Obviously, you will defend Williamson no matter what. Fine. Case's article on the SSPX was, in my view, very well-researched, and I stand by it.
But, again, if you want further "context" on Williamson, I recommend you contact Bill Grossklas. Just be nice. :)
No. I will just defend him against calumny and lies.
Case's article on the SSPX was, in my view, very well-researched, and I stand by it.
That says something about your journalistic standards. From my first post I stated that no one will provide a scrap of evidence that this is an accurate quote or provide any statement that preceded it or proceeded after it. Much less, the person he was allegedly speaking with, what they asked him or what the person's reply was if any.
This is Dan Rather all over again. "I can't prove it. But I know it's true."
But, again, if you want further "context" on Williamson, I recommend you contact Bill Grossklas. Just be nice. :)
"further context"? How about "any" context? Let me get this straight. You won't back up what you write but you want me to verify what you stand by. I'm really not responsible for your work you know. I'll back up my own.
How about this? You defend your work or you disavow the statements made by Case and Grossklas. Otherwise, you are guilty of what you accuse the SSPX of. You call Bishop Williamson and talk to him. I'm sure someone at Thomas Aquinas Seminary will be able to put you in contact with him if you explain you are trying to get to the bottom of the issue. Or, contact Bernard Janzen and ask him if he can put you in touch with the bishop.