To a person of high station:
Your Eminence,
... I am writing out of concern for the Holy Father and for Mother Church arising in connection with the furore over Bishop Williamson’s now notorious remarks. These have given rise to a controversy which arises at the juncture of the political and theological, the latter aspect of which warrants Your Eminence’s attention.
I want, first of all, to express my support for the Pope and for the labours he has undertaken. I have read his encyclicals and a number of his addresses. From one who has studied his country’s history, philosophy and music, His Holiness most certainly is not an “embarrassment” to Germany. I hope he is aware that there are many of us who emphatically reject imputations to the contrary.
I want, above all, to express my concern for the integrity of our Faith the absolute core of which is the Crucifixion which is also the fundament of our Christian Civilization. The infuriated demand, accompanied by extraordinary pressure and veiled calumnies, that the Church condemn and force recantation of something known as “Holocaust Denial” sets an extremely dangerous precedent which ought to be resisted. To bring the Church’s authority and magisterium to bear on what is, at bottom, an historical event affecting a part of humanity, ipso facto raises that event to the level of faith and morals and thereby tends to equate it with or eclipse the central Divine Act of our faith which represents and redeems all mankind’s suffering.
The demands being made by the members of the German Government and by various self-appointed Jewish Groups are untenable for the reasons I shall outline in brief.
1. The decision to reconcile with the schismatic Society of Saint Pius X, is an internal Church matter that is no outsider’s business whatsoever, and certainly no business of the Jewish political establishment. That is evident and in need of no further discussion.
2. The personal opinions of any member of the Church with respect to historical accounts of human events is also not a subject for official clerical inquiry or censure. It is preposterous to think that the Church should make inquisition into the personal opinions of church members with respect to matters not involving faith or morals. To maintain otherwise results in a reduction ad absurdum that is so obvious as to require no further comment.
3. As a matter of political expedience in order to prevent the resurgence of National Socialism, the German State has seen fit to outlaw something called “Holocaust Denial.” In my opinion, the illegalization of doubt and of questioning represents an extreme and unwarranted construction of international law’s prohibition against “incitement” of genocide. Your Eminence will no doubt understand that we in the United States give greater legal latitude to thought and expression. Germany can of course do what it wants; however, German officials overstep their bounds and confuse domains when they demand that the Church follow suit. The demand that the Church conform to and enlist itself in what is indisputably an issue of governmental policy is nothing more than kulturkampf and gleichschaltung under a modern guise.
4. The concept of “Holocaust Denial” flows from an anti-intellectual and mythological premise. History is not physical science but an inferential and interpretative account of alleged events which are attested to and ascertained through a variety of sources and methods. Doubt is the impetus for all well-founded wisdom; and revising accounts as new questions, methodologies and sources come to light is essential to the refinement of historical understanding. The “officialist” account of the annihilation of European Jewry has itself undergone numerous revisions since 1945. While some doubts are more cogent than others, to question accounts of an historical event is not a proper occasion for interdiction or recantation.
FN-15. The accusation of “Holocaust Denial” is a juridical absurdity since the object of mandatory veneration or prohibited denial is never specifically defined. This results from the fact that “holocaust” is a metaphorical term --derived from burnt offering sacrifices of atonement (E.g. Lev. 5:10, 23:25; I Kings, 18:21-24, Mark 12:33)-- which neither defines nor precisely describes any unitary historical event. The term acts rather as a label for an aggregate of different acts and modalities which gave rise to an array of mediate and ultimate consequences that converge at some ultimate and general level. What part of this historical panoply is anyone not to deny on pain of prosecution or excommunication?
FN-26. In my view, the furore raised by the Jewish political and religious establishments over past remarks of an obscure bishop cannot be regarded as being undertaken in good faith. Certainly they are entitled to meet any historical argument with counter arguments on the merits or, even, disparagement. But that is not what they have done. Instead the bishop’s past or personal remarks have been used as the pretext for making unwarranted demands on the Church itself accompanied by threats and retaliation.
Fn-37. Jewish thinkers are certainly entitled to explore the theological ramifications of an event so catastrophic to their people; and, to elaborate, a holocaust theology of atonement as a guide for their own perplexity. Such theological explorations can be worthy of respectful consideration by Christians. But what is being unacceptably demanded is that an image of “The Holocaust,” as an historical burnt offering, replace that of the Crucifixion on our altars.
8. The Church, properly and of its own accord, has hitherto condemned racism, “racial idolatry” (Brennende Sorge) and anti-semitism as inimical with a faith based on Christ’s sacrifice for all mankind. That condemnation is necessary and sufficient. But when the Church exerts its magisterium to “unequivocally” condemns or anathematize the denial or rejection of a denoted mental object (in this case something labelled “the Holocaust”) it necessarily raises that object to the status of the sacrosanct as the focus of religious commemoration and veneration. Of all the injustices and tragedies in the world, for Catholics, the only event requiring acceptance and affirmation is the divine drama of the Crucifixion.
And to love him with all the heart, and with all the understanding,and with all the soul, and with all the strength, and to love his neighbour as himself, is more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices. Mark 12:33
I trust Your Eminence will understand that I am not advocating that the Church weigh in on any historical or political controversy, but only that she preserve her doctrinal integrity by guarding closely the fundamental truth of our Faith. As in the Escuela de Traductores de Toledo, theologians of good will respect and hearken to one another even in disagreement; for, in the end, we are all trying to understand our miserable existence. However, there are those who seek to use a tragedy in history for political gain, as Philosopher Yeshayahu Leibowitz, of Hebrew University, has himself pointed out. There are also those who from long held grievances and resentments would like nothing better than to see Mother Church, prostrated and gutted from within. Our charity should not weaken our strength.
I trust nothing I have said will give offence and, with utmost respect for Your Eminence, remain,
Very truly yours,
©WCG, 2009
.
