Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Legal Commentary Blogs -> Balkinization

Legal Commentary

: Balkinization

The Catholic Church and intellectual freedom

By Jack M. Balkin

The Catholic Church, courtesy of Pope Benedict XVI, is currently facing facing "an internal and external political crisis," according to the New York Times. The reason is simple: The German-born and -raised former Joseph Ratzinger has welcomed back into full communion within the Church an excommunicated priest who had not only rejected the reforms of Vatican II, but also denies the existence of the Holocaust. The Vatican has released a statement stating that the views of Richard Williamson were ?unknown to the Holy Father at the time he revoked the excommunication.? One may or may not choose to believe this. If it is true, it suggests a failure on the part of Vatican "vetters" that makes any of the Obama team's mistakes small beer indeed.

I obviously have not an iota of sympathy for a Holocaust denier, which is legitimately taken to be synonymous with the most virulent form of anti-Semitism. But I also confess to having very mixed views on reading that the "Vatican Secretariat of State said that Bishop Williamson 'must absolutely, unequivocally and publicly distance himself from his positions on the Shoah.'" What, precisely, is Bishop Williamson supposed to say? A. "I've looked at the relevant materials, and I realize that I've been wrong all these years. It is as if my eyes have genuinely opened for the first time, and I see that the Holocaust really and truly happened. I am grateful to the Holy Father for giving me this opportunity to learn the errors of my previous opinions, and I happily renounce them." B. "Nothing I've read has led me to change my views, which were, obviously, the result of study of the work of David Irving and others who persuaded me by the force of their argument, but I bow to the position of the Holy Father and hereby 'distance myself' from anything I've earlier said. My American friends might think of the position of what they call "inferior courts" who, with some regularity, follow precedents of the United States Supreme Court even if they are not persuaded by these decisions. Thus, to quote an American federal district judge for whom Sanford Levinson once clerked, 'Although I agree thoroughly with the Supreme Court dissenters rather than with the majority in [a recent decision on criminal procedure],it is obvious that this case would on appeal be controlled by [the case]. Therefore, in deference to the superior force and authority' of the Papacy, which is structurally identical to the Supreme Court whose 'force and authority' Judge McMillan was submitting to, I hereby agree to 'distance myself' from the view that I in fact believe and, in deference to the Holy Father, profess to believe something I do not."

The Church obviously has a very checkered history regarding what some of us believe is captured in the notion of intellectual freedom, including the freedom to be dreadfully wrong. "Recantation" or "distancing" would not only raise the most severe questions about Bishop Williamson's own intellectual integrity (assuming one can use such terms with regard to a Holocaust denier); it would also reinforce the view that the Church--especially under the current Pope?--does not intend to be friendly to anyone who fails to toe a given Vatican line.

Full post as published by Balkinization on February 04, 2009 (boomark / email).