Condemnation?

A headline like this certainly catches the eye — Cardinal condemns Pope over lifting of excommunication on Holocaust denier. It catches the eye all the more so coming as it does just as the tempest in a teapot seems to be dying down — Vatican demands Holocaust denier publicly recant. I knew His Eminence was no strong supporter of the Traditional Latin Mass, so I proceeded with great trepidation.

Soon, it became clear that "the unprecedented step of condemning the Pope" that the first sentence declares "will intensify the worldwide uproar" was contained in "a letter to Dr Jonathan Sacks the Chief Rabbi, a copy of which has been released to The Daily Telegraph." In his letter, His Eminence writes, "I am writing to express my dismay at the effect of the Vatican decree..."

That's as strong as it gets: "dismay at the effect of the Vatican decree." Maybe this is British understatement that a Yank like me can't understand, but if that were the case would not the headline be similarly understated? His Eminence's letter to the Chief Rabbi also makes the point of explaining "that the Pope had made clear his own repulsion at the Holocaust" and that "the lifting of excommunication is only a first step towards reconciliation of the bishops concerned."

Obviously this is not a condemnation and there is nothing in the story that "will intensify the worldwide uproar" except the headline. Shame on Andrew Pierce and The Telegraph for what appears to have been a deliberate attempt to stoke division within Holy Mother Church! More charitably, it may simply have been another case of the media's default use of words like "condemn" and "crackdown" whenever it reports a statement made by a churchman.

[link via New Oxford Review]