Apotheoun Posted February 28, 2009 Share Posted February 28, 2009 [quote name='Brother Adam' post='1793747' date='Feb 28 2009, 02:23 PM']One news article by an unnamed source is hardly enough to call the Holy Church "wacky".[/quote] I don't really care what the media thinks about the Church. I went to a secular university for my undergrad degrees and I was berated for believing that Christ is the sole savior of mankind, but such is life, at least for a Christian today. As the Lord said, "you will be hated by all for my name's sake." If the world is angry with the Church, it most likely means that the Church is doing precisely what Christ wants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apotheoun Posted February 28, 2009 Share Posted February 28, 2009 Being prophetic, which is one of the charismatic gifts given through the sacrament of episcopal consecration, often causes scandal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MithLuin Posted March 1, 2009 Share Posted March 1, 2009 Holocaust denial is not 'merely' about haggling over historical details of how many people were killed when and where. If it were just a point of history, who would care? The reason why people care is because minimalizing or denying the holocaust has a tendency to go hand-in-hand with a hatred of Jews. Is that unfair? Maybe. But who else gets this funny idea that 'it never happened?' Hatred of an entire group of people obviously goes against Christian charity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apotheoun Posted March 1, 2009 Share Posted March 1, 2009 (edited) Bishop Williamson has not denied the holocaust happened; instead, he simply disagrees with the [i]estimates[/i] of the numbers killed by the Nazis. No one knows the exact number of people killed by the Nazis in the concentration camps, and historical guesses are not a truth that can be imposed upon a man by the Church. Edited March 1, 2009 by Apotheoun Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apotheoun Posted March 1, 2009 Share Posted March 1, 2009 [quote name='MithLuin' post='1793853' date='Feb 28 2009, 05:14 PM']The reason why people care is because minimalizing or denying the holocaust has a tendency to go hand-in-hand with a hatred of Jews.[/quote] That is a matter of opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MithLuin Posted March 1, 2009 Share Posted March 1, 2009 Which, according you, bishops are allowed to have. Even the bishop of Rome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Era Might Posted March 1, 2009 Share Posted March 1, 2009 In the article posted by Aloysius, even Fellay refers to Williamson's initial comments as Holocaust denial. Williamson said, "...I think that 200,000 to 300,000 Jews perished in Nazi concentration camps..." That is not a difference of thousands, or even of a million. 6 million compared to 300,000 is not technically denial, but it is practically denial. I think the real problem is that Williamson is a Bishop. He would represent the Church, if the SSPX were to come into full communion, and the Church has a right to determine who represents her. The Church does have intellectual qualifications for Priests. While 2+2=4 is not a doctrine of the faith, if a Priest or Bishop publicly argues that 2+2=5, then you have to ask why they argue something that is so blatantly false. I think the Church has a right to determine who is and is not suitable to function as a Priest or Bishop, and that determination is not based solely on doctrine. Would the Church require an ordinary layman to give up a bizarre non-doctrinal belief, in order to be in full communion with the Church? Probably not, because ordinary laymen do not represent the Church in an official capacity. But, for example, a Bishop could probably forbid that layman to express his bizarre opinion while on Church property or at Church events. The final canon in Canon Law says that the salvation of souls is the supreme law in the Church. A Bishop saying that only 300,000 people were killed in the Holocaust, is not good for the Church's image. It does not bring one Jew closer to Christ, and probably drives some farther away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apotheoun Posted March 1, 2009 Share Posted March 1, 2009 [quote name='MithLuin' post='1793864' date='Feb 28 2009, 05:33 PM']Which, according you, bishops are allowed to have. Even the bishop of Rome.[/quote] Yes. We are agreed on that much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SJRod55 Posted March 1, 2009 Share Posted March 1, 2009 Apotheoun - I am interested in an aspect therefore which you have touched on. If we look at the actions of individual priests in Latin and SOuth America Pope John Paul II was quite upset at their 'political' involvement in 'real world' politics. In his trips to Latin America at one point he was even jeered by groups of people who were allegedly accompanied by 'political' priests. More recently there have been cases of priests and I believe a Bishop wanting to participate in politics and being told clearly by the Vatican they cannot do so. I understand a Bishop went on in South America to hold a high political office and had to give up his entitlement to practice gis priestly duties. Surely this is a case of the Vatican oredering priests and Bishops about their political stances. Bishop Williamson's opinion can be seen as a political stance therefore there is indeed precedent for such action by the present Pope. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted March 1, 2009 Share Posted March 1, 2009 (edited) [quote name='Rod' post='1794013' date='Feb 28 2009, 09:00 PM']Apotheoun - I am interested in an aspect therefore which you have touched on. If we look at the actions of individual priests in Latin and SOuth America Pope John Paul II was quite upset at their 'political' involvement in 'real world' politics. In his trips to Latin America at one point he was even jeered by groups of people who were allegedly accompanied by 'political' priests. More recently there have been cases of priests and I believe a Bishop wanting to participate in politics and being told clearly by the Vatican they cannot do so. I understand a Bishop went on in South America to hold a high political office and had to give up his entitlement to practice gis priestly duties. Surely this is a case of the Vatican oredering priests and Bishops about their political stances. Bishop Williamson's opinion can be seen as a political stance therefore there is indeed precedent for such action by the present Pope.[/quote] These actions in S. America were more directly linked to their liberation theology, as I understand it. ...but obviously I might be wrong. Edited March 1, 2009 by Nihil Obstat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SJRod55 Posted March 1, 2009 Share Posted March 1, 2009 I think you are right on the Liberation Theology, however the more recent political actyivity - I think in Argentina or that area is perhaps more parallel to the Williamson situation. It was a while ago since I read about the Liberation Theology issues. (Thanks for pointing that out) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted March 1, 2009 Share Posted March 1, 2009 [quote name='Rod' post='1794027' date='Feb 28 2009, 09:17 PM']I think you are right on the Liberation Theology, however the more recent political actyivity - I think in Argentina or that area is perhaps more parallel to the Williamson situation. It was a while ago since I read about the Liberation Theology issues. (Thanks for pointing that out)[/quote] Again I may be wrong, but aren't there instances where priests have been elected to office? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hassan Posted March 1, 2009 Share Posted March 1, 2009 [quote name='Nihil Obstat' post='1794083' date='Mar 1 2009, 12:53 AM']Again I may be wrong, but aren't there instances where priests have been elected to office?[/quote] As I recall Pope John Paul II banned the such a thing from happening. I think the thing that sparked it was a pro choice Jesuit who was elected to the House of Reps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted March 1, 2009 Share Posted March 1, 2009 [quote name='Hassan' post='1794093' date='Feb 28 2009, 11:08 PM']As I recall Pope John Paul II banned the such a thing from happening. I think the thing that sparked it was a pro choice Jesuit who was elected to the House of Reps.[/quote] I'd be very surprised if you're wrong. It would make the most sense. I just could've sworn I've heard... maybe two stories of priests who were elected to some kind of public office. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hassan Posted March 1, 2009 Share Posted March 1, 2009 [quote name='Nihil Obstat' post='1794097' date='Mar 1 2009, 01:12 AM']I'd be very surprised if you're wrong. It would make the most sense. I just could've sworn I've heard... maybe two stories of priests who were elected to some kind of public office.[/quote] I beleive the President of the UN General Assembly is a Catholic Priest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.3578d4578768b8f5be5d7af6172f9b23.jpg)
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