Have you heard about the drama going on right now with the SSPX? Amazing. Rumor has it that Pope Benedict may have already lifted the decree of ex-Communication on the Bishops of the SSPX incurred after their illicit consecration in 1988. This action, following the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum, is a major step toward bringing the SSPX back into the fold. There is one person who is apparently determined to throw a monkey wrench into the whole thing. Richard Williamson, one of those on whom the ex-communication would be lifted, will do anything to stop it.
First the skinny on what is happening. Rorate Caeli has been reporting (and now corroborated by other sources)
All signs now seem to indicate that the removal, withdrawal, or annulment of the excommunications of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre (+ 1991), Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer (+ 1991), and of the four Bishops consecrated by them for the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X (FSSPX / SSPX) in Ecône, Switzerland, on June 30, 1988 is imminent. The Papal act on the matter has almost certainly been signed, and it will be made public shortly:
This follows upon a secret visit of Bishop Fellay to the Pope delivering a bouquet of a million or more rosaries. If this rumor turns out to be true it would be a great occasion of joy for almost everyone. Almost everyone.
It seems that every time that a possible rapprochement between the SSPX and the Holy See draws nearer, “Bishop” Richard Williamson does everything he can to disrupt and destroy that possibility. Back in June of last year when the Pope, through Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos, asked the leaders of the SSPX to agree to certain pre-conditions Williamson did his best to create confusion and distrust. In a series of statements then he poked his finger in the eye of the Pope and offered that he would rejoice if the SSPX were declared in formal schism. At the time it seemed clear to some observers that Williamson does not want reconciliation and would break from the SSPX if need be.
It seems, if the rumors are true, that Bishop Fellay and the Pope did not allow his antics to antagonize them or disrupt their plans. In October, the Society launched the rosary crusade that resulted in the bouquet of a million rosaries.
As disgusting and un-Christian as Williamson rhetoric was in the past, it seems that is nothing compared to what he is doing now in a last ditch effort to derail reconciliation. This comes from Ruth Gledhill at the Times Online.
Bishop Richard Williamson is a hardline ultra-conservative bishop of the Society of St Pius X. He faces possible prosecution for Holocaust denial in Germany after an interview with a reporter from Stockholm TV in which he claimed that six million Jews did not die in the Holocaust, merely a few thousand, and that the gas chambers did not exist. CathCon has the translation of the Der Spiegel report. In an earlier story in the Catholic Herald, Bishop Williamson, former Anglican and a Cambridge graduate, was exposed as endorsing the forgery, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
The timing of these monstrous statements is not coincidental. Williamson has a vested interest in maintaining his schismatic status. Inside the Church he is an unhinged nobody. Outside, he is a somebody or so he thinks. He is desperate to maintain the status quo because he has nowhere else to go.
In recognition of all the Pope has done and is trying to do and in the name of all the good people in the society and those who are aligned with it, the SSPX should immediately censure or even expel Richard Williamson. He is a very troubled man in need of our prayers, but he should not be a Bishop or in any leadership position.
Please Bishop Fellay, if you and the society truly seek reconciliation, expel Richard Williamson.
January 22, 2009 at 5:14 am
He faces possible prosecution for Holocaust denial in Germany…
Prosecution? It is illegal to deny the Holocaust in Germany? Figures…
At any rate, unhinged or not, Williamson is a Bishop of the Catholic Church (now in perfectly good standing if the rumours are true) nonetheless. I’d rather we saved our condemnations for Bishops who actually deny doctrine or inculcate grave liturgical abuses than for one who is guilty of nothing more than silliness. There is no good reason to expel him from the SSPX, and certainly none to say that he ought not hold episcopal office, especially since, if the rumours are true (Rocco has even mentioned them: always a sure sign of the truth of ecclesiastical rumours) as mentioned earlier, he is a Bishop in as good standing with the Holy See as Archbishops Burke or Chaput. Being a poor historian or an ecclesiastical rabble-rouser does not forfeit the episcopal office or membership from any personal prelature of the Church. He’s a Bishop who deserves the respect given to any person holding his exaulted office.
~cmpt
January 22, 2009 at 5:22 am
Very sad and unfortunate for the SSPX (Williamson’s views), and I think it goes without saying that it was a particularly imprudent choice on the part of Abp who consecrated him.
The SSPX should deal with him immediately with strictest discipline – IMHO call him out in the open by repudiating his views and demand that he recant and apologise – if he refuses and splits from them, let him go and become a sedevacantist who will be as the author notes, irrelevant.
The Church does not need this sort of antics and disreputable behaviour which is extremely damaging for its credibility (and I’m not talking about ecumenism, just generally).
January 22, 2009 at 5:29 am
Christopher
Its more than just “silliness” or being a “poor historian” – Williamson is denying objective historical facts motivated through religious prejudice and racism and hatred.
There is no excuse for any intelligent person to peddle this sort of trash, let alone a Catholic bishop. His credibility has been tarnished by his own actions and he is an embarrasment to the Church and its faithful.
January 22, 2009 at 5:29 am
It isn’t just Williamson. SSPX bookstores sell antisemitic garbage, including commentaries on the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. I’ve purchased them in Dickinson, TX. This is mainstream SSPX thinking — and that makes it all the more shocking that the Vatican would consider reconciliation without requiring repudiation of this hate.
January 22, 2009 at 5:38 am
Anon
I hope that is not the case – there are a whole range of genocide denial laws in European states, particularly Germany, Poland, France – it would be tragic were Williamson’s comments to lead to the authorities raiding SSPX religious houses looking for hate material and charging members with various denial and hate crime offences. This is one of the risks that Williamson may be putting the SSPX in by his antics – the organisation is not clearly under the Vatican’s umbrella and he would be classified as one of the leaders of the organisation in such a situation.
January 22, 2009 at 5:43 am
Son of Trypho,
If by “religious prejudice” you mean the conviction that the Catholic Church is the sole Ark of Salvation and that Jews (or anybody else) who deliberately and knowing refuse to convert and be saved through Her are justly condemned by Almighty God, please mark me among the “religiously prejudiced.”
Honestly, I have no idea why Williamson would deny the Holocaust. I would venture the guess that he is just wont to make such bold assertions about subjects receiving otherwise universal consent from intelligent people. He probably just likes the attention. That does not necessarily make him a racist or a hater of Jews, although he certainly likes to give the impression that he does, in fact, strongly dislike them. But like I said: he’s a Bishop. Now it seems he is a bishop in perfectly good standing. Think twice before you speak ill of him. Let the Vatican handle it if he is as egregious as you say. I assume you are a layman: act like it.
Also, could you please define “objective historical fact” for me? I’m a little fuzzy on that and I’d love to know exactly what you mean by such a turn of phrase.
~cmpt
January 22, 2009 at 10:38 am
Um, before we start kicking Bishop Williamson out of anything, shouldn’t we first see what he actually DID say?
As an attendee at SSPX chapels and churches for many years, I know that anti-semitism is not rife or mainstream, as someone suggested. That doesn’t mean none of the attendees are anti-semitic, but it would be a very small minority.
Bishop Williamson, is a bit “out there” from what little ive seen of his stuff, but he still deserves the benefit of the doubt until we know for sure what has happened.
January 22, 2009 at 11:53 am
I can imagine the late Pope John Paul II turning at his grave because of this.
January 22, 2009 at 1:01 pm
If true — I say “if” — then purported Bishop Williamson is indeed a man of our times, not a man for eternity. Anti-Semitism is again fashionable in this country, and that is an abomination.
— Mack
January 22, 2009 at 1:32 pm
At first I agreed with your comments in this post, but then I started to think (always a dangerous activity) and I’m not so sure now. There are many layers to this.
First, let’s consider when this news surfaces – exactly when there is widespread talk that excommunications might be lifted and SSPX might be once again in full communion with the Church. That would hurt many liberals and modernists in the Church and many outside of the Church. There have been cases in the past of “press facts” procured to exert a pressure on the Holly See. Maybe this is the case too?
So maybe before condemning Williamson someone would take the trouble to dig to the source, ask someone who actually speaks Swedish to check what was in the Swedish paper and maybe also contact bp. Williamson for comment? I mean, that is what a real journalist would do – did Ruth Gledhill of Times Online do this?
But there is more – where it says that a catholic, even a bishop can’t have a different opinion on historic events than is generally accepted by historians? There is a plethora of opinions about various events in history – and for various reasons too. Why is the story of Holocaust protected more than others? Because of the number of victims? Well, this wasn’t the biggest genocide in modern history, Stalin did kill millions more than Hitler, so did Mao, but their victims don’t get that much attention and no one saying Gulag killed less persons that is generally thought is called a criminal because of this!
Would you want him banned if he denied Dzengiz Khan atrocities took place? Come one, he didn’t say “kill the Jews” or anything like it – he just said (if he did say it!) that he thinks there were less victims than is generally thought. And that he thinks a 19th century booklet done by Russian secret police of the time is in fact genuine. This might be stupid, but since when this is a crime?
Finally, aren’t we getting dangerously close to Orwell’s “thought-crimes”? That is you can think something, but you can’t say it or write it or research trying to find evidence supporting your view because this is criminal! Such notion is and should be an outrage in a free society! I too well remember communist days, when you could think Marks and Lenin were frauds and criminals, but saying it aloud could get you jail time. Do we want to get back to same type of society?
I’m not SSPX btw, never been to one of their chapels etc. so I’m not “politically” motivated in my comments. And I live now mere 50 miles from Auschwitz, the infamous German concentration camp where gas chambers operated and where millions perished (not only Jews, btw). However, I think criminalizing people who don’t believe this is dangerous and potentially can lead to more widespread persecution of those that dare to think differently.
Oh, and BTW, you write “Bishop” Williamson but Bishop Felay. Be logical. Either both are “bishops” or both are bishops without quotes, their canonical standing is exactly the same.
January 22, 2009 at 1:32 pm
TONYP – go to the link. The video of Williams is right there for you to watch. He really does look like a scoundrel.
The SSPX could bring so much to the church. But ALL of them, their leaders included, need to do some HARD PENANCE for all the evil and suffering they have inflicted through their words and actions over the years if they are going to be of any use to God’s church.
January 22, 2009 at 3:53 pm
Many of the above posts point to deplorable behavior, written materials, viewpoints expressed, etc…of the SSPX. Is it not possible that the purpose of lifting the excommunication, at least in part, might be to “take the wind out of the sails” of the purveyors of such things? Those who are hardline “Anti-Vatican II” will continue to believe what they believe, but those who wish to be Catholic, but who believe they have been deprived of this right for the past 40 years, will now have a home that is in communion with the church.
January 22, 2009 at 4:56 pm
I can’t believe that you all did not bring up his past statements about the SSPX possibly failing. Maybe he will go his own way again.
January 22, 2009 at 5:32 pm
Bishop Williamson is a Bishop, and he deserves to be referred to as such. When men like Cardinal Mahoney remain in good standing with the Holy See, as well as countless other priests and Bishops who blatantly contradict the faith, it’s about time that the SSPX had their credibility restored. I do not agree with the man, but I cannot presume to know his heart or the motives of his actions. Some people just have a habit of saying the wrong thing at the wrong time through no fault of their own. (On a side note, I think it’s ridiculous that one can be prosecuted for denying the Holocaust in Germany, although I disagree with His Excellency’s statements).
Neo-con Catholics are so quick to judge the SSPX based on the excommunications, yet they forget that St. Athanasius was excommunicated multiple times for his stance against heresy.
January 22, 2009 at 5:38 pm
BWB – as one who is frequently referred to as a Trad/Traddie/Trad-Cath (among many other things unrepeatable in mixed company) I deplore and denounce the behaviour of the SSPX. They have done so much harm and evil to the church. To deny this is to be either blind or simply dishonest. As I said, they have the power to do good, but only after some serious penance. You bring up Mahoney, and this raises a VERY good point: would the likes of Mahoney have gotten this far within the church had the SSPX remained faithful to the magesterium instead of thumbing their nose, picking up their toys and leaving?
January 22, 2009 at 9:01 pm
I should think there would be a difference between lifting of the excommunication, and being “in perfectly good standing.” A priest whose faculties are suspended, for example, is not necessarily excommunicated. Shall we say his “standing” is good? I will defer to the judgment of the Apostolic See on this one, not to mention hedge my bets until I see the wording of the decree itself.
By the way, none of this gives a pass to the previous behavior of the SSPX leadership. Why bother to reconcile when you’ve done nothing wrong?
January 22, 2009 at 9:17 pm
Your a hit In London!!
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/damian_thompson/blog/2009/01/22/pope_to_lift_sspx_excommunications_just_as_bishop_williamson_denies_nazi_gas_chambers
Maybe one day when my “reckonings” will be in the Telegraph 🙂
January 22, 2009 at 10:43 pm
The more I see this story picked up by liberal press the more I doubt he really said so. I think this is a desperate attempt to prevent excommunications from being lifted. I just hope the Holy Father won’t fall for it.
January 22, 2009 at 10:58 pm
“I think this is a desperate attempt to prevent excommunications from being lifted.”
I forget where I saw it, but they’ve got him on video.
January 22, 2009 at 10:59 pm
Couple of points;
Christopher – re. religious prejudice – I personally agree with your views on this however you would need to provide some evidence that Williamson’s comments re. Protocols/Holocaust are motivated by this sentiment. I sincerely doubt this and I’d be curious to see how they are related.
As to racism or generally religious prejudice – if he is supporting the Protocols then he falls under these categories – he is peddling a document which posits a universal Jewish conspiracy to take over the world and control it. This is clearly false. Either the Jews are an ethnicity/race which would make this racist, or he is referring to Judaism which would be religiously prejudiced. Either way it is hateful and would seem to contravene the 8th Commandment.
re. objective historical fact – i see these as facts which can be proved by evidence impartially. There is more written and researched about the Holocaust and WW2 than just about most other historical subjects. If he didn’t do his research on this topic, he shouldn’t be talking about it because it is an embarrassing display of ignorance.
Andy –
As to why Holocaust denial is covered by legislation – primarily because those who are denying the event are either –
i. trying to rehabilitate the Nazi regime of Germany (one of the most atrocious regimes of the 20th C) with a view to suggesting that such a political regime is acceptable generally – which is particularly dangerous for obvious reasons, or
ii. are motivated by hostility towards the victims, not necessarily only (but usually) Jews, and are seeking to diminish their experience for a wide variety of reasons – none of which I have yet seen to be plausible and/or acceptable. Certainly it isn’t daring to think differently or trying to do independent research etc – there is a massive amount of material and information which can (and has been) done on this topic.
And if you are Polish you should be especially aware of why the Holocaust is awarded greater significance than other genocides -the event itself is not measured by numbers but by the fact that it was an modern industrial process which is unparalleled in history in scope and scale.
Similarly, you should be aware that Poland itself has legislation against denial of the crimes of the war primarily because it suffered so much during the war.
bwbusdi89- I do hope your not trying to draw a comparison between St Athanasius and Bp Williamson are you? Oh dear.