

P.K.T.P.

Sussex Catholic said...

Bp Williamson strikes me as someone who prides himself on his intellectual freedom and on refusing to take any statement, no matter from whom it comes, "at face value". In that sense he represents a long standing academic tradition which has been particularly fostered at Cambridge (his alma mater) in which the outside world in all its pragmatic vicissitudes is not allowed to interfere with pure thought. Sadly Williamson's theories are not merely the result of pure thought but like many people of this ilk he is prone to conspiracy theories as a result of reading the works of others without adequately checking these against alternative sources or by means of debate with intellectual peers.

This leaves Williamson in the impossible position of being unable to recant unless he actually has convinced himself on the evidence that the gas chambers did indeed exist. He needs to get a move on and do some serious speed reading.

Sadly what this demonstrates is that he is a man outside of all authority who has been allowed for far too long to try out his theories (always sincere but often the result of reading a book on a plane journey and not having had the time to check the data) on a loyal and unquestioning audience (his congregations). This has clearly been his undoing since had he been under Rome's authority and his name ever been on a "Terna" it would have been rejected by Rome for precisely this reason and as a character flaw. He seems to confuse intellectual freedom with the responsibilities of the episcopate particularly in regard to teaching the Faith and not using the platform to discuss his private ideas on a range of subjects. It is going to be too late for him to change and as a result a similar fate to Fr.Maciel lies in store in my opinion, that of prayer and silence. He deserves our prayers but for the sake of the future reconciliation of the SSPX he should not be permitted to hold public office.

B. said...

Bishop Fellay can't expel Bishop Williamson in order to reach an agreement with Rome.
For one it was the express wish of Archbishop Lefebvre that all four bishops act unanimously in that regard, and also the last general chapter of the SSPX (which binds the superior general) has decided that all four bishops need to be on board for an agreement.

Anonymous said...

On D. Orani, new Archbishop of Rio: as a rule, what is called Catholic Church in Brazil is schismatic (disobedience, doctrinal errors, LT, socialist friendly). There are a few exceptions, of course. Dom Orani is on the "rule" side. Let's pray for him.

Brian said...

On the previous (2/26) post about Williamson’s Declaration, Jay said on 2/27 at 9:58 “The facts are crucial. Holocaust was true, the number of victims at Auschwitz has changed due to research done by several historians in recent years and diminished from 6mln to 1.1mln, including Jews and non-Jews. It is difficult to estimate the exact numbers due to some records missing and the fact that transports were undergoing selections after arrivals - those able to work were transferred to the camp and the rest went to gas chambers."

Can anyone elaborate on the “research done by several historians in recent years” which “diminished from 6mln to 1.1mln, including Jews and non-Jews” the number who died at Auschwitz? If this “research” is credible, what percent of the “Jews and non-Jews” were Jews?

Paul Haley said...

It is hard for me to believe that this matter of the Shoah has become a measure of how to judge a person. Bishop Williamson didn't deny the holocaust, he expressed his personal doubt about its facts and figures. 200,000 to 300,000 is certainly a holocaust in my opinion differing only in order of magnitude from widely accepted figures in the millions.

I am no expert historian but I do believe the number is much greater but neither is Bishop Williamson an expert historian. His figures are based on research he did 20 years ago but, apparently, that is a crime the likes of which render him unfit for regularization.

He has apologized for rendering his opinion but that is not enough for some people. He has promised to reevaluate his opinion based on current factual evidence but perhaps has had little opportunity to do so with the current "lynch" mentality directed at him personally. He has been removed from his position as Rector of the seminary in La Reja, unceremoniously asked to leave Argentina and taken refuge, if you can call it that, in the UK. One hopes that this will be an opportunity for quiet reflection and thought about what really happened in those death camps.

So, now we congratulate Bishop de Galarreta on his new assignment and move on but, wait, the wolves howling for the body of Williamson simply won't let up. Even the Vatican through its official spokesman takes issue with the Williamson apology as not sufficient and specific enough. For whom? For the victims of the holocaust, of course, or is it for those who have entertained a special relationship with the Jewish people under the mantle of ecumenism since 1965. One wonders about the motives of those calling for Williamson's head in the guise of unsuitability or unfitness for episcopal office.

Only one person can put an end to this sorry spectacle and that is Pope Benedict. Up to this point we have not heard from him directly as far as I know and until he speaks it doesn't matter to me what anyone else says, not Bishop Fellay, not Fr. Lombardi not bishop so and so of diocese such and such. May Our Lord and Savior give him the grace to speak and to act as He, the Merciful One, would act and put this matter to rest once and for all.

Anonymous said...

Please give Bishop Williamson a chance and sufficient time, it is a Christian obligation to show charity to him.

I plead honestly.

If we don't do it, we are acting not benevolently, but like a political party or a global firm.

Hebdomadary said...

"...the ball is definitely in Bishop Fellay's court..."

The Vatican's point blank rejection of his second "apology" indicates otherwise. His ball never made it over the net. It is now love-thirty, but I don't think there will be an opportunity for love-forty.

Also Recantation, in the form of "unequivocal distancing from his stated opinions" was a requirement, and he has definately not fulfilled it. There are no two ways about it. He has not met the condition.

Also he denies the existance of Gas Chambers. This brings his whole rationality into disrepute. One doesn't have to study very long to know that they existed. I should change my posting name to "Zyklon B" for this strain of argument, just to bring home the reality.

Gerard, what is being offered is more than likely not an episcopal See at this point, but the license to participate further in the whole reconcilliation. Further, it is his political opinion that is at issue, it is his correct historical understanding.

No historian has EVER said that all six million Jews died at Auschwitz. They were killed elsewhere as well, that has always been known. "Researchers" such as David Irving are nothing more than right-wing extremists who seek to minimize and/or sanatize the record of the Nazis (who we must remember were committed socialists, there's that word again) and totalitarians. Socialism whether National or Communist (the difference is negligible, the operative effects the same) is the enemy here. Why sanatize it?

"Bishop Fellay cannot expel Bishop Williamson...For one it was the express wish of Archbishop Lefebvre that all four bishops act unanimously in that regard..."

Well, the Apb's wish may not come true in that regard if Bishop Williamson cannot be relied upon to exercize his ministry responsibly. Even if he were officially "Bishop to the racist minority" he would still have to tell them "I realize you may not like Jews, but we still have to admit the truth of what happened and not stick our heads in the sand, so that we can prevent it from happening again. The next time such things occur it might be aimed against us, and we wouldn't want that, would we?" Does it sound as if he's capable of saying that? I don't hear it, and that inability could land him in jail. After what the Church has just been through regarding pederasty, they will not suffer it due to racism even potentially. Nor can the society risk it as well. The world, the Church politics, and society at large, will go on with or without Bp. Williamson.

This game is almost over, but if Williamson wants to continue playing "one man against the world," it will only be further evidence of some kind of complex going on in his personality, call it what you will: narcicism, ego-mania, superiority complex. Should that transpire, it would be sad, and yes we must pray for him, but he is not indespensible. Count on it.

Hebdomadary said...

"Further, it is his political opinion that is at issue, it is his correct historical understanding. "

Sorry Gerard, to correct myself, it it NOT his political opinion that is at issue, it is his correct historical understanding.

Catholic Okie said...

The "gulags" of Oklahoma sure could use some holy Traditional Priest ...
Father Remski (FSSP) is over worked and under appriciated, and the Clear Creek monks offer a great retrat location ...LET THE BANISHMENT BEGIN !!

catholicokie

Joe B said...

Stop being women. (Not you, Long-Skirts, you go right on).

You Catholic men who can't even handle a non-dogmatic intellectual challenge without silly wailing about what the world thinks of us, go worship at the girl scouts.

It doesn't matter whether he's right or not or even if he is a bishop. His is one opinion, nothing more, and the subject is no more important than any other religious atrocity, and you know it. And nothing Bishop W can do will suffice anyway, any more than anything anybody can do to defend Pope Pius XII now against those who DON'T LIKE US. Nothing.

The problem is that this really isn't about the Jewish holocaust of WWII. It's about cowing in the face of the liberal gestapo. It's about Global Warming, evolution, George Bush breathing, and anti-war protesting. Bishop W has challenged a liberal sacred cow, and now he has to be destroyed. That's the way they work, and it has to stop or what little academic freedom remains dies next. So don't cooperate with it, grow a pair and defeat it.

So what if a bishop is wrong about something? Does your faith change? Do you lose your job? So what if he's even nuts? So what if he thinks Moses was behind 9/11? I can handle it, just as I can handle false criticisms of Pius XII. What I won't tolerate is a bishop challenging the Real Presence. If you can't see the difference, get out of the house and go spend some time with your Dad.

Well, maybe first you better ask him is he has seen Moses anywhere near Washington, D.C., lately.

Anonymous said...

Good post Joe B., I'm tired of having to listen to all of these sissified, effeminate posts. They are cowardly and those who are turning on Bishop Williamson will have to account for that someday. Oh, for the days when men where men.

Anonymous said...

Sorry, make that 'men were men'...I believe that a big part of the problem is that many so called traditionalists want that deal with Rome NOW, and even in the face of the Bishop Williamson stumbling block, they will lower their standards just to see it happen. Perhaps those so willing to turn on +Williamson should ask themselves at what price...the time may not be right.

Martin said...

If Williamson's comments are just opinions, which is what some are saying here, well then he should have completely recanted these opinions. Afterall these opinions are the cause of immense scandal; not only to the SSPX but to the Pope and the Church and tradition.

His apology did not address the real problem. He apologizies for the harm caused to the Church, but says absolutely nothing about his opinions, which were the real cause of the problem. The harm and scandal were caused by his opinions but he is saying sorry for the harm.

Bishop Williamson needs to make a choice. Either he wants to be a defender of the Church, or else a defender of the unbearable. I'm afraid it appears he has choosen the other path...

Jay said...

Brian at 13:23

There is one of several websites which provide info and sources on the victim numbers in some Poland's concentration camps, including Auschwitz, you can have a look:
http://en.auschwitz.org.pl/m/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=44&Itemid=8

Jay said...

Another link, with direct reports on Aushcwitz victim numbers with photos of original 'registry books':

http://en.auschwitz.org.pl/h/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=14&Itemid=13