Concerning your recent post on Bishop Richard Williamson, I am familiar with many of the issues involving his case. As a Traditional Catholic who attends a church that is part of the Society of St. Pius X network, I am aware that Bishop Williamson has created serious problems within the Society.
Unlike the overwhelming number of the readers of VFR, however, I’ve met the Bishop, and, on one occasion, he heard my confession. But first, allow me a few clarifications.
The Society of St. Pius X is a priestly, not secular, organization, whose origins and founding came about when, in 1988, the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebre “consecrated” (not “ordained,” which is the ceremony for entering priests) four bishops, which is forbidden canonically: only the pope may consecrate bishops. The late pope, John Paul II, considered the four bishops, not their followers, “schismatic,” but the Society and its followers were cast out of the Catholic hierarchical system.
Since then, the Society of St. Pius X, often referred to as SSPX, has led the fight to revise the Mass and restore liturgical Latin as its base, as well as to work actively for ending, in their opinion, and mine, the disastrous consequence of Vatican II (1962-65). Currently, there are more than 600,000 worshippers who attend Masses sponsored by the SSPX throughout the world, and those numbers increase each year. Enter the case of Bishop Richard Williamson…
I have often referred to the bishop as a “loose cannon,” for his bizarro explanations of events like 9/11 are quite surreal. He is currently the head of a SSPX seminary in Argentina, but the event in question, his “denial” of the Holocaust, came about when he was interviewed on a Swedish tv station. What was interesting was that the contents of that interview, which took place last November, were not released until the Vatican had, in late January, made overtures to begin a rapprochement with the SSPX. I, for one, would not doubt that Church “progressives,” who despise the Society and its attempt to eradicate the baleful effects of Vatican II, may have used the interview to undermine such a reconciliation.
Let me make this perfectly clear: Williamson’s willful wandering into non-theological grounds, the sin of many of the Catholic clergy following Vatican II, is something that should be condemned—and has. Bishop Fellay, the titular head of the SSPX, has been very clear and forceful about the contradiction of allowing “anti-Semitism” within a truly Catholic body, and Bishop Williamson has apologized profusely. But that, it appears, is not enough, and within the German political structure, the pontiff has been called to account. To me, this is a manufactured “crisis,” and should not effect the on-going negotiations between the Vatican and SSPX.
There is one final point here: as with the race baiters in this country, who have developed into a profitable industry that cannot be easily dismantled, the Catholic Church has, within its hierarchy, dozens of progressives who have a vested interest in continuing to take the position that the disastrous consequences of Vatican II are not related to the decisions taken there. The current pope, whom I believe recognizes those failings, although he was very active at the Council, has reached out to Traditionalists, much to the dismay of the liberal establishment within the Church. The Williamson episode indicates that any and all measures will be undertaken to see that such a reunion does not occur.