Wednesday, February 18, 2009

The Pope, The Holocaust, and The Bishop

For all the mountains of reports, commentaries, and op-eds about Benedict XVI's lifting of the excommunication of the 4 SSPX bishops, it's really a rather simple situation.

(1) The SSPX has a significant following, consisting of people and clergy who hold fast to just about everything the Church teaches, value the past and tradition, and try to achieve holiness according to the spirituality of the Church. Bringing the SSPX back into communion with the Church would therefore be a great good indeed.

(2) Lifting the excommunication of the 4 bishops was the next step in achieving this communion (the motu proprio "Summorum Pontificum" being the first major step).

(3) One of these 4 bishops -- Bishop Williamson -- happens to believe that only a few hundred thousand Jews died in the Holocaust and that there were no gas chambers.

(4) To be a Catholic, one need only adhere to the Catholic faith and remain in communion with the Catholic Church. One can be a Catholic and maintain that diet pills are the best method of losing weight, or that subatomic particles are figments of modern science's imagination, or that Julius Caesar never existed, or that "only" a few hundred thousand Jews died in the Holocaust. These views are all wrong -- some benignly so, others maliciously so. Bishop Williamson's opinion about the Jews and the Holocaust is regrettable, nonsensical, offensive, reprehensible -- but not contrary to the deposit of the Catholic faith. Abe Foxman's insulting statement that the Church must restore Bishop Williamson's prior state of excommunication in order that "the matter of the church and Holocaust denial [be] solved" betrays an ignorance that is astounding.

(5) A Catholic bishop must not give scandal by publicly airing reprehensible opinions. Therefore the Vatican has given Bishop Williamson an ultimatum, stating that he must distance himself from his statements as a pre-requisite for being "admitted to episcopal functions within the Church."

That's it. There's no "litmus test," vis-a-vis affirmation of the historicity of the Holocaust, for aspiring Catholics. But there is for aspiring bishops who have publicly maintained the contrary. Why? Because rejecting the historicity of the Holocaust, while not intrinsically inimical to the act of faith, is a cause of grave scandal and therefore unacceptable coming from one who holds public office in the Church. In the final analysis, rejecting the historicity of the Holocaust is not a question of theological belief; rather, it's a question of causing grave scandal.

Why do critics on both sides -- the modernist/secular camp (e.g., Abe Foxman) and the SSPX camp (e.g., True Restoration II) -- fail to see this?

11 comments:

  1. Uncle Di at Catholic World News had a funny phrase for bishops' silence on the non-essentials: extra ecclesiam taceat episcopus.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "Why do critics on both sides -- the modernist/secular camp (e.g., Abe Foxman) and the SSPX camp (e.g., True Restoration II) -- fail to see this?"

    Because, shucks, just not everyone is as brilliant as you are, Travis.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Stephen,

    You could address the argument rather than resort to the ad hominem attack. I'll grant that my statement is a little blunt, but the way things stand is so obvious from the Vatican statement that bluntness is warranted.

    By the way, the entire point of my post was that it doesn't take "brilliance" to see the situation clearly.

    ReplyDelete
  4. The reason people haven't seen this "rather simple situation" is because it isn't.

    (1) "Bringing the SSPX back into communion" implies that the SSPX is schismatic. That's definitely arguable. Perhaps a discussion for another post?

    (5) "A Catholic bishop must not give scandal by publicly airing reprehensible opinions."

    "But there is [a litmus test] for aspiring bishops who have publicly maintained the contrary. Why? Because rejecting the historicity of the Holocaust, while not intrinsically inimical to the act of faith, is a cause of grave scandal and therefore unacceptable coming from one who holds public office in the Church."

    Let's say your modified litmus test were true. Scandal is something that causes the spiritual downfall of another. Since that is the case, it *is* inimical to the act of faith at least in the common sense.

    Do you really think that a public skeptical opinion of the Holocaust brings about spiritual downfall? Ie, is denying the Holocaust really a scandal?

    That is your thesis so let's go with it.

    What if say, the bishop were to have bare chested women dance in front of him? Or perhaps he kiss the Koran? Such a bishop no doubt would fail that litmus test for scandal therefore could not be "admitted to episcopal functions within the Church"

    But that would be an absurdity from your point of view. I am suggesting, of course, Pope John Paul II but such actions are no means exclusive to the Bishop of Rome lest you respond that the litmus test does not apply to the pope. The recent pedophilia and homosexual abuse cases apply to plenty of other bishops. Certainly those cases cause more real scandal than a denial of the Holocaust does but those bishops keep their sees more often than not.

    So scandal in and of itself is not a litmus test.

    Perhaps the specific difference in your litmus test is the "aspiring" quality of Bishop Williamson? If so, why was this litmus test not applied to the now Archbishop, Bruno Forte, who had an ecclesiology that denied "outside the Church there is no salvation"?

    The *only* thing that makes Bishop Williamson's "scandal" really different from the other bishops' is the subject, ie, the Holocaust. That's the reading most people took from the event and is the one Stephen addresses in his article.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Your point 1 is irrelevant to the topic: the simplicity I am claiming is with regard to the "litmus test" situation itself, not the broader situation of the SSPX vis-a-vis the Church.

    I disagree with your understanding of scandal. Or perhaps I agree with it but object to your restrictive application of it. Here's what I mean: denying the Holocaust IS a scandal, ESPECIALLY in our current times and especially with regard to those outside the Church. It's that sort of scandal that hardens people's hearts against the Church (and, I admit, so is the homosexual/pedophilia scandal). So, yes, it is scandalous to deny the Holocaust.

    As regards your examples of scandal, I admit that many other bishops are guilty of what I would call scandal -- I don't have an answer for why they're still bishops, except that perhaps many of these bishops haven't been proven to be involved in scandal or the like. So I can't address that.

    I object to a few of your examples: having bare-chested women dance in front of you is hardly on the same level as the homosexual/pedophilia scandal or denying the Holocaust. If the Pope were at a strip club, that would be one thing, but in the situation you're describing he's welcoming natives from some South Pacific island (or something like that). Many's the Catholic missionary who's witnessed that.

    Your attempt to turn the scandal-precludes-episcopal-function argument against the hierarchy fails to recognize one important point: no one can judge the Pope (legally, officially, etc.). Sure someone can privately disagree with his actions, but he can't be expelled from episcopal functions.

    You also fail to recognize another point: admitting a bishop into the Church and dealing with a bishop already functioning within the Church are two different matters, so that you can't apply the litmus test strictly equally. Prudence dictates that.

    Finally, you appeal to particular examples of "scandal" to disprove the "litmus test" interpretation I have. This disregards the quite possible and human fact that general rules (including "litmus tests") are one thing, applying them another: I'm arguing about the general rule in place here, you're arguing about particular applications. The general rule, as I interpret it, and the application, as you interpret it, are not mutually exclusive: the hierarchy aren't immune from laxity in applying rules of this sort.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Traumerei,

    You say, "Do you really think that a public skeptical opinion of the Holocaust brings about spiritual downfall? Ie, is denying the Holocaust really a scandal?"

    As a practicing Catholic, my answer to this is an unqualified yes. It is a huge scandal. To call into question the greatest evil perpetuated against our elder brothers in faith is scandalous.

    Six million Jewish people were brutally murdered in the Shoah out of pure demonic hatred. To call into question the suffering of these people, especially in a world at most three generations past that atrocity; in a world where people our grandparents' age are living survivors; yes, Williamson's comments cause grave scandal.

    To even compare Williamson's actions to a Bishop who celebrates Mass with bare-breasted dancers is beyond banal. Masses like that are celebrated in cultures where going topless is in no way lewd or titillating. Obviously, modesty is a universal virtue, but what clothing (or lack of clothing) constitutes modesty vs. immodesty is culturally dependent.

    I assume you are skeptical of the 2nd Vatican Council, and abhor all Masses not celebrated in the Tridentine Rite. I would love to have a debate on celebrating Mass in the vernacular, but that is an argument for another day. To commence my initial point, comparing Holocaust denial to celebrating a Mass that incorporates local cultural values is grossly insulting to the people who were brutally murdered during the Shoah.

    I am not overly familiar with Bruno Forte, but I am sure he did not deny that "outside the Church there is no salvation." He probably said, similar to the teachings of great theologians like Karl Rahner, that non-Christians can be saved by being faithful followers of their own faiths, but their salvation will come through Christ, even if they do not fully realize it in this life. Jesus may say, "He who is not with me is against me," but He also says, "He who is not against me is for me." This leaves room for us to hope for the salvation of non-Christians.

    Finally, you are right that it causes grave scandal to see Bishops remain in office after aiding and abetting pedophile priests. That Church leadership messed up here does not mean that it cannot do the right thing and discipline Williamson for the grave scandal and offense he brings to our Jewish brothers and sisters.

    Sean Pidgeon

    ReplyDelete
  7. "Your point 1 is irrelevant to the topic"

    Fair enough. I didn't really think it was but just registering my disagreement.

    "denying the Holocaust IS a scandal"

    Certainly NOT categorically as my Muslim friends will attest. There are always going to be people who are offended by whatever the Church does. Lifting the excommunications is a scandal to many Catholics, Assisi was a scandal probably even to Cardinal Ratzinger etc ...

    Bishop Williamson's denial is a minor part of the larger dynamic of reconciliation between the SSPX. It is not as if the SSPX has a policy denying the Holocaust or if the Vatican implemented the same. Do the musings of a backwater bishop in a fringe group deserve the media uproar generated? No. What has transpired is entirely disproportionate (in my opinion) whereas for those calling for Bishop Williamson to recant as a condition probably think the uproar was proportionate.

    "I object to a few of your examples: having bare-chested women dance in front of you is hardly on the same level as the homosexual/pedophilia scandal or denying the Holocaust."

    Of course, context is always important, but considering the liberal tendency to use anything to justify their excesses, a call for more prudence - particularly to avoid scandal - is nevertheless legitimate. And what about kissing the Koran? How much context do you think the Crusaders would have needed to justify that?

    "Your attempt to turn the scandal-precludes-episcopal-function argument against the hierarchy fails to recognize one important point: no one can judge the Pope (legally, officially, etc.)."

    Which is why I anticipated that criticism when I stated "but such actions are no means exclusive to the Bishop of Rome"

    "You also fail to recognize another point: admitting a bishop into the Church and dealing with a bishop already functioning within the Church are two different matters, so that you can't apply the litmus test strictly equally. Prudence dictates that."

    Seriously, did you read my post? Specifically regarding the qualifier of Bishop Williamson as "aspiring"

    "the hierarchy aren't immune from laxity in applying rules of this sort."

    Definitely! I look at this laxity and see inconsistency and wonder where it comes from. When you take a closer look, Heiner's article makes more and more sense.

    ReplyDelete
  8. "To call into question the greatest evil perpetuated against our elder brothers in faith is scandalous."

    You have to try to look at it from his perspective which is what you should always do in dialogue. If you did not believe the Holocaust did not happen, then the moral outrage over its denial is no scandal but the perpetuation of a lie.

    He has some doubts based on technicalities (I assume you've watched the interview prior to that post) which are in themselves legitimate.

    Now I think those technical obstacles can be explained away, e.g. gaskets wore down, and so the matter should be judged in debate and left to the individual to decide.

    "To even compare Williamson's actions to a Bishop who celebrates Mass with bare-breasted dancers is beyond banal."

    Here you assume that the mainline account of the Holocaust is true. Bishop Williamson is speaking from a system that does not believe that. He believes he is speaking the truth and so you fail to understand.

    "I assume you are skeptical of the 2nd Vatican Council, and abhor all Masses not celebrated in the Tridentine Rite. I would love to have a debate on celebrating Mass in the vernacular,"

    I am skeptical of the Second Vatican Council.
    I certainly do not abhor non-Tridentine Masses (having gone to various Eastern rite liturgies over the years).
    The vernacular in the liturgy is not, per se, a bad thing in my opinion so go ahead and debate.

    Best not to assume, I've found and considering you got two of three assumptions wrong you would do well to follow that advice.

    "comparing Holocaust denial to celebrating a Mass that incorporates local cultural values is grossly insulting to the people who were brutally murdered during the Shoah."

    You miss the point. The degree of the scandal is not at issue here, it is whether scandal has occurred.

    "great theologians like Karl Rahner, that non-Christians can be saved by being faithful followers of their own faiths, but their salvation will come through Christ, even if they do not fully realize it in this life. "

    You assume we agree that Rahner is a great theologian. I don't think he is and that his interpretation is dubious.

    "Finally, you are right that it causes grave scandal to see Bishops remain in office after aiding and abetting pedophile priests. That Church leadership messed up here does not mean that it cannot do the right thing and discipline Williamson for the grave scandal and offense he brings to our Jewish brothers and sisters."

    True that the exception does not a rule make. But the fact is that the Church is not going to give up on its rather unsuccessful dialogue with people of the Jewish faith because of a bishop in a fringe group's opinion on the Holocaust.

    The issues the SSPX brings to the table are much greater than that.

    ReplyDelete
  9. traumerei,

    I apologize for assuming you would oppose all non-Latin liturgies. I was making an assumption that I could not justify based on your earlier comment to this blog post. I am sure we would both agree that the purpose of the liturgy is to give glory to God. A good Mass is one focused on Christ. A bad Mass is one that gives off the impression, "look how special we all are." A lot of those hippie-guitar masses in the 70's right after Vatican II were like this. I can assure you, Mass in the post-conciliar Church has gotten better. But Mass in any language has the danger to do this.

    As far as Rahner is concerned, I think it is more than a matter of opinion that he is a great theologian. He already stands as one of the greats of the 20th century, right up there with Von Balthasar, Schillebeeckx, Kung, and I would add Ratzinger.

    That he is a great theologian (and that any of the others I list above is a great theologian) does not mean that he is always correct. Even Augustine was not always right, and he will probably rank no worse than top five in history until the end of time. By greatness I mean depth and breadth of thought.

    For a comparison to philosophy, Nietzsche stands as one of the all-time great philosophers. Obviously, I think in many areas he was wrong. He was wrong about God. He was wrong about Socrates. He was wrong about Christianity. He had some brilliant critiques of Enlightenment philosophy, but for the most part I think he was wrong. That does not negate the fact that Nietzsche was a brilliant philosopher, and his writings will last, even if he was wrong.

    Of course, if we are to say that true theological greatness can only come through orthodoxy, then Rahner's claim to greatness must be weighed based on the orthodoxy (or heterodoxy) of his writings. If this is what you mean by greatness, then I grant your right to deny his greatness based on an interpretation of his orthodoxy.

    I don't think that Rahner claims that there is salvation outside of the Church, or outside of Christ. He simply argues that some non-believers might possibly be anonymous Christians, who though not coming to outwardly know Christ, strive for truth in their lives, and, though not knowing it, are really part of the Body of Christ.

    Think of the story in Acts, where Paul visits the Greeks, and tells them that the unknown God that they worship is in fact Christ.

    Sean Pidgeon

    ReplyDelete
  10. traumerie (and Travis, since you might like this too),

    I found this prime example of liturgical abuse from Thomas Peters' American Papist Blog:

    http://www.americanpapist.com/2009/02/photos-priest-uses-super-soaker-to.html

    Yes, a priest used a Super Soaker to bless parishioners at a Newman Center Mass. High-powered Holy Water. I will go out on a limb and call that liturgical abuse

    ReplyDelete
  11. Hi Sean,

    Thanks for your reply and my apologies if I came off as a bit harsh. The internet isn't a good place for the kind of nuance you get from a face to face conversation.

    Well, I went to the New Mass up until 1998 and still see the bits of the New Mass occasionally since the FSSP Mass I go to sometimes is right after it. It hasn't improved. If a standard rubric was adopted and enforced, there would be a magnitude less probability of abuse. As it is, when you look at the numbers, the Church is enjoying no new springtime.

    I'm fairly sure Travis and I strongly disagree with Kueng as being a great theologian. The common denominator between them is their modern Germanic "Rhine contingent" theology, ie., liberal theology. Of course, Kueng is quite different from Ratzinger even if they are both left of the Traditionalist "faction". But I mean, I'm not so closed-minded as to believe that their theologies will never someday perhaps be accepted and embraced with that hermeneutic of continuity in the same way that Aquinas' radical ideas wrt Aristotelianism were also eventually accepted. But at this point, I'm not counting on it.

    As for Nietzsche, well he has his moments of brilliance ("God is dead" in the context of his polemic is actually one of those moments) but he seriously? What with his system of philosophy riddled with contradictions and unsupported assertions; he's all flash and little substance. He's not even on the level of Kant or Heidegger let alone Aquinas. I mean, what do you think of Analytic philosophers and their problems with Nietzsche?

    "Rahner ... argues that some non-believers might possibly be anonymous Christians, who though not coming to outwardly know Christ, strive for truth in their lives, and, though not knowing it, are really part of the Body of Christ."

    And that's the thing. It's kind of an elegant solution but squares against prior papal dogmatic declarations. The proper attitude is to hope for the best but assume a strict interpretation of EENS.

    "Think of the story in Acts, where Paul visits the Greeks, and tells them that the unknown God that they worship is in fact Christ."

    Make no mistake about it, I have a lot of admiration of Aristotle's conception of God from the Metaphysics and St. Paul's apologetic tactic, while IIRC unsuccessful, as well as that of the Jesuits in China etc...
    But such apologetic techniques are *apologetic*. They are trying to convert people and this is much more difficult when you tell them that you don't need to.

    ReplyDelete