The Dispatch: More from CWR...

A Prayer for Richard Williamson

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.

Left: Former English Bishop Richard Williamson. (Image: Joshuarodri, CC0, via Wikimedia Commons); right: The opening session of the Second Vatican Council in St. Peter's Basilica at the Vatican Oct. 11, 1962. (CNS photo/Giancarlo Giuliani, Catholic Press Photo)

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.


About Richard Francis Crane 1 Article
Richard Francis Crane is a professor of history at Benedictine College in Atchison, Kansas.

4 Comments

  1. 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

  2. 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.

  3. 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

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

All comments posted at Catholic World Report are moderated. While vigorous debate is welcome and encouraged, please note that in the interest of maintaining a civilized and helpful level of discussion, comments containing obscene language or personal attacks—or those that are deemed by the editors to be needlessly combative or inflammatory—will not be published. Thank you.


*