Skip to main content

When is a rebuttal not a rebuttal?

Image
By
+
JMJ

When is a rebuttal not a rebuttal?

When it doesn't directly address the point of contention.



In this case we have Bishop Williamson's defense of his actions in 2009.
(Quoting Fr. Wegner) It is brought to my attention that in Queen of Angels, Texas, parish of the SSPX, you said recently that when in November of 2008 I spoke to a Swedish TV interviewer about the "Holocaust", I was perfectly well aware of what harm my remarks would do to the SSPX, and I made the remarks anyway, as though I positively wanted to harm the SSPX.
 Key elements:
  • When Bishop Williamson uttered his opinion in Germany he was definitely aware that he was breaking a civil law of that country.
  • He would have to be a fool to not foresee the effects that such actions would have on his own person as well as the apostolate of the SSPX in Europe.  Especially since he was banned from entering Canada for a number of years for similar comments.
  • Assuming that Bishop Williamson reasonably could foresee the effects of his words and still made them anyway, the inference made by Fr. Wegner is not out of the bounds of rationality.
(Bishop Williamson continues) I will assume that this report of your words is substantially accurate, because it is a widely shared version of my intentions at that moment.
Here is the truth, with which you must do as you see fit, but you will have been told it.
When I called in question the Six Million and the Gas-chambers, for good or ill the thought of the SSPX was absolutely not in my mind. I had in mind one thing and one thing alone -- to tell what I understood to be the truth on a very important question of modern history and religion, because the "Holocaust" has been made into the most widely spread and influential substitute religion of modern times.
I expect no apology. I might be grateful if you ceased to tell counter-truths about my intention in uttering those famous words. Over to you.
With good wishes in Christ, +Richard Williamson." 
So, Bishop Williamson claims that the "SSPX was absolutely not in my mind" ... well it should have been.

He should have had the SSPX forefront in his mind as he brashly proclaimed the 'truth' about a place he has never visited nor a time he has never experienced.

Truly, it is Bishop Williamson who has made a religion, his religion, out of the Holocaust (shoah).

Pray that he realizes his error before he makes his final journey.

P^3


Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Rome,the SSPX and this time of Crisis - Updated

By
+ JMJ Obviously there's lots of events right now. First we have the April 1st - I almost thought it was April Fools - meeting between Pope Francis and Bishop Fellay.  Nothing really news worthy as this is a natural progression as Rome appears to be considering fulfilling Archbishop Lefebvre's wish to 'accept us as we are'. Second we have the April 8th publication of what will be a verbose exhortation of the Synod of the Family. I'm willing to bet that the Pope will give with one hand (unilateral regularization of SSPX) and take with the other (ambiguous document that opens the flood gates of sin further). Much to pray for. P^3
30 comments
Read more

A Reply to Martin Blackshaw’s FLAWED Remnant article titled: FLAWED: SSPX Advice on Abortion-tainted Vaccines

By
 + JMJ    An article has appeared in the Remnant (link to article) and I am afraid that there are a number of flaws in it that need to be addressed. The author, Martin Blackshaw, believes that both the Church and the SSPX are misapplying the principle of Moral Theology called 'Cooperation In Evil'.  Unfortunately, Mr. Blackshaw rests most of his arguments on citing authors that support his position, without considering the possibility that they are wrong. This highlights a key factor in this crisis: ignorance of the faith and its application . I don't am not singling out Mr. Blackshaw for this criticism, I have observed that it applies to laity and religious, superior and subject a like.  No one seems immune in this enduring crisis, myself included.  I further believe that this ignorance is why so many Catholics, both traditional and non, rely on their gut feeling or "Catholic conscience" for charting their way through this crisis of the faith.  While...
25 comments
Read more

Rorate-Caeli URGENT: Pope tells Italian Bishops he plans to abolish the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum

By
 + JMJ  Now THIS is probably the most important news item in the last two years - yes I place this above the pandemic. I'm only surprised by how long it took for this to surface during this pontificate. I hope and pray that it is false or that if it comes to pass that somehow some good will arise out of the ashes of Summorum Pontificum. P^3  Courtesy of Rorate-Caeli URGENT: Pope tells Italian Bishops he plans to abolish the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum (Updated) Update (May 26): Rorate's additional sources in Rome have confirmed this Wednesday that Francis has indeed a text on Summorum Pontificum lined up, which has been developed for months, but what is not known at this point is if the text is just about a more limited take on the Summorum application questionnaire (first revealed by us in the spring of 2020) or about an overhaul of Summorum Pontificum in general: drafts could be dealing with both matters. It is also not impossible for a text to come ou...
9 comments
Read more

If Pope Francis is bad - what about Pope St. John Paul II et al?

By
+ JMJ So here we are on the apparent cusp of yet another post conciliar Papal canonization. This time we have Pope's John-Paul I and Paul VI canonizations to 'look forward' to. This follows, obviously, on the heels of Pope St. John Paul II's canonization? So the first question that I usually encounter is: How is it possible, keeping in mind the doctrine on infallibility of canonizations (note doctrine not dogma), that Pope St. John Paul II is a Saint? First, what does it mean???  According to the doctrine of dogmatic facts - it is the universal opinion of Theologians that canonizations are infallible.  It means that they enjoy the beatific vision.  ... that's it.  That is the doctrine and it is at the level of universal opinion of theologians.  It is called a 'dogmatic fact'. That they made mistakes is obvious.  That the miracles seem to not be very miraculous is also a bit of an issue. Here's something to consider: The rush that surrou...
16 comments
Read more

The Vatican and SSPX – An Organizational Culture Perspective

By
Introduction The recent and continuing interactions between the Vatican and the SSPX have been a great opportunity for prayer and reflection.  The basis for the disagreement is theological and not liturgical. As noted by Dr. Lamont (2012), the SSPX theological position on the four key controversial aspects of the Second Vatican Council are base on prior theological work that resulted from relevant magisterial pronouncements.  So it is difficult to understand the apparent rejection of the theological position of the SSPX.
17 comments
Read more