Bishop Williamson Interview

There’s a video interview with the SSPX Bishop Williamson now posted on the True Restoration blog.

It’s a very interesting interview, and gives an idea of what the SSPX views the state of the Post-Conciliar Church as, and a view of the Council and what must be said and done officially in regards to it.

The infamous statements on the Holocaust only get a brief mention.

WDTPR blog flagged this interview and brought it to my attention, because the Bishop was misquoted in Vatican Radio and an Italian newspaper from the interview.

Some of the bishop’s other conspiracy theorism got some mention as well, which had me trying to look further into it, but unable to find out more about – the attack on Pearl Harbor part of a conspiracy?

So very Coast-to-Coast AM at some points, very good on other points. :slight_smile:

Hi Shin :slight_smile:

Thank you very much for posting the interview. I like what he said at the end about not being able to reason with people. I also like what he said about obedience versus using one’s mind. This resonnates with me very much as someone who is constantly searching for what is true. Actually, to quote him he said “minds are no longer oriented by truth.”

There are so many points he raises that are worth discussing.

Yes that quote: “minds are no longer oriented by truth.” resonates with me a great deal.

The conflict between sentimentality and objective truth is front and center of what we have to deal with every day today – people telling us what we want to hear, or what is actually tradition, revelation. . . and determining what is this, or that, can make all the difference in our eternal lives. :slight_smile:

God grant us the humility, prayer, and grace to seek the truth and find Him, and all His answers, through Him and His Church.


The way I see it is this - some people think the truth is given to them. I think the truth is something I had to find, and after finding, must also hold on to everyday.

Its not a passive event, but an active one. Especially in the modern age and I think it was that way in the apostles age too. There was so much paganism and decadence in the Roman world and people were immersed in various gods up to their ears.

Those early Christians had to really fight for the faith. Today, like the Bishop said, the heresy of moderism is so prevellant and so infectious, that few can escape it. Its even in the highest places in the church as some of us realize.

So, the road becomes difficult.

What do you think about part II of the interview?

I’ve noticed that he comes accross much better in video interviews than in print. It would be very easy to take him out of context.

I don’t agree with him on everything. However, I appreciate that he encourages people to think and study. On matters outside of faith he gets into some very controversial and debatable topics.

The areas I find his conclusions troubling are - 9/11, Israel, gas chambers, anti-semitism, roles of women (precluding them from education)…etc…

And, sinse they are not matters of faith then no one is compelled to follow him down those roads.

Its interesting that he is critical of Israel and Jews yet he himself has a very rigid faith. Much of what he considers to be the ‘standard’ is derived from Judaism. (ie: females not included in formal study). I find him to be a bit of an enigma in this regard, especially since Jesus was not even that rigid and taught women.

However, I’m always up for debate and I’m glad that he is outspoken at least then, we can discuss it. There is nothing more annoying then people who want to supress all debate. I’ve noticed that the latter tendency is the most harmful thing of all.

I wonder if his time in Argentina impacted some of his views of America and Israel. I also wonder what part of Africa he lived in as I’m certain it wasn’t N. Africa. I think if it was N. Africa his mind might be formed a bit differently.

He repeatedly states that liberalism and Catholicism are at fundamental odds. Yet, sometimes I think I see a liberal in him peering out. Could be my imagination.

I would have to interview him myself to put my questions to rest. I won’t be able to do that though so he’ll probably remain an enigma to me.

He seems affable enough that one could ask him anything and it wouldn’t ruffle his feathers. He’s not sensitive like that. He has a strong character.

I agree to a large degree with your sentiment; and I disagree with similar things as you do, his Lordship, [his views on Israel and the Jews I do lean towards and support; not anti-Semitic views, but clearly opposed to the violent Zionism of those within the expansionist -state of ersatz-Israel. ] Overall if most of our bishops were like his Lordship (miss his more kookier conspiracy theories] it’d be a God-send! He’s very orthodox in regards to the faith; his personal historical opinions are a bit whacked though!

I agree he comes across very well in person compared to in print, even compared to his own blog. A nice personality.

While I am not someone into conspiracy theories, his talk about bankers and financiers and their control over matters, as well as the recent bailout make me wish I knew more and researched more into these areas.

I agree there is some liberalism in him, though it appears more in the good sense perhaps of generosity, genuine tolerance and restraint of opinion rather than progressivism.

I think his views on the holocaust are more likely simply a part and parcel of his traditional Catholicism (anti-Judaism as a religion, weighing past papal pronouncements, etc.) combined with his great involvement in conspiracy theorism (9-11, Pearl Harbor, World Wars, etc.) than any hatred – a logical conclusion for him, from his experience and because of the conspiracy theorist groups he has spent a great deal of time with – I have read and watched some of the underground literature purporting to debunk the holocaust, and unless you go further and read the debunking of the debunkers (which he apparently has not) it puts forth a credible, on the surface of using evidence only, case that could convince someone to whom conspiracy theorism is treated as always a very real possibility, rather than in some cases, politically incorrect and forbidden, or absurd because of lack of popular consensus.

It’s rather imprudent of him, but there it is. He is a person who, I think is straightforwards in his errors as well as his truths.

I enjoyed hearing the distinction of women as ‘people people’ and men as ‘thing people’ I thought this very insightful. As regards to however, how much women should be involved in researching such matters, well, it would depend on the women. I know that in traditional circles, knowledge is not viewed as good for its own sake, anymore than I suppose being an expert at trivial pursuit is going to get you a higher place in Heaven, so that knowledge is useful depending on your state in life, rather than for its own sake – and so whether one should pursue a certain area of it flows not only from the gender specific areas of greater expertise, but also what a person is expected to be doing with his (or her) life.

My father, who is a psychologist I could ask more about this subject and he would give me the straight answer, from tests and experiments, what gender is better at what, and what gender prefers what to do with their lives – I often wonder how he gets away with it being a college professor, I suppose it is because it is so interesting, and he has tenure – but not at Harvard, where he certainly couldn’t get away with it. He also is rather prudent normally in any case.

In the end, with question 19, he also made a statement I have made myself for a long time – that government has become a substitute for religion.

This is very key, and I feel as if I knew the extent of how this had affected society I would know a great deal more about how people work. :slight_smile:

:)Hi Shin,
I have to disagree with you on the - women as people people, and men as things people. I think this is a vast generalization. And as such not very useful.

And I have to disagree with you again that "knowledge is not viewed as good for its own sake."
That is UNBELIEVABLE! I can’t believe you believe that! We are referring to religious study which is not just irrelevant knowledge for one, and secondly, it is very much great for its own sake.

Women are the ones who raise the children. Any psychologist worth any weight will agree that men are not so innately tuned in to little ones as women are. Ok. So if women are to be ignorant on religious matters then how can they imbue that in their children? Do you honestly think a man is going to come home after a long days work and begin to instruct the children in religious studies? Honestly, I have never met such a man. All the men I know come home TIRED and if anything, want relief FROM the children, not to be burdened with their education on top of his career.

I believe women MUST be able to transmit the faith or the children are doomed.
Take Mary for example! Who would believe for one second that she did not care for Jesus’ spiritual questions and concerns as well as Joseph?

Well, I don’t actually disagree with what you say here. What I’m trying to get across is that it’s a difference of preferred areas of focus, and to do with hmm, method. I’ve been studying for awhile now some of the differences in the mental processes and preferred roles for men and women, and I have plenty far to go. I am still not knowledgeable or fully studied on many issues and can only speak hesitantly for the most part. But I’m not sensitive anymore, as you can see, to any differences being seen in the slightest way in a political or restrictive light, my approach is, ‘how did God make them’ and ‘what is tradition and what can we learn from it’.

I do think men are more attuned to studying finances, stock markets, and so forth than women. And I think this has to do with the way men think, they are more oriented towards things and objects, and women are more oriented towards people and people’s feelings. Men are more concept oriented, women more person oriented.

It’s not an unfair generalization that says women don’t do concepts as well, and men don’t do people as well, though it’s better to be postive and say women do people better, men do concepts abstracted from emotions and people better. . . it’s just a matter of greater general aptitude and the greater emotional satisfaction pursuing each type action gained from it and because it exists we have to say to ourselves, 'Why did God make them this way, and what does this say about their roles."

Of course women must transmit the faith to their children. Did he say otherwise? I don’t recall hearing that. I think many aspects of the faith a woman should directly learn, just like a man, but some things like perhaps the more abstract canon law a man might be better at, and other things like charity and volunteer work a woman being a more people person, we see they are clearly better at generally taking care of people that way. I know to step aside.

One of the sermons on womanhood, or the family in the audio links below, if I recall correctly makes the point – and the priest is a psychologist, that women are more suited towards taking care of young children because they communicate better generally in the emotional life. Babies and young children communicate by the main through emotions, not through concepts and abstract logic.

A man dealing with a young child is far less likely, in general, to emotionally directly relate all the time, and far more likely to tell the child to ‘just do something’ whether it is hard or not regardless of the child’s emotions. This is useful later in life, but less useful earlier in life. If a child is upset a man is more likely to let it be so without comforting it. These are all clearly illustrated trends.

It is simply the case that women are more emotionally communicative and oriented that way towards their satisfaction, and men more oriented towards the abstract without emotional connotation so much. We see it in their games, their pasttimes.

And these things are all not bad. And they don’t make one aptitude a matter of personal greater worth or anything like that, I want to keep that entirely out of the considerations and instead only focus on what is actually a part of it. If that is possible.

So off course a woman should study religion, did he say something about that? I thought he was aiming more towards universities and finances if they served no purpose. I.E. all I recall is that he said that studying the financial conspiracy angle might be more suited to men. That doesn’t mean a woman can’t do it, it just is a matter of who is more suitable generally. There’re some incompetent men and women who would do a decent job.This is all general aptitude stuff as well as what is most satisfying in the end for each, what they enjoy.

I would think it would only be a case of hmm, if the there were an authority issue about the studying of religion or if one were more suited than the other to do the legwork on a particular type of religious study then it would be a choice too one might make along gender lines because of gender specialization, and in fact, if we are -weak- in an area our gender is generally strong in, we actually often might have to shore up and work on those areas for spiritual reasons. It can be harmful not to.

Now, all my life I’ve studied knowledge, I’ve read a huge number of books. And sad to say, most of them were secular and entertainment and secular knowledge, science, history, whatnot. These are all only somewhat useful at best. I gain a tremendous, incomparable amount more reading spiritual books. I am even now considering how best to dispose of hundreds (thousands?) of books in my library that I no longer wish to have.

I also don’t value modern college educations much at all, I do not consider them good educations for men or women. In the vast majority, they aren’t – their main benefit is the status they give you before you are employed, few people benefit as they should from such time and effort, for the money put in, and the immorality they are put through.

You probably find me quite an odd duck saying this all at best.

So I just want to put all this in that perspective. I am favoring him actually a little more in what he says than I am entirely prepared to on my own knowledge, just because while I don’t have all the knowledge of his positions, I tend to favor that which is less accepted rather than more, more reserved rather than less because I gain more from doing so and learning from such positions.

So you see, I do not value knowledge for its own sake, in my own life. I wasted a ton of time, learning things I did not need to know, and would sooner forget in many cases. There are many good things I’ve learned and wish to retain, but compared to spiritual knowledge they’re nothing.

I enjoy learning and pursuing many things, but there is a real huge amount of useless knowledge and relatively useless knowledge when compared to what you could be learning and doing.

I do think men are more attuned to studying finances, stock markets, and so forth than women. And I think this has to do with the way men think, they are more oriented towards things and objects, and women are more oriented towards people and people’s feelings. Men are more concept oriented, women more person oriented.

I don’t know about that?

Well, if you want to, you can google the subjects which I just did, and it pulled up for me a college paper on the differences citing that famous book I haven’t read ‘Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus’ and some scientific studies, as well as some other pages that show for example developmental differences between girls and boys as they grow up.

For example, women use both sides of the brain to talk, men only use one side of their brain. This is why women tend to be conversationally superior to men, especially combined with the emotional focus, empathetic conversation. So women talking together yes, it’s about people, and it’s about emotions, and yes the man has trouble sometimes getting a word in edgewise.

Men tend to dominate still, the field of chess for example, there are some rare birds who can do very well there too, but the combination of a game without strong emotions and relationships combined with spacial logic and thinking ahead, is more suited to the man.

It’s like how men and women tend to process directions on a map differently.

Now you are free to disagree with all this, but the scientific studies are out there. How much weight you want to give them, the details, that is all open, but I think if you look into it you’ll be convinced that there are some fundamental differences there. Perhaps you can tell me what your views of the differences mentally and in preferences and the actions they are happiest and best at, are between men and women? You do accept I hope that there are differences, even if you haven’t gotten them all thought out in a little list or decided to ever think that because they are there, men and women -should- pursue different courses?

Now we live in times where these differences are seen as irrelevant to the goals and paths a person pursues in life. But… are they? Do they not in fact very likely, if sufficiently unmasculine or unfeminine tasks are always taken up, possibly have a detrimental effect on a person’s psyche? And in the case of pursuing the natural specialities a positive effect? And also, should we be urging men and women to pursue tasks that are contrary to their gender? Is there any underlying spiritual and moral reason to prefer more manly tasks for men, more feminine tasks for women, I think there can be a good case made there.

As Catholics we also have to accept that the traditional family roles in society that the Church never had a problem with… the Church never had a problem with, at the very least, and still truly doesn’t in its fundamentals. Once something is established always and everywhere, things don’t change, though sometimes a large portion will go off the rocker with the current culture, the view that always existed is the one that is the Church’s.

We are forbidden to blur the gender lines by God Himself who calls it an abomination for example, to go sufficiently on that route.

Our God is a very hierarchical, role placing God. He has a role for everyone, and He wants people to take up the place He has for them, rather than be completely self determinate. We are interdependent creatures, each having our own specialities and needs to rely on others to perform better in other areas and help us in them.

I don’t agree with Williamson in regards to formal education, and it takes some effort at speculation as to why he believes that and how fully and in what regard he believes that, I think I have some ideas but I don’t feel fully satisfied and would like to hear why he would believe it rather than his soundbites.

My mother graduated summa cum laude, my father has a Phd., my grandmother was always an intellectual giant, able to quote authors, poetry, art, design. .

And I have to say, looking back at their lives – my mother wanted to be a stay at home mother, and it was her divorce that forced her into a role she did not prefer, in the working world. She would’ve flourished if she’d been able to stay married, compared to out there. My grandmother, let her intellectual pride get the better of her to a degree, and that did her life and marriage some harm. Though we were always two peas in a pod, she thought she knew better than a lot of men, she was somewhat anti-patriarchical feminist for a long time, and if she’d had a little more humility in her intellectual abilities rather than an anti-reaction based on her sense of superiority, she would’ve done a lot better.

For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free person, there is not male and female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

Galatians 3:27-28

Here there is not Greek and Jew, circumcision and uncircumcision, barbarian, Scythian, slave, free; but Christ is all and in all.

Collosians 3:11

Hi Shin:)
I wouldn’t read the book ‘men are from mars women are from venus.’ But I know it was a best seller.
I didn’t know women were “conversationaly superior” to men? I always thought the opposite.

Women are the “weaker” sex. They are not so good at moving large rocks and so forth. They also are often pregnant which precludes them from hard physical labor.
Men don’t carry babies in their bodies so they are free to develop physical activities without any hindrences. Men are the soldiers and warriers for this reason. Women have to breast feed babies so they are really stuck in one place so to speak, so they tend to do domestic duties.

All this is quite obvious, what is NOT obvious is that women are intellectually deficient, which is I think where you were leading and that men are emotionally retarded.

The bible says God made women as men’s “help-mate”. Ok. So that means we help out. It doesn’t mean that we are the cheif operators. And I think history bears this out doesn’t it?

However, to say that women should not have an education is baloney. Anytime someone makes up a “should” or “shouldn’t” that isn’t for safety reasons, like don’t run with sharp objects in your hand, then you should suspect why they want to limit other people’s free will, or control or dominate over others.

If you go that route you will end up in sharia law. With your wife a prisoner in her own home. Her child will have acid thrown on her face when she tries to go to school.

Now I ask you…is that what you want?

Shin:), hi again,

I was thinking about Mary and also, I wanted you to think about Mary too. As this will give you the most insight into women and also, a divinely blessed woman like Mary, one who is favored by God above ALL women.

Remember at the wedding feast? Mary asked Jesus to do something. She wasn’t a woman who sat there silently obediently at her Son’s feet (she knew he was the savior).
She told him to do something.
Mary is a Jewish mother. What are Jewish mothers like? Well, they are bossy aren’t they.
What good is a mother if she isn’t telling her kids what to do?
Does anyone want a mother who says nothing and does nothing to guide her children?

A good mother is a mother who is a bit bossy. (I think you would call this arogant, but its not arogant).

Also, when Jesus was on the cross and he told John - behold, your mother.

Now, ask yourself, what grown man wants a mother telling him what to do?

Yet Jesus wanted the apsotles to listen to his mother and do what she said. Indeed, we are all to listen to Mary and do what she says.

This is not because women are not smart, it is because they ARE smart.

Jesus was a Jew and Jewish culture highly regards the mother. Why? Because mothers are VERY IMPORTANT to the formation of the youth’s minds.

This cannot be underestimated.

Dumb mother = dumb children.

I’ve seen it a million times. The best way to educate children is to educate their mothers.

Having departed from topic, this thread is now closed.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit