The Catholic Populist

SSPX Bishop Richard Williamson certainly has no history of shying away from controversy.  He insists that Adolf Hitler had put in place no policy of killing Jews during the Holocaust and no Jews were killed in gas chambers.  He also has repeatedly argued that 9 / 11 was an inside job — making him a Truther like ex-Obama Administration official Van Jones.

Why does it matter?

In 1988, French Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre (now deceased) — the leader of SSPX, a tradionalist Society of Apostolic Life that celebrated the Latin Mass exclusively — and Brazilian Archbishop Antonio de Castro Mayer announced their desire to consecrate four new traditionalist Bishops — French Father Bernard Tisset de Mallerais, Spanish Father Alfonso de Galarrata, Swiss Father Bernard Fellay, and British Father Richard Williamson.

The Vatican had reservations about Father Williamson, a recent convert from Anglicanism whose pastoral record was less than perfect.  They asked Archbishop Lefebvre to seek out a more suitable candidate.  Archbishop Lefebvre resubmitted the request to ordain those four particular priests.  When the Vatican asked the Archbishop to delay the ordinations, Archbishop Lefebvre consecrated all four without Vatican approval.  This incurred an automatic excommunication against all six Bishops and launched SSPX into schism.

Pope Benedict is much more sympathetic to traditionalist impulses in the faithful than John Paul II.  On January 24, 2009, he lifted the excommunication on SSPX.  They remained in schism but, with the excommunication lifted, they were able to enter into dialogue with the Vatican geared towards reunion.  However,  the story that resulted from the outreach was that the Anti-Defamation League attacked Pope Benedict XVI for lifting the entire SSPX excommunication due to Bishop Williamson’s historical opinions on the Holocaust.

Although the lack of pastoral sensitivity that Bishop Williamson exhibits is breathtaking, his strange and far-fetched historical opinions do not in any way conflict theologically with the Catholic position.  Furthermore, he is not representative of the entire SSPX in his view.  In fact, the story drew a sharp rebuke and a gag order from Bernard Fellay, the SSPX Superior General, who removed Bishop Williamson from the seminary he oversaw.

In spite of the dust-up, Vatican and SSPX dialogue has progressed well.  In fact, the Vatican has just issued a Doctrinal Preamble that defines all the dogma defined in Vatican II.  SSPX on October 7 had a meeting of 3 of their Bishops (all except for Bishop Williamson) to consider the doctrinal preamble.  If accepted and published, the Doctrinal preamble will be a benefit to the Church as Vatican II was the first Council that did not come out with a single creed or defining dogmatic statement (like the Nicene Creed from the Council of Nicea).  The Doctrinal Preamble could help clarify the sometimes blurry line between the Vatican II pastoral decisions (which could be legitimately criticized) and the dogmatic definitions (which must be accepted by all believing Catholics).  SSPX still has not made a public announcement whether they will accept the Doctrinal Preamble (after which Vatican officials indicate SSPX could be formed into a personal prelature like Opus Dei).

What could go wrong?

Enter Bishop Williamson — again.

The Archbishop published a blog post accusing the Pope of theological error (heresy).  He said modern Jews by means of solidarity are collectively are guilty of deicide.  He said that the Pope and the Secretariat for Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs had spoken heresy.  He cited Matthew 27: “Let his blood be on us and on our children!”  This, he maintains, calls down the guilt of Jesus’ death on the collective race of modern Jews (with exceptions).

Where to start?

Clearly, Bishop Williamson has a profound lack of understanding of basic Christology.  Traditionalists often cite the Council of Trent (1545).  Allow me to do the honor:

“Besides, to increase the dignity of this mystery, Christ not only suffered for sinners, but even for those who were the very authors and ministers of all the torments He endured. Of this the Apostle reminds us in these words addressed to the Hebrews: Think diligently upon him that endured such opposition from sinners against himself; that you be not wearied, fainting in your minds. In this guilt are involved all those who fall frequently into sin; for, as our sins consigned Christ the Lord to the death of the cross, most certainly those who wallow in sin and iniquity crucify to themselves again the Son of God, as far as in them lies, and make a mockery of Him. This guilt seems more enormous in us than in the Jews, since according to the testimony of the same Apostle: If they had known it, they would never have crucified the Lord of glory; while we, on the contrary, professing to know Him, yet denying Him by our actions, seem in some sort to lay violent hands on him.”

Unlike his earlier historical beliefs, this shows that Bishop Williamson is guilty of defying Catholic dogma.  Benedict XVI has just come down extremely hard (rightly so) on an Australian Bishop openly defying Church doctrine on the ordination of women.  A reconciliation with Bishop Williamson looks close to impossible.  Bishop Fellay earlier this month warned Bishop Williamson he may be forced out of SSPX.

It seems that Bishop Williamson is doing all he can to force Bishop Fellay’s hand.

Bishop Hilarion believes that Orthodoxy and Catholicism Should Form an Alliance on the Path to Unity

Catholics often pray for Christian unity.

What would that look like?  Could it be done all at once?  Where is there hope?

It is important to recognize the state of large Christian denominations by the numbers:

Catholic Church (Pentecost: 33 AD): 1.2 billion

Oriental Orthodox Church (Chalcedonian Schism: 451 AD): 82 million

Eastern Orthodox Church (Great Schism: 1054 AD): 230 million

Protestant Churches (Protestant Reformation: 1517 AD): 670 million

Anglican Communion (Henry VIII’s Act of Supremacy: 1534 AD): 80 million

The oldest break from the Catholic Church was the Chalcedonian schism, in which what later came to be called Oriental Orthodox bishops objected to the idea that Jesus had two natures because they believed this was an implicit endorsement of the heresy that the two natures were two separate persons.  This theological dispute caused a mutual round of excommunications between the Pope and the Oriental Orthodox patriarchs.

The Great Schism was built around the infamous filioque dispute, a radically technical dispute on whether or not the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as two separate principles or one principle.  The Eastern Orthodox Church was more nationalist due to the fact that it was located with the Byzantine Empire and tied to the empire.  Roman Catholicism had no nationalist background tying it to individual nations.

In 1964, Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras I lifted the mutual excommunications on their respective churches.  The Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue Between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church (both Eastern and Oriental) was launched in 1980.  One of the most important breakthrough was the realization that there was no doctrinal barrier to reunification except one big one: the primacy of the Pope and the ability of the Pope to lead the Church in an ongoing refinement of Christian dogma.

The Protestant Reformation was led by Martin Luther and John Calvin.  Today, Protestant churches and theologies are so splintered as to defy a simple definition.  Apostolic succession is non-existent and almost universally not even desired.

Anglicanism, famously founded by Henry VIII to discharge his marriage to Catherine of Aragon, in many ways has served as the voice of the Left in the Christian faith.  There are some more orthodox movements inside the Anglican communion but the church was the first to endorse contraception, the first to endorse abortion, and the first to have openly gay clergy.  Apostolic succession existed but was forfeited by various Protestant reforms.

Of the various Christian traditions, unity seems to be possibly on the horizon for the Catholic Church with both the Oriental and Eastern Orthodox Churches.  John Paul II famously said of the Orthodox and Catholic faiths: “Europe has two lungs.  It will never breathe easily until it can use both of them.”  Entering into a Catholic-Orthodox reunion would require a tackling of the authority principle in the Church.  Throughout countless centuries, all other doctrines have remained the same.  The Left has exercised enormous influence over certain dogmas of various Protestant and Anglican churches.  However, the Left has found Catholic and Orthodox dogmas utterly impenetrable.

Hilarion Alfeyev, a leading Bishop of the Orthodox Church believes that the path to Christian unity should be paved by an alliance against the Left:

“In the struggle against relativism the Roman Catholic Church takes an uncompromising stand, but by doing so it further distances itself from Protestants, whose positions are in most cases much more in tune with modern developments. Protestants are, therefore, rather unlikely allies in this struggle. Moreover, there already exist many forums, organizations and agencies promoting the dialogue between Catholics and Protestants on social issues. There are also Protestant-Orthodox forums, such as the Conference of European Churches. What is almost entirely lacking in Europe is any space for a Catholic-Orthodox dialogue on social and ethical issues, while this dialogue would be so timely and so vital.

The rationale behind my proposal is the following: our churches are on their way to unity, but one has to be realistic and understand that it will probably take decades, if not centuries, before this unity is realized. In the meantime we desperately need to address the world with a united voice. Without being one Church, can we act as one Church? Can we present ourselves to the outside world as a unified structure, as an alliance? I am convinced that we can, and that by doing so we may become much stronger.”

It may take decades or centuries but the Holy Spirit has laid a desire for greater Christian unity on the hearts of the Orthodox (both Eastern and Oriental) and Catholics.

How can we say no?

Jesse Helms and Ronald Reagan fashioned Morality in Foreign Policy

In 1976, at the height of the Cold War, then-North Carolina Senator Jesse Helms and then-former California Governor Ronald Reagan added a new plank into the GOP platform — Morality in Foreign Policy.  Mr. Reagan and Mr. Helms took the Declaration of Independence very seriously when it said “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, among these Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.”  They believed that this was a claim that not only applied to Americans but also was a universal truth of human nature.

They believed that the United States should recognize that any violation of mankind’s natural rights in any country was an injustice.  Just as one private citizen would be duty-bound to stop a robbery of another private citizen who was an utter stranger to them if it was both in his power and prudent, so too the US government has a moral impetus to oppose genocide or tyranny and take a firm international stand for human rights.

Morality in Foreign Policy is often assailed as a self-designated policeman of the world status.  How can the United States afford to run about the globe saving and infantalizing all victims of injustice?  This argument is nothing but a straw man.

Everyone agrees that Prudent Self-Interest is inherently a plank of foreign policy.  Morality in Foreign Policy did not replace Prudent Self-Interest — merely served as an ideological counterbalance.  Furthermore, military action is not the only way to act in accord with Morality in Foreign Policy.  If the two planks conflict, then action would be inadvisable.  For example, China’s barbarous One-Child forced abortion policy kills babies and traumatizes women — a radical human rights abuse.  Morality in Foreign Policy would recommend that the United States use any means necessary to stop the policy — even military action.  However, the geo-political situation would make such an action a radical violation of Prudent Self-Interest.  Therefore no military action should be taken.  However, that the Obama Administration has remained silent on the issue is disgraceful.  It would be both moral and prudent to speak out sternly in solidarity with the victims.

On the other end of the spectrum, Michelle Bachmann in the GOP debate last night indicated that she supported reaping a payment from Iraq by force in exchange for our efforts to set up a democracy in their country and fighting a war on their behalf.  She all but said that we should seize some of their oil.  Mrs. Bachmann would do well to open a history book.  The British Parliament said the exact same thing after their lavish expenditure to win the French and Indian War.  Why not extract a payment from the Americans?  What about a reasonable Tea Tax?  The British were bewildered when this caused the American Revolution.  Why did the colonists rebel?  We all know the chant: “No Taxation without Representation!”  If the English could elect a Parliament that could raise taxes on Americans without their consent, that meant that the Americans were not equal under the law with the English.  A lack of equality was a violation of the natural rights of Americans.  Would Michelle Bachmann duplicate the British Empire’s tactics by raising a tax on Iraquis without their consent?  Although that certainly fits the bill of Prudent Self-Interest, it is a flagrant violation of Morality in Foreign Policy and should not be undertaken.

The Iraq War was undertaken largely based on the Morality in Foreign Policy plank — to stand up to a tyrant and bestow human rights.  The Iraqis have built a democracy that guards their human rights.  As George W. Bush predicted, this vision of a successful democracy in Iraq has caused Arabs to rise up across North Africa and the Middle East in the Arab Spring demanding their human rights.  Does Mrs. Bachmann really believe we should abandon the American belief in human rights at this critical time?  The Founders of this nation are rolling over in their graves.  A candidate for President of the United States is actually advocating that we model our foreign policy on the once-hated British Empire.