It’s always interesting when writers take a controversial story and approach it from very different angles.
Such was the case today in the continuing and complicated drama of the Pope’s move to lift the excommunications of the four traditionalist Society of St. Pius X bishops.
Warning for mature audiences—the two mainstream press stories contain the “r” word (rehabilitate), one deemed inaccurate by some folks in the comments pages. The Catholic News Service story does not.
Let’s start with the lede of today’s article from the Los Angeles Times:
The Vatican stood firm Tuesday on a decision to rehabilitate a Holocaust-denying bishop, even as Jewish leaders warned that the move will set back decades of Roman Catholic overtures to mend strained relations between the two faiths.
The Vatican joined Jews and fellow Catholics in condemning the British bishop’s assertions that no Jews died in Nazi gas chambers. But the Vatican also said Richard Williamson’s ideas had nothing to do with the decision by Pope Benedict XVI to return him and three other traditionalist bishops to the fold.
The controversy over lifting the excommunication of Williamson came as people worldwide Tuesday observed an annual commemoration of the Holocaust.
This story focuses on the controversy between Jewish leaders and Pope Benedict, while paying almost no attention to the internal dynamics of the Lebrebrevist bishops and the laypeople in the Society of St. Pius X.
The writer does include quotes from Catholic leaders and from SSPX leader Bishop Fellay himself expressing regret for Bishop Williamson’s comments —it just doesn’t headline them.
Here’s a revealing quote from Vatican spokesman Father Lombardi:
Vatican spokesman Father Federico Lombardi said Williamson’s “unacceptable” ideas had “nothing to do with the thinking of the pope or the ideas expressed in the many documents of the church that condemn the Holocaust.”
He said there has been no talk of revoking the decision because it represents a first step toward eventual reconciliation with an entire religious community, not a single clergyman. “This regards an issue of the internal life of the Catholic Church,” Lombardi said in a telephone interview Tuesday.
That is certainly a view shared by many of our commenters.
Lombardi then goes on to express “surprise” at the breadth of the reaction-and an apology.
Oh, and there’s another “R” word mentioned here-the oft-noted, oft-quoted Jesuit priest Thomas J. Reese. He does not, nor can he, represent the entire spectrum of opinion in the Catholic world, and it would be a nice change if we saw other scholars mentioned more often.
The article by in the New York Times leads with Bishop Bernard Fellay’s apology to the pontiff. Then the author takes a closer look look at the SSPX.
The group’s founding documents, available on its Web site, paint a picture of a group deeply at odds with contemporary society, nostalgic for the French monarchy and hostile toward Jews, Muslims and the Vatican itself, some of whose pronouncements Archbishop Lefebvre called “satanic.”
The society has “always refused to follow the Rome of neo-Modernist and neo-Protestant tendencies which were clearly evident in the Second Vatican Council and, after the Council, in all the reforms which issued from it,” Archbishop Lefebvre wrote in a “rebuttal to modernism” in 1974.
It is fair to ask whether the current bishops share these views or are in the process of changing the face of the Society.
The writer goes on to present some evidence that Williamson is not the only Society member to hold anti-Jewish views:
In a letter to Germany’s 27 official bishops in October, the director of the society’s German branch, the Rev. Franz Schmidberger, wrote that Jews “are not ‘our older brothers in faith,’ ” as Pope John Paul II said in his historic visit to the Rome synagogue in 1986.
Instead, Father Schmidberger wrote, “for as long as they do not distance themselves from their forefathers’ guilt through the avowal of Christ’s divinity and baptism, they are complicit in the deicide,” according to a copy of the letter available on the society’s Web site.
The Catholic News Service writer emphasizes the repudiation of Williamson’s anti-Jewish comments in her lede:
Remarks made by a traditionalist bishop who denied that millions of Jews were murdered during World War II are unacceptable, “foolish,” and in no way reflect the position of the Catholic Church, said the Vatican’s top ecumenist and major dialogue partner with the Jews.
“Such gibberish is unacceptable,” said German Cardinal Walter Kasper, president of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity and the Pontifical Commission for Religious Relations With the Jews in an interview with the Italian daily La Repubblica Jan. 26.
“To deny the Holocaust is unacceptable and is absolutely not the position of the Catholic Church,” he said, adding that the bishop’s remarks were “foolish.”
Judging by the extensive coverage given here to church officials distancing themselves from William’s views, it appears that Catholic leaders do not now believe this to be solely an internal church matter, but one that has consequences for external relationships.
Yes, there are some highly debatable points in some of the articles appearing in the non-denominational media.
Some will argue that the baby should be thrown out with the bathwater. I don’t. Taken together, with appropriate skepticism, they offer us morsels of insight (the Lombardi quotes) additional information (the SSPX website) and a broader perspective.
“Correcting” that perspective has now become a much more democratic venture — time to hear from you.
Picture of Pope Piux X is from Wikimedia Commons
 | Posted at 10:39 am |  Print
| Permalink | Trackback |
Comments (35) |
January 28, 2009, at 11:35 am
And even more fascinating details come to light; according to Mark Shea of “Catholic and Enjoying It!”, this comes from the German superior of the SSPX:
http://markshea.blogspot.com/
“Note of the District Superior for Germany of the SSPX
As District Superior of the Society [of Saint Pius X] in Germany, I am very troubled by the words pronounced by Bishop Williamson here in this country.
The banalization of the genocide of the Jews by the Nazi regime and of its horror are unacceptable for us.
The persecution and murder of an incalculable number of Jews under the Third Reich touches us painfully and they also violate the Christian commandment of love for neighbor which does not distinguish ethnicities.
I must apologize for this behavior and dissociate myself from such a view.
Such dissociation is also necessary for us because the father of Archbishop Lefebvre died in a KZ [concentration camp] and because numerous Catholic priests lost their lives in Hitler’s concentration camps.
Stuttgart, January 27, 2009
Father Franz Schmidberger
[Father Schmidberger was the Superior-General of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X at the time of the consecrations of 1988.]”
It looks like finally something is going to be done about the anti-Semitic poison within the SSPX.
Amy Welborn also has more on this from a report on the Pope’s General Audience in “AsiaNews”:
http://amywelborn.wordpress.com/
“As for relations with the followers of Archbishop Lefebvre, the Pope mentioned the parable of the Miraculous Draught of Fish to illustrate the constant quest for Church unity, saying he granted “the remission of the excommunication pronounced on four bishops consecrated by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre without pontifical mandate in 1988 […] in compliance with this service of unity.”
“I performed this act of paternal mercy because the prelates expressed to me their heart-felt suffering over the situation in which they found themselves,” the pope said.
“I hope that my gesture will be followed by a considerate commitment on their part to take the necessary steps to realise full communion with the Church, thus showing true faithfulness to and recognition of the magisterium and authority of the Pope and the Second Vatican Council.”
So that is the Pope’s explanation of why he’s done what he’s done. For those who are determined to see this as “Hitler Pope gives recognition to anti-Jewish bishop”, no explantion will ever be good enough. But if Williamson doesn’t toe the line and insists on his craziness, then increasingly it’s looking like he will be disciplined not by the Pope (and so be a martyr for Really True True Catholicism persecuted by evil liberalism within the corrupted Vatican) but by the SSPX themselves, which will have the dual effect of getting their house in order and denying any legitimacy to him.
It’s also conceiveable that Williamson might finally get hit over the head by the clue-hammer and go “Anti-Semitism wrong - I get it!” After all, he has a soul to save and the Pope has a responsibility to try and save it for him. If he prefers to cling to his nuttiness, he can’t say he hasn’t had every chance.
January 28, 2009, at 11:45 am
The coverage of Williamson seems to me to be a rather disingenuous (or at least ill-informed) pile-on. It seems no one really understands what excommunications are and are for. Removing an excommunication does not mean the person recieves a stamp of approval from the Vatican on all that they do, say or think. It deals with issues of salvation and whether one is a member of the communion of the Catholic Church - and this communion and salvation is not based on one’s views on race, history, politics, etc.
I think it would have been worthwhile for journalists to have noted the even greater diversity present within Judaism itself. If such a wide diversity of beliefs and values can be held in the minuscule demographic of contemporary Judaism, why is it unbelievable that a similar range of diversity be found in Roman Catholicism - especially on matters not related to dogma or doctrine (e.g., the historicity and scale of the Shoah)?
I wonder how many people outside of Judaism and the newsroom are actually offended by this action? It would seem that most Christians, at least, understand the difference between matters of faith and discipline and the sometimes wacky personal opinions of a church’s membership (and clergy) often dependent on that person’s cultural baggage (and generation).
I have been surprised (in a good way) that Mel Gibson and his Holocaust-denying father have not been mentioned in connection with this story.
January 28, 2009, at 12:08 pm
[…] Religion Vatican Update January 28, 2009Behold, this is post No. 4000 January 28, 2009God of the goalposts January 28, […]
January 28, 2009, at 12:45 pm
I’m a little confused here. Is the Father Franz Schmidberger whose rather gracious apology Martha quotes in her comment the same Father Schmidberger who is quoted in the main post as perpetuating that vicious, deadly lie about Jewish deicide? If so, what happened in between?
January 28, 2009, at 12:54 pm
While this is an internal Catholic affair, having a holocaust denying bishop is a big internal problem that is worthy of public attention. It is also a fascinating problem. It seems to me this whole blow up adds significant further complication to the already complicated effort to bring the SSPX back into the fold. There has been speculation that this “bishop” Williamson made his holocaust denying remarks for the specific purpose of blowing up the SSPX-Vatican negotiations. I find that speculation to be quite plausible.
There are huge unanswered questions in this whole thing: did Williamson make his remarks with the intent of blowing up the negotiations? was the Pope aware of the remarks when he lifted the ex-communications? and, perhaps most importantly, what, if anything, is the Vatican getting from the SSPX in return for the lifting of the ex-communications? Is there an understanding that SSPX will now soften its position on some doctrinal issues?
I doubt that the secular press is in the position to answer these questions given that it really doesn’t care about this story beyond the holocaust denying angle. Even the Catholic press seems to be pretty much in the dark.
January 28, 2009, at 1:32 pm
In a prior post about a First Amendment freedom of religion case, a lawyer posted a comment with a great detailed explanation of the intricacies of the relevant law. tmatt then said: “Thanks for that informative post. It illustrates yet again what level of skill is required to properly cover news stories in this complex world”
That would be equally true of covering a Pope operating under Canon Law. In the previous post on this subject, there were comments castigating various explanations of the Pope’s actions as hair-splitting.
Folks - that’s what law is about, canon law as well as other law. Lawyers are paid good money to be hair-splitters, i.e. making distinctions. Similarly, the much derided technicalities are also part and parcel of applying the law.
I don’t know how detailed other religious groups are regarding their rules, but the Catholic Church has very detailed law and precedents. People study to become canon lawyers, just like those who study secular law. The Pope is not a 14th century monarch who can do as he will. Also remember that England and the US have a very different kind of legal system than Europe. Most Catholics don’t have a good understanding of Canon Law, even if they do practice their faith - that include the ubiquitous Fr Reese, who is not a Canon lawyer.
January 28, 2009, at 2:04 pm
First on a postive note A Important AMerican Rabii at the Washington Post On Faith Blog wrote one of the most sane pieces I have seen on this. Too bad it was on the in the Print edition
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/brad_hirschfield/2009/01/pope_benedict_panderer_or_crea.html
To answer a Question of what did Benedict know and when you knew it I think it is a good assumption that when the Pope made this decision (the exact day we don’t know but it was n’t just last week) that the recent statements of the Bishop were not known. That interview was doen in Novemeber and just released shortly before the rumors started flying by the TV station.
To answer another question what the Vatican is getting is that the SSPX will come ot the table. ALready we see hopeful signs of distancing between extreme elements
The issues involved and that will be involved will be controversial. What exactly is “anti Jewish”. Too many of us Catholics we are finding that what is anti Jewish is now becoming a rather large net. Such as prayering for the Jewiih people’s conversion is now viewed as being anti Semetic. THe whole issues of what are the Jews place in Salvation History is still well being thought out and not just by Catholics. For instance there are several hundred million Eastern Orthodox (as John Paul the II calls them the second lung of the Church) what do they think?
That story is at the heart of the matter and is not easily reported for many reasons
January 28, 2009, at 2:11 pm
“Is the Father Franz Schmidberger whose rather gracious apology Martha quotes in her comment the same Father Schmidberger who is quoted in the main post as perpetuating that vicious, deadly lie about Jewish deicide? If so, what happened in between?”
Isn’t that the very, very interesting question, Judy? Germans are naturally very sensitive about Holocaust denial - either Fr. Schmidberger is finally waking up to the position that such views are putting him in (being a fellow-traveller with a Holocaust denier and yes, anti-Semitic) or he’s saying one thing in public and another thing to his constituency.
I do hope that, in the interval, he has realised what “Nostra Aetate” is supposed to mean, and that the Second Vatican Council was not completely the work of the devil. The ‘Spirit of Vatican II’ zealots did a lot of damage, but the ultra-traditionalists have to face up to the ugly face of some of the views hiding behind the skirts of ‘faithful to the old ways’.
But already we see the changes being wrought by the Pope’s action: it’s one thing when talking amongst yourselves in a small sub-group that splintered off; natually a hothouse atmosphere develops and people go further and further off the beam. Try explaining yourselves to a wider world, not too anxious about all that Pope-stuff (because they don’t much agree with the notion of Papal supremacy themselves) but very interested in what exactly your supposed representative spokesman said about a hot moral topic, and suddenly the mirror held up to you shows a lot of warts you hadn’t previously noticed.
January 28, 2009, at 3:06 pm
Thanks for the link jh: although it’s broadcast rather tha print this treatment also shares a welcome even tone.
http://worldfocus.org/blog/2009/01/26/pope-benedict-rehabilitates-excommunicated-bishops/3773/
I heartiy agree wih the Rabbi about the whole issue being overblown—although I would be quite surprised if there were to come any time soon a similar demonstration of paternal love towards current “far-left” excommunicants!
January 28, 2009, at 3:28 pm
Regarding Rabbi Hirschfield’s desire to see the Pope reach out to the leftists as well the “right wing” SSPX, he already has, such as by his gracious treatment of Hans Kung. Remember how a lot of more traditionalist Catholics were disappointed that Benedict’s first year wasn’t a virtual bloodbath of purging the seminaries, chanceries and universities.
I’m not sure, however, that there is a cohesive body of left-leaning Catholics who are currently excommunicated that can be engaged like the SSPX. One reason why Benedict has moved so fast on the SSPX is to help heal this wound before it festers too much, much like how the Old Catholics in the Netherlands have completely flown off the handle, theologically speaking, since splitting over Vatican I (if memory serves). Anyone know how things are going with the Old Catholics and the Polish National Church?
January 28, 2009, at 3:42 pm
Regarding lack of paternal love towards “far-left” excommunicants—it’s my understanding that very few “far-left” Catholics have been excommunicated. They are more likely to be “disciplined” or lose teaching authority, but fewer are excommunicated. Many would argue that the left has been allowed to run relatively free of oversight.
January 28, 2009, at 4:06 pm
Personally, I do hope for the “rehabilitation” of Bishop Williamson, but at least there appears to be some real rehabilitation going on in the SSPX. The radical traditionalist movements really have had an anti-semitic strain that needs purging.
I enjoyed your post, Elizabeth. It took me a minute to get the “R word/Fr. Reese” joke, but that’s not your fault.
January 28, 2009, at 5:51 pm
As an outsider dependent on the secular press and occasional blogging by people who describe themselves as ‘Recovering Catholics’, what I am aware of is the way the hierarchy smacks down people who make the slightest left move. A priest who merely attended the ordination of women was excommunicated. Dignity, the gay group, was tossed out of all parishes and barred from having mass. So, it appears to me that liberal and left Catholics are rapidly disciplined while conservatives are let free run of the Church. At lest, that’s what the information I have tells me.
January 28, 2009, at 6:46 pm
Dalea is your post a joke?
The SSPX Bishops were excommunicated for two decades for participating in illicit ordinations. Every single SSPX priest is suspended in his duties, barred from saying Mass or any of the other sacraments (the suspension has been in place for over three decades I think). Go to an SSPX website, they’ll talk your ear off about how traditional and right Catholics are rapidly disciplined while liberals are let free run of the Church.
If anything your information seems to indicate that the Church treats both sides equally.
January 28, 2009, at 7:04 pm
I think it’s irresponsible for journalists to claim Bishop Williamson should still be excommunicated without at least citing a canon he violated to support their claim. I think there’s a fundamental misunderstanding of what excommunication is and it’s relationship to canon law - ideally the media would help give readers a basic understanding; instead they seem to be making things worse.
If his comments don’t warrant excommunication under canon law, what else is the Pope supposed to do? Williamson’s got no authority to administer the sacraments and no cathedral to teach from, for all practical purposes he’s a bishop in name only. What else can be done?
January 28, 2009, at 7:18 pm
“A priest who merely attended the ordination of women was excommunicated.”
Yes, Dalea. The same way that a policman merely drinking in a mob-owned bar would have to explain himself to his superiors.
January 28, 2009, at 7:26 pm
Dalea wrote:
Who was that? If you’re talking about Father Roy Bourgeois, he didn’t merely attend. He was the homilist for the ordination and also participated in the laying on of hands.
January 28, 2009, at 7:27 pm
To say that Fr. Bourgeois and Dignity represent a “slight move left” is an interesting claim. For starters, Fr. Bourgeois didn’t merely attend the purported ordination. He participated and continues to deny Catholic doctrine regarding ordination.
From here:
Like Fr.Bourgeouis, Dignity promotes doctrine at variance with Catholic teaching. This is how they look at Catholic doctine
Is there some reason Catholics are obligated to let a group that deny our doctrines meet in our parishes?
January 28, 2009, at 8:20 pm
Did not know that about Fr Bourgeois, had read that he was simply present for the ceremony. But, I also find the opposition to ordaining women fairly strange also. The arguments in the press that I have seen make no sense to me.
The members of Dignity I knew were Catholics active in their local parish. Dignity had the support of the parish priest and the congregation. So, this looks like an internal dispute between groups of Catholics, not the ‘outsiders forcing themselves in’ image of this quote. It simply looks like one faction using its power to silence opposition and shut down discussion. The situation was: Parishoners using the facilities they were paying for. And on one side of an issue that was being debated.
Personally, I do not understand why gay people remain in the Roman Catholic Church. But they do. Even after the way Dignity has been treated.
January 28, 2009, at 8:37 pm
Ordaining women as priests? Tres Bourgeois
January 28, 2009, at 8:51 pm
Dalea, I apologize for asking if your comment was a joke. I shouldn’t have jumped on you.
You actually exemplify a great point. What you know about the Catholic Church is pretty much what you’ve picked up in the media and you’ve never gotten the Church’s side of the story. Part of this is admittedly that the Catholic Church does not do media relations well. Someone mentioned blogger Amy Welborn above. She wrote a post on how poorly the Vatican handled this situation from a media standpoint: http://amywelborn.wordpress.com/2009/01/26/lefebvre-part-ii/
But the other part of the problem is that many journalists covering this topic don’t even know where to begin writing a story about excommunications. Maybe there’s a way for the Church and the Media to meet in the middle.
January 28, 2009, at 8:56 pm
dalea, you could be describing my first Catholic parish 21 years ago. They had a group called GLO - Gay/Lesbian Outreach, which everyone admitted (wink,wink) was a front for Dignity/Dallas).
The reason it’s not one faction against another is that the one faction adamantly and publically sets itself against the Faith of the Church. They aren’t debating, they are dissenting. There are many things about which Catholics can and do disagree; some things we can’t, and honestly call ourselves Catholic. Sure, a lot of folks call themselves Catholic, but so what?
I too don’t understand why many people who dissent from the Catholic Faith on a variety of issues don’t leave the Church. I’m a convert and if I didn’t believe it, I go back to the Episcopal Church. Episcopalians are generally nicer people than Catholics and have better music, to boot.
January 28, 2009, at 9:14 pm
dalea,
If you are relying on the secular press for accurate information about why the Catholic Church does not (and lacks the authority) to ordain women, then I’m not surprised that the arguments you “have seen make no sense.”
Here’s a good place to start:
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1996/9601fea3.asp
Please consider seeking out informed Catholic viewpoints on this issue (as well as other aspects of Catholic teaching that are regularly derided as “backward,” such as Catholic teaching on human sexuality as it relates to gay “rights”. At least that way you’ll be getting a fuller picture.
January 28, 2009, at 10:45 pm
For many years, I lived in the Chicago area. So, there have always been Catholics in my life. From knowing these people, and some religious, the picture I have of the RCC is something like this. These people were Cradle Catholics, born and raised Catholic. They always told me that what was coming out of Rome, the crackdowns, was not the Catholic Faith, but rather Jansonism, some sort of small movement within Catholicism.
The answer I always got ran along the lines of: The Catholic Faith is not whatever the current Pope says it is today. Rather the Catholic Faith is formed by the teachings of the Pope in concert with the Bishops and Theologians and religious along with the Sensum Fideli, Sense of the Faithful. Any particular doctrine that requires cracking down on Theologians and clergy to get agreement, and is not accepted by the Sense of the Faithful, can not be considered a valid Catholic Teaching. The classic example is birth control. The nearly universal rejection by the Faithful, the difficulty in getting Theologians to assent to the teaching, the outright refusal of most ordained clergy to preach the program; this clearly shows that it is not a valid Teaching in any meaningful sense. Rather it is a sectarian position, that some in power are trying to force on the Catholic People.
The argument then ran: since the Birth Control teaching is rejected, then all the RC Teachings on sexuality are questionable. Conclusion: the Church needs to investigate the lived lives of the Faithful, including the Gay Faithful, engage in dialog and strive for a new understanding.
Never really fealt that this was a viable position, but lots of people took it.
January 28, 2009, at 11:36 pm
dalea -
That’s a really good summary of that particular viewpoint. Thank you. This isn’t the place to reply to it, but you are correct: it’s not viable. There are several historical inaccuracies and theological distortions.
January 29, 2009, at 12:35 am
Just a random aside, Fr. Reese most likely gets called so often because the guy is ALWAYS fun to talk to, is very reachable, incredibly quotable, and somewhat fearless (whereas many other who come from a similar perspective tend to walk on eggshells). The criticism of his overuse is completely valid. But there are reasons why some people get to be in journalists’ speed dials.
January 29, 2009, at 12:59 am
Ken,
It’s hard to have been educated for nearly two decades in Catholic schools, marked births and deaths and marriages inside a Catholic church, turned to the rote memorized Catholic prayers when you just didn’t know what to pray or how else to calm down, listened to hours and hours of homilies from priests who became family friends ——- it’s really hard to grow up with this and then because of something cold and cerebral like doctrine, just leave it all behind.
By way of metaphor: As an adult, you may develop deep disagreements with certain views and practices of your parents. But they are still the people who birthed and raised you. You still love them on deeper levels. You hope for better understanding. You find these to be bitter-sweet binds.
January 29, 2009, at 6:17 am
Judy,
maybe Martha is right and Fr. Schmidberger is really changing his views.
But maybe he isn’t, as the two quotes do not conflict as much as you seem to think:
I the first he implicates all Jews that do not believe in Christ in the crime of deicide, in the second he condemns genocide and the belittling thereof.
He might very well think that though the Jews are deicides, they should not be subject to genocide. After all, Schmidberger hopes for their conversion. Dead Jews don’t convert.
I happen to disagree with Fr. Schmidberger’s first comment (as it is theologically incomplete at best: if non-believing Jews are guilty of deicide, so are non-believing Gentiles. Actually, all sinners of all times and places bear the responsibility, theologically speaking.), but I wanted to explain this possibility in Schmidberger’s thought.
January 29, 2009, at 7:07 am
To read fully, go to:
http://whispersintheloggia.blogspot.com/2009/01/rabbis-are-out.html
January 29, 2009, at 3:21 pm
Dalea, if you want to know what the Catholic faith teaches you can find out it a book called “The Catechism of the Catholic Church.” It is much more reliable than what your friends might tell you. If you consult it, you will see that the teaching on birth control has not changed nothwithstanding popular resistance.
No legitimate sense of the faithful can contradict the teachings of the Church. Lumen Gentium, a Vatican II document, notes that the sense of the faithful “is exercised under the guidance of the sacred teaching authority, in faithful and respectful obedience to which the people of God accepts that which is not just the word of men but truly the word of God.” It can thus give the Church a teaching such as the Immaculate Conception but cannot create authority for justifying evils such as contraception, no matter how widespread and cherished the evil has become.
Rachel Donadio’s article touches on the (very sensitive) isssue of responsibility for the death of Christ, stating that the “St. Pius X Society is particularly opposed to the Vatican II reforms that softened the church’s age-old teaching that Jews had killed Christ.” This statement, as is so often the case with press statments concerning this matter, is vague and misleading. What Vatican II says on the matter is, in pertinent part, this: “True, the Jewish authorities and those who followed their lead pressed for the death of Christ; still, what happened in His passion cannot be charged against all the Jews, without distinction, then alive, nor against the Jews of today.” I’m not sure how this can be said to “soften” any previous teaching. To my knowledge, the Church never taught that the death of Christ can be charged against all Jews then living or Jews alive today.
January 29, 2009, at 6:03 pm
I agree with Jerry that the reason for Benedict’s action is that SSPX is a relatively large and cohesive group, representing an actual “schism”. I think that the Pope has no explaining to do: he may ex-communicate or lift ex-communications as he sees fit.
Here is another interesting article from “within” the fold
http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/articles/a0000464c.shtml
January 29, 2009, at 10:01 pm
Ben -
You are right, of course. When I wrote “I don’t understand”, I was “in my head”, as they say. In fact, I’ve often stood in awe of cradle Catholics who do instinctively what I struggle with. It’s in their bones, so to speak. They usually tell me how much they need converts, with our knowledge and enthusiasm. So I guess it all works out.
I have to say, however, that doctrine has at times been a bulwark and, even a comfort. I have a trusted community when my individual will, strength, and understanding fail. It works both ways.
Best wishes.
January 30, 2009, at 8:44 pm
No, Bern, the Pope most certainly may not excommunicate as he sees fit. Period. End of story. He is not an autocrat free to arbitrarily rule as he pleases. He is bound by canon law, and Deo Gratias for that.
And Williamson hasn’t been “rehabilitated” until he is given authority to act licitly within the Church in keeping with the sacramental marks on his soul. When he has a See, he’s been rehabilitated. Not a moment before. And anyone who claims otherwise is a pig-ignorant hack who shouldn’t even be sponsoring a high school newspaper.
January 30, 2009, at 8:53 pm
I’ve left this last comment up, but with a question mark. It’s fine to be critical of the press, as many of us are, but let’s hold the gratuitious insults. Think about what it would be like to have the same standards applied to you before you pen a comment.
February 4, 2009, at 5:57 am
Williamson is the problem because he is a bishop and as such his words carry some weight especially among the SSPX. He starts off my minimizing the number of Jewish victims. If this continues, that tragedy can be forgotten in a hundred years and something like it can reoccur. As a man, he has a right to have his opinions no matter how evil. As a bishop, he is functionary of the church. If the church is to keep its credibility, then it must remove Williamson from office. All the apologies in the world don’t amount to a warm bucket of spit if he is kept in office as “another Christ”. If people really feel strongly about opposing Williamson, perhaps they can contact their pastor or bishop about it. Or if everyone outraged would withhold their donation to the Church for a Sunday or two, then that might get the Vatican’s attention. They can send their money elsewhere.