16 March 2008
Bishop Richard Williamson
Yes, I obviously hadn't read enough of him when I wrote the first edition of that rash post. I had found myself in some sympathy with what he said about the risks of an attack on Iran precipitating a third world war; and it had occurred to me, before he wrote his piece on praying for the Jews, that excluding Jews from the preaching of the Gospel would itself be an act of antisemitism. I accept that my correspondents have been more careful than I was; that their accounts of his views are better researched than mine was; and that, to put it mildly, the gentleman has said some strange things. I should have been more specific in what I wrote. Although my words were not exactly an endorsement (I did use the terms iffy, dodgy, barmy) I do realise that the levity of my flippant tone was ill-advised. Sorry. I'll try to grow up.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
I am afraid, having read some of his stuff on Dinoscopus, I am firmly convinced that he is, if not insane, certainly racist and open to the most peculiar suggestions.
Anyone who explicitly denies that 6000000 Jews were murdered by the Nazis, a fact believed by all respectable historians, must be either a fool or a knave. One can only speculate on his motives in asserting what he does. Does he indeed take seriously"The Protocols of the Elders of Zion"? Did he indeed say that Hitler had liberated Germany from Jewish finance? Hitler certainly stole a lot of Jewish property.I would suggest that you consult some of the good historians in the University of Oxford.
If he has indeed said what is reported it is not barmy but wicked.
Father,
Bishop Richard Williamson (rather than William Richardson...) is a man of faith. However, he is also a man of the most vile opinions and dangerous rhetoric. I fear the cultus attached to John of the Railway Station would be diminished were you to say this too often.
Being a man of faith counts for little ,what is important is what the man actually believes. Hitler and Lenin could be regarded as men of most fervent faith.
I wonder if some of the SSPX people believe that the Jewish people are guilty of deicide, that they kidnap and murder Christian children in order to use their blood to make matzos, and that "little St Hugh" of Lincoln was indeed a saint? Perhaps it is an unworthy thought and they are instead enlightened dissidents who merely wish quite reasonably to preserve an ancient liturgy.
You did express reserve and I was, and am, pleased about that! I would be wary of expressing too much sympathy for his views qua *his* views, though. His love for God may be a reality (search "Bishop Williamson SSPX" on youtube) but many, or perhaps most, of the views he is happy to share are little short of dangerous nonsense.
Does anyone know what Williamson read at Cambridge and what class of degree he got? Since he pontificates on politics it would be helpful to have some idea of the mental equipment and background he brings to it.
I think we can see in Bishop Williamson the phenomena of a man driven mad by the madness around him. There can be little doubt any more that the 1960s were a decade of spiritual and moral disaster, the 'reforms' in the Western Church (Anglican and RC) which were heralded as a 'little springtime' were and are an agency for the destruction of the major part part of Christian culture, spirituality reason and morality, in their relationship with the surrounding culture. All of this Bishop Williamson knows, but the majority of the Church (Anglican and RC) still will not own up to their own role in their own destruction. Such knowledge can drive men mad.
Fortunately while the weak minded have gone mad the Pope is sane. Whatever excuses might be offered on their behalf, the nutcases should be ignored and the successor of Peter heeded.
Post a Comment