Replies

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.