Tinkerlina Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 [quote name='Winchester' post='1771940' date='Feb 4 2009, 01:33 PM']So people go to Hell for denying the Holocaust? Serpents set priorities, right? Nothing will destroy the Church.[/quote] The issue of belief in/about the Holocaust is, in a sense, required-as Christians we are called upon to denounce sin, including mass genocide, and minimizing a well documented large scale historical event that resulted in the deaths of millions of people would be contrary to Christian morality. -Katie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rkwright Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 Honestly the Vatican is probably more interest on Bishop Williamson's views on theology and the Church than his views on history. That is probably why they didn't look into so much. I mean are we going to start screening our bishops for possibly offensive beliefs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winchester Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 [quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1771948' date='Feb 4 2009, 12:41 PM']I didn't say that, did I A little pre-planning goes a long way in making public announcements. Why is that so difficult to conceptualize?[/quote] What's more urgent is to deal with the direct matters of faith. Afterward, we can deal with the press and the lesser matters. The issue of most concern is Hell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rkwright Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 [quote name='Tinkerlina' post='1771954' date='Feb 4 2009, 12:47 PM']The issue of belief in/about the Holocaust is, in a sense, required-as Christians we are called upon to denounce sin, including mass genocide, and minimizing a well documented large scale historical event that resulted in the deaths of millions of people would be contrary to Christian morality. -Katie[/quote] The death of one or 1,000,000 is still an affront on the dignity of the person. Even if Williamson believed the holocaust was only 300,000, the sin is still extremely grievous. One can still denounce the sin while disagreeing on the numbers. Or at least I thought so... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rkwright Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 Another factor that is present is that B16 is German, and its illegal to deny the holocaust in Germany. It probably influenced him a little... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tinkerlina Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 [quote name='rkwright' post='1771957' date='Feb 4 2009, 01:49 PM']The death of one or 1,000,000 is still an affront on the dignity of the person. Even if Williamson believed the holocaust was only 300,000, the sin is still extremely grievous. One can still denounce the sin while disagreeing on the numbers. Or at least I thought so...[/quote] Going out of one's way to make statements that seem to downplay the Holocaust is an issue, imo, especially as the numbers are well documented. He could've made a mistake in the numbers, but why would he go out of his way to publically say "Hey, it wasn't as many people as we thought!" -Katie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winchester Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 [quote name='Tinkerlina' post='1771954' date='Feb 4 2009, 12:47 PM']The issue of belief in/about the Holocaust is, in a sense, required-as Christians we are called upon to denounce sin, including mass genocide, and minimizing a well documented large scale historical event that resulted in the deaths of millions of people would be contrary to Christian morality. -Katie[/quote] No, it is not. Belief in historical events is not required for salvation, which does not come through exercise of the intellect. We are not Gnostics. Believing the numbers or the nature have been exagerrated has no bearing on the disposition of your immortal soul. Hey, I get very worked up by those who think the WTC collapses were controlled demolition. The people who think that are idiots. As are Holocaust deniers. They are idiots. I firmly believe idiots are permitted into Heaven. My guess is that the Bish is not a denier, but a person who believes the numbers have been exagerrated. This probably disguises some other character flaw, as those who worry about the veracity of the claims tend to be anti-Semites. But I don't know that. What I do know is you can believe that the Holocaust, moon landing and Richard Simmons are all fake, but still love God and accept the Depositum Fidei, which does not include beyond a few religious events, much of history at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmotherofpirl Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 Honestly the Vatican is probably more interest on Bishop Williamson's views on theology and the Church than his views on history. That is probably why they didn't look into so much. I mean are we going to start screening our bishops for possibly offensive beliefs? [color="#4169E1"]Don't you think it would have been helpful for the Vatican press office to know before the controversy broke with reponses already prepared? [/color] What's more urgent is to deal with the direct matters of faith. Afterward, we can deal with the press and the lesser matters. The issue of most concern is Hell. [color="#4169E1"]How is it suddenly urgent, this has been going on for how many years? Planning ahead would certainly not have hurt anyone AND saved lots and lots of croutons. WHY is common sense suddenly a bad thing?[/color] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aloysius Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 (to winchester) and, of course, Bishop Williamson also believes 9/11 was a controlled demolition. go figure sometimes holocaust minimilizing isn't so much an indicator of anti-semitism as it's an indicator that one is predisposed to believe in conspiracies and distrust official accounts of things (which makes one sesceptible to things which can seem like very compelling arguments when they're given a chance; not right, but very convincing... many of those 9/11 conspiracy sites are very convincing which is why there has to be so many volumes of things to de-bunk them and still all it does to the average person who's personally not an expert is confuse them) cmom, what would you have had the pope do? refuse to life the excommunications on the basis of something he wasn't excommunicated for (holocaust denial)? that would be a canonically incorrect decision; a decision which subjected Christian charity and the Christian religion to vanity, worldliness, and the influence of the bullies with mob-mentality. perhaps you are right that a more in depth statement could have been helpful from the start, but not a statement which said +Williamson has to believe in the holocaust to be a Catholic in good standing or to be a Catholic bishop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenrockthefirst Posted February 4, 2009 Author Share Posted February 4, 2009 [quote name='Seven77' post='1771898' date='Feb 4 2009, 12:36 PM']Who said the Holocaust is an article of faith? It's a historical event--pretty foolish to deny it. What if he says that the Church was founded by Christ? He's lost credibility. The Vatican is right to demand a recant. The Church shouldn't get to be discredited for an absurd and erroneous "personally intellectually honest" opinion of a bishop.[/quote] This is the crux of the matter, IMHO. Whether Williamson believes in the Holocaust or wants to minimize the number killed is neither here nor there, from the perspective of whether his excommunication should have been lifted. *However,* insofar as his view on the Holocaust casts doubt on his intellectual acumen and judgment, Williams reinstatement as a bishop certainly raises questions as to his fitness to exercise a leadership position within the Church. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the lords sheep Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 I think it's important to notice that they didn't give him the ultimatum: recant or don't be Catholic. They said that if he desires to be a PRELATE (an ecclesiastic with superior rank), then he must recant. There's the difference: the Church wants him back in the fold, but She can decide, and has every right to do so, whether or not to give him any "power" so to speak based on his personal views. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmotherofpirl Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 [quote name='Aloysius' post='1771966' date='Feb 4 2009, 01:58 PM']cmom, what would you have had the pope do? refuse to life the excommunications on the basis of something he wasn't excommunicated for (holocaust denial)? that would be a canonically incorrect decision; a decision which subjected Christian charity and the Christian religion to vanity, worldliness, and the influence of the bullies with mob-mentality. perhaps you are right that a more in depth statement could have been helpful from the start, but not a statement which said +Williamson has to believe in the holocaust to be a Catholic in good standing or to be a Catholic bishop.[/quote] THis a is not about the validity of what the Holy Father did, but HOW it was done. I expect the pope himself to do nothing, thats why he has a staff I do expect his staff to plan and think ahead of the possible ramifications of a public statement BEFORE its released and have all the talking points AND responses ready. Someone could have just googled the Bishops, and looked for any problems. They also could have used the time-honored practice of leaking hints to the press, guage the reaction and be READY for the firestorm. The lack of preperation and the scramble could have been avoided by simply following the Boy Scout motto: BE PREPARED! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rkwright Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 [quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1772001' date='Feb 4 2009, 01:54 PM']THis a is not about the validity of what the Holy Father did, but HOW it was done. I expect the pope himself to do nothing, thats why he has a staff I do expect his staff to plan and think ahead of the possible ramifications of a public statement BEFORE its released and have all the talking points AND responses ready. Someone could have just googled the Bishops, and looked for any problems. They also could have used the time-honored practice of leaking hints to the press, guage the reaction and be READY for the firestorm. The lack of preperation and the scramble could have been avoided by simply following the Boy Scout motto: BE PREPARED![/quote] Well sure. I agree with you on this. Hindsight is 20/20. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eagle_eye222001 Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 [quote name='Didacus' post='1771895' date='Feb 4 2009, 11:31 AM']I once reviewed some of the logic and explanations by some of the holocaust 'deniers' and found some of their argumetns to be compelling. It is clear to me that the holocaust did indeed happen, however, several exagerations have come from this historical fact.[/quote] Like what? If you do respond, you may want to respond on another thread so we don't kill this one. ---------------- Now playing: [url="http://www.foxytunes.com/artist/flipsyde/track/happy+birthday"]Flipsyde - Happy Birthday[/url] via [url="http://www.foxytunes.com/signatunes/"]FoxyTunes[/url] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aloysius Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 This is the report that +Williamson sited in his interview: [url="http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v12/v12p391_Luftl.html"]http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v12/v12p391_Luftl.html[/url] nota bene: I do not endorse the conclusions of that report, and since I have no specific expertice in the matter I simply do not believe the report because I don't want to believe it and because there is so much evidence that there were gas chambers (ie in the trial records it is admitted)... but historical admissions of gas chambers don't directly debunk that report, and I have not seen any engineering-based refutation of the report which is something I would be very interested in (but the kai-bash on all discussion of the matter as a question at all keeps any real direct refutation from coming out; why prove someone wrong ad argumentum when you can just through them in jail or refuse them the episcopy, right?). I pretty much plug my ears and close my eyes to this report on the basis of other historical evidence which is not directly related to the arguments made in it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now