The very latest is that while he is still unconscious in some sense, he nonetheless responds to stimuli and tries to make the sign of the cross after he hears the Rosary being said beside him.
Anyway just to address further any criticisms of Bishop Williamson, because I often have debates with friends about him and the Resistance so it might be timely to rehearse some of these arguments:
I think above I address the big point, whether in any of his actions he is creating a schism.The point is that there are always going to be different wings of the Church, different charisms and different arguments even, like for example the 'schoolmen' in the high middle ages debating the Immaculate Conception between the Dominican Thomists and the Franciscan – and frequently Irish – Scotists, etc etc. There is nothing wrong with such conflict or debate and bear in mind Bishop Williamson has never been a sedevacantist for example.
Among the other criticisms I hear of the good Bishop is that he is focused on politics, talks a lot about it etc, whereas he is supposed to be a cleric and it and politics don't mix. Well fair enough but consider these points:
– Just to begin with a small point, when he goes into the public domain and argues the toss about some of these things what he is also doing is flying the flag for Catholic tradition, and the Latin mass etc, even when he isn't explicitly talking about those issues. Its a bit like Michael O'Leary picking rows with people when this not accidentally gives free publicity to Ryanair and hence boosts that company. Some in the modern SSPX take a totally different view, never say anything publicly good bad or indifferent, but hence get no publicity, therefore nobody hears about them and then few go to their masses?
You have to make an effort to compete for public attention to evangelise and he I think understands this and follows Archbishop Lefebvre's lead in this respect.
– It does not follow that he ever neglected his religious duties. Its incredible the amount of masses and other sacraments he would have celebrated or participated in all around the globe; his big thing is always to encourage people to say the Rosary; and he has had an incredibly full life in teaching seminarians and consecrating and trying to instruct other bishops, so no way can you accuse him of neglecting his spiritual duties.
– 'Silence is consent', is a well known maxim obviously, so if you don't speak out against the Holocaust narrative or 9/11 or vaccines/lockdowns, does that in turn not mean that you are consenting to it, and therefore reinforcing the establishment narrative on these issues? Obviously it doesn't follow that every cleric has to speak out on every political issue, just to avoid 'silence is consent', but at the same time some of these stories are pushed very aggressively in modern society, like the Holocaust one obviously, so if you are a bishop and say nothing about these things then maybe you are consenting? He I believe was therefore right to do so and maybe at least senior clerics who say nothing about these things, even if they disagree with the state/media line, ought to consider more carefully this concept?
– Yes its true that the primary focus of clerics ought to be on spiritual matters, but the truth, saying it and banishing lies, and human life, its preservation, dignity and freedom, to a degree, bearing in mind that humans are made in the image and likeness of God, are also spiritual matters actually. Again this can just be an excuse to stray too far into the political domain sometimes, like Liberation Theology for example, but at the same time if you look at the level of state tyranny during Covid, or the threat to human health and life posed by the vaccines, I think you will find that speaking out on these things was justified, even on spiritual grounds.
– I know some object greatly to his take on history, where he traces a lot of events from the French Revolution to the deliberate long term actions of a group seeking to destroy the altar, hearth, and throne, to coin a phrase, and in time enslave us all. That of course is not how it is usually presented, but there are in fact big problems with the established way of understanding history in my view, there is room for these big conspiracies, they do indeed happen and I think more people should be aware of this.
– Maybe he, and people like E. Michael Jones, put too much emphasis on the Jewish part of that equation, in my opinion anyway. Sure the Rothschilds, Soroses etc etc are a very big part of this conspiracy I would say, but they are probably just nominal Jews, and are actually into the Occult which seems to be where the real conspiracy rests.
– There is another concept/maxim here that arises and it is the old one about the Nazi persecution in Germany, attributed to Pastor Niemoller i.e. "When the Nazis came for the communists, I remained silent; I was not a communist...When they came for the Jews, I remained silent; I wasn't a Jew. When they came for me, there was no one left to speak out."
The point is that anybody who follows this world conspiracy closely, because thats what it is, can see that the Catholic Church will inevitably be a notch on their persecuting belt soon enough. Obviously as a Catholic Bishop he has a strong duty to speak out in defence of the Church, but if he waits like they did in Germany for all the other groups to be persecuted and say nothing then its too late when they come for the Church?
For example you take the mass immigration issue, which even Archbishop Lefebvre spoke out against. Its no good saying that its nothing to do with the Church now, clearly thats just a little further down the line, the Church needs to speak out now against particularily the Islamification of Europe. The day when they uprise and destroy Churches will be too late, you have to see thats its inevitably leading that way and speak out against it now while there is still time to oppose this.
Anyway I think Bishop Williamson can see these things and thats why I think he is right to speak out on these issues.
