Vatican Demands Holocaust Denier Recant

[ironmonk]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1771877' date='Feb 4 2009, 12:06 PM']great, so now the Holocaust is an artical of faith???[/quote]


The Pope is not saying that... what he is saying that as a Bishop ("episcopal function") his personal view of the holocaust cannot be taught and that this man must make it clear.

This would fall under obedience, not faith.


God Bless,
ironmonk

[Aloysius]

One is never obligated by obedience to sin. If Bishop Williamson, on the basis of obedience, were to say he believes 6 million Jews died in the holocaust, it would be a lie. You cannot obligate under obedience such a lie, such an historical fact with no requirement to believe it on faith must be free to be discussed and debated, free to allow for any wildly wrong opinion.

it wouldn't matter if the whole world would be converted by +Williamson's lie, it would be an evil act and it would be absolutely wrong of him to say he believed in the 6 million number if he did not really believe in it.

[socalscout]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1771877' date='Feb 4 2009, 10:06 AM']great, so now the Holocaust is an artical of faith??? maybe we should make sure every bishop gives a statement on their positions on every historical event and whether or not any of their positions offend some people should determine whether or not they can be bishops.

eh... this bothers me a lot. imagine if the Church suddenly asked you to change your unpopular historical belief about the Spanish Inquisition and admit the larger numbers of people who were supposedly killed rather than the smaller numbers you believe were killed based upon your reading of the historical account.

what if +Williamson doesn't recant? Will he be re-excommunicated? ON WHAT GROUNDS? Remember folks, this is the Catholic Church, not the international historians club. You can be a member of the Church and believe there were no such thing as dinosaurs if you want. your historical beliefs are only regulated by the Church to say certain things about the historicity of the Old and New Testaments and the infallibility of the Church.

okay, anyway, apart from my rant, I will say I would support Williamson being made to act [i]ut sacerdos[/i] in the re-integrated society if he does not recant based solely on the fact that he is incapable of ministering to the people of Europe without being potentially arrested... meaning that though he has the valid sacramental episcopal orders, he would limit himself only to acting as a priest.

see, here's the thing about +Williamson, he's too personally intellectually honest to ever recant something that he really believes like this simply on the basis that his beliefs offend people; he would have to be convinced by an historical argument not by a bullying move that says "change your historical opinion or else"[/quote]


I could not agree with you more!

Yes, using Obedience I can totally see the Vatican gagging him and telling him to shut up but excommunication?!!

Edited February 4, 2009 by socalscout

[Winchester]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1771966' date='Feb 4 2009, 12:58 PM']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[/quote]
I agree wit dat.

[Roamin'Catholic]

God help you if you believe only 5,999,999 Jews died in the Holocaust.

[Deeds]

Bishop Williamson never met a conspiracy theory he didn't like. While he's free to subscribe to as many as he chooses, he has (unintentionally) spoilt the partial reconciliation of the SSPX with the Church. Now, I think much of the media reaction to it has been completely hysterical - it's as if he said he was in favour of killing Jews - but the Vatican has to quell it somehow. It's terrible PR. (On Father Z's blog, there's an article by a Rabbi who also thinks the fuss is ridiculous.) I doubt he will recant his views, so if the SSPX fully joins the Church I'm guessing it's au revoir to his Bishop status (or perhaps he'll set up his own breakaway group?). I'm not sure how attached to him the other bishops are, although Bishop Fellay was pretty swift and decisive with his condemnation of the whole affair, so hopefully he won't be a barrier to a full reconciliation.

[Aloysius]

yes, he may be made to operate ut sacerdotes, ie as a priest. his ordination as a bishop is irrevocable and he will enter into eternity (one way or the other) as a bishop.

I think he's too smart to go off on his own over this. The only thing that would make +Williamson break away to make his own sub-schism in my opinion is if there is something in the regularization process that he doesn't like; either a doctrine that the SSPX agrees to espouse which he feels betrays tradition or a juridical structure which he feels sets the SSPX up to eventually become irrelevent and absorbed into modernism. He would not be dumb enough to lead a schism on the basis of rejecting the holocaust; but he also will not lie about what he believes about the holocaust and that may cost him his status as one of the bishops of the society.

[Chiquitunga]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1772188' date='Feb 4 2009, 05:27 PM']yes, he may be made to operate ut sacerdotes, ie as a priest. his ordination as a bishop is irrevocable and he will enter into eternity (one way or the other) as a bishop.[/quote]
That sounds reasonable.

This is a side topic (sorry) but what then would he say of someone like Edith Stein/St. Teresa Benedicta? She died in a gas chamber. Or maybe he wouldn't recognize her as a saint as she was canonized by JP2.

I thought I heard that some in the SSPX don't recognize modern saints .. not that I'm anti-sspx ... I want their full communion and regularization, and I think this topic is irrelevant to that, but it was good the Holy Father is asking him to recant this if he wants to serve as a bishop in the Catholic Church (although on another side note, there are many other bishops in the Church that have some off views on different topics, not making judgments on anyone in particular)

Edited February 4, 2009 by Margaret Clare

[HisChildForever]

I agree with the Pope.

[Aloysius]

+Williamson thinks people died in concentration camps, but not in gas chambers, so any individual one can point to who died in a concentration camp he would probably consider to have died a different way. if you watched his interview about it, he really isn't that unreasonable about it.

HCF, do you think Williamson should say something he doesn't believe in on the basis of obedience? I disagree with the Holy Father's move here (or, more accurately, his Secretary of State, though I am sure they are of accord on the matter) because this is exactly the type of PR move which should be foreign to the dealings of the Church because it is contrary to Christian freedom and truth.

This is the type of thing demanded of celebreties when they run afoul of this or that minority group; it should NOT be the type of thing demanded of successors of the Apostles; at least, not in this way.

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1772234' date='Feb 4 2009, 06:11 PM']HCF, do you think Williamson should say something he doesn't believe in on the basis of obedience?[/quote]

First, there is no logical reason as to why he denies the historical evidence.

Second, absolutely. Why? Well I feel the Church has no legal say in the business of homosexual civil unions, but I am obediant to the Church. I also strongly dislike the thought of subordination in marriage because I am independent, stubborn, and hard-headed, but I am obediant to the Church and will perform that role within marriage (if I ever get married).

Any Catholic who disobeys Catholic teaching (the one being discussed now Papal authority) has no right to call themselves Catholic.

[Slappo]

[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1772251' date='Feb 4 2009, 04:35 PM']Any Catholic who disobeys Catholic teaching (the one being discussed now Papal authority) has no right to call themselves Catholic.[/quote]


As Al already said though, papal authority does not stretch as far as commanding someone to lie.

If a priest, under holy obedience, is told by his bishop to kill himself, that priest is under moral obligation to REFUSE his bishop. The same would go for a bishop telling his priest to lie in a court of law (or really any lie).

Although the belief that williamson might have is untrue, to deny that he believes it would be a lie. If I truly believe the sky is brown, but I tell someone I believe it is blue... I become a liar.

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='Slappo' post='1772282' date='Feb 4 2009, 07:23 PM']If a priest, under holy obedience, is told by his bishop to kill himself, that priest is under moral obligation to REFUSE his bishop. The same would go for a bishop telling his priest to lie in a court of law (or really any lie).[/quote]

These are [b]extreme[/b] examples.

[quote]Although the belief that williamson might have is untrue, to deny that he believes it would be a lie. If I truly believe the sky is brown, but I tell someone I believe it is blue... I become a liar.[/quote]

I would really like to know why Williamson denies historical evidence. Technically, he already is a liar for saying that the evidence is wrong, yes?

[Aloysius]

as was discussed before, there are plenty of seemingly compelling reasons to question the historical evidence, not the least of which is the engineer's report cited by +Williamson in the interview, linked by me earlier in the thread (especially the exact 6 million number is a little questionable only because it seems to have sprung from nowhere, please correct me if I'm wrong, i think it likely to be a very accurate ballpark estimate but I've never heard of concrete studies that showed the 6 million number) and a complete lack of intellectually honest de-bunkings of those compelling reasons (i believe they could very well be de-bunked, but it's simply not done, instead outrage is called for and the mob mentality simply villifies whoever brings any questions).

one is never bound in obedience to lie about anything. if one is in the Church, one is bound to give assent of their will to the ordinary teachings of the Church and the instructions of the magisterium, so long as it would not cause one to sin. If it would cause you to sin, you are morally obligated NOT to obey. if the pope commanded you to murder, you must disobey. if the pope commanded you to lie (or else, demanded you say something about what you believe which is not what you believe), you must disobey.

assent to the mind of the Church on the matter of homosexual marriage is an entirely different matter; you assent to the mind of the Church on the basis of your membership in the Church and the humility to say your opinion might not hold as much weight as the Church's sometimes. but you never say "my opinion is x" unless your opinion truly is x. you cannot lie, it's one of the Ten Commandments and the Church has never had any pretense about being above the commandments of God.

[Tinkerlina]

[quote name='Winchester' post='1771960' date='Feb 4 2009, 01:53 PM']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.[/quote]

I do get your point, I'm just thinking of the Holocaust as more than a historical event in the sense that landing on the moon was a historical event. I'm not saying these people are going to hell, but I think denying/minimizing something atrocious like the Holocaust is failing in one's moral duty to speak out against crime. I know it isn't required in a theological sense, I just think in a moral sense the argument could be made. -Katie