More on this week's motu proprio Ecclesiae Unitatem

Yesterday I asked AmP readers to help me understand Ecclesiae Unitatem, the motu proprio issued by Pope Benedict on Wednesday. In addition to the good comments left there, one tipster sent me a short-hand explanation which I found useful:

Don’t you think that the Holy Father simply wants to separate the two parts of the SSPX controversy? I.e., the liturgical and the doctrinal. By separating them, he can mainstream (even more) their liturgical desires through the CDW, while continuing to study their doctrinal concerns through the CDF.

Fr. Z also wrote a very helpful analysis.

On the Motu Proprio "Ecclesiae Unitatem"

I've been remiss in reporting the motu proprio which Pope Benedict released yesterday, frankly because I don't quite understand yet what it is designed to do or how it will accomplish its goals.

A good place to start, though, would be to poke through the comments at Rorate Caeli.

One meme that is being circulated in the mainstream media is that this is Pope Benedict's way of "disciplining" the figures behind the embarrassing holocaust controversy from a few months back (embarrassing only in that the Vatican was not informed and prepared for it).

I'm not sure if I quite buy that because Cardinal Hoyos was at the mandatory age of retirement anyway, and the organizational restructuring that the motu proprio calls for seems common sensical in its own right.

So please, chime in and help me get this right in my head.

Praise for Pope Benedict's letter about SSPX

Canon Lawyer Ed Peters:

One can hardly praise a pope without sounding a bit presumptuous, but here goes: the 10 March 2009 letter of Benedict XVI on the SSPX excommunications remission is a fine document.

The pope's letter acknowledges that the excommunication remissions came as a surprise to all and were issued without adequate contemporaneous explanations. As a result, even friends of the pope were ill-prepared to defend his actions in the court of human opinion (and yes, the court of human opinion matters, as evidenced by the pope's letter itself). Church enemies had a field day amid the confusion, but since that's what enemies do anyway, there's not much more to be said about them. [More.]

Advance text of the Pope's letter and coverage here.

Update: Holocaust-denier Bp. Williams apologizes for comments

Zenit:

Bishop Richard Williamson, formerly excommunicated member of the Society of St. Pius X, apologized today for statements in which he denied the extent of the Holocaust.

In a statement published on his return to London on Wednesday after being expelled by the government of Argentina, the prelate explained that "the Holy Father and my superior, Bishop Bernard Fellay, have requested that I reconsider the remarks I made on Swedish television four months ago, because their consequences have been so heavy."

... Bishop Williamson continued, "Observing these consequences I can truthfully say that I regret having made such remarks, and that if I had known beforehand the full harm and hurt to which they would give rise, especially to the Church, but also to survivors and relatives of victims of injustice under the Third Reich, I would not have made them."

The prelate said that on Swedish television he only gave the "opinion [...] of a non-historian," a perspective "formed 20 years ago on the basis of evidence then available, and rarely expressed in public since."

However, he recognized, "the events of recent weeks and the advice of senior members of the Society of St. Pius X have persuaded me of my responsibility for much distress caused."

He added, "To all souls that took honest scandal from what I said, before God I apologize."

AP video of a reporter trying to confront Bp. Williams as he left Buenos Aires:

Related links:

• Reuters: Holocaust-denying bishop makes apology
• CNS: Bishop Williamson says he regrets remarks denying Holocaust
• CNA: Bishop Williamson expresses ‘regret’ for Holocaust comments’ effects
• NYT: Bishop Apologizes for Statements on the Holocaust

Pope Benedict & the SSPX - a substantive contribution

Finally something more than the holocaust angle, discussed at the Ratzinger Fan Club blog.

Weighty reading.

Update: Argentine seminary ousts Holocaust-denying bishop

Progress:

Roman Catholic bishop whose denials of the Holocaust led to Vatican demands he recant has been removed as the head of an Argentine seminary.

The ultraconservative Society of St. Pius X said in a statement e-mailed Monday to The Associated Press that it has dismissed British Bishop Richard Williamson as director of its seminary in La Reja, outside Buenos Aires.

"The statements from Monsignor Williamson do not in any way reflect the position of our congregation," said Father Christian Bouchacourt, the society's South American superior. "A Catholic bishop cannot speak with ecclesiastical authority except on matters concerning faith and morality. Our brotherhood does not claim any authority over other questions." (AP)

Related:

• NYT: Bishop Who Denied Holocaust Ousted
• CNA: Pope Benedict and German Chancellor discuss Holocaust comments (also AP)
• AP: Jewish group optimistic about Vatican-Jewish ties

Maybe this one can be quietly put to bed soon.

Update: Holocaust denier Bp. Williamson will review evidence

The Associated Press:

A bishop who faces a Vatican demand to recant his denial of the Holocaust said he would correct himself if he is satisfied by the evidence, but insisted that examining it "will take time," a German magazine reported Saturday.

Richard Williamson is one of four bishops from the ultraconservative Society of St. Pius X whose excommunication was lifted by the Vatican last month. The decision sparked outrage because Williamson had said in a television interview he did not believe any Jews were gassed during the Holocaust.

On Wednesday, the Vatican demanded that Williamson recant his denial before he can be admitted as a bishop into the Roman Catholic Church.

Williamson made clear he does not plan to comply immediately, and rejected a suggestion that he might visit the Auschwitz death camp, the weekly Der Spiegel reported.

"Since I see that there are many honest and intelligent people who think differently, I must look again at the historical evidence," the British bishop was quoted as saying.

"It is about historical evidence, not about emotions," he added, according to the report. "And if I find this evidence, I will correct myself. But that will take time."

Yeah, Google searches can take lots of time, especially when they turn up 28 million hits.

An update on the SSPX situation

I blogged extensively on this controversy here. Today, two signs of hope:

• {SSPX is coming around...} Commonweal: Has the purge begun?:

"Not only has the SSPX started removing questionable texts on Jews from their websites, but word is now that clergy who refuse to adopt a new line are also getting the boot. Rorate Caeli cites Italian sources reporting that Father Floriano Abrahamowicz, the SSPX priest responsible for Northeast Italy, was expelled today.

This could get ugly. But it certainly seems to signal that the schismatic Traditionalists of the SSPX may be getting serious about “cleaning” up their act. Could Williamson’s “recantation” be next? And what would Pope Benedict XVI do then?"

{Of problems to have, dealing with a contrite Williamson doesn't strike me as a particularly bad one.}

• {The Vatican is getting it ...} Catholic Culture: Vatican spokesman admits publicity gaffes:

"... Father Federico Lombardi, the director of the Vatican press office, conceded that the Holy See has not handle public relations effectively ... [he said] “I think we still have to create a communications culture inside the Curia, where each dicastery communicates by itself, not necessarily thinking of going through the press room or issuing an explanatory note when the issue is complex.”

The director of the Holy See Press Office took aim at Cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos and others who were involved in the decision to lift the SSPX bishops’ excommunications. “They didn't take the views of the other bishops enough into account,” he said. “One thing that's certain is that the pope didn't know [about Bishop Williamson’s denial of the Holocaust’s extent]. If someone should have known, it was Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos.”

{This is some sign, at least, that those responsible for communicating the pope's message realize that the current modus operandi isn't working. Let's hope the lessons learned from this debacle sink in - deeply.}

The other story: Pope Benedict and the SSPX

My intensive coverage of the Maciel situation put all other stories on the back burner in the past 48 hours.

But there is something else important happening: the ongoing controversy surrounding Pope Benedict, the SSPX, and Bishop Richard Williamson.

It's another complicated situation, so I'll try to summarize and shed some lights on where things stand now:

Liberal Catholic theologian Hermann Haering's call for the pope to step down, I think, is preposterous.

Things got more serious when German Chancellor Angela Merkel rebuked Pope Benedict and asked him to "clarify unambiguously that there can be no denial and that there must be positive relations with the Jewish community overall."

The pope's brother, Fr. Georg Ratzinger, shot back: "[the pope] doesn’t need me to defend him. But it angers me how unjust and badly informed the people who are attacking him are."

I'd of course, agree with Fr. Ratzinger. Of course Pope Benedict supports positive relations with the Jews. He's been working for that his entire ecclesiastical and papal career!

So how did we get here? Two things: a) bias against the Church and b) admittedly poor handling by the Vatican. This is not the first time the Vatican has badly bungled the handling of a delicate situation, and it is frustrating - to say the least - that this still regularly happens.

Vatican expert Sandro Magister explains:

A few days after the events, the lifting of excommunication from the four Lefebvrist bishops is increasingly manifesting itself at the Vatican as a double disaster, of governance and of communication. In the disaster, Pope Benedict XVI found himself to be the one most exposed, and practically alone.

{Magister reviews Pope Benedict's deep theological understanding and teaching about the issue of SSPX reconciliation, etc.} But little or nothing of this {papal explanation} was stated in the decree issued on January 24 by the Holy See. In the "vulgata" diffused by the media, with this decree the Church of Rome was simply clasping the Lefebvrists to its bosom.

{Now the twist:} Then, to make the misunderstanding worse, there came the uproar over an interview with one of the four bishops granted clemency, Richard Williamson of England, in which he supported ideas denying the Holocaust.

In the media all over the world, the news read as follows: the pope clears a Holocaust denier bishop from excommunication, and welcomes him into the Church.

Magister's hypothesis (underlining mine):

The question comes naturally: was all of this really inevitable, once the pope had decided to lift the excommunication of the Lefebvrist bishops? Or was the disaster produced by the errors and omissions of the men who are supposed to implement the pope's decisions? The facts point to the second hypothesis.

The decree revoking the excommunication bears the signature of Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re, prefect of the congregation for bishops. Another cardinal, Darío Castrillón Hoyos, is the president of the pontifical commission "Ecclesia Dei," which, ever since its creation in 1988, has dealt with the followers of Lefebvre. Both of these cardinals have said that they were taken by surprise, after the fact, by the interview with Bishop Williamson, and that they were never aware that he was a Holocaust denier.

At this point Magister goes on to describe one failing after another. Two main points:

• "The media release of the decision also seems to have been entirely negligent. The Vatican press office limited itself, on Saturday, January 24, to distributing the text of the decree, in spite of the fact that the news had already leaked out a few days earlier, and a fiery controversy was already growing around the statements denying the Holocaust made by Williamson.... And yet, if nothing of this was done, it was not the fault of the Vatican press office and its director, Jesuit Fr. Federico Lombardi, but of the offices of the curia from which they receive their orders. These offices of the curia converge in the secretariat of state."
• "So then, throughout the entire affair of the lifting of the excommunications for the Lefebvrist bishops, the secretary of state, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, despite his highly active and outspoken nature, distinguished himself by his absence. His first public comment on the question came on January 28, during a conference in Rome at which he was speaking. But more than words, what were lacking from him were actions equal to the gravity of the situation. Before, during, and after the issuing of the decree. Benedict XVI was left practically alone, and the curia was abandoned to disorder. The fact that Benedict XVI has given up on reforming the curia is now before the eyes of all. But it is conjectured that he compensated for this non-decision by entrusting the leadership of the offices to a tough, dynamic secretary of state, Bertone. Now this conjecture has also been shown to be lacking. "

Magister's final point:

"Bertone's personal devotion to Benedict XVI is beyond all doubt. Not so that of the other curia officials, who continue to have free rein. It is possible that some of them deliberately oppose this pontificate. It is certain that most of them simply do not understand it, do not measure up to it."

Wow, that's alot to take in. Given this state of affairs, it should not surprise us that there has been no official Vatican reaction to other current controversies - notably the Maciel meltdown. Quite simply: they have their hands more than full.

Magister's analysis jives with John Allen's Jan. 30th column: "The Lefebvrite case: What was the Vatican thinking?":

On the lecture circuit, I'm sometimes asked for my opinion about the Vatican's communications strategy. My glib answer generally is, "As soon as they have one, I'll be glad to tell you what I think of it."

The line usually draws a few chuckles. However, this week's furor over the lifting of the excommunication of four traditionalist bishops, including one who's a Holocaust denier, offers a reminder that the lack of PR savvy in Rome is actually no laughing matter. {Read his entire column.}

While the Vatican Information Service released a brief communique on the subject today, they are also taking more drastic measures, including, apparently, demanding that Bishop Williams recant.

It's pretty evident that Vatican officials from top to bottom really dropped the ball on this one, and gave the detractors of the Church a clear opportunity of working against her in the court of common opinion. I say this because it's nothing new for people to attack the Church in public, it is something out of the ordinary for Vatican officials to be so pell-mell in their response, up to and including pointing the figure at one another.

(I think it's worth noting, as Whispers does here, that the release of Bp. Williamson's Swedish TV interview might have been timed to embarrass the pope. Nonetheless, Williamson's record is far older than this interview and the situation could have been avoided altogether.)

I hope this is a serious reality check. And maybe it's time to hire a couple research assistants. I know how to use Google pretty well.

And because Pope Benedict is so very alone on this - and unjustly being attacked - I would ask readers to sign this petition to publicly support him.