The recent kerfuffle over excommunicated Catholic priest Richard Williamson’s TV interview, in which he claimed that “historical evidence” showed that 6 million Jews were not deliberately gassed in gas chambers, tells us three things.
First, that English-born Williamson, an Anglican convert to Catholicism, belongs to that school of flamboyantly flakey Holocaust deniers who, in a narcissistic way, seek publicity for their offensive views but whose influence over broader, legitimate debates about the past is confined to Crazy Corner. How do we know this? Well, anyone who has seen the Swedish TV interview, recorded November 2008 (aired in Sweden in late January) will realise that here we have a not-terribly-bright supporter of the US denialist Institute of Historical Review.
Yes, I know Williamson went to Cambridge, but, good university that Cambridge is, back in Williamson’s day, it had a sizeable quotient of dim, private school backdoor entrants. I know. I used to teach them. If you want further proof that Williamson is not the brightest candle in the chandelier, listen to his conspiracy theory sermon on George Orwell and 9/11. I actually burst out laughing halfway through this masterpiece of incoherence and claptrap: no mighty intellect at work here. Add to that his views that women should neither wear trousers nor receive tertiary education, that Julie Andrews’s Sound of Music was p-rnographic (is that why it was so popular?), and that the Jews want to set up the Anti-Christ in Jerusalem, and you get a rounded picture of the loopy cleric at work.
The second and more important point about Williamson’s sudden elevation to global notoriety is to do with the circumstances of his 15 minutes of global fame. Williamson is an excommunicated “bishop” illegally consecrated as such in 1988 by the late renegade Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, adherent of the Latin mass and other far less quaint beliefs.
On January 24th last, Pope Benedict rescinded Williamson’s excommunication, as well as the excommunications of three of his co-“bishops”. It was a move that stunned many Catholics as well as non-Catholic Vatican observers, not least members of the Jewish community. For a pope who had put considerable effort into developing dialogue with Judaism, the move seemed bizarre, insulting even, since Williamson’s views were well known within the Church.
A furore erupted. The Vatican was initially defensive, but after German chancellor Angela Merkel publicly chided countryman Benedict, he explained that he knew nothing of Williamson’s denialism, with the Vatican demanding that Williamson recant his denialist views. Williamson then issued a disingenuous non-apology, expressing sorrow that his views had stirred up controversy.
The third point is really two questions. Is the Williamson business a storm in a teacup, or is it a significant event? And the answer is — both.
As far as Holocaust denial is concerned, Williamson’s views are easily filed in an already fat dossier marked David Irving/Ernst Zündel/Friedrich Töben — the trivial ramblings of just another Holocaust denier. As far as the Catholic Church is concerned, the Williamson case represents a serious crisis in its internal and external relations. To begin with, Williamson is a member of a banned schismatic sect, the Society of Saint Pius X, better known as SSPX.
Set up by Lefebvre in the early 1970s, SSPX takes its worldview from its anti-modernist hero Pope Pius X. It has about 500 or more clerical members as well as a larger number of lay adherents and sees itself as the vanguard of conservative Catholicism and SSPX has been a thorn in the flesh of the Catholic Church since its inception. Benedict XVI would know all about the sect since the current pope, then known as “God’s Rottweiler”, spent more than a decade in charge of the Congregation of the Office of the Faith, the Vatican office that deals with schismatics and heretics.
During that time Cardinal Ratzinger, as he then was, earned a reputation for ferociously suppressing internal dissent. He was against liberation theology, gender inclusivity in church documents, contraception and women priests but firmly in favour of continuing the tradition of priestly celibacy.
The problem for Benedict is that, notwithstanding his occasional moments of progressive diplomacy, the Pope’s intention to leave his mark as the custodian of conservative Catholic values is constantly undermined by the rogue SSPX. It is Williamson and his friends who keep setting the reactionary benchmarks which are generally a bit more conservative than those of the pontiff, but are, in some cases, seriously deranged.
Benedict had two choices. Keep SSPX at arm’s length, with his leadership credentials constantly weakened by this gang of out-of-control mavericks who can simply keep consecrating more wacky “bishops”, or bring them back into the fold on the basis that they have no authority as “bishops”, may not consecrate any more ‘bishops’, and must keep their mouths shut. This is the LBJ camel-in-the-tent principle of HR in action.
Unfortunately for Benedict, and before SSPX were allowed back in, Williamson opened his mouth, and was caught on camera. Now Williamson is in hiding in Argentina, having been cut loose by SSPX and dumped by his Lefebvrist seminary in La Reja. SSPX are back in the papal frame in and Williamson, quite rightly, is out in the cold.
Cal
Yes the numbers do matter.As Shane commented (no disrect to you ), the Auschwitz numbers were lowered. That means that the 6 million is wrong. But even today , when ever the holocaust is mentioned, especially on TV, the reporters always throw in the 6 million figure. Back in the 70;s I was taught that 6 million jews (plus a minority of others) were gassed, 4 million in Auschwitz,which were mainly jews. Then this figure is reduced to just over a million at Auschwitz, so the whole number of victims should be reduced but reporters seem to have forgotten that. At the same time , the Dresden bombing victims has been reduced, I beleive, to under 50,000 while reports from the time, given the amount of German refugees flooding the city, say 300,00 to up to 500,000 were murdered in one night.(and it was murder, as there was no strategic reason for it, just like Nagasaki and Horishima).
So it may be said that the “victors” do rewrite history. So we play down one holocaust and beef up another. Why is an opinion on numbers considered a “hate crime” in some countries on one side but not on another?. Why is someones opinion considered “kooky” because they dont agree with the “norm”. We should put the facts on the table, and let both sides present their arguement, especially for the holocaust because its being used as an excuse for some dispicable wars in the ME.
BUT….this is a mute point. If the Pope is trying to bring in a group of dissenters, then its just a church issue. What ever view the bishop has with anything outside the doctrines and practices of the church should not have any impact on the Popes decision…and if we want to split hairs, the Pope should be demanding of the Israeli Rabbinate that the “hate monger” rabbi’s , who have preached to the IDF that civilians should be killed in the recent slaughter in Gaza, be removed.
Cant see that happening though.
I would be interested in any references or links so I can look at those revised Holocaust numbers. It seems clear that many millions of Jews – a very high proportion of European Jews (especially in the East) – were murdered. I remember quoting a figure I had recently read of 4 million and being sharply corrected by a Jewish friend about 1976. Since then I have never had any positive reason to doubt that the 6 million figure was about right. So…. evidence please. I don’t think it makes any difference to the enormity, or the peculiarly discomfiting features of the crime for those of European civilisation, that it might be “only” 4 million. However, any such suggestion, even if it doesn’t refer to a different order of magnitude and different kind of crime (denyting the planned extermination by gas chambers being part of that) as in the bishop’s version, is likely to offend if the person making or repeating the lower estimate is understood to be belittling someone else’s experience or distress, or even interpreted as simply not caring about someone else’s feelings concerning something close to them but looked at dispassionately by the insensitive commentator.
The character and intellectual defects Tony Taylor points to ring true and it is hard sometimes to maintain one’s free speech principles when considering how much time someone has to waste if the stupid or those with personality disorders like Irving and Williamson are not denied platforms by banning entry to the country. The UK seems to have set a pretty unfortunate precedent though when it prevents a Dutch MP who has compared the Koran to Mein Kampf from visiting the UK to speak to people at the House of Lords. No doubt it will make it easier to stamp on people who make an overstated connection between Israel’s perceived treatment of Palestinians and their land and Islamic terrorists attacks on those seen as aligned with Israel in the West. Will anti-Christian blasphemy be punishable again?
I resent the fact that like the climate change issue it would seem the opinions have all been formed and the science is all done. Heck, I am no apologist for Williams but on listening to his pronouncements, his dispute is more about the quantum than the event. You seem a little too emotional and eager to resort to name calling for an academic simply because someone has a different opinion from yours. What is wrong with debating about the numbers or is it taboo to mention it? Would you feel the same about Somalia, Rwanda, Ukraine under Stalin, China under Mao, or all of the indigenous peoples of South America over the last five hundred years?
Cal
I love how you throw every event and everyone into the same pot. I have never mentioned PH or the stolen generations, as it frankly has nothing at all to do with this. Typical of people who have no knowledge of anything.Start to READ my friend and maybe one day, but I cannot see it soon, you may realise that , just because you are a member (or not) of a university (As Tony loves to sprout in his article) does not mean you portray any facts about history, apart from the so called “truth” which is a concocted myth for he masses. After reading your rant, obviously you are not of the people I have mentioned and as far as opinions go, I will take it on board, but nothing else.
Why get upset steve? I’ll tell you why: imagine having your experiences denied. Imagine telling the residents of the 1000 homes lost in the bushfires that it didn’t happen. Imagine denying that 180 people died – let’s just say only 30 died. Imagine the offense, the hurt, the outrage. Well, you might think these people are loonies, but they’re worse than that. By denying the holocaust, they are doing Hitler’s work. Tony Taylor’s article crearly highlights this.