| SSPX Excommunications Officially Lifted |
| by Steve Skojec |
| 1/26/09 |
|
The rumor I reported last week has come to fruition, and the Vatican has declared that the 1988 excommunications of the four SSPX bishops consecrated against the will of the Holy Father at that time have been lifted. This is the second step in restoring the Society of St. Pius X to full communion with Rome, the first being the liberation of the traditional Latin Mass. If there were any question that the Devil has in fact been in the details of this rupture, the coincidental release of a highly controversial interview with the most inflammatory of the four SSPX bishops, Bishop Richard Williamson, seems evidence enough. In the interview with Swedish television last week, Williamson severely downplayed accepted historical consensus about Nazi Holocaust, saying that he believed there were "no gas chambers" and that only about 300,000 Jews - not six million - were killed in the atrocities. "I believe that the historical evidence is hugely against 6 million having been deliberately gassed in gas chambers as a deliberate policy of Adolf Hitler," he said. This has poured fuel on the flames of the always volatile relations between the Church and the Jews, and has raised much public skepticism about the pope's decision to lift the excommunications - a move which arguably would have gone largely unnoticed had it not been for the timing of this incident. Both the Vatican and the SSPX are distancing themselves from Williamson's remarks, but in a twist of irony, many of the very people who seem so often to be most outraged that the Church exercises any powers of censorship over its faithful are demanding to know why Williamson has been re-instated when he is saying such things. Guilty of public and political heresy, Williamson is not, however, guilty of any formal theological heresy. He cannot therefore be refused the same reprieve from the decades-long excommunication that he and his brother bishops from the SSPX have endured - at least, not on these grounds. As the furor continues to grow over the latest of his offensive remarks (for which he has long been well-known in traditional circles) the question of how the Vatican moves forward from here on resolving the outstanding doctrinal objections of the SSPX, most surrounding certain propositions of the Second Vatican Council, remains unanswered. It is probably safe to assume that the issues will not be quickly resolved. Regardless of one's attitude toward the Society or traditional Catholicism in general, however, the outcome of these doctrinal talks will affect the entire Church. There are substantial considerations to be made about the Church's position on so-called "religious liberty", for example, and how Vatican II's propositions on this subject reconcile with the teachings of prior pontiffs. I will watch the proceedings with great interest, even if my expectations for a hasty resolution must be kept in check. For the moment, I read with optimism the letter of Bishop Bernard Fellay, head of the SSPX, in response to the lifting of the canonical penalties (read the whole letter here):
There is no denying that the confusion Bishop Fellay speaks of exists. We should join him in entrusting these talks to Our Blessed Mother that through them, God's Will shall be accomplished as our Holy Father continues to strengthen and unify his scattered flock. Readers have left 20 comments. If I were the Holy Father, I would be wary of lifting the Excommunications of the SSPX bishops, including Williamson. The SSPX leadership has engaged in much willful disobedience to the Vatican (to both Pope Paul VI and JP II), and has actually said that the Chair of Peter is vacant since the death of Pius XII and made accusations of the Vatican being "Satanic." I understand the desire of Pope Benedict to "reunify" the Church, but given previous statements from SSPX and their willful disobedience, I would proceed at a very cautious pace on this. Does this "Bishop" Williamson accept the final authority of Pope Benedict? If not, we may still have a problem. Written by Will One of the lead stories on CNN.com is, of course titled: "Pope outrages Jews over Holocaust denier". While I understand that there's apparently no longer a theological basis for his excommunication, is this the only area that ought to be assessed? I mean, Bishop Williamson's public views/statements on this issue are of the sort that would probably have prevented his being elevated to the episcopacy to begin with, in a normal ecclesiastical environment. Shouldn't these things be taken into account when considering lifting an excommunication, too? On the other hand, once he's back in, he's subject to discipline & censure, so maybe it's not such a bad thing after all, politically speaking. Written by Jason For anyone interested, the best response to Holocaust-deniers like Williamson is Michael Shermer's excellent book, Denying History, which appears to be coming out in a new edition in April: http://tinyurl.com/dld69q  Written by Brian Saint-Paul I think it goes without saying that the SSPX cannot consecrate any more bishops without permission from Pope Benedict. I would expect that this was a condition that must be met prior to the lifting of the Excommunications, otherwise, they would not be accepting the authority of the Pope. Perhaps Pope Benedict will name his own men to be the next group of Bishops for SSPX, thus bringing them back into the fold? That would certainly be one way of accomplishing this. Written by Will For those interested in more info on just what this step means for the bishops and SSPX, Father Z. has a helpful question-and-answer over at his blog (http://tinyurl.com/ap5k4o): Q: Is it okay for the SSPX bishops to ordain now? — Father Z.No. The bishops of the SSPX are validly consecrated bishops, but the fact remains that they were illicitly consecrated. That hasn’t changed. They are still not reconciled with the Bishop of Rome. They are still suspended a divinis. They still have no permission to exercise ministry in the Church. They may not licitly ordain. They have no authority to establish parishes, etc. Written by Margaret Cabaniss Your commenter "Will" stated (erroneously)that the SSPX believe the Chair of Peter has been vacant since the death of Pope Pius XII. This is false. Anyone who has kept up with the history of Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX would know that they have steadfastly recognized that the popes beginning with John XXIII have been valid. The SSPX priests always pray for the current pope (by name) in the Mass. The superiors of the SSPX have stated consistently that the popes have been valid and they have consistently denounced the sede vacantist position. In fact, the Archbishop threw out 9 priests in the 1980's for holding the sede vacantist position. Written by Mike the SSPX are distancing themselves from Williamson's remarks — Steve SkojecReally? Unless I've missed this, I have heard no remarks from SSPX on this. And one would hope they wouldn't merely "distance" themselves but absolutely repudiate an idiotic and given the rising anti-semitism in Europe, an ultimately dangerous statement. Written by Mere Catholic After reading the Bishop's statement, it is clear he did not deny the Holocaust happened. He is questioning the number of Jews killed. He suggests it was 300,000 rather than 6,000,000. Nevertheless, this falls into the category of the personal opinion and is not, as Bishop Fellay said in his recent letter to the Swedish station, an expression of Church doctrine or SSPX belief. Moreover, I don't believe the SSPX has ever claimed the seat of Peter is vacant as one of the commentors suggested (I'm not certain but would be stunned if they had). There are traditionalists who are sede vacantists, but the SSPX has never been part of that category as far as I know. The primary charism of the SSPX has been a strict adherence to Church tradition, especially in regard to the liturgy of the Mass. This focus can be seen as an important gift for the Church. Along with the lifting of the excommunications, the Pope's permission of celebrating the tridentine Mass is certainly a bit of vindication for the SSPX position. Written by RK After reading the Bishop's statement, it is clear he did not deny the Holocaust happened. He is questioning the number of Jews killed. He suggests it was 300,000 rather than 6,000,000. — RKHi RK, That's a fair point. However, Holocaust skeptics never actually deny that Jews died, but rather reject the idea that there was a specific program for their destruction. So they minimize the Jewish body count -- 200,000-300,000 is a common estimate from that crowd -- while blaming the deaths on disease, malnutrition, renegade Nazi officers, etc. So Williamson's claims are pretty standard among Holocaust deniers. Written by Brian Saint-Paul The excerpts in the articles don't really provide adequate context, but if anyone has an interest in seeing the actual Bishop Williamson interview, there's a video of it here: http://tinyurl.com/bu7zyl As has been mentioned, there is no heresy in holding to an alternative historical view. When it is this unpopular, however, and entirely outside the realm of one's competence as a bishop, at the very least it seems most prudent to keep it very, very quiet. Written by Steve Skojec To those who toss around statements like the SSPX is sedevacantist, please do some basic research. You can start by going on the SSPX website and viewing the first image that comes up (the current pope). Once you invest those five seconds in the research, you could (drum roll...) read the positions of the Society before making assumptions. Then comment. On Bishop Williamson, one man does not a Society make. If this were the case, the Legionaires of Christ would be out of business. On Williamson, let's remember the issue at hand is secular and of a personal opinion, as has been pointed out Bishop Fellay, the SSPX superior general in the past couple days. The folks who oppose the SSPX are going to have to get over it. The pope has spoken. Either support him, or refrain from tossing grenades and spitting sour grapes. You're doing the same thing (expressing displeasure with the Vatican) you criticize traditionalists for doing. Written by Ken Upon watching the interview with Bish. Williamson it appears that he clearly distances himself from anti-semitism. (Am I interpreting that incorrectly?) He suggests that 200,000 to 300,000 were likely killed. Brian says those are predictable numbers used by Holocaust deniers, but I'm not sure that fact alone should necessarily discredit the Bishop's statement. Rather, he identifies with historical and scientific research that calls into question the claims that Jews were gassed. He provides evidence (I don't know if he's correct about the technology of gas chambers, but I don't know that he's wrong either) for his opinion and acknowledges that if his sources change their position he would be inclined to change his position as well. He seems very reflective and even-handed. I'm not sure I agree with him, but shouldn't he be entitled to his opinion--an opinion based on the facts as he understands them? Perhaps he could have been more discreet about it. The Bishop appears to have been blindsided by the interviewer, and Bishop Fellay wrote as much in his letter to the station. Given the highly charged emotion relating to the issue it sure seems like a cheap shot by the interviewer. Written by RK Ken, I support Pope Benedict, and he is well within his powers to lift the SSPX Excommunications. When Archbishop Lefebvre consecrated those four SSPX bishops in the late 1980's, he defied Pope John Paul II, and the four bishops were also guilty of disobedience to the Holy Father when they accepted being consecrated as bishops against the wishes of Pope John Paul II. I do not "oppose" SSPX, so I don't have to "get over it." Regarding Bishop Williamson, he is entitled to his views, and his views on the Holocaust do not make him a "heretic" however, one wonders if he would have been named a Bishop in the first place by Pope John Paul II, given those views. Regarding the Legionaries of Christ, yes, one man does not a society make, and if Maciel was in fact a pederast, it does not eliminate all the good he did [which was considerable], but it does cause the Legionaries a lot of embarassment and shame. Finally, is SSPX going to be a "Church within a Church?" or, are they going to be treated like another religious order? They are not heretics, but given their previous disobedience to the Holy Father, I think they will benefit by having bishops appointed by Pope Benedict. Written by Will Rather, he identifies with historical and scientific research that calls into question the claims that Jews were gassed. He provides evidence (I don't know if he's correct about the technology of gas chambers, but I don't know that he's wrong either) for his opinion and acknowledges that if his sources change their position he would be inclined to change his position as well. — RKHi RK, Williamson's evidence is standard denier material, right down to the references to Fred Leuchter's infamous Report. (See the fabulous documentary, Mr. Death: The Rise and Fall of Fred Leuchter for a thorough refutation.) His arguments come right out of the Institute for Historical Review (which is making a new play for respectability) and the Barnes Review -- two major denial organs. Don't misunderstand me: Williamson certainly has a right to his opinion, and Holocaust scholars are constantly revising their understanding of the event -- including the final death count. But the broad outlines of the Holocaust are so well established that no serious student of history can object. The amount of evidence -- anecdotal, written, photographic, film, recordings, etc -- is absolutely overwhelming. For anyone interested, here's a site that looks critically at skeptics' claims: http://www.hdot.org/ And here's one that looks at some of the hard evidence for the Holocaust: http://www.holocaust-history.org/ Written by Brian Saint-Paul Thankfully, believing errant things about history is not heresy. Otherwise, many good Catholics would be excommunicated for what they believe about the Inquisition and the Crusades. BTW, the Jewish leaders who are upset, do they deny the millions of Catholics killed and the important role the Catholic Church played in saving Jews? Written by Joshua Don't misunderstand me: Williamson certainly has a right to his opinion, and Holocaust scholars are constantly revising their understanding of the event -- including the final death count. But the broad outlines of the Holocaust are so well established that no serious student of history can object. The amount of evidence -- anecdotal, written, photographic, film, recordings, etc -- is absolutely overwhelming. Hi Brian, I looked at the sites you listed and I think they're interesting but they seem to contain some polemics and not a little propaganda. The arguments about cyanide residue make no sense. The discussion about Prussian blue is a circular argument. It's reasonable to question the arguments put forth by these scholars since there are holes in them. One can't help but wonder if they reached a conclusion before they even began their studies. As you acknowledge, the magical 6,000,000 may be in doubt and I find that quite telling. If Holocaust scholars are questioning the final death count it seems that the 6,000,000 figure could be way off. As far as I'm concerned, the murder of just one Jew or anyone is wrong, but if 6,000,000 is hyperbole lets call a spade a spade. I'm certainly no defender of Nazis (my grandfather was instrumental in saving lots of Jewish families from the Nazis in wartime Vienna), but there is too much politics involved in the Holocaust. The state of Israel owes its existence in large part to the Holocaust. US popular support for the continued sibsidization of Israel rests upon the Holocaust story. There is lots at stake for Holocaust scholars to perpetuate the story. Written by RK Hi RK, Thanks much for the response and for checking out those Web sites. I think we're in general agreement: The Holocaust has been used and abused as a political tool for the past 50 years, and that's a terrible way to treat the memory of the victims. As you note, it can also lead to scholars playing fast and loose with the facts, bending them to fit their respective agendas. Both sites I linked have clear biases (especially the first). But they also have point-by-point responses to all the major claims of the Holocaust denial movement, usually with documentation. That's no small thing. Responding to Holocaust skeptic arguments is like refuting anti-Catholic attacks: The denier can throw out a pseudoscience claim in a sentence or two, but the responder requires pages to refute it. The skeptic's use of cyanide residue is a good example. Fred Leuchter took samples from the interior wall of an Auschwitz gas chamber and then had it lab tested for cyanide. When the result showed only trace amounts, he used that as one of his major arguments against the presence of gas chambers at the camp (you'll see the claim over and over in the literature). However, what he didn't say -- because he didn't know -- is that cyanide residue would not have penetrated the wall beyond the width of a hair (I'm going off memory here), so detecting it would require a careful collection process. Leuchter used a hammer and chisel to literally pound chunks off the wall -- you can watch him doing it in the documentary. As a result, the great majority of the sample material was interior wall, not surface area. So once the samples were pulverized and measured, they showed only trace amounts of cyanide (which you'd expect, given the corruptive collection method). There's certainly nothing wrong with revising Holocaust death count numbers up or down -- that's one of the ongoing responsibilities of the historian (the current consensus is around 5.6 million). However, the 200-300,000 estimate the skeptics offer can only come about by denying the Holocaust altogether. After all, if the Jewish victims simply died of exposure, malnutrition, disease, etc., and there was no intention to target them as a people, then there was no Holocaust, just the sad toll of war. But the Holocaust did happen, and its broad outlines are so well attested as to be beyond serious dispute. The presence of Holocaust deniers doesn't change that any more than the presence of 9/11 Truthers -- of which Bishop Williamson is also one -- refutes the orthodox view of the September 11 attacks. Obviously, Williamson has every right to his opinion, and his views in this area are no impediment to full union. But it's still a shame that the potential return of the SSPX has been overshadowed by some of his unfortunate beliefs. That falls on him. Written by Brian Saint-Paul I am rejoicing with the news! I myself prayed my little fifty-three rosaries, to join the 1,703,000 that SSPX presented to the Holy Father in a spiritual bouquet. Now, let's have those clarifications that SSPX has been asking for! Join me in continuing to pray hard for this healing of the Church. Written by Janet Baker A very enlightened decision by our Holy Father. As for Bishop Williamson, I suggest people see the interview first hand before making any comments. Bishop Williamson was citing historical evidence which makes him doubt whether there was gas chambers. The best way for the media to contest him is to cite contradictory historical evidence. The media is muddling the issue by mixing two independent issues. One is independent of the other. All for the glory of God. Written by robert SSPX has almost one million members, which is a lot of people. Pope Benedict was reaching out to them, and this is the most important thing. Williamson has some unusual views on the Holocaust, 9/11, women wearing pants, etc. This is a distraction, but of course, the secular media loves it. He has a right to his opinions, however, he did cause the Holy Father some embarrassment. I read that he has been ordered to stop doing interviews. The ball is now in the SSPX court. Written by Will |
|
 |
