By now, even the most sleepy Catholic has heard the news about a mean Catholic Bishop who has publicly denied the holocaust. Most media "coverage" of this issue has been content to make the holocaust denial claim in the headline, then sprinkle in some of Bishop Williamson's quotes--out of context, of course, and with no historical background. Here's a typical example that will bring you up-to-date on this issue, as well as what should be the main point of discussion: The lifting of the excommunications of the four bishops of the SSPX:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hEDbuN1Tcg1h569AAFu4CJuV92KAD95T0I481I have many thoughts on this whole mess, and it will be best to take them point-by-point.
1) The title of this blog is "The Hangover before the Party." I think this is apt because what should have been a time of rejoicing for the SSPX and its supporters instead was upstaged by ill-advised comments. Just when everyone associate with the SSPX should have been holding his head up high, we were all trying to remain inconspicuous. We never had a chance to rejoice.
2) It is important to understand the context in which these comments were made, as well as
when they were made. Bishop Williamson's comments on the holocaust, which can be found at
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6C9BuXe2RM, are nearly six minutes of an hour-long hit-piece documentary made by Swedish television on the SSPX. Most of the documentary is in Swedish, but the ominous music and serious expressions of those being interviewed make it clear enough what the agenda is. Moreover, the documentary was shot last fall and is only now being released. Thus it is unfair to blame Bishop Williamson for the timing of the comments.
3) It is important to understand what Bishop Williamson's point is before making a judgement. He did not deny the holocaust. He denied that gas chambers were used to aid in the murder of the various enemies of the Nazis. He also sided with scholars who put the number of murdered by the Nazis at well under one million. Obviously, these two conclusions run counter to the accepted version of the holocaust. For me, the truth is the only thing that matters. If Bishop Williamson is correct, so be it; if his critics are, then that is fine too. I have not studied the matter enough to form an opinion one way or another. What is frightening is that any particular historical event is somehow off-limits to further review and learning. What is even more frightening is that people have been put in jail for even questioning details of the holocaust. But one thing nags at my intellect: If Bishop Williamson is so wrong, why is there such a big fuss over his comments? Why does a criminal sweat and vocally proclaim his innocence when confronted with the truth by a cop? It is unsettling at best.
4) The founder of the SSPX was a man named Marcel leFebvre, later Archbishop, whose father died in a concentration camp during WWII. It is inconceivable that Bishop Williamson, who was ordained priest and consecrated bishop by Archbishop LeFebvre, would ever dishonor him by voicing Nazi sympathies. Also, one of the most revered saints within the SSPX is Maximilian Kolbe. St. Kolbe was imprisoned in a Nazi concentration camp, in part because of his efforts to hide Jews from the Nazis. During his imprisonment, an inmate was alleged by the Nazis to have escaped and, in retaliation, ten prisoners from the same area in the camp were rounded up and sent to a part of the camp known for torturing and starving prisoners to death. After one inmate cried out to be saved, St. Kolbe volunteered to take his place. To the Nazis, one prisoner--Catholic or Jew--was as good as another. After surviving for several days, Fr. Kolbe was murdered by injection. This was done at Auschwitz. The attentive reader will wonder.
5) I have always been an admirer of the SSPX's negotiating tactics. Here they are, with four bishops who have been excommunicated, spread thinly over the whole world, and
they, not Rome, set preconditions in order for negotiations to occur. There were two preconditions, both now agreed to by Rome: First, freeing the Latin Mass to be said by any priest, anytime, anywhere, without needing permission from his bishop; and rescinding the excommunications of the four bishops. I always thought the second one would come before the first, but I was wrong. I hope I am wrong in having grave reservations about both preconditions being met. Twenty years ago, when Pope John Paul II created the Society of St. Pius V to counteract the SSPX, it was Bishop Williamson who warned that the move was a bait-and-switch. Anyone who has followed the SSPV over the years knows just how right Bishop Williamson was. Rome can sully anything, even the Latin Mass. Placing something as precious and beautiful as the Latin Mass in the hands of a well-meaning (but liturgically ignorant priest) is like giving your best china to your twelve-year-old son to play war games with. The NewChurch will destroy the Latin Mass with silly songs, lay ministers and readers, and anything else their "spirit" can imagine.
6) But perhaps the worst blunder was in demanding that Rome remove the excommunications. There is a certain autonomy--not to mention leverage--in being an outlaw. Now the bishops are within the law, and subject to the authority of Pope Benedict and his henchmen, and not to the tradition of the Church. That's a huge difference. What happens when Benedict summons one or all of the bishops to concelebrate a Novus Ordo liturgy? God willing, they won't do it, but then what? Will they be re excommunicated? These are dangerous times for the SSPX.
R. Catesby
