Bp Williamson Declaration Of Apology

[Hassan]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1793735' date='Feb 28 2009, 05:14 PM']I know what you meant, but I do not read Christian history in a "secular" fashion. I am a theologian.[/quote]


Exactly what sorts of historical claims is the Church permitted to speak on then?

[Brother Adam]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1793716' date='Feb 28 2009, 05:01 PM']It is not scandalous at all, because the Pope can issue a Marian dogma if he wishes, but he cannot ask people to apologize for holding a politically incorrect position on a point of general history.[/quote]

The bishop is not holding a politically incorrect position, he is holding a position of madness at best and racism at worst that causes deep scandal and can cause nearly irreparable harm to the body of Christ and the mission of the Church. His position makes him as incompetent to hold the his office and the authority that comes with it. Similarly calling the Vicar of Christ and Christ's princes "wacky" when you have no such proof also has the capacity to cause scandal to non-Catholic and ill-educated Catholic viewers. One news article by an unnamed source is hardly enough to call the Holy Church "wacky".

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='CatholicCid' post='1793743' date='Feb 28 2009, 02:21 PM']To your first half of the post then, can the Pope discipline and/or act in anyway to a Bishop causing public scandal? (Not your opinion, but can he)[/quote]
Only if the scandal is caused by something that is within the competence of the Pope's office (i.e., a matter of faith or morals). To extend the Pope's authority in any other sense would be to give the Pope unlimited power, which is contrary to the tradition of the Roman Church itself.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Brother Adam' post='1793747' date='Feb 28 2009, 02:23 PM']The bishop is not holding a politically incorrect position, he is holding a position of madness at best and racism at worst that causes deep scandal and can cause nearly irreparable harm to the body of Christ and the mission of the Church. His position makes him as incompetent to hold the his office and the authority that comes with it. Similarly calling the Vicar of Christ and Christ's princes "wacky" when you have no such proof also has the capacity to cause scandal to non-Catholic and ill-educated Catholic viewers. One news article by an unnamed source is hardly enough to call the Holy Church "wacky".[/quote]
Bishop Williamson does not deny that the holocaust happened, what he denies is that 6 million Jews were killed, but that figure itself is only an estimate, and there are other estimates for the number of Jews killed that range from 2 million to as many as 9 million.

Bishop Williamson's views may be -- as far as many people are concerned -- idiotic, but he has a right to hold them if he so chooses, and he remains free to express his opinion on matters of general history, as we are all free to do.

[CatholicCid]

I would have to disagree to an extent. Considering the Bishop is causing scandal (and has admitted that he has scandalized others through his opinions), I think it would be possible (and charitable) of the Pope to call for his brother Bishop to recognize his scandal and correct himself.

Of course, he should not do so in a manner that would threaten the mortal soul of the Bishop, by say threatening excommunication. As it is not a matter of faith and morals, that would not be acceptable. Of course, the Bishop's opinions do not appear to prevent his full communion with the Catholic Church. He can (and prayerfully will) reenter full communion with the Church, even if he does not recant of his opinions.

I do like how Brother Adam put it though, the (dangerous) position being held could call into question the competency of the good Bishop to hold office, which is a matter the Pope should be concerned about. If the Bishop could not function as a shepherd without causing scandal, then it might be in the best interest of the Church to remove him from heading, say, a Diocese.
[i]
Note: I know he is not in charge of a Diocese. I wished to say "remove him from functioning as a Bishop" but did not know if that would be proper terminology.[/i]

Edited February 28, 2009 by CatholicCid

[Apotheoun]

[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.

[Apotheoun]

Being prophetic, which is one of the charismatic gifts given through the sacrament of episcopal consecration, often causes scandal.

[MithLuin]

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.

[Apotheoun]

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

[Apotheoun]

[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.

[MithLuin]

Which, according you, bishops are allowed to have. Even the bishop of Rome.

[Era Might]

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.

[Apotheoun]

[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.

[SJRod55]

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.

[Nihil Obstat]

[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

[SJRod55]

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)

[Nihil Obstat]

[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?

[Hassan]

[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.

[Nihil Obstat]

[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.

[Hassan]

[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.