Bishop Williamson apologizes. Sort of…
UPDATE: The Vatican is underwhelmed by Williamson’s “apology” as well. Read here and here.
The Holocaust-denying schismatic Traditionalist was just kicked out of Argentina, which seems unjust to me, despite Williamson’s noxious views. Today, back in his native England, Wiliamson issued an apology, via ZENIT (an arm of the Legionaries, which has had its own travails), for his quite detailed argument that the Nazis did not gas Jews in death camps. But while Williamson has said he will do more study regarding his views of the Holocaust, he doesn’t seem to repent of them here. He apologizes to those who were hurt by his remarks.
The text:
LONDON, FEB. 26, 2009 (Zenit.org).- Here is a declaration released today from Lefebvrite Bishop Richard Williamson, regarding his comments on the Holocaust in an interview aired in January by Swiss television.
* * *
The Holy Father and my Superior, Bishop Bernard Fellay, have requested that I reconsider the remarks I made on Swedish television four months ago, because their consequences have been so heavy.Observing these consequences I can truthfully say that I regret having made such remarks, and that if I had known beforehand the full harm and hurt to which they would give rise, especially to the Church, but also to survivors and relatives of victims of injustice under the Third Reich, I would not have made them.
On Swedish television I gave only the opinion (…”I believe”…”I believe”…) of a non-historian, an opinion formed 20 years ago on the basis of evidence then available, and rarely expressed in public since.
However, the events of recent weeks and the advice of senior members of the Society of St. Pius X have persuaded me of my responsibility for much distress caused. To all souls that took honest scandal from what I said, before God I apologize.
As the Holy Father has said, every act of injust violence against one man hurts all mankind.
+Richard Williamson,
London, 26 February, 2009
Yesterday on NPR there was a report about Bishop Williamson and his arrival in Great Britain after his expulsion from Argentina. The report included comments by a priest, now based in Australia if I remember correctly, who was a seminarian at the time Williamson ran a seminary in CT about 20 or so years ago. The priest stated that Williamson routinely used anti-Semitic language when addressing or speaking with seminarians, and that Williamson commented often about his views on the Holocaust. The priest mentioned, for example, that Williamson would joke about the priest’s oversized nose as evidence that the priest might actually be Jewish. Williamson also purportedly mocked a seminarian named “Oppenheimer” about what Williamson believed must be the seminarian’s Jewish roots.
Williamson’s anti-Semitism seems very deeply rooted, and his too little, too late and carefully worded apology don’t pass muster for me.
William, the NPR piece was perhaps based on this Globe story, which is a chilling read:
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2009/02/20/bishops_vexing_beliefs_have_deep_roots/
Thanks, David, and here’s the text of the NPR report:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=101139679
The priest is now in New Zealand, not Australia.
And the list could go on and on……
His views on women: http://www.newcatholictimes.com/index.php?module=articles&func=display&ptid=1&aid=837
His views on cultural ideas – “Sound of Music” – is he all there?
His vies on politics – he seems to veer towards fascism and strange political groups dating back to pre-WWII – conspiracy behind every tree.
Explain to me again why we are inviting this person back into our church based upon his ability to support Vatican II – would you really believe any statement he makes?
The problem is, what Williamson actually should apologize for is his attitude toward Jews and their allies — his apparent conviction that a cabal of some sort has inflated a fictional account of the Shoah into a historical “fact,” duping the public in order to advance the interests of the Jews. Right now he’s just prevaricating about how the details of that process might not be exactly what he said they were. However, he can’t be coerced into apologizing for what actually offends until he realizes that he is clinging to noxious prejudices. I’m not holding my breath for that particular epiphany. Which is to say, I probably wouldn’t buy it if he released such a statement tomorrow. And, more important, I’m not sure it would make much of a difference. The prejudices underpinning much of the SSPX’s attitudes would still be part of their history, and would still have gone without comment at the time the pope lifted the excommunications.
I spent three months in Bishop Williamson’s Winona seminary in 1989. I can testify not only that Bishop Williamson was anti-semitic, but that the man is a lunatic. At a solemn pontifical Mass when I was there, The bishop said that and I quote: “the best thing you can do to a liberal is to stick a knife in him.” When he made these remarks, he stuck his hand out as if he was stabbing someone. His reference to a liberal was probably directed more at theological liberals rather than political liberals but it was ridiculous nonetheless. He asserted in a class his lies about only a few hundred thousand Jews allegedly being gassed and once drew a picture of a man with a “big Jewish nose”(a direct quote). Most of the men at the seminary were easy prey for his ideas as they had little exposure to theology or philosophy except the kind they taught there which needed updating badly. It took me years of reeducation and psychotherapy to be deprogrammed from this nonsense. I salute the holy father for trying to heal a schism but it must be said that however many adherents to this movement, it represents a lunatic fringe. I would suggest requiring all of their priests to be reducated in the ways of Vatican II and to submit to a psychological examination in order to be considered fit for the priesthood. For Bishop Williamson, perhaps he should receive the same penalty as Marcel Macial, a life of prayer and penance in a monastery in addition to a thorough psychiatric evaluation. This movement must be reconciled on the Church’s terms , not theirs. I dare say the last thing the Vatican needs is to be the laughing stock of the Christian world. A more complete examination of this movement is needed if true reconciliation is ever possible. I am truly sorry for ever having anything to do with this lunacy.
Thomas J. Reese, S.J. recently in the Washington Post made some great points on this topic:
“The four bishops, along with Archbishop Marel Lefebvre, were excommunicated because Lefebvre ordained them as bishops without the approval of the pope. They were not excommunicated because of their beliefs about the Holocaust or Vatican II. They were excommunicated because they were ordained bishops.
Lifting the excommunication says nothing about their beliefs. It is the ecclesia equivalent of a “cease fire” not a peace treaty. The bishops are still suspended from ministry, they are forbidden to act as bishops or even as priests. Long and difficult negotiations will be needed to bring about any reconciliation between the Vatican and the Society of St. Pius X. There is a very good chance that these negotiations will fail. As one who believes that the Catholic Church should be a big tent with room for different views, I do not criticize the pope’s attempt to reach out to the Lefebvrites.”
and Fr. Reese has an answer to the question why is the Vatican bothering with SSPX at all?
“The real reason is because these men are bishops. If they were simple priests, the Vatican would not give them the time of day. The Vatican is caught by it own theology that sees these men as validly if not licitly ordained. As a result, these bishops can ordain more bishops and the schism can go on forever. If the bishops ordain more bishops, they will again suffer excommunication. If the bishops refrain from ordaining new bishops, the schism ends when these four bishops die even if they are not reconciled with the pope. If lifting the excommunication is the price for keeping the bishops from ordaining more bishops, then in the view of the Vatican it is a cheap price to pay.”
Reese is right, I think. But I don’t have a problem with the pope’s reaching out, per se… My problem is that no one in the Vatican thought to contextualize it at the time in more or less the way Reese does.
Sorry for this non-sequitor… But reading this thread somehow reminded me of a book by Philip Jenkins, _Hoods and Shirts: The Extreme Right in Pennsylvania, 1925-1950_. Fascinating stuff from one of the premier historians of religion.
My comments would be questions posed to Bishop Williamson. I wonder if he has ever been to Oswiecim (Auschwitz) Poland? If he has, did he not smell the gas still lingering in the bricks. Did he visit the cell of Fr. Maximilian Kolbe—where Kolbe died? Does Williamson have the same sneering attitude toward Christ (a Jew), toward Mary (a Jewess), toward the Apostles, toward Paul, toward Moses, King David, the Prophets? All Jews.
I think this man is mentally ill and shouldn’t be doing anything public, not teaching anyone—not even dogs in obedience school.
Mollie – agreed the lack of contextualization and teaching of what the liting of excommunications really meant and did mean was the biggest problem decision. Now, the bishops and priests have to do the heavy lifting and go against the media meme and explain the truths.
Here’s an explain this week from The Catholic Spirit of the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis comes this statement of the Chancellor of the Archdiocese about the SSPX:
“The decree frees the four bishops from the penalty of excommunication, but it does not change the status of the Society of St. Pius X, which is not recognized by the Roman Catholic Church. While no longer excommunicated as a result of their illegitimate Episcopal consecration, the four bishops are not clergy of the Roman Catholic Church and may not exercise ministry on behalf of the church….The remission of the excommunication of the four bishops, which was an act of charity on the part of the Holy Father, did not bring the individual bishops or the Society of St. Pius X into full communion with the Catholic Church. That will only happen when the society demonstrates its recognition of and fidelity to the Magisterium and the authority of the pope, and is visibly united to the Roman Catholic Church.”
Ms. O’Reilly – you nailed it. I was going to say that this guy needs to be laicized but that never happens to a bishop who has the fullness of the priesthood. (Lugo?)
Ontology triumphs every time. Ontologically, they are bishops and will always be bishops validly but illicitly. Sorry, but the ontological argument while consistent makes no sense to the Catholic in the pew.
If that was an apology, then Ed Gleason, Peter Nixon and I will jointly take sealed bids for the pretty red bridge that hangs out in our neighborhood.
Whatever ultimately happens with SSPX, this sad loonie should not be accepted into this church as a member of the clergy EVER. End of discussion.
Mollie said: “My problem is that no one in the Vatican thought to contextualize it at the time in more or less the way Reese does.”
I say: People in my parish had no problem putting it into their own context. Even if they understand that Pope Benedict does not share opinions with Williamson, they have asked me something similar to the following: “Why would Pope Benedict want us even remotely associated with Williamson?”
I am glad that the chancellor of St. Paul and Mpls. issued that statement. It sounds good. It is disappointing, however, that such a level in the hierarchy must do such legwork.
What does it mean to say that the excommunication is lifted but they are forbidden to act as priests or bishops? Are they not doing just that? Do they accept that they are suspended? If they do not are they to be excommunicated again? The whole thing is an ecclesial farce in which Bendict comes out looking rather silly.
Of course the one thing Williamson didn’t say was that he was wrong about the Holocaust. And his approach to apologizing is vaguely familiar. “Sorry if anyone took offense at what I said…” Where have we heard that before? A quaint little town in Bavaria?
Thomas Reese SJ wrote something about Lefebvre back in 1988 – Archbishop Lefebvre: Moving Toward Schism?
The Pope must have known about the anti-Semitism of the SSPX. Benedict was the one who sent a telegram to Lefebvre in 1988 asking him for JPII not to consecrate the four bishops, just the day before he did so. A year later Vichy era war criminal Paul Touvier, charged with crimes against humanity for ordering the execution of seven Jews at Rillieux-la-Pape in 1944 was captured in a SSPX priorie. He managed to hide out for 40 years in part because the SSPX protected him. A SSPX priest sat with him all through his trial and when he eventually died, he got a mass at the SSPX church in Paris.
Something chilling from wikipedia ….
“According to its own figures,[54] as of 1 July 2008 the Society had 486 priests active in 63 countries, 725 Mass centers, 100 brothers, 160 religious sisters, 192 seminarians in six seminaries, 88 schools, and 2 university institutes.”
…. somebody is obviously going to their masses, which if I understand correctly, are still considered valid if illicit.
Point of clarification, please. If Thomas Reese is right (and I have no reason to doubt him) that Rome’s upset with Williamson and his episcopal colleagues is that they “validly if not licitly ordained,” and therefore should be persuaded not to consecrate more bishops, validly if not licitly, then how does their position differ theologically from the Bishops of the Anglican Church? (Morally it’s very different, of course). Thomas Cranmer was, after all, consecrated as Archbishop of Canterbury in 1532, with papal approval. His assumption of the see of Canterbury presumably was thus both licit and valid. Yet his episcopal descendants — including Archbishop Rowan Williams today — are somehow seen by Rome as invalid (as indeed are Anglican orders in general, if I understand it correctly). Why? When did the validity stop? And if it did stop, why won’t it also stop for the Lefebvrists, Williamson and Co. included?
Williamson’s words are interesting given the earliest traditions of penitence during Lent. The problem is that he does not sound very penitent.
What concerns me is the impact all of this has some of our brothers and sisters. I have a relative who is extremely naive and very hierarchally inclined; what the Pope is to be followed without much thought and no questions. She recently used this lifting of ex-communication to ask me, her Catholic relative who had a Jewish father, why don’t the Jews just relent and accept Jesus… Stunned and also furious, I found myself yet another reason to feel such despair regarding this chain of events.
It is not that I have issue with everyone being invited back to the table, how it is initiated and with whom is what troubles me deeply.
Yahoo news reports Williamson’s “apology” has not played well in Germany with Jews or Catholics.
Fr. Reese may be right as to the question of concern about orders, bu ti tstrikes me that the removal of excommunication of SSPX leaders created a more difficult credibility problem that will continue to see damage control continue to roll on.
Mr. Clifford, the (old) CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA has an entry dtd 1907 about “Anglican Orders.” It may be found at http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01491a.htm
Quite frankly, the more I learn about church and liturgical history, the more convinced I am that Rome is its own worst enemy.
As a friend once reminded me, the word ‘eucharist’ means “thanksgiving” and the latter word in its original Christian context meant corporate action, i.e., worship, not (so much) a thing — as in a consecrated piece of bread.
This expanded and more historically based understanding of eucharist has important implications for the idea of episcopal succession and ordination. Add the fact that apparently some Anglican bishops over the years were ordained to the bishopric by Old Catholic and similar bishops only adds to the confusion.
Anyway, FWIMBW.
Bishops CAN be laicized. The Pope laicized a Bishop in South America who ran for, and was elected to, the office of President of his country. This was just last year. There have also been a couple of US Bishops who have withdrawn from priestly ministry in order to marry, and I believe that they, too, were laicized.
A laicized bishop is a bishop still just as a laicized priest is still a priest. So what purpose would laicizing serve? He is also suspended. Does that keep him from trying to exercise whatever powers he may have as a bishop and a priest?
“A laicized bishop is a bishop still just as a laicized priest is still a priest. So what purpose would laicizing serve? He is also suspended. Does that keep him from trying to exercise whatever powers he may have as a bishop and a priest?”
Short of physically restraining the laicized cleric, I suppose he can’t be prevented from doing something sacramentally illicit. But the formal and hopefully public character of the laicization would at least serve notice to everyone that the church has severed this person from the clergy.
Why would the faithful members of the SSPX, who seem to believe that THEY are the true church, be any more impressed by laicization than they were by excommunication?
“Why would the faithful members of the SSPX, who seem to believe that THEY are the true church, be any more impressed by laicization than they were by excommunication?”
I’m not sure how SSPX adherents would view it. I suspect that for many of them it would be a significant event, one that might have the effect of drawing them closer or driving them farther away from the Catholic church.
I also believe it would be viewed with relief by many folks who are troubled by the lifting of this anti-Semitic bishop’s excommunication. If I’m not mistaken, only a pope can reinstate a cleric who has been laicized. Presumably the Holy Father would be the one to laicize, and would not be quick to reinstate.
There should be more posts in the manner of Keith Pascoe above. Or Ann Olivier’s in a recent thread about Bobby Jindal. That is, more personal experiences and observations.
In my own observations, the best blogs have a nice combo of reason/logic/ideology on the one hand and, on the other hand, personal experiences/observations/knowledge. I like reading dotCommonweal since coming on it in the last few months. But I’ve found that a thread tends to be either too strong on the former (most threads) or too strong on the latter (e.g., threads on favorite movies or music). The problem is that such a thread quickly turns into posturing, showmanship, predictability, or, worst, simply shouting. But when mixed well, it provides insight, information, even illumination and wisdom at times.
Happy weekend!
Agree with Historyman. Thanks to Mr. Pascoe for his sharing and insights into his own journey that many others have probably also been through.
Mr. Clifford – if my history serves me, around 1900 one of the Popes gave a Papal Bull that declared all Anglican orders invalid because – get this – the first Anglican bishop who ordained another bishop did so without proper intent and so his actions and all bishops/priests that followed -all Anglican sacraments – were not only illicit but invalid.
Again, if my memory serves me, not many theologians today accept that papal bull or its line of reasoning. I would agree with Mr. Clifford’s stance. So, given this, why so much attention on a small splinter group?
I am not sure that the Church as laicized any other bishops even those who left and married – Milingo, Atlanta bishop. Also, please correct me, but Lugo in Paraguay was given permission to run for office as a lay person – but not sure his consecration as bishop was undone?
Would agree with some other comments – there is a huge chasm between priestly ordination and consecration of a bishop. Bishops are treated completely differently – if there were only SSPX priests, would we be going through this? It was some of the same objections to the Dallas Charter – completely aimed at priests, lay, deacons – bishops are not even mentioned in the Charter in terms of sanctions, laicization, etc. Until some Pope has the courage to address this hierarchical mentality of bishops and return to the original NT understanding of a bishop, collegiality , subsidiarity, the church will continue to limp along in its dysfunction.
Bishop Williamson is a hero and martyr to Holocaust deniers worldwide and his ordeal has put new heart into their cause. This is the direct result of Benedict’s rash move, carried out without proper consultation. It explains why Chancelor Merkel views the matter as a grave one. Meanwhile Georg Ratzinger has scolded the Chancelor for speaking out of turn and presuming to act the schoolmistress with the Pope.
Recently I made a comment saying that it would be my last one on this site. This medium is beyond me. But I have decided to make an exception to correct a misstatement. concerning Abp. Eugene Marino, SSJ. Bishop Marino was named an auxiliary of Waqshington in 1974 under Card. Baum. He was deeply loved in the diocese,though it was known to some that he had had an alcohol dependency problerm and attended AA meetings. In the late 1980s, at the time of Card. Baum’s successor, Bp. Marino was named Abp. of Atlanta. Finding himself in totally new circumstances with few friends, he began a relationship with a young woman who initially had come to him for counseling. When this became known he was immediately removed but continued to function as a chaplain at St. Vincent’ Hospital, Harrison, NY, which is sponsored by the NY Charities. The hospital has treament facilities for priests and relgious being treated for psychologial illnesses or dependency problems. Abp. Marino also gave reteats. In fact, he died suddenly in the night in a retreat house where he had just finished giving a retreat. I never understood why after a few years he could not have returned to DC to function (Masses, confirmations, etc.) as a retired bishop. Priests and people would have welcomed this.
His funeral Mass was celebrated in Baltimore, not Washington. There was a Memorial Mass in DC two months later, but, standing open to correction, I believe the Ordinary did not attend.
As a Church insider (a layman) through long decades, I have known various situations that have caused me consternation, indeed pain. The story Of Abp. Eugene Marino is one of them.
It is rather scary to see how the phalanxes of self-described traditional Catholics are buying into Holocaust denial. http://stephenhand2.blogspot.com/2009/02/title-legal-charges-leveled-against.html
I think the reactionary politique of Benedict XVI has now let a genie out of the bottle. Far from being a passing embarrassment, the stink of the Williamson affair will be with us for a long time. Not only will Williamson stick to his guns, but he will have a throng of supporters, for what position of traditionalist Catholicism was so popular as its antisemitism?
The Argentine Government is right to worry about the indoctrination of Argentine youth in the seminary run by this crackpot archbishop.
A sample of what is some Catholics now think is honorable discourse: ‘Let the Jewish nation produce the verifiable names to justify the official figure of those who died in the camps, so that those who wonder can assess the facts and will be in a better position to do so.’
Hello Fr. O’Leary,
I am trying to contain my anger. I worked at Carnegie Mellon University for nine years. One of the many blessings I received from my time there was the annual reading of the names of victims of the death camps. Students at CMU took shifts for several days on campus reading the names of people slaughtered in the death camps.
Thia night I am embarrassed that I am Catholic.
Peter, I think that more than anger we should feel fear. Stephen Hand, whom I quoted, is not an ignoramus; I even had a challenging debate with him about biblical hermeneutics. That makes his attitude all the more disturbing, especially when one remember the real ignoramuses out there who are delighted to have a specious pretext to vent antisemitic bile (which runs in tandem with their attitude to gays; see Hand’s entries on that subject). Some of Hand’s best friends are Jews: http://stephenhand2.blogspot.com/2009/02/jewish-friend-writes-dear-stephen-hand.html
Harsh words from Robert Fisk in the London Independent today, Sat. 28, Feb: “I don’t think the Pope is as innocent as he seems, nor so ill-advised. He sees Christianity as a superior, “Western” religion and is prepared to demean other religions to prove it. I think he knows exactly what he is doing. I think he knows what he is saying. I used to think he was a silly old German. Now I am beginning to suspect he might be a very nasty piece of work.”
Mr. Page – thank you for your excellent human story about Archbishop Marino – I respect and look forward to more of your thoughts, analysis, and contributions.
I confused two figures – I was referencing George Stallings, a priest from Washington, DC who founded his own African-American church, was excommunicated in 1990, and was ordained a bishop by an Old Catholic Church bishop. He is married with two sons.
I am also reminded of two US bishops who publically resigned because of their consciences around Humanae Vitae and nuclear arms (feeling the church did not speak out on this). The first was Shannon – if I remember, Minneapolis-St. Paul, and secretary of the national bishops’ conference. Not sure anything happened to him – he later married.
I truly wonder if SSPX means more to B16 than other significant church figures. Would a different pope have focused on welcoming SSPX back? or would they have treated them like so many excommunicated groups e.g. old catholic church, etc. and left them alone.
Bill, I hate to tell you this, but you are wrong on Lugo as well. The Vatican did not laicize him during the election — Cardinal Re, head of the Congregation for Bishops even said it was impossible to do such a thing.
But after he was elected, the Vatican quickly granted him a dispensation from his episcopal office. http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSN3044823420080730
Apparently there was some discussion of this on The Economist blog last summer. (Really? The Economist? It appears so.)
Thanks, Jim. I could not locate the history of that event. That is why I put Lugo in (-) and used a ?.
If this link is correct, it suggests that the Lugo action is the first time a bishop was granted this reduction to the lay state. Ontologically, he remains a bishop but has no jurisdiction nor permission to function as a cleric.
John Page, thanks for the comment. The story of Archbp. Marino is a moving one, and I think of it when I see other prelates who have done so much less while having sinned so much more. There is also the case of Bishop Moore of Harlem. The Gaillot case, too. I was stunned by Lugo’s “laicization” if you can call it that, and have seen no reckoning of how Rome could do it in his case and not all the others.
In any event, I am really disturbed by the way this embrace of the anti-Semitic elements of the SSPX has made it easier for Holocaust deniers to peddle their wares. As I said on an earlier post, it is akin to the creationists and IDers who just want us to “teach the controversy.”
Mr. Gibson – the Lugo action also raises a number of questions for me (although I am supportive that the Pope did what he did). Was wondering why some of our US theologians/ecclesiologists e.g. McBrien, Komonchak) have not written about this papal move.
It is even more surprising given B16′s CDF decisions regarding liberation theology – esp. those who the CDF felt confused the preferential option for the poor and politics. It also touches upon sacramental theology – orders, priest vs. bishop, etc.
Finally, my opinion only but one reason stated by Rome in the Lugo move was that it supported the indigenous folks and citizens of Paraguay – is this a form of listening to the sensum fidelium? Can we hope for more of this in other national church and cultural contexts?
Hello Father O’Leary (and All),
Thank you for the fine information in your posts.
I have a better than average knowledge of church history, but I am not an historian. My question: Was this kind of anti-Semitism common among Catholics before Vatican II?
If the answer to my question is yes, then I think that should end all debate about whether or not VII was important and necessary.
My impression, which may need correcting, is that the Roman Catholic Church has seldom if ever issued overtly anti-Semitic statements in its history, but did little if anything to discourage anti-Semitism before the pontificate of John XIII. (To put it in a cutesy way, I think that before VII the prevailing view was that Catholics have a duty to convert non-Catholics, not to be nice to them if they persist in their erroneous ways.) Even if I’m right on that it would not follow that anti-Semitism was ever widespread in the Church. But now that we are learning a lot more about SSPX, I’m wondering. Are these people representative of what many Catholics were like before VII?
In the matter of Bishop/President Lugo, my recollection is that when he first announced his presidential candidacy and requested a change of status under canon law, he was told that the change was not possible. The curial official was quoted as saying that he had freely chosen to be a bishop and had an obligation to continued to obey the rules for bishops, including no political activity. The some time later, after he had decided that he would be a candiate anyway. and perhaps after he won the election, the curia decided his status could be adjusted and he need suffer no penalty. I recall rading about this, I think, in the Tablet. I don’t recall the technicalities. I rather assumed that the Vatican/Pope was embarassed by the man’s evident good will and desire to serve Paraguay which had long suffered from dreadfull government.
Peter, have you every heard of the Dreyfus affair? Politically conservative French Catholics were very likely to be anti-Semitic in the 19th and early 20th century. This is the background of Lefebvre and his followers, More generally I think it can be fairly said that for many centuries anti-Semitism was endemic in Christian Europe, and at times epidemic. Read the Prioress’s tale in Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales.
On President Lugo:
If you want an example of early Catholic anti-Jewish feeling, check out John Chrysostom’s Adversus Judaeos homilies. The nazis used them, in part, to justify their anti-Semitism.
Hello All,
Thanks for the responses. These are certainly striking examples. Whether they form part of a widespread anti-Semitism thoughout the pre-Vatican II Church may be another matter. Perhaps we simply cannot know how widespread anti-Semitism used to be in the Catholic Church. Perhaps we don’t have relevant statistical data from times past. (To be honest I do not know when the practice of anonymous opinion polls began.)
However, upon reflection I think it must be beyond doubt that a great many of the council fathers took anti-Semitism to be a serious problem within the Church. Otherwise they would not have thought it necessary to issue Nostra Aetate (which I’m well aware discusses other faith traditions in addition to the Jewish faith).
When I posted the story about Fernando Lugo above, I meant to include the link for Margaret Hebblethwaite’s excellent piece in the Tablet, “Lugo’s New Calling.” See http://www.thetablet.co.uk/articles/11356/
Vicious antisemitism was not common among preVII Catholics, many of whom would have no firsthand acquaintance with Jews or Judaism. But when dealing with the horror of the concentration camps after 1945 some Catholics would reach for the notion of deicide and see the tragedy that overtook the Jews as connected with an ancient curse upon them. Nostra Aetate takes a timid step to fumigating this kind of thinking, but such representations can linger long in the popular subconscious.
The antisemitism of SSPX seems not to be this old pious and unconscious attitude to the “perfidious Jews” as the liturgy called them, but something more vicious, typical of the rightist tradition of Action Francaise etc.
For antiJewish feeling of a politico-theological nature in the US I would cite the once well known priest Charles Coughlin whose radio broadcasts had a considerable inflluence on Catholics during the years of the Great Depression. His paper Social Justice was sold outside churches amd he supported a third party candidate for president in the election of 1936. It is true that Coughlin was ultimately silenced by his bishop, who was pressed into action by the government, but he retained some sympathy from many ordinary Catholics who had ideas of Jews as “international bankers” pulling strings behind the scenes. This sort of dimwitted anti-Jewishness could, however, be compatible with a relatively benign attitude toward Jews people actually knew personally.
That said, I recall an elderly Irish-American man in the late 1950s telling me that German Jews in the 1920s and 1930s brought persecution on themselves by their selfishness and exploitation of other Germans. I did not argue with him, something I judged to be useless, but I was shocked and put him down in my mind as an idiot from the benighted past.
If you want evidence of prejudice against Jews in the U. S., just look at the non-presence of Jews in college fraternities and sororities. Part of the reason, of course, was that in the past Jews wererarely admitted into some colleges. I particularly remember reading that Leonard Bernstein, the composer, had a hard time at Yale (or was it Harvard?) because he was a Jew. There were very few others there.
You can add the US government policies towards immigrant Jews – the turning away of the ship, St. Louis, outside Miami – returned eventually to Europe – more than 80% of the passengers died in the Shoah.
FDR was not anti-Jewish but also did not take deliberate steps to change policies; to target the concentration camps early on during the war. There is also the on-going history of the Jewish religious movement led by Theodore Herzl in response to European and US policies – without these efforts, there probably would have been no Israel. Even after WWEE, European companies were happy to allow the Jewish people to emigrate.
Hello Ann (and All),
I was told the following story regarding Harvard, though I don’t know precise details or the sources that could confirm it: Early in the 20th century the Harvard University administration decided to strictly limit the number of Jews admitted to the university because without such strict limits, based upon academic admission standards alone a “disproportionate” portion of the student body would have been Jews. According to this story, this decision was motivated by a desire to have a “sufficiently” diverse student body.
If this story is true, then the Harvard policy foreshadowed an alleged policy of the University of California campuses at Berkeley and Los Angeles towards prospective students of Asian descent in the late 20th century. These two universities were reputed to have set strict limits on the number of Asian-heritage students admitted in order to keep their student bodies “sufficiently” diverse. The university administrations at UC Berkeley and UCLA would not admit to the policy in public. However, I take this as good evidence these two UC campuses followed such a policy: By the time I finished my PhD at the University of California at Irvine in the mid-1990s, 56% of the entering class at UCI were Asian-heritage students. (Evidently this figure has climbed to 65%.) Such a high figure would be hard to explain unless UCI were admitting a large share of the Asian-heritage students who were automatic UC admits rejected by Berkeley and UCLA as well as the Asian-heritage students who were automatic UC admits and chose UCI as their first choice. (The UC system has a rather peculiar policy where any prospective student who meets certain academic criteria is guaranteed admission to the University of California, but individual campuses have the right to deny admission to students who have been guaranteed admission to the system. Yes, this policy is as strange in practice as it reads.)
Harvard’s discrimination against Jews back then was well known. As far as claims of diversity go, was that word even a part of the lexicon then? I thought at that time Harvard was pretty much the exclusive finishing school for rich WASPS, who seemed to have no trouble getting under the legacy admissions policy regardless of academic qualifications. As I understand it, the problem was that the Jews had a habit of excelling academically.
On a side note, before the WW 2 GI Bill was passed, college presidents testified before congress expressing fear of what would happen if their oh-so elite campuses were invaded by great masses of the hoi-polloi.