Merkel and the Vatican

Chancellor Angela Merkel has got herself involved in Vatican politics, which, if nothing else, makes a change from the Vatican sticking its nose in to everyone else’s internal politics.

Speaking about Pope Benedict XVI’s decision to readmit members of the ultra-traditionalist Society of Pius X into the Vatican fold, in spite of some members’, well, interesting historical viewpoints, Merkel has demanded clarification of the Vatican’s position on Holocaust deniers in its ranks:

‘This is not just a matter, in my opinion, for the Christian, Catholic and Jewish communities in Germany but the Pope and the Vatican should clarify unambiguously that there can be no denial,’ said the Chancellor.

The problem is that really, it is just a matter for the Vatican. If Richard Williamson and the rest of the Lefebvre-ists had been excommunicated because of their tolerance of Holocaust denial, then one could feasibly criticise Benedict from readmitting them without them having purged their ranks of this great sin. But they were excommunicated for their objections to various policies emerging from the Second Vatican Council, such as ecumenicism and the abandonment of the Latin mass. If the Pope has reached some sort of resolution with them over these issues, then he has every right, by the internal logic of the church over which he has absolute dominion, to readmit them.

If you’re interested in this sort of thing, you can hear Richard Williamson’s views on the Holocaust here.

If you’re interested in how conspiracist phenomena overlap, you can hear Williamson explaining that 9/11 was an inside job here.

(Warning: may be upsetting for fans of rational argument and George Orwell).

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google Plus
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • Reddit
  • Email
  • RSS


  1. Posted 03Feb09 at 6:26 pm | Permalink

    Actually, they were not excommunicated for their opposition to Vatican II, but rather because they were illicitly consecrated, without a pontifical mandate. That is a world of a difference.

  2. Posted 03Feb09 at 11:10 pm | Permalink
    only the truth

    The holocaust brand works very well for the JEWS. It’s about time a investigation start on the facts. Because Israelis abuse others or demand everybody feel guilty.By Stephen R. Kaufman, M.D.

    Part 20: Violence in the Hebrew Scriptures

    Violence is a central theme of the Hebrew Scriptures, with over 1000 passages discussing violence or threats of violence. (See Raymond Schwager, Must There Be Scapegoats?) Rarely, God is violently destructive for no apparent reason. Uncommonly, God angrily takes out revenge for evildoing. Much more frequently, God hands over evildoers to violent humans, who do the punishing for God. An example of God turning over evildoers to violent humans is Ezekiel 21:31, which describes God’s wrath against the Ammonites: “And I will pour out my indignation upon you; I will blow upon you with the fire of my wrath; and I will deliver you into the hands of brutal men, skillful to destroy.” One might see this as divine retribution, but one may also read this passage as illustrating the effects of mimetic violence.

    The Hebrews, hating their enemies, believed that their own violence was ordained by God–sacred acts of retribution and justice. It is certainly possible that God is indeed bent on violence and revenge. I think that one may also, reasonably, adopt a Girardian approach and conclude that the ancient Hebrew’s own written account of conflicts attributes their own vengeful violence to the will of God.

    It is remarkable that, in about 70 passages of the Hebrew Scriptures, people are punished by the effects of their own sinfulness. For example, the writer of Proverbs observes, “He who digs a pit will fall into it; and a stone will come back upon him who starts it rolling.” (26-27) Similarly, the Psalmist writes, “He makes a pit, digging it out, and falls into the hole which he has made. His mischief returns upon his own head, and on his own pate his violence descends.” (7:15-16) From a Girardian perspective, this is a profound insight. These passages assert that our violence is not the solution to injustice but rather the cause of discord and misery that ultimately hurts everyone.

    How are the Hebrew Scriptures different from the justifications for violence seen among other people? The answer is that the picture is ambiguous. The ancient Hebrews were starting to recognize the process of victimization. Perhaps their experience as slaves in Egypt made them more sensitive to the predicament of the scapegoated victim. Whatever the cause, the Psalmist’s lamentations articulate well the victim’s perspective. About 100 of the 150 psalms relate the writer’s anguish at being a victim. He is, for example, “despised” and “hated without cause” and his tormenters are “numerous” and “deceitful.” However, like other ancient people, he often dreams of revenge (for example Psalm 137: “O daughter of Babylon, you devastator! Happy shall be he who requites you with what you have done to us! Happy shall be he who takes your little ones and dashes them against the rock!”). The ancient Hebrews often sought mimetic, reciprocal violence, even if the victims of revenge were innocent children, but at the same time they were starting to recognize the scapegoat mechanism, the process of victimization, and the hazards of mimetic violence.

  3. Posted 03Feb09 at 11:13 pm | Permalink
    Peter Robinson

    Pope Benedict has checkmated himself with this crazy bishop move. Benedict is morally and politically crippled as a result of his invitation to Bishop Williamson and his nefarious associates.
    If Benedict pleads ignorance of the Lefebvrist anti-Semitic smell then he condemns himself as either a fool or a liar: ten minutes on the web gives you the odour and Benedict has spent a considerable proportion of his career immersed in Catholic power machinations – more often than not, sitting in the cockpit.
    If Benedict pleads pastoral healing then he condemns himself as either a fool or a sympathiser. His invitation has given oxygen to hate-mongering lies of the worst kind – a sin several orders of magnitude worse than the internal Catholic power play that caused the original excommunication.
    The chief shepherd has opened the gate to wolves – he’s lost the plot and must either resign or be sacked.

  4. Posted 04Feb09 at 12:21 am | Permalink

    The Vitacan – centuries of Religious Dogma void of any spiritual substance with a disturbing and unappologectic history of abuse. It has played and continues to fight for political power through it’s mindless and souless minions even taking in it’s wings convicted child molesters (after all, he is a Bishop from America and will be watched carefully here behind our gates – just keep him away from the altar boys) and now this. Who would have thought?

  5. Posted 04Feb09 at 1:24 am | Permalink
    flying spaghetti monester

    this is to be expected. when your ancestors commit an atrocity of this breadth and magnitude, it causes the mind to suffer.

    history is an easy target to disbelieve, just like god. if we can’t see it, it really makes it hard especially when you have an added incentive to disbelieve, such as being decended from murderers(or being a sinner who hopes for no postdeath punishment).

  6. Posted 04Feb09 at 7:57 am | Permalink

    merkel’s brain isnt home yet..but thats no reason to stick her fat beak into Vatican dogma…the church has been here since 1900 years..and still thriving!!!!


  7. Posted 12Feb09 at 9:39 pm | Permalink

    This isn’t just a matter for the Vatican. Ratzi’s embrace of Holocaust denial is a matter of global concern.