Salon.com had a column today calling a world leader “sick and evil” for “making nice with an anti-semitic Holocaust denier.” And they’re not talking about Barack Obama sending love letters to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. No. Of course they were talking about the Pope.
OK, Bill Donohue, just get the inevitable over with and call me anti-Catholic. Once again a pope has decided that enhancing the authority of the Vatican justifies turning a blind eye to vicious anti-Semitism, and I’m saying it’s one more example of a long-standing and unresolved problem within the Catholic Church. It is not merely discouraging or problematic that Pope Benedict XVI is making nice with a Holocaust denier, or mending fences with a splinter group of ultraconservative anti-Semites, it is sick and evil. No matter how often the church issues statements condemning anti-Semitism, or holds papal concerts to commemorate the Holocaust, or says no, the Jews didn’t kill Christ, the Vatican always seems caught off-guard and surprised that some people think it has a Jewish problem.
Of course, the writer throws everything at the wall including disproved myths about Pope Pius XII and the Holocaust. But in this case he’s talking about the comments of Bishop Richard Williamson who seems to be a holocaust denier. But it’s not like the Church has turned a blind eye to it. It took Williamson’s comments very seriously and Bishop Fellay essentially put a gag order on Williamson, prohibiting him from talking about politics and history. Essentially, they said “Stop the crazy talk.” But I guess that’s not enough for Salon.
Salon should be embarrassed by this piece. It is nothing short of hateful, anti-Catholic, and most of all misinformed.
Idiocy like this almost leaves no room for argumentation. Is the Church supposed to throw out anyone who has a kooky idea? Anyone who sins? We’d be a pretty small Church, wouldn’t we? But maybe that’s what Salon wants.
January 30, 2009 at 4:31 pm
How come no one who says Williamson shouldn’t have had his excommunication lifted cites a canon? They basically are calling for the pope to be fascist and impose a canonical penalties without canonical crimes being committed.
From the article:
Since becoming pope in 2005, Benedict has been quite clear that on any issue that concerns greater democracy or diversity in the church, or women and homosexuality generally, no détente is likely.
GASP!!!! They’ve found the smoking gun! The root of the problem seems to be that the Pope is Catholic.
P.S. isn’t healing the rift with the SSPX promoting “diversity in the church.”
January 30, 2009 at 4:42 pm
Last time I checked, the Church was for sinners. Did I miss a memo?
January 30, 2009 at 4:51 pm
In case you missed it, the essay was written by Frances Kissling, head of “Catholics” for a Free Choice. The only priest in the Catholic Church he probably likes is Richard McBrien.
However, this does not absolve Salon.com. Their “editor’s selection” of letters contains only 1 that has a somewhat coherent argument about the state of the Church (the progressive v. Orthodox Catholic). The rest are mumbo jumbo “I saw it on a message board and therefore must be true” rantings about SSPX/Opus Dei and the relationship between the Third Reich and the Church. If those are the 6 best, I don’t think I could stomach the other 200.
January 30, 2009 at 4:58 pm
As a long-time convert I reflect on the reality that all the parishes I have attended, from East Texas to California to Viet-Nam to England and back again have been consistently pro-Jewish. Indeed, I have often heard anti-Semitism sternly forbidden from the pulpit. Further, I cannot ever recall hearing anti-Semitism from any individual Catholic.
Salon is sometimes too, too princess / precious to be taken seriously.
— Mack, evil, wicked, public-School teacher
January 30, 2009 at 5:14 pm
The Holocaust denier does not have to be excommunicated. However someone like that should in be elevated to the position of a bishop.
January 30, 2009 at 5:16 pm
(Take two)
The Holocaust denier does not have to be excommunicated. However someone like that should not be elevated to the position of a bishop.
January 30, 2009 at 5:46 pm
Anonymous, the Holy See never gave him permission to become a bishop – he did so illicitly against the Vatican’s permission. He’s suspended from administering any sacraments and he hasn’t been assigned a diocese (meaning he’s pretty much a bishop in name only with no practical authority).
January 30, 2009 at 6:33 pm
Thanks Brian. I didn't know that. I guess you & the Vatican agree with me of that point. In government & corporations, something so explosively is handled with great sensitivity. There are policies meant to prevent the appearance of inpropriety. 'nuf said.
January 30, 2009 at 6:57 pm
Pope should use this opportunity to restart the Index.
January 30, 2009 at 7:28 pm
You're right. Govt offices & business corps have strict policies about avoiding any appearance of impropriety.
This just show how much or how little the Curia cares about the sensitities of the Jews nowadays.
I miss the late John Paul the Great.
January 30, 2009 at 8:16 pm
You know, this case raised my faith in the Pope a lot. Now I feel ashamed I doubted the Holy Father in the first place.
First the news chocked me and I was outraged, I have a deep respect for the Jewish people and I was just revolted by the news.
Then I understood the reasons the pope did it, but found not good enough given the PR mess; then williamson was told to shut up; now the SSPX is signalling that will recognise and obey the second concil and THAT will be (or should be if everyone just calmed down) a far greater help against antissemitism than Williamson rogue crazy talk is harm.
Look, the Pope is succeding in making a large sect with tens of thousands of members to recognize, finally, after decades, that Jews are not cursed or guilty of deicide, but that they are our “older brothers”.
If other outraged people will realize this I don’t know; I can only pray, but the Pope made great advance in the fight against antissemitism and is being accused of just the opposite because of one kooky dude.
January 30, 2009 at 11:05 pm
I don’t miss John Paul II. What did we get for 20 years? Lots of gay seminarians, openly gay priests who molested teens, open hostility for Church teaching from priests, bishops, and theologians, rotten catechism books and teaching, the loss of thousands of vocations, eucumenical “dialogue” which confused Catholics, promoting men to the bishopric who were heretical/hostile to the Magesterium…
I much prefer Pope Benedict who has actually attempted to heal the Church in many ways, but mostly by pulling the liturgy back to Tradition.
SSPX has 491 priests and 215 seminarians- what a boon for the Church if this can be accomplished! Unity under the Magesterium should be our prayer.
January 31, 2009 at 1:25 am
Rodrigo, I think a lot more people would be following your line of thought if they were intellectually honest, free of axes to grind, or cognizant of news sources or discussions that showed the truth of what the Pope is doing here. Andrew Sullivan wants to slam the Pope because he’s pissed that the Pope won’t say it’s okay for him to be married to a man; Francs Kissling wants to discredit the Pope because he won’t change the Church’s stance on abortion (she was president of Catholics for a Free Choice a few years back). Salon thinks it’s fun to publish Kissling’s crap, probably without an opposing point of view, except what’s buried in the comments – maybe because they have an agenda, too; maybe because they’re clever secular-liberals, and already KNOW the Church must be BAD, because it’s the Church…
The Vatican has very little clue about public relations; but he’s doing exactly what you said – he’s corraling the antisemitism and ultimately quenching it, at least in these guys. Williamson’s apology suggests that even he may come around.
Pray the rosary…
January 31, 2009 at 3:23 am
If he is truly sorry, let him apologize to the Jewish people. His words pave the way again to Dacau and Auswitcz because he makes Jews liars adding insult to injury. I would believe his sincerity if he does that. Otherwise, I don’t believe a word he says.
His lapse in charity is horrible. And if he becomes a bishop, he makes the Lord Jesus look like a monster. I wouldn’t want to have anything to do with the man.
I’ve learned about the polgroms, the Crusades & all the inhumanities that Catholic laymen have inflicted on the Jewish people. The least I can do now is oppose this with all my strength and say this is not acceptable for a bishop.
Shame on those who consecrated this man to be a bishop! Shame on those who would treat him like one.
January 31, 2009 at 3:28 am
I think the some people in the Church are too busy doing what’s right to spend its time fighting petty media battles.
[2 Timothy 4:3-5]
For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths. But you, keep your head in all situations, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, discharge all the duties of your ministry
January 31, 2009 at 3:38 pm
So what’s the over/under that these folks aren’t bothered by the anti-Semitism that comes out of, say, Iran or Hamas and many on the American left?
February 1, 2009 at 1:55 am
Iran, Hamas & American leftists are not consecrated bishops. They do not have the fullness of the priesthood and are not alter Christus – other Christs. When someone in that holy office does something reprehensible – like dishonor the memory of 6 million how have suffered & all the survivors liars & oppotunists, they he mutilates the face of the Lord Jesus. Hamas etc… do not represent the Lord. That is why he must step down or be defrocked by his superiors. This is unacceptable. Although Amy has a point, it is reprehensible to be done by any human being.
February 1, 2009 at 8:27 am
This is what happens with an organisation in decline – factionalism, fighting, and ultimately obsessing on interal divisions.
February 1, 2009 at 1:35 pm
OK, a couple of obvious ponts: Salon.com is essentially to the left of the “New Yorker”; meaning it is a pseudo-intellectual mutual stroke-job among readers, contributors and editors who think they alone “get it”. In short, really not worth being on anyone’s radar to begin with unless they live in the ivory-tower district.
Second, this Kissling was the leader and one of the founding members of “Catholics for a Free Choice” and is of course a staunch advocate of women priestesses. Does anyone here REALLY want to give this bee-y0tch any more credibility or air-time than she has managed to wrangle already?