The Hound Of Ulster

It’s right HERE:

This will be the 25th Notre Dame graduation during my time as bishop. After much prayer, I have decided not to attend the graduation. I wish no disrespect to our president, I pray for him and wish him well. I have always revered the Office of the Presidency. But a bishop must teach the Catholic faith “in season and out of season,” and he teaches not only by his words — but by his actions.

My decision is not an attack on anyone, but is in defense of the truth about human life.

…

Even as I continue to ponder in prayer these events, which many have found shocking, so must Notre Dame. Indeed, as a Catholic University, Notre Dame must ask itself, if by this decision it has chosen prestige over truth.

Tomorrow, we celebrate as Catholics the moment when our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, became a child in the womb of his most holy mother. Let us ask Our Lady to intercede for the university named in her honor, that it may recommit itself to the primacy of truth over prestige.

I guess THIS answers the question as to how involved the Vatican was in the release of Williamson’s most recent APOLOGY.

The Vatican on Friday rejected an apology from a bishop whose denial of the Holocaust caused international uproar between Jews and Catholics, saying it did not meet its demand for a full and public recanting.

British Bishop Richard Williamson, who was ordered to leave Argentina and is now in his homeland, on Thursday issued a statement in which he said, “To all souls that took honest scandal from what I said, before God I apologize.”

But chief Vatican spokesman Father Federico Lombardi said Williamson’s statement “does not seem to respect the conditions” set forth by the Vatican on February 4, when it ordered him to “in an absolutely unequivocal and public way distance himself from his positions” regarding the Holocaust.

Perhaps I should have read THIS a bit more carefully.

The positions of Bishop Williamson with regard to the Shoah are absolutely unacceptable and firmly rejected by the Holy Father, as he himself remarked on 28 January 2009 when, with reference to the heinous genocide, he reiterated his full and unquestionable solidarity with our brothers and sisters who received the First Covenant, and he affirmed that the memory of that terrible genocide must lead “humanity to reflect upon the unfathomable power of evil when it conquers the heart of man”, adding that the Shoah remains “a warning for all against forgetfulness, denial or reductionism, because violence committed against one single human being is violence against all”.

In order to be admitted to function as a Bishop within the Church, Bishop Williamson must also distance himself in an absolutely unequivocal and public way from his positions regarding the Shoah, which were unknown to the Holy Father at the time of the remission of the excommunication.

Now I’m curious.  Father Lombardi’s statement is so brief, I’m not quite sure what to make of it.  Is he saying that Bishop Williamson’s latest attempt doea not fulfill the criteria necessary for him to be “admitted to funcation as a Bishop within the Church?”  Because the way the article is written makes it sound a bit broader than that - more of a “we reject this man’s apology” tone to the piece than a “doesn’t fit the bill for reinstatement” one.  But I’m not at all sure that the Vatican’s previous statement is even calling for an apology.  It’s calling for a change of heart, which will require the Bishop to study the matter further.  That, combined with Lombardi’s use of the “does not seem to respect the conditions” language, makes me wonder if the article is trying to make a different point than he was.

Besides, there’s a ton of other material that needs to be covered before any of these four Bishops will be “admitted to function as a Bishop within the Church.”  This requirement for distancing on Williamson’s part is just one step in that process.
 
(Father Z. ASKS an interesting question: “…whatever else may happen with Bp. Williamson, will unambiguous apologies be required now from the more avid pro-abortion Catholic politicians?  If there are concerns that someone would deny that 6 million Jews were killed in WWII, and apologies are demanded from such a person, is there going to be equal concern over those who promote or participate in a far more extensive killing of the innocent?  Will Catholic pro-abortion politicians be required to issue apologies, as unambiguous as that which they require from Williamson… heck any apology at all…. for voting for abortion rights?  I’m just askin’.”)
 

As my miniscule readership knows by now, I’ve been SOMEWHAT OBSESSED with the recent RECENT LIFTING of the SSPX bishops’ EXCOMMUNICATIONS.  They are also, no doubt, aware that I was UNIMPRESSED by the good bishop’s apology to the Holy Father, because it seems a bit too legalistist to my mind.  And because it seemed to leave out the issue of the offended parties altogether.

Today, however, BRIETBART, ZENIT, and FATHER Z. all linked to a more complete (and for me, more satisfying) statement:

The Holy Father and my Superior, Bishop Bernard Fellay, have requested that I reconsider the remarks I made on Swedish television four months ago, because their consequences have been so heavy.

Observing these consequences I can truthfully say that I regret having made such remarks, and that if I had known beforehand the full harm and hurt to which they would give rise, especially to the Church, but also to survivors and relatives of victims of injustice under the Third Reich, I would not have made them.

On Swedish television I gave only the opinion (…”I believe”…”I believe”…) of a non-historian, an opinion formed 20 years ago on the basis of evidence then available and rarely expressed in public since. However, the events of recent weeks and the advice of senior members of the Society of St. Pius X have persuaded me of my responsibility for much distress caused. To all souls that took honest scandal from what I said, before God I apologise.

As the Holy Father has said, every act of injust violence against one man hurts all mankind.

+Richard Williamson

While still feeling that his statement is very (perhaps “too”) carefully worded, there are two things I’d particularly like to note here.

The first is that he sincerely seems to be taking responsibility for the imprudence of his remarks without disavowing them altogether.  And that makes a lot of sense.  I disagree with his opinion - drastically so - but while I might wonder how someone could possibly hold such opinions, I don’t see how anyone could possibly say that he was simply lying about his beliefs.  If he truly believes that the Holocaust resulted in “only” 300,000 Jewish dead and that gas chambers were not used in the Nazi concentration camps, then he should not disavow such a belief.  (He should still read a lot more history, though.  Or at least try to find a few works from a difference perspective.)

Second, he actually addresses “survivors and relatives” this time around.  And that makes a big difference to me.  His first attempt seemed directed exclusively towards the Vatican and Benedict, and while that was certainly an area that could have expected an apology, the affront to them was definitely secondary.  Now, he’s at least willing to concede that there was a broader victim to his comments.

I feel better about him now.  And I’m not even that bothered by the video of his confrontation with the Argentinian reporter.  More signs of imprudence, perhaps.  But probably pretty understandable.
 

THIS seems like yet another sign that some (if not most) of the Society leaders are serious about their efforts to be reconciled with Rome.  Hard to know why they’d side with the Pope in this instance if that was not their thinking…

A Roman Catholic bishop whose denials of the Holocaust led to Vatican demands he recant has been removed as the head of an Argentine seminary.

The ultraconservative Society of St. Pius X said in a statement e-mailed Monday to The Associated Press that it has dismissed British Bishop Richard Williamson as director of its seminary in La Reja, outside Buenos Aires.

“The statements from Monsignor Williamson do not in any way reflect the position of our congregation,” said Father Christian Bouchacourt, the society’s South American superior. “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 is one of four bishops from the society whose excommunications were lifted in January by Pope Benedict XVI. But under pressure from German Chancellor Angela Merkel, the Vatican has demanded that Williamson recant his denial of the Holocaust before he can be admitted as a Roman Catholic bishop.

I’m trying to ignore the loaded language in that article.  I managed to get around the “ultraconservative” bit, because there are at least some ways in which it is true.  But the “under pressure from German Chancellor Angela Merkel” is a bit much even for me to swallow.  Why do “World Leaders” feel such an overwhelming need to claim responsibility for everything?  I guess that’s a necessary consequence of being selected for your position based on popularity.
 

Rabbi Irwin Kula WRITES for The Huffington Post.  He’s described as “both a provocative religious leader and a respected spiritual iconoclast,” and “has inspired thousands nationwide using Jewish wisdom in ways that speak to modern life.”  He’s a “regular on NBC-TV’s The Today Show, and co-host of the popular weekly radio show, Hirschfield and Kula, airing on KXL in Portland, OR, one of the top 25 markets nationwide,” and he writes things like “Religion invoked as a reason to vote for or against a political candidate - by which we generally mean invoking god and some scriptural passage or other sacred text as proof for our view - is a low-level use of religion that makes religion small, mere apologetics at best and idolatry at worst. Any religion that has knocked around the planet for a long time can be used to prove almost anything and “religious” reasons can always be marshaled to buttress one’s political favorite.”

So, THIS is not exactly the sort of thing I was expecting from him:

As an eighth generation rabbi and someone who lost much family in the Holocaust, it could just be me, but this official Jewish response seems outrageously over the top. Do millions of American Jews sufficiently care that the Pope revoked the excommunication of this unheard of bishop such that major Jewish organizations should devote so much energy and attention to this and turn it into a cause célèbre worthy of front page attention? And is this the way we speak to each other after decades of successful inter-faith work on improving our relationship?

How is it that the view of some cranky bishop — one who has no power — evokes calls of a crisis in Catholic-Jewish relations, despite the revolutionary changes in Church teachings regarding Jews since Vatican II? Where is the “proportionality”, where is the giving the benefit of the doubt — a central religious and spiritual imperative — in response to something that is admittedly upsetting but in the scheme of things is less than trivial especially given this Pope’s historic visit to Auschwitz in which he unambiguously recognized the evil perpetrated upon Jews in the Holocaust and in his way “repented” for any contribution distorted Church teachings made to create the ground for such evil to erupt.

I shall make good use of my “catholicity” and accept truth wherever I find it, no matter how unexpected the source may be.  (HT: DEAL)
 

Bishop Williamson has sent a LETTER to Cardinal Hoyos to apologize for the “tremendous media storm” generated by his “imprudent remarks:”

Amidst this tremendous media storm stirred up by imprudent remarks of mine on Swedish television, I beg of you to accept, only as is properly respectful, my sincere regrets for having caused to yourself and to the Holy Father so much unnecessary distress and problems.

For me, all that matters is the Truth Incarnate, and the interests of His one true Church, through which alone we can save our souls and give eternal glory, in our little way, to Almighty God. So I have only one comment, from the prophet Jonas, I, 12:

“Take me up and throw me into the sea; then the sea will quiet down for you; for I know it is because of me that this great tempest has come upon you.”

Please also accept, and convey to the Holy Father, my sincere personal thanks for the document signed last Wednesday and made public on Saturday. Most humbly I will offer a Mass for both of you.

“Imprudent” seems like a very strange word to use there.  It sounds almost as though he’s saying: “I’m sorry; I should have known that the media would distort my words badly.  Should have held my tongue.”  Which is very, very different than saying: “I’m sorry that I said something that is probably both incredibly false and flat-out ugly.”

Very strange stuff.
 

I must admit to being somewhat amused by the fact that “Bishop” Richard Williamson represents himself as a dinosaur.  That’s sort of the way I think of him, as well.

This sort of THING - in response to Benedict’s “gift of peace” - is not likely to change my mind any time soon:

Over at InsideCatholic, David Bonagura, Jr. has a great PIECE on the SSPX matter:

First of all, the timing of this decree is not an accident: It came in the middle of a week of prayer for Christian unity. In his Angelus address on January 18, Benedict exhorted the faithful to “pray with greater intensity that Christians may walk resolutely towards full communion among themselves.” He continued, “I address particularly Catholics scattered throughout the world so that, united in prayer, they do not tire of working to overcome the obstacles that still impede full communion among all Christ’s disciples.”

The decree lifting the excommunications of the four bishops was preceded by a written expression of pledged cooperation and by 1.7 million rosaries prayed throughout the world for this very intention. As the Society has always considered the excommunications an obstacle to relations with the Holy See, these prayers meet the Holy Father’s stated objective for moving toward full communion. And while the SSPX’s canonical status still remains irregular, and their press release falls far short of calling for immediate communion, this is surely a positive step forward.

By remitting the excommunications, then, Benedict, who on his own initiative has long courted the SSPX to return to the fold, was responding to the Society’s reciprocated good will. In doing so, he was following the ecumenical plan that he announced in his message to the cardinals on the day after his election, which the New York Times described as “a message of openness and reconciliation to his Roman Catholic followers, other churches and other faiths.”

Another key paragraph:

Undoubtedly, the SSPX has several serious theological reservations that must be worked out before full communion with the Holy See can be reached. But so do the Orthodox, the Anglicans, the Lutherans, and all the other ecclesial communities in dialogue with Rome, and theirs are more numerous, more complex, and centuries old. Benedict is not moving the Church to the right by gesturing to the SSPX any more than he is bringing the Church to the left when he meets with leaders of other Christian denominations, as he does on nearly every papal trip abroad. Rather, his decree seeks to foster “an interior reconciliation in the heart of the Church” — just as he explained in his opening message to the cardinals; just as Pope John Paul II expressed in Ut Unum Sint; just as Vatican II expressed in Unitatis Redintegratio; just as Jesus Himself expressed at the Last Supper: that they may be one (Jn 17:21).

I’m just glad someone wrote something that says: “Hey, massive irregularity here still. Orthodox/Lutheran style. No one get carried away,” while at the same time reminding us: “Hey, do we really want to be upset about the fact that B16 might bring a large number of lost sheep back into the fold?”  (And here’s a fascinating PIECE from George Weigel that deals with some of the “non-theological” issues at stake.)

Good stuff.

From a more politically ecumenical perspective, THIS is not what I was expecting:

House Democrats are likely to jettison family planning funds for the low-income from an $825 billion economic stimulus bill, officials said late Monday, following a personal appeal from President Barack Obama at a time the administration is courting Republican critics of the legislation.

I’m really not sure what to say.  Part of me - OK, most of me - wants to attribute it to savvy, shrewd political maneuvering on Obama’s part.  A small section of me thinks it might be connected to THIS.  (And there’s a still, small voice somewhere in the back that wants to keep praying like crazy, just in case it’s something else altogether.)
 

Ray Gunner sent me an interesting LINK on the lifting of the Excommunication Ban.  The whole thing is worth reading, but the part that really jumped out at me was this:

This goal was seemingly accomplished, in large measure, with the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum which Pope Benedict issued on July 7, 2007, and the Pope’s decision was greeted with joy among more traditional Catholics, and praised by Bishop Fellay. The document said that the old Missal had never been abrogated — an argument used by Lefebvre to defend his attachment to the old rite. [John Paul II had appointed a Commission of Cardinals to investigate the issue, and they had concluded the same. However, in 1988, when Lefebvre consecrated the four bishops, John Paul felt the time had not arrived for liberalization of the celebration of this liturgy, because of the overwhelming opposition of European bishops.]

Yet more evidence to support my “B16 thinks just like JPII, but has been able to take advantage of a pastoral opportunity that was not presented to his predecessor” theory

Lots of wild rhetoric flying around on this one.
 

THIS is not a concession, or is it an admitance of error, no matter how much certain parties will wish to see it as such.  It is something much more beautiful than that.  It is a profoundly humble effort from the spiritual father of us all to reach out to some deeply troubled children.  More than anything else, it is “a gift of peace.”  I hope they can recognize it as such, and take the steps necessary to come the rest of the way home.

By way of a letter of December 15, 2008 addressed to His Eminence Cardinal Dario Castrillón Hoyos, President of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, Mons. Bernard Fellay, also in the name of the other three Bishops consecrated on June 30, 1988, requested anew the removal of the latae sententiae excommunication formally declared with the Decree of the Prefect of this Congregation on July 1, 1988. In the aforementioned letter, Mons. Fellay affirms, among other things: “We are always firmly determined in our will to remain Catholic and to place all our efforts at the service of the Church of Our Lord Jesus Christ, which is the Roman Catholic Church. We accept its teachings with filial disposition. We believe firmly in the Primacy of Peter and in its prerogatives, and for this the current situation makes us suffer so much.”

His Holiness Benedict XVI - paternally sensitive to the spiritual unease manifested by the interested party due to the sanction of excommunication and trusting in the effort expressed by them in the aforementioned letter of not sparing any effort to deepen the necessary discussions with the Authority of the Holy See in the still open matters, so as to achieve shortly a full and satisfactory solution of the problem posed in the origin - decided to reconsider the canonical situation of Bishops Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson, and Alfonso de Galarreta, arisen with their episcopal consecration.

With this act, it is desired to consolidate the reciprocal relations of confidence and to intensify and grant stability to the relationship of the Fraternity of Saint Pius X with this Apostolic See. This gift of peace, at the end of the Christmas celebrations, is also intended to be a sign to promote unity in the charity of the universal Church and to try to vanquish the scandal of division.

It is hoped that this step be followed by the prompt accomplishment of full communion with the Church of the entire Fraternity of Saint Pius X, thus testifying true fidelity and true recognition of the Magisterium and of the authority of the Pope with the proof of visible unity.

Based on the faculties expressly granted to me by the Holy Father Benedict XVI, in virtue of the present Decree, I remit from Bishops Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson, and Alfonso de Galarreta the censure of latae sententiae excommunication declared by this Congregation on July 1, 1988, while I declare deprived of any juridical effect, from the present date, the Decree emanated at that time.

Prayers are definitely in order.