Die verbotene frage of Bishop Richard N. Williamson
7 February AD 2009
The Most Reverend Richard N. Williamson is one of the four traditional Catholic bishops “dis-excommunicated” a week or two ago through the alleged “fatherly mercy” of Pope Benedict XVI. The story of the “dis-excommunication” is a tangled one in which the guilty punished the innocent for twenty years before lifting the penalty of a false excommunication in a pretended display of magnanimity. But, most likely unbeknownst to Pope Benedict, the truth-telling Bishop Williamson had been in Germany, giving an interview to a Swedish television outlet. In the interview, Bishop Williamson discussed his understanding of the numbers of Jewish people murdered by the Nazis, and the method employed to kill them The station released the tape of the interview just as the “dis-excommunications” were being announced to the public. Since Williamson holds a view of the holocaust other than the politically correct view that six million or more Jews were put to death, mostly with cyanide gas—and since the Orwellian Bundesrepublik of Germany holds contradiction of the politically correct view to be a crime—and since the Conciliar Church places a premium on “dialogue” with people of the Jewish religion—a genuine “snit” broke out both in the Vatican and within the high circles of the Society of Saint Pius X.
This “snit,” however, tells us a great deal about the inadvisability of theological discussions between traditional Catholics and the Conciliar Church—“dialogue” as the latter would refer to it.
By way of illustration, consider Ineffabilis Deus, the declaration of the Immaculate Conception by Pope Pius IX, a traditional Catholic Pope. The Pope was meticulous in detailing the numerous means that we have of knowing of this singular privilege of the Blessed Virgin Mother of God. He spoke to the fittingness of the matter, its inclusion in the Church's liturgy, the ordinary teaching of the church over many years, the arguments from Sacred Scripture, the comments of the Fathers and Doctors, and so forth. Only after many paragraphs describing how we know of Mary's Immaculate Conception did he declare it as a dogma of the Faith. This is because Popes and Councils, the extraordinary magisterial teaching authority of the Church do not create new revelations—only what is already implicit in Scripture and Tradition can be made explicit as a dogma which all Catholics are bound to accept. The Pope is infallible, but while infallibility keeps him from defining something erroneous, it does not enable him to create new doctrines out of “whole cloth.”
One of the most difficult things for historians is the estimation of populations in the past. Modern Americans are used to thinking that everyone has a birth certificate on file in the county in which he was born, indicating the date and time of his birth. In many countries this is un-true today and it was untrue in most countries until well into the 20th century. (Historians often look to baptismal records as an alternative, but Jewish people don't Baptize.) Even more difficult, once you have a guesstimate as to the size of a population, is to estimate what percentage of it died in a particular catastrophe—war being the most chaotic of catastrophes and thus the most difficult to estimate. Then, one must distinguish between sub-populations—what percentage were Jews? Gypsies? Catholics? Slavs? Mass graves complicate the identification of religious groups among the dead, as they lack the headstones and caskets that usually carry names and religious symbols. We are told that the Nazis stole the jewelry worn by their victims, which would include crucifixes, crosses, and Jewish stars.
If, in fact, the number, religion, and means of death of the Nazi victims is something about which Catholics are required to hold a particular belief, it is reasonable for us to expect Pope Benedict XVI to follow the lead of Pope Pius IX in explaining just how we know these things to be true. Presumably there are historical studies to bring to our attention and to subject to critical analysis. What methods were used to count the population of Nazi civilian victims? How were ethnic and religious sub-groups distinguished? What sort of variance is found in the numbers proposed by different researchers? What level of confidence can be placed in their respective estimates? Is there physical evidence to indicate the methods of execution, and the numbers on which these methods were used? Does anyone stand to gain by claiming larger or smaller number than the facts support—or to claim more or less torturous means of execution? Why would a government with nothing to hide prohibit research and free discussion of the matter? It is also reasonable for us to expect the Holy Father to explain why this particular set of gruesome murders must be an object of Catholic belief while similar atrocities are not—the forced starvation of millions of Orthodox and Catholics in Ukraine, the massacre of Katyn forest in Poland, the de-Kulakisation of the Russian peasantry, or the terror bombings by both sides in World War II. One might also expect the Holy See to take stern measures against Catholic politicians and others who not only deny the immorality of abortion but actively support the murder of unborn millions, and who strive to force the participation of taxpayers, physicians, and hospitals!
But, one must ask whether or not Pope Benedict XVI and the Conciliar Church are capable or willing to produce a document like Ineffabilis Deus in connection with the Holocaust. Does the magisterial teaching of Popes like Pius IX exist among the Popes, bishops, and clergy who have embraced the Modernism of the conciliar era?
Central to the operation of the magisterium is the knowledge that unchanging truth exists, at least in the mind of God, and in what He chooses to reveal to us. The Modernism of the Conciliar Church operates quite differently, forming “truth” by a consensus of the interested parties. This “dialogue” is the ecclesiastical equivalent of the Hegelian “dialectic.” Modernism possesses many of the aspects of cultural Marxism, in its desire to tear down and rebuild the edifice of Western Civilization. Rather than trying to find the truth of God's revelation in Scripture and Tradition, the Modernist claims to find it in discussions and committees, and agreement among those who matter—the “acting person”s. The Conciliar Church has shown a willingness to place virtually all of the major tenets of the Catholic Faith up for dialogue—the relationship between Sacred Scripture and Tradition; the Eucharist as the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ and Sacrifice of the Cross; Ordination as a Sacrament; the Magisterium of the Church entrusted to the Pope and the Bishops; the Virgin Mary as Mother of God (Ut unum sint, #79, #95). This enthusiasm for “dialogue” extends to the secular sphere as well. In fact with the abandonment of an unchanging truth in the mind of God, the division between the sacred and the secular becomes very blurry. The Modernist begins to see the consensus “science” of the secular world as part of his own “religious truth.”
... and in Population Explosion, Global Warming, Evolution, and Sustainable Development. Amen.
As this is being written, in the northern hemisphere we are undergoing one of the coldest and snowiest winters in memory—and we did in the southern hemisphere's winter as well. Even here in Florida, where we normally get one or two periods of “four day-forty‑five‑degree winter,” Thanksgiving and Christmas were comfortable without air-conditioning and we have had a month long string of mostly cold (by local standards) days. The Polar bear population is at an all time high. Yet we are being told that we must spend billions of dollars and make draconian cutbacks in our way of living because we humans are responsible for “anthropogenic global warming”—that our “green-house gas” emissions will destroy the planet. But where is the evidence? Some of it real, for climate change does occur over time, as we have seen it do over the centuries, in the “little ice age” and the “medieval warm period.” Some of the evidence is fraudulent. The “hockey stick” for example, a graph claiming to portray steeply rising temperatures, but actually the result of an algorithm that turns even random numbers into sharply spiked graphs. Mars is also warming, but without a single S.U.V. on the planet! A lot of grant money is out there for researchers who find the right results. There is little science, but a great deal of consensus being found among those wanting to ride the funding wagon, while ignoring or silencing those who won't join in the consensus.
Not surprisingly, one finds the same (often forced) consensus in a number of other liberal ideologies being forced upon the faithful by state and Church: a supposed population explosion, evolution, socialist economics, In their more extreme forms , they can be thought of as anti-religious ideologies, and ought to have no place among Christians. Those who question the consensus often pay with their careers. Not to be out done, the Holy See and some episcopal conferences have jumped on the band wagon: global warming, sustainable development, population limitation, family planning, family planning, evolution, pseudo economics, socialism, the U.N., “last hope of man....” needed now more than ever....” Viva Darwin! All religions are equal.
That last one, and and everything like it should jump off the page as a warning why it is impossible for Catholics to enter into doctrinal negotiations with the Conciliar Church. It would be nothing less than sacrilege to raise the altar of Catholic Tradition in the pantheon of Modernism, which is ready to dialogue with all comers, no matter which gods or goddesses they may worship.
This article can be viewed full screen at
[ Home Page ]
[ Comment Archives ]
Free Press, Daniel
W. Michaels, "Excommunication lifted...." February 9 AD2009, pp. 12-13