The Bishop's Weekly Column from the Parish Bulletin

OUR LADY OF FATIMA

CATHOLIC CHURCH

Raising some Red Flags...

March 12, 2008

What you see is not what you get - an exercise in suspicious "journalism"

Depend upon it, I like to stir the pot and this column's title was designed to grab your attention and no doubt it has (as usual) !

I was waiting over the weekend to see what Brian Sudlow's take would be on the latest attacks on Bishop Richard Williamson. Brian and I were seminarians of the SSPX together. Being both English we ran a catechism camp for boys for the SSPX in the summer of 1992 so we know each other (and Bishop W.) very well indeed.

His blog column was a fairly spirited defense of the bishop and in actual fact his column is not what interests me here. Rather I am more interested in the issue raised in one of the comments on his column which I had originally intended to raise here myself. One comment read, in part, as follows:

I'm fascinated by the comments on Ches's post, because they revolve *not* around the question of the Herald article's (un)timeliness and (im)prudence, but rather around Bishop W. himself. The point of the post is: What on earth was the Herald thinking, throwing down the gauntlet like that at a time like this?? To what purpose???

The post raised the question of whether the Herald stuck its nose in to the detriment of the negotiations between the SSPX and Rome. What do the readers think?

The question of the "(un)timeliness" of the recent spate of attacks (here, here, here and here) is precisely what concerns me. You see Bishop Williamson's "extreme" views have been known for some time. They have, in fact, been a matter of public record for decades, so why are these "new" attacks being made now when the material could have been used against the bishop any time in the last 20 years or so ?

Just in case you think this is another attack on the bishop - let me make it very clear - I am only asking why he is being attacked (by others) now. The bishop is more than able to acquit himself in these matters - my only interest here is... why now ?

Given the particular virulence of the attacks and the sources: the Catholic Herald and the Holy Smoke blog of Damian Thompson there seems to be a definite co-ordination afoot. Yes, I am actually suggesting a conspiracy !

The first column that started the attacks gives some clues as to the reasons for the timing of these attacks. The clues are to be found in the sources contacted for the article: SSPX HQ, the Simon Wiesenthal center, Williamson himself. Let's take those sources in reverse order:

1/ Williamson himself: well of course if you want to trash a person, you want to hear it from the "horse's mouth" (so to speak). This way you create the semblance of at least giving the one attacked the impression of a fair and balanced approach, but when one admits he has a tape-recording of the interview, I have a rather obvious question: "Was the Bishop informed he was being recorded ?". Furthermore, none of the issues raised as areas of concern by either Arco or Thompson (the two columnists in question attacking Bishop W) is of recent interest. The main source for some of their contentions has to do with a seminary newsletter written by the bishop in 1991 ! That's old news indeed !

2/ The Simon Wiesenthal center: This is a Jewish watchdog that searches for expressions of anti-Semitism, which they sometimes litigate. The phone call placed to this establishment in Los Angeles seems not so much interested in finding out the center's opinion of Williamson (I'm sure they wouldn't have known +W if they had fallen over him prior to the phone call) as in trying to get him in hot water. Here again I smell a rat.

3/ The SSPX headquarter's in Menzingen, Switzerland: I fully believe this was an attempt to nail Bishop Fellay down into saying something nasty about his brother bishop. Wisely, the SSPX had the secretary, Fr. Arnaud Sélégny, field the call and not the superior general. Clearly this wasn't just an attempt to ask Bishop Fellay his opinion on the matter. How do I know this ? Well the conclusion of the editorial on this article gives you the answer:

Let us repeat what we said last week: there is really no excuse to continue to belong to the Society of St Pius X. Bishop Fellay's failure to condemn Bishop Williamson has brought shame on his organisation. It is time for moderate Lefebvrists to return to the Church - and for us to welcome them joyfully

It was all about causing trouble for the SSPX ! Who benefits from driving a wedge between the bishops of the SSPX ? Well that is anybody's guess ! Why now ? Perhaps someone wants to scupper a possible deal between Rome and the SSPX... take your best guess ! One thing I do know: any time I see a dirty tricks' campaign, it's time to raise some red flags !

+TF

P.S. Might it all begin in 13 days ?