Excellent letter. Pope Benedict is indeed turning out to be as harmful as we had feared at his nomination. This letter gets at the heart of what is dangerous about him: it's not that he has a different opinion than lots of other people; it's that he is actively damaging relationships with large constituencies of the world population. At this point in history (and, really, at every point in history), we need to be strengthening relationships, coming together in unity to address the suffering of God's people and creation, not pulling ourselves apart. Strong leaders can lead by drawing people together with malice toward none; insecure leaders rely on division to conquer and rule.

My only hope is that time will allow a fresh perspective on his extreme views, in the way that Bush's regime has now come into new light as we see just how many relationships his presidency has strained and destroyed. Of course, the timeline of ascendancy is different, and the authority conferred on men in the two posts is different, but maybe we can move on to recognize that some things this Pope is doing are simply wrong, no matter whose shoes he supposedly fills.

"Villain," "pissing"?

THIS admittedly "rude" piece is written with the intention of promoting "peace?"

In the past week Pope Benedict further reiterated his full solidarity with Jews with Judaism, and condemned the holocaust and warned against its "denial." Why speak against a friend, which is promoting the values Jews (and all people of good will) uphold?

In fact, Pope Benedict is demanding that the SSPX bishops (including Williamson) fully embrace the II Vatican Council (withd its condemnations of anti-semitism and recognition of the tragedy of the holocaust) before being accepted into full communion with the Church (they are still suspended). He lifted their excommunications to open* a dialogue with them on these matters, a pre-condition they set. Nothing good comes to Jews or Christians as long as traditionalist Catholics are left alone to their anti-semitism and religious intolerance.

I would respond to the Rabbi. He goes back centuries to the Inquisition etc. Isn't that like Christians going back centuries to blame Judaism for persecuting the early Christians? Didn't Judaism try and execute Christians in the 1st century? Wasn't that their version of the Inquisition? Is it really fruitful to constantly replay past hatreds?

Likewise, why is it a Jewish Rabbi's business who Catholics elect as their Pope? Do we now get to have veto power over who becomes a Jewish Rabbi? It is the Catholic Church's business who we ordain and how we view homosexuality. Why does this Rabbi believe he should dictate to us what our beliefs and practices should be? If he wants to support liberation theology he can do so, but I note he has no understanding of why Pope Benedict was critical of it. Just as he is clueless as to why there is an attempt to reconcile the SSPX.

I am also curious why the Rabbi defends Islamic militancy which is often focused on Jews. He might also consider the statements of Pope John Paul II on the crusades. In addition he might consider that the Pope is deeply concerned with the persecuted Christian minorities in Islamic countries. Obviously the Rabbi is unconcerned with the murder of Christians.

Bl. John XXIII is Pope of the same Church as Pope Benedict. The Rabbi might be surprised at how traditional Bl. John was, read his journal. By insulting our Pope and our Church he insults Bl. John as well.

This letter and the Rabbi are full of malice and hatred. It literally drips from every word. It is more then rude. It is vile bigotry. I see no shalom in it at all. This man is no Rabbi and I urge my Jewish brothers and sisters to repudiate his hate. If anyone is a villain here it is this "Rabbi."
Fr. Jim

I would hope that as folks think on these things, we seek to understand the issues in their historical context. "I know you are, but what am I?," probably won't move us toward the understanding that we all seek.

Thanks Alexander, but that's really my problem with this post. Throwing around the label "villain" (pretty much, "I know what you are, but what am I?") doesn't bring us one step closer to understanding.

Thank you for what you do, though.

Fr.Jim and Hugo,

I appreciate many things Ratzinger states. It was my understanding also that He objects to the idea that the Holocaust did not occur.

I see many "crosscurrents" in the "Rabbi's" post that possibly affect his judgment on this issue.

Perhaps one clouding issue lies here. "I expressed deep unhappiness and anger at the elevation of this enemy of liberation theology (the best hope of Christian "renewal" as well as the best hope of the poor in Latin America and elsewhere)."

regards,
pat

Fr Jim,

If Rabbi Arthur Waskow had not used the words "villain" or "pissing" would you still say he is insulting the Pope and the Church and that this letter is full of malice?

Heather, yes. Those are only 2 examples. Virtually every word is a calculated insult to my faith. He admits that and seems proud of it. Does he strike you as a kind grandfatherly type? Me neither.

Fr Jim,
You wrote: "Does he strike you as a kind grandfatherly type?"

Did you not see his Santa Claus beard? And his chubby ear-to-ear grin and geeky glasses?

Seriously, though, Rabbi Arthur Waskow did not say anything we haven't heard before - that there were religious persecution atrocities in the past. And surely you aren't surprised that Rabbi Arthur is displeased with the Pope reinstatement of Bishop Richard? Can you blame him for that in and of itself?

"Villain," "pissing"?

THIS admittedly "rude" piece is written with the intention of promoting "peace..."

I believe you will find the last term used in the OT, so it has a rich heritage from the Jews.

Today, rather than promoting peace, there are many very prominent religious folk who are bent on fomenting verbal warfare, which is always the precursor to open and militant arrogant power.

This letter and the Rabbi are full of malice and hatred. It literally drips from every word. It is more then rude. It is vile bigotry. I see no shalom in it at all. This man is no Rabbi and I urge my Jewish brothers and sisters to repudiate his hate. If anyone is a villain here it is this "Rabbi."

**************************************************************
Fr. Jim,

While I agree with you that this rabbi hurtfully oversteps to make his point, I would also say that he is spot on about the main point...the reinstatement of a Holocaust denier by this pope.

Why should righteous anger (and that's what this is) be equated with malice and hatred? The Holocaust is among the most vile atrocities to ever be perpetrated against any group within the human family. And now this pope has reinstated someone to office who basically denies that it ever happened!

The Rabbi's anger, albeit with some strong and even regrettable language and associations, is justified in the face of such ridiculous insensitivity! I remember Jesus calling the religious power brokers of his day "a brood of vipers" and "white washed tombs." Hardly politically correct language either.

I have just noticed a pattern in your posts, Fr. Jim, that if anyone strongly disagrees with your positions or crosses your sensibilities, you label them as filled with hate or dishonesty, etc. It's easier to label than to try and understand where another individual...in this case one who has been deeply wounded by Ratzinger's decision...is coming from.

Why would this man be so deeply incensed? Because he hates Catholics? Or is it because in his eyes a collective wound has been callously reopened by Catholic leadership? Which reason seems more reasonable to believe?

Thanks...

Frank

Frank and all others,

Is this statement by Hugo correct? If so, why the outrage?

"In fact, Pope Benedict is demanding that the SSPX bishops (including Williamson) fully embrace the II Vatican Council (withd its condemnations of anti-semitism and recognition of the tragedy of the holocaust) before being accepted into full communion with the Church (they are still suspended).Hugo"

regards.
pat

What might be lost on some here is that Rabbi Waskow employs his own faith terms in his impassioned prophetic call. Note that he uses "Rebbe," not "Pope" or "pastor" to critique Ratzinger's continued trampling on other faiths.

He does not challenge within another's ecclesiastical language.

This fine detail, a characteristic of open and honest multireligious dialogue, is unfortunately not followed by others.

He is not alone in this. "The Jerusalem Post's editorial page has now called for suspending official relations between Jewish groups and the Vatican."

The WaPo also notes:

"This raises all sorts of questions about the consistency of the church's own self-understanding," said George Weigel, author of several books about Benedict and John Paul II. "How does this advance the unity of the church if they are reconciled [without embracing church positions on religious freedom and anti-Semitism?]"

I don't see anything in Rabbi Waskow's language that lies outside the minor prophet tradition of strong language.

As Heather asks, the more important question is, is this Ratzinger narrative, pointing away from healing the nations and multireligious understanding, true? It's easy to let personality and word choice get in the way of the facts when we disagree. It happens to me too.

Why elevate a Holocaust denier with concomitant antisemitism toward the stated goal of looking at how he could exercise his ministry in the Catholic Church?

And are we really at the point where it's news that the Pope affirms that the Holocaust happened?

Fr. Jim

Take heart Rabbis said and did far worse to Jesus for even less cause.

One can disagree without being disagreable. I think the present Pope appears more conservative than any of the past three. That does not call for vile language--it is just an observation.

If the Jewish leaders want to bring up the past direct them to Gen.34. Now there is some history!
Tom

There is much that can be said on the subjects raised; it is unfortunate that they were raised in such tawdry fashion. Clearly Waskow has issues with traditional Christianity (and Orthodox Judaism) on the role of women, homosexuality, etc. His left-leaning politics lead him to favor that blend of Marxism and Christianity called "Liberation Theology." His basic hostility to Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI stems from these issues.

He misrepresents Benedict's Regensburg lecture--it appears he only read the Reuters report.

All that said, many Jewish organizations, and many friends of those organizations, are concerned about the lifting of the excommunications of the four SSPX bishops.

Let us be clear about what has happened and what has not. The excommunications, declared by Pope John Paul II in 1988 because of their illicit ordinations, have been lifted. They were not excommunicated because of their views on Judaism or Vatican 2. They were excommunicated because they were ordained by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre without Vatican approval.

Having been illicitly ordained, they never had jurisdiction as bishops. They still do not. The lifting of the excommunications does not give them faculties; it does not give any recognized status to the SSPX as a society of consecrated life; it does not give approval to any of the chapels, seminaries, or other institutions of the SSPX. Those things are yet to be determined, and the Pope and other Vatican officials have said that the matter of their acceptance of Vatican 2 will be taken into consideration.

That said, there are serious issues with the SSPX (and other "traditionalist" factions). They reject the Vatican 2 documents Nostra Aetate (on other religions), Dignitatis Humanae (on religious liberty), and Unitatis Redintegratio (on other Christians).

Williamson isn't the only problem. Traditionalist groups are rife with antisemitism. The SSPX bookstore in Dickinson, TX, sells antisemitic publications like "The International Jew" (by Henry Ford) and "Waters Flowing Eastward," both of which are commentaries on "The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion." The SSPX publication, "The Angelus," has had many antisemitic articles. Other "traditionalist" publications like "The Remnant" and "Culture Wars" have more of the same. Some years ago I caught Catholic apologist Robert Sungenis plagiarizing various antisemitic documents in a tirade he published against the US Catholic bishops for a document giving an update on Catholic-Jewish dialogue.

These issues have not been addressed publicly by the Vatican or the USCCB.

There is still residual anger in the Jewish community over the Catholic church's response to Mel Gibson's "Passion of the Christ." Gibson was raised in a traditionalist family. His sources, including Mary of Agreda and Anne Catherine Emmerich, are notoriously antisemitic. A joint committee of noted Jewish and Catholic scholars raised issues--and plenty of people in the Catholic hierarchy, e.g., Archbishop Charles Chaput of Denver, eagerly defended Gibson while slapping down the critics. Other bishops refused to meet with local Jewish leaders to hear their concerns and hurt.

The issue of the SSPX bishops has opened up a lot of raw wounds. Will either party benefit by folks like Waskow rubbing salt in them?

Heather, the lifting of the excommunication was related to the illicit ordinations. It had nothing to do with the bishop's statement. The Pope has already addressed it. If we are to be blamed for past atrocities then how can Jews object to Christians bringing up their atrocities. He isn't really interested in that though. He is just using them for effect. The man is simply a hatemonger and according to Jewish sources his own ordination is questionable.

Frank, shall I make a statement about the SDA church using the Rabbi's invective? Shall we label EGW a villain? Will that create shalom and good will? I notice a pattern also. The Catholic Church is fair game and when someone objects they are immediately attacked. As I have pointed out, as a canonist, the lifting of the excommunication was unrelated to any of his statements. I have looked up this Rabbi. He is a marxist who has supported extreme positions. Even other Jews have been shocked at his support for terrorist groups who actually have killed Jews. He admits that he is rude and fully intends to insult us. So how can you be surprised when we are insulted?

Pat is correct. They are still not in full communion. To become so they will have to accept Nostra Aetate.

Alex, so my response was "prophetic". Therefore none should complain about it.

Tom, how is this guys letter even pertinent for Spectrum? Fortunately he doesn't seem to have much of a following. I can take heart in that fact.

Bill basically has it correct. Although we should note that Gibson's movie did not lead to massive pogroms in the streets. I had to put up with the DaVinci Code and no one met with me to hear my pain lol.

Fr.Jim,

So you are not mislead by my objectivity on this subject...the RCC is still wrong about JBF "alone." ;~)

regards,
pat

Fr Jim

It is always safer to discuss someone else's disputes than one's own. It is the old let's you and him fight syndrome.

Down here in Dixie both the Jews and the Catholics have had a rough time. A Roman Catholic friend of mine as a visiting nurse carried a hand gun in her car traveling through clan country, sometimes she wouldn't get home until after dark.

As a young boy, I have seen a cross burning in front of the Priest's residence in our little town. (set a blaze by "God fearing men!"in white sheets and white hoods) Tom

Posting Rabbi Waskow's letter was a real mitzvah, Alexander, thank-you.

This deep into the 21st century, his reminder of the progress, humanity and hope that marked the years of Pope John XXIII may be as important as his judgment on the fear, rigidity and intolerance that Pope Benedict XVI seems to be at least making room for. It is a reminder that piety and deep, religious devotion can (and of course, ought) to be compatible with openness, acceptance and the drawing of wider circles.

The Rabbi makes some strong points, in some strong language, but let's not exaggerate things. He was certainly not the only interested observer (in and out of the Catholic Church) who was worried by the election of Ratzinger. And I sure hope he is not the only one in the Spectrum or Adventist communities who are worried about the recognition of the dangerously regressive Society of St. Pius X, or who condemn Richard Williamson and his hateful views.

According to the Washington Post(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/28/AR200901...),

Williamson: "In recent weeks, ... has denied that the Holocaust occurred, and in the past has written that women should not attend universities, empathized with the Unabomber's views on modern technology and suggested that the U.S. government staged the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks as an excuse to invade Afghanistan."

It seems odd that some here would obsess with the Rabbi's use of the word "piss" (I admit to having a weakness for bodily function metaphors myself) and ignore the kind of ugly hate and ignorance embodied by Williamson.

Frank
Thank you for your observations.
I'm still waiting for the first pertinent word from Jim about the issue of the Popes reinstatement of Bishop Williamson.

Pat asked:
Frank and all others,
Is this statement by Hugo correct? If so, why the outrage?

"In fact, Pope Benedict is demanding that the SSPX bishops (including Williamson) fully embrace the II Vatican Council (with its condemnations of anti-semitism and recognition of the tragedy of the holocaust) before being accepted into full communion with the Church (they are still suspended)."
***************

From what I can tell (see Reuters http://uk.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUKTRE50O1BU20090125?pageNumber=2...)

Benedict's decision to lift the excommunication represents a concession to SSPX (which still sees the Vatican as "in error"). Previously SSPX was supposed to accept Vatican II before excommunication was lifted, but Benedict has decided to lift the excommunication first, and then enter into negotiation with the SSPX priests on specific issues. Reuters reports that: "SSPX leader Bishop Fellay told his followers the bishops remain opposed to some Vatican II reforms, so it is not sure they will agree to them in negotiations that could take several years."

I am not sure if any of this matters much anyway. In the video Alex posted Williamson says that he is not interested in the word antisemitism and that it is not "antisemitic if it is true" (and he has demonstrated that his understanding of "truth" is quite mad). I should think Williamson would be able to rationalize agreement with a number of statements that might seem formally to endorse VII without changing in substance his hateful and irrational views.

Right Thinking Rules... (yes, it's a play on words)

As a non-Adventist (and a non-non-denominational Christian... i.e., just a Christian... not even non-denominational) and a visitor of less than 2 months to this SpectrumMagazine.org site...

... I am now not surprised an iota that a Marxist rabbi who is against the "elevation of this enemy of liberation theology"... a leftist political trojan horse in "universal church" history if there ever was one... is adduced to discuss the Roman Catholic denomination's choice of it's own head bishop and a specific action of his as head of the RCC.

Since I don't keep up with the latest minor controversies of any denomination... such as issues that may be here today and gone tomorrow, although the ramifications may transcend time... the implications are interesting to consider regarding the reinstatement of an individual priest who

>> "continues his history of denying the Holocaust
>> "defining down antisemitism
>> "and protesting against politically incorrect speech."

Since the discussion here is not a major world issue such as the neo-nazi Muslim 3rd jihad being waged by those who want submission under Sharia Law to their god and their prophet, a baseball analogy seems to fit the overall seriousness of the thread...

... it looks like Bishop Williamson has a commendable .333 batting average... he should be protesting against politically incorrect speech... shouldn't we all?

And when a Marxist rabbi says that the current Pope was "appointed by his right-wing predecessor" to a previous position... it just shows how center-of-the-road the previous Pope was and the current Pope is... and how far left of the common sense center Marxism was and still is.

If President Ronald Reagan had been give a choice in the matter as to who would help him subdue the Russian bear and tear down the wall that was a visible symbol of a foolish ideology, could he have picked better associates than the right thinking Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher the right thinking Pope John Paul II?

I don't think so.

Lift Up Jesus Only and Jesus Will Lift You Up
See You At The Resurrection

Art
http://www.LiftUpJesusOnly.net

Aubyn, so insulting the Catholic Church and our Pope is a mitzvah? That is a strange way to look at mitzvahs. If you have read any recent articles you will discover that the excommunication was not lifted because of Williamson's comments. In fact it seems that most at the Vatican didn't even know he had made them. The intolerance here is entirely from the "Rabbi."

Michael, read the above paragraph. Even Cardinal Schonborn said that they were probably unaware of what he said. Perhaps you could read Pope Benedict's own response? Although I warn you in advance it might offend your anti-Catholic sensibilities.

Tom, I suspect this Rabbi would not mind burning a cross on Pope Benedict's lawn. He has done so with his words.

Father Jim, you reach an odd conclusion. I tried to explain the blessing I found in the Rabbi's letter, and you will not find anything in there about insulting the Catholic Church or the Pope. Indeed, far from insulting the Church, the Rabbi is re-stating his deep and abiding respect for the Church and its principles, and calling on it, and the Pope, to use these to chart the course through important decisions.

It appears you and I disagree on whether, in fact, the current Pope's actions have veered off from the true principles of Christianity and the Catholic church as expressed in Vatican II and the ministry of John XXIII. I am interested in hearing more about your views and how you would elaborate and defend them. But we do not disagree on the need to respect the Church and the office of the Pope.

Fr Jim,
When I wrote "religious persecution atrocities" I was pointing to no religion in particular.

You wrote: "If we are to be blamed for past atrocities then how can Jews object to Christians bringing up their atrocities." This blog is about a man who the Pope has put into a position of power, even though the man is ambiguous about being called an "anti-semite" and he downplays the number of deaths from the Holocaust by denying anybody ever died in a gas chamber. Either you agree with what the Pope has done, or you do not.

Man has been full of hate from the fall--murder is the second sin recorded. It has taken CyberSpace to make it universally apparant. Wow, Why does an impersonal technology impel such
uncouth exchanges as have recently exploded on several Spectrum blogs. Certainly the Rabbi's reaction to a controversial figure was over the top and the responses often equally obnoxious.

It started with Joe McCarthy and was perfected by Newt
It is about to destroy civil discourse in politics and now religion. The person of interest, the Bishop, has a history about as strident as the Rabbi. Why take sides in such a cat fight?

But we have our own Clif. Agree or disagree but let us not be disagreable. Words like liar, villain come off the keyboard
a lot easier that a face to face oral confrontation. Some comments come very close to slander. Come on guys, the two opponents at the head of this blog deserve each other--we don't need to encourage either one. Tom

Tom,
It's called rooting for the underdog; not fair, but a human response to unequal fights.

Roman Catholics make up 17.3% of the world
Jews make up 0.2% of the world

http://www.shamash.org/lists/scj-faq/HTML//faq/02-22.html

Thanks Heather for a good analogy.

Did you note that the first murder was over religion?

Tom

Either you agree with what the Pope has done, or you do not.

Posted by: Heather M May (not verified) | 30 January 2009 at 6:21

I'm still waiting on a pertinent word from Jim in response to the question we all perceived immediately and you stated in your post.
Apparently Jim cant fathom it, as simple as it is, although he does get a lot of exercise, even if it is ony jumping to conclusions.

[Michael - this last sentence is unacceptable! If you don't follow the guidelines more closely a post like this will be deleted. You know better. - Website Editor]

Mea Culpa. I considered Jims accusations of being anti Catholic to be jumping to unwarrented conclusions.
Still, I accept the warning. Thanks.

"This blog is about a man who the Pope has put into a position of power..."

And here's the misunderstanding. The Pope has not put Richard Williamson into a position of power. He lifted his excommunication; what that means is that he can now legitimately go to communion, among other privileges. He has no "position of power." He has no office. He has no authority. While his ordination as a priest and bishop is valid, the latter remains illicit. He has no jurisdiction. He has not been appointed to any ministry by the pope. If you don't get this essential point, this whole conversation is pointless.

Here, here.

The gedolim have a problem, and it is Jesus Christ.

Jesus predicted their problems a long time ago when He said:

"Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye."

You see, the Rabbis like to make believe (and many actually believe it) that they are part of an unbroken chain of tradition stretching all the way back to Moses. This is the line of legitimacy behind their seminal text--the Talmud.
In reality Judaism today is a departure from what existed from Mount Sinai because of two (maybe three) momentous changes in Jewish life:

1. The Babylonian exile.
2. The coming of Christ and the establishment of his church.
3. The destruction of the Temple and the second Jewish diaspora.

I argue that Judaism today retains its identity in large part as a reaction to Christianity or what we might call for now "The Great Inversion"--whereby a small, stubborn sect within a majority Jewish world switches places and the new reality becomes: Judaism is a small sect in a Christian world.

For now, in practice, this means that Orthodox Jews in particular are deathly afraid of Christianity (conversion). So much so that they cannot even bear the thought even when it works in their favor. New converts to Judaism are de facto second-class Jews (Jews will deny this vehemently until the topic of sidduch comes up and true colors come out). It's so bad, that even baal teshuvas (Jews who move back to greater observance) are only slightly above converts.

And so, there must be a constant atmosphere of tension between Jews and the Catholic church or Christianity in general because this is considered the ultimate threat to Jewishness--Christianity.

You may not know this but:

1. A Jew can be any religion he or she wishes--even atheist, but as soon as he or she converts to Christianity he/she ceases to be a Jew.
A Jew who embraces Hinduism, for example is an "apostate Jew", but one who embraces Jesus as Messiah is not considered Jewish at all.
(This is true for Jewish Law and Israeli law.)

2. Many Orthodox interpretations of halacha (Jewish Law) prevent Jews from even setting foot inside a church.

So this is what it's all about. There must be a constant fear of Christianity and Christians at all times to prevent conversions.
That is why we had numerous predictions of blood in the streets of the USA after Christians came out of the theaters from seeing The Passion of the Christ. We all know what became of that...

It is also why Jewish leaders insist on using the Catholic Church as a proxy for "Christianity" in general.

The church is a simple target easy to pillory and its crimes easy to document.

It is inconvenient for it to be known that the Catholic Church also persecuted other Christians (Protestants), because then it would be impossible to hold up a consistent and monolithic narrative about "Christians" as "doing more harm to the Jews than the Nazis ever did" and even as "the inventors of Anti-Semitism".

This is why they base their objections to Christian behaviours as close to Christian theology as possible.

1. Supercessionism is Anti-semitic.
2. Missionary work is Anti-semitic.

Especially missionary work. Just the very thought that Jews should consider Christianity unleashes a flurry of outrage every time.

This serves all branches of Judaism equally might I add.

Liberal Jews can tamp down on a moral culture that is to the right of them and Orthodox Jews get to maintain the integrity of Judaism in its current form. Everybody wins.

3. The very crucifixion is Anti-semitic.

And if Christianity is not about the crucifixion then it it about nothing at all.

But then the Bible did predict that the cross would be a stumbling block for Jews way, way back when it was written.

Largely though, as I said above, Judaism still suffers from the problems Jesus met it with.
The gedolim determine what is and is not Judaism. They...

Wait!

Right!

They, much like the Catholic Church (in Christian matters), maintain that the lay man is incapable of interpreting Jewish law for himself and needs the guiding hand of a rabbi or posek.

The Bible as written is held to be impossible to interpret, and incomplete without the "Oral Law" passed down in an unbroken chain from Moses to the rabbis today. This "Oral Law" reinterpets the plain text of the Bible and many times even contradicts it. It does it today as it did years ago.
Go to Wikipedia, for example and look up what an "eruv" is. Or you might want to google the term "Shabbos goy" or "Sabbath goy".

You should go to Youtube and search for "Michael L. Brown". He has some good snippets that will explain this further.

"This blog is about a man who the Pope has put into a position of power..."
And here's the misunderstanding. The Pope has not put Richard Williamson into a position of power. He lifted his excommunication; what that means is that he can now legitimately go to communion, among other privileges. He has no "position of power." He has no office. He has no authority. While his ordination as a priest and bishop is valid, the latter remains illicit. He has no jurisdiction. He has not been appointed to any ministry by the pope. If you don't get this essential point, this whole conversation is pointless.
Posted by: Bill Cork | 30 January 2009 at 10:51
------------------------------------------
This is correct, correct, correct!

The post here is misleading.

The Bishop has not been "reinstated".

This dives into the intricacies of Canon Law that we now wish we had Samuele Bacciochi (?) to explain.

This is an extremely bold-faced move by the Jewish leadership--and I explained why above.

The Bishop was excommunicated for his illegal ordination--not anything to do with his views on the Holocaust (which is not an excommunicable offense).

If you had done something wrong to me and I decided to forgive you; and then my neighbor ran in breathlessly and demanded I not forgive you for what you did to be because you had done something to him--I would indeed laugh to his face.
Why should my forgiveness of you be contingent upon something completely unrelated that you did to somebody else?

It shouldn't.

The Jewish leadership would never tolerate such an intrusion by Christians into matters of Jewish Law for example (like in Jewish religious courts).

Aubyn, is English your first language! Re-read the letter. Note what he calls the Holy Father. Villain is not a nice word and he admits he is intentionally rude. If I wrote such a letter to someone they would probably think I was hostile and they would be right. His remarks are bigoted. He has no understanding of Catholicism, absolutely none. Bl. John was an orthodox Catholic who would find nothing out of line with Pope Benedict. Read his Journal of a Soul and you will see.

Heather, as has been pointed out the Pope has not put him in a position of power. In fact he was excommunicated for illicitly being ordained. That is the penalty that was lifted. He is still not in full communion with us. Bill has it right, and since Bill and I don't get along that means something.

Tom, I have met Newt. He is a very nice guy. In fact he is in the process of becoming Catholic.

Father Jim: Yes, English is my first language.

I am not sure I see much of anything else in your last post that I can respond to. It does seem that we disagree about a couple of things here (I think Pope Benedict and Pope John XXIII differ significantly; I think Pope Benedict's recent rescinding of the excommunications sends a hateful and divisive message to the rest of the religious community; I think Rabbi Waskow's condemnation of the Pope's recent actions is appropriate). We can leave it there if you like. If you want to have a conversation about it, feel free to explain why you disagree with me. If you just want to re-state your disagreement with me, I will be happy to let you have the last word.

Please do not get your religious news from Reuters or the Washington Post or any other secular news agency. They don't know what they are talking about. Look at sources that do. In the case of the Vatican, check with John Allen before you start hyperventilating. He's got a good article about this whole situation here: http://ncrcafe.org/node/2382

Bill, I appreciate your caution about getting reliable news about specialized areas from the general press. I have now read the Allen article that you referred us to, but I was unable to find anything in it that contradicted the information in the Reuters or WaPo articles that I read. Did you have something in particular in mind?

What was different in the Allen article was his attempt to defend the Pope as basically a victim of his own PR incompetence. That is a nice try, but I don't find it convincing. I think that what we have learned from this and other recent episodes is that this Pope cares more about turning back the clock on the advances of the modern Catholic Church than he does about confronting hatred and intolerance in his own communion. I don't think Benedict is a holocaust denier himself; but he has not found the formula for affirming his own faith without disparaging others (or giving encouragement to those who would attack the faith of others).

Bill, I also read the Allen piece as well as the official Church press releases before I published Rabbi Waskow's letter and I also fail to see your point. While in general, there are problems, as Get Religion and others note about the MSM, I haven't seen anything specific from you about how the WaPo got it wrong.

Noting as Allen writes, it was an act of "paternal mercy" raises some serious questions about Ratzinger's priorities, given the fact that Williamson's views were well known. Can we agree that having the Pope lift your excommunication is kind of a big deal, an honor, if you will? Does Williamson deserve that honor? Watch the video again. It seems to me to be a dishonoring of Jews and their experience for the Pope to honor Williamson.

In his Jan. 28 explanation, I think it's rich that the Pope defends his action by invoking the idea of "unity" and explaining that he thinks that the bishops have "suffered" enough.

I understand the need to pull in the SSPX (I like the Latin mass), but 3 out of 4 should be good enough, unless the SSPX priests and laity (who have never been excommunicated) support Williamson (you've nicely noted some reactionary tendencies), which then raises some questions about their basic understanding of truth, mercy and good faith?

"Shimon Samuels of the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Paris said he understood the German-born pope's desire for Christian unity, but said Benedict could have excluded Williamson. He warned that his rehabilitation will have a 'political cost' for the Vatican."

And just so we move away from the meme that it's just "Jews and liberals" who find Ratzinger's actions (not PR spin) unconscionably, here's conservative former altar boy Christopher Buckley's appraisal: http://tinyurl.com/cz5awn

"This repugnant episode is surely to the Vatican what Abu Ghraib was to the Pentagon. No, actually, worse."

But I forgot, the real issue here is that a Jew called someone who honored a Holocaust denier a "villain." Also, I believe that Fr. Jim has offered up a classic gross generalization, a logical fallacy.

He blasts Rabbi Waskow:"He has no understanding of Catholicism, absolutely none."

To quote Rabbi Waskow: "When Pope John XXIII died -- Giuseppe Roncalli, a gentle, humble mensch in personal life, protector of the Jews in his bailiwick during the Holocaust, the "window-opener" of the dead and dusty church, the instigator of aggorniamento, who called Vatican Council II, who ended the "deicide" charge against the Jews, who issued to all the peoples of the earth the brilliant and prophetic pastoral letter called "Pacem in Terris" about the banning of nuclear weapons -- when he died, I walked in tears to the Catholic church nearest me in Washington DC and left a note of sorrow."

Let's model unity and keep this discussion logical and focused on better understanding the issues.

First, this was not done to "to curry favor with 'conservative Catholics.'" Conservative Catholics abound in most every parish; conservative Catholics are simply Catholics who accept basic Catholic teaching, frequent the sacraments, love the pope. This was done, rather, to further dialogue with a schismatic group of self-described Traditionalists. Very, very, very different.

As to the accuracy of the WAPO, it says the bishops were "reinstated." It implies they now have some authority. No. Their excommunication was lifted. That is all. The WAPO and other sources really have no sense of what excommunication is, and what it is not.

The fact is, like it or not, the Catholic church never excommunicates someone for what they think. None of those martyrs of the left, criticism of whom led folks like Waskow to brand Ratzinger a tyrant long before he became pope, were ever excommunicated. Hans Kung, though unable to teach theology, is still a priest in good standing and a member in good standing--and a friend of the pope's. Charlie Curran, though unable to teach theology at a pontifical faculty (he could have chosen to teach religion and stayed at CUA), remains a priest in good standing of the Diocese of Rochester. Gustavo Gutierrez was not excommunicated; he remains a priest in good standing, though now in the Dominican Order. Likewise Elizabeth Schussler Fiorenza remains a Catholic in good standing, despite her feminist theology. Miguel d'Escoto had his faculties suspended, but he was never laicized nor excommunicated, despite his scandalous involvement in the Marxist Sandinista regime. Fernando Cardenal remains a Jesuit in good standing. It seems God's rottweiler doesn't have very sharp teeth after all.

Nor does the Catholic church excommunicate people for moral failings. Neither Bernard Law nor Roger Mahony was excommunicated, or deprived of their archepiscopal dignity, for their manifest bunglings in the sexual abuse crisis. No priest has been excommunicated for buggery of altar boys. This is unfortunate, I think, and a cause for genuine outrage, but I don't make the rules for that church.

The Catholic church doesn't think moral or theological failings should deprive one of the sacraments. The Catholic church believes that the sacraments are means of grace--someone who is sinful needs the sacraments, especially penance and the Eucharist.

Excommunication is used to underscore a break in discipline--whether it was illicit ordinations of bishops (Lefebvre and his colleagues) or illicit ordinations of women (Bourgeois recently).

This is not "rehabilitation"; it is not "reinstatement." This is about letting people go to confession and go to mass. This "honor" is given to every seven year old child; it isn't taken away from a murderer, a rapist, a thief, or a heretic. I've never been excommunicated--all I would have to do to be reconciled with the Catholic church would be to go to confession. That's a simple act that Williamson and the others were denied because they were seen as defiant to the pope.

By way of comparison, it is well to remember that Seventh-day Adventists, while we may remove someone from membership, never deprive them from communion.

Why do you want the Catholic Church to do what you would not expect your own church to do?

The real question is, what next? Will the society be regularized knowing it is infected with rabid antisemitism? That's to be seen. And the good part of this tempest is that people are now talking about this. For many years I've tried to get Catholics and Jews to talk about this issue ... no one has been interested. I've purchased copies of antisemitic books defending "The Protocols" at an SSPX bookstore and showed them to Jews and Catholics without getting them to raise an eyebrow. The whole "Passion of the Christ" business demonstrated quite clearly that official Catholicism doesn't want to deal with the issue of antisemitism in the Traditionalist fringe even when it is flamboyantly thrust in their faces by a vocal and talented filmmaker with an SSPX background. Mel Gibson, despite adhering to schismatic groups, was welcomed with open arms as a faithful Catholic at the USCCB offices and many chanceries, and those Catholic scholars who pointed out the antisemitism of his sources were slappped on the wrist. Let's not overlook the forest by concentrating on Williamson.

Final point. You really could have gotten a more credible spokesperson for the Jewish community. Maybe Waskow should look into the matter of how Marxists have treated Jews ... in Russia ... in Poland ... in Venezuela today.

"Shimon Samuels of the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Paris said he understood the German-born pope's desire for Christian unity, but said Benedict could have excluded Williamson. He warned that his rehabilitation will have a 'political cost' for the Vatican."
---------------------

Mr. Carpenter, you must read that again.
This is a matter of Canon Law and it is inappropriate for outside parties to impose themselves on the situation in ways they would never, ever allow others to do to them. This is simply unheard of in religion.
Some of the same parties have tried the same thing with the Latin Mass.

The Jewish leadership didn't like it when they were forced to expunge large tracts of the Talmud during the Middle Ages because the church was offended by it. There are still things in there that would appall many of our sensibilities today; but few people are holding their feet to the fire as a condition of acceptance. We have no right to demand changes to Jewish Law that we don't feel comfortable with as outsiders.

The excommunication had nothing to do with the man's Holocaust views and to stall a legal procedure (since he has no flock to lead) in another religion entirely, based on unrelated objections by an outside party is quite bold.
Maybe it should be allowed, but the people who are doing it should acknowledge how brazen a move it is. Who knows; maybe priests will have observer roles on battei din now.

Aubyn, I can only take from this that you don't understand why the excommunication was imposed or lifted. It has already been explained repeatedly. Also I guess that expressions of hatred and bigotry towards Catholicism are not matters of concern for you. That pretty much sums things up.

Alex, of course you defend the Rabbi's hateful remarks. The Pope did not "honor" Williamson. He lifted a penalty. That is the issue to focus on if you want to model unity. Pope Benedict was at Vatican II and agrees with it. You have shown a lack of understanding of the Catholic faith yourself. Again Bill corrects you and he isn't Catholic. (Although he should note that in addition to excommunication there are expiatory penalties that are imposed on clerics who violate the 6th commandment.)

"(Although he should note that in addition to excommunication there are expiatory penalties that are imposed on clerics who violate the 6th commandment.)"

Point taken.

Father Jim wrote: "Aubyn, I can only take from this that you don't understand why the excommunication was imposed or lifted. It has already been explained repeatedly. Also I guess that expressions of hatred and bigotry towards Catholicism are not matters of concern for you. That pretty much sums things up."
***************

It is not clear what the "this" is from which you draw your conclusion about my understanding of the excommunication issues under discussion. Looking back, it seems you might be referring to this (but I am not sure):

"I think Pope Benedict's recent rescinding of the excommunications sends a hateful and divisive message to the rest of the religious community"

If I have identified the right reference, then you are confusing not understanding why the priests were excommunicated or reinstated with disagreeing with your interpretation of what these actions mean. I have earlier in this exchange noted the reasons for the lifting of the excommunication, and why I think it was a mistake. If you want to engage in a conversation about why your interpretation of that is better than mine, I will be happy to read and then respond to your view.

Your exit line about my not caring about hatred and bigotry against Catholics is not worthy of you Father. Again, I have previously (and repeatedly) argued that the Rabbi's letter was an affirmation of Catholicism, and a call to return to the fullness of the path set by John XXIII. You appear to disagree, which I accept, and I am interested in your reasons for doing so, but I am less interested in your mudslinging.

Why don't we wipe clean the slate and start this conversation again? Let me make three brief points, and then you can explain why you agree or disagree.

1. Bishop Williamson's views on a wide variety of topics (e.g. The Holocaust, antisemitism, 9/11) are irrational, hateful, and inconsistent with the Gospel and the teachings of the Church (quite aside from issues of excommunication).

2. Pope John XXIII and Vatican II moved the teaching and practice of the Catholic Church forward and closer to Gospel ideals.

3. Pope Benedict XVI has, both before and after his ascension, tried to move the Church back from Vatican II and the direction and spirit of John XXIII, and to this extent has been a reactionary and regressive force.

The Jews have distanced themselves from Pope in Europe, well many of them. To understand what Ratzinger is all about you have to know that one of his major themes is the 'tyranny of relativism...' I agree, but absolute truth cannot be imposed by force, Christianity made earliest coverts through their love as revealed by their suffering, as Tertullian sai, the blood of martyr's is the seed of faith..." The Pope's direction seems to be that the west needs strong leadership, he is pushing for to be seen as a pope who won't compromise... According to kung he has betrayed his once liberal stance, and in fact he is opposed to the modern music in some of the modern masses, believing Gregorian chanting is more appropriate. But, the danger is, is the link between the Pope and power, between anti-relativism and power, what are the implications of ratzinger's doctrine. Last year, our catholic bishop threatened to excommunicate politicians who voted for stem cell research. its not just a conspiracy man the popo wants to use islam and the lost state of the west to unite the west under the banner of the papacy, diversionary tactics. Even philosophically he pushes Hellenistic culture. The central theme in his first encyclical was the need for an experience of true eros (in its uncontaminated form) to keep the energy for agape'. This is neo-platonism, as millions have made sacrifice being devoid of a feeling but were strong in faith.

Fr. Jim,
Does the reinstated have to repent of his views before being allowed to take the sacraments again?

Aubyn--"Pope Benedict XVI has, both before and after his ascension, tried to move the Church back from Vatican II and the direction and spirit of John XXIII, and to this extent has been a reactionary and regressive force."

That's a historically invalid point. Instead, he (a participant at Vatican II as a peritus), along with John Paul II (an active participant at Vatican II as a bishop), sought to draw people's attention to what was actually said and done at Vatican II. That council had been hijacked in subsequent years by those who emphasized some nebulous "spirit of Vatican 2" instead of its actual teachings. In point of fact, Ratzinger/Benedict still represents what was the "liberal" position at Vatican 2, the "conservative" position at that Council being represented by folks like Ottaviani and Lefebvre. Kung wanted to go beyond VC2. Where Ratzinger as a young theologian pulled back was when he saw the violence of student movements in the 60s, and knew that was not a direction Christians could support.

Aubyn--"Pope John XXIII and Vatican II moved the teaching and practice of the Catholic Church forward and closer to Gospel ideals."

I'm not sure what that means. John XXIII called it, and presided over its first session, but he died and Paul VI presided over the rest of it. "Closer to Gospel ideals"? It changed no Catholic doctrines.

Friend--"According to kung he has betrayed his once liberal stance, and in fact he is opposed to the modern music in some of the modern masses, believing Gregorian chanting is more appropriate"

Why is Kung the arbiter of Ratzinger's theology or biography?

As to music, Vatican 2 said, "The Church acknowledges Gregorian chant as specially suited to the Roman liturgy: therefore, other things being equal, it should be given pride of place in liturgical services. But other kinds of sacred music, especially polyphony, are by no means excluded from liturgical celebrations, so long as they accord with the spirit of the liturgical action, as laid down in Art. 30." SC 116

Aubyn, mudslinging? If I call you a villain and admit I am trying to insult you would that be mudslinging? I really am astounded. You act insulted because I am insulted. The Rabbi's letter was a masterpiece of propaganda and invective. The fact that you don't get it really confuses me. Are we reading the same letter? The Rabbi is NOT complimenting the Catholic Church. He is expressing his hatred towards my faith. I certainly get that. It is unworthy of you to dismiss this mans vile bigotry and pretend that he is being nice.

I am a canon lawyer and I will explain exactly, again, what the Pope's action means. These 4 bishops incurred the penalty of excommunication for being illicitly ordained as bishops without a papal mandate. That penalty was lifted. They remain outside full communion and are still suspended. In order to enter full communion they must accept Vatican II and receive their canonical mission from the Pope. The lifting of the penalty had NOTHING to do with what Willamson said (which the Pope was probably unaware of anyway and has responded too already). Lifting the penalty does not mean that the Church approves of all or any statements or positions these 4 men have taken. I can't make it any clearer then that.

1. I didn't know their views. I don't follow SSPX news. Like the Pope I condemned his remarks. Perhaps I could ask you your opinions on the views of David Koresh? If that seems unfair...then think about it.

2. Vatican II was one council. We have had many and all of them issued authoritative statements. We see Vatican II in the context of all the Church's councils. It did not begin some "new" Church. It is the same Church and faith as the council of Trent. Look at the footnotes of the Vatican II documents. Bl. John was a great Pope, but so was John Paul II, and currently Benedict XVI.

Bl. John said this at the beginning of Vatican II: "The Councils -- both the twenty ecumenical ones and the numberless others, also important, of a provincial or regional character which have been held down through the years -- all prove clearly the vigor of the Catholic Church and are recorded as shining lights in her annals.

In calling this vast assembly of bishops, the latest and humble successor to the Prince of the Apostles who is addressing you intended to assert once again the Magisterium (teaching authority), which is unfailing and perdures until the end of time, in order that this Magisterium, taking into account the errors, the requirements, and the opportunities of our time, might be presented in exceptional form to all men throughout the world.

It is but natural that in opening this Universal Council we should like to look to the past and to listen to its voices whose echo we like to hear in the memories and the merits of the more recent and ancient Pontiffs, our predecessors. These are solemn and venerable voices, throughout the East and the West, from the fourth century to the Middle Ages, and from there to modern times, which have handed down their witness to those Councils. They are voices which proclaim in perennial fervor the triumph of that divine and human institution, the Church of Christ, which from Jesus takes its name, its grace, and its meaning."

"The greatest concern of the Ecumenical Council is this: that the sacred deposit of Christian doctrine should be guarded and taught more
efficaciously. That doctrine embraces the whole of man, composed as he is of body and soul. And, since he is a pilgrim on this earth, it commands him to tend always toward heaven."

"The manner in which sacred doctrine is spread, this having been established, it becomes clear how much is expected from the Council in regard to doctrine. That is, the Twenty-first Ecumenical Council, which will draw upon the effective and important wealth of juridical, liturgical, apostolic, and administrative experiences, wishes to transmit the doctrine, pure and integral, without any attenuation or distortion, which throughout twenty centuries, notwithstanding difficulties and contrasts, has become the common patrimony of men. It is a patrimony not well received by all, but always a rich treasure available to men of good will.

Our duty is not only to guard this precious treasure, as if we were concerned only with antiquity, but to dedicate ourselves with an earnest
will and without fear to that work which our era demands of us, pursuing thus the path which the Church has followed for twenty centuries."

3. Pope Benedict was a periti at Vatican II. He quotes the council frequently. He is in complete accord with the council. Read the documents of Vatican II and compare them to his words and actions.

friend, he would have to recant any views contrary to the faith and then make a profession of faith. Your bishop was correct that we should not kill babies to use their stem cells for research. That is not neo-platonism, it's Christianity. Kung has betrayed the Catholic faith, which is why he cannot teach as a Catholic theologian. It is not a conspiracy for the Pope to want to unite Christianity. He does not see Islam as much of an ally, see his Regensburg address. Please avoid conspiracy theories.

Vatican turnaround: Holocaust denier must recant
Buzz Up Send

VATICAN CITY – The Vatican, bowing to the growing furor over Pope Benedict XVI's decision to accept a return to the church of a prelate who denied the Holocaust, made a dramatic turnaround Wednesday and demanded the bishop recant.

The Vatican sought to distance the pope from the controversy by saying he did not know about British Bishop Richard Williamson's views when he agreed to lift his excommunication last month.

In the surprisingly public spat, some leading cardinals in Germany and at the Vatican blamed unidentified aides for not fully briefing the pope.

The controversy provided a rare look at the cracks in the Vatican's facade of unity and raised questions about the advice the pope receives and his access to information. Papal aides say Benedict, a former university professor and theologian, receives a daily news summary and occasionally watches television.

The statement was issued by the Vatican's Secretariat of State a day after German Chancellor Angela Merkel urged the pope to make a clearer rejection of Holocaust denials. Top German church officials, Jewish groups and the head of the U.S. bishops conference also condemned Williamson.

In a sign of just how much the Vatican had misread the public mood, the secretary of state, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, was quoted Tuesday as saying he considered the matter "closed" after Benedict issued a lengthy denunciation of Holocaust deniers last week.

Rabbi Marvin Hier, founder of the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles, said he took Benedict at his word that he didn't know about Williamson's views, but said he couldn't believe Vatican aides didn't do more research to better inform the pope.

"This was absolutely a matter that was bungled at the highest levels of the Vatican," Hier said. "If they Googled the name `Bishop Williamson,' they'd find out he was a Holocaust denier. This did not require advanced research at the Vatican Library or Oxford."

"Everybody knows he's an anti-Semite," since Williamson has been vocal about his views, making speeches and publishing a blog, Hier said. "The other Holocaust deniers are rabid, anti-Semites who can't claim any legitimacy. But when a person calls himself bishop and he was invited back into the Catholic Church by none other than the pope, he brings with him an aura of legitimacy. And that legitimacy stains the pope. So the pope today finally made the right decision, that (Williamson) must recant."

Williamson was shown on Swedish state television just days before the lifting of his excommunication was announced on Jan. 24, acknowledging his view that "there was not one Jew killed by the gas chambers" during World War II.

He said historical evidence "is hugely against 6 million Jews having been deliberately gassed in gas chambers as a deliberate policy of Adolf Hitler."

Williamson subsequently apologized to the pope for having stirred controversy, but he did not repudiate his comments, in which he also said only 200,000 to 300,000 Jews were killed by the Nazis and none were gassed.

"Germany has paid out billions and billions of deutschmarks and now euros because the Germans have a guilt complex about their having gassed 6 million Jews. Well, I don't think 6 million Jews were gassed," he said.

The controversy threatened to mar Benedict's strong record in building Catholic-Jewish relations, which included visits to the Nazi Auschwitz death camp in Poland and synagogues in Germany and the United States.

Jewish leaders welcomed the Vatican's move Wednesday.

"Had all this been expressed at the outset, we could have avoided the unnecessary damage and distress," Rabbi David Rosen, international director of interreligious affairs of the American Jewish Committee, said in an e-mail following Wednesday's statement.

Williamson and three other bishops were excommunicated in 1988 after they were consecrated by the late ultraconservative Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre without papal consent.

Lefebvre founded the traditionalist Society of St. Pius X in 1969, which opposes the liberalizing reforms of the Second Vatican Council, including its outreach to Jews.

The Holy See said when it announced the rehabilitation of the bishops that removing the excommunication did not mean the Vatican shared Williamson's views.

In the statement Wednesday, the Vatican said that while Williamson's excommunication had been lifted, he still had no canonical function in the church because he was consecrated illegitimately by Lefebvre.

"Bishop Williamson, in order to be admitted to episcopal functions within the church, will have to take his distance, in an absolutely unequivocal and public fashion, from his position on the Shoah, which the Holy Father was not aware of when the excommunication was lifted," the statement said. Shoah is the Hebrew word for the Holocaust.

In addition to its demand of Williamson, the Vatican said the society as a whole must fully recognize the teachings of Vatican II and all the popes who came during and after it in order to have a legitimate canonical function in the church.

Jewish groups praised the Vatican statement, saying it satisfied their key demand. "This was the sign the Jewish world has been waiting for," said Ronald Lauder, president of the World Jewish Congress.

Elan Steinberg, vice president of the American Gathering of Holocaust Survivors and their Descendants, thanked Merkel for her "righteous comments" and said the process of healing the "deep wound that this crisis caused to the Catholic-Jewish dialogue" could now begin.

Last week, Benedict said he felt "full and indisputable solidarity" with Jews and warned against any denial of the full horror of the Nazi genocide, but his comments fell short of demands the bishop be publicly reprimanded.

There was no answer to several calls placed Wednesday to Williamson's home in La Reja, Argentina. Williamson could face charges in Germany, where he was interviewed by Swedish TV. State prosecutors have opened a preliminary investigation into whether Williamson broke German laws against Holocaust denial
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090204/ap_on_re_eu/eu_vatican_jews

VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- The Vatican said a traditionalist bishop who has minimized the full extent of the Holocaust must disavow his positions before he will be accepted into full communion with the church.

A Vatican statement Feb. 4 said Pope Benedict XVI did not know about the controversial statements by British-born Bishop Richard Williamson when he lifted the excommunication of him and three other traditionalist bishops ordained illicitly in 1988.

"The positions of Bishop Williamson on the Holocaust are absolutely unacceptable and are strongly rejected by the Holy Father," the statement said.

In order to function as a bishop, Bishop Williamson must distance himself from his previous statements in "an absolutely unequivocal and public manner," the Vatican said.

In a statement meant to deflect the increasing public outcry over the papal decree lifting the excommunication, the Vatican said the decree did not change the juridical status of the traditionalist Society of St. Pius X, which still has no canonical recognition in the Catholic Church.

The society was founded by French Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, who also incurred automatic excommunication when he ordained the four bishops against papal orders. The society has not accepted the liturgical reforms of the Second Vatican Council and its concepts of religious freedom and ecumenism.

The statement from the Secretariat of State said the society would have to recognize the teachings of Vatican II and of post-conciliar popes to be in full communion.

It said the four bishops at present do not have a canonical function in the church and "do not licitly exercise a ministry in the church."

The Vatican has emphasized that even after the removal of the excommunications remaining problems need to be resolved before full communion can be established with the society's leadership and members.

The Secretariat of State statement -- like a statement the previous day from the Vatican press spokesman, Jesuit Father Federico Lombardi -- reiterated the German-born pope's remarks at his Jan. 28 audience, in which he recalled the suffering of Jews during World War II and said the Holocaust should stand as a "warning to everyone against forgetting, denying or minimizing" evil.

Father Lombardi said the pope's words at the general audience were "unequivocal."

The spokesman said the pope had spoken about the horror of the Holocaust in his 2005 visit to a German synagogue and in his 2006 visit to the Nazi death camp at Auschwitz. He said the papal statement at the Jan. 28 audience "could not have been clearer, and from the context it is apparent that it referred to the positions of Bishop Williamson and to all similar positions."

"On the same occasion, the pope also clearly expressed the reason for removing the excommunication, which has nothing to do with legitimizing positions denying the Holocaust -- positions which were clearly condemned by the pope," the spokesman said.

Father Lombardi's statement was released by the Vatican press office late the same day that German Chancellor Angela Merkel said the pope and the Vatican needed to make clear there could be no denial of the Holocaust.

At a news conference in Berlin Feb. 3, Merkel said she normally did not comment on church matters "but we are talking about fundamental questions."

"This is not just a matter, in my opinion, for the Christian, Catholic and Jewish communities in Germany, but the pope and the Vatican should clarify unambiguously that there can be no denial" of the Holocaust, she said.

On Jan. 21, the same day the pope lifted the excommunication, a Swedish television station aired a November interview with Bishop Williamson in which he repeated his position that the Holocaust had been exaggerated.

The papal decree lifting the excommunication was made public Jan. 24 and Jewish groups -- especially in Germany, the U.S. and Israel --expressed shock that the Vatican would lift the excommunication against Bishop Williamson even after his comments had been televised.

German Cardinal Walter Kasper, who coordinates the Vatican's dialogue with the Jews, said the controversy was fueled in part by a lack of communication within the Vatican and by "management errors in the Curia."

Cardinal Kasper said he has been following the unfolding controversy "with great concern."

He said the pope "wanted to open the discussion because he wanted unity inside and outside" the church. But the cardinal said he "would have also liked to see more communication in advance."

Thanks Alexander, but that's really my problem with this post. Throwing around the label "villain" (pretty much, "I know what you are, but what am I?") doesn't bring us one step closer to understanding.

Thank you for what you do, though.

You're all frighteningly serious and erudite, but could you please indulge a simple passer-by and answer a few questions?

"Ratzinger was not and is not God's rebbe. He was a villain before he became Pope, and he is a villain still."

- Why was he a villain before he became Pope? (I've read the explanations above as to why he still is one, no need to go into that.)

"Roncalli, livrakha tzaddik zikhrono, was indeed a saint, and one proof that he was is that Ratzinger’s Church will not name him one..."

- Did the Church refuse to sanctify John XXIII?
- If so, where can I find proof of this? (I thought he had been beatified and that the usual procedures were being followed, but obviously Rabbi Waskow has other information.)

"Ratzinger may have been "the rebbe" of that dead assemblage of the Cardinals appointed by his right-wing predecessor."

- Would I be correct in thinking that this is an insult to Pope John Paul II and all the Cardinals of the Church?

Sandy

Would you settle for intemperate? Someting like the tone of the blogs on this site?

One could cite some actions coming out of Takoma Park as irrational as out of the Vatican. Men in power are not necessarily men in the right.

Some go with the flow and others buck it--both get labeled by one side or the other. Why not stick to issues rather than labels. Tom

Thanks for your diplomatic reply, Tom. I was hoping that someone would answer my four questions, all of which I asked for a reason, but perhaps that's why I'm not getting any replies?

I think Fr. Jim is right when he says the Rabbi knows nothing about Catholicism. Walking to the nearest church in tears and leaving a note when John XXIII died doesn't denote knowledge and understanding of Catholicism, as Alexander Carpenter seems to be saying.

Here in South Africa we have a talk radio station where attitudes like the Rabbi's are the rule, not the exception, and the comments from Jewish callers are positively savage and clearly intended to provoke anger in the Catholic community. We are not permitted to ask any questions of the other side, that is anti-semitism. It's disappointing to see that things are the same in your neck of the woods.

If one wants to understand the Roman Catholic Church at its best, one must read Thomas Cahill's Pope John XXIII.

If one wants to understand Western Civilization one must read Thomas Cahill's Hinges of History.

The problem with Adventism is the preponderance of apologists and critics. Barnhouse and Martin came as close as anyone to bring understanding to a movement that didn't even understand itself and still doesn't.

There is a liberal/conservative tension growing within that
makes the Ford/Brimsmead years look tame.

I think Spectrum is part of the catalyst on the liberal side. What that holds for the future, I don't know.

I hope it is ecumenical and truly evangelical, even Christ like. Not some hermit like self absobed doomsday hair shirted groupies. A good start would be John R. W. Stott's God's New Society a commentary on the Epistle to the Ephesians. Tom

Argentine seminary ousts Holocaust-denying bishop
Associated Press Writer – 2 hrs 14 mins ago AP
BUENOS AIRES, Argentina – The bishop whose rehabilitation by the Vatican sparked outrage because of his denials of the Holocaust has been removed as the head of an Argentine seminary, his superiors said Monday.

The ultraconservative Society of St. Pius X, which is trying to reconcile with the Vatican, announced it had dismissed British Bishop Richard Williamson as director of the La Reja seminary and distanced itself from his views.

Williamson's views about the Holocaust created an uproar last month when Pope Benedict XVI lifted his excommunication and that of three other bishops consecrated by the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.

Lefebvre founded the Society of St. Pius X in 1969 in opposition to the liberalizing reforms of the Second Vatican Council, particularly its outreach to Jews.

In an interview broadcast Jan. 21, Williamson told Swedish state TV that no Jews were gassed during the Holocaust and only 200,000 to 300,000 were killed, not 6 million.

"The statements from Monsignor Williamson do not in any way reflect the position of our congregation," the Rev. Christian Bouchacourt, South American superior for the Society of St. Pius X in Buenos Aires, said in a statement e-mailed to The Associated Press.

"A Catholic bishop cannot speak with ecclesiastical authority except on matters concerning faith and morality. Our brotherhood does not claim any authority over other questions."

Williamson also questioned the Holocaust while serving as rector of the St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary in Winona, Minn., between 1988 and 2003.

According to the Anti-Defamation League, Williamson declared in a 1989 speech that "Jews made up the Holocaust, Protestants get their orders from the devil and the Vatican has sold its soul to liberalism."

"There was not one Jew killed in the gas chambers. It was all lies, lies, lies," Williamson said in the speech at Notre-Dame-de-Lourdes church in Sherbrooke, Quebec, the Jewish group said in a report posted Jan. 26 on the Internet.

He was quoted as asserting that "the Jews created the Holocaust so we would prostrate ourselves on our knees before them and approve of their new state of Israel."

The bishop also wrote a rector's letter on Sept. 1, 2002, blaming "Judeo-Masonry" for the two world wars and claiming that Jews were bent on world domination, according to the seminary's Internet archive of monthly messages to friends and benefactors.

In the rector's letter for Nov. 3, 1991, Williamson noted he had gotten a strong reaction when he said in the past that "certain famous `Holocaust gas-chambers' in Poland cannot have served as gas-chambers at all."

The comment came in a complaint about women's liberation and media acceptance of the Holocaust. "Truly, `I believe in the Holy Ghost and the Communion of Saints' has been replaced by `I believe in the Holo Caust and the Emancipation of Women'!" he wrote.

After the pope lifted Williamson's excommunication, Israel's chief rabbinate suspended a planned meeting in March to discuss Catholic and Jewish religious teachings.

Last week, the Vatican demanded Williamson recant before he can be admitted as a bishop in the Roman Catholic Church.

Rabbi David Rosen, a longtime participant in Vatican-Jewish dialogue, said Monday that thanks to the new Vatican demand, the meeting would probably take place at the end of March.

Representatives of the World Jewish Congress expressed optimism about Vatican-Jewish relations after meeting with top Vatican officials Monday. A group of American Jewish leaders planned to meet with the pope Thursday to commend him for his "firm stand" on Williamson.

The Vatican statement requiring Williamson to recant "provided exactly what we had been calling for," Rosen said in an e-mail. "Had it been issued 10 days earlier, we could have avoided much distress and damage, above all for the image of the Holy See itself."

A prominent Argentine rabbi, Daniel Goldman, on Monday welcomed Williamson's dismissal from the seminary near Buenos Aires, saying the bishop's statements "demonstrate that there are still people in the world today who are instilled with Nazism," according to the Jewish News Agency in Buenos Aires.

"We have to continue working for education and justice to ensure that these forces do not triumph."

In Nuremberg, Germany, meanwhile, a court said Monday it has rejected an attempt by Williamson to block Internet transmission of the Swedish TV interview.

The court said it found no grounds for limiting distribution of the interview that took place in Germany, saying the bishop would have had to make clear to the station beforehand any limitations on its distribution.

The German weekly Der Spiegel reported Saturday that Williamson did not plan to immediately comply with the Vatican's demand that he recant and that he had rejected a suggestion he might visit the former Auschwitz death camp.

Williamson said he would correct himself if he was satisfied by the evidence, but insisted that examining it would take time, Der Spiegel said.

Several efforts by the AP to reach Williamson at his home in La Reja were unsuccessful.

___

Associated Press writer Nicole Winfield in Rome and investigative researcher Randy Herschaft in New York contributed to this report.

Tom, I don't think Cahill is the best guide to Catholicism. I think the catechism might be better. Journal of a Soul by Bl. John XXIII is his autobiography. If you want to understand him then that is the book to read.

Sandy, I believe you are correct. We have been insulted in a calculated way.

Thanks Jim I'll certainly get the book. I am a fan. Tom

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/feb/09021007.html

I am not sure much about the site but here is a report from them:

Rabbi Speaks on Pope Benedict Controversy: Leftist Catholics Using Jews to Attack the Pope
Says, "church hierarchy should take strong action in dealing with this type of insurrection"

I thought that was a little interesting, although it is unclear in some parts.

Essentially there are folks who hate Pope Benedict. Some of them are ultra-liberal Catholics. They are using this situation to attack him. They don't care about the Jews. Most support Hamas. They don't care that the lifting of the excommunication had nothing to do with Jews. They are just piggybacking on the issue to try and weaken Pope Benedict. It won't work.