Posted on 03/11/2009 7:33:37 AM PDT by NYer
VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- Pope Benedict XVI has written a letter to the world's bishops defending his decision to lift the excommunications of four traditionalist bishops and expressing regret that it gave rise to misunderstandings and polemics, according to Italian newspapers.
The pope said the controversy over Bishop Richard Williamson's statements denying the extent of the Holocaust was "a misadventure that was for me unforeseeable" and acknowledged that the Vatican should have paid more attention to information easily available on the Internet, the reports said.
The pope said he was particularly saddened at the reaction of some Catholics who seemed willing to believe he was changing direction on Catholic-Jewish relations and were ready to "strike at me with hostility." He thanked "Jewish friends" who helped clarify the matter and restore a sense of trust.
Excerpts from the letter were published by the Italian daily "Il Foglio" March 11; additional passages were reported on the blog of Andrea Tornielli, who covers the Vatican for the newspaper "Il Giornale." Vatican sources said the reports were generally accurate; the Vatican press office declined comment, but said the papal text would be released March 12.
According to the reports, the pope said his overture to Bishop Williamson and the other three bishops of the Society of St. Pius X was designed to close a wound and bring unity to the church. Instead, he said, "it suddenly appeared as something completely different: as a repudiation of reconciliation between Christians and Jews."
He emphasized that improving Catholic-Jewish relations has been a longstanding personal theological priority.
As for the Society of St. Pius X, he said the church cannot ignore a community of believers that has 491 priests, 215 seminarians and thousands of faithful.
He emphasized, however, that to reach full communion in the church, the traditionalist society would have to accept the Second Vatican Council.
"One cannot freeze the church's teaching authority at the year 1962," he said, referring to the society's rejection of many of the council's teachings.
At the same time, he said, some defenders of Vatican II need to be reminded that being faithful to the council also means being faithful to the church's entire doctrinal history, without cutting "the roots from which the tree lives."
The pope also said the lifting of the excommunications was not adequately explained and gave rise to misinterpretations about the society's status in the church.
The fact that the Society of St. Pius X has no canonical standing in the church is based on doctrinal, not disciplinary, issues, he said. The society's ministers, even though they have been freed from ecclesial punishment, "do not exercise in a legitimate way any ministry in the church," he said.
According to the reports, the pope said he recognized that upsetting statements have often come from the society's leadership, reflecting pride and arrogance. But he said he has also witnessed "an opening of hearts" among some members.
He said the traditionalist society deserves the same kind of tolerance given to other members in the church.
"Sometimes one has the impression that our society needs at least one group that receives no tolerance and which one can calmly attack with hatred. And if someone -- in this case the pope -- dares to draw close to them, he, too, loses the right to tolerance, and even he can be treated with hatred, without any fear or reserve," he wrote, according to the reports.
Ping!
Astute comment about the lack of tolerance towards one group being needed by some.
God bless and protect the Holy Father!
He is just a wonderful man.
I wish we could clone him - but then his greatness would not be so apparent.
reflecting pride and arrogance
JMO, but this is what caused the schism in the first place, they really thought they were holier than the pope and the Church.
“He said the traditionalist society deserves the same kind of tolerance given to other members in the church.”
I think the Catholic Church would lose half its members if the Pope excommunicated every member that disagrees with some of its doctrines. If abortion-facilitator Nancy Pelosi can remain a member of the church, then it’s hard to justify targetting this small group of traditionalists, even though they have some very wrong-headed ideas about the extent of Holocaust. I’m not Catholic, but I’m not shy about telling all of my Catholic friends how much I really like this Pope.
I disagree with you. What caused the apparent schism was the arrogance and pride of the modernizers who used Vatican II as a pretext to disembowel the Tradition.
There is no symmetry between the SSPX and the modernizing groups either. While both sides are not immune to pride and used regrettable language at times, SSPX seeks greater continuity with the Church as a whole — which includes all the saints, doctors and popes. The modernizers seek rupture. I hope they will not use this letter as anything that would grant them immunity from excommunication should they insist of women “priests”, contraception as valid lifestyle, abortion as an “unsettled” issue, desacralized liturgy, or whetever their benighted minds think up next.
The pride goes both ways. However, the schism resulted when Lefebvre ordained his own bishops without approval of the Holy Father. That comes from lack of obedience.
I disagree with you. What caused the apparent schism was the arrogance and pride of the modernizers who used Vatican II as a pretext to disembowel the Tradition.
I didn’t say that the false interpretations of VII didn’t hurt the Church or put it in turmoil but the arrogance and pride came in when they decided that only they could get it right. They just left instead of staying where they were and fighting for what was right.
My analogy is that the marriage was going bad so instead of doing everything they could to save it they left to live with another spouse while expecting the former spouse to change to their liking.
So in addition to pride and arrogance, I would charge them with despair also because they obviously believed that the Holy Spirit was no longer with the Church, because if they did they would have believed that the gates of hell should not prevail against her.
I have had this debate my SSPX friend for years, I have listened to and read their literature and let me tell you, most of the non-theological stuff should be titled “Pride and Arrogance”.
But Archbishop Lefebvre wouldn’t have ordained them if he did not see the Traditional Mass defacto banned, traditionally-minded priesthood driven to extinction, and ecumenism misinterpreted as indifferentism. I do not approve his disobedience but I understand that he moved out of desperation and out of a form of loyalty to the Church as a mystical body of Christ. I am glad the movement he started prevailed in the end.
I would say, SSPX can be analogized to a spouse who separates from the spouse given to debauchery in hopes of repairing the marriage. It cannot be compared to one who goes on to commit an adultery.
What would your comparison be in application to a bishop who refuses to sanction proabort Catholic politicians or instructs the priests not to preach against contraception, but never formally disobeyed the Pope? SSPX with all its set of attitudes, not all are admirable, did not exist in a vacuum.
Archbishop Lefebvre signed all of the Vatican Council II documents. Show me where the original document bans the Latin Mass.
SACROSANCTUM CONCILIUM - CONSTITUTION ON THE SACRED LITURGY.
How did Williamson become "they"?
False dichotomy alert.
“then it’s hard to justify targetting this small group of traditionalists, even though they have some very wrong-headed ideas about the extent of Holocaust.
How did Williamson become “they”? “
If it was Williamson alone among this group then I stand corrected.
Because the abuse came after the Council.
Williamson was the only one to publicly express views that can be briefly characterized as denial of the Holocaust of the Jews in WWII; he now regretted the publicity and promised to reconsider his views in light of all the evidence.
However, SSPX as a whole is sometimes described by its critics as vaguely anti-Semitic. Mind you, however, that what SSPX really was objecting to was ecumenism crossing over to indifferentism, when the only orthodox form of ecumenism the Catholic Church should embrace is call to conversion, of non-Catholic Christians to Catholicism and of Jews and other non-Christians, to Christ. There were articles appearing in SSPX publications that highlighted the differences between Catholic Christianity and Judaism that might offend non-Catholics. It looks like SSPX distanced itself from some of these writings lately.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.