Bishop Williamson, in trouble
November 21, 2010, 3:22 pm
Posted by Joseph A. Komonchak
An official communiqué from the Swiss headquarters of the Society of St. Pius X states that its Superior General. Bishop Bernard Fellay, learned from the press that Bishop Richard Williamson, ten days before he is to go on trial in Germany for denying the Holocaust, has fired his attorney and hired in his place a lawyer who is openly linked to the neo-Nazi movement in Germany. Fellay has issued a formal order to Williamson “to reverse this decision and not to allow himself to be used by political theses completely foreign to his mission as a Catholic bishop in the service of the Society of St. Pius X. Disobedience to this order will result in Bishop Williamson’s exclusion from the Society of St. Pius X.”
I just looked at the St. Mary’s College, St. Mary’s, Kansas, web site.
(It was once a Jesuit school, where Fr. Finn taught in the early 1880s, but for a long time now, it’s been an SSPX place.)
Their link to Williamson’s writings doesn’t work, and they seem to have taken down other egregious links.
http://www.smac.edu/?LinksOtherCatholic
The senior leadership of this group is unstable. Williamson’s public views were known some time ago and I suspect that his private opinions are even worse. It is inconceivable that a small group like this (I think there are only four bishops who lead the SSPX including Williamson) would be unaware of his views. The fact that they never publicly or even privately, as far as we know, censured them speaks volumes.
The Pope made a big mistake in regularizing or whatever the term is. This has all the makings of a Legionnaire styled debacle. The group is closed, insular, defensive, reactionary, secretive.
There are many anti-semitic claims made by members of this group, not only Williamson.
http://www.adl.org/NR/exeres/0B9E6310-7A85-4B7B-A295-FF8442B219EE,DB7611A2-02CD-43AF-8147-649E26813571,frameless.htm
George D, it seems improbable to me too that Williamson’s views were not known to the other SSPX bishops or to the community at large before this incident.
I think (freankly) another ugly -yes, ugly, step by BXVI to draw in the Catholic right while paying no attention to the left!.
So wh yis there drift when this kind of drecht received recognition?????
Another SSPX Bishop, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, voices Jewish conspiracy theories in this report from the Southern Poverty Law Center:
http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2009/summer/beyond-the-bishop
and here:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=56176161839
But neither of these sites give hard references, so I’m not sure of their sources.
There are the LeFebvrists we’re talking about. Add these to the Legionnaires, and to that particular sub-set of Opus Deists who are intent on returning the world-wide church to the Latin Rite and simple catechism and we have at least 3 groups of far-rightists who would, given free rein, return the RC church to the middle ages – where people were illiterate and obedient, and only the elitist Clergy held power.
That JPII and B16 have both courted these groups is repugnant to me, and should be equally repugnant to any American Catholic.
Though on a different level, preferement for any of this ilk could be compared to elevating David Duke to National office.
Bob Nunz: Would you please explain how you think Benedict XVI has anything to do with this story? I took it as a sign of serious divisions within the SSPX.
Williamson is really off the rails, and in the Seewald book Benedict is very sharp in critiquing him as an unstable figure, even if he smacks of a bit of scapegoating:
Much to unpack there, given that Williamson apparently became a Catholic in 1971 and was part of the Lefebvre clan for many years before they went schismatic. Also, as Rita points out, many SSPX leaders have serious problems with Jews, and Ratzinger was one who for years was a point man for the Vatican in dealing with them.
So Benedict is being more than a bit disingenuous with all of this, but his strategy of off-loading much of the problems on Williamson is smart, and is likely going to work as SSPX leaders also want to excise Williamson and Williamson is an extremely cooperative scapegoat.
PS: Joe, I think what Bob Nunz was getting at was the great lengths Benedict will go to for reconciling right-wing extremists (as well as conservative Anglicans) while seeming to do anything analogous for those on the liberal or left-wing side of the spectrum.
David: I know that’s what Bob Nunz meant, and said. My only question is what that has to do with this particular rift among the Lefebvrites. For myself I take it as another indication that there are serious divisions among them, which are likely to become even sharper, even irreparable, if Fellay reaches an agreement with the Vatican. Some in that movement think it already a betrayal of Lefebvre that he is engaged in the discussion.
The problem is that I don’t think, at least as far as the issue that Williamson speaks to about Jewish/Masonic world domination, etc, and conspiracy theories about infiltration of the Church by Communist, Jews and Freemasons is really that far outside of culture of the Lefebvrites. It is well known that as a collective they oppose Nostra Aetate and Dignitatis Humanae.
These are both very important documents particularly in a globalized world and chart the course for the Church. If the Church signals that these kinds of teachings are less weighty and there is room for compromise on interpretation that is not good. It sends out conflicting signals.
Point is that while the black helicopters might come and whisk Williamson away, he is not that far outside of the mainstream of SSPX ideology.
Oh yes, I agree. I think perhaps one could say “Once a schismatic, always a schismatic.” These folks will split off at the drop of a hat. No one is ever pure enough, except me, and not thee. There are, BTW, many other Trad splinter groups, in various stages of communion with Rome. The SSPX has painted themselves into such a corner that there is no way they return to Rome in any real sense that doesn’t result in further splintering.
A traditionalist blog says:
“RORATE CÆLI has learned from a source very close to Bishop Williamson that the Bishop will take steps to separate himself from his new lawyer, in accordance with Bishop Fellay’s public order.”
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2010/11/rorate-williamson-dismisses.html
Fr. Komonchak, why do you think this contratemps has nothing to do with Benedict? Isn’t it a fair inference that Williamson is being thrown under the bus so that negotiations with Benedict, so favorable at this time, may continue? Assuredly the glare of publicity is many watts higher due to the dealings with Benedict. We can’t know what Fellay would say to this situation had it not developed under the eyes of the world. But he tolerated so much Jewish conspiracy rhetoric in the publications and website and from Williamson himself in years past that the urgency of stepping in an cutting off Williamson does all seem rather tied up with the present moment vis a vis Benedict and their negotiations.
Now, one might say, well, this is a good thing. Pressure to do something responsible here is a step in the right direction. But look at how the issue is being described. The problem Fellay identifies is not that the neo-Nazis are a hate group, but rather that they are political. To me that’s a clue. Religious anti-Jewish sentiment is protected — they can’t go back on this, because even Lefebvre himself expressed it — but political activity for a bishop isn’t right. In short, I’m wary of the theory that Benedict’s overtures are reforming the SSPX. Of course, that’s another subject.
I ask for some evidence that Benedict XVI had anything to do with this split within the Lefebvrite movement. You write, Rita, that “we can’t know what Fellay would say to this situation had it not developed under the eyes of the world”; but neither can we know that what he did he did because of his negotiations with the Vatican. And the claim to which I was reacting was this: “I think (freankly) another ugly -yes, ugly, step by BXVI to draw in the Catholic right while paying no attention to the left!” I don’t see any step at all by Benedict XVI in this matter, much less a doubly ugly one, and I wondered on what basis some step of his was being asserted.
Joe, see my comment above re Benedict singling out Williamson. That seems to be clear evidence that Benedict is deeply involved in the political machinations here. Why do you think that the Pope has no role in this despite his own involvement?
It’s very inconvenient that he has to lose his lawyer so shortly before the trial. Perhaps Professor Kavenny would be interested in the job? There could be a small difficulty about hairdo theology (see below) but I’m sure they could work it out.
“A woman can do a good imitation of handling ideas, but then she will not be thinking properly as a woman. Did this lawyeress check her hairdo before coming into court? If she did, she is a distracted lawyer. If she did not, she is one distorted woman.” (Bishop Williamson)
David: I don’t have the book from which you quote so I can only go on what you cite, and in that I don’t see any “clear evidence” at all that the Pope is “deeply involved in the political machinations here,” presuming that this refers to the subject of this thread, Williamson’s troubles within the SSPX. Your final question presumes what I won’t grant without some evidence: “despite his own involvement.”
I started the thread because I thought some people might be interested in the conflict within the SSPX. I didn’t expect it to become another stick with which to beat the Pope. Naive on my part, I guess.
That seems to be clear evidence that Benedict is deeply involved in the political machinations here.
I’m guessing that the Pope does in fact have a role in getting SSPX to pressure Williamson not to hire a neo-Nazi lawyer, but probably only to the extent that Bishop Fellay desires reunion with Rome and knows that this wouldn’t help matters. What I can’t figure out is why people think this is a bad thing? Would we prefer that Williamson keep the neo-Nazi lawyer, with Bishop Fellay cheering him on? Fellay’s motives for pressuring Williamson might not be all that we would hope them to be, but surely it’s a good thing for SSPX to distance itself from neo-Nazis, isn’t it?
People? What people think it’s a good thing? Show of hands, everyone.
John Allen in his article at NCR yesterday, quotes the pope: In the context of the 2009 controversy over lifting the excommunication a Holocaust-denying bishop, for example, Benedict says that “an incredible amount of nonsense was circulated, even by trained theologians.”
Joe, you asked for evidence and I gave you some information I thought would help answer the questions you were asking. What I wrote was correct and I would not provide misleading information. That is unethical. I don’t think that’s how you behave when you provide passages for consideration in your posts, and it’s not what I would do either.
I trust you don’t think I am one of those taking every opportunity to find a stick to beat the pope.
David: I’m not accusing you of providing misleading information. It’s just that what you provided seems to me something less than “clear evidence” that the Pope was somehow involved in this internal conflict within the SSPX. Does the published book say when the interviews were held?
F.C. your question above is similar to the one I was raising hypothetically at 10.06 11/21. The answer I would give to your question is the same: this looks to me like a cosmetic improvement. I am skeptical that it is a real one. “Used by politics” is not the same as “collaborating with hate criminals.” Is it better that the SSPX look better without changing their point of view? Well, no.
F.C. Bauerschmidt wrote: What I can’t figure out is why people think this is a bad thing? Would we prefer that Williamson keep the neo-Nazi lawyer, with Bishop Fellay cheering him on? Fellay’s motives for pressuring Williamson might not be all that we would hope them to be, but surely it’s a good thing for SSPX to distance itself from neo-Nazis, isn’t it?
I agree.
There are a number of reasons why the SSPX has received such outreach from this pontificate, but one of the most reasonable is the fear of how schisms can become too deeply entrenched when they drag on too long; and when there are bishops are involved, they can be singularly potent.
Of course, there is real dispute about whether the SSPX is in schism. There have been statements from the Vatican in recent years which suggest they are not. I am inclined to agree, but I also think it undeniable that some in the Society have an effectively schismatic mindset.
And those “some” seem to reside disproportionately in those in the SSPX who look to Williamson for leadership. Mr. Gibson is largely correct, alas, in noting that “many SSPX leaders have serious problems with Jews,” though i think he overstates the Pope’s direct (as opposed to indirect) role in this affair. But I also think there is danger in overstating this. Most here at Commonweal no doubt don’t find them to be a sympathetic bunch; but I think that many could be brought back into the full life of the Church, and that it is desirable for the sake of their souls that they should be if it is possible to do so. Some won’t come; this whole episode is indeed evidence of the real factionalism within the Society, and I think that factionalism (and the very evident desire of Bishop Fellay and other elements in the leadership to gain a rapprochement with Rome if it can be obtained under acceptable conditions). But some, perhaps the majority, will come, and that is clearly what the Pope is working towards.
Joe, the interviews with Seewald were conducted in July, over the course of a week. Benedict has been dealing with the society for decades, and the internal SSPX disputes with Williamson have been going on for a long time, most intensely and publicly since the January 2009 lifting of the excommunications. Williamson was removed from head of their seminary in Argentina, among other things, as it became clear the Vatican would not and could not (given Williamson’s increasingly erratic beahvior) proceed further with Williamson in any major role in the Society.
R.M. Lender: I think it’s difficult to pin down exactly how many Trads there are, and what they all believe and what those various beliefs mean for their exact status as regards Rome and Catholicism. But my sense in talking to some of them is that in fact most have found some way to remain in communion with the Holy See, whether in some formal process or simply by attending church-approved Traditionalist masses and groups. I suspect the SSPX will go the way of most Catholic schimatics (since the Reformation,at least), which is not terribly far. Their influence within the Church could be greater, however, which seems to me to be a historical genius of the church, effectively co-opting (a good thing in pursuit of unity) outliers by finding ways to accommodate them.
Is it better that the SSPX look better without changing their point of view? Well, no.
I have no doubt that there are antisemites in SSPX. But is antisemitism the raison d’etre of SSPX? I suspect many people who attend SSPX chapels go because they prefer the older form of liturgy, and don’t have active pro-Nazi sympathies. If the leadership reigns in antisemitic statements, then I would think such poison would be less likely to infect those who attend SSPX chapels, which would be a good thing. It would also send the message that those who wish to espouse such views are not welcome in SSPX, which would also be a good thing.
Of course it is always possible that I’m being incredibly naive (it wouldn’t be the first time) and antisemitism is the raison d’etre of SSPX, in which case this intolerance of public espousal of antisemitism is not all that good a thing.
“is antisemitism the raison d’etre of SSPX?”
The rejection of Vatican II is the raison d’etre of the SSPX.
The rejection of religious anti-semitism is one of the features of the Council that is not easily blurred. The other used to be the reform of the liturgy. But now that this pope has said this doesn’t matter, reform or no reform of the liturgy, you’re fine — that marker is gone. Troublesome Nostra Aetate. It just can’t be dissolved so easily as a boundary sign.
Hello David,
I suspect the SSPX will go the way of most Catholic schimatics (since the Reformation,at least), which is not terribly far.
The experience of the Old Catholics suggests such. Nonetheless, there’s ample evidence that Rome has had a strong dread of schism ever since – both on the left and the right. Perhaps it’s excessive. But it’s there.
There is one irony in the kinds of anti-semitic sentiments in some quarters (and I agree in my perceptions with Mr. Bauerschmidt about of the motivations of most who attend Society chapels) of the SSPX that Bishop Williamson seems to embody: It is easy to forget that [SSPX founder] Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre’s own father was imprisoned, tortured and murdered by the Nazis in the Sonnenburg concentration camp in 1944. One wonders what the archbishop might think now of the English priest he consecrated as bishop twenty two years ago. Lefebvre had his integriste (and even Petainist) sympathies, but his feelings about Naziism and its folderol were unmixed.
David G., where did you get the book quote from? I thought the text of the book would be released only at the book launch so that in the spirit of caritas in veritate, one would be able to have the full text to refer to. Was this a deliberate attempt to cause confusion? Just wondering.
Nancy, as is standard practice in such cases, the publisher gave journalists an advance copy of the book to prepare reports that would be published at the time the Vatican officially released the book, at 10:30am on Tuesday ET. Inexplicably, the Vatican newspaper then published excerpts of the book on Saturday, and the Libreria Editrice Vaticana, which holds the copyright, apparently let some Italian outlets quote from the book. That meant the embargo was automatically lifted for everyone, and reports on all aspects of the book began to be published.
It was unfortunate all around, an exceedingly bad idea as the Vatican itself excerpted the condom remarks, insuring that would remain the angle driving the story rather than discussion of the many other aspects, or the book overall. Many of us were forced (boo hoo) to spend Saturday finishing the book and attempting to write a complex story on a tight deadline. Moreover, the Vatican action stomped on the entire consistory of cardinals, which received almost zero play.
So it did cause confusion, to be sure, but I’m not sure it was deliberate on the part of the Vatican.
As Archbishop Chaput wrote today at First Things:
http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2010/11/open-disarming-and-inevitably-misunderstood
Thank you, David.
Foul-ups are endemic in Italy, not just at the Vatican. Two Italian-born academics now living abroad reflect upon their dealings with Italian organizations:
“We have spent our academic careers abroad, Gloria in France and Diego in Britain.
Over this long period of time each of us has had over a hundred professional dealings
with our compatriots in Italy – academics, publishers, journals, newspapers, public and
private institutions. It is not an exaggeration to say that 95% of the times something
went wrong. Not catastrophically wrong, but wrong nonetheless.
Sometimes what goes wrong is timing, things do not happen when they are
supposed to happen. Or they happen in a different form from that which was planned
or are simply cancelled. Workshops have twice or half as many people as one was told
to expect, the time allocated to speak is halved or doubled, proofs are not properly
revised or mixed up, people do not show up at meetings or show up unannounced,
messages get lost, reimbursements are delayed, decreased or forgotten altogether. This
experience now extends to internet dealings: relative to those in other countries,
Italians websites are scruffier, often do not work properly, remain incomplete or are
not updated, messages bounce back, e-mail addresses change with dramatic frequency,
and files are virus-ridden.”
http://www.sociology.ox.ac.uk/documents/working-papers/2009/2009-08.pdf
I cannot believe that this much time and energy has been expended on dealing with the likes of “Bishop” Williamson, the SSPX and other extremes of faux Catholicism.
Jimmy, this much time is being spent on these issues because more and more people are aware of and concerned about the slow, gradual, and sometimes insidious ways in which members of these groups are insinuating themselves into the day-to-day lives of parishes here in the US. By ingratiating themselves on a personal basis with parishioners who have no experience with the pre-Vatican II church, and slowly ‘teaching’ these parishioners about the ‘Real’ church and about the ‘Real’ way to worship and about the ‘Real’ and ‘Only’ acceptable language for Mass, they are making a concerted effort
to nullify the reforms of Vatican II – all seemingly in accord with the perceived agenda of the present and past Popes.
I used the word ‘insidious’ because of personal experiences in a parish in the South which had an Opus Dei priest and I watched the beginning of a split in the parish before, thankfully, the priest in question was called by (?????) to go abroad and get and STD at the home of Opus Dei.
I witnessed, firsthand, the lies and obfuscation.
That is why I, personally, am very concerned about these groups who are slowly and deliberately working their agenda.
Now, that being said, I am aware that there are many members of Opus Dei who are not part of this particular movement, so I apologise profusely to any of you who are associated with Opus Dei or any of its members. But, I challenge anyone to prove me wrong on the others.
Am I a conspiracy theorist?
I hope to God that I am not.
However, I do not wish to see the Church which I came to maturity serving taken over, however subtly, by those who would destroy it – for whatever reason.
to go abroad and get an STD at the home of Opus Dei
OK, am I the only one juvenile to be amused by this statement occurring right after a discussion of condoms?
Probably. But sometimes I just have to let my inner-middle schooler run free,
“the ‘Real’ church and about the ‘Real’ way to worship and about the ‘Real’ and ‘Only’ acceptable language for Mass”
Jonathan, I credit your story. Catholics who know better need to pull together and assert themselves. In a time of anxiety, people are vulnerable to those who come along offering “the answer” which seems to be clad in the mantle of authority.
Fritz: Good point! I had missed it.
I do understand Jimmy’s frustration, however. The extremists in any religious group seem to require a disproportionate amount of time and energy, and in our case we are actually importing them.
FC, I missed that STD reference. LOL!
You do have to be careful with acronymns. When I started doctoral work at Union Theological Seminary in New York, it was in pursuit of a ThD, which I thought was kind of neat, and I was disappointed when they dropped that degree and registered us all for an ordinary PhD. Later I found out that the degree that the wizard of Oz grants to the scarecrow at the end is a ThD–a docorate in Thinkology.
When Bishop G. Bromley Oxnam, Paul Blanshard and others got together to oppose what they thought were Catholic threats to the Protestant character of the U.S., they first considered calling their organization Protestants United for Separation of Church and State. Someone noticed that this would inevitably be shortened to “PU”. So they changed it to Protestants and Other Americans United… I wonder if John Courtney Murray was aware of this. In his American article on the new organization, he regularly referred to it as “PU.”
It sounds as if the South Bend situation is akin to the brouhaha in the Madison (WI) diocese between the priests imported from Spain by Bp Morlino and the push-back from the parishioners of St. Mary’s in Platteville, WI.