Pope Benedict XVI has found himself in a maelstrom of controversy over his lifting of the excommunication of Richard Williamson, an illegally-consecrated prelate who has downplayed the magnitude of the Holocaust. The Pope has been scored by the media, certain Jewish groups and even some fellow Catholics, yet few truly understand what they’re criticizing. Let’s examine the matter.
There is no question that
Williamson has made some outrageous statements.
For instance, first we have the Holocaust comment that put him on the
radar screen:
“I think the most serious
conclude that between 200,000 to 300,000 perished in Nazi concentration camps,
but not one of them by gassing in a gas chamber. I believe that the historical evidence is
strongly against, 6 million Jews having been gassed in gas chambers as a deliberate
policy of Adolf Hitler.”
And this is not the only time
Williamson raised eyebrows. He also
believes the U.S. government perpetrated 9/11 to provide a pretext for invading
Afghanistan and Iraq and once said that “the Vatican has sold its soul to
liberalism.” Thus, it’s understandable
that he would grab headlines. Yet, in
the media’s rush to disseminate what they fancy to be the Vatican’s sins, they
render themselves guilty of a mortal one of journalistic omission.
First, while the reportage can
leave one with the impression that Williamson is a Catholic bishop, this is not the case. Rather, he is a bishop in the Society of
Saint Pius X (SSPX), a schismatic organization that is not in union with the
Church. But to understand the situation
adequately, some background is necessary.
The SSPX is a group of
ultra-traditionalist Catholics created by the late French Archbishop Marcel
Lefebvre in 1970. The organization
objected to the reforms of the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965), some of
which it perceived to be heretical in nature.
As time wore on, Lefebvre’s bucking of the establishment caused
increasing friction between the society, and its philosophical opponents and
the Vatican.
As Lefebvre aged, he became
concerned that his society might not be under the stewardship of like-minded
traditionalists upon his death; thus, he consecrated four SSPX priests – one of
whom was Richard Williamson – as bishops, in defiance of Pope John Paul
II. The Pope then enforced Church law
and announced that Lefebvre and the four priests had incurred excommunication.
In other words, Williamson was
never actually a bishop because he was invalidly consecrated by a renegade
archbishop.
This is important to understand
when reading articles in which ignorant if not anti-Catholic reporters write
about the “rehabilitation” of the four “bishops.” At this juncture, the rehabilitation of the
men doesn’t involve making them officers of the Church with official functions;
it simply refers to the lifting of their excommunications. Moreover, the Vatican has made
clear that Williamson will never be able to assume ecclesiastical duties
unless he completely renounces his claims regarding the Holocaust.
Yet critics are still incensed. “Why would the Pope lift the excommunication
of a man holding such outrageous views?” they ask. And others, such as Einar Koch writing
at Bild.com, are befuddled. He wonders,
“. . . does the Vatican really know the extent of Williamson's outrageous
beliefs (note: It has now been revealed
that the Pope did not know)?” While that
is a fair question, this is nevertheless where I lose a bit of patience. I would have to ask Koch and the rest of the
media, “Do you really know to any extent what you’re caterwauling about?” For while the secular world talks sanctimoniously
about how the Church has to work toward “understanding,” it seems to forget
that understanding must go both ways.
I can sum up the Church’s
critics’ position very simply: A bad man said some bad things, and lifting an excommunication
is a good thing to do for someone. And
only a bad man would do a good thing for a bad man. This little Dick-and-Jane explanation seems
simplistic, but it’s accurate, as most of the critics are long on didacticism
but short on depth.
In reality, they’re acting like
a lynch mob angry that the authorities aren’t meting out its version of
justice. This isn’t surprising coming
from people who seem to believe that, oh, for instance, a legislative body can
ignore constitutional dictates and do whatever its majority decides, but the
Church is governed by laws, not whims.
I’ll illustrate the point with an analogy.
Imagine that the death penalty
is administered for the murder of a child.
Now let’s say a man commits this crime and is thus sentenced. Subsequently, however, exculpatory evidence
is presented and the man is pardoned.
All right, now imagine it comes to light that the man made some vile
anti-Catholic statements, and outraged Catholics demand that the sentence be carried
out anyway. Would this be
reasonable? Besides the fact that such a
punishment would be disproportionate, I think the secular world’s reply would
be that its law isn’t there to do the Church’s bidding.
While this analogy isn’t
perfect, it does roughly illustrate the situation. And if this seems a stretch, consider that
excommunication has been called a spiritual
death sentence. It is the harshest
penalty the Church imposes and, like capital punishment, is only applied for specific transgressions. It is not imposed simply for making
outrageous or offensive comments; if it were, it’s staggering to think how many
Catholics might suffer this fate. Thus,
excommunication exists for a particular reason, one that has nothing to do with
augmenting the wider society’s scorn and ostracism. And besides the fact that it would be
disproportionate to that purpose, Church law isn’t there to do the secular
world’s bidding.
It might also be pointed out
that the secular world could lead by example.
If it really believes that something beyond scorn is warranted as a
consequence for Williamson, it could advocate criminal penalties. This is what they do in Austria, after all, where British writer David Irving did a stretch in prison for Holocaust revisionism. Oh, but we don’t want to stifle freedom of
speech by imposing our harsher punishments on those with errant tongues? Well, perhaps it’s now easier to understand
why the Church may not impose its harshest penalty for such a thing.
At the end of the day, however,
this issue boils down to one simple fact: Williamson’s excommunication had
nothing to do with his views on the Holocaust, and the remission of it had
nothing to do with them. It is
ridiculous to conflate the two.
It’s also important to
understand that the rehabilitation of the four bishops is part of a much larger
process, an attempt to heal divisions in the Church and bring the SSPX back
into the fold. Insofar as this goes,
it’s much like when a government offers to pardon a rebel group if its members
will lay down their arms. Under such an
agreement, it certainly isn’t customary to say that you will exclude this or
that member because he made a highly outrageous statement. No, he comes with the organization – it’s a
package deal.
Really, though, one has to
wonder why this story still has legs.
The Vatican has repudiated Williamson’s comments, and the Pope has
stated on numerous occasions that denial of the Holocaust’s horrors is gravely
wrong. Moreover, as Rabbi David Dalin has
said
and contrary to leftist spin, the Church has long been a friend of the Jews – since
at least the 13th century. So
what is really going on? Why would a left-wing
and somewhat anti-Semitic media suddenly have such concern for a Jewish cause? Well, there is of course the media’s infamous,
ideologically-driven anti-Catholic bias.
Yet, to fully understand the current attack, one must understand that
this Pope is the embodiment of everything the left despises.
Although the terminology
doesn’t really apply in Catholic circles, Pope Benedict XVI is seen as being a
rightist (the relevant terms in Catholicism are not right and left but orthodox
and heterodox). He has done much to
restore tradition to the Church, and this has won him many enemies within her
and without. Why do you think the one
man who has called for the Pope’s resignation is an obscure liberal German
“theologian” named Hermann Haring? Despite
liberals’ talk of tolerance and inclusiveness, they aren’t exactly big-tent
people (except when election time comes; then their tent expands to include
even cemeteries and mausoleums). For
instance, consider how the Democrats once refused to let fellow party member
and then Pennsylvania governor Robert Casey speak at the Democrat National
Convention because he was pro-life or how conservative professors and actors
may be denied, respectively, tenure or roles.
In this case, these scheming leftists simply don’t want an orthodox Pope
at the helm of the Church, especially one who might invite traditionalists like
the SSPX into their midst. Thus, they would
like to be rid of him just as they would like to eliminate talk radio and the
Boy Scouts.
At the end of the day, the media don’t understand the Williamson issue, and they don’t really care. This is because this prolonged attack on the Pope has about as much to do with Holocaust denial as the Fairness Doctrine has to do with fairness.
© 2008 Selwyn Duke -- All Rights Reserved
Duke you are wrong on onli point. Williamson is now a bishop in the Catholic chruch. He doesn't have ecclesiastical duties but he is a bishop.
Remember the pope is just first amongh bishops. and all bishops have the right to validly consecrate other bishops. The pope can't undo it.
Posted by: makeme | February 13, 2009 at 08:27 AM
Well here we go again. Now that the vast majority of the Holocaust eye witnesses have passed from the earth, the charge to revise history is afoot. Holocaust denial, once an exclusively Muslim sport, is now being joined by other leftist agents. I do believe Williamson's statements are yet another trial balloon, for the leftist propaganda machine. I do not think the machine expects a lot of direct traction from Williamson's fairy tale version of the Non-Holocaust, but such a test accomplished two things. The first it will inspire the fringe leftists (mostly the useful idiots/conspiracy theorists) to act alone, and carry the water for the cause. You will likely see protest signs, in the mass of useful idiots, at the next WTO meeting saying perhaps "The Holocaust another Jew lie" or "Jew lie, no one died" or "The Holocaust, another lie of the West." Although, when these loons pop up in the great leftist protest machine they will largely be simply tolerated. However, they will also be feeding the second purpose of the trial balloon; confusion. The leftist machine plants seeds of confusion at every turn. They do not expect all of the seeds to sprout and become fully mature leftist trees in one day but they do expect a crop of fruit. By sending a Holocaust denial message through a "bishop," implies disunity in the church and also makes the laziest minds question their understanding. An example a teenager asked me the other day, (we were talking about the 9-11 pentagon conspiracy) "how do you know what is true?" This was a prime example in my mind of how the most absurd propaganda can receive consideration in the minds of our youth. I also expect within the next year or two a History channel or National Geographic special on this topic. The title could be "The Holocaust- Real or rouse” The show will feature, Islamic historians, guys like Williamson, perhaps a few PHD types with glasses on the tip of their nose and English accent guys that speak slowly with artfull hesitation in their voice. The episode will not come to any conclusion but they will plant more seeds and fertilize the sprouted ones. Hollywood will get involved and produce a movie about some great CIA scheme to demonize The Nazi party (Socialists) and the Soviets (communist), and imply a Zionistic controlled CIA and Illuminati. It sounds far fetched but the movie and book "The Davinci Code" was an admitted fiction, yet millions swallowed the hook all the way to their gills. Williams is yet another leftist operative.
Posted by: Walt | February 13, 2009 at 10:58 AM
Walt,
Interesting take. Where would you draw the line between honest inquiry and nutty conspiracies? Holocaust denial intrigued me because of Europe's(the left) response to it, and that is to jail anyone who dares to questions dogmatic orthodox teachings(sound familiar). Anyone who questions holocaust teachings is dichotomized into good and evil faster than the prison bars slam shut. That is a scary tactic to break down and destroy free speech. Especially interesting is the fact that a Jew survivor(Rassinier) was the one to first bring revisionism to the table.
Your response had a twist of irony from your usual repsonses. Traditionally, I believed American conservatism(the ideals not the party) was about freedom of speech regardless. For example: As much as it bothers my soul to see someone reject christ, I wouldnt want to outlaw the making of "Da vinci code". Maybe I am wrong about this but it seems wrong to use labeling or censoring to beat my opponents ideas...Id rather beat them with truth. Granted, some people ignore the truth anyway but well thats usually stupid people. Did I take your post the wrong way?
Shaun
Posted by: Shaun | February 13, 2009 at 02:00 PM
You wrote: "This is what they do in Germany, after all, where historian David Irving did a stretch in prison for Holocaust revisionism."
That's factually wrong on two accounts. Irving has been imprisoned in Austria, and he is not a historian.
Posted by: Al | February 13, 2009 at 03:13 PM
Shaun,
I think you at least took some of the post wrong. The summary of your post was,
"Maybe I am wrong about this but it seems wrong to use labeling or censoring to beat my opponents ideas...Id rather beat them with truth."
First off I certainly did not intend for my post to imply I endorse censorship, quite the opposite. I whole heartedly believe in personal and economic freedom, as I think most Americans do (although most are too lazy to defend it). I consider any person or group that seeks to infringe upon those liberties my enemy. The war we fight today is not with guns, bombs and gas chambers like the last leftist attempt to meld the world under one flag, this battle is for the mind of the state. My post was mostly intended as an example of the enemy's tactics and the vulnerability of the conditioned mind. Our country's moral decay, the leftisim of the press, academia, entertainment and the churches are not by accident. This societal evolution was not of a natural conception, but rather a planned invasion. The blue print for this invasion was one of Antonio Gramsci; he called his plan "Cultural hegemony." You can get a good idea about who Gramsci was and did by a simple Wikipedia search. However, tying his prescription for cultural change of this day and this world is best done in the book "Shadow World" by Robert Chandler, and is also explained in some of the writings of, self described "red diaper baby," David Horowitz.
As far as "using labeling...to beat my opponent’s ideas." I really just use labels to describe someone or something. When I use the term "leftist" I intend it to be a harsher version of the left side of the isle. I do not lump all left wingers into the leftist category. I would prefer to use the word Marxist, Communist or Fascist instead of leftist but the whole world knows communism died with the fall of the Berlin wall and the CCCP, to use such terms would smack McCarthy, to the conditioned masses. So I will just use the word leftist for now and if I am in a good mood I may call them "economic democrats"; I think they rather prefer that label.
Posted by: Walt | February 13, 2009 at 04:35 PM
Walt,
Yes, I do see where you are coming from. I think what stuck out in my mind is your example of revionism. I'm not opening that argument by any means, but I hate to see how Europe(and everywhere else but USA for now) has infringed upon people the way they have as a response to revionism. They have opened the door to trampling over every freedom of speech under the clause of "incitement to hatred". But yes, I understand what your saying. Thank you for the reply.
Shaun
Posted by: Shaun | February 13, 2009 at 05:29 PM