Vatican: Pope Didn’t Know About Williamson’s Comments

[lemonbeam]

The Vatican’s press office spokesman, Jesuit Father Federico Lombardi, has responded to allegations by a Swedish television channel that the Vatican knew of Bishop Richard Williamson’s Holocaust-denying comments to the channel before the excommunication of the Society of St. Pius X bishop was lifted in January.

Although he didn’t address how much knowledge Vatican officials had prior to the lifting of the excommunications of Bishop Williamson and the schismatic society’s three other bishops, Father Lombardi said it was “absolutely baseless to say or even insinuate that the Pope had been informed earlier of the positions of Williamson.”

Father Lombardi added, “This has been clearly denied in the note of the Secretary of State on Feb. 4. It also shows most clearly in the radical dissociation of the Pope and the Catholic Church regarding any anti-Semitic or Holocaust denying position.”

Pope Benedict XVI lifted the excommunications of the SSPX bishops earlier this year in a move aimed at helping reconcile the Society with the Church. The Pope said later he was unaware of Bishop Williamson’s anti-Semitic views, including his denial of the extent of the Holocaust made late last year in an interview for Swedish television that aired shortly before the excommunications were lifted in January of this year.

In a program broadcast today, the Swedish channel SVT claims the Vatican was informed of Bishop Williamson’s Holocaust-denial shortly after it recorded the interview with him last November.

Said Father Lombardi about the matter, “In the Pope’s letter to bishops on March 10 this year, he put an end to this whole issue and there is no reason to reopen it.”

The Holy Father “has explained the meaning of the remission of excommunication as a gesture to promote the unity of the Church and at the same time showed accusations addressed to him of disrespect to the Jewish people to be totally unfounded,” Father Lombardi said. “He has also recognized with simplicity the limits of the Vatican’s internal and external communications, and has provided a new status of the Commission Ecclesia Dei in order to guarantee a better and safer way to proceed in matters related to relations with traditionalists.”

Father Lombardi added that to “revive the Williamson case cannot serve anything but to create confusion for no reason.”

According to an Associated Press report, the Swedish TV program doesn’t suggest Benedict knew about the remarks before he lifted the excommunications. Instead, it singles out Cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos, who had been leading efforts to bring reconciliation with the Society of St. Pius X, as having knowledge before the excommunications occurred.

Associated Press, which viewed an advance screening of the new STV program, reports that it claims Sweden’s Catholic diocese informed the apostolic nuncio to Sweden about Bishop Williamson’s remarks and that the nuncio in turn informed Vatican officials, including Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos.

ncregister.com/daily/vatican_pope_didnt_know_about_williamsons_comments/

 

[FickleFreckled]

I’d like to know why the Pope didn’t know since the information was apparently readily available.

 

[JReducation]

I’d like to know why the Pope didn’t know since the information was apparently readily available.

The information was not made available to the Holy Father. It seems that it was passed on to Cardinal Hoyos. But the Cardinal did not pass it along to the Holy Father. This may explain the sudden change in leadership in the Ecclesia Dei Commission and sudden reassignment of the Cardinal. If the Nuncio did in fact pass this information on to the Cardinal, then he should have informed the Holy Father’s secretary immediately. There was an error in judgment on the part of the Cardinal. It is not the Pope’s job to stay on top of the what goes on everywhere in the Church. That’s why you delegate people to different posts and give them authority to take action and resolve problems. When they cannot resolve them, then they take them to the pope.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[FickleFreckled]

JReducation,
I didn’t mean that the Pope himself should have been perusing the internet for up-to-the-minute information moments before lifting an excommunication. it just seems hard to believe that anyone could neglect to pass on that kind of information to him.

 

[paperwight]

Yes, indeed, I find it diffcult to believe, too. Surely background checks were done? And how naive of someone not to foresee the furore that would result from such an own-goal.

 

[JReducation]

Yes, indeed, I find it diffcult to believe, too. Surely background checks were done? And how naive of someone not to foresee the furore that would result from such an own-goal.

We have to remember that we’re dealing wiht a different culture here. The idea of background checks and so forth is a much more American thing than it is a European practice. Maybe in the UK where the systems are more similar to that of the USA. Most religious institutions in Europe trust the good-faith of the clergy and religious.

In addition, the Vatican really runs on canon law, not so much on civil practice. What the Apostolic See was looking at was at the canons. The question was could they or could they not lift the excommunications. Canonically, there was no impediment. Even if the Holy Father had known about Bishop Williamson’s positions, there would have been no canonical impediment to lifting of the excommunication. The excommunication is a disciplinary action for something that has nothing to do with the Shoah. They were excommunicated for disobedience to the Holy Father. They should never have allowed Archbishop Lefebvre ordain them bishops. By doing so, they disobeyed the Holy Father.

As far as Bishop Williamson is concerned, I have read a few interviews of some of the Cardinals at the Vatican and they don’t take Bishop Williamson seriously. Everyone of them, in their own way, has said that Bishop Williamson is a good man who shoots off his mouth before engaging is brain, but that he really does not mean to do harm. What does this mean for his long term tenure in the Catholic Church?

From my experience of dealing wiht clergy and religious since 1969, I would say that he is not the kind of bishop who would ever be given a diocese, because he seems to be a lose canon, because he is impulsive. But if he truly is a good man and sincere, he may make a very good auxiliary bishop in some diocese. The Church has been burnt too often by giving these kinds of bishops their own dioceses.

In the end, who knew what and when is not really an issue that has anything to do wiht the lifting of the excommunication. We also have to recall, each Sacred Congregation in the Vatican is autonomous. They have been given authority by the Holy Father and by Canon Law to make binding decisions in his name, without his prior knowledge. Most decrees are written by Congregations and commisions. They are promulgated by the pope in the sense that he is given them to sign. But he does not always read them. That’s his secretary’s job. His secretary has to read these decreees and advise him to sign or not to sign. This was the big issue with the excommunications of the SSPX bishops in the first place.

Many argue that Pope John Paul II did not excommunicate the bishops, but that it was a Congregation that did the excommunicating. This was true. But the Congregations, local bishops, and even religiuos superiors have the authority to excommunicate. Then the notice is sent to the Holy Father for his final approval. He does not have to sign it;. He just has to remain silent. If he does not revoke the excommunication, then the sentence sticks. On the other hand, only the Holy Father can lift certain excommunications. Some are reserserved to the local bishops or even to the individual’s confessor to lift.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[greglani]

It was important for the Pope to bring schismatics back into the fold. Williamson’s private beliefs are not answered in Catholic Dogma.

Think about it. Catholics can believe the world is flat, or that Neil Armstrong did not walk on the moon, or that the world trade center was destroyed with the help of the US Government, and still be loyal Catholics.
Then why is it different when Williamson questions whether 1.5 million vs 6 million Jews died in concentration camps, and that he believes most starved to death rather than were gassed. The answers to the above questions are not found in the teachings of the Catholic Church nor in its deposit of faith. I suggest we cut Williamson’s private beliefs some slack and welcome him back into the Holy Roman Catholic Church. /s/Greg W

 

[Cider]

It’s a non issue as far as the lifting of the excommunications are concerned. Matters concerning the number of people killed in the holocaust are not a matter of Catholic teaching.

 

[JReducation]

Our holy Father Francis taught us to deal with poeple like Bishop Williamson. He said that we must always be open to the Holy Spirit. When the Holy Spirit guides us to forgive and to bring back a brother who is in the wrong, we don’t try to rewrite that brother’s mind. We try to rewrite his soul.

Bishop Williamson can believe anything nonesense that he wants to believe. That is not for us to fix. That’s his problem and he has to deal with the consquences of his belief. But he must be brought back to terms with the Church, because that is about his soul, not aboiut his mind.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[recidite_plbs]

Br JR

A couple of issues that you may wish to reflect on (I suggest):

1. The Pope is the Head of the Vatican State. It is surely incumbent on any Head of State to have a machinery of government that onforms and acts appropriately. All too often the RCC and its governance are rem oved from the realities of the world we live in, and it needs to have some more “worldly” priorities sometimes if it is either to survive in this world and if it is to avoid inflicting harm on its faithful. I’m not going to trawl through the sex abuse scandal, however I’d suggest that your statement that “Most religious institutions in Europe trust the good-faith of the clergy and religious” is one of the causes of that particular problem, followed by an obstenant refusal to face the fact that clergy live in a secular world that is governed by secular laws and they cannot and should not be shielded from the consequences of their actions for the sake of preventing “scandal” and trying to discharge a problem with inadequate and inappropriate canon law when civil law should be pre-eminent. The fact is, in this day and age we are none of us ignorant and the truth cannot be hidden and surely to attempt to surpress the bad actions of clergy is going to blow up, is going to come out with added stench of cover-up, and will ineviteably cause more harm and cost more (both financially and morally) than if the matter had been addressed properly in the first place.

To wit, Bp Williamson. He is an anti-sememtic haolucaust denier. In some states tis is a criminal offence.

The fact that the systems of governance were not robust enough that the Pope’s inclination to lift the excommunication were not considered from both a PR and also a Diplomatic stand point evidences a niavety that a properly run civil state would not tolerate (OK, al Megrahi not withstanding, but that was more about the politics of Scottish independance than a failure of governance, but I accept it happens). The Pope ought to sharpen his governance game if the Vatican is to be taken seriously.

1. Unfortunmately, no-one out there listens to St Francis these days, save for the communities that live under his rule. I’m not suggesting that in one sense that rule is wrong, but when you ignore the fact that the “Catholic” paradigm is only applicable to the percentage of the faithful who still practice, and even of that number, the smaller percentage still who both practice and accept the discipline of the faith in their lives, to the rest of the world being seen to leave a conversion of will to the Holy Spirit rather than dealing with the potential for bad PR by failing to adequately handle the likes of Bp Williamson leaves the RCC looking foolish, inadequate, and incapable. The fact is to the vast majority of reasonable people it is possible to act in a way that is charitable to the soul and at the same time in a way that doesn’t leave it to some unseen “force” (which is how a statement that the Holy Spirit will guide a “soul” back into some form of compliance is going to look to almost all non-catholics, and many catholics as well) to bring Williamson to his senses or force him to wind his neck in and recant his more obnoxious views. Anything less means the RCC is left with no credibility in the matter whatsoever.

I don’t know how up to speed you are on some of the more obnixious and offensive rantings of Williamson, but his extreme views are not limited to just denying the holocaust, offending Jews, calling for women to remain uneducated, and claiming that such morally reprehensible films such as The Sound of Music rots the soul and watching it is a mortal sin. Put a dish-dash on him and he would feel right at home with the Taliban and their banning of Kite Flying as un-Islamic! You ought to read up on some of his statements, you’d be truely “enlightened”.

 

[JReducation]

Br JR

A couple of issues that you may wish to reflect on (I suggest):

1. The Pope is the Head of the Vatican State. It is surely incumbent on any Head of State to have a machinery of government that onforms and acts appropriately. All too often the RCC and its governance are rem oved from the realities of the world we live in, and it needs to have some more “worldly” priorities sometimes if it is either to survive in this world and if it is to avoid inflicting harm on its faithful. I’m not going to trawl through the sex abuse scandal, however I’d suggest that your statement that “Most religious institutions in Europe trust the good-faith of the clergy and religious” is one of the causes of that particular problem, followed by an obstenant refusal to face the fact that clergy live in a secular world that is governed by secular laws and they cannot and should not be shielded from the consequences of their actions for the sake of preventing “scandal” and trying to discharge a problem with inadequate and inappropriate canon law when civil law should be pre-eminent. The fact is, in this day and age we are none of us ignorant and the truth cannot be hidden and surely to attempt to surpress the bad actions of clergy is going to blow up, is going to come out with added stench of cover-up, and will ineviteably cause more harm and cost more (both financially and morally) than if the matter had been addressed properly in the first place.

To wit, Bp Williamson. He is an anti-sememtic haolucaust denier. In some states tis is a criminal offence.

The fact that the systems of governance were not robust enough that the Pope’s inclination to lift the excommunication were not considered from both a PR and also a Diplomatic stand point evidences a niavety that a properly run civil state would not tolerate (OK, al Megrahi not withstanding, but that was more about the politics of Scottish independance than a failure of governance, but I accept it happens). The Pope ought to sharpen his governance game if the Vatican is to be taken seriously.

1. Unfortunmately, no-one out there listens to St Francis these days, save for the communities that live under his rule. I’m not suggesting that in one sense that rule is wrong, but when you ignore the fact that the “Catholic” paradigm is only applicable to the percentage of the faithful who still practice, and even of that number, the smaller percentage still who both practice and accept the discipline of the faith in their lives, to the rest of the world being seen to leave a conversion of will to the Holy Spirit rather than dealing with the potential for bad PR by failing to adequately handle the likes of Bp Williamson leaves the RCC looking foolish, inadequate, and incapable. The fact is to the vast majority of reasonable people it is possible to act in a way that is charitable to the soul and at the same time in a way that doesn’t leave it to some unseen “force” (which is how a statement that the Holy Spirit will guide a “soul” back into some form of compliance is going to look to almost all non-catholics, and many catholics as well) to bring Williamson to his senses or force him to wind his neck in and recant his more obnoxious views. Anything less means the RCC is left with no credibility in the matter whatsoever.

I don’t know how up to speed you are on some of the more obnixious and offensive rantings of Williamson, but his extreme views are not limited to just denying the holocaust, offending Jews, calling for women to remain uneducated, and claiming that such morally reprehensible films such as The Sound of Music rots the soul and watching it is a mortal sin. Put a dish-dash on him and he would feel right at home with the Taliban and their banning of Kite Flying as un-Islamic! You ought to read up on some of his statements, you’d be truely “enlightened”.

I’m well aware that Bishop Williamson is lose canon. I’m also well aware of all the above that you validly present about him. There is much more foolishnes that he has said. I’m not a defender of his foolish statements. However, I am a Mystical Theologian. The truths of Mystical Theology, whether they seem weak or strong to the world, are still truths and they cannot be changed. We cannot deny that the Holy Spirit has to be the one to bring someone back to the heart of faith and the perfection of charity. The most that a we can do is what the Holy Father did. We can demand that he distance himself from such positions or suffer the consequences, which would be that he will not get a diocese of his own.

At some point, as Catholics, we must accept the truths that God reveals to souls through their mystical union with him. Otherwise, why would these experiences of the mystical union be of any importance to us aat all. If we say that no one listens to Francis of Assisi today, that does not mean that what God said to his soul is not true or applicable today. What it means is that Catholics and non-Catholics are missing out on a wealth of spiritual truths. The same can be said to what God revealed to the other mystics: Catherine of Siena, Teresa of Avila, Padre Pio, Mother Teresa and so forth. To each of them God grants the grace of seeing him as the Apostles saw him at the Transfiguration.

In everyone of these experiences we see a great truth that was revealed in scripture is repeated over and over again. That great truth is that the souil is brought to God by God’s grace, not by human punishment. Human punishment does not bring a soul closer to God, because it is not an act of divine grace. It is an act of human legalism.

Try to remain close to God through deeper contemplation, because as you make progress in contemplation, you will see the power of the Holy Spirit at work in your soul and in the souls of others.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF