Dear mjpb,

The point that I was trying to make was why re-instate
a Bishop that is obviously going to cause problems for the
image of the Church?

We all know its not an easy thing to get a promotion at work.
We have to go through an interview process. They have to feel that
we deserve that promotion. That we possess the qualifications and
experience to be able to do the job, and also that we're the most
qualified and suited of all the applicants for that position.
That we will also do justice in representing the organisation to
its clients. Image and reputation matter.

It seems to me that this excommunicated Bishop
could have been replaced by another member of the
Fraternity who would have been better suited for the job.

If the Pope and the Church distance themselves from this man, why
did they choose to re-instate him to a position in which he
represents them both?

You can't say one thing and do another and expect to remain
credible.

Dear Foxy,
as far as I can tell, Williamson was not “reinstated” as bishop, he just became again one of the 1.1 billion Catholics throughout the world, some of them certainly with even sillier and weirder views about history than Williamson‘s, as offensive as they were to many.

The explanation (about the reasons for lifting the excommunication, condemning at the same time Williamson‘s - or anybody else‘s - attempts to “explain away” the horrors of Holocaust) should have come BEFORE and not AFTER the announcement of receiving the four back into the fold. That was undoubtedly a PR “faux pas“ and it probably would not have come to it had the Pope FIRST consulted Cardinal Kasper responsible for “diplomatic relations” with other faiths.

Truly, Willimason keeps on being a bishop, which is a consecration not a position - Lefevre had the right to consecrate bishops, although he was forbidden to do so (mjpb would probably know more about matters of cannon law): a priest remains a priest even if he leaves the church and marries or what, because the Catholic Church views ordination, consecration, marriage (unless annulled a posteriori) as indelible “marks“.

Williamson was not being given any diocese where he could “function” as a bishop, and it is most unlikely he will ever get one. He “represents” the Church only to the same extent as any other of the 1.1 billion Catholics; actually even less than that after the public exhortation he received from Fellay.

Should he write a book on theology, or make theological statements about Judaism that contradict the official teachings of the Catholic Church after Vatican II, he would be asked to retract and if not, be excommunicated for THOSE reasons. Again, judging from his reaction to the admonition he received, it is not likely that he would expose himself in that way.

After all, as I understand the Pope, his rapprochement towards the Brotherhood of Pius X. was mainly on the liturgical level, not that he would want to enter with them into theological discussions about Vatican II, certainly not Nostra Aetate.

Dear George,

Thank you so much for clearing things up for me. I'm finally
beginning to understand the situation. You've explained things
quite clearly and now I can see what a little knowledge on my
part did. I made the wrong assumptions for which I apologise.

Next time I'll know to wait and judge when all the facts are
known. Apologies to mjpb as well.

Dear Foxy,

Thank you but someone else probably deserves an apology more than even George. I deserve it least because of my contribution. I contributed by responding to things directly rather than explaining pretty significant issues that didn't arise in the discussion but which made all the difference to your understanding.

George,

"The explanation ... condemning at the same time ... should have come BEFORE and not AFTER the announcement of receiving the four back into the fold. That was undoubtedly a PR “faux pas“ ..."

Given the time frame, was it a PR bungle or just a failure to assume the media were out to get him? Can the Pope reasonably be assumed to have known that the approach you suggested was necessary? What if he agreed to the SSPX request to remove the excommunications from that group of Bishops and then heard about Williamson's comments and the fact it was in the mass media? He then made the condemnation comments. Even publically explaining an apparently unnewsworthy (outside of Catholic circles) move may have reasonably not been considered necessary.

Williamson not only “represents” the Church only to the same extent as any other of the 1.1 billion Catholics but if his reputation for hating the Vatican as much as Jews is correct he may well leave altogether if the SSPX move closer.

Personally I think there is an irony relating to Vatican II. Some people like SSPX have difficulty accepting 'it' and some people call for rather radical changes based on the 'spirit of Vatican II'. The irony would seem to be that, in spite of the strong reactions by extremists at both ends, no Pope to date has yet interpreted conciliar documents. There seems to be an assumption amongst such people that Gaudium Et Spes preaches Martin Luther's ideas on conscience except without the Bible as an anchor. However my copy deals with conscience quite briefly and succinctly and reads very much like traditional Catholic teaching. Perhaps when a Pope actually does interpret the conciliar documents both sides will realise that the fuss doesn't have a foundation?

Dear Foxy,
Thanks for the kind words.

mjpb,
I agree, the Pope is not to blame, at least not to the extent he is being blamed by some. Truly, he should have consulted Cardinal Kasper, and I am pretty sure he would have had he been informed about Williamson’s absurd escapades even if they had nothing to do with the reasons for his excommunication. No doubt, he should have been informed.

I am not going to speculate whether this was on purpose - as some have suggested - to keep him isolated (because some dislike him for being too traditionalist, others for being too open minded, e.g. towards Jews but also Muslims), or simply a PR bungle. Besides, I got my ideas about this from John L. Allen (http://ncrcafe.org/node/2382) who is certainly more knowledgeable in matters relating to Vatican.

I noticed that even the original “Decree on the remission of excommunication latae sententiae of Bishops of the Fraternity of St. Pius X” is officially available in five languages, none of them English (c.f. http://www.vatican.va/latest/latest_en.htm). It was apparently not intended to be of much interest outside the Church.

My husband has just told me the good news.
He heard on the news this evening that
the Pope has asked Bishop Williamson to
make a retraction of his statements.

That should appease the situation.