Bishop Richard Williamson has died at the age of 84. He will not be eulogized by many Catholics, perhaps not even within the traditionalist Society of Saint Pius X, from which he was expelled in 2012. He received his second of two excommunications from the Roman Catholic Church in 2015, by which time he was illicitly ordaining priests under the auspices of what he called the “SSPX Resistance.”
To describe Williamson as controversial would be an understatement. His obituary in the Telegraph described him as “an outlaw bishop who denied the Holocaust and embarrassed the Vatican.” An adult convert to Catholicism, Williamson received his priestly ordination from SSPX founder Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. When in 1988 Lefebvre defied Pope John Paul II and consecrated as bishops Williamson and three other priests, all five SSPX clerics found themselves excommunicated. The SSPX schism lasted for over two decades.
Pope Benedict XVI lifted the SSPX excommunications in 2009, hoping for reconciliation and healing but instead reaping a whirlwind of outrage and protest. Months earlier, Williamson had given an interview on Swedish television in which he denied the existence of gas chambers at Auschwitz and scoffed at the so-called Holocaust. Far from an isolated incident, the interview served as but one example of Williamson’s longstanding predilection for antisemitic conspiracy theories, including his endorsement of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a purported blueprint for Jewish world domination. An obscure figure had found a fame of sorts, and by the end of his life had been fined by the German government and expelled from Argentina for his views. He spent his last years in his native England.
My experience with Williamson was recent and fleeting. I am a historian who studies the Holocaust and post-WWII Catholic-Jewish relations. I contacted Williamson right after I returned from a recent visit to Israel with an organization called Philos Catholic that, among other things, fosters Catholic-Jewish dialogue and friendship. In the wake of an inspiring pilgrimage, I had the idea of reaching out to bishops in various countries and asking them their 60th anniversary thoughts on Nostra Aetate, the Vatican II declaration that revolutionized Catholic-Jewish relations and helped make Christian contempt for Jews and Judaism an increasingly less respectable prejudice. As for the means of contact, I chose what my students would deem a somewhat old-fashioned mode of communication: e-mail.
Williamson was the very first to respond. In fact, I received a detailed reply from him within five days, on the seventeenth of January. I had posed several questions to him (and the other prelates) about the historical-theological significance of Nostra Aetate as well as the issue of antisemitism past and present within the Catholic Church. Williamson’s answer to my first question did not mince words: “I think Nostra Aetate was a huge betrayal of what the true Catholic Church has always, for many centuries, taught about the killers of Christ.”
He packed a lot into that first sentence: “Betrayal,” “true Catholic Church,” “killers of Christ.” These evocations of an old, even if not venerable, tradition of pre-Vatican II anti-Judaism set the tone for his subsequent thoughts about Jews, whom he repeatably described as “enemies.” He then laid out a definition of antisemitism that at best offered a variation on the theme of “love the sinner, hate the sin”:
“Antisemitism” has two quite different possible meanings. It can mean any opposition to Jews simply because they are Jews. Or it can mean any opposition to Jews for their own opposition to God and to Christ and to the Catholic Church as the continuation of Christ. The first meaning is not Catholic, because Our Lord tells us to love our enemies. But the second meaning does not stop Catholics from defending themselves against so much hatred of God, Christ, and the Church, only they must pray for the salvation of Jews and wish them to be saved, because God tells us to pray for (the eternal salvation of) our enemies.
Lest I miss his central point, he added: “It remains stupid and suicidal to treat enemies as friends.”
As one of the questions I posed to him asked whether antisemitism remained a problem within the Catholic Church he proceeded to level the following assessment: “‘Antisemitism’ in the Church today is not frequent in the first sense, it is not frequent enough in the second sense.” He added that Catholics have been taken in by “continual propaganda in the media,” a Jewish ruse to portray themselves as “always the victims” when in fact “they have been the merciless exterminators of Palestinians.”
In closing, Bishop Williamson acknowledged that Catholics could find positive references to Jews in “St. Paul’s Epistles,” conceding that Paul “loved his fellow Jews.” But the scriptural passage he urged me to meditate upon was not something like Romans, chapter 11, verse 1: “I ask, then, has God rejected his people? Of course not!” Rather, he advised “See 1 Thessalonians, Chapter II, verses 14 to 16.” So, I did. Here one sees not a vision of the Church as a branch grafted onto a tree with Jewish roots (Romans 11: 16-24), but of undying enmity between the elder and the younger faiths:
For you, brothers, have become imitators of the churches of God that are in Judea in Christ Jesus. For you suffer the same things from your compatriots as they did from the Jews, who killed both the Lord Jesus and the prophets and persecuted us; they do not please God, and are opposed to everyone, trying to prevent us from speaking to the Gentiles that they may be saved, thus constantly filling up the measure of their sins. But the wrath of God has finally begun to come upon them.
These are hard words from the Apostle, reflecting real grievances sustained in his ministry. And taken in isolation, they suit perfectly the anti-Jewish caricature that poisoned Christian-Jewish relations for almost two thousand years. But they also reflect not a glimmer of what Paul added in Romans 11:28-29:
In respect to the gospel, they are enemies on your account; but in respect to election, they are beloved because of the patriarchs. For the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable.
Such words inspired the Council Fathers who overwhelmingly approved Nostra Aetate, which marked a positive recasting of the Catholic perception of the Jew, as historian John Connelly puts it, “from enemy to brother.”
At this point the reader might think me naïve for having sought out Bishop Williamson in the first place and having expected anything other than vituperative contempt for Jews and Judaism. But I could not know for sure if his views had softened toward the end of his life. Besides, I planned to engage some of his statements in a follow-up email. Yet seven days after he wrote me, he suffered the massive brain hemorrhage from which he died five days later.
Perhaps I am one of the last people to whom Williamson wrote. If so, I regret having elicited such hostile words about Jews from a Christian standing on the threshold of eternity. In this regard I cannot help comparing Williamson with Martin Luther, another controversial excommunicant, devoting his final sermon in February 1546 to a hateful screed against the Jews:
They are our public enemies. They do not stop blaspheming our Lord Christ, calling the Virgin Mary a whore, Christ, a bastard, and us changelings or abortions. If they could kill us all, they would gladly do it. They do it often, especially those who pose as physicians…
Luther also employed vicious rhetoric against his Christian opponents and, of course, he and his followers received ringing condemnation from the papacy. Only after some four centuries did the Second Vatican Council soften Catholic language about Protestants, replacing “heretics and schismatics” with “separated brethren.” Hostile opposition has given way to respectful separateness, at least for most of us. Will such separations—Protestant-Catholic, Jewish-Christian—persist forever? I would think so in the light of reason, but in the light of faith, I am more hopeful. Even though I am a historian, I do not think that history is the end of the story.
At the end of his message to me, the twice-excommunicated bishop blessed me and shared with me his hope: “May God give you light.” Whatever he meant by that, I am grateful for those words, and I think I should return the favor. By now, Williamson has met his God, a God who in his incarnation assumed Jewish flesh, and who shed his Jewish blood so that all of us might be saved. In the moment of Richard Williamson’s death, I pray that he found love, mercy, and true understanding.
May perpetual light shine upon him, and in that final encounter with our Lord and Savior may we all be lovingly corrected in our errors great and small.
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
Contrary to what the author states in the last line of the second paragraph, the SSPX remains in schism. It has never been rescinded as the SSPX remains resistant to and rejects Vatican II teachings especially on liturgical reforms and on religious freedom. Recent spins by the SSPX presenting sympathetic bishops claiming the schism has ended are all hearsays and never supported by evidence or substantiated by official papal declarations. The Popes have been consistent in declaring that the SSPX is in schism and not in full communion with the Church (JPII, Ecclesia Dei; BXVI, Ecclesiae Unitatem; and Francis, Traditiones Custodes). Read these following full quotations.
1. Pope Paul VI’s letter to Archbishop Lefebvre on the (schism) withdrawal of canonical recognition from the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX) June 29, 1975:
” … Our grief is even greater to note that the decision of the competent authority – although formulated very clearly, and fully justified, it may be said, by your refusal to modify your public and persistent opposition to the Second Vatican Council, to the post-conciliar reforms, and to the orientations to which the Pope himself is committed.
” Finally, the conclusions which [the Commission of Cardinals] proposed to Us, We made all and each of them Ours, and We personally ordered that they be immediately put into force.”
Source: PAUL VI, “Lettre de S. S. Le Pape Paul VI a Mgr. Lefebvre,” 29 June 1975, La Documentation Catholique, n. 1689, trans. in M. DAVIES, Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre, p. 113.
2. Pope St. John Paul II on SSPX schism in his Ecclesia Dei Adflicta, February 7, 1988:
” In the present circumstances I wish especially to make an appeal both solemn and heartfelt, paternal and fraternal, to all those who until now have been linked in various ways to the movement of Archbishop Lefebvre, that they may fulfil the grave duty of remaining united to the Vicar of Christ in the unity of the Catholic Church, and of CEASING THEIR SUPPORT IN ANY WAY FOR THAT MOVEMENT. Everyone should be aware that formal ADHERENCE TO THE SCHISM IS A GRAVE OFFENCE AGAINST GOD and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the Church’s law.”
https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/motu_proprio/documents/hf_jp-ii_motu-proprio_02071988_ecclesia-dei.html
3. Pope Benedict XVI in his Letter to the Bishops dated March 10, 2009::
“The fact that the Society of Saint Pius X does not possess a canonical status in the Church is not, in the end, based on disciplinary but on doctrinal reasons. As long as the Society does not have a canonical status in the Church, its ministers do not exercise legitimate ministries in the Church.
“In order to make this clear once again: UNTIL THE DOCTRINAL QUESTIONS ARE CLARIFIED, THE SOCIETY HAS NO CANONICAL STATUS IN THE CHURCH, and its ministers – even though they have been freed of the ecclesiastical penalty – do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church…
“This will make it clear that the problems now to be addressed are essentially DOCTRINAL in nature and concern primarily THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL AND THE POST-CONCILIAR MAGISTERIUM OF THE POPES.
“The Church’s teaching authority cannot be frozen in the year 1962 – this must be quite clear to the Society.
https://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/letters/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20090310_remissione-scomunica.html
4. Pope Francis did give SSPX the faculty to hear confessions legally and validly, because it does not contradict Canon Law. There have always been exceptional circumstances or instances of necessity in which the Church recognizes as valid and licit the reception of sacraments from priests who may be immoral, schismatic, irreligious, laicized, or even non-Catholic, provided their denominations have sacramental confessions.
Canon 844 §2. Whenever necessity requires it or true spiritual advantage suggests it, and provided that danger of error or of indifferentism is avoided, the Christian faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a Catholic minister are permitted to receive the sacraments of penance, Eucharist, and anointing of the sick from non-Catholic ministers in whose Churches these sacraments are valid.
Canon 976 Even though a priest lacks the faculty to hear confessions, he absolves validly and licitly any penitents whatsoever in danger of death from any censures and sins, even if an approved priest is present.
While Pope Francis’ gesture of mercy shows an important precedent — for the good of souls, the Church has the power to grant faculties even to priests who are not in good standing — it is nevertheless NOT AN APPROVAL OF THEM – not an approval of SSPX, or their situation.
5. Pope Francis in his letter Misericordia et Misera, November 20, 2916: “For the pastoral benefit of these faithful (who attend churches officiated by the SSPX ) and trusting in the good will of their priests to strive with God’s HELP FOR THE RECOVERY OF FULL COMMUNION IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, I have personally decided to extend this faculty beyond the Jubilee Year, until further provisions are made, lest anyone be deprived of the sacramental sign of reconciliation through the Church’s pardon.”
https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/apost_letters/documents/papa-francesco-lettera-ap_20161120_misericordia-et-misera.html
Very clearly, Pope Francis’ motu proprio shows there is still the need for SSPX “to recover full communion in the Catholic Church.” Therefore, Pope Benedict’s statement on SSPX’s non-canonical status in the Church still stands.
6. Pope Francis’ letter, dated July 16, 2021, that accompanies Traditionis Custodes, specifically mentioning SSPX to be in “schism.” Here’s the 2nd paragraph, fully quoted:
“Most people understand the motives that prompted St. John Paul II and Benedict XVI to allow the use of the Roman Missal, promulgated by St. Pius V and edited by St. John XXIII in 1962, for the Eucharistic Sacrifice. The faculty — granted by the indult of the Congregation for Divine Worship in 1984 and confirmed by St. John Paul II in the Motu Proprio Ecclesia Dei in 1988 — was above all MOTIVATED BY THE DESIRE TO FOSTER THE HEALING OF THE SCHISM WITH THE MOVEMENT OF MONS. LEFEBVRE. With the ecclesial intention of restoring the unity of the Church, the Bishops were thus asked to accept with generosity the “just aspirations” of the faithful who requested the use of that Missal.”
https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/motu_proprio/documents/20210716-motu-proprio-traditionis-custodes.html
7. About the SSPX faculty to officiate in Catholic weddings (Letter from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith dated March 27, 2017). It states that with the diocese’s permission, an SSPX priest may officiate in a Catholic wedding but only if there is no diocesan or religious priest available, and the documents must be forwarded to the diocesan curia. It should be remembered, too, that in the sacrament of matrimony, the ministers are the couple themselves. A priest is only there to witness for the Church and receive the couple’s consent.
Other than those limited faculties, the sacraments of the SSPX, although valid, are not recognized by the Church because, as Pope Benedict XVI writes, the Society has no canonical status and no legitimate ministry in the Church.
8. Many people, including bishops, who say SSPX is not in schism or has reconciled with the Church, should be able to produce a document similar to Pope John Paul II’s letter welcoming the SSPX in Campos, Brazil (now the Union of St. John Mary Vianney) into the fold, otherwise they should not be believed. Here’s the link to Pope JPII letter:
https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=4141
Many thanks for a clear, well documented response. There are too many ‘fringe’ Catholics who want a bet both ways.
So rejecting Vatican II makes one schismatict, but ignoring the previous councils like Trent or Papal Encyclicals doesn’t, I see.
The church use to pray for the conversion of the Jews to the one true faith, after VII we don’t.
The church use to believe that Protestants who reject the Catholic faith are heretic and schismatic, now that is only reserved for those Catholics who attend the TLM.
The Catholic Catholic church use to believe that Islam was paganism,now apparently we along with them worship the one true
Deacon Dom,
As I understand it the SSPX are not in schism and to their credit they parted ways with the late Bishop Williamson. RIP.
Why did you feel the need to inflict a 1,200 word essay on “why the SSPX is in schism,” on readers of an article which is not about the SSPX save in the most tangential sense? Is this some sort of personal crusade for you?
Thank you for backing up your views with copious references. Wish more would do the same.
We wish more would not do as Dom has done; Dom misrepresents facts and disingenuously writes to accord with his biased slant.
One example: Dom’s Point No. 6 cites Francis’ letter accompanying Traditionis Custodes. Dom claims this 2021 letter shows SSPX in schism. In fact, the 2021 letter references JPII’s Motu Proprio Ecclesia Dei in 1988 as a means to HEAL the schism. Neither Francis’ nor JPII’s letters declares the SSPX priests nor the order to be in formal schism.
In 2009, Benedict XVI lifted the excommunications of the four bishops who LeFebvre ordained without papal permission. JPII cited that act as the reason for LeFebvre’s excommunication and that of the four bishops so ordained. That act could be described as one of formal schism. However, it does not follow that the entire SSPX order of religious priests was ever declared to be in formal schism. If this were the case, there should exist a Vatican document that declares all SSPX priests to be excommunicated and none of their Masses is valid?
Let me know when you find that document, Dom. Meanwhile, a thinking cap is in order for all who see Dom’s disingenuous blather as authoritatively true and without bias.
The SSPX are not now and have never been in schism. Just stop with all this nonsense. There are more bishops in the USCCB who are schismatic than there are in the SSPX.
R.I.P Bishop Williamson.
This article contained many judgemental allusions concerning Bishop Williamson. The discussion of his views on any subject is fair enough. But only God knows hearts. For example, the vast majority of public figures in the West die after a lifetime expressing views that go against Catholic teaching. By all means pray for them privately. All too often, Christians say “I will pray for you” when they really only feel the hostility that the world expresses in four letter words. When one has disagreement with someone, it is usually better NOT to say one will pray for them. It almost always makes things worse, and the prayer (if said) less effective.
The judgmental allusions are Williamson’s own words.
The article could have discussed those words without adding the allusions I am talking about.
Deacon Dom,
Could you possibly spare a prayer for Bp. Williamson?
Your usual copied list of clams about the Society is off-topic.
May our Mother Mary soften your heart toward those who hold to the traditional teachings of holy mother Church.
Ave Maria!
I hope you have a great weekend
The traditional teachings of the Church are what the Church teaches, not what some schismatic society claims it does.
Can you please cite the doctrine or dogma that any traditional society rejects?
Claiming that Jews need not be converted is the worst form of Anti-semitism, by the way, and is contrary to the great Commission.
I think we need to much more tolerant of all those who hold to all the dogmas of the Faith and remember that Vatican 2 defined no new dogma.
I think we ought to refrain from judgment of those who hold true to the defined doctrines yet have been marginalized or even excommunicated because they followed their conscience, that conscience so enshrined by the last worldwide council of bishops.
Lastly, let us stop beating up on our teammates and seek together the salvation of the 95% or so of the world who will not attend the one true Sacrifice this Sunday.
Ave Maria!
What a shame and what a sad waste of a vocation. May he and the souls of all the faithful departed rest in peace.
Typos corrected version Carl is here. Sorry for sending twice.
Three reflections from a disgruntled layman.
1) When St Paul rebuked Peter, Peter did not excommunicate him; SSPX is an institutional rebuke: when the post-conciliar Apostasy is finally laid to rest, and Catholicism is reconciled to the Apostolic Tradition, the rebuke will be recognised as Lefevbre’s great act of Charity.
2) “in respect to election, they are beloved because of the patriarchs. For the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable.” PPBXVI recognised this by rightly asserting the eternal first Covenant remains valid for its chosen people. Rome had no need for Vatican II to recognise the truth of Sacred Scripture: the chosen people gave us Jesus Christ and played a second pivotal role in Salvation History by acting out the permanent witness of mankind’s rejection of the person of the second Covenant under Ceasar’s Occupation… every sin we commit contributes to that necessarily salvific rejection? The historical fact of Jesus’ execution under Roman Law by Romans at the request of the Sanhedrin is ironically the greatest gift to have issued from the turmoil of the first century occupation of Israel.
3) In his book The Crucified Rabbi, Taylor Marshall demonstrates the falsehood of the received “Masonic Lie” that the Catholic Church was the enemy of the Jewish people. He lays out from official Church texts proof of a solid Catholic defense of Jewish Brothers and solid Petrinian Rebukes of persecutors of Judaism dating back to 1120; it is not because a Catholic nation or order of knights commits a crime against humanity – and they did – that they were acting with the blessing of Peter.
Not sure why Carl published this article. This entire topic requires nuance and context, neither of which this article offers (although Bishop Williamson’s reply regarding the two types of anti-semitism did just that). As all Catholics should know, Christ is the fulfillment of the covenant, the very same covenant he made with Abraham and the same covenant we should pray every day that the Jewish people embrace. Doing otherwise is not charity or sophistication but a serious neglect of our CHristian responsibilities.
As Paul rebuked Peter, so did Lefevbre in an act of Charity. Truth will triumph?
PPBXVI rightly asserted the eternal first Covenant remains valid for its chosen people.
In his book The Crucified Rabbi, Taylor Marshall lays out solid Petrinian Rebukes of the persecutors of Judaism from 1120 on.
Not for publication
Carl this is my 4th example of the same comment. Please forgive me. It is the most succint. Will not be so trigger happy again.
For publication consideration:
As Paul rebuked Peter, so did Lefevbre in an act of Charity. Truth will triumph?
PPBXVI asserted the eternal first Covenant remains valid for its chosen people.
In “The Crucified Rabbi”, T.Marshall lists Papal Rebukes of persecutors of Jews from 1120 on.
You must be kidding. Williamson was a nasty antisemite and holocaust denier. Think of the number of people he hurt with his ridiculous ideas. I might pray that in purgatory he comes to realize how much is hate contradicted the Gospels. I wonder if he knew Mary and Joseph and the apostles were Jews?
If Bishop Williamson wasn’t aware in life that the Holy Family and the apostles were Jews I’m pretty sure he knows that now.
🙂
Bishop Williamson’s rejection of Vatican II certainly places him in schism, but I see nothing unorthodox in his views on Judaism. In fact, I think Nostra Aetate affirms his views by condemning hatred and persecution of Jews while acknowledging that “the Jewish authorities and those who followed their lead pressed for the death of Christ.” Catholic opponents of Judaism today should probably use this same terminology in declaring which Jews are problematic. “The Jewish leaders and those who follow their lead” continue to be a hostile force against Christ and His Church and Catholics are obligated to oppose their political influence without hatred or persecution.
May Our Jewish Lord and Savior Jesus Christ have mercy on our deceased brother, the sinner Williamson, for his role in killing the Messiah. I ask the same mercy for my sinful part in the Crucifixion.
Amen
During my lifetime I have met those who have followed divers pathways of apostasy. It is generally when an individual finds a specific doctrine, teaching, or concept that captures their attention. Eventually, they tumble down the rabbit hole of confusion and deception. The saddest result is that part of the heart and mind where apostasy dwells is inhospitable for the Holy Spirit to dwell.
I pray for mercy upon the soul of Bishop Richard Williamson. I don’t fully understand his complete thinking about the Jewish people and the associated animosity, but I know what it is to hate another. That vile emotion deadens the spirit and closes the mind. I comprehend that even the elect can fall, but it always saddens me and motivates me to pray harder for all of us. There but for the grace of God I know that I could be found if I do not remain alert to the temptations of the Evil One.
I would like to suggest a middle ground. St. Paul’s letter to the Romans tells us that the Jews are beloved of God. We must not scorn the root of our faith. Jesus, Mary, Joseph and all the Apostles and early Church were Jews. Anti-semitism is a grave sin. But you left out the desire of Our Lord who said that he came for the lost sheep of the House of Israel. We, Catholics, must love the Jews into the Church, not be coersion or prejudice, but by our love of them and welcome. The Church is meant to be one body of Jew and Gentile united by our Baptism into Christ. Judaism is to be respected, as are all faiths, but it is now fulfilled in Jesus Christ, who is a Jew.
The choice of Williamson as one of the SSPX bishops he consecrated illustrates one of the traits that St. Marcel Lefebvre had in common with St. John-Paul II: Both men were capable of extremely poor judgement of character.
Thankfully, during my entire 13 years of catholic school education prior to attending college, I do not recall ONE instance of a teacher slighting the Jews. Nor did I ever hear a priest do so in a homily. I have never understood how it is possible for a Catholic to attack Jews out of a sentiment of anti-semitism. After all, not only was Jesus Himself Jewish, but so was His Blessed Mother, St. Joseph, the Apostles, etc. It is entirely possible to disagree on Israeli political policies. That is not the same as attacking people solely for the sake of being Jewish.
Anti-semitism is a significant sin and I believe the Church should speak with authority on this topic more often.
I wish I could say the same thing LJ but ever since October 7th I’ve been hearing antisemitic narratives from other Catholics. I went to Confession for guidance on what I should do. Father said to talk to the people I hear it from and ask them what was in their heart.
Before October 7th I was naive about antisemitism in Catholics, both on the Right and the Left. I really thought it was a thing of the past but I was wrong.
I’ve met Williamson. He said about Jews, “They are often excellent Catholics when they are true converts…while the Gentiles have done the majority of work in bringing Christianity to the World, the Jew is coming home in a way that no Gentile will ever fullly understand.” To claim Williamson was an anti-semite is utterly ridiculous. I notice nobody ever mentions his opposition to Atheism, Liberalism, F-masonry and Communism and Protestantism and Orthodoxy. That label of anti-semite is a smear campaign by anti-Catholics looking for easy angles of attack for lazy minds. If anything Williamson was a believer in Natural Jewish superiority. He believed in the natural order, Jews were more gifted and better natural leaders than anyone else. What makes the difference in the conflict is the grace of God. Grace builds on nature and raises the nature of the Gentile above that of the non-converted Jew. But should Jews accept the graces offered by God to convert to Catholicism, they would be the natural leaders. It’s cloddish and doltish to believe Williamson was against any race.
Cardinal Augustin Bea who at Vatican II was placed in charge of all interreligious dialogue and Christina ecumenism was asked was “unity” meant. He said, “Everyone believing the same thing, taking the same sacraments and doing so under the successor of Peter.” Williamson, LeFebvre before him would all agree with this, while the supposed advocates of Vatican II who pretend that a crisis in the faith and the Church is not manifested itself prior to, during and especially after Vatican II and amplified by it would be loathe to make a statement like the liberal Cardinal did in the mid 1960s.
Excellent post! People jump on bandwagons and sometimes lack intellectual integrity. Bishop Williamson was honest, intelligent and truly faithful. God bless him.
I would tend to agree with you. Though I did not know Williamson personally, I found his comments in context a lot less jarring that most people. (Quite apart, however, from his nonsensical views on the Holocaust.) My own father was similar in many ways. He believed in Jewish superiority as a people, but he was not at all ecumenical. We had (and have) an obligation to try to convert Jews to the Church, to the Gospel. Above all, it is nonsense the way many Catholics run to Jewish sources for interpretation of OT passages. The Jews do not understand their own scriptures. If they did, they would be Christians.
I would simply ask your readers to consider viewing comments about this article from traditional Catholics at https://www.cathinfo.com/the-library/bishop-r-williamson-email-jan-17-2025-'nostra-aetate'/. Bishop Williamson was a good man, but not surprisingly he has and will be greatly maligned by many Catholics who mistakenly believe that the testament made between God and the Jewish people was not revoked by God. It was indeed revoked and replaced by God’s new and eternal testament.
Surely the author should be delighted that Bp Williamson made the effort to reply ? I know from bitter experience that few priests or bishops will even dign to acnowledge either an email or a letter. From what I know both Abp Lefebvre and Bp Williamson always replied, often by hand, to letters and often from people not always in agreement with them.