Pope Benedict XVI has written an unusually personal letter to bishops worldwide explaining why he revoked the excommunication of a Holocaust-denying bishop and admitting mistakes in how the Vatican handled the case.
The letter, which the Vatican will release Thursday, is a further attempt to calm the waters after Benedict pardoned four schismatic bishops, including Richard Williamson, who in a television interview aired in January said that there were no Nazi gas chambers.
The revocation provoked worldwide outrage and caused Catholics and Jews alike to question Benedict’s commitment to ecumenism and the reforms of the Second Vatican Council.
ope’s Letter to Bishops Cites Mistakes
Yes, that was literally my first impression.
Kendall, I recommend a [url=http://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2009/03/advance-report-of-papal-letter-about.html]more reliable source[/url] than Hell’s Bible for coverage on the Pope’s letter to the bishops. Same source has a full translation of the letter [url=http://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2009/03/papal-letter-about-lifting-of-sspx.html]here.[/url]
Vatican II is not doctrine nor is commonly received history, and Bishop Williamson does not deny that the Nazis murdered hundreds of thousands of people, nor does he defend it.
[url=http://home.comcast.net/~acbfp/index.html]High-church libertarian curmudgeon[/url]
The pope’s letter did much more than cite mistakes. It stressed the important of Christian unity within the context of doctrine. It provided the exact ecclesial nature of the excommunications and what it means that he lifted them. He described the work remaining. He described the benfits of bringing fringe groups back into the wider Church. He justifies his actions as honest pastoral concern – this is charity, hard and bright like a clear diamond.
The letter appears addressed mainly to the German bishops, who have pitched a fit over the Williamson issue, but who would have been miffed without it.
Vatican II is not doctrine nor is commonly received history
What does this sentence mean, YF? V2 is a recognized ecumenical council, so for Catholics, it carries magesterial weight. Unfortunately, some prefer the (unclean) “Spirit of Vatican II”, a fantasy derived from the notion that V2 marks a disruption with the past. This pope has worked long and hard to make the point that V2 can only be interpreted correctly if it is seen in continuity with the whole 2000 years that preceeded it.
It’s good to finally have a statement from the epicenter of this event. Before reading TridentineVirginian’s comment I had grabbed this from the posted article:
“The blog posting said the pope wrote that he had been “saddened†that “even Catholics, who should have been better able to understand things,†instead seemed poised with “a hostility ready for the attack.†He added that he thanked “the Jewish friends who quickly helped remove the misunderstandings and to reestablish the atmosphere of friendship and trust.†” –
thinking that it summed up fairly well. (‘Hell’s Bible’; that’s very good, in fact it’s spot on. I have [i]thought[/i] of the NYT that way for at least 30 years, but it hadn’t yet occurred to me to call it that.)
The quote I posted helpfully makes reference to both Catholics who should have known better, and to Jewish friends who quickly helped remove the misunderstandings – to both of which groups, numerous commenters on this sort of post have been attempting to call readers’ attention for about a month by now.
Would that we could all be gifted with a charitably penetrating power of analysis like that which Pope Benedict XVI possesses.
V2 didn’t define any doctrine.
[url=http://home.comcast.net/~acbfp/index.html]High-church libertarian curmudgeon[/url]
V2 didn’t define any doctrine.
True enough, although there is this from the papal letter:
But to some of those who show off as great defenders of the Council it must also be recalled to memory that Vatican II contains within itself the whole doctrinal history of the Church. Who wants to be obedient to it [sc. the Council] must accept the faith of the centuries and must not cut the roots of which the tree lives.
And there really are some new developments of doctrine in V2, particularly around ecumenical issues and religious liberty.
“Bishop Williamson does not deny that the Nazis murdered hundreds of thousands of people, nor does he defend it.”
Correct.
But he has repeated for years his conclusion that not even a single jew ever died in a Nazi gas chamber.
And he has refused to retract his statement that no planes hit either the World Trade Center or the Pentagon on 9/11.
His unwillingness to regret, or even reflect upon, his systematic infliction of emotional distress on blameless survivors, and relatives of survivors, of these heinous crimes evidences a highly corroded sense of basic ethics and has brought scandal upon the church.
At some point even prematurely intellectually-calcified young fogeys might consider what a monster Williamson has become and and think about re-aligning themselves with communities of men and women of genuine faith.