Pope Benedict XVI’s pardon of Bishop Richard Williamson has sparked a good bit of debate since it was announced in late January. Williamson’s pardon came as part of a larger gesture from Benedict and the Vatican. Four bishops (excommunicated by Pope John Paul III in the late 1980s for being ordained without Vatican permission by the right-wing St. Pius X Society) were pardoned in total.
The controversy surrounds Bishop Williamson’s claims in a publically broadcasted interview denying the reality of the Holocaust. Speculations about the rationale for pardoning such a controversial figure run far and wide. While no one is suggesting Benedict’s endorsement of Williamson’s views, some are concerned about what this means for “Church-Jewish relations" in the future, and whether this will impede efforts for inter-faith organizations and initiatives.
Rabbi Brad Hirschfield offers his thoughts on this issue in his post “Pope Benedict: Panderer or Creative Community Builder?” from his blog, For God’s Sake. Hirschfield says the action could either be perceived as Benedict pandering to the traditionalist segment of the Church (which John Paul worked to distance from the Church’s reputation) or, as he is hopeful, it could be an indication of the Pope’s attempt to build an even broader-based, more inclusive membership for the Church.
Hirschfield doesn’t deny the hurt Williamson’s remarks inflicted on he and his fellow Jews, but thinks it is important to acknowledge people of such disparate viewpoints even if they are so factually far off-base. “If our definition of inclusiveness does not reach beyond the boundaries of our own personal comfort, can we call ourselves truly inclusive?”
Noteworthy and well respected Jewish voices, like Elie Wiesel, simply but firmly assert that Jews “are not to dignify any Holocaust denier with a debate”. But, in his post "Not All Holocaust Denial is Equal", Hirschfield argues:
"Rather than representing the moral high ground as claimed by those who support this approach, a total ban on engagement with deniers is a convenient way to ignore the real challenge of engaging people with ugly views. And those are usually the most important people to engage. The real choice one has to make is which deniers to ignore and which to engage."
I can sympathize with Mr. Wiesel. He lived the Holocaust. I’m sure hearing someone deny the torture and murder that he and his family experienced is hard, if not impossible, to entertain without severe pain. But I believe that Rabbi Hirschfield brings an important perspective that only someone with a bit of distance, but still a sincere connection to the situation, can offer. And this is, that refusing to acknowledge the people on the far-off other side of the situation does not allow either party to move forward.
I agree with Hirschfield that if Benedict’s reach to re-incorporate the far-right is reciprocated by a reach to include the far-left in Church, then this pardon can be interpreted as a good and important—if radical—step towards greater interreligious cooperation. The ramifications for preaching greater inclusiveness worldwide can only be good. If this is the Vatican’s attempt to claim responsibility for even the most radical among its members, I think it is a wonderful idea. If all religions took responsibility for their extremists (both right and left), it would encourage a greater involvement on the part of each of the broader religious communities to reign in those individuals, perhaps preventing some of the atrocities caused under the auspices of “true religion”. That would be a win for everyone.
Today Is National Day of Prayer
1 hour ago
Posts
2 comments:
On the one hand, I can sympathize with a number of my Jewish friends (and my grandmother) who will be outraged by this development. I can already anticipate their response: Could one not also argue that taking responsibility for one's organization is refusing to tolerate behavior that undermines the organization’s values? This is a very valid question; I think this kind of policy is a strong affirmation of an organization’s credibility and belief system, and often earns a lot of respect.
On the other hand, it’s important to put the significance of what Williamson said into context and deem whether or not what he said was so dangerous that his organization needed to abandon him. I honestly don’t know if Williamson would ever be convinced to alter his beliefs here, but perhaps that’s irrelevant. From my own personal experiences, I believe Williamson will remain a much more tolerant person himself after receiving a lenient and diplomatic response from the pope. At a debate convention I attended last year, I attempted to engage in a conversation with the person manning the socialist table outside the conference rooms (if you've been to a debate convention you know the type - old scraggly man, potentially senile, handing out pamphlets that appear to be almost as old as he is). While I wasn't anticipating an overly lively conversation, I was still sorely disappointed. The man had virtually zero ability to coherently counter my argument, let alone relate to it. I walked away after several different branches of my argument were returned with the same line: "You've been brainwashed, you just can't understand." Needless to say, with that kind of response, I simply became frustrated and more convinced that my point of view was the right one.
So while addressing a problem may sometimes prove fruitless (or be labeled as appeasement), ignoring the problem will never solve it. You miss 100% of the shots you don’t take. I agree that pardoning Williamson was a wise move even though I don’t agree with his ideas in the least, and I hope that Williamson and other spectators will see this as a reason to exercise more tolerance in the future in order to resolve conflicts effectively.
Glenn,
Great post-I was just talking with the priest about this the other week. SSPX is a radical fringe group-just last week they said under no circumstances will they comply with Vatican II, so I'd imagine the reinstatement of the bishops have been rescinded-if not they will be, according to Fr. Wall at Newman. SSPX still says the Latin mass and has some very backward views on race, etc that are entirely inconsistent with the reforms implemented by Vatican II
Was reading some other posts-specifically ones about the Catholic Church or criticizing it for this or that. It strikes me that many of these people wrote their posts without bothering to investigate the Catechism or theology behind whatever the issue was. Every tenet of Catholicism is backed up by centuries of scholarship, theology, etc. My point is not to agree with it or not, but to say that the Church didn't just wake up one day and create a bunch of rules-everything has a theological foundation-just ask your Gram or Kelly! ;-)
For instance, in my global health ethics class we were given a scenario of a Catholic hospital and a hypothetical federal law requiring all hospitals to provide contraception and abortion or referrals elsewhere. The Church in return threatened to shutter the hospital, because providing those services would compromise the mission of the Church. Throughout the whole class debate, classmates were protesting, "how can they do that?" etc, etc. In essence, a lot of the criticism of the Church stems from people's attempts to place the Church within the box of American culture and law, when the Church is simply "above the fray" of politics and culture, so to speak (sounds awkward, but you get my drift). As my Dad would say, the Church isn't the Golden Corral. Take it or leave it.
This must be an awesome class-I am jealous!
-Michael
Post a Comment