I think you have to remember that Williamson was never under any restraint from the SSPX in his views until the blow-up after the excommunications were lifted. Fellay seemed to tolerate and even like his “unusual” point of view.
Until the blow-up, the SSPX and its bishops were relatively obscure, and Williamson’s opinions were regarded as merely that; opinions. It is the media that caused the blow-up, not bishop Williamson, the reason being that the news of an imminent lifting of excommunications was expected and the media as well as “progressive” bishops needed an excuse for the excommunications NOT to be lifted. We can be certain of that because AFTER the blow-up, a South American bishop (or cardinal, can’t remember which) made similar comments to those of Williamson, but this received no coverage. We can be doubly certain, because the interview, which was taped several months earlier, didn’t come out until around 1/20/09, when it was convenient for those who don’t want anything to do with tradition.
I’d like to add this: Williamson’s opinions, while silly and reprehensible to most, were, as I said, opinions only, on a secular point of history…His opinions harmed nobody (except by perhaps causing a few strokes or heart attacks at the ADL and NYT
). On the other hand, I can rewrite your sentence above which will highlight the difference between this “denier”, and a substantial piece of the post-concilliar church, and I’ll let the viewers come to their own conclusions about who is more reprehensible; bishop Williamson, or the many pervs of the post-concilliar church. It would look like this:
“I think you have to remember that priests were never under any restraint from their bishops (and as a matter of fact, were often aided and abetted) in their sexual abuse of children until after the blow-up in Boston in 2002. Bishops seemed to tolerate and even like the “unusual” acts of their priests”.
Ok, so Williamson hurts nobody, while the post-concilliar pedophile/homosexual priests hurt innocent children.
His blog was accessible to all and Fellay always defended Williamson prior to the controversy in January.
Fellay defended Williamson’s person, or his opinions? Does Fellay agree with the opinions?
His holocaust denial (or minimization of it) is a matter of public record since the 1980’s.
Yeah, and the 6million Jews figure is also a matter of public record…and therefore people CANNOT come to a different opinion about it. CANNNNNOT. I SAID, CANNNNNNOTNOTNOTNOT!
I guess Raul Hilberg, a Jewish historian, also suffers from (a less extreme) case of “holocaust denial” (or minimization of it). He must be a self-loathing Jew or whatever.
