Regular readers of this blog will know my interest in and concern for the SSPX. I do not approve of the methods they have employed, although I think many of their aims are admirable ones that all Catholics should share. But I must confess myself perplexed by the reasoning behind the leader and feature article in this week's Catholic Herald which focus on Bishop Williamson and his anti-Semitic views.
Firstly, and in deference to Stephen Morgan's comments, let it be said that the anti-Semitic discourse is one which is known to have fed some of the most extravagant contraventions of the 5th commandment and of the commandment to love one's neighbour. Secondly, let it be said that Bishop Williamson's positions on these matters are irresponsible since they not only graft nineteenth-century conspiracy theories onto a theology of Israel, but also because their gross generalizations contribute to propping up the opinions, and potentially to favouring the actions, of men more cruel, vile and stupid than Bishop Williamson shows any awareness of. Thirdly, and in light of this last point, let it be said that Bishop Williamson only has himself to blame if people consider he enjoys the prospect of seeing Jews suffer. The remarks he made to Anna Arco on this topic - that he didn't like the 'adversaries of our Lord' - reveal a somewhat more restrictive charity than the Divine Master he claims to follow.
But what exactly lies behind the Herald's expose? I'm intrigued. The Herald laments the fact that recent negotiations between Rome and the SSPX have not produced the hoped-for reconciliation. It explains that this moment is, therefore, the right moment in which to denounce Bishop Richard Williamson as an extremist, and thus to encourage all moderate SSPX supporters back towards the flock of Peter. I personally fear that in spite of the Herald's good intentions, this tactic risks driving a bigger wedge between the SSPX and the mainstream.
Firstly, SSPX supporters knew long ago that Williamson had bizarre views. The fact is, however, that while he might be known for his outlandish positions, much of what he had to say concerns not the Protocols of the Elders of Sion nor even 9/11, but rather the problems in the Church. On this topic, Williamson manages to speak to alienated Catholics whose confidence in their own leaders has been destroyed.
Here I can speak from experience since I sat for three years in Williamson's classrooms and heard him speak hundreds of times. Sometimes he rolled out his barmy theories, as I have mentioned before on this blog. Most often, he talked about what the seminarians had to do to become good priests: pray, study, develop their spiritual lives, improve their culture, learn history, practise the virtues. He is a great adversary of cultural dumbing down and tried hard to introduce the seminarians to classical literature and music. He was an enthusiastic advocate of the Ignatian Exercises, and in some ways was a very charismatic retreat master who emphasised that the real retreat master was the Holy Spirit. Let me record here that my own intellectual awakening came about thanks to the richness of the learning environment Williamson created in his seminary, a thing for which I am greatly in his debt. He can certainly be criticised for attitudes towards women's education, but his insistence on the necessity of educating Catholic men in their responsibilities has a profoundly wise cultural basis.
So, my first charge against Anna Arco and the Herald is that they have apparently not investigated why it is that SSPX supporters have known about Williamson's extremism for many years and at the same time put up with it. I suggest it is because the SSPX supporters perceived that behind the anti-Semitic, conspiracy theorist lay a mind which was defending ideas like the holiness of the priesthood, the need to preserve classical culture, the wisdom of the traditional family, etc. By not acknowledging these things, the Herald has not contributed to separating moderates from Williamson but possibly towards convincing them that their legitimate concerns are still not understood.
Which brings me to my second problem with Arco and the Herald. They have gone about this issue without apparently asking why it is that maverick leaders flourish in the Church or indeed in society at large. The simple fact of the matter is that the SSPX followers would not be half so interested in hooking up their wagon to the Williamson train if they could see their own bishops offering convincing, fearless and unwaveringly Catholic leadership. Only a few months ago, the Bishop of Lancaster hit the news with his Fit for Mission document on the notion of integral Catholic education. What should have been a 'dog bites man' story stood out precisely because of the unconvincing leadership which the Catholic bishops have provided on this issue in recent years.
What could be the point of reporting Williamson's views in this way at this time? It told the SSPX supporters nothing that they did not already know. It showed at the same time a very limited appreciation of what Williamson is actually about. And lastly, it showed little understanding - apart from an admission that the liturgical culture in France has been lamentable - of why it is the SSPX supporters have turned a blind eye to Williamson's extremist views these last few years. What is worse, this story is most likely to increase anti-traditionalist suspicions on the part of mainstream Catholics which already impede the healing of this rift within the Church.
There is another thing that the Herald has perplexingly not taken into account. Why won't the SSPX kick Williamson out? I suggest it is for the same reason that Rome wants the SSPX back inside the fold: because they have the fullness of the Catholic priesthood and could perpetuate their episcopal line indefinitely. Pragmatically speaking, someone elsewhere remarked that the SSPX would rather have Williamson inside the tent pissing out, than outside the tent pissing in. There is a certain wisdom, albeit crude, in those words.
But the bottom line is this. Is Williamson an anti-Semite? Yes, he is. And his anti-Semitism is probably shared by a small minority within the SSPX circles. But given the choice, some moderates would rather have him and his barmy theories than a bishop who allows liberals to run his curia, undermine Catholic education, and secularize the liturgy, and who also does little or nothing to end the soft dissent that makes the fullness of Catholic sexual ethics a dead letter to over three quarters of Catholics.
May God help Bishop Williamson to a full conversion, and may God heal the broken unity of the Church which is threatened above all by the failure of Catholic leaders to carry out the mission for which they were ordained.
Sunday, 9 March 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
I used to be a seminarian of W's many years before you, Ches.
I am fully alive to his position on the Jews, and must say, that with the exception of his views about the holocaust, he is simply re-iterating the position that the church has historically held in relation to Jewry. The reason that his views on the holocaust have no precedent in hstoric catholic thought in relation to things Jewish is simply because such catholic thought had been conceived prior to W.W.II.
Reasoned criticism of false religions or other systems of thought, in theory and how they work themselves out in practice through the (mis)behaviour of their adherents - does not make one barmy, or evil. One need only undertake a detailed investigation of say, the Babylonian Talmud or the Koran, and the actions of their adherents in their dealings with their fellow men. As MOrdechai Vanunu said, "Judaism teaches injustice".
By way of illustration, as we have learnt through bitter experience, Islam naturally produces psycho- and sociopaths. A couple of years ago in Cronulla, Sydney, Australia, the anti-social and criminal behaviour of the local Muslims provoked RIOTS. The police for years had been warning that this would eventually happen, but the government turned a blind eye to Koranic criminality - and in fact relied on the Muslim vote to obtain power. Of course, in the interests of saving (or incresing the girth of) their own political hides, not to mention out of pure spite - the outraged (mainly Anglo-celtic) young men and women who engaged in the riot (incidently resulting in almost NO property damage) were crushed by the courts, although on the day their behaviour was basically opportunistic. Mind you, the most brutal muslim reprisals went practically unpunished. In fract, the government apparently ordered the police to do nothing to prevent such reprisals.
Yet, in saying such things - the substance of which is so readily verifiable that only deluded leftists would deny it, does not make one objectively, i.e., in the eyes of God, evil. Only in the eyes of those fools and hypocrites!! (Not that I'm accusing you of accusing W. of being evil!)
Now, whether Jews believing in the Babylonian Talmud engage in anti-social behaviour of a similar kind is a matter of fact so susceptible to verification as anything else. If such makes one anti-Semitic, then, does examining the attitudes and mores, etc, of protestants make one "anti-protestant"? I don't think any reasonable person would say so.
As to the holocaust, again, that should be a matter for historical investigation just as any other event. I note that when in a university lecture hall, any evil, irrational garbage can be spouted, pursuant to the so-called Enlightenment, against catholicism, the historicity of the gospels, etc, denied, how is it that the holocaust alone receives the special favour of the law in many countries as a subject the in-depth investigation of which is prohibited under pain of sanction? In the circumstances, it looks as if there's something to hide...
P.S. to last post - my (qualified) defence of W. is not to say I agree with everything he (or the SSPX) stand for - certainly their positions on matters of faith and morals, and even their legal position (cf. St Athanasius intruding the bishops he consecrated into occupied sees, and writing a letter to the pope to the effect that he was not in communion with him), but certainly not various aspects of their asceticism, their liturgical practice, their seminary regime, and in a word - their heteropraxis. Just for clarification's sake.
Brian
I think you should post the whole of this entry in the ComBox of Damian Thompson's blog, where he has a bizarre thread about certain Williamsonesque comments about The Sound of Music.
I don't think you're tough enough on Bp Williamson over his anti-semitism but otherwise, I think you're spot-on.
Stephen
Those of us outside Catholic communion with Jewish connections who consider the possibility of joining it look with horror at the possibility of a man such as Williamson being a bishop inside it. It would be treason against my dead Jewish relatives, sent to the camps of the Third Reich for annihiliation, to consider any association with a man who denies that it happened.
As for the dangers of him continuing as an episcopus vagans, there are already 2000 such passing on valid orders so one more would make little difference.
I too sat through +W's Acts of the Magisterium course back in the 80s.
I too agree that his Lordship's opinions on Jews, women's slacks and education, and the orthodoxy of Pope Ratzinger are completely ludicrous.
Yet I too would say that it was ol' Dickie Williamson who ignited in me the spark to pursue truth and culture.
Lord have mercy on your bishop that he may have this veil lifted from his heart and may come into full communion with your Church outside which none can be saved. Amen.
I'm fascinated by the comments on Ches's post, because they revolve *not* around the question of the Herald article's (un)timeliness and (im)prudence, but rather around Bishop W. himself. The point of the post is: What on earth was the Herald thinking, throwing down the gauntlet like that at a time like this?? To what purpose???
The post raised the question of whether the Herald stuck its nose in to the detriment of the negotiations between the SSPX and Rome. What do the readers think?
Ches also raised the question of the article's impact on the average member of SSPX. If I were a member of SSPX, my reaction would be: You want us to condemn Williamson? OK. First, you condemn the multitude of pro-homosexual, pro-abortion bishops...then we'll think about it.
The Herald article only emphasizes why many traditionalists feel alienated from the Church, which is that, ostensibly, ultra-conservative vices are not tolerated, while (again, ostensibly) ultra-liberal vices are allowed to flourish.
I think the Herald should leave the negotiations to the Vatican. Let the Vatican decide whether Williamson's anti-semitism is a barrier to unity. It's simply not the Herald's role.
Thank you Ches for this insightful explanation of the core of Bishop Williamson. I once sat through a sermon of his and I agreed with every word he said.
There are those on the Blog, Ignis Ardens who have exposed things about Damian Thompson and the motivation behind this sudden muck-raking on the good bishop.
If any are interested then the link is:-
http://z10.invisionfree.com/Ignis_Ardens/index.php
JARay
Dear JARay,
I read through the Ignis Ardens thing, and I was not entirely convinced by the evidence, and certainly put off by the Tabloid style headlines provided by the editor. Still, I will come back to this question when I have a little time later in the week.
Best,
Ches.
Some of the responses here make one realise why the Catholic Church in Germany on the whole with heroic exceptions sat idly by while their Jewish neighbours were carted off to be executed, men, women and small children. To deny the holocaust reveals one as either a profound ignoramus or, much more sinister, one willing to excuse mass murder. It is not a question of "traditionalist vices" it is whether one who teaches thus is a fool or a knave.
Anonymous, you seem to be assuming a huge amount in making that comment. Do please unpack it for us.
I should have read this first and saved myself the effort of writing pretty much the same critique of the Herald to the editor of the Herald! On the other hand, they need to be told. By the way, the head of the Transalpine Redemptorists on Orkney, Fr. Michael Mary, has written a quite remarkably candid blog on future reconciliation with Rome. Nothing's happened yet, but his instincts, I have to say, are sound. It's just this sort of delicate situation that the Herald's bull-in-a-china-shop approach could jeopardise.
http://papastronsay.blogspot.com/2008/03/reply-to-william-of-norwich.html
I must answer the comments left by anonymous regarding the holocaust. There are still men alive who liberated the death camps. This call for
"historical investigation" is nothing of the sort. It is a deliberate attempt to hide, eradicate, and obfuscate, in order that history may repeat itself, that you murderous liars might get another stab at the "final solution." (But it's the Jews who teach injustice.)
You cannot imagine what goes through the mind of a Jew coming on such bland assurances (by men who state that they are educated in the Catholic church) that "Judaism teaches injustice" followed by what amounts to a denial of the reality, or perhaps only the evil, of the holocaust.
Equating Islam and Talmudic Judaism is, to anyone with any knowledge of either, ludicrous.
So go, educate yourselves. The governments of many countries, including Nazi Germany, documented, in agonizing detail, the Holocaust. Investigate. Despite your absurd lie that such an investigation is prohibited by law, there are mountains of evidence for you to sift through. Speak (before it's too late!) to the men who stood at the gates of Dachau and saw, with their own eyes, what happens when theology gives way to unreasoning hate, and the religion of Christ turns not just the other cheek, but its whole face away. Read about the Catholic church's involvement - then tell me about the anti-social behavior of Talmudic Jews.
I don't mind you saying that Churchmen failed during the Holocaust.
But I take great exception to the notion that somehow the Catholic Church as an institution failed when not only did the Church provide forged documents protecting Jews (cf. French writer Joseph Joffo who was thus saved), but also many of her own priests and religious died at the hands of the Nazis, among them at least two canonized saints that I can think of.
By all means reply, Anonymous, but keep it civil and identify yourself. All these anonymouses are confusing.
Very sensible Brian.
As an SSPX supporter myself, I cannot agree more.
Onuweru writes - sorry I can't get google/blogger to recognise my password
Anonymous exhorts: 'Speak (before it's too late!) to the men who stood at the gates of Dachau and saw, with their own eyes..."
Having read of Tony Arco, assassin of the Bavarian Chancellor in 1919
http://terpsboy.com/Articles/Stepperg.html
I was intrigued to dicover that he survived over 10 year's incarceration in Dachau.
That raises the question as to whether or not Dachau was in fact a death camp. I would love to know for sure
Further the article makes me wonder whether Tony Arco was related to Anna Arco author of the article on W's antisemitism. TA said at his trial:"Yes I shot that elder of Zion, go thou and do likewise..."
Interestingly the Wilkepedia entry on TA makes no mention of his survival at Dachau.
According to what I've read, the majority of the prisoners in Dachau were not Jewish but were political prisoners. Dachau also srved as the main camp for Christian prisoners. Blessed Titus Brandsma and Blessed Karl Leisner died there.
Post a Comment