A replacement for Williamson in Argentina?

In a story in La Nacion, there is speculation that perhaps SSPX Bishop Galaretta could take over at the seminary in La Reya, Argentina in place of SSPX Bp Williamson.

Whatever move they make, clearly Bp. Williamson will be assuming more and more a non-public role in the SSPX.

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in SESSIUNCULA. Bookmark the permalink.


  1. Manrique Zabala de Arízona says:

    Despite he is well respected in the Fraternity, and probably a good Sheppard in terms of a Bishop, his words were out of place, no matter how manipulated they were (and YES, they were waiting to throw them to the public opinion).

    What’s good about news is that leave them without headlines for a good while and they’ll just forget about it. When the FSSPX gets a status within the church he can be a secretary somewhere in the Curia, and “storia finita”. But to have Galarreta in La Reja (yep, it’s written with a j) is even better news for the Fraternity.

  2. leo says:

    I don’t know if you heard of this yet, but apparently Williamson will stick with his view of the Holocaust for the time being. German weekly magazine “Der Spiegel” will publish an interview in its next issue (Feb 9th 2009) in which Williamson says he wants to check the evidence first and eventually correct himself “… if I find this evidence, which will take time”. Here’s the link (in German, sorry): http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/0,1518,606088,00.html

    “Der Spiegel” is very anti-clerical / anti-catholic and I don’t even want to know how they are going to spin this. I am sorry to have to say this but despite his letter of apology: This man needs to go. Fast. Unless the pope really takes a stand. Fast.

  3. Alex says:

    Rorate Caeli has updated their original post about this saying that Bishop Williamson’s editor contacted them saying this rumor is false, he has not stepped down.

  4. shadrach says:

    This news about Williamson stating he will ‘check the evidence’ has, unfortunately, been welcomed by some (especially over at rorate) as a good sign, it has been suggested that it shows a commendable open-mindedness, that it amounts to a better statement. However, If the media catch hold of it, it will be worse. Despite Williamson’s manoeuvres maybe

    1, He shouldn’t have said anything about the Shoah in the interview in the first place. And

    2, He should have consulted the best historians in the field of Shoah history… Raul Hilberg would be a good place to start. He should have read the incontrovertible evidence about Birkenau/Auschwitz II. There’s a lot of it. One might conclude that he has shown a willfulness in ignoring it.

    The historical world is not waiting for Williamson to confirm the existence of the gas-chambers that exterminated Jews. It is an established fact and his continued mealy-mouthedness about it amounts to a heinously uncharitable attitude. Of course, he can hold these opinions. He is perfectly free to do so. He is also perfectly free to be a conceited ass. His stance is uncharitable and it should have no place in traditional Catholicism. But, unfortunately, for some historical (and perhaps psychological) reasons, nineteenth century style anti-semitism has some adherents among those who are supporters of traditional Catholicism. If anything good comes out of the current crisis it might be the purging of that attitude from our midst. The acknowledgement and condemnation of the Shoah and the attitudes that led to it, of course, is not a doctrine of the faith, but equivocation about it or it denial when it is referred to is gratuitous, perverse and sinister.

  5. Sangre azul says:

    Father: Is “La Reja” (=railling).
    My congratulations for your blog. It’s excellent. Muy english isn’t.

  6. craig Smith says:

    Oh dear, when is Bishop Williamson going to learn to be quiet at least till the storm settles. If he wants it to settle that is.. ( I know i should be more charitable and not doubt his probable good intentions in agreeing to an interview with ‘Der Spiegel’… But why would he keep the controversy going with more silly imprudent, insensitive statements?)

  7. veritas says:

    What a pity Williamson is not a historian, his academic standing amounts to a first degree in English Literature. His checking anything will not add anything to the sum of knowledge. Why take him seriously?

  8. Paul M says:

    One of Reuter’s blogs speculates on Bishop Williamson’s future:

  9. RC says:

    Can we assume that this interview took place before Bp. Williamson was directed to make no more public statements on — what was the qualifier? — non-religious matters?

  10. Prof. Basto says:

    The Vatican cannot remove him from the clerical state, because he has never been admitted to it. So, the only solution would be for the Vatican to admit the other three bishops to canonical functions in the Episcopate, regularizing their status fully, and keeping Williamson either out of that regularization completely or in a lesser state, by regularizing him as a priest and forbidding him from the discharge of episcopal functions.

    Given that Williamson is unlikely to recant his views and won’t keep his mouth shut, that seems to be the only way out. And the solution, regularizing the three others and setting Williamson apart needs to be effected soon. Right now, the four SSPX Bishops have the same canonical status. So very different people are being treated alike. That’s not fair.

    The adequate response – should Williamson not recant – would be for him to have a different status when compared to the other three bishops. Of course, he cannot be excommunicated by denying a historical fact unrelated to Catholic dogma; but he can be kept from Episcopal functions, given that he was never appointed to the Episcopate by the Pope, was illicitly consecrated, and lacks the “prudence” required by Canon Law.

    But this imbroglio needs to be over soon, for it is harming the image of the whole traditionalist movement in the eyes of an uninformed world, and giving voice to dissenters. Today, in the local paper (a conservative newspaper politically – no mainstream newspaper seems conservative in religious matters here), I had to suffer the reading of a full inteview with arch-dissenter Hans Kung. Talking about Williamson, bashing the Pope’s decision, bashing the Pope, and bashing the so-called reversal of Vatican II.

  11. Again, does this not support the argument those in favor of lifting the excommunications have been making — that the light of reconciliation will disinfect problems in the society?

  12. Steven says:

    1. Who created this media storm?

    2. Why did they create this media storm?

    3. They made Bishop Williamson world famous!

    4. Bishop Williamson has also other interesting views.

    5. Why are you obliged to believe the facts of this particular holocaust?

    6. Why are there anti-revisionist laws in Europe?

    7. Why are people inprisoned for this in Europe?

    8. What about free speech?

    9. Why is the holocaust always used to attack the Church and Pope Pius XII?

    10. Why do they not blame atheistic eugenics?

    11. Why do they not blame Malthus, Darwin, Galton, Huxley, Nietzsche and the rest of them?

    12. Why does the Pope not make a formal statement: “We believe in the truth. We believe in free speech. The jewish holocaust is a historic fact, but it was not caused by the Catholic Church, nor was Pope Pius XII responsible for it in any way. The responsibility lies with atheistic eugenics, which the Catholic Church opposes. Ultimately, satanist Hitler and his clique are responsible. The murder of 60 million Christians was also part of their satanistic plan.”

  13. Prof. Basto says:

    The mainstream media is confirming that Williamson was booted from the post of Seminary Rector.

    – From the website of the British newspaper “The Guardian”:


    – From Reuters:


  14. AndyPandy says:

    Steven, I like your observations. I share. I also have responses which I will keep to myself but I’ll bet you have similar.

  15. Matt of South Kent says:


    1. Bishop Williamson created the media storm.
    2. To derail the removal of the excommunications, which gave said Bishop Williamson to do as he wished.
    3. Bishop Williamson is not famous, he is infamous.
    4. Yes, the whole Sound of Music thing, is what you must be referring to.
    5. Facts are facts. Even if you deny a fact, it is still a fact.
    6. Because anti-Semitism is cultural embedded in some parts of Europe and the Europeans realize it needs to be stamped out.
    7. Because they are a danger to the public good.
    8. Free speech is relative; you are not allowed to yell ‘fire’ in a crowed theater.
    9. Because the Church was probably the only institution capable stopping the Holocaust. The Roman Catholic Church is greater than any national government and any super-national organization. Those who citizen Pope Pius XII are misinformed and do not give the Church credit for what it actually did and what it could actually do.
    10. Because it is easier to blame the Church and those who blame the Church believe that in the long run such claims, however much false, will be believed and that will weaken the Church.
    11. Because it is easier to blame the Church and those who blame the Church believe that in the long run such claims, however much false, will be believed and that will weaken the Church.
    12. Because one of our Bishops foolishly took the bait of one of Satan’s demons.

    Matt of South Kent

  16. If I were to bet money, I would say that Galarreta is a choice they would actually want to avoid down there. I was a seminarian down there for two years, and I know that Galarreta has a following (being really a thousand percent criollo in his mannerisms; he always reminded me of Carlos Gardel sans voice). He was actually seminary rector for a few year back in the early 1980’s and was again afterwards to clean up the split of the sedevacantists in the early ’90’s. But I was under the impression that the SSPX leadership didn’t want him back there since they feared that he would be “too popular” of a choice among the portenos since he has personal relationships with many of their families. They don’t want him getting too cozy down there, and I think his residence in Europe also has to do with some health problems that he has (though I don’t know for certain).

    The other curious thing is that I have had people tell me down there that his spiritual father, a Fr. Abelenda, was actually a closet sedevacantist. That throws some other strange things in the mix.

  17. veritas says:

    Would the church employ a bishop who very publicly denied that William Duke of Normandy invaded England in 1066 or would they regard him as unfit for office as being of unsound mind? There is far less evidence for that event, and certainly fewer still surviving witnesses, than for the Shoah.

Comments are closed.