Combat for the Faith
Dear Fathers, Sisters, and Friends,
Thank you for coming this evening. I want to speak to you about recent events and news between the Society and Rome. In comparison with the last 20 years, the last two years have been very rich in events, news, and discussions. I want to talk about the withdrawal of the decree of excommunication, the history leading up to the decree of January 21st, and the decree itself. Finally I will say a little about Bishop Williamson and the situation in Europe, especially in Germany.
First, the decree of excommunication. Why did the Society and the Superior General request two preliminary conditions for doctrinal discussions with Rome before we could have a practical or canonical agreement? It is important for you, the faithful, to understand the course of action in the Society, why we do what we do, and why we cannot accept a merely practical agreement with Rome immediately.
Since 2000 and the pilgrimage of Tradition, there has been a new situation. Rome has seen a new side to Tradition in general and the Society of St. Pius X in particular. In January 2001, with the agreement of the SSPX bishops and members of the General Council, the Society established a line of conduct, a course of action concerning our attitude towards Rome. The Society posited two conditions for any discussions with Rome. These doctrinal discussions with Rome would be about the Council, the new errors, the novelties in the Church and the new spirit in the Church. We needed a sign that we would be able to trust Rome. This was the reason we asked for two conditions: the liberalization of the Old Mass and the withdrawal of our bishops’ excommunications.
On July 7, 2007, by the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum, Pope Benedict XVI acknowledged that the traditional Mass had never been abrogated. This is surely the most important part of this motu proprio. We are all aware of the behavior of many against the Old Mass and the conscience in the modern Church against the Mass. They behaved as if this Mass had been abrogated; it was forbidden to say the Old Mass. So it was a surprise for the Pope to acknowledge that the Old Mass had never been abrogated.
There were other important items in this motu proprio: it acknowledged the right of every priest in the Church to celebrate the Old Mass. You are aware of the negative and violent reaction of many bishops to this. Nevertheless, the Pope said these two very important things.
The motu proprio was not perfect but the essential condition was fulfilled: the liberalization of the Old Mass and the possibility for every priest to say this Mass. In a certain regard we can say that, with this motu proprio, Archbishop Lefebvre’s combat for its maintenance was implicitly rehabilitated. His resistance to the New Mass was necessary to eventually receive the result of the motu proprio in 2007.
The second condition was, in a certain respect, more difficult to realize. This is because it demanded a personal and courageous act on the part of the Pope: to say that the decree from 1988 is no longer valid. Today—and this is what is essential, in line with what we had asked—the Pope has lifted the excommunications and canceled the effects of the decree of 1988. It is important to note that this lifting was done without any corresponding act on our part. It was without conditions for us. The Pope has done this again in spite of the many reservations and hostility of his entourage. This act which we had asked for was fulfilled by the Pope in a unilateral, benevolent and courageous act. After these past twenty years, it is certainly important to thank the Holy Father and especially the Blessed Virgin for this decree.
It is obvious that the Society always considered these excommunications null and void. They were profoundly unjust. Perhaps you wonder why we even asked the Pope to withdraw the excommunications, why we found this important if we considered them null, void and unjust. Was it not an implicit acceptance on our part of their validity? As Bishop Fellay has said, we do not fight and suffer for ourselves. We fight for the Church. We could have lived with the excommunications since they are unjust and void. But the excommunications were a burden and an injustice for the Church, and for many priests and faithful this burden was too hard and difficult to bear. Our concern is for more than just our own Society and faithful; we have a desire to help the Church. This is the reason we made such a demand. Too many souls are prevented from coming to us and our chapels and priories. And too many priests and faithful in the United States, France, Germany and the Philippines are stigmatized as soon as they try to live their faith even a little more traditionally.
In the US, there is a priest who is not a member of the SSPX but who works with us. He was conservative, he had the Faith and prayed the rosary—and this was enough to have himself branded a “Lefebvrist”! He didn’t know what that meant; he thought he was simply being Catholic. You see how much it takes to earn such a label! So this priest eventually came to us. But many priests and faithful around the world have the Faith, pray and maintain the Faith but do not have the strength to come to Tradition with this unjust label. With this in mind, you understand why the Society demanded the withdrawal of the excommunications.
Of course, the excommunications in practice did not simply affect the bishops of the Society. Tradition as a whole was stigmatized and effectively excommunicated. This was unjust, a handicap and an obstacle to the apostolate and our mission.
In a Letter to Friends and Benefactors in October 2008, Bishop Fellay explained our view and announced the beginning of another Rosary Crusade: “Through the excommunication, what has been censured and penalized is the very attitude which specified the combat of Archbishop Lefebvre.” This attitude, this behavior, this Catholic spirit is what was excommunicated.
In the modern Church for some decades now, a reference to the past of the Church, to Her Tradition, or the history of the Church means history only since the Second Vatican Council. This, of course, makes it a very young history. All the dogmas of the Faith and previous councils are practically no longer important. With this excommunication in 1988, as Bishop Fellay wrote, this reference to anything before Vatican II in the Church, Her history and Tradition, was penalized and excommunicated. Since then, because of this reprobation, many have been afraid of going to the Source of the Living Water, Who alone is capable of restoring Holy Mother Church.
We need this Catholic view to understand why we are not a sect. You could say it’s easier to be alone, without contact with Rome and the bishops. It’s easier to maintain one’s own line of conduct and vocation without these contacts. But this is not Catholic. We fight not only for us and for our priests and faithful; we do what the Church needs. And this is Tradition, the Old Mass, the preaching of the Faith.
A Mother Prioress in France told me that, in one of her schools, a Sister asked the children how many bishops there were in the Church. One 10- or 11-year-old child answered, “Four.” In a certain respect, this is dangerous. If our youth have no view of the Church, this is not what we want. We must have a desire that the modern Church and the faithful return to the Faith of all time.
In the past few years, there has been a reproach from the sedevacantists: “Why are you looking for contacts with Rome? They are modernists!” But the Pope is the Pope and the Church is the Church. We must save souls. I think it is important, for the young generation, for us priests to understand that we have a responsibility and a mission in the Church: not only to have nice priories and good organization, etc. We are Catholic. We are in the Church. We suffer because of the new religion and the new spirit of faith in the Church.
It is true that the excommunications, in a way, offered a certain protection. There are many examples of communities, priests and groups who have made agreements with Rome. Very often, the consequences were to accept Vatican II, or even to say the New Mass like Bishop Rifan in Campos. Here we see a man who was once so strong and now he has concelebrated the New Mass. Or consider Fr. Michael Mary, the superior of the Redemptorists. Two years ago, he refused to name Pope Benedict XVI in the Canon of the Mass because, for him, he was not the Pope! Now he has made an agreement and consequently has nothing. So, yes, in a certain regard, the excommunication was a protection. But we could not live for 20, 30 or 40 years for ourselves alone without a desire for the Church as a whole to return to Tradition.
While offering a certain protection, they were nevertheless an obstacle to our apostolate. All of our priests know this handicap very well. So many good seminarians do not enter in our seminaries simply because of these labels. Because of this, we asked for this iniquity to be washed away; not simply for us or our bishops, but for the Church. It was insult to our combat and honor.
Last June, there was another step, the so-called ultimatum from Cardinal Hoyos. There was an attempt made to force the Society into signing a purely practical resolution to our situation. Cardinal Hoyos, a Colombian, is a good man who certainly has the Faith. He is, however, a political and diplomatic man who wants results and contracts. And after all these discussions and long years since 2000, his duties in Rome will end this year or next. But what is at stake was too big for us to sign a contract in time for last summer’s holiday. It was not a sufficient reason.
The ultimatum, at the time, made the future of the Society’s contacts with Rome uncertain. Bishop Fellay said on the one hand, we could see the lifting of the excommunications later that year but, on the other hand, we might be excommunicated again now! Cardinal Hoyos forced us and demanded a rapid answer and was upset that Bishop Fellay, because of his many duties, was not often at Menzingen. Because of this, he does not have the time to write long letters and could not immediately respond.
Nevertheless, on October 25, at Lourdes, we had a meeting of the General Council of the Society. The General Council in the Society includes the Superior General, his two Assistants, the General Secretary, and the General Bursar. In Lourdes, the other three bishops of the Society were included. The meeting was to discuss the withdrawal of the excommunications. Should we continue with our course of action? Or should we demand another? The first rosary crusade was more successful than anyone could have imagined. Who could have imagined the motu proprio with all its good fruits? To have the Pope say not simply that the Old Mass was never abrogated, but that any priest had the right to say it, to pray with the old Breviary, to administer the sacraments according to the old form. No one could have imagined.
Because of this success, everyone determined that it was necessary to continue following this line. The next day, on the Feast of Christ the King, Bishop Fellay announced the second Rosary Crusade for the intention of asking Our Lady to help the Pope withdraw the excommunications.
There was also the letter of December 15, 2008. We had heard that the Cardinal, his friends and the Pope were worried that there was no contact from Menzingen. So the most important Cardinals decided to have a meeting about us, the excommunications and the lifting thereof. So Bishop Fellay wrote a letter on December 15th to Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos to define and clarify our position and to avoid any ambiguity. Let me quote this letter:
We wish to remain Catholic and put all our forces at the service of the Church of Our Lord Jesus Christ, which is the Roman Catholic Church.
This is nothing new, of course; the crisis is the same as is our battle: to remain Catholic and to put our forces at the services of the Church.
We filially accept Her teaching. We believe firmly in the primacy of Peter and his prerogatives, and for this reason the current situation in the Church makes us suffer all the more. We are ready to write the Creed in our blood.
The modern bishops say we are not Catholic—but we are ready to write the Creed in our blood.
We accept and make ours all the Councils up to Vatican I. But we have reservations about the Second Vatican Council, which wanted to be, in the words of Pope John XXIII, “different from the others.” It wanted to be pastoral, not defining anything but, rather, to be much more modest.
“Pastoral” is not negative, of course, but a pastoral council, meeting, or bishops’ conference intends to give answers for a specific time. If you have a new situation, apostolate, behavior, or way of thinking, etc., a priest, or an apostolate, or the Church has to address these. But this is not new. There have always been priests’ meetings to adapt to new situations. There have always been specific conferences for certain countries. But this is different from Councils like Trent or Vatican I which convened to issue new definitions against heresies. Protestantism, for instance, caused the Council of Trent in the 16th century. And this is a very different situation.
We are accused of putting ourselves above the Pope. But this is false. We only follow what the First Vatican Council says about the role of the Pope. What we oppose to certain texts of Vatican II are not doctrines specific to the Society of St. Pius X, but the very texts of the Magisterium of the Church. In answer to the reproach, “You don’t accept the Council! To be Catholic, you must accept the Council!” we answer, “This Council is different. This Council spreads novelties and a new spirit. And this new spirit is in opposition to the Magisterium of all time.”
It is an important reflection. As Bishop Fellay said, it is not we who are at the origin of the crisis, and it is not we who have caused the crisis. It is not our problem. We suffer, but the origin of the problem is not the Society of St. Pius X, it is the important men from the Council. There are other reasons and causes, but the new theology and religion, in which everyone is saved, is at root. Thinkers like Henri de Lubac and Karl Rahner are at the root of these problems. Consider Rahner, who taught that because man is man, because he has a human nature, he will receive the necessary grace, because he has a right to it as man. What a strange, false and new idea! It is new in the sense that it is opposed to the doctrine, theology and Faith of all time. And yet a man like Rahner managed the Council and had importance and great influence over the bishops of Europe, among others. We can show and explain what this new theology has done. So the problem of the crisis in the Church is not because we are faithful to the Faith of all time. The crisis has another source: the new theology.
The fruits of our apostolate can be seen everywhere: serious conversions, vocations, missions and large families. It is a proof of the Faith. We have no other means with which to restore the Church than Tradition.
The letter to the Cardinal continues:
Many other priests and young people would be ready to follow this path, because they find in our apostolate a great consolation, especially the realization of a truly sacerdotal life.
A parish priest in Germany learned to say the Old Mass in our German seminary; he sent me a letter after offering his first Old Mass in the seminary in which he said, “This is like coming home. I am discovering the Faith.” And this is true! When you have a priest, especially a young priest, who begins to celebrate the Old Mass, he discovers not only what the Catholic Faith is, but also the true nature of the priesthood. With the New Mass, you cannot discover and live the Catholic spirit; it is impossible.
We do not want to be pessimistic, Your Eminence, because we have hope. But it is necessary to be realistic. We have not seen yet all the consequences of the crisis which followed the Council. In a few years’ time, the situation will be even more traumatic. The lack of priests will lead to the de-Christianization of whole regions.
This letter was sent in December 2008. Rome always spoke of reconciliation and full communion. It is not so easy to understand what “full communion” means; they don’t speak of schism or excommunication, but a lack of full communion. We are Catholic; we cannot be more than we are. So, for Rome, it was the question of a canonical step. For us, the contact, meetings and letters with Rome were for the rehabilitation of Tradition. It is not because we doubt or have a complex or feel we are excommunicated. It is not so easy to carry on in this matter; consider, as an example, when Cardinal Hoyos said in an interview that Bishop Fellay, in the name of all the Society bishops, accepted the Second Vatican Council. Then we had to clarify this publicly, and then Cardinal Hoyos clarified, etc. It is not happy to always discuss, send letters and have meetings. But it is for the rehabilitation of Tradition. It is not our choice, but rather our mission. It is something we have to do for the history of the Church and for the next generation, to show that the excommunication of Tradition was unjust.
The letter concluded:
By this letter, we again formally request, and in the name of the three other bishops consecrated for the service of the Society of St. Pius X, the second sign: the withdrawal of the decree of excommunication. For us, it was never a question of establishing a parallel hierarchy, but in the words of Archbishop Lefebvre, an operation of survival. We are intimately persuaded that this second action on the part of Rome would help much to improve both the general atmosphere of Holy Church and the atmosphere of trust necessary to go ahead.
One month later, on January 17th, Bishop Fellay met with Cardinal Hoyos in Rome. He went to present the bouquet of rosaries offered to the Blessed Virgin Mary for the intention of granting courage to the Holy Father, that he might withdraw the 1988 decree. He returned with the decree which was signed on January 21st, to be made public on January 26th. But then a blogger in Spain announced the decree to the whole world, so Rome published the decree on January 24th.
I will quote some of the important parts of the Decree from the Congregation for Bishops:
By way of a letter of December 15, 2008 addressed to His Eminence Cardinal Dario Castrillón Hoyos...Mons. Bernard Fellay, also in the name of the other three Bishops consecrated on June 30, 1988, requested anew the removal of the latae sententiae excommunication.
His Holiness Benedict XVI...decided to reconsider the canonical situation of Bishops Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson, and Alfonso de Galarreta, arisen with their episcopal consecration.
With this act, it is desired to consolidate the reciprocal relations of confidence...
...and to intensify and grant stability to the relationship of the Fraternity of Saint Pius X with this Apostolic See. This gift of peace, at the end of the Christmas celebrations, is also intended to be a sign to promote unity in the charity of the universal Church and to try to vanquish the scandal of division.
It is hoped that this step be followed...
Now, in the context of the statements of Bishop Williamson, all the bishops in the world are trying to force the Society to accept the Second Vatican Council immediately, to show that this demand was sincere. But Rome writes differently:
It is hoped that this step be followed by the prompt accomplishment of full communion with the Church of the entire Fraternity of Saint Pius X, thus testifying true fidelity and true recognition of the Magisterium and of the authority of the Pope...
Based on the faculties expressly granted to me by the Holy Father Benedict XVI, in virtue of the present Decree, I remit from Bishops Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson, and Alfonso de Galarreta the censure of latae sententiae excommunication declared by this Congregation on July 1, 1988, while I declare deprived of any juridical effect, from the present date, the Decree emanated at that time.
This should be read in the context of the announcement of the need for doctrinal discussions. The positive aspects of this decree include, firstly, the great benefit of lifting the opprobrium which affected not only persons but all of Tradition. Also, the decree was signed by the Congregation for Bishops, not by the Ecclesia Dei Commission which is important because the decree has the same value of 1988. It does not mention the Week of Christian Unity. And it finally admits as necessary, doctrinal discussions. This is our course of action: the two conditions and now the beginning of doctrinal discussions concerning the Council.
The more disappointing aspects of the Decree include, firstly, the fact that it speaks of a remission of a censure, not the annulment or withdrawal of the 1988 decree. But considering the circumstances and situation of the Church, it is not possible to obtain much more than this. As Bishop Fellay said, Rome never loses face; and, for now, it would be illusory, even dangerous, to seek from the pontifical authority anything further. It is also a question for us of safeguarding the principle of authority: Rome is Rome.
The unjust decree of excommunication from 1988 has been withdrawn. One decree has driven out the other. And the new decree renders the first one obsolete, null and void, without effect. Of course, there is another question: is Archbishop Lefebvre not included in this new decree? Certain authoritative voices among some important canonists in Rome think so. Indeed, the last sentence of the decree declares the 1988 decree deprived of juridical effects. It would thus implicitly include Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop de Castro Mayer. We are certainly not satisfied, but it is a step. And we work one day so that these two bishops will be completely rehabilitated.
After this decree, the four bishops consecrated 20 years ago wrote together a letter to Pope Benedict XVI with the intention of thanking him for this withdrawal:
Holy Father, with sentiments of thanksgiving we wish to express our deep gratitude for Your act of paternal kindness and for the apostolic courage by which You rendered ineffective the measure which was imposed upon us twenty years ago following our episcopal consecrations. The decree of January 21, 2009 restores in some way the reputation of the venerated founder of our Society, Monsignor Marcel Lefebvre. It also grants a great good to the Church, so it seems to us, by doing justice to the priests and faithful around the world who, attached to the Tradition of the Church, will no longer be unjustly stigmatized for having kept the Faith of their fathers.
Because of this battle for the Faith, we assure Your Holiness, according to the wish You expressed, that we ‘will spare no effort in exploring as yet unresolved questions through necessary discussions with the authorities of the Holy See.’ We indeed desire to begin, as soon as possible, exchanges with representatives of Your Holiness concerning doctrines opposed to the Magisterium of all time.
So now we need good theologians to present our view and opinion about the liturgy, the New Mass, ecumenism, religious liberty, etc. Then Rome has to discuss and show what is true and what is false. This is not, as I said, for us. It is not because we have doubts about our position. It is a way to show the hierarchy, to Rome, and to men of good will that there is a problem with the Council, with the last 40 years, and with the new theology.
By following this path still necessary, mentioned by Your Holiness, we hope to help the Holy See to bring the appropriate cure to the loss of the Faith inside the Church....
...With this assurance, we filially ask the Universal Pastor to bless four of His sons most attached to the Successor of Peter and to His charge of feeding the lambs and the sheep of the Lord. Menzingen, January 29, 2009.
Now we enter into a new stage in our combat for the triumph of the Faith. This is the preparation for the discussions for which we asked and which the decree recognized as necessary before any purely canonical agreement or accord can be reached. This is now our great desire to begin these discussions for the love of the truth, for the love of the Pope and to help him with all our forces to heal the evils from which the Church suffers, and to restore all things in Christ.
At the same time, around the 21st-23rd of January, Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos made many proposals for a canonical solution. He called Menzingen and said “Your Excellency, it is a shame that now we have a decree for the four bishops but not for all of the censures that struck the bishops and priests. Accept the Council and everything will be OK!” The next day—because we cannot accept the Council—at 10 o’clock in the evening, he phoned again and said, “Oh, it is not necessary to accept—simply write a letter to the Pope and demand, in the name of all the priests, to withdraw the censures which still apply to the priests. Then we will have a resurrection of the Society of St. Pius X!” It was so quick and pressured that we had the impression that he was simply trying to push and force the Society. After consulting his assistants and the other bishops, Bishop Fellay rejected these proposals.
Why? They left unanswered too many questions. Some of these were very dangerous, such as our marriages. Or what would happen if some of our priests did not accept such an accord? Then there would be division in our Society. It was too quick. It is better to continue peacefully following the course of action we ourselves fixed and which the decree now demands as well, to discuss before we make an agreement. The situation of the Society cannot be resolved by a simple solution of positive law; it is a question of faith and doctrine.
This is the situation now. The Society is organizing theological commissions for the liturgy and the New Mass, for religious liberty, ecumenism, etc., to present a text or an analysis. Then we will see that this is not a question of time, of weeks, months or years. It is an important testimony to our apostolate. These studies will show Rome it is only one possibility to restore the Faith and Catholic life; this is the combat of Tradition.
I have some reflections about the situation with Bishop Williamson. You are aware, of course, of the violent media storm caused by the imprudent declarations of Bishop Williamson to Swedish television which coincided with the decree of January 21st. In many countries, primarily in Europe, but also in South America, and a little bit in America, the Society of St. Pius X was confronted with a hurricane from the media. And we are not the only ones who have been attacked; the Pope and the Church have also been attacked. This media storm is a real danger for our chapels, our houses, and our works, especially in Germany and Europe.
Bishop Williamson presented to Bishop Fellay his apologies for the damage done to the Society by his fault. He also sent to Cardinal Hoyos a message of regret on January 28:
Your Eminence,
Amidst this tremendous media storm stirred up by imprudent remarks of mine on Swedish television, I beg of you to accept, only as is properly respectful, my sincere regrets for having caused to yourself and to the Holy Father so much unnecessary distress and problems.
For me, all that matters is the Truth Incarnate, and the interests of His one true Church, through which alone we can save our souls and give eternal glory, in our little way, to Almighty God. So I have only one comment, from the prophet Jonas, I, 12:
“Take me up and throw me into the sea; then the sea will quiet down for you; for I know it is because of me that this great tempest has come upon you.”
Please also accept, and convey to the Holy Father, my sincere personal thanks for the document signed last Wednesday and made public on Saturday. Most humbly I will offer a Mass for both of you.
Sincerely yours in Christ,
+Richard Williamson
This letter was written on January 28th. Of course, the decree referenced is that of the lifting of the excommunications. After this letter, Bishop Fellay wanted to apologize himself to the Holy Father for such a scandal, because the Pope himself had been attacked with us. The approach was that, to deny the Holocaust in Germany is illegal, so the bishops profited from this statement to attack the Pope who had just withdrawn the excommunications of some bishops...one of whom denies the Holocaust! This was the argument.
The coincidence was quite bad. We proposed to the Holy Father a right diagnosis of the crisis that affects the Church and offered him the suitable remedy to get out of this crisis—Tradition. At the same time, these events have brought much trouble and discredit upon our Society. In the first two weeks, in Germany, Switzerland, Austria, Italy and Argentina, we have been connected with this statement and have been accused of being an anti-Semitic sect and of denying the Holocaust. We thus had to show that this question—which can be discussed forever—is not our combat.
Where did this problem come from? On November 1, 2008, the Feast of All Saints, Bishop Williamson was at the seminary in Zaitzkofen, Germany, to ordain Sten Sandmark to the diaconate. This Swedish seminarian, around 60 years old, was a former Protestant preacher in the Protestant Swedish Church. He was a very well-known preacher in Sweden. His conversion to the Catholic Faith thus received some public interest in Sweden. There was thus a Swedish television station at the seminary for his ordination.
Bishop Williamson spontaneously agreed to give an hour-long interview about the Society, the work of Tradition, etc. But at the very end of the interview—at the most, for five minutes—he was confronted with a statement he made in 1989 in Canada that there were no gas chambers at the concentration camp in Auschwitz. In that sermon, he said the gas chambers were invented by the Jews and that no Jews were killed therein. In the interview last year, you can see very easily that Bishop Williamson is hesitant and knows very well what the consequences are; he even says, “Don’t publish this in Germany because it is illegal and I could go to prison.”
Instead of ending the interview immediately, however, he explained in detail why he thinks that no Jews were killed in gas chambers under the Nazi regime. The important statement was that he thinks the total number of Jewish victims is just about 200,000-300,000—none of whom died in gas chambers. This is the so-called “Auschwitz lie”–to deny that there were gas chambers, six million victims, and genocide. Bishop Williamson denied all three.
Here is the historical quote from Bishop Williamson: “The historical evidence is hugely against six million having been deliberately gassed in gas chambers as a deliberate policy of Adolf Hitler. I believe there were no gas chambers.” This interview was released on TV, and, of course, on the Internet on the very same day as the Vatican published the decree lifting the excommunications. This interview on Swedish TV was announced in an article in Der Spiegel, the most important magazine in Germany on January 19th, in an article about the Society, our works and our apostolate, which was not so bad, but at the end it said: “The Pope will have a big problem with the Society because he will withdraw the excommunication of the four bishops, one of whom is a Holocaust denier.” And thus the bomb was dropped. It was a worst-case scenario for us.
In America, you are intelligent, free and happy. But you cannot imagine the history in Germany and Europe about this question. It is illegal to doubt or even to compare the Holocaust to another genocide. So, for instance, in February, to illustrate how much of a problem this is for priests and for the faithful, a German Novus Ordo bishop, Bishop Mixa, gave a conference on abortion and pro-life movements to 300 people or so. He spoke about abortion in Germany and said, while it is horrible to deny the Jewish Holocaust, we have now killed more children through abortion (approximately nine million) than Jews who died in the Holocaust. But merely to make this comparison, or to compare it to the Armenian Holocaust, is considered worse than denial in a sense. It is the crime of comparing something to the Jews.
We know, more or less, the history of this question. There is a female journalist in France who has contacts with high Freemasons in France, the Grand Orient. Last year, she published a bad book about us and the conservative groups in the Church: The Pope’s New Soldiers. She gave the advice to the Swedish TV station to wait and release the interview (conducted in November) later to pressure the Pope not to help the SSPX.
It is Cardinal Kasper, a German, who is responsible for contact with the Jews. He organized all this because it’s a German pope, and for the last three or four years, although they have been kind to him, they cannot accept the motu proprio and now the lifting of the excommunications. They hate Tradition. But for the Pope to lift the excommunication of a “Holocaust denier”–that is the worst.
This was the problem until now: the bishops, the media and the Vatican have used this imprudent statement not only against us, but against the Church and the Holy Father. This is bad. I think you understand that this is not our fight. The Society, its priests, the faithful expect from Bishop Williamson to withdraw or retract this statement. Now he has made a declaration, but for the Vatican and the media, it is not enough:
The Holy Father and my Superior, Bishop Bernard Fellay, have requested that I reconsider the remarks I made on Swedish television four months ago, because their consequences have been so heavy.
Observing these consequences I can truthfully say that I regret having made such remarks, and that if I had known beforehand the full harm and hurt to which they would give rise, especially to the Church, but also to survivors and relatives of victims of injustice under the Third Reich, I would not have made them.
On Swedish television I gave only the opinion (…“I believe”…“I believe”…) of a non-historian, an opinion formed 20 years ago on the basis of evidence then available and rarely expressed in public since. However, the events of recent weeks and the advice of senior members of the Society of St. Pius X have persuaded me of my responsibility for much distress caused. To all souls that took honest scandal from what I said before God I apologize.
As the Holy Father has said, every act of unjust violence against one man hurts all mankind.
+Richard Williamson
London
February 26, 2009
I think it is too late [in this evening], and it is not the time to discuss this question. There are many different positions. The problem that we have is that we cannot demand our faithful in Germany, for example, to follow the Society in such a question. They suffer, they may know better or have a different position. You are free to discuss, but even here, in France and in the English Parliament this has been discussed. The Chancellor of Germany, for the first time ever, publicly criticized the Pope about this problem: “Why would you withdraw the excommunication of a bishop who denies the Holocaust?”
If we are attacked because of our faith, or the Church, or Our Lord Jesus Christ, then we hope, with God’s grace, to resist and to bear this persecution, even to give our lives and blood for the Faith. But we cannot, as an institution, or as a Superior or priest, demand from the faithful something which causes them to be unnecessarily attacked. This is simply not our combat. Our combat is the Faith, the truth, and Our Lord Jesus Christ—not the Holocaust, the Jews, and the gas chambers, etc.
You know very well what Bishop Williamson’s intention is. It is excellent; he attacks this ideology and this new religion through the Holocaust. This is right and necessary to understand. For example, here in America, there are Orthodox Jewish groups who consider the Holocaust the new Sacrifice and Redeemer. Instead of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Jewish People and the Sacrifice is the Holocaust. Bishop Williamson attacks this false idea and religion.
I think you understand that Bishop Fellay cannot demand from the Society something that would cause us to be destroyed by this question. It is not necessary to believe in or deny the gas chambers for salvation. There is another problematic consequence, in which you see the devil’s influence: now Bishop Williamson cannot travel! He had to leave Argentina with media attention, and now he is in London, but he cannot continue his episcopal functions in our houses because of this hysteria. His physical life is even in danger and his reputation is damaged.
The reputation of the Society has also been affected. For example, we need a bigger house in Menzingen for our headquarters; our current structure is too small. And we had found a suitable building to purchase, with the permission of the government of the canton (similar to a state in America) and even that of the local bishop. But, now we have received a letter from the government saying that, with the Holocaust denial and your reputation, we can no longer sell it to you. Now, at this time to found and to open a new school in Switzerland or in Germany is more difficult.
Every day, there were articles and television programs about us. Now it is a little better since our priests and superiors have explained how our position is different: we fight for the Faith and will not follow Bishop Williamson in this historical question. This is bad; it is a shame. In an artificial sense, from the outside, it makes it seem that there is a certain division which makes it impossible for Bishop Williamson to work for the Society and Tradition. This is the bad result.
I hope you continue the combat for the Faith. With God’s grace, we hope to be saved. Thank you very much.
Current Issue
