A Word...

Much has been said on the subject of Bishop Richard Williamson and his re-introduction into the Church. Pope Benedict XVI and the Church have taken a lot of heat from the popular press (the same press that finds Obama's every work-out astounding but not his lukewarm stance on Iran). People need to understand precisely what is at issue instead of running off with half-baked conclusions.

The Second Vatican Council opened in 1962 and closed in 1965. It "liberalised" some things without changing the core values of the Church. Some issues at point were the use of the vernacular instead of Latin in some parts of the liturgy (form of the Mass), a more active role for the laity (people who attend Mass) within the Mass which meant that the priest now faced the people and there were more responses, and Nostra Aetate (Our Time)- a document that stated Christians shared a common spiritual seed-ground with the Jews and that the Jews were no more to blame than Christians are for Jesus' death.

Many traditionalist Catholics have great problems with the Second Vatican council. They blame it for the extremely lax attitudes in the Church now. It is true that liberation theology has watered down things to the point where some churches might as well be the United church. The strumming of guitars, the eye-sore architecture of modern church buildings, the clamour of middle-aged former nuns to be priests in some completely unrecognisable blunder of a "Mass", the "Catholic = nice" theology schools teach instead of lives of the saints, the absurdity of "inclusive language" in the liturgy- all of these dishearten Catholics who long for the days when being Catholic meant something. Consider Catholicism a plate of thick, juicy Alberta steak with PEI garlic-smashed potatoes, a small side of broccoli florets (have to eat your folic acid!), washed down with a good micro-brewery beer (any Canadian beer will do as the Jesuits opened the first brewery in the country) and followed by a nice slice of key lime pie. Now, take away the steak, half of the potatoes, the beer and the key lime pie. What are you left with? The broccoli and the parsley. Nobody eats the parsley. Once you've taken away all the spiritually and culturally distinctive aspects of the Church, there isn't much left.

Now enter Richard Williamson, himself a convert to Catholicism. He was ordained a priest by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, an ultratraditionalist with some rather stringent views on the Second Vatican Council (among other things). It was when Archbishop Lefebvre consecrated Williamson and three others as bishops did the Pope excommunicate them. To be excommunicated means to be cut off from the Church. The excommunicated individual (while still a Christian as nothing can undo baptism) cannot receive Communion or any of the Sacraments. He certainly cannot say Mass. Because Williamson participated in this consecration without the Pope's permission, he was punished. The Pope has the authority given to him by Jesus as he is the successor of Saint Peter. Because Williamson was consecrated against orders, he is not technically a bishop (he is called that, however). Furthermore, his re-introduction means that he can now receive Communion, not exactly assume a position of great standing (see an explanation here).

The ties between the Church and the Jews have been tenuous (see here). Pope Benedict XVI's views have been made clear here. The dialogue has been put at a stand-still due to Williamson's re-introduction. While it is understandable that the rabbinate would be hurt, to sever ties over what is fundamentally an internal and unrelated matter would be premature and counter-productive. Williamson was excommunicated because he disobeyed the Pope, not for his obnoxious and erroneous views (I'm not going to brush up the Holocaust here because there are thousands of reputable sources to prove that it's not only a fact of history but a deplorable chapter in the book of humanity). Many Catholics hold rather strange views but that is not a reason to excommunicate them. Furthermore, the re-inclusion of Williamson is an internal matter decided on by the Pope. However wrong it may seem to some, if they examine the history and the reasons behind it they will understand. For the media or the rabbinate to demand anything is intrusive and insulting. The Church has survived as long as it has because it hasn't "followed the leader". None of this matters, anyway, as the Church is a constant whipping boy for anything. The Church could re-excommunicate Williamson and it would still be seen as weak or noxious. Whatever.

The dialogue must continue. Williamson certainly doesn't represent the Church or Catholics with his insane views.

What else can be said?