On Excommunicating Holocaust Deniers

There is currently great controversy over Pope Benedict’s lifting of the excommunication on four bishops of the St. Pius X Society (SSPX); because one of them, Richard Williamson, is quite recently on record as believing the Holocaust has been overstated. Williamson holds that, on best historical evidence, only 200,000 to 300,000 Jews were killed by the Nazis, not the common figure of 6 million.

This has Jewish groups in an uproar, amid charges of anti-Semitism.

I don’t agree.

Why is it up to the Catholic Church, in the first place, to decide and pronounce on a matter for scholars of history? Surely those who want this would also have to condone the Church pronouncing on matters of science, and can no longer object to the prosecution of Galileo. (Even if you accept that Galileo was prosecuted on his scientific, and not his theological, views). And, even if Williamson is demonstrably wrong on his history, why is this a matter for excommunication?

Perhaps the opponents of Mr. Williamson wish to claim that the historical evidence is so overwhelming that no one could in good conscience believe what he believes. It cannot be so—there are of course no detailed records of who died in the Holocaust, and any figure we arrive at is an estimate. But what if it were certain? If so, it would still be perfectly possible to believe it—if one were insane. It is even perfectly possible to believe a historical falsehood without being insane, if one is sufficiently ignorant. And neither insanity nor ignorance, if it is not willful, is a sin.

In order to condemn Williamson, or indeed any “Holocaust denier,” the Church would have to determine that he is claiming to believe something he does not believe—i.e., that he is guilty of the sin of lying. Without a personal confession, how can they possibly do so? And even if so, is lying normally cause for excommunication?

Indeed, is such a lie likely? What could be the motive, in denying something everyone else believes to be true? This is never going to earn one respect, wealth, a comfortable life, or many new friends. It is only going to cause one problems, at a personal level. In fact, as Williamson himself pointed out, denying the conventional wisdom on the Holocaust can lead to prison.

What could be worth it? Williamson’s opponents would probably suggest hatred of the Jews is sufficient. But I doubt it. Suppose Williamson really did, for whatever reason, hate Jews to a point approaching infinity. Still, why would he suppose that expressing this historical opinion would be of any value? For, contrary to claims, his expressing his opinion on this matter is highly unlikely to do any harm to any Jew.

Indeed, for the opponents of Williamson, there is a Catch-22 here. If the true numbers of the Holocaust are so certain, Williamson’s remarks are necessarily harmless, as the ravings of a madman, because easily disproven. If, on the other hand, they have any credibility, they are legitimate comment, and may not be silenced.

Moreover, in the absence of any other plausible motive, it seems almost certain that anyone who openly denies the full extent of the Holocaust is doing so, in fact, out of genuine conviction, and therefore in good conscience. They are doing so, not against conscience, but in order to stay in conformity with it. They really must believe what they are saying.

Accordingly, therefore, though they may be objectively wrong, it follows that “Holocaust deniers” ought to be treated with deference, not condemned, by those of us who care about conscience. They are not bad people; at worst, they are good, but misguided, people.

This includes Ernst Zundel. A Jewish friend who knew him remotely was troubled to learn that Zundel would turn down contracts on moral grounds: he would not, for example, airbrush a scene for a client to hide pollution.

This, not incidentally, is the farthest thing from a real Nazi, the farthest thing from a Hitler. It is at the opposite extreme. Hitler was a perfect opportunist, a complete psychopath. He believed nothing.

We have met the Nazis, and they is us.