Stupidity is not heresy

[muckefuck]

So am I the only one who's puzzled by the furor over the "rehabilitation" of the Most Reverend Richard Williamson? I guess I shouldn't be--I mean, the media seem as constitutionally incapable of reporting accurately on religion as they do on science (or, really, anything besides celebrity scandals). And even if they did report it flawlessly, there's no guaranteeing that the vast majority of people--who have even less insight into the workings of the RCC's creaky mediaeval machinery than they do into the absurdist structures of legal systems that actually affect their lives--would grasp the fundamentals.

Which, as I see it, are these: In 1988, Archbishop Marcel-François Lefebvre consecrates four bishops without Vatican approval. This is an excommunicable offence--an automatic one, IIRC, so the five of them are booted from the Most Holy and Apostolic Church without the need for anyone in Holy See to lift a finger. (The four guys are still bishops, though, since in canon law parlance their ordination was valid but not licit.) Twenty years on, with Pope Benedict XVI rolling back the clock on Vatican II to let back in most the the innovations that have bedeviled Lefebvre and his followers, he makes a move to bring the schismatics back into the fold. Essentially, it's the same offer that's always been good--stop espousing heretical views, agree to accept my authority, and you're back in--but this time it's accepted; like the flipping of a switch, the excommunications are removed (or maybe they never officially happened--I admit, even I get vague about some points).

That's it--purely a technical legal matter. I've seen scorn for the Vatican's statements that the personal views of the individual bishops are a separate matter, but it's true; as far as I know, Holocaust denial is not now, nor has it ever been, an excommunicable offence. Does anyone care to speculate for a moment how many of the 400,000+ priests already ensconced in the Catholic hierarchy are Holocaust deniers? You can say--as many commentators have been--that this simply shows how fucked up the Church's priorities are. But isn't there something a bit surreal about seeing otherwise good liberals call for more squelching of dissent on the part of the Catholic hierarchy? I personally think that Holocaust denial renders a person unfit to hold a position of responsibility, for the same reason that denying the heliocentric theory or the germ theory of disease would; that is, if you can't accept that the Holocaust happened despite the existence of literally mountains of highest-quality historical evidence, then I really don't trust your powers of discernment in any matter more important than what to have for breakfast (and perhaps not even there).

But, as scandal after scandal--political, financial, sexual, etc.--sadly shows, the RCC really doesn't feel it has the luxury of mothballing any priest with more than two limbs and two dozen marbles. That's bad business in the long run, but I don't necessarily see it as "condoning" anti-Semitism any more than it's "condoning" paedophilia, embezzlement, collusion in politics, or any of the other sleazy shit Catholic clergy get up to without immediately losing their collars. Again, Papa Ratzi wins the Brass Ear for Intercommunal Relations by not considering how the whole matter would play to hoi polloi, but to hold the rehabilitation up as "proof" of his anti-Semitism is just perverse. Seriously, if this is the best evidence you can find, then you simply aren't looking very hard.

Comments

[bunj.livejournal.com]

I have not heard anything about them being reinstated as priests (much less consecrated as bishops). So the question is, not how many Catholic priests are Holocaust deniers, but how many Catholics are Holocaust deniers?

Unless denying the Holocaust is a sin, it's no basis to not rescind the excommunication. Indeed, I've heard the argument that lifting the excommunication is an effort to bring these bishops (and the Lefebvrists in general) back into the fold before they go further off the deep end.

Really, the worst thing that can be laid at Benny 16's feet is bad timing. This announcement came just a few weeks after Williamson's remarks. The rest, I think, is the media misinterpreting and blowing out of proportion. This is a common problem for the Catholic Church (and most religious organizations). It's as if a company's internal memos had to be published on the internet. This is an internal matter that is not aimed at disrespecting Jews, but on healing a rift between Christians.

I found some good discussion of the announcement here and here.

[his-regard.livejournal.com]

Unless denying the Holocaust is a sin, it's no basis to not rescind the excommunication.

I highly suspect that one can't get to the end result of Holocaust denial without routing through a number of justifications which are themselves sin.

[bunj.livejournal.com]

I highly suspect that one can't get to the end result of Holocaust denial without routing through a number of justifications which are themselves sin.

True, but are they unpardonable sins? If he's excommunicated, there's nothing Benedict or any other Catholic cleric can do to help him. If he's back in the fold, he can seek penance for his sins.

The point is that this is but the first part of what will probably be a long process. Benedict isn't condoning his beliefs, or reinstating his place in the Catholic hierarchy. He's just saying, "You can be a Catholic again, if you want to." It will be interesting to see how this plays out in the future. If Williamson does get reinstated without publicly repudiating his Holocaust denial, then that will be a cause for concern.

[foodpoisoningsf.livejournal.com]

What holocaust?

[his-regard.livejournal.com]

I personally think that Holocaust denial renders a person unfit to hold a position of responsibility, for the same reason that denying the heliocentric theory or the germ theory of disease would; that is, if you can't accept that the Holocaust happened despite the existence of literally mountains of highest-quality historical evidence, then I really don't trust your powers of discernment in any matter more important than what to have for breakfast (and perhaps not even there).

Ecclesiastical responsibility is a considerably different beast than secular authority, which should make Holocaust denial much more severe than those other two examples. Denial of germ theory (for example) doesn't need to be dispositive. Imagine if priest performs a ritual of administering prayer to help a sick person, and a doctor performs a ritual of administering antibiotics to the same person. So long as the priest recognizes that the two rituals are are in two non-overlapping spheres of influence, he's free to think "prayer works!" as much as he likes when the patient improves. It's only if he takes the step to "ONLY prayer works" that trouble begins.

Holocaust denial is another beast entirely, as you pretty much have to willfully disregard the good efforts and testimony of thousands of people -- and conversely, willfully elevate the bad efforts of thousands more -- to get to the conclusion. That's the kind of thing which goes directly against the portfolio of a Catholic spiritual leader.

[pklexton.livejournal.com]

But why did he make the move to bring the schismatics back to the fold *now*, or at all? He didn't have to do anything, as I understand it. True it doesn't constitute condoning anti-Semitism; that is an overreaction. But the context does indicate a startling lack of care for the appearance of anti-Semitism, sort of like the way an appearance of impropriety in some ethical matters can be significant in itself. Particularly given who this Pope is and his background.

But then again, I'm a very lapsed Catholic and unlikely to see much of what these folks do in a favorable light.

[muckefuck.livejournal.com]

Ratzinger's most glaring handicap in the position is his lack of pastoral experience. For most of his career, he's been, in essence, a policy wonk. And it shows. He puts a lot of thought into the doctrinal basis and ideological consistency of his statements, much less into how they will play to a non-academic audience. Of course, these failings are all the more highlighted by JP2's absolute brilliance in the public arena. He gave the office a degree of influence it hasn't had in ages; but with greater prominence comes greater scrutiny.

Why now? I don't know much about the internal history of the negotiations. It took some time for B16 to get his Lefebvrist-friendly reforms (like restoration of the Tridentinte liturgy) in place. Apparently, talks between the Holy See and the SSPX (the four bishops' schismatic organsation) have been ongoing since at least 2000.

[fengi.livejournal.com]

For me, it's about the hilarity of a bishop who is both a holocaust denier and a 9/11 conspiracy theorist which sort of the whole man of faith thing into a punchline, "if you believe in Papal infallibility, then..."

It's as amusing as the rumor Art Bell was converting to Catholicism to please his new Filipino bride.

[muckefuck.livejournal.com]

Jeebus, don't get me started on Papal infallibility! It's got to be the most thoroughly misunderstood theological concept this side of Nirvana.

[goreism.livejournal.com]

(1) AFAIK, the SSPX didn't make any concessions, which is part of why this is so controversial. It was a bit like Israel's unilateral withdrawal from Gaza.
(2) SSPX masses are still not licit. In fact, this action has nothing to do with the SSPX; it affects only the four bishops.
(3) This doesn't regularize the status of the four bishops. It's just that instead of being excommunicated, their status is now the same as that of SSPX priests: they're suspended a divinis.