As a Catholic (not to mention one that had a Jewish father) and one active in interfaith dialogue, I am horrified, dismayed and confused.

Thank you.
Fran Rossi Szpylczyn

Wow, hold on a minute. "Reinstate" is hardly correct. Let's at least get the facts straight before we put on our good enlightened anti-Catholic hats. Since when, by the way, do Episcopalians think anyone worthy of excommunication? What the pope did is not "reinstate" the SSPX bishops, much less Williamson, he merely lifted the excommunication in order to better facilitate reconciliation -- reconciliation has not yet happened, and it is very doubtful that Williamson will want anything to do with it. From a Catholic standpoint the SSPX bishops and chapels are still illicit even if they are not anathema. To accuse the pope of somehow conspiring with this miserable man by offering him a public chance for repentance is neither accurate nor charitable.

Reminder: "At Episcopal Café, we hope to establish an ethic of transparency by requiring all contributors and commentators to make submissions under their real names." If you are planning to comment, or are wondering why your comment has not appeared, take note.

Sameul Keyes,

The word "reintates" is taken from the Times headline. It refers to their reinstatement in the Church, not their resinstaement to the episcopacy. The Times story, to which I link, makes all of this clear.

You write: "To accuse the pope of somehow conspiring with this miserable man by offering him a public chance for repentance is neither accurate nor charitable."

Leaving aside your peculiar characterization of what the pope is doing here, where in this item does anyone accuse the Pope of anything? I only note that the Roman Catholic Church's moral witness is further compromised by including this man among its members.

The pope is willing to reach out to a Holocaust denier who thinks the US government murdered 3,000 of its own people, even as he preparges to discipline or perhaps excommunicate proponents of women's ordination.

You find pointing this out "anti-Catholic." This would make most of the Catholics I have been in touch with today anti-Catholic as well.

Jim,

I realize that "reinstate" is from the Times article. I think it seriously misleading. To withdraw an excommunication is simply not the same thing as "reinstating" anything. These bishops and their offices and chapels and masses and opinions are not hereby legitimized. This decision was clearly directed at the SSPX as a group: it is still incumbent upon both the society and its individual members to make their own rapprochement with the Church, and I think it is silly to imagine that this pope will allow Williamson to waltz in as if everything is fine. (Keep in mind this is the bishop who has claimed that Peter's see is currently empty not because Benedict is a heretic but because he's too stupid to be a heretic.)

Anti-Catholic or not, I detect a sneering tone here: look at how screwed up those RC's are: clearly nothing like that could happen here with our more educated gospel. Episcopalians need to keeps this in mind the next time the Vatican lectures us on our grave moral failings, such as permitting women to be priests, and blessing the relationships of monogamous gay and lesbian couples. In other words, we're not going to listen to anybody else until they do what we want. If this is the case Episcopalians should also "keep this in mind" when reading the fathers, the councils, the Lambeth conferences, and the Book of Common Prayer.

Samuel Keyes,

For the time being, I am going to take the word of the New York Times on this, rather than yours. As for your characterization of what I said it is so distorted and self-serving it doesn't deserve a response.

Jim, I apologize for my remarks; I see that I've angered you. I wonder if we are simply predisposed to see this differently: I rather like Benedict and so am inclined to take whatever he says and does in the best possible light; I rather dislike (for example) Katharine Jefforts Schori, and so am inclined to do the opposite. (In a similar way I am much more inclined to trust the direct Vatican statements -- e.g. this one -- than I am the New York Times on religious matters.) I daresay you and I have different dispositions.

Given what I take to be rather incompatible grammars, I should not have attempted to enter the fray here.

Jim,

Sorry, but the NYT really does have it very, very wrong here. Here is a commentary by a Roman Catholic priest who has served in the dicastery that deals with the traditional (extraordinary) form of the Roman rite and groups devoted to it:

http://wdtprs.com/blog/2009/01/misconceptions-what-the-lifting-of-the-sspx-excoms-means-for-people/

The example that came to mind immediately for me was the lifting of the papal excommunication of the Patriarch of Constantinople. As I'm sure you would agree, that did not "reinstate" the Patriarch of Constantinople as a Roman Catholic bishop. It merely cleared one more hurdle toward a hoped-for repair in the fabric of the body of Christ.

Likewise, the lifting of these excommunications does not "reinstate" these bishops. They are still considered validly but illicitly consecrated bishops whose episcopal ministry is not sanctioned by the Roman Catholic Church. However, one long-standing impediment to the reunion of this schismatic group with Rome has been removed.

When it comes to reporting about religion, it is always best to take the media's comments with a grain of salt -- and that goes doubly for reports about Catholics of any stripe in the NYT. They are notoriously tone-deaf about such things.

Chris Tessone

Chris can you say a bit more about what facts are wrong in the NYT story. The headline has to fit in a very small space and "lifts excommunication" --which is the phrase in the times' lead--does not fit in the space the page designer allocated for the headline. I concede that it is open to misinterpretation (which is why I am changing it on our page now that it is no longer on the front page of the blog--which, like newspapers, has headline space restrictions). But beyond that, I 'd be interested in hearing about other errort in the Times story.

I think most religion reporters work hard to do a good job, and that your comments are unfair. I also think all institution's need outside scrutiny. If we took the Catholic Church at its words regarding the behavior of its officials how many pedophile priests would still be out there sexually assaulting Catholic children?

I think the really valid point is the wrongness of the word "reinstate." As normally used, it would give the impression that a bishop has been put back into office (as a bishop). That is not the case, as these men were not "in office" as bishops in the first place.

This strikes me as not unlike the errors concerning the "appointment" of Bishop Robinson. My experience as a press officer (one charged with interpreting church actions for and to the press, off and on from 1985 to the ptesent) is a frustrating mix of attempting to explain subtleties that are very important to the church but which the press finds trivial.

The press are doing a good and difficult job, but it is rare to find a grasp of the small distinctions that can create so much tension and turmoil in the church. Perhaps they can teach us something after all?

As Tobias points out, the word "reinstate" is not just an unfortunate choice made to save space -- it is flat out wrong at worst and at best creates a very wrong impression.

There are quite a few things wrong with the article, some subjective, some objective. Subjectively, I find it problematic that by lifting these excommunications, Benedict is said to be "reaching out to the far-right of the Roman Catholic Church". I don't recall similar articles saying he was "reaching out to the far -left" when he lunched with Hans Kung. It just another little dig at this Pope trying to make people believe he is an arch-conservative. Those who have read his theological work and followed his pontificate closely (and I am a staunch progressive who has done so) will know he is far less conservative than John Paul II ever was.

Objectively, it is not true that Benedict has made "reinstating the Lefebvrists an important personal cause". It is widely acknowledged that while rapprochement with the SSPX is important to B16, it would entail significant sacrifices for the leadership of the SSPX, possibly including the cessation of active episcopal ministry. And it has not been at all clear that SSPX would be received back into the RCC still functioning as a religious order.

The article also describes the motu proprio liberalizing the traditional Latin Mass as a "concession" to the SSPX, which is patently untrue. Benedict has made clear that he believes this Mass is part of the patrimony of the entire Roman church and was never abrogated by VatII. His theological work makes clear his reasons for this, and they have nothing to do with appeasing deniers of the Holocaust. (In fact, he angered some of them by toning down language calling for the conversion of Jews to Christianity in the 1962 Holy Week rites.)

I may be mistaken, and don't want to be a jerk about it especially if I'm misremembering, but Jim, I believe I remember posts criticizing the media's approach to The Great Unpleasantness in TEC from you and other writers on this site. Why assume that they get the Roman Catholic Church right when they so frequently get issues surrounding sexuality and canon law in the Episcopal Church wrong? I am not sure I would go so far as Tobias to say the press is doing a good job -- religion is one specific area where they almost always create more problems than enlightenment, in my experience -- but in any case it's clear their screw-ups are equal-opportunity. Perhaps cutting Benedict some slack and trying to dig deeper than the NYT's frequently-mistaken reportage is in order...

One other quick comment -- a lot of the commentary on the lifting of these excommunications has included hurt/surprised comments along the lines of, "How can the Roman Catholic Church make room for Holocaust deniers?" It is worth pointing out that the Church is not a collection of saints, but a school for sinners. Heaven forbid if Christianity in general, and the Roman Catholic Church in specific, cannot make room in its ranks for deeply sinful people. Otherwise, the chances that we can share God's grace with those people and see them transformed are very, very low.

Chris Tessone

It is precisely because I don't take what the media says with a grain of salt that I am critical of the media. It is your lofty dismissal of the press, not your disputations about particular interpretations to which I object.

I would be happy to cut the pope some slack if he were as eager to reach out to dissidents on the left as he is to reach out to dissidents on the right. But he isn't. So, no slack.

Setting our differing opinions about the press aside -- I don't see any lack of eagerness on the part of Benedict when it comes to reaching out to some on the left. As I mentioned before, he has had a fairly warm relationship with Hans Kung despite breaking with Kung dramatically when he was a professor earlier in his career. He has also had a fairly positive relationship with the Jesuits, unlike JP2.

On the right, on the other hand, this group was already out in the wilderness, in far deeper schism than any leftist groups I'm aware of, and Benedict has cracked down on the Legion of Christ and a number of other reactionary conservative groups.

He has also been shamefully inactive on the issue of sexual abuse, but that is neither a leftist issue nor a rightist issue. And while he has been publicly critical of gays and birth control, so was JP2 -- Benedict, unlike JP2, has tended to appoint bishops who are pastoral and look for creative solutions to cultural stalemates. JP2 appointed bishops almost solely on the basis of doctrinal orthodoxy and obedience.

So what evidence do you have that Benedict is reaching out to the right but not the left? My experience has been that he has kept up a vigorous but certainly imperfect attempt to appeal to all types of Roman Catholics.

James Martin, SJ:

"Also, the four SSPX bishops were consecrated in an "illicit" ordination by the breakaway Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, a move that sparked the original excommunication. Yet just last summer, the Vatican threatened the excommunication of Roy Bourgeous, the Maryknoll who participated in the (illicit and invalid) ordination of a woman priest. In other words, the excommunication of both sprang from the similar offenses to church teaching. One could even argue that the consecration of bishops was a greater threat to church unity.

Which raises the question: Why reconcile with the far right but not the far left?"

He blogs about it at these two places:

http://www.americamagazine.org/blog/entry.cfm?blog_id=2&id=096F85B7-1438-5036-4F7000E02DFEFDD3

http://www.americamagazine.org/blog/entry.cfm?blog_id=2&id=1359FB6B-1438-5036-4FBEA43C8432A26B

I also think you aren't acknowledging how absolutely repugnant these folks are. I don't mean to suggest you share their views in any way, but simply labeling them the right and opposing them against he left as I've done here, probably doesn't do justice to my cause.

John Allen has a good article and lots of good links on that here:

http://ncronline3.org/drupal/?q=node/3180

I've interviewed Hans Kung back in my days when I was a reporter, whose words should, of course, therefore be taken with a grain of salt, according to you. It would be a mistake to read too much into his relationship with Ratzinger such as it is.

I don't understand Jim Martin's objection. The SSPX bishops *were* actually excommunicated twenty years ago for the illicit consecrations. In fact, they were automatically excommunicated (lata sententia) when they participated in the consecrations, so no action needed to be taken by the Vatican for this to happen -- it's in canon law.

The same is true of participating in the ordination of women priests by Roman Catholics (what they pejoratively call "attempted ordination" of a woman). It happens automatically -- no one has to do anything, it's written in canon law that the excommunication occurs automatically for such "offenses". (Obviously neither of us believes participating in the ordination of women is an offense of any kind.)

Martin should know this, and I don't know why he's raising this objection. The fact is, comparing the two cases is comparing apples and oranges -- excommunication in these cases happens automatically, while reconciliation requires effort. SSPX has expended some effort. They've made some slight concessions and tweaked language and now Rome feels it's worthwhile to continue the process, starting with the lifting of these excommunications. I'm sure if the Maryknoll brother expressed remorse for participating in the ordination of a woman, he would also be reconciled. I hope he *doesn't*, because I think what he did was right. But the difference in treatment stems not from a right vs. left issue, but from what has transpired in each individual case.

I agree Holocaust deniers are notorious sinners -- but again, the Church must have a place for them. Just as the Church has a place for liars and thieves and adulterers. You may be trying to point out that such people may be members but we would be best off not putting them in positions of leadership. I might agree -- but what Benedict has done here is take away a barrier to the SSPX bishops being members in good standing of the Roman Catholic church, NOT recognized their episcopal ministries.

In any case, please don't take the above to mean I reject out of hand the work of all religion reporters -- I think if you read the above, you'll see I never said or implied that. If someone has a reputation for being good at dealing with nuance and has a good understanding of particular communities (John Allen is a perfect example when it comes to the RCC), definitely they can be taken at their word. But the track record of the NYT religion reporters in specific and religion reporters in general has been more bad than good. (I put it in precisely that balanced way -- more harm than good -- in a previous comment. Not rejecting all work of all reporters out of hand.)

Chris Tessone