And what does that have to do with the price of eggs? Did you see every letter to the editor? Or, just the ones that you were allowed to see? And more importantly, is the lack of response automatically a capitulation to the accuracy of the report? What kind of logic is that?
Also, Bill Grossklas, who spent several years in the SSPX, did not dispute anything in my column.
So, and ex-Catholic priest who does not dispute a book or article by Jack Chick or James White is automatically proof positive that Chick and or White is correct. I understand.
My original point stands. No one ever provides the context of Williamson's alleged statement. Not a sentence before, not a sentence after. Not the question that was posed to him, not a response. I've heard Williamson say statements that are similar in terms of his acknowledgement that the Church has enemies who scheme against her. But he has always provided certain qualifiers that show that he is either speculating or providing what the various levels of rumor that are circulating.
The article by Case is a hit piece, pure and simple. It's loaded with language and falsehoods that are typical of the conciliarist attempts to mischaracterize the Society. It's reading garbage like that and the stuff from other noted "ex-SSPXer's" that led me to explore the society. I thought to myself, "These guys are too outrageous to believe this stuff." And then, I realized that people like Case and Grossklass are simply not telling the truth. They are conspiracists or in the case of one of them, an admitted "former" Satanist who I personally believe never left Satanism and simply found a better way to undermine the Church by undermining the society from the conciliarist position.
It's also interesting how this "fly on the wall" knows the inner workings of Williamson's interior disposition. Especially when the Bishop's public actions, writings and interviews as well the testimonials of many people who have met the man personally have stated the opposite.
Williamson is not a sedevacantist. He refused to confirm children from a suspect independent priest unless they specifically made a public profession of the validity of the then Pope JPII.
Williamson does not believe that women cannot be saved and hearing their confessions is a waste of time. That is utterly ludicrous. Williamson actually speaks of family and husband and wife in the most beautiful of terms. Williamson blames the lapse of society squarely on the shoulders of men refusing their obligations to their wives, families and states of life.
I could go on and on providing example after example of the errors in the Case article and the truth of what Williamson actually teaches and preaches. As I said, before, you can go hear him speak when he comes around to give confirmations and you'll even have an opportunity to speak with him personally if you want afterwards. Or, more conveniently, get the 23 hours of taped interviews over a 20 year period by Bernard Janzen. My personal experience, first person source material and the consensus of many others that I know who have met the man simply overrides the disgruntled ramblings of a former participant who snapped for whatever reason.
There were two letters printed that were highly critical of Case's article. One was from Fr. Peter Scott and another was from Fr. Ramon Angles. Neither disputed that particular statement by Williamson, and Case did respond, point-by-point, to both letters.
Also, Bill Grossklas, whom I know and greatly respect, informed me that Williamson said the same thing in Oak Park, Ill. at one point.
pingarooni