I’ve had a couple of unfinished posts building up on my computer the last few weeks, but I’m itching to say something about the SSPX and the flurry of nonsense about the Vatican and anti-Semitism. The protests, while not exactly anticipated, were also not exactly surprising. On one level it’s fairly amazing that ordinary people would take such an interest in the affairs of an obscure group of Catholic conservatives which many of them probably had never heard of before now. Even more amazing is their cheek in thinking that they’re entitled to have an opinion on how the Holy Father should be dealing with these four members of his own flock. (Once again, can you even imagine people feeling entitled to exercise opinions in this way about the internal operations of a Jewish community, or a Hindu one?) On the other hand, we know already from long experience that journalists, as well as normal people, love a chance to whine about the Pope. And since he doesn’t offer much in the way of personal scandals, I suppose the newspapers have to seize on whatever they can. Lifting the excommunication on a Holocaust denier is apparently a good enough excuse to make some headlines.

John Allen recently wrote a piece excoriating the Vatican for inept handling of the lifting of the excommunications. It was ridiculous, he claims, to do such a controversial thing without first taking steps to reassure the Jewish community and to remind everyone that the SSPX still has not been fully rehabilitaed, and will not be until they support religious freedom. Reassurances that the Vatican frowns on Holocaust denial have been issued after the fact, but Allen complains that this belated measure will “inevitably smack of spin.”

Here’s Allen’s suggestion for how the thing should have been done:

“Rather than dropping this decree on an unsuspecting world, the Vatican could have called a press conference to present it, with senior officials such as Cardinal William Levada, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and Cardinal William Kasper, head of the Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews — so that the interpretation would be simultaneous, not after-the-fact. At that time, four key points could have been made:

– This move is not an endorsement of the personal views of these four bishops. In particular, in light of Williamson’s past comments, the pope wishes to clearly repudiate any attempt to diminish or deny the horror of the Holocaust.

– Catholicism’s commitment to fighting anti-Semitism, and to good relations with the Jewish people, is unchanged.

– Lifting the excommunication gets the traditionalists in the door, but it does not mean they have arrived. If they are to be fully reintegrated, they must accept official Catholic teaching, including religious freedom and respect for other religions.

– The pope feels he’ll have more leverage to nudge traditionalists in this direction by opening a dialogue, rather than keeping them on the outside.”

The third point is particularly irksome, because Allen is somewhat arrogantly assuming the answers to delicate questions that have yet to be decided. It simply isn’t clear yet how much the SSPX “must” accept concerning religious freedom and the status of other faiths; that’s one of the points that remains to be discussed. But as for the rest of it, I just keep coming back to two questions:

1) Why does the Holy Father, or the Vatican in general, owe such attentions to the Jews or anybody else?

2) What exactly are the harms of letting liberals and journalists make a fuss about things they don’t understand?

On the first point, I have to say that I for one would have found it distasteful if the Vatican had presented the news at a press conference largely devoted to saying nice things about Jews, and other religions generally. That, to me, would have smacked of spin much more than what actually happened. It would have been an implicit acknowledgement that the Vatican really was considering Richard Williamson qua Holocaust denier when they decided to lift the excommunication. It would also be more or less an admission that the Vatican somehow owes the Jews an apology, and that the Holy Father ought to consider their feelings when making decisions about Roman Catholic bishops and their relationship to the Holy See. All of this would have been, to my mind, a scandal. Williamson’s views on Jews and the Holocaust may be foolish and offensive, but they had nothing to do with his excommunication and there is no reason why they should have been considered before lifting it. What stands between the SSPX and the Holy Father are issues of submission to authority, and there is no reason why the Jews or any non-Catholics should interpret the action as having anything to do with them. Nothing the Holy Father says or does should serve to feed people’s confusion on these points, as the press conference Allen envisions would almost certainly have done.

It’s actually terribly ironic when you think about it. If the Vatican were to make a practice of excommunicating people for holding erroneous historical views (say, academic historians who had spread misinformation about the history of the papacy or the lives of the saints) they would be excoriated for not respecting intellectual freedom. Now, because they won’t penalize Williamson for his historical errors, they are accused of insensitivity to Jews.  

With respect to my second question, Allen offers these cutting words:

“In short, the Vatican under Benedict XVI still has not learned the lessons of Regensburg. The terribly irony of these meltdowns is that they’re a boon for people hostile to the pope or the church, who can cluck about how “I told you so,” while they fall hardest on those most inclined to be sympathetic.

Of course, if this cycle continues, there may not be many people left in the second category to worry about.”

Ha ha, that’s cute, Allen. But I have to ask — sorry to put you on the couch, but it pretty much comes flying off the page — would the prime example of the second category be, say, a journalist who surrounds himself by liberals and likes to style himself the bridge-building moderate in their midst? I mean, I’m sorry if little eruptions like this make for some bad days at work for the likes of John Allen, but it doesn’t really seem like that should be the Holy Father’s top priority when the souls of the SSPX faithful may well be on the line. Meanwhile, various other arguments are trotted out at times like this, but I’m not persuaded that any of them stick. Some will argue that the Holy Father, by welcoming the traditionalists back into the Church, will drive off lukewarm liberal Catholics who were already feeling unloved. Or that potential converts might be scared away. Or that relations between Catholics and Jews will be “soured” in the future.

Well, the first point is never a terribly sympathetic one with me; if people are so determined to be offended, they’re almost certain to be driven off sooner or later. The Holy Father can’t go walking on eggshells all the time just to appease people like that. The second point is a more serious concern, but it’s not at all clear to me that it’s true. Although there are some people who have seized on this as further evidence that Pope Benedict is a Nazi sympathizer/anti-Semite/aspiring world dictator, those are hardly the sort of people who were likely to convert in any case. Meanwhile, the more mainstream interpretation seems to be to denounce the move as insensitive and badly orchestrated. In other words, most mainstream people don’t actually seem to think that the Holy Father was deliberately slighting the Jews. His Holiness just doesn’t have much of a knack for public relations. Now, think about it. For the sort of person who is viewing the Church in the right sort of light (as the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church founded by Christ and protected by his Holy Spirit), is that likely to be a major deterrent? Sometimes events like this might actually inspire a curiosity which in the long run could even lead to conversion. Finally, with respect to Catholic-Jewish relations, I can’t quite overcome the impulse to ask… who cares? I mean, I have nothing against Jews per se, but it’s not as if being on friendly terms with Jewish leaders is a central part of the Church’s apostolic mission. Of course we shouldn’t antagonize them needlessly, but if they’re going to throw tantrums about things that don’t concern them, that’s more their problem than ours. It’s times like this that we should feel thankful that the Church isn’t a democracy, and can afford to be a little complacent about minor dust storms like this.

Finally, I suspect all this griping and posturing may bring about a huge benefit — it could be hugely helpful in accomplishing the Holy Father’s actual aim of bringing the SSPX back into the fold. Think about it. If the Vatican had taken Allen’s advice, and announced the lifting of the excommunications at an event replete with glowing words about ecumenism and religious freedom, how would the SSPX have taken it? People like Allen want the SSPX to be received, if at all, in a way that emphasizes their disgrace and celebrates the things most inclined to annoy them. That’s hardly the generous pastoral gesture that the Holy Father was trying to offer. By contrast, enduring a certain amount of ridicule and abuse on their behalf (in a way, however, that does not compromise either his own dignity or any doctrine of the Church) is the perfect way for the Holy Father to show the SSPX that his concern for their souls far outweighs his desire for the praise and flattery of the world. Let the liberal journalists say what they will; the SSPX bishops, and the priests and faithful who follow them, will understand in a much deeper way what the Holy Father’s gesture really means. And the fruits of that act have been manifested already, not least in a gesture that I never expected to see — a genuinely humble and contrite apology offered from Richard Williamson to the Holy Father. Only those of us who are already familiar with Williamson’s writings, and have followed his antics for years, can really appreciate what a beautiful thing that is. For the first time I can remember, I have real hope that the SSPX may soon be fully reconciled to the Church.