All right, let’s switch the conversation up here.
The reactions are in, most very predictably focusing on Williamson and ignoring the complexities of the situation.
I’m going to try my best to stay out of the prediction business, but I think a realistic understanding of the issues and the people involved indicates that this is a long, long way from finished. SSPX adherents have varying attitudes towards the Church since Vatican II, and varying attitudes about the Popes since Pius XII, but there are enough of them at all levels whose stances range from “contemptuous disdain” to “heresy-hunting” to make any real rapprochement either very far in the future or having the consequence of splitting the movement and leadership.
Take a look at the society’s media brochure regarding the lifting of the excommunications.
What interests me more are three other issues:
- What this prompts in any Catholic’s thinking about his or her relationship to the Church. Is our motto, “diversity for me, but not for thee?” or perhaps even, “obedience for thee, but not for me?” Do we profess experiencing the vapors when others do what we’re doing, but in relationship to other issues?
- Our thinking on the Second Vatican Council. This became public, not only in the Week of Christian Unity, but on the 50th anniversary of John XXIII’s announcement of the Council. VERY significant. The Pope wants us all, on all sides, to reflect on the Council and consider what it was really about, the fruit, and where we can go from here.
- The miserable tragedy of Vatican public relations.
Things are not as bad as they could be, nor as bad as they used to be. But the folks in the Vatican, despite their website, radio, television and YouTube channel, are still not grasping the RAPIDITY of communications in the modern world and how intense and deep the dispersal of information is and what power the means of communications beyond traditional venues like wire agencies and such have in pushing stories and determining storylines.
We’ve talked about this before in relation to other issues – other documents and decisions. The Vatican releases it, maybe has a press conference with a few experts, Father Lombardi is available…and that’s it.
The first thing that needs to happen is to involve people who can anticipate reactions. Any of us reading this blog are qualified for that job. It should be blindingly clear, with Williamson doing his thing recently, as well as his history, that that was going to be the story. It would be the story, not just because of Williamson, but because Benedict is a German and already bears the burden of the caricature of being a hard-nosed hater of all that is modern.
The second thing to do is have a more intense PR presence totally available in Rome.
The third is to bring in the national churches. This is tricky because quite often those national churches and their episcopal conferences are not thrilled about what the Vatican is doing, or at the very least have no interest in it. Too bad. At this point, I don’t understand why there is not (at least why there doesn’t appear to be) an organized network in which heads of communications in the various local Churches are informed ahead of time what is coming down, given talking points and guidance, and told to make themselves available. This story is huge right not, whether it deserves to be or not, and if things were working correctly, the communications people from episcopal conferences would contact media outlets themselves, and said…doing a story? Contact us. We’re ready to explain and discuss.
Ross Douthat has more on this:
This is a price worth paying, hopefully, for the sake of closing unnecessary divisions, but the price wouldn’t be nearly so steep if the Vatican had a better sense of how to do public relations in a controversial case like this. The average reporter or commentator isn’t going to understand the nuances of canon law, the history and background of the SSPX, the context of the excommunications, the status of these bishops post-excommunication, and so forth. What the average journalist does understand, though, is how to write this headline: “Pope Rehabilitates Holocaust-Denying Bishop.” And while the potential for bad publicity shouldn’t prevent the Vatican from showing mercy to excommunicants when appropriate, it should incentivize wrapping any such mercy in a forceful, detailed, “Catholicism and canon law for dummies” explanation of what such an action doesn’t mean: In this case, an endorsement of poisonous anti-semitism and conspiracy theorizing.
And this is exactly what hasn’t been forthcoming. Oh, the Papal spokesman said that Williamson’s Holocaust-denying remarks were “completely indefensible,” and L’Osservatore Romano had an editorial (not yet translated into English, of course) stating that the decision “should not be sullied with unacceptable revisionist opinions and attitudes with regard to the Jews.” But in the contemporary media environment, that’s not good enough. If the Pope de-excommunicates a Holocaust denier, the Vatican press office should be working around the clock, with press releases flying, to provide context and do damage control. What’s more, if the Pope de-excommunicates a Holocaust denier, the Pope himself needs to say something about it, and not just obliquely nod to the decision in his latest homily. Yes, the Church’s primary business is saving souls, not public relations – but in this day and age, public relations is part of the business of saving souls. And nobody in Rome, from Benedict on down, seems to have figured that out.
Yes, you are absolutely right. How do we get the people in Rome to listen? What has been happening this week is such a mess. A tragedy, as the Holy Father has up until now really emerged as the truly good person that he is – and now this week’s chaos has reintroduced a caricature. This must not be allowed to linger. What actio can we all take?
Also, one should be careful about playing too quickly the “Pope can only bind on matters of faith and morals, not mere facts” card – first, consider that it may be the case here that there is not quite an absolute chasm between those spheres.
The Pope may not bind on matters of fact, but invidious diminution of an event that has been about as thoroughly documented as any event in human history (perhaps even more document than any – the number of first-hand witness is staggering) may well venture into violation of the commandment against bearing false witness and, given Williamson’s position, easily merit public discipline.
Interesting note on the national churches. This story apparently failed to make the News Section of the American Catholic Bishops’ webpage.
What amuses me (or infuriates me, but I suppose it is better to be amused) is that PR is what got the thing going in the first place. “Go out and tell the Good News” or something to that effect. For which modern media (at the time) was employed and genres invented (e.g. – a gospel.)
I think that “Vatican thinks in centuries” bit is one handicap. Good on the one hand to not just be knee jerk reactors. Bad on the other, when it takes about ten minutes for something to be zinging around the world on the web.
The other handicap is the bubble. Obama hopes to avoid it, but jolly good luck. Gone are the days when someone could just put on one’s hat and take a stroll around to hear what folks are up to. And this bubble has hardened with the centuries anyway. (And it includes a lot more people than the Pope.) So, it all makes perfect sense within the bubble. (“What is so hard to see, the difference between an excommunication for schism and sin of anti-Semitism. We understand it. It is all perfectly clear.”) Yeah, but as you noted, they don’t even think of how this is going to play in the NYTimes. Let alone the British press.
I find myself in my own bubble at times. (“How could you schedule this mandatory meeting on the night of the finals for American Idol!?!?!?” This is how I found out about American Idol About fours years after eveyone else.) Multiply that bubble by 1500 years and herein lies the problem.
According to a post by Tom McFeely on the National Catholic Register website, “the Vatican wasn’t even aware of Bishop Williamson’s Holocaust-questioning comments on Jan. 21, the day Pope Benedict XVI signed the Vatican decree lifting the excommunications.” The post however cites no source for this statement. (The link is below.)
Even if the Vatican knew or should have known what a cretin this “bishop” is, I’m dubious that any amount of PR could have avoided the adverse publicity. The “Vatican lifts ex-communication of holocaust-denier” headline is way too appealing for the press to go with any other focus. I remain amazed at the way the press deliberately blew up the Regensberg address, which gave the press much, much less to work with. Given what the press did with the Regensberg address, it is, in my opinion, naive to think that additional PR effort by the Vatican would have resulted in fairer coverage of this matter.
http://www.ncregister.com/daily/ending_excomms_wasnt_anti_jewish/
“The Pope may not bind on matters of fact, but invidious diminution of an event that has been about as thoroughly documented as any event in human history (perhaps even more document than any – the number of first-hand witness is staggering) may well venture into violation of the commandment against bearing false witness and, given Williamson’s position, easily merit public discipline.”
Under which canon, out of curiosity???
“What this prompts in any Catholic’s thinking about his or her relationship to the Church. Is our motto, “diversity for me, but not for thee?” or perhaps even, “obedience for thee, but not for me?” Do we profess experiencing the vapors when others do what we’re doing, but in relationship to other issues?”
Exactly. This event just means the door is open for lots of discussion on lots of things if these folks are in the fold. In all fairness, Hans Kung had dinner with the Pope early on, “God is Love” was the first encyclical- bringing no cheers to the right wing in its appearance, and many of the right’s hated liturgists, liturgies, etc. existed far longer in the papal retinue than the right desired. The past year and a half are a little in contrast to the right’s disappointing first few years of this papacy.
And the SSPX media response-fantastic spin. Genius-evil genius but still genius. Gotta respect that. And considering the study I’ve made of these types of right wing groups, like Legionnaries, etc. utterly predictable. But nonetheless, this is brilliant.
With this type of controlled response, internal splits though are a far-off event. Take it from an intense observer of the right wing, conservative individuals adhere to leaders and leadership as a specific virtue and it takes enormous disruption to break the right wing adherent from the discipline of respecting and “following the leader.” This movement remains solid, its members loyal for at least the medium term-through this papacy and well into the next. This pamphlet just explained Benedict’s enormous mercy as: “It was out just due. About time.” Awesome.
Once again, though, I have less to say to these folks, have little interest in ever meeting them and have dramatically less communion with these folks-or their defenders- than, for example, my wonderful Hindu companions who work with the poor. Just saying.
Franklin
The Pope would not need a particular canon to find a way to restrict Williamson to a titular see for, say, some uninhabited oasis or atoll and forbid him from commenting on things outside his competence. Rome has done this before without specific canons being wielded.
Williamson needs to be addressed much sooner than later.
What Liam said. The Church can discipline without imposing excommunication. Think of the pedophile priests – some of whom were defrocked. Public censure is another discipline. Please go to Ross Douhat link who then links to a canon law post for fuller discussion.
Consistent with this, there are further “obstacles” to full communion generally for these four individuals in addition to the 1988 action for which the excommunication was lifted. These obstacles themselves need not be, and apparently are not, excommunicable actions. Why couldn’t the Vatican get it together (as Amy desires) ahead of time and privately discuss with Bishop Williamson HIS PARTICULAR obstacles before he can be brought in full communion and act in his office as a Bishop (or even priest) in the Roman Catholic Church. And I think once he was spoken to privately, and put on notice that it would have to be part of the public discussion (he made it a public matter after all), then the Vatican should have also put out its view of his particular requirements for full communion and ability to carry out his office. Assuming his views (which I agree with Liam constitute at the very least the appearance of a moral failure which should be unacceptable in a Bishop or a Priest) are an additional obstacle. It doesn’t matter whether these obstacles are excommunicable strictly speaking.
Todd
The followers of the SSPX have varying positions regarding the Second Vatican Council. Unfortunately, other members of the Church have problems with many of the other Ecumenical Councils in the history of the Church. The SSPX is not the only faction within the Church to question an Ecumenical Council.
Every time a priest of the Church celebrates the Novus Ordo as a rupture, he is questioning the Ecumenical Councils before that have vigorously promoted Latin and Gregorian Chant. Every time a seminary professor teaches the Church doesn’t do this or that since Vatican II, that teacher is dismissing the first 1962 years of the Church and is promoting the false idea that the Church is one thing one day and something totally different the next. (It doesn’t work that way.) When a priest refers to himself only as the “Presider” over the Eucharist, he is failing to accurately embrace the teaching of the Council of Trent that the priesthood is primarily about offering sacrifice, and on and on…
The SSPX has to recognize that Vatican II was a legitimate Council, BUT the rest of the Church also has to recognize that the other 20 Ecumenical Councils of the Church are legitimate, too. The Church did not begin with Vatican II in 1962. The only way to understand Vatican II is in continuity with what came before it. We have seen way too many ruptures in every aspect of Catholic life over the last 40 years. Thank God Pope Benedict is finally correcting this.
Also, there is room for legitimate criticism of the Second Vatican Council.
For example, Pope Benedict himself stated that certain parts of “Gaudium et Spes” are “downright Pelagian,” particularly in the treatment of free will in article 17. (Avery Cardinal Dulles article “Ratzinger to Benedict” found in “First Things”). As Joseph Ratzinger, the Pope also expressed concerns that “Gaudium et Spes” was overly optimistic and unbalanced.
As Cardinal Ratzinger, Pope Benedict also wrote:
“Not every valid council in the history of the Church has been a fruitful one; in the last analysis, MANY OF THEM HAVE BEEN JUST A WASTE OF TIME. Despite all the good to be found in the texts it produced, THE LAST WORD ABOUT THE HISTORICAL VALUE OF VATICAN COUNCIL II HAS YET TO BE SPOKEN.”—Joseph Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (Germany, 1982; Ignatius Press, 1987), p. 378”
Perhaps the Vatican wasn’t (and in particular Pope Benedict XVI since it is unclear who at the Holy See was aware of the lifting of the excommunications) aware of Williamson’s latest rantings about the Holocaust. But he has a long history of publicly stating his anti-semitic beliefs. Didn’t this make it into his “personnel file”?
Thank you for this information. As a non-Catholic Christian, I don’t pretend to know all the intricacies of this and therefore I pass no judgement. However, as an outsider, I too see the headlines on “Rehabilitation of Holocaust denier” and it doesn’t look good or seem to reflect well on the universal church. I agree that if the leaders make decisions of this kind, they ought to do some pro-active explanation and interpretation, as you say.
Why this belief that the Vatican must be so much better at PR? Because in this society, PR generally involves anything but truth. It is far from unprecedented in Church history, and in the Old Testament, that the truth was proclaimed for all to hear, but precious few wanted to hear the message. I think people must understand that what seems like gaffes and the bad play in the press, are not such but they are the result of wicked ears not hearing the truth when it is proclaimed to them. Poor PR does not produce headlines like “Hitler Youth Pope Rehabilitates Holocaust Denier” – corrupted hearts do. They hate the truth, will not bother to understand what the Church plainly tells them and listen with any sympathy, and then will twist what happens to libel the Church.
Despite all we know of how corrupt our media are in this day and age, we still seem to think that better appeals to them will somehow change their minds on the Church.
It’s not “appealing” to them – it’s giving them information broken down so they can understand it. It’s making it as simple as possible for them to be accurate. Not that they will, but as one who has studied religion and the press for years, a huge part of the problem of the Church and the press is that Church figures are not proactive in providing information and context. The vast majority – 99 % of reporters dealing with this story have NO BACKGROUND IN RELIGION, much less Catholicism. If we want a fighting chance – not to “appeal” to the media – but to help the media get the story even halfway right for the sake of the audience – we have to do a better job of providing information – and a big part of that is anticipating and understanding what people don’t understand and filling in the gaps ahead of time. It’s just like teaching, in that regard.
Why does the PR matter? Who cares what the media make of Williamson and try to use to smear the church? They don’t like us anyway, and the truth is already a smear to them; we oppose reproductive freedoms for women etc etc. Do you think one soul is lost because of media smears of the church? That is what “for the sake of the audience” means, isn’t it? I can’t see that anyone who is seeking the truth is going to be deceived by the various media teapot tempests which swirl by.
Susan Peterson
Liam: “The Pope may not bind on matters of fact, but invidious diminution of an event…[blah, blah, blah]”
Really, Liam, what’s next? The Pope pronouncing on every cleric’s personal opinion of every nondoctrinal thing? You’re being utterly ridiculous.
Todd: “Assuming his views (which I agree with Liam constitute at the very least the appearance of a moral failure which should be unacceptable in a Bishop or a Priest)”. H-m-m. Right. A personal view about the numbers involved in a complex historical occurence over several countries rises to a “moral” matter. Or maybe you would prefer “doctrinal”.
Why comment on it at all?
The Vatican could have put together lots of neat PR packets for the press, and the headlines would have been the same. I, for one, appreciate the Vatican’s indifference to the MSM. The facts are out there, easily accessible to any journalist; it’s really their fault if they are utterly uninterested in discovering them.
The rejection by the SSPX of V2 is, for me, a non-starter. More than half of my parish rejects the basics of the Catholic faith. “The Trinity? You’ve got to be kidding me! What are you, a traditionalist or something?” Should they be summarily excommunicated? And if you are going to start with the rebellious clerics; well, there’s Father McBrian and plenty others where he comes from. If you were to distribute a doctrinal check list, I suspect that the SSPX–priests, bishops, and laity–would score better than the average Catholic in good standing.
Archbishop Williamson’s statements are foolish, probably sinful, and an embarrassment to all traditionalists. However, they cannot compare in gravity to the sins of prelates who have not been relieved of their duties. If you compare him with Abp Mahony, for example, you will likely find that the latter has done far more real harm. The secular press can continue with their nonsense, but I will not be more upset about Abp Williamson than I am about Abp Mahony. I hope that both will disappear from the scene.
Here’s the really painful point to make: the SSPX may not want full communion, and they may be right not to want it. Thanks to the brilliant and holy Benedict XVI, it is now becoming mainstream to question the idea that the authentic liturgy and doctrine of the Church was born the 1960′s, and that everything that was taught and believed before that decade was a bunch of superstitious, bigoted nonsense. We have also begun to undo some of the brutal iconoclasm that has devastated our churches, art, music, and liturgy. However, we’ve made baby steps. None of it would have been possible without the SSPX’s rebellion. I can understand why even reasonable factions of the SSPX might now be very diffident about submitting themselves to the authority of the current hierarchy of the Church. They have Pope Benedict as their ally; but he has many, many enemies who hate the SSPX, and hate everything that they have managed stubbornly to preserve.
As Amy and others have pointed out, this has nothing to do with “rehabilitating” Archbishop Williams. I am convinced that the Pope genuinely believes that the excommunications did more harm than good, and that many souls–both SSPX and non–are in peril as a result. Yes, there are lots of cranks among the SSPX. But cranks are people too, and they need the Church just as much as non-cranks. (Indeed, as a card-carrying crank, I’d say that we need the Church even more than your average non-cranky human being.) Most SSPX-ers are people whose only desire is to be part of the Catholic Church established by Christ, and who have reacted to the shocking changes that have occurred since Vatican II. There have been times when I myself have wondered whether the “smoke of Satan” had entered the Church, and whether the SSPX weren’t right after all.
I, too, don’t see what the MSM has to do with any of this. If even there were plenty of advance notice and packets of information, it’s been clear for many years that the MSM is ideologically-driven. It’s not a question of reporting the facts or getting them right. That’s never mattered to them before this particular event.
Second, why should the Pope care? His obligation is higher than courting public opinion. And it cannot have been a surprise that Benedict would ease the sanctions against the SSPX; he’s been interested in ending this schism for more than twenty years.
Beyond the obvious benefit of (eventually) bringing the SSPX into full communion, I think, as Jason wrote, that it has been helpful in getting people to think about Vatican II, about what continuity and tradition really mean. It’s apparent that many of the blogs or commentators here believe, de facto, that Vatican II was a break with what had gone before, that Vatican II, though its avowed intent was pastoral and not dogmatic, has a stature higher than previous Councils or Church history and tradition.
And there still remains the problem with what the documents themselves say and how that relates to Church tradition. How does Lumen Gentium cohere with the way the Church defined itself before that? What is the real purpose of ecumenism, if a “return to Rome” is out of the equation? Other than cooperating on social issues, is there a point to ecumenism? It’s time we began to deal with the difficult questions that Vatican II left in its wake.
There have been times when I myself have wondered whether the “smoke of Satan” had entered the Church, and whether the SSPX weren’t right after all.
Why wondered when the phrase you use was said by no other than the very same Pope who saw Vatican II right to the end? If he saw it, then why did we pretend that everything is in “new springtime” mode?
The focus on Bishop Williamson is not surprising. He makes a great sound bite and everyone, including Bishop Fellay, knows he’s a loose cannon on deck. However, Feally himself, in disassociating the Fraternity from the comments of Williamson, has pointed out that one bishop cannot discipline another. (Readers will recall the frequent citing of that position by members of the USCCB.) If the SSPX and its bishops move back within the purview of Rome, then things can be handled differently.
It is manifestly unfair to demonize the entire Fraternity and its followers on the basis of one individual. Would anyone despise all the members of a diocese because they had a doctrinally unsound hierarch? Or one who was a nutcase, to be less elegant?
Of course it would be better if the Vatican did better PR, but based on the biases of the media and the powers that be, I’m not sure how much difference that would make in the reporting. Recent coverage of papal speeches shows that the press hears and reports its own story more often than what is actually said.
The miserable tragedy of Vatican public relations.
Nail, hammer, head. But the rapdity of response we seek is precisely what the eternal city has never been good at. To paraphrase FOC, the Church is good at crucifying itself.
But Benedict’s move reminds me of Christ forsaking the 99 (i.e. the MSM) in search of the lost one – the other 99 are scandalized by such a love. Especially in this Internet age when they can instantly read Williamson’s essays. I wonder how much even a rapid response team could help though. Catholicism in particular, and Christianity in general, suffers in a shallow, sensationalistic, soundbite age.
“The Pope would not need a particular canon to find a way to restrict Williamson to a titular see…”
Well, no. He doesn’t even have to give any of them so much as a titular see.
And, so far, not only has he not given any of them titular sees, he’s not indicated that he would. That they are material bishops is undeniable. That they will ever be allowed to licitly act as bishops of the Catholic Church is something which remains to be seen.
The simple fact is that these fellows can now receive the sacraments and a catholic burial, nothing else. And if they try to exercise episcopal power in any way, they’ll be right back where they were 7 days ago, barred from the sacraments and a plot of consecrated ground.
And for the record, I don’t wish to see them restricted to titular sees. My hope is that they live out their lives in prayerful contemplation cloistered somewhere, with all the rights, privileges and responsibilities of a brother. Not a licit priest, not a licit bishop. And that has nothing to do with Williamson’s disgusting anti-semitism and everything to do with their disobedience.
Sorry it took three posts to get clear in my thinking, but I don’t handle cold medicine well.
I find it odd that your idea of discipline is my idea of reward.
“However, Feally himself, in disassociating the Fraternity from the comments of Williamson …”
Only, he hasn’t.
He has merely stated that it is RW’s personal matter and secular views on which the SSPX has nothing to say.
But a bishop of God cannot be neutral towards evil.
Those going on and on about canon law should remember that this lifting of the excommunications was not done according to canon law but as an act of mercy (Easterners would say ‘oikonomia’).
Hence you cannot restrict this what acts merit excomunication according to canon law (and note that excomunication can be for moral reasons too – a wide field, even Castro and Peron got themselves excommunicated).
Lifting the excommunications now, under the circumstances was a grave mistake.
Not being prepared how to deal with it media-wise is foolish.
I don’t see why it was such a disaster. The news of the lifting came Saturday, yes there were rumors before that, but it came out Saturday. L’OR had a front page article going more in depth with all Monday morning, which is when most of the rest of the world got news of it. Not everybody is all wired up like most people out on the Internet on a daily basis, but yes we see the world and news through those lens (quick, quick, digital, news wires…etc), but most of the world is not there. There was truly a sad coincidence with this interview from last November coming out now, but I think the article on Monday was appropriate and someone was working on it Saturday or Sunday. It’s so easy to get caught up in things the “American way” and the way things work in this culture.
The key issue with the lifting of the excommunications is to take all possible measures to prevent these prelates from conferring the episcopacy on a new generation of Lefebvrites. No new bishops and the thing dies.
trp, I am with you. The most packed churches in our diocese are those with Latin Masses or High Sung Nuovo Ordus…in any combination of English and/or Latin. And btw, the latter is as beautiful and inspiring as any of the Masses I grew up with in the 50s and 60s. They are packed with young and old, families and singles, all who respond not only in English but in Latin and in chant. It is a joy to witness. Since there are only two SSPX chapels in our state, I wonder how many attending are SSPXers…as well as traditionalists and folks who value heritage.
An ethics professor said something quite simple but profound, kind of like a slap upside the head, “When Paul VI changed the Mass, that part of our faith which is the most sacred, it signaled to the faithful, that everything was up for grabs…”
Reading Paul VI’s reasoning and what he envisioned clearly shows that it was not a complete break with tradition, in fact, it was a harkening back to earlier times. However, he clearly did not read the ‘times’ or his flock well enough to see that in changing the most sacred elements of our faith, he was in fact opening a Pandora’s box and letting loose ‘the spirit of Vatican II’.
Satan was (and continues) lurking in the sanctuary.
We need to pray for Benedict and his mission to repair the damage wrought by this momentous change. I find a lot lacking in Vatican II but I also find a lot of wonderful and thoughtful thinking. The challenge is that few people read the documents, rather they let priests and professors tell them what they say, or interpret what they say. I have had many an argument with professor who tells the class what this or that document says or means only to find that upon reading the document, it says nothing of the kind or it says quite a bit more balancing out his ‘side’ of the story.
Very few people, lay or cleric, think with the mind of the Church anymore. And I am grateful that the Church works in centuries and is therefore not susceptible to the whims of the current culture. It may ‘pain’ us in the short run, but in the long run, the Holy Spirit works it out to the good, which is why studying Church history is so enlightening. To look at a snapshot is to see a lot of unpleasantness, but to see that unpleasantness within the context of a era is to see the Holy Spirit at work, protecting Christ’s Church.
I think it is we who have to be at the ready to undo whatever damage the MSM does with the innocence or ignorance of the Vatican. If the Vatican becomes too savvy, that means there will be people there who know how to manipulate new and we will have ‘the spirit of the Vatican’ to deal with.
You cannot discipline your runaway child until you persuade him to come home.
And if you are a good parent you will go out to look for him and bring him home.
And your first words to him when you do find him will not be, “Boy, are you gonna get it it when…”
I am surprised more of us aren’t concerned for the soul of our brother Richard Williamson.
(Save the Liturgy, Save the World)
str1977,
Those lecturing those concerned about canon law should also get their facts straight.
Castro was excommunicated for heading an atheist regime; Peron for banishing the Church, in bodies of Bishops Tato and Novoa, from Argentina.
Neither was excommunicated for being a brutal thug, but for breaking communion with the Catholic Church.
Amy, I think you are so right in terms of what the people in the media don’t know about religion and even history.
My two favorite breathless moments, both delivered by CNN reporters.
One, in December of 1990, as Lubavitcher Hasidim lit a huge menorah in Red Square for Hanukkah that year, “Something like this hasn’t been seen in Red Square since before the Revolution!” Sure, because Tsarist Russia was so friendly to Jews….
The second, as they covered John Paul II’s last trip to the hospital, “If the Pope dies now, it will throw the Roman Catholic Church into chaos, since he has never designated a successor!”
So, we expect them to understand this SSPX stuff? They haven’t even absorbed what they should have learned in 9th grade world history.
“Very few people, lay or cleric, think with the mind of the Church anymore.”
Precisely, well said.
I suggest that one thing the Vatican could have done to anticipate the likely international reaction would have been to consult the pontifical council responsible for relations with Judaism.
Apparantly Cardinal Kasper was not consulted.
I think that too often Benedict XVI has a penchant for acting without consulting to consider likely reactions to what he does.
God Bless
It will give lasting strength to the flock. Papa knows best, trust him.
Consider the blatant shameless heretics running amuck in the american catholic church (i.e., Pelosianism) and their substantial numbers. They are a huge threat to the body of Christ and to the life of the holy family. I’ll hedge my bets on the SSPX building up our church and standing up to preserve the health of the holy family and to combat modernism.
Remove the lace and show true face.
I was totally in agreement that the Vatican needs a new, up-to-date fast PR office. That is, until I looked at the quotation from L’Observatore Romano on the link. And I thought, who reads L’Observatore Romano – only pius geeks. If the Vatican had a PR office, probably that’s what it would be like – something only pious believers ever looked at or heard or read. And then I thought, Amy W and a dozen other RC bloggers in Anglophone countries, and their counterparts in other languages round the world *are* the Vatican PR office. Not just bloggers of course, but media people of all kinds, who are Catholics. Because, it’s a job only lay people can do. Because, it has to be done in a lay-ish way, not in Vatican speak. It can’t come from Vatican Officials. It has to come from the laity. So often we say, ‘something ought to be done’, when it is us who ought to do it. In this case, Amy, you already are doing the job you say needs doing.
cma,
You wrote, “Reading Paul VI’s reasoning and what he envisioned clearly shows that it was not a complete break with tradition, in fact, it was a harkening back to earlier times.”
Pope Pius XII had earlier condemned the concept of bringing back the liturgical practices of the Early Church.
Pope Pius XII warned in “Mediator Dei” that we must guard against a false antiquarianism. Even if it can be shown that a particular practice existed in the first few centuries of the Church’s life, that is no reason to return to a practice abandoned for over a millennia. The Holy Ghost has been working through history to refine and embellish and perfect the sacred Rites. The authentic understanding of an organic development of the Liturgy is that some practices fell into disuse for good reasons.
Chris Sullivan wrote “I suggest that one thing the Vatican could have done to anticipate the likely international reaction would have been to consult the pontifical council responsible for relations with Judaism.”
Right, run it by the non-believers and opponents first. Let them decide how and what you do. Good idea.
The Church didn’t understand the power of media back in the days of Luther–and look where that got us.
The RadTrads at Traditio.com are up in arms over the lifting of the excommunications because they see it as another step in the ongoing SSPX sell-out to NewRome! (Nary a word about the Williamson flap.)
I went to traditio-com and couldn’t see anything except ‘pre-Bugnini’ missals for sale. Probably a good thing – no doubt their opinions about current events are well beyond my charity threshold (it doesn’t take much).
Years ago, a friend of mine got mixed up with these people and ended up converting to this movement. One of the first things she did was share with me some literature that purported to “prove” that the concentration camp ovens couldn’t really have “handled” that many bodies. She had been a rational human being before this. Why do these people hate the Jews so much? They are incapable of acknowledging what happened to the Jews. There’s always a prepared rejoinder in conversations that goes somewhat like this: “Well, they weren’t the only ones who suffered, you know…” Where does this come from? Is it just plain, unreconstructed European antisemitism?
This friend, whom I helped convert to Catholicism, no longer associates with me because I am a “Modernist.” What makes me a “modernist”? My not being a member of SSPX. I’m like a plague that will harm her children.l
Timothy,
“The key issue with the lifting of the excommunications is to take all possible measures to prevent these prelates from conferring the episcopacy on a new generation of Lefebvrites. No new bishops and the thing dies.”
And how is that supposed to happen?
This is exactly what Lefebrve in 1988 thought (or said he thought), that the Holy See would want to starve out the SSPX.
The Holy See then was willing to allow the consecration of one bishop, to eventually suceed Lefebrve. But the Archbishop demanded three and in the consecrated four.
Three is the standard number consecrators (though one will suffice).
How will receiving them back stop them from consecrating somebody? How will leaving them outside stop them?
And, quite frankly, I don’t believe that Pope Benedict wants to starve out the SSPX – he didn’t want to in 1988 and he doesn’t want to now. Because he is not a crook.
Franklin Jennings,
The point is that these two were not excommunicated for theological considerations, heresy or any the like, nor for creating schism (as RW & Co. were).
Which neatly contradicts the canonical-purist approach to excommunication which cries that holocaust denial and hatemongering is not mentioned in CIC.
And I doubt there the is a canon for “heading an atheist regime” – the legal basis actually was a decree by Pius XII that no Catholic may support Communism, not even by merely voting for a Communist party. Which is not an act of schism or of “breaking communion with the Catholic Church” but one of politics.
marcum,
“Consider the blatant shameless heretics running amuck in the american catholic church (i.e., Pelosianism) and their substantial numbers. They are a huge threat to the body of Christ and to the life of the holy family. I’ll hedge my bets on the SSPX building up our church and standing up to preserve the health of the holy family and to combat modernism.
Remove the lace and show true face.”
It seems some heresy is better than the other.
SA,
“Chris Sullivan wrote “I suggest that one thing the Vatican could have done to anticipate the likely international reaction would have been to consult the pontifical council responsible for relations with Judaism.”
Right, run it by the non-believers and opponents first. Let them decide how and what you do. Good idea.”
Have you any clue what a Pontifical Council is?
And why suddenly are non-believers our opponents?
trp’s comments are dead one:
“Thanks to the brilliant and holy Benedict XVI, it is now becoming mainstream to question the idea that the authentic liturgy and doctrine of the Church was born the 1960’s, and that everything that was taught and believed before that decade was a bunch of superstitious, bigoted nonsense. We have also begun to undo some of the brutal iconoclasm that has devastated our churches … However, we’ve made baby steps. None of it would have been possible without the SSPX’s rebellion. … They have Pope Benedict as their ally; but he has many, many enemies who hate the SSPX, and hate everything that they have managed stubbornly to preserve.”
The greatest PR error was that the Church allowed this to be portrayed as a full forgiveness rather than a partial one. If Williamson were a regularly ordained bishop who had been suspended for his remarks, it would probably not occur to anyone to say the penalty was not enough and to call for his excommunication.
But the document revoking the excommunications makes no mention of the penalties the bishops are still under. Thus, I can forgive the media a bit after all for their playing down of the continued penalties in their articles.
Sandra: You missed a brief reference to the Williamson controversy, in which they expressed their wish that Williamson would have as much “guts” to denounce the Novus Ordo as he had to deny the Holocaust!
“The point is that these two were not excommunicated for theological considerations, heresy or any the like, nor for creating schism (as RW & Co. were)
Which neatly contradicts the canonical-purist approach to excommunication which cries that holocaust denial and hatemongering is not mentioned in CIC.”
You might want to reconsider “neatly”. Castro and Peron were excommunicated under applicable canons.
What you call “canonical-purists” the rest of us call “people who don’t want the Vatican or the Pope to be able to run roughshod over the People of God arbitrarily.”
Until you can make a case under canon-law for excommunicating holocaust deniers, you’re just some nameless entity arguing for giving frightening powers to the hierarchy wholly unprecedented in the history of Catholicism.
And doing that because I find holocaust deniers to be repulsive in the extreme would be, with all due respect, among the most staggeringly stupid things we could ever do. Wanna talk about your grave mistakes? We’ve got the winner right here.
An interesting traditionalist discussion:
http://angelqueen.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=23765
I’m not surprised that no one in the MSM has mentioned it, but I’m surprised that none of the Catholic commentators have mentioned the fact that in 1965, Pope Paul VI and Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras I mutually lifted the excommunications that the Catholic and Orthodox Churches imposed on one another’s officials in 1054. That didn’t exactly lead to reconciliation or reunion between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. Nor did it imply that the Catholic and Orthodox Churches suddenly decided to agree with one another, let alone endorse each other’s views.
So I think there is a way in which lifting these excommunications is more symbolic than anything else. It opens a door, but as a practical matter it doesn’t really change anything. It does, however, mean that the next move is up to the SSPX.