You could have written this without your usual slur against "Rad Trads," implying that all are guilty of anti-Semitism. That is manifestly untrue and it's a calumny. It's not even true of all the SSPX, let alone those of us who consider ourselves "traditional Catholics" (not "rad trads").

This is why there will be continuing contention in the Catholic Church. You don't appreciate specious and fallacious epithets being applied to you - so why do you do it to traditional Catholics?
Randy | 01.30.09 - 10:26 am | #

You misunderstood my point in my last line, which means that I didn't do a good enough job explaining what I meant. The reason I say that "it is hard to imagine how it could have been avoided without continuing the schism in the Body of Christ" is not because of the SSPX's reaction to any preemptive p.r. campaign, but because those who are throwing the fits now would not have been satisfied even if a preemptive p.r. campaign had been waged.

In other words, someone like Andrew Sullivan is essentially saying that Benedict should have held off on lifting the excommunications until he, Andrew Sullivan, was satisfied. Since that would never happen, no matter how much money and time the Vatican poured into public relations, then the excommunications would not be lifted, and the schism, instead of heading toward resolution (and perhaps quite rapidly, if the Remnant account that I quoted in my piece is to be believed), would continue indefinitely.
Scott P. Richert | Homepage | 01.30.09 - 10:32 am | #

As for the idea that "some modest steps" would have prevented headlines such as "Pope Welcomes Holocaust-Denying Bishop," I really don't see any reason to believe that that's true. Benedict could have spent his general audiences for the entire month of January explaining what was to come, and the media would still have printed such headlines, because they sell papers.
Scott P. Richert | Homepage | 01.30.09 - 10:36 am | #

I just don't understand this hostility toward Jews from the Rad-Trad (as opposed to Trad) community. Islam is a far greater threat to the Church.
Tim Brandenburg | 01.30.09 - 10:37 am | #

Also, I wish I had a dime every time somebody talks about calumny on this Blog.
Tim Brandenburg | 01.30.09 - 10:38 am | #

Just a note of thanks for this great post, Mark. Well said. Hope yours is a blessed Friday!
Josh Miller | Homepage | 01.30.09 - 10:41 am | #

You could have written this without your usual slur against "Rad Trads," implying that all are guilty of anti-Semitism.

Actually, I was pretty clear that not all Traditionalists--indeed, not all SSPX schismatics--are anti-semites. However, some people do choose to hear what I'm not saying so they can nurse a grievance. Perhaps a better use of your energy would be in trying to do something about the many many Traditionalists who *do* cultivate anti-semitism rather than denouncing those of us who notice the bleedin' obvious.
Mark P. Shea | 01.30.09 - 11:03 am | #

Tim Brandenburg - Islam's holy books don't contain blasphemies against Christ. Muslims don't suffer from a persecution complex, nor do they, as far as I know, take especial care to dishonour Christian feasts such as Christmas (see Mark's post on that at Christmastime last year). They're free from ethnic hang-ups. Although they do not always like Christian attempts to evangelise them, they do not, in my experience, claim that such attempts are proof of racial hatred.
Brian T. | Homepage | 01.30.09 - 11:25 am | #

Not sure they missed a catechetical opportunity. They did get it right. Just not within the same news cycle. At the end of the day the story will fade because there is no there there. People who are quick to jump to the worst possible conclusions about the church have identified themselves again.
Randy | Homepage | 01.30.09 - 11:26 am | #

Islam's holy books don't contain blasphemies against Christ

My understanding is they tell a very different story about the death of Jesus and deny the resurection. They deny he ever claimed to be God. So what is the definition of blasphemy? If a cartoon can be blasphemy then why can't offering a watered down view of a person's life be blasphemy?
Randy | Homepage | 01.30.09 - 11:32 am | #

http://wdtprs.com/blog/2009/01/s...ns-up/ #comments
John F. Triolo | 01.30.09 - 11:38 am | #

Brian T., you apparently haven't read the Koran too closely (if at all). For just one sampling of how Islam's holy book views Christ, see my colleague Aaron Wolf's article, "Rick Warren: America's Dwight Schrute."
Scott P. Richert | Homepage | 01.30.09 - 11:39 am | #

The trouble with the "mushy middle" these days is that they are so easily motivated to take offense and so impossible to motivate to educate themselves. The whole concept of P.R. seems to be our concession to this reality - that the clueless are also the most volatile. Conversely, the people least likely to ever take offense are the ones who don't assume they know everything, and are willing to give the benefit of the doubt until far more study is completed (by which time they aren't hot under the collar anyway).

I'll freely admit to being a bit of a radtrad, but the whole anti-semitic thing has me completely baffled - just about as much as the types who are offended by the Pope's gesture. Frankly, I'd walk a mile in tight shoes to avoid both groups.
Ipsitilla | Homepage | 01.30.09 - 11:43 am | #

Brian T,
Persecution complex? Treated like crap thousands of years and periodically rounded up for killing... I might have a touch of a persection complex.

In the interest of full disclosure, do you deny the Holocaust (200,000 vs. 6 million people, no gas chambers, etc.) and/or believe the Protocols of Zion are accurate reflections of the "Jewish Wordl Domination Conspiracy"? Also, do you reject Nostre Aetate?
Tim Brandenburg | 01.30.09 - 11:52 am | #

If anyone follows John Triolo's link above, you will find that Bp. Williamson has apologized. Not that it will be good enough for the catho-phobes, professional anti-anti-Semites and Andrew Sullivan, it was a remarkable act which I do not think a man of his character could easily have made.
Danby | 01.30.09 - 12:11 pm | #

someone is in way over their head
Anonymous | 01.30.09 - 12:12 pm | #

Danby,
Bp. Williamson must do more than apologize. He must repudiate his insane views on Jewish issues. Denial of the Holocaust is contrary to historic evidence, testimony at Nuremburg, etc.
Tim Brandenburg | 01.30.09 - 12:23 pm | #

Islam's holy books don't contain blasphemies against Christ.

Denial that God is God is not blasphemous? Why then, do you suppose early heretics who denied the deity of Jesus were called blasphemers?

Muslims don't suffer from a persecution complex,

Does the term "Danish cartoon" ring a bell?

nor do they, as far as I know, take especial care to dishonour Christian feasts such as Christmas (see Mark's post on that at Christmastime last year).

Oh, no you don't! That article was about a small minority on the fringe who are generally regard as kooks by their fellow Jews. You might as well make Fred Phelps the poster boy for all Christians.

They're free from ethnic hang-ups.

Do you always talk this nonsense, or only for the special purpose of bashing Jews?

Although they do not always like Christian attempts to evangelise them, they do not, in my experience, claim that such attempts are proof of racial hatred.

Holding up Islam as a paragon of tolerance for Christianity is a bit of a non-starter.

Nice attempt to justify kooky Rad Trad anti-semitism though.
Mark P. Shea | 01.30.09 - 12:26 pm | #

Tim,
The man obviously believes what he said. Nobody has said anything to change his mind. So should he deny what he thinks to be true? In other words, should he lie?

That's what you're asking him to do, and it is entirely unreasonable.

First convince him he was wrong to have thought such things, THEN you can get an apology. While apologies for believing what you believe have become standard fare in the US media, don't expect it of honest men.
Danby | 01.30.09 - 1:25 pm | #

Holocaust denial is intellectually repugnant but not necessarily morally so.

If one believes an untrue conspiracy theory in good faith than he is merely silly, or stupid or ignorant, not necessarily morally defective.

The moral element is more determined by one's reasons for denial--some people are simply suseptible to conspiracy theories, some people simply don't want something so horrible to be true and other are anti-semites who disbelieve it because jews say it is true. Obviously this last is the class with a moral problem.

Then there are those who believe the holocaust happened but deny it for reasons of propoganda--these are obviously the worst.
John F. Triolo | 01.30.09 - 2:19 pm | #

A bishop who believes such claptrap is not fit to be a shehered of Christ's flock, and Bishop Williamson's beliefs are without a legitimate basis. It is my opinion that Bishop Williamson and all other clergy that reject Nostra Aetate, deny the Holocaust, and/or believe in the Protocols of Zion should be censured, silenced, and forbidden to pracice ANY ministry to stop the damage done to the Church's reputation.

An insane belief isn't justified just because a person holds it. Holocaust deniers are insane, at least when it comes to that topic. Their anti-Semitism will result in severe judgment when they leave this world.

I recognize I have strong feelings on this topic and they cloud my judgment, but denying a historical event that took place less than 60 years ago is just ridiculous and should not be tolerated.

Also, freedom of speech is an American right. We shouldn't expect American rights when it comes to the Church established by Jesus Christ.
Tim Brandenburg | 01.30.09 - 2:23 pm | #

Tim,
No, holocaust deniers are not by that reason insane. They are wrong, and may be ignorant, deluded, duped or stupid but they are not insane, unless by insane you mean "someone who disagrees with me."

Nor are they of necessity anti-Semites. In this case, perhaps Williamson is an anti-Semite, I haven't read enough of what he's said to form an opinion. Screaming denunciations of him however might make you feel better but will not accomplish anything besides hardening him against you. If he is really an anti-Semite, hysterical name-calling by those he would identify as Jews will even justify in his own mind, and that of others, any anti-Semitism he harbors.

In other words, your over-the top reaction and demands, not for sincere apology but for abject groveling submission, serve to foster anti-Semitism.
Danby | 01.30.09 - 3:39 pm | #

Danby,
OK. I'll give Bishop Williams the benefit of the doubt. He is a moron, and it is still undecided as to whether he is insane. However, 9/11 conspiracy nonsense and belief in the clearly refuted Protocols of Zion indicate insanity in my opinion. Also, the belief that women shouldn't go to college gives pause for concern.

I want the SSPX reconciled as much as the next person (I actually have a great deal of sympathy for the way traditionalists, NOT rad-trads, have been treated). However, a vocal nut bishop undermines reconciliation and does harm to the Church's name.
Tim Brandenburg | 01.30.09 - 4:16 pm | #

"Also, freedom of speech is an American right. We shouldn't expect American rights when it comes to the Church established by Jesus Christ."

Funny, this is, more or less, what the SSPX believes.

Small world.
John F. Triolo | 01.30.09 - 4:40 pm | #

A list of beliefs which don't necessarily condemn you to Hell (abridged):

-The Nazis killed far fewer Jews than suggested by most historians
-The moon landing never took place
-the Earch is flat
-The Earth is the center of the universe
-it wasn't Lee Harvey Oswald
-Dinosaurs existed alongside man
-Dinosaurs never existed
-Floride in drinking water is a commie plot
-The Rosenbergs were innocent
-So was OJ

And now, a list of beliefs that are false:

-See above


I'll agree what sin makes you stupid, but stupidity doesn't necessarily constitute a sin.
John F. Triolo | 01.30.09 - 4:48 pm | #

As becomes more apparent daily - this is not a "teapot tempest".
Mike | 02.02.09 - 10:50 am | #