The
Williamson Affair
1 March 2009
By now most Catholics know about the
media furor over the news that on January 21, 2009 “Pope” Ratzinger
lifted the “excommunications” of four SSPX bishops, one of these
being Richard Williamson. Although a native of Britain, he later
served as a priest — and bishop –– here in the United States, and
was virtually unknown outside traditionalist circles until last
month. Instant notoriety came after a television broadcast in
Europe showed him questioning both the number of Jews killed by
Nazis during World War II and how this was done. For our purposes,
his provocatively low figures are not as pertinent as the fact that
he, citing revisionist historians, dared question the official
version of this explosive topic. Having legally denied the
“Holocaust”, he could now, as he himself admitted, be arrested in
Germany, where the interview had been filmed by a journalist for
Swedish television –– back in November. The fact that it was
not shown until well into January, just in time for the
official papal act, made the latter come off as a gesture of
conciliation towards a now notorious “Holocaust denier”!
Reports of the “outrage” - as the New
York Times calls it in their story for January 26 — are so
fraught with media hype and contradiction as to be laughable, were
not the implications so deadly serious for traditionalists. The
effects seem calculated to smear us all, and there are, to be sure,
indications that the incident itself was staged. According to
Rorate Caeli, certain Italian journalists say that Fiammetta
Venner, a French journalist (and avowed lesbian) with ulterior
motives, told interviewer Ali Fegan about Williamson’s controversial
opinions, thus prompting the question that started it all. As for
the timing of the broadcast, they suggest it was arranged by
as-yet-unknown Vatican insiders who wanted to implicate their papal
boss, as well as the SSPX.
Not that Benedict’s announcement
regarding the SSPX came as any big surprise — not to traditionalists
who kept tabs this past year or two on the comings-and-goings of
Bishop Bernard Fellay and other bigwigs in the society. Most of us
figured it was only a matter of time, especially with the motu
proprio of July 2007 that allowed for a greater use of the 1962
Latin Missal. Obviously Ratzinger was courting traditionalists for
his own motives, and whereas many went along with the show, others
like us knew better than to trust an anti-pope. After decades of
being ignored and virtually shut out by officialdom, we have become
cynics, though admittedly we could not have envisioned the recent
debacle. Think about it. Flawed or not, the Vatican announcement
might have occasioned some honest publicity as to the traditionalist
plight — but no. Thanks to a contrived media charade, the real
issues were distorted and obscured by a matter seemingly
irrelevant: the Holocaust.
It just proves how nobody who feels
victimized by Vatican II can hope to compete in the world-wide media
— not with all those Jewish martyrs, living or dead, upstaging
them. Worse yet, against their will, traditional Catholics are now
being given the roles of monsters in a cleverly crafted horror
flick, prompting many, no doubt, to hide in the shadows lest they be
exposed as . . . Deniers! Who exactly the latter might be,
besides Williamson and cohorts, of course, no one in the media says,
they only hint. The Times, for instance, suggests in their
story who they are not: the “moderates” who accept “the
sweeping reforms of the Second Vatican Council in the 1960s that
sought to create a more modern and open church.” To these, the
writer of the article asserts, “Benedict’s papacy has become
increasingly hostile.” Uh oh . . . Benedict has, on the other
hand, befriended the SSPX! Does that make all Catholics who
question the Conciliar “reforms” extremists who generate
hostility, i.e. hate?
Is this or isn’t it a matter of guilt
by association?
The Times’ tone towards
traditionalists could be called hostile, of course, but nobody
complains about that. Echoing such sentiments only slightly more
subtly, is John Allen of the National Catholic Reporter. In
his article for January 26, he writes: “The historical association
between some strains of traditionalist Catholicism and anti-Semitism
run deep, intertwined with royalist reaction to the French
Revolution in the 18th century, and, later, the Boulanger
and Dreyfus Affairs in France (1886-1889 and 1894-1899).”
Do we dare ask how all this
pertains to 21st century Americans like us — or,
furthermore, how and why we should blame French Catholics of that
time, and for what? Should those ignorant of history presume to
critique the players, whether individually or en masse?
Allen’s use of innuendo, we fear, fails miserably. Indeed, it’s a
total flop. Turning to the current crisis in the Church, he
cautions readers not to think “every Catholic attracted to the older
Latin Mass or to traditional views on doctrinal matters is somehow
tainted by anti-Semitism”. But think about it. By saying not
all are, is he not implying that some are? He also notes
that not all traditional attitudes that seem “controversial
theologically or politically” are necessarily anti-Semitic
(emphasis ours). Traditionalists, for instance, “often uphold a
robust missionary theology, insisting that the church cannot
renounce its duty to evangelize any group, including jews (sic).”
In other words, some misguided souls
still take literally the command to “Go forth and teach all nations,
baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy
Ghost.” They may even include the Jews in this, despite the fact
that many Conciliar church authorities no longer regard such an
interpretation of the gospel as kosher. (Let us also note here that
the failure to capitalize “jews” or “jewish” is Allen’s, lest we
ourselves be accused of “anti-Semitism”, for which he does use a
capital “S”)
Allen also quotes a statement put out
by the SSPX in 2007 that “a Catholic cannot be anti-Semitic without
destroying the origin and essence of his own faith.” Exactly how
they define terms, however, he doesn’t say; nor does he give his own
definition before asserting that there is “also a track record in
some traditionalist and Lefebvrite circles of open hostility toward
jews (sic) and judaism (sic) that is anything but latent.” For
proof he cites a string of examples, mostly out of context. He
tells, for instance, how one Paul Touvier, a “fugitive charged with
ordering the execution of seven jews (sic) in 1944,” was arrested in
a “priory of the Fraternity of St. Pius X in Nice, France.” Those
giving Touvier asylum said they had done so as “an act of charity to
a homeless man.” When Touvier died in 1996, a SSPX church also
offered a requiem Mass “in his honor.”
Sounds like they said a funeral
Mass for the deceased.
So what’s the big deal? Can requiem
Masses not be said for sinners, even those who, like Touvier, served
in the Vichy militia during the Nazi occupation? After 50 years is
it not possible for even a bad guy to repent? According to a New
York Times obituary, Touvier said during his trial in
1994 that he had ordered the Jews slain “to appease the Nazis,” who
had actually wanted a lot more executed in retaliation for an
assassination. Upon being convicted to life imprisonment, Touvier
said he thought of the victims “every day, every evening.”
He himself died two years later.
In the final analysis, is it not a
bit presumptuous of a journalist like Allen to be ruling on what is
or is not an unforgiveable sin? Is there to be no mercy shown even
in death towards those tainted by the Holocaust — or even for
so-called Deniers who only presume to question the details?
Do we dare pray for Bishop Williamson, for instance, without
bringing down the wrath of the National Catholic Reporter?
Nowhere does Allen tell readers how
Archbishop Lefebvre, before taking up the traditionalist cause full
time, served as head of the Holy Ghost Fathers, a missionary order
to African natives. This hardly fits the profile of a racist, and
the standard Catholic definition of “Anti-Semitism” has,
after all, been hatred for the Jews as a race, or nation. Pius IX’s
encyclical Mit brennender Sorge, while condemning the racial
idolatry underlying Nazism, most assuredly did not advise we accept
the Jews’ definitions of religious or historical truth; nor of
“anti-Semitism,” which covers a multitude of issues. There is, to
be sure, a double standard here. But Allen fails to note all this —
and the fact that Lefebvre’s own father died in a Nazi prison camp
during World War II!
Writing about the SSPX affair for Newsweek, George Weigel, another Novus Ordo “Catholic”, calls
Archbishop Lefebvre a “man formed by the bitter hatreds that defined
the battle lines in French society and culture from the French
Revolution to the Vichy regime.” Nowhere does he say how Lefebvre’s
father was imprisoned under said regime for having aided Allied
intelligence during the previous war. No, he implies the son
inherited a legacy of hate. Similarly, Allen, assuming the role of
psychiatrist, at one point in his article attributes to the
archbishop a life-long “sense of antagonism” to “jews (sic) the
Communists and the Freemasons.”
Why oh why must Allen
insist on capitalizing the names for everyone but that
particular people? It’s so maddening, a Freudian might sense in him
the source of a suppressed antagonism that he projects onto poor
Lebebvre. As proof of the latter’s life-long hostility, he cites an
interview given to a French journal in 1991, one year before his
death. While we have not seen a copy, our writer insists Archbishop
Lefebvre said therein that “Catholic opposition to a residence of
Carmelite nuns at the site of the Auschwitz concentration camp was
being instigated by jews (sic).”
Let us point out that Allen’s use
here of the term “Catholic opposition” is misleading, if not
downright dishonest. For there was none of that really, not
initially, only eventual concession, or capitulation, in this
long-lasting controversy centering on Auschwitz. In light of
the Williamson affair, it does warrant our renewed attention, though
not for the reasons Allen gives, since it provides some background
for understanding what is going on now. Research shows that
opposition to the convent was from the start primarily Jewish — and
foreign. According to an article posted online by Polish
priest and theology professor Waldemar Chrostowski, when Carmelite
nuns announced in September of 1984 their plans to occupy an old
storage building adjacent to the former site of the concentration
camp at Auschwitz, nobody in Poland objected. Even the
reactions of Polish Jews to the idea of nuns praying and expiating
for the crimes committed there, he says, were “absolutely positive.”
Jewish elites outside Poland,
however, did put up a fuss, to put it mildly. According to
Joseph Bellinger, author of “Auschwitz in the Shadow of the Cross,”
Edgar Bronfman, Canadian liquor magnate and president of the World
Jewish Congress, met with Poland’s Minister for religious affairs
over the matter in December, 1985. He saw the convent as an affront
to the “uniqueness of the Holocaust and the murder of the Jewish
people. . .” A New York Times article for February 23, 1987,
notes how the issue had provoked “emotional reactions” since January
1986, when the fund-raising effort to renovate the convent generated
lots of negative publicity.
Pressure from Jewish groups in
Western Europe and the United States led to a meeting on February
23, 1987 between Cardinal Macharski of Cracow, along with prelates
from Poland, France and Belgium, and European Jewish spokesmen at
the private chateau of Baron Edmond de Rothschild in Chambesy, near
Geneva. According to the Times, the prelates agreed to move
the nuns to a “new site, at an interreligious center to be built a
mile or so away from the camp.” This was supposed to occur within
two years. The logistics of how an enclosed order of Carmelites
would function in the midst of such ecumenical fanfare was not
specified; nor how the project would be financed.
Hearing the news, other Poles balked,
including Primate Jozef Cardinal Glemp, who had not attended the
meeting in Switzerland. The project seemed to founder. When by the
spring of 1989, the nuns weren’t moved, Jewish groups began
demonstrating at the site. For particulars let us turn again to
Bellinger, who in turn cites The Convent at Auschwitz by
Wladyslaw Bartoszewski, a Polish academic who headed the Institute
for Polish-Jewish Studies at Oxford. On one occasion protestors
from the Women’s International Zionist Organization waved Israeli
flags and other placards, while shouting provocatively. After
a number of hostile incidents provoked by anonymous sources, the
nuns began to get death threats. So they had security locks
installed.
But that didn’t stop Bronx Rabbi
Avraham Weiss and six cohorts. On July 14, 1989, dressed in striped
prison-camp garb, they climbed over the convent fence and banged
loudly on doors and windows while shouting at the nuns inside. A
group of Polish workers ran to the rescue, dousing the intruders
with pails of water and forcefully removing them from the premises.
Two days later, Bellinger, again citing Bartoszewski, says, Weiss
and friends demonstrated in front of Cardinal Macharski’s residence
in Cracow. To the front door they also tacked a note ordering him
to “stop praying for the Jews who were killed in the Shoah; let them
rest in peace as Jews.” (Let us also note that a Fall, 1991 review
in Foreign Affairs called Bartoszewski’s book “frank” and
“objective”.)
All this was too much for Cardinal
Macharski, who, according to the New York Times of August 11,
1989, reported “that he was abandoning plans to construct a center
for Christian-Jewish dialogue” — i.e. the ecumenical project —
because of “recent demonstrations by Jewish groups against the
continuing presence of a convent on the site.” Calling the
“timetable for removal of the convent ‘unrealistic,’” the Cardinal
said delays had “made some Western Jewish centers stage a violent
campaign of accusations and slander.” The nuns’ dignity, peace
and Christian faith had not been respected. While expecting his own
people to exercise self control, he added, “I regret that this was
not understood by persons” holding responsible positions “in some
Jewish organizations.”
The Times report next turns to
Rabbi Weiss, who “led the protest last month onto the grounds of the
convent.” Calling the Cardinal’s statement “repugnant”, the rabbi
is also quoted as saying it could “lead to a ‘tragic rupture’ in
Catholic-Jewish dialogue.” Oh really? While failing to note how he
and has cohorts had unlawfully scaled the convent fence and harassed
the nuns, he castigates the Cardinal for complaining about it,
turning the prelate’s defense into an offense. Weiss further says
that Macharski has “in almost classical anti-Semitic terms, chosen
to portray Jewish victims as aggressors. It was not we who beat
Polish Catholics. It was Catholic Polish workers of the convent who
assaulted us, as the nuns and a priest looked on in silence.”
Thus spake the New York Times.
But if this sounds harsh, it was mild
compared to the reaction to Cardinal Glemp’s homily at the Jasna
Gora Monastery on August 26 of that year. In his book The
Holocaust and the War for Ideas, Edward Alexander, an orthodox
Jew and retired English professor, says Glemp accused Rabbi Weiss
and friends of “assaulting and intending to kill the nuns, and also
of assailing the sovereignty of the Polish nation.” The Cardinal,
he goes on, specified that “a squad of seven Jews from New York
launched an attack” on the convent. Strong words, to be sure. The
New York Times’ version of the quote, which appeared in an
article dated September 5, is slightly muted, but not much.
Reportedly the Cardinal admitted that “it did not happen that the
sisters were killed or the convent destroyed, because they were
apprehended. But do not call the attackers heroes.”
According to Alexander, Glemp also
said: “Do not talk with us from the position of a people raised
above all others. ... Your power lies in the mass media that are
easily at your disposal in many countries.” Repeating the
quote in a New York Times piece for September 3, Leon
Wieseltier also slams the Catholic Church for having oppressed Jews
so long. While admitting his own mother, a Holocaust survivor,
“owes her life to the courage of a Polish family,” he still asserts
the “Jews of Europe were almost completely exterminated by
Christians who called themselves Christians.”
And the neo-pagan believers in
survival of the racially fittest? He fails to blame them, only
old-fashioned Christians.
Of the above writers, only
Bellinger, citing Bartoszewski, includes a quote that brings up an
important logistical point: the name “Auschwitz”, as commonly used,
also includes the camp of Birkenau, where mostly Jews were
confined. In fact, a sizeable number of Polish Catholics died at
the other “Auschwitz” site — the saintly priest Maximilian Kolbe for
one. Thus Cardinal Glemp’s words: “Let us differentiate between
Oswiecim-Auschwitz, where mainly Poles and people of other nations
perished, from Brzezink-Birkenau a few kilometers apart, where most
of the victims were Jews. Let us differentiate next between the
secular and the theological levels. Let the new doctrine on the
presence or absence of God at the place of sacrifice be explained
and clear to all those believing in God, and let it not become a
political tool in people’s hands, particularly of non-believers.”
What he means by “the place of
sacrifice” is not entirely clear, but let us recall that in the Old
Testament a “holocaust” was a sacrifice, or “burnt offering.” Also,
by the time of our story, the United Nations had designated
Auschwitz an “international monument to martyrdom.” It would appear
that most Jews interpret this in a strictly Jewish sense, i.e. to
their own advantage. In his book Chutzpah, Alan Dershowitz
calls Auschwitz “an international historical site, not to be
disturbed.” That means no praying nuns — and no daily Sacrifice of
the New Covenant offered for the sins of men by a priest, though
Dershowitz ignores this. Instead he echoes Elie Wiesel in
suggesting the convent symbolized a “systematic effort” to
“de-Judaize” the Holocaust. He castigates the practice of “equating
the genocide of all Jews with the selective killing of some Polish
adults.” Nowhere does he hint at any contrary tendency on his part
to “de-Christianize” the atrocities. Nor does he ask, as Bellinger
does, whether any of the non-Jewish dead might not also qualify as
“martyrs”.
Take Maximilian Kolbe: doesn’t he
count? Or Edith Stein, the Jewish nun, who also died at Auschwitz?
Not quite. By converting, Edith
Stein had alienated her fellow Jews. As for Father Kolbe, who
sacrificed his life for a fellow prisoner at Auschwitz, one of the
few other facts about him to be found in The Continuing Agony
is that many Jews objected to his canonization because he had edited
an “anti-Semitic” journal before the war.” Why he was imprisoned
by the Nazis is not discussed, much less the fact that he and his religious order had provided shelter for about 3,000 war refugees,
of whom two-thirds were reportedly Jewish. Apparently, for
hard-core critics, any activity deemed “anti-Semitic” undermines all
further efforts made during the course of a lifetime. (Though in
Kolbe’s case, it is generally conceded that a chapel replete with
candles, crosses, etc., in his honor is apropos, so long as these
remain within the confines of his “death cell.”)
Thus the case of Sister Teresa,
Mother Superior of the convent at Auschwitz, who as a child had
“risked her life in order to provide food to starving Jews in the
Warsaw ghetto.” Any credit for this was neutralized by an interview
with a Polish American correspondent during which she asked “why
Jews reacted so violently to the presence of a convent since nuns
also offered prayers for those victims of Auschwitz who were
Jewish.” Wow! Had no one told her? Did she not know how the Jews
really felt? As Edward Alexander writes regarding the nuns, “If
they were doing penance, was this not because they had a great deal
to do penance for?”
Worse yet, she complained in her
interview about all the “accusations of Polish anti-Semitism” coming
from Jews, and the fact that Israel got billions of dollars from the
U.S., even after they had mistreated the Arabs! “Greater
anti-Semites are hard to find,” she concluded. Uh oh.
Had no one taught her how to define such terms? She also described
the “post-war Communist regime in Poland as being totally dominated
by the Jews who had devastated the country” and closed the Churches.
Alan Dershowitz quotes her as saying
the Polish government under Stalin “consisted of 75% Polish
Communist Jews,” appointed in order to “introduce atheism into
Poland.” Edward Alexander says she asked, “Why do Jews want
special treatment in Auschwitz only for themselves?” And: “Do they
still consider themselves the chosen people?”
That did it. While our Harvard
law professor might write in praise of chutzpah, there was no
way he could take such sass from Sister Teresa. No, he called her
an “unreconstructed anti-Semite” who needed to pray for her “own
bigoted soul.” Or so Bellinger quotes him. Not that he would
bother suing a mere nun. He was out to get her boss, who had
inspired Yitzhak Shamir to say Poles “suck (anti-Semitism) in their
mother’s milk.” After Glemp’s “outrageous comments” about Rabbi
Weiss hit the news, the latter asked Dershowitz to represent him in
a defamation suit against the cardinal, and while an advocate of
free speech, the lawyer had to take exception here.
“Accusing me and the students of
wanting to kill nuns is a modern-day version of the blood-libel,”
Rabbi Weiss explained.
The way Dershowitz describes it,
Weiss and friends had engaged in a peaceful “pray-in” that fateful
day at the convent. After climbing over the fence, they “put on
their prayer shawls, and began to pray,” only to be “attacked by
several bystanders, beaten and sprayed with water and urine.” There
was no excuse for Glemp not to know it was purely a non-violent
“pray-in”, because the press had reported it as such. Thus the
Primate knowingly lied. No one, Dershowitz says further in his
book, could be so stupid as to believe that a rabbi and several
students would plan to kill defenseless nuns, not even Glemp! No,
Dershowitz viewed the prelate’s diatribe as “the culmination of a
lifelong history of anti-Semitism.”
(Sounds like the Cardinal needed his
own hot-shot Harvard lawyer. Do you suppose Glemp ever thought of
suing?)
In a letter on September 5, 1989,
Dershowitz accused Glemp of having maliciously defamed his client by
saying the peaceful protestors meant to kill the nuns and destroy
the convent. The fact that the Cardinal resided in Poland did not
matter, for it just so happened that he was planning a trip — his
very first –– to the United States. Thus Dershowitz could
write the Cardinal that upon arrival in this country he would be
“served with a complaint and required to appear in court” to answer
charges.
When Glemp announced he was
cancelling his trip, Dershowitz, declared a “great victory for
decency,” — yet still tried to get Glemp. Assisted by two
Polish-Jewish Americans who had befriended a Polish senator with
ties to the Primate, they maneuvered from afar to elicit a
retraction from him — and nearly succeeded. The way Dershowitz
tells it, their plans were foiled by two busybodies from the American Jewish Congress,
no less, who, upon meeting with Glemp
in person, told him Rabbi Weiss had, by acting irresponsibly,
contributed “to anti-Semitism in Poland!”
Boy, it’s lucky they weren’t
sued!
Unfazed, Rabbi Weiss, accompanied by
Dershowitz, journeyed to Poland during the summer of 1990 in order
to file suit against the Primate. While they failed –– not just
once, but twice –– the pressure on Glemp mounted. Bellinger says he
engaged in a number of “dialogues” with prominent Jews and Catholics
before issuing a statement of regret for having suggested in the
controversial homily that the demonstrators “had intended to harm
the nuns.” The New York Times story on the subject for
August 24, 1991, also says he proclaimed anti-Semitism to be evil
and “contrary to the spirit of the Gospel.” Whether the Cardinal
defined his terms, however, it does not say.
While a rabbi representing the
American Jewish Committee said the action helped to “close a painful
chapter in Catholic-Jewish relations,” others were more cautious.
As the Times reports, the ADL, for instance, wanted Glemp to
deliver another homily, one that would “forever erase the blemish of
his 1989 remarks.” The International Jewish Committee on
Interreligious Consultations as well called for “further
clarifications.”
Calling Glemp’s reversal an “historic
event,” Alan Dershowitz said it was “probably the first time in
history that a primate, a prince of the Catholic Church, has, in
effect, apologized and retracted an anti-Semitic statement.” According to the
Times, he added, “But it’s not enough.” He
wanted assurance that Glemp’s apology would be widely disseminated
in Poland.
When the Cardinal did journey to the
United States the following month, Dershowitz and client were ready
and waiting. According to an article by David Scott in Our
Sunday Visitor, Rabbi Weiss told reporters covering Glemp’s
visit to Albany “that the Vatican built the convent as part of its
‘hidden agenda’ to ‘Christianize’ the Jewish Holocaust.” Does this
sound like a conspiracy theory? For his part, Dershowitz “said
Catholics ought to be ashamed to have ‘a bigot’ like Cardinal Glemp
among ‘the princes of the Church.’”
While in Albany, Dershowitz, acting
for Rabbi Weiss, also tried to serve papers on the Cardinal but
somehow failed. They wouldn’t give up, however. The following
April, although Glemp had left the country, they filed suit again,
this time in the Bronx, but that too was dismissed by the judge.
Not to be deterred, the rabbi and counsel would try yet another time
way out West in Seattle — as late as May, 1994.
According to Bellinger, the
Cardinal finally “caved in” — not directly to Jewish pressure,
however. Curiously it was the Polish “Pope” who, rather than defend
his compatriot, ordered him to move the convent. For a clue as to
why, let’s return to Chutzpah, wherein Dershowitz reveals
that “the pope disliked Glemp, as did the archbishop” of Cracow,
Cardinal Macharski. In contrast, “Glemp was a protégé of Stefan
Cardinal Wyszynski,” the former Primate, and “a notorious
anti-Semite.” As for Glemp, he, like his mentor, was an
“old-fashioned anti-Semite,” says Dershowitz.
Unlike Wyszynski, whom the Communists
imprisoned, Karol Wojtyla, we hear, was allowed to travel freely.
As John Paul II he would be the first so-called “pope” to attend a
service at a synagogue, and also to recognize officially, and to
visit, the State of Israel. On December 30, 1993, the Vatican
and Israel signed a document agreeing to establish full diplomatic
relations.
Earlier that year the nuns had
finally left Auschwitz.
(Click here for Part II)
Copyright by Judith M.
Gordon 2009