Journal for the Study of Antisemitism

2009] CATHOLICISM & THE TEACHINGS OF BISHOP WILLIAMSON 239
Why was everyone silent? Some believed in Williamson’s theories
immediately, because they were simple-minded, and he was a Bishop of the
SSPX. Others were certainly extremists themselves and were all too happy
about the affirmation of this ideology by a person of his standing. It even
appears that he may have recruited such seminarians. I remember one seminarian
telling me that he had approached the Bishop during a retreat and
asked if it were permissible to shoot abortion doctors, as he, the young man,
was considering the tactic to advance the pro-life cause. The Bishop’s reply
was, “Why don’t you come to the seminary?”
The majority of the seminarians were not extremists when they
entered. But even these, who perhaps harbored internal uneasiness, did not
object publicly to Williamson. The most common reaction by people who
did not whole-heartedly agree with the Bishop was to say, “He is eccentric.
He likes to stir the pot. He should stay out of politics and stick to what he is
good at.” I never heard anyone ask, “What if he really means what he
says?” The answer for them would have been too difficult. If the Bishop
really meant what he said, the more balanced seminarians would have had
to either leave the seminary, or speak of their objections to the superiors.
Objecting to the superiors appeared futile; because the Bishop was so public
in his extremism, the superiors were certainly aware of what he believed
and taught. The seminarian concluded, logically, that the superiors themselves
had either decided to put up with him rather than silence him, or,
worse, must actually agree with him. For seminarians aspiring to the traditional
priesthood, and believing this goal could only be realized within the
SSPX, they had nowhere else to go. Their only recourse was to formulate
excuses, give their own attenuated interpretation of what the Bishop actually
meant, minimize what the Bishop said, or call him eccentric, and move
on with life.
DECONSTRUCTING RICHARD
Multiple secondary errors orbit the antisemitic core of Bishop Williamson’s
philosophy. For example, he teaches that “women are not rational
creatures,” that “white men are created by God to rule the ‘bond-races,’”
that technology is evil, and that the United States government destroyed the
World Trade Center in order to advance the triumph of the “New World
Order.” It is important to look at these ancillary opinions, because they
shed light on his entire worldview. This worldview is not simply a set of
disjointed and offensive opinions, but rather a cohesive philosophy. Many
radical organizations share Williamson’s antisemitism, though they are
savvy enough to hide it while promoting one or more of the secondary
concepts.