Posted on 04/16/2005 6:43:03 PM PDT by vox_freedom
Conservative commentator Hugh Hewitt made a good observation in recent days. He said that "most of the American media is simply ignorant of the pope's critics on the right," namely those who reject the doctrinal developments and disciplinary reforms of the Second Vatican Council, particularly in regard to ecumenism, inter-religious dialogue and the vernacular Mass.
I agree.
The media often quotes Catholic liberals when covering events in the Church. Usually, it's done to show that some, or many, Catholics really don't agree with traditional Church teachings on abortion, contraception, euthanasia, homosexual activity and the male-only priesthood. The picture painted is one of dissent, of how the average Catholic in the pew believes the Church is "out of touch" with the rest of modern society. The Catholic left likes to assert that the "spirit of Vatican II" should always be followed, which, in their minds, means that freedom of (ill-formed) conscience always trumps Church doctrine, or, for that matter, the natural law. Also, the Catholic left believes the laity — not the Magisterium, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit — knows what's best for the Church.
But it's different for the pope's critics on the right. Hewitt mentioned the prime example of the Society of St. Pius X. Founded by the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, who was excommunicated in 1988 for consecrating four bishops without the required papal permission, the Society has a number of churches and chapels worldwide. Its adherents not only reject Vatican II and the so-called New Mass (they attend only the Traditional Latin Mass); they also ridiculed Pope John Paul II for reaching out to other religions — something they regard as scandalous. This was perhaps most evident in 1986, when, upon learning of the pope's announced peace conference at which representatives of other religions would participate, Lefebvre asserted that the pope was an instrument of a Masonic mafia and that the "conciliar church is no longer Catholic."
Also of note is what Catholic journalist Thomas W. Case wrote about in a 1992 expose on the Society in the (now-defunct) Catholic magazine called Fidelity. One of the four bishops whom Lefebvre consecrated, Richard Williamson, made a speech in Sherbrooke, Quebec in 1989 saying, "There was not one Jew killed in the gas chambers. It was all lies, lies, lies. The Jews created the Holocaust so we would prostrate ourselves on our knees before them and approve of their new state of Israel.... Jews made up the Holocaust, Protestants get their orders from the devil, and the Vatican has sold its soul to liberalism."
To my knowledge, the Society has never publicly disavowed Williamson's statements. And my guess is that not a few die-hard Society adherents would want Williamson to do so, though I suppose could be wrong about that. In fact, I hope I am. (Though I seem to recall one fellow ranting about how John Paul II committed a mortal sin by visiting the synagogue.)
There are Catholic splinter groups that are even farther to the right than the Society. They are known as sedevacantists, a Latin term for those who believe the Chair of St. Peter has been vacant not just for the past several days, but for the past few decades. Basically, the sedevacantists assert that Vatican II contradicted Catholic Tradition and thus promulgated heresy. So, according to them, Popes John XXIII, Paul VI, and John Paul II have been imposter popes — antipopes — as a true pope would not promulgate heresy. (It's not entirely clear what they believe about John Paul I, who died only after about a month of being elected pope. Some believe he was actually killed by Masons inside the Vatican.) And I sincerely doubt they will recognize the next pope, primarily because he will be elected by cardinals whom, to sedevacantists, aren't really cardinals. Some sedevacantists have even elected their own "popes," at least two of which currently reside in the U.S. Granted, each seemingly has far fewer followers than, say, a Jim Jones or David Koresh. But they're out there.
Do these Catholic splinter groups on the right outnumber those on the left, who desire to see women priests (or perhaps no priesthood whatsoever), the allowance of contraception, abortion, homosexual activity and a more democratic church? Probably not, although I submit the numbers are closer than what some may think.
One thing is all but certain: John Paul the Great's successor will be another "centrist." By that I mean it is highly unlikely he will repudiate Vatican II, which is what Catholics on the right would love to see occur. Nor can he simply change the traditional teachings of the Church on abortion, contraception, homosexual activity, euthanasia and the male-only priesthood — changes Catholics on the left would love to see occur. Thus, whoever the next pope will be, he will still have to contend with opposition from the left and from the right. All the while I will still be labeled "right-wing" (or worse) by the former and a "modernist" (or worse) by the latter.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Matt C. Abbott is the former executive director of the Illinois Right to Life Committee and the former director of public affairs for the Chicago-based Pro-Life Action League. He is a Catholic journalist and commentator. He can be reached at mattcabbott@hotmail.com.
Actually, I know Bill Grossklas. He's a good man. And he's no radical traditionalist.
I know him, too, and I don't think bitterness is a quality of a "good" man.
There were two letters printed that were highly critical of Case's article. One was from Fr. Peter Scott and another was from Fr. Ramon Angles. Neither disputed that particular statement by Williamson, and Case did respond, point-by-point, to both letters.
Also, Bill Grossklas, whom I know and greatly respect, informed me that Williamson said the same thing in Oak Park, Ill. at one point.
Have I met you at some point?
pingarooni
Just provide the context to the quote and we'll take it from there. Otherwise, it is just hearsay.
Context? Williamson's statement pretty much stands on its own.
Much as some of the worst anti-Semites (by American standards, anyway, I think the Nazis still win hands-down if we look at Europe) are Jews...
Provide the context anyway. Or don't you have it? This is a very simple request. You either have it or you don't.
Which is it?
Yes or No?
Clemenza,
you have stated you are no longer Catholic, you don't like Catholicism, and you make fun of Catholic doctrine from thread to thread. Yet, here you are AGAIN commenting like you are some kind of expert on things you have only read about here. WHY?
To be honest with you, the only controversial stance I take is on the Pius X society. If they EVER got control of the Papacy, it would have negative implications for EVERYONE, not just Catholics.
This is a stupid article by someone who is not close to the facts. Most traditional Catholics know Williamson's comments are wacko and even most SSPX adherents would not defend them.
Funny how Cardinal Hoyos said after a conversation with three of the four SSPX bishops that he detected no heresy nor schismatic attitude among them.
This is a juvenile attempt at reconciling his position "between two extremes," while misrepresenting the majority of the SSPX viewpoints, which are merely traditional Catholic doctrine.
Matt, I read much of your stuff and agree with most of it. However, this rehashing of the SSPX situation and positing them in the most negative light is not beneficial to true ecumenism if you are truly a Catholic who is obedient to Vatican II.
In fact, there is a public interview where Cardinal Hoyos is quoted as saying he detected no heresy nor schismatic attitudes among three of the four SSPX bishops after meeting extensively with them. This was not one of your better articles.
One of the first things Pope Benedict XVI will attempt to do is to reconcile SSPX and free the Mass of All Ages. I'm not a betting man, but I'll wager on that one.
Sorry to break this to you but you may get awfully close to that scenario with this Pope.
You don't know a thing about SSPX. When you attend their Masses and meet their priests then you will understand. SSPX is not what the haters here make it out to be.
There that's better.
If Pope Benedict intends to restore Tradition, the SSPX will be a major division of his frontline troops.
That is going to fry so many people here, lol :-)
Not just the bishops...
Letter of Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos to Mgr. Fellay
The Vatican, April 5, 2002After these events, in noting your good will and based on the fact that your Fraternity certainly was not spreading any heretical doctrine and did not maintain schismatic attitudes, I had dared you to propose, without consulting anyone first, to set a possible date for reintegration. I suggested as a possible date the Solemnity of Easter 2001, and Your Excellency, although surprised, did not exclude this possibility, while expressing in any case that, probably, at the center of the Society of St. Pius X a few problems would arise. I therefore took pains to find a formula that would give to your Fraternity the full guaranty of maintaining its charism of service to Tradition, of assuring the rite of the Mass of St. Pius V, and of continuing fully its effort to safeguard sound doctrine and preserve discipline and Catholic morality.
... With much honesty, Your Excellency presented several points of view concerning the Holy Mass and the difficulties to be expected in this process. At that time, it seemed clear that no dogma was denied, nor was pontifical authority. One felt on the other hand faced with difficulties of theological interpretation, of estimation of the life and the crisis of the Church, of the explanation or of the interpretation of certain texts of Vatican II. I believed that these dialogues concerning theological detail, certainly important and not without difficulties, could be examined in the very heart of the Church, after the attainment of full substantial communion which, however, did not exclude a healthy criticism. My assessors and the Cardinals specially involved in the affair shared my opinion on this point.
One of the first things Pope Benedict XVI will attempt to do is to reconcile SSPX and free the Mass of All Ages. I'm not a betting man, but I'll wager on that one.
The Holy Father has said in the past that he is willing to grant the universal permission for the traditional Roman rite which the SSPX has demanded. Their other condition, unfortunately, was a declaration of the nullity (as opposed to the lifting) of the 1988 excommunications. If they are willing to compromise for a "if we did anything wrong, it was in good conscience but we're sorry anyway" formula, then I suppose by next Easter they will be unambiguously back in the Church...
Williamson's comments are not wacko and most SSPX adherents love the man for his clear reason among his other saintly qualities.
Yes or No? Do you have the context of the "alleged" Williamson quote?
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.