It's been a rough two weeks for Pope Benedict XVI. What should have been an occasion for celebration--the lifting of the excommunications of four traditionalist bishops, on the way toward full reunification between Rome and the Society of Saint Pius X--quickly turned into a public-relations disaster. It's true that many in the media simply do not understand the inner workings of the Catholic Church, and so they could not comprehend why the Holy Father did not "reinstate" the excommunication of Richard Williamson, one of the four bishops, after it became known that he had made comments the reality of the Holocaust.
On the other hand, even if many members of the media could understand, it might not have changed the way they reported the events. "Sex sells," the old adage goes, but Nazis sell more.
There are a number of signs that the controversy is finally beginning to die down (more on that tomorrow), but in the meantime, a number of Catholic organizations have banded together to show their support for the Holy Father. An online petition entitled "Support Pope Benedict XVI" is being promoted by too many organizations to list. You can add your own name to the list, which will be sent to the Vatican. As of this writing, it boasts 33,280 signatures, and notes that the signers have a total of 60,777 children.
A similar effort is being conducted by The Remnant, perhaps the best-known traditionalist Catholic newspaper in the United States. Their "Second International Declaration in Support of His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI" takes a somewhat more combative line, pointing out the personal attacks and media distortions that have kept this controversy going. The declaration ends by recalling Pope Benedict's own request that the faithful pray for him, so that he may be kept safe from the wolves:
As you contend with wolves both outside and inside the household of the Faith, we continue to pray for you, Holy Father, remaining always your loyal subjects in Christ the King. And we are ready to shed, so help us God, our own blood for your defense and for the holy name of Him whose vicar you are.While I urge you to sign one or both of the petitions, Pope Benedict needs more than simply signatures; he needs your prayers. As the successor to Saint Peter, he clearly feels the weight of the responsibility for ensuring that Christ's prayer be fulfilled: that all Christians may be one.
(Photo by Peter Macdiarmid/Getty Images)
Scott, why should I pray for Pope Benedict? Don’t you think his savior feels betrayed by this? What did he say? “In as much as you did it to the least of these, my brethren, you did it unto me.” (?)
Steve, betrayed by what? What, exactly, did Pope Benedict do that was wrong? Attempt to fulfill Christ’s words in the Garden, when He prayed that all would be one in Him, as He and His Father are one?
Scott, Pope benedict worships a very different Jesus if he thinks reinstating a Holocaust denier is pleasing to God. Jesus was a Jew. He was a proud Jew. The Jewish people are Jesus’ people. Remember, “I was only sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” (?) How can Pope Benedict think he is in any way pleasing to God by doing this? Benedict wants to visit Israel this spring. Why? If he does not like Jesus people, why visit the Holy Land?
Steve, before you make ill-considered comments, you might want to read the pieces I’ve written about this first. Pope Benedict does not think “reinstating a Holocaust denier is pleasing to God”; he lifted the excommunication on four bishops who had apologized for the offense for which they were excommunicated. That offense was not Holocaust denial, or even Vatican II denial, or even dislike of the Novus Ordo Missae; it was accepting episcopal ordination at the hands of Archbishop Lefebvre without the permission of Pope John Paul II.
Set aside, for the moment, the rather inconvenient fact (for your argument) that Pope Benedict did not know Bishop Williamson’s views at the time that he lifted the excommunication. Even if he had, it would not have changed the fact that the excommunication was a completely separate matter. To maintain the excommunication for a different reason from that for which it was earned would be injustice.
If the Christ in Whom you believe loves injustice, then you are indeed correct that “Pope benedict worships a very different Jesus.”
Bishop Williamson is being dealt with. See my most recent post, “Is the End of the Williamson Furor in Sight?” I doubt that anyone believes that Williamson will ever exercise his faculties as a bishop of the Catholic Church.
As for your final line, it’s slander, pure and simple. No person of good will can possibly look at the life and actions of Pope Benedict XVI and believe that “he does not like Jesus people.”
Scott, herein lies the problem with the ideal of “justice.” Like our Bible, the Qur’an speaks over and over of God’s (or Allah’s) justice. Only Qur’anic justice is fundamentally different in critical respects from Biblical justice; from justice in God’s law. How do we define justice? To many in the Islamic world, killing unbelievers (infidels), as we saw it on 9/11/2001, was an act of divine justice or vengeance. Not according to the God of my Bible. If you believe reinstating a Holocaust denier is an act of God’s justice, then you and I worship very different Gods; your Jesus and Pope Benedict’s Jesus is different from the historic Jesus that I know. That excommunication does not apply to a Bishop who denies the Holocaust is a tragedy. The God that I believe in does not love injustice. Denying the Holocaust is a terrible sin; a great injustice.
Scott, I read the following comment on an Israel news site this afternoon. How would you respond to Henry?
Talkback #3. Double Entendre
The Society of St. Pius X which was rehabilitated by the Pope is an Ultra Conservative society which has systematically opposed Vatican II and its ‘absolvement’ of Jews ( i.e any and all Jews) in the Crucifixion of Jesus. – IMHO – The rehabilitation of this Society is worse than Denying the Holocaust ( as bad as this issue is ) because it legitimizes the issue of the collective guilt of the Jews for the Crucifixion. – What message is the Church trying to send ?
Henry – USA (02/09/2009 23:31)
Steve, you’re still refusing to come to grips with what occurred. Unless and until you are willing to consider why the four men were excommunicated and why the excommunications were lifted, there’s no sense in discussing this issue.
Regarding justice, I never said that the lifting of the excommunications was “an act of God’s justice.” Men are incapable of enforcing God’s justice; the justice they must show toward their fellow man is the cardinal virtue of justice–giving to each what he is owed.
Bishop Williamson may well be owed something for his remarks, and both the Vatican and his superiors in the SSPX are imposing punishments (which, if you have read my latest post as I requested, you know). But the excommunication was not in punishment for his views (which had not been expressed at the time it was put into place), and its removal had nothing to do with his views (which the Holy Father did not know about at the time he removed it).
If a man were given a prison sentence for trafficking in marijuana, and, after he was released, it became known that he had committed murder, we would not reimpose the sentence that he has already served. That would be unjust. Rather, we would deal with the new crime, which is precisely what both the Holy See and SSPX are doing right now.
Stev(e), Henry and you should read the statements of the Superior General of the SSPX (http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2009/02/fellay-jews-are.html) and of the District Superior for Germany of the SSPX (http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2009/01/note-of-district-superior-for-germany.html).
Thanks for the link Scott.
Superior General of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X (FSSPX / SSPX), Bishop Bernard Fellay said: “The Jews are “our elder brothers” in the sense that we have something in common, that is, the old Covenant. It is true that the acknowledgment of the coming of the Messiah separates us.”
Bishop Fellay says we have the “Old Covenant in common, only does the Vatican honor God’s covenent? Why does the Vatican support giving land, God gave to the sons of Abraham and Jacob by covenant forever, to the sons of Ishmael? Why do you support the establishment of a Muslim state in Israel if we have the Old Covenant in common? God told Abraham, “I will bless those who bless you and the one who curses you, I will curse…. and to you and your descendants I have given all this land….” Why curse Abraham, the father of the Jewish nation?
Perhaps Anonymous said it best for SSPX?
Anonymous said…
People forgets how dark was the history of “elder brothers” in the Holy Bible.
Many of them were true criminals….”
(Scott, maybe Abraham and Moses were both criminals? Maybe Jeremiah and Elijah were criminals? These were all elder brothers. Is this why there is so much hatred? Too many criminals?)
Anonymous said…
It seems to me that every Jewish outrage (and there are many of them) about remarks by clergy or laity concerning Jews or the holocaust is an attack by Jews against Catholics. After all, Jews really do believe that Jesus is NOT God the Son, and they really do believe that He was just a bastard child of a fornicating woman. But the Jews are smart enough not to say it in public.
02 February, 2009 15:06
Steve, when you can show me where Pope Benedict or any Catholic leader has “cursed Abraham,” then we’ll continue the conversation. But if you believe that supporting “land for peace” or even a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian problem is antisemitism, then you’re condemning a significant number of Israeli politicians and members of the Knesset.
Regarding the anonymous comments on the blog that I linked to, you’ve now proved that you are arguing in bad faith. The comments are criticizing the statements of SSPX leaders, not somehow representing the SSPX.
The anonymous comments at Rorate Caeli no more represent the position of the SSPX than your comments here represent my position.
Scott, any person, nation or institution that supports a “Palestinian” Muslim state in the Holy Land is cursing Abraham. This would include the President of the United States (George W. Bush, Barack Hussein Obama) to the Holy Father. This is not rocket science. Either we accept God’s eternal covenant with Abraham or we don’t accept it. The Vatican publicly supports dividing God’s land and giving it to Israel’s and God of Israel’s enemies. Is the Vatican blessing Abraham?
I read the following about SSPX:
Society of St. Pius X has expressed support for the Vichy government (1940-1944) which conspired with Nazi Germany. Lefebvre spoke approvingly of the “Catholic order of Pétain”, referring to the Vichy head of state Philippe Pétain, who was later sentenced to death as a traitor. There have also been allegations that the SSPX had links with the Vichy functionary Paul Touvier and that Vichy songs were learned at a scout camp of the Society.
I would appreciate your comments on the following:
Bishop Williamson wrote: “However, until they re-discover their true Messianic vocation, they may be expected to continue fanatically agitating, in accordance with their false messianic vocation of Jewish world-dominion, to prepare the Anti-Christ’s throne in Jerusalem. So we may fear their continuing to play their major part in the agitation of the East and in the corruption of the West. Here the wise Catholic will remember that, again, the ex-Christian nations have only their own Liberalism to blame for allowing free circulation within Christendom to the enemies of Christ.”
The Society of St. Pius X:
“This curse [suffered by Jews throughout history for killing Jesus] is the punishment of blindness to the things of God and eternity, of deafness to the call of conscience and to the love of good and hatred of evil which is the basis of all moral life, of spiritual paralysis, of total preoccupation with an earthly kingdom.”
– The Angelus, March 2004 (Reposted on SSPX USA Web site)
“[T]he Antichrist will be Jewish….The devil will not fail to make use of their blindness to foist the Antichrist upon them. Christ, whom they have rejected, is the Truth. Thus the curse of St. Paul will apply to the Jews…”
– From “Is Anti-Christ Coming?” by Rev. Fr. Emmanuel Herkel, SSPX
“The Jewish people, once a mystery of goodness, is now changed into a mystery of iniquity. It is no longer Isaac, but Ishmael. No longer Jacob, but Esau. No longer Abel, but Cain.”
– “The Mystery of the Jewish People in History” By Rev. Frs. Michael Crowdy & Kenneth Novak (originally printed in the April 1997 issue of The Angelus magazine).
“Judaism is inimical to all nations in general, and in a special manner to Christian nations…. The Jewish people, if it has not converted to Christianity, will, even if it does not wish to, seek to ruin Christianity… Christendom and Jewry are destined inevitably to meet everywhere without reconciliation or mixing. It represents in history the eternal struggle of Lucifer against God, of darkness against the Light, of the flesh against the spirit.”
– “The Mystery of the Jewish People in History” by Rev. Frs. Michael Crowdy & Kenneth Novak (originally printed in the April 1997 issue of The Angelus magazine).
“As once they treated Christ, ever since, to persecute Christianity is their theological preoccupation. This theological law is stronger than all human plans and expedients. The Jewish people realizes this law. The law contained in the Talmud, which governs Jews, orders enmity with Christians….The Talmud got particularly virulent after Christianity appeared. Insolent and sacrilegious infamies against Christ and Christians were written into it, which is why copies were burnt by order of Christian rulers and popes.”
– “The Mystery of the Jewish People in History” by Rev. Frs. Michael Crowdy & Kenneth Novak (originally printed in the April 1997 issue of The Angelus magaine).
“A Catholic prelate who visits and prays at a synagogue betrays Jesus Christ, as the visit grants public legitimacy to a religion that holds Jesus Christ in disdain, believing Him to be a liar and deceiver.”
– Ecumenical Archbishop Levada to Head Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, by John Vennari
Scott, any person, nation or institution that supports a “Palestinian” Muslim state in the Holy Land is cursing Abraham
Including, apparently, those members of the Knesset who support a two-state solution.
Sorry, Steve–I’ve let this go on too long. This post has nothing to do with Zionism, pro or con, and therefore Zionism, pro or con, has no place in the discussion.
Likewise, there’s no reason for me to make comments on any particular statements of Bishop Williamson. My posts on this site have been perfectly clear, and it’s also perfectly clear that the SSPX and the Vatican are dealing with Bishop Williamson as we speak.
Based on your comments on other blogs, combined with your last two comments, your anger seems based almost entirely on a political foundation. Despite your attempts in your early comments to mislead readers, it’s certainly not based on a concern for the doctrines of Christianity.
I’m all for open discussion, but the discussion will take place in the context of Catholicism, not in the context of Middle Eastern politics. Future comments that attempt to derail the discussion will be deleted.
Scott, you did not respond to nor comment on any of these quotes I posted allegedly from The Angelus magazine. Isn’t this a SSPX publication? You wrote or quoted above: “As you contend with wolves both outside and inside the household of the Faith, we continue to pray for you, Holy Father, remaining always your loyal subjects in Christ the King. And we are ready to shed, so help us God, our own blood for your defense and for the holy name of Him whose vicar you are.”
Why call critics of this questionable decision “wolves?” I provided quotes above from an organization the pope is bringing back into the fold or into communion with the church.
You consider this latest decision to be in keeping with the doctrines of Christianity or Christ? If so, what are these doctrines? As I wrote earlier, I do not believe Jesus would be pleased by any of this.
Though I do not agree with every position of the Anti-Defamation League, generally I concur with the organization on matters relating to anti-Semitism. On Mel Gibson for instance, I felt at the time ADL’s position was the correct one based on the evidence. Later the position was vindicated when he said some very bad things about the Jews in a police car. The ADL considers the “The Society of St. Pius X (to be) Mired in Anti-Semitism.” http://www.adl.org/main_Interfaith/Society_Saint_Pius_X.htm
How can this in anyway be helpful to Catholic – Jewish relations established by (Angelo Giuseppe Roncalli) Pope John XXIII, a man who saved thousands of Jews from the Holocaust? A man who worked so hard to strengthen Jewish – Catholic relations?
You’ve researched my comments on other blogs. There are some you find troubling? Are you certain they belong to me?
The Pope is one of the richest men alive. At least the church is loaded. The Vatican is full of riches e.g., priceless works of art to mention but a few. If the pope got off his high horse and sold some works of art, and gave all the money to help the poor, the ill, the starving people, the homeless, and other great causes, then the word would be a better place.
Johnny (ex-cleric)
Johnny, that’s an old canard. Think for a moment about what you’re saying. Once you’ve sold all the artwork and religious items made of gold, then what? How many people are you going to be able to feed, and for how long?
Give a man a fish, feed him for a day, etc.
FORGIVE 77X7, DOES NOT MATTER WHETHER ITS DENYING THE HOLOCAST OF TAKING A PRECIOUS LIFE
OF WHICH THE LATER IS A FAR MORE SERIOUS OFFENSE.GOD FORGIVES WE ARE OBLIGATED TO DO THE SAME. WELL DONE TO OUR POPE,WE SUPPORT YOU 150%
There are a few facts that seem to be disputed here but are incontrovertible. One; the statements of holocaust denial have been going on for years. If the Pope had vetted these men sufficiently, he would have known that. I believe he did know it.
Two; the discussion here has been centering here on the magnitude of God’s justice and his forgiveness [which is infinitely more generous that the human ability to forgive - our idea of "fair" keeps getting in the way]. However, if we look at the Gospels, we see that Jesus was more particular about those he called to lead his church. Many of the pharisees of his day were not suitable to be Jesus disciples. Does this mean all pharisees were not suitable? Of course not! St. Paul was one very famous [formerly infamous] example. Those pharisees who made sure Jesus was put to death were forgiven by Jesus as he was dying. It does not mean he would want them representing his church in their unrepentant state.
However, it stretches the imagination to assume that Jesus would proffer for an apostle, a man who was unrepentant in his sin. Jesus forgave sinners who recognized their sin and repented. These men are unrepentant. They have now been given the lofty position as members of the magisterium [as bishops and archbishops]. I am afraid I just can’t buy putting men into this position who place themselves at odds with the teachings of the Church. It seems to me that the dialogue the Pope hopes to begin with his decision to lift the excommunication on these men should take place before the act, not after it. The holocaust statements made so soon after the pope’s decision are just the tip of the iceberg. We are in for more gaffs in the near future.
I am not against the excommunication being lifted, but these men should be removed from their episcopal office. To not do so indicates that their teachings are acceptable ones for the faithful to follow. A dangerous and confusing situation.
Marian, you write: “I believe he did know it.” Since the Holy See has denied that Pope Benedict did know, you’re more than implying that the Holy Father is a liar. You might want to rethink that statement.
You also write: “These men are unrepentant.” Which men? And unrepentant of what? One might reasonably say that about Bishop Williamson, at least on the question of Holocaust denial itself; but all four bishops of SSPX have expressed their sorrow for having accepted ordination without the permission of Pope John Paul II. That is the reason they incurred excommunication, and their repentance on this point is why the excommunication was lifted.
You write: “They have now been given the lofty position as members of the magisterium . . . ” Actually, that’s not true. They are bishops, by virtue of their reception of the Sacrament of Holy Orders; the sacrament leaves an indelible mark on their souls that can never be taken away. (See “What Makes a Man a Bishop?“)
That does not mean, however, that they are able to exercise their teaching authority. They are still suspended; they cannot act as priests, much less as bishops. In other words, they have been removed from the exercise of their episcopal office. They cannot be “removed from their episcopal office,” however, if by that you mean something akin to being “unordained.”
Finally, you write: “To not [remove them from their episcopal office] indicates that their teachings are acceptable ones for the faithful to follow.” We need to be very careful here. What “teachings” are you speaking of? Bishop Williamson’s views on the Holocaust are not a “teaching,” neither of the Church nor of Bishop Williamson.
If the Bishop of Rockford were to declare today that chocolate ice cream were an abomination and that no good Catholic could eat it without risking his soul, I’d still eat chocolate ice cream. Why? Because bishops have no teaching authority on this question.
What many people seem to be missing here is that the situation is exactly the same. Holocaust denial is a matter of far greater importance than chocolate ice cream denial, but the importance of the matter does not change the fact that it is not a question on which a bishop can exercise his teaching authority. This is only a “dangerous and confusing situation” because too many people refuse to understand that central point.
Pardon me for not making my point more clear….
Perception is a problem here. When an ordinary person, me for example, can easily read that Bishop Williamson has been very vocal regarding Holocaust denial for many years [isn't the internet a wonderful resource; it not only provides us with interesting data but it actually provides a date for when articles were posted], it certainly gives one pause regarding the quality of information that is provided to the Pope by his staff.
As for their position….
Whether they are under suspension or not, there are still many people out there who reject the teachings of Vatican II. On this point they have not been as vocally repentant. Many see this move as legitimizing their criticisms of the Church. I think the Pope put the cart before the horse.
I understand that you will make the point that the excommunication came because of their ordination. I submit that the root cause was their split with Church teaching. Until there was clear movement in that area, the move was pastorally inadvisable.
It is plain that you believe that anyone who disagrees with you simply does not understand the facts at hand. I assure you I understand the facts. Unfortunately, sometimes we just have to agree to disagree.
It is plain that you believe that anyone who disagrees with you simply does not understand the facts at hand.
Marian, there is no need to make this discussion unpleasant. There are plenty of things regarding this situation that are open to interpretation, and I do not believe that anyone who disagrees with me about such things is simply uninformed.
On the other hand, the media, who probably don’t know any better, have spread a great deal of misinformation about the situation. And, unfortunately, some people who oppose the Holy Father for other reasons, yet who understand the circumstances of the excommunication perfectly well, have been more than happy to misrepresent it. (Please note: I’m not saying that this applies to you, Marian, but to others.)
Therefore, it is important to clarify those points that have been misrepresented and which many people don’t understand. That’s all I was attempting to do in my response to you. (From your initial comments, it wasn’t clear to me how much of it you did indeed understand.)
I agree with you regarding the quality of information (or rather, the lack thereof) provided to the Holy Father. Damian Thompson, the editor-in-chief of the U.K. Catholic Herald, has discussed this at length in a series of posts on his blog, Holy Smoke. I tend to agree with him that it’s likely that the staff in the curia are simply ill equipped to do a simple Google search.
But it goes beyond that. We here in the United States seem to think of our country as the center of the Church, when, in fact, we have maybe 6-7 percent of the world’s Catholics. From the figures I’ve seen, the percentage of members of the SSPX in the U.S. versus the world at large might be about the same. It’s not surprising that Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos and, indeed, Pope Benedict himself have had contact only with the European members of SSPX. And as anyone who has observed this movement knows, American followers of SSPX are much more likely than, say, French ones to subscribe to wacky theories.
All of those things explain, though they do not excuse, the way this situation has been handled, and I don’t think you and I disagree that it could have been handled far better. But we will have to disagree over your contention that “the move was pastorally inadvisable.” Here, I’ll put my trust in the Holy Father’s pastoral instincts ahead of yours, mine, or any other layman’s.
“It’s not surprising that Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos and, indeed, Pope Benedict himself have had contact only with the European members of SSPX. And as anyone who has observed this movement knows, American followers of SSPX are much more likely than, say, French ones to subscribe to wacky theories.”
Not entirely true. If anything the European traditional catholics in the SSPX are more hardline on doctrine and culture (The Remnant pointed this out about 10 years ago). Many traditional catholics even within the SSPX in Europe tend toward sedevacantism.