A 'Centrist' Pope?

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.

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.

I don't see how context could change the meaning of that Holocaust quote, unless it's being cited completely dishonestly by Case

I'm not going to treat it as an accurate quote at all. It's an "alleged" quote as far as I can tell. Since it doesn't accurately depict the careful qualifiers I've heard the bishop state in order express his politically incorrect assessment of what is going on in the World.

On a second point, I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing to want to question the historical accuracy of what is commonly accepted as accurate history. WWII has changed so many times in the details since the 1970's when I first started to hear and learn about it that I doubt much of the accuracy. (eg. Jews were not made into lampshades and soap, that was the equivalent of an urban legend. Ellie Wiesel's 1948 book "the Night" never mentions gas chambers at Auschwitz. Instead the Jews were burned alive in giant bonfire outside and they were herded in like sheep with an electrified fence.) In a similar tone, Major Owens of the U.S. House was citing in 1993 numbers in the hundreds of millions regarding slaves that were thrown overboard from slaveships for the jollies of the crew during the slave trade days in the Colonies and the U.S. He then stated that the ecology was changed and sharks still swim the corridors looking for fresh meat. This is in the record of the U.S. House. It took Rush Limbaugh to "run the numbers" and show how foolish he was.

(e.g. "This is what we shouldn't believe..." - but Williamson's reference about the gas chambers in his letter seems to indicate otherwise).

I would like to know specifically what he is referring to. Obviously as I stated in an earlier post there is a lot of myth surrounding the events of WWII particularly those items referring to Pius XII's complicity for example. Other examples not related to WWII include the Inquisition, the Crusades, Evolution and probably some others if we put our minds to it.

Perhaps you could write to Case; obviously no one here at FR was at that specific conference, nor can they provide the context.

Since Case was wrong on so many issues regarding Williamson (eg. Women, Sedevacantism, his general attitude towards Jews as fellow human beings who need to hear the Gospel of Jesus and enter the Catholic Church) I don't honestly believe it would serve a purpose. I'd rather have the people he knows and trusts go to him and ask him to provide context. It would be less confrontational and perhaps provide a moment of reflection.

I've never read Janet Taylor Caldwell so I don't get your allusion. What exactly is the excuse that could be offered for citing from the Protocols (and we DO have context for that)? "Fake but accurate"?

Taylor Caldwell, Jeffrey Archer, William F. Buckley, G.K. Chesterton and Dante, and a whole host of authors have written accounts of trends, events and such and done so in a fictional form mixed with facts. With varying levels of fiction mixed in with fact.

Two things have to be understood, First, Williamson is not a racist. He often talks about the enemies of our Lord Jesus Christ. Foremost among those he believes are the freemasons. (so does Fr. Peter Gumpel formerly of the Vatican cause of saints as he stated on EWTN this past week, when he said, "some Jews and freemasons" are opposed to the cause of Pius XII ) Second, Zionism is not a system of thought and action that indicts all Jews, of course you know that. One can be opposed to Zionism just as they can be opposed to Oil Barons or Nazis. Just as not all Germans are Nazis. Not all Jews are Zionists. Nore are all Muslims terrorists. The freemasons make the same claims against the Catholic Church regarding the Permanent Instruction of the Alta Vendita that the Zionists make against the Protocols.

Bishop Williamson consistently and carefully clarifies this when he speaks on issues that concern groups of people that have subset organizations that are opposed to Jesus Christ. (eg. Abe Foxman and Marvin Heir) vs. (Micheal Medved and Rabbi Lapin) But just as G. K. Chesterton was accused (and still is) of "anti-semitism" (a term he rejected as a British invention) Williamson is often accused of being insensitive when he refers to "Judeo-Masonic principles" as a cultural influence. See Chesterton's essays on "the Judaism of Hitler" and "On my Anti-Semitism" both published by Ignatius press in the collected works.

What I suggest for anyone interested, is to read the works of Theodor Herzl concerning the back to Palestine movement in the early 20th century. He reads exactly like the quotes that are cited according to the Williamson. It's not as bad as some white supremacist will describe and it's not as good as a Zionist sympathizer would portray.

As a final point. ( I should save this, I've written this numerous times) A person's Catholicity is not determined by their questioning of historical non-biblical or sacred traditionally believed events. When Williamson says the Virgin Mary was not assumed or that the Resurrection did not occur as a historical event. Then, I'll send him up the river. But as it stands, I've heard everything he's said, told by others on EWTN or other mainstream Catholic or conservative publications with nary a whimper. (eg. The Abundant life on EWTN has often talked about the rise of One World Government and the eventual persecution of the Church)

As an aside, here's an anecdote. In one debate, I posted a sermon of St. John Chrysostom on Judaizers and told my opponent that it was Bishop Williamson. He went on a tirade about Williamson/Chrysostom that you wouldn't believe. It's interesting what the power of suggestion does.

1. It's true that the historical record sometimes gets messed up.

Agreed. And I don't think people should be imprisoned like they are in Europe for simply questioning the historical record.

2. The Protocols are a derivative work of Joly's Dialogues in Hell. There is no question that they are inauthentic.

By that standard so is Romeo and Juliet being a variation of Il Novelino by Salernitano.

3. Misattributing authorship is a lie unless it is unintentional;

Don't worry. I fessed up in the posting that I made. The last sentence was, "oh, my mistake, that was St. John Chrysostom, not Williamson." But my opponent was so blinded by hatred, he didn't see that. I had to refer him back when he accused me of the same trickery.

St. Chrysostom's Homilies Against the Judaizers are rhetorical and frequently exaggerate for effect in a manner that would have been known to his listeners

Where did St. John C. state this? Can you cite that?

- this is not true of Williamson's pastorals.

How do you know this? I would say Williamson is a genius in that he throws out a statement much like Chesterton did that sounds on its surface absurd, but when you hear his argument it turns out to be perceptive statements. (eg. Women and trousers as a sign of the "blending of genders" in modern society. The syrupy and sappy romance of the Sound of Music which fills youngs peoples minds with error ridden concepts of marriage. )

1. Agreed

2. Romeo and Juliet is not historical, nor was it presented as such. The Protocols were originally presented as relating actual facts. If they don't relate an actual meeting of the "Learned Elders of Zion" they would be completely irrelevant.

3. Ah. That is pretty ridiculous. On the other hand, this Prot managed to get a Catholic "apologist" to call St. Augustine "Our Protestant brother" and rank him among those who "separate the divinity of Christ from His person", so I'm not sure just how much this sort of thing really proves.

4. How about this from Homily VI?

What about this? After the waters of the sea were divided, after the rocks were broken asunder, after so many miracles were worked in the desert, did you not worship the calf?. Did you not try many times to kill Moses, now by stoning him, now by driving him into exile, and in ten thousand other ways? Did you ever stop hurling blasphemies at God? Were you not initiated in the rites of Baal of Peor? Did you not sacrifice your sons and daughters to demons? Did you not make a display of every form of ungodliness and sin? ... You did slay Christ, you did lift violent hands against the Master, you did spill his precious blood. This is why you have no chance for atonement, excuse, or defense.

Obviously he doesn't mean that the Jews of his day actually did those things; such a statement would be absurd.

See how he says "you have no chance for atonement"? Compare this to his actual exegesis of Scripture, in Homily 86 in St. Matthew:

"I am innocent," they cried out "His blood be on us, and on our children." Then at length when they had given sentence against themselves, he yielded that all should be done. ... Nevertheless, the lover of man, though they acted with so much madness, both against themselves, and against their children, so far from confirming their sentence upon their children, confirmed it not even on them, but from the one and from the other received those that repented, and counts them worthy of good things beyond number.

5. I just can't see the value in citing the Protocols of the Elders of Zion...

Obviously, you will defend Williamson no matter what.

No. I will just defend him against calumny and lies.

Case's article on the SSPX was, in my view, very well-researched, and I stand by it.

That says something about your journalistic standards. From my first post I stated that no one will provide a scrap of evidence that this is an accurate quote or provide any statement that preceded it or proceeded after it. Much less, the person he was allegedly speaking with, what they asked him or what the person's reply was if any.

This is Dan Rather all over again. "I can't prove it. But I know it's true."

But, again, if you want further "context" on Williamson, I recommend you contact Bill Grossklas. Just be nice. :)

"further context"? How about "any" context? Let me get this straight. You won't back up what you write but you want me to verify what you stand by. I'm really not responsible for your work you know. I'll back up my own.

How about this? You defend your work or you disavow the statements made by Case and Grossklas. Otherwise, you are guilty of what you accuse the SSPX of. You call Bishop Williamson and talk to him. I'm sure someone at Thomas Aquinas Seminary will be able to put you in contact with him if you explain you are trying to get to the bottom of the issue. Or, contact Bernard Janzen and ask him if he can put you in touch with the bishop.

1. Agreed

Well, imprisonment is what happens when people question the accuracy of the facts of the "Holocaust" in certain European countries. I'm not talking about outright denial. Just questioning the historicity of the facts.

2. Romeo and Juliet is not historical, nor was it presented as such. The Protocols were originally presented as relating actual facts.

Without being sidetracked by minutia, I'll just mention that there is a whole section of plays by Shakespeare that are called "histories".

But the relevant point is, you don't know "how" Williamson presented his statements.

3. I'm not sure just how much this sort of thing really proves.

It generally shows as I stated what the power of suggestion is capable of. If it's Williamson, people have been brainwashed to assume the worst. If it's someone with the word "Saint" in front of their name, well, there must be something else we don't know.

4. How about this from Homily VI? ....Obviously he doesn't mean that the Jews of his day actually did those things; such a statement would be absurd.

That won't stop enemies of the Church and enemies of Christ from using it. You had to search wider than a single quote to understand Chrysostom. Now extend the same courtesy to Bishop Williamson.

5. I just can't see the value in citing the Protocols of the Elders of Zion...

Because you've been told there is nothing of value in there. Right? One "Apologist" tried to fence me in by asking me outright if I would disavow the book. I haven't read it. I'm certainly not going to disavow something I haven't read. But the mentality is the same as "You are going to have to admit that there are anti-semitic statements in the Bible. Right?" Didn't Mel Gibson run into this with "the Dolorous Passion" by Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich?"

Well, I'm certainly not going to condemn a man on hearsay without knowing for sure what he is talking about.

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.