Mahoney Says Williamson Not A Catholic? -updated

[Aloysius]

Chaya,

+Williamson's stupid historical opinions are just that: stupid historical opinions. I'd recommend you to his apologies: they are heartfelt and honest. He doesn't apologize for the substance of his statements, but that's what actually shows just how honest he is; he won't change his mind by being bullied, only if he is convinced by historical evidence. The bishop is not a bad man, he is simply predisposed to disbelieive official stories (he is a 9/11 conspiracy theorist as well)

[url="http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2009/02/declaration-holy-father-and-my-superior.html"]http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2009/02/d...y-superior.html[/url]
[quote]The Holy Father and my Superior, Bishop Bernard Fellay, have requested that I reconsider the remarks I made on Swedish television four months ago, because their consequences have been so heavy.

Observing these consequences I can truthfully say that I regret having made such remarks, and that if I had known beforehand the full harm and hurt to which they would give rise, especially to the Church, but also to survivors and relatives of victims of injustice under the Third Reich, I would not have made them.

On Swedish television I gave only the opinion (..."I believe"..."I believe"...) of a [b]non-historian[/b], an opinion formed 20 years ago on the basis of evidence then available and rarely expressed in public since. However, the events of recent weeks and the advice of senior members of the Society of St. Pius X have persuaded me of my responsibility for much distress caused. To all souls that took honest scandal from what I said before God I apologise.

As the Holy Father has said, every act of injust violence against one man hurts all mankind.

+Richard Williamson
London, 26 February 2009.[/quote]

+Williamson is currently re-reading the evidence he had previously been convinced by and looking at other historical sources. This is all you can hope for for someone who simply wants to remain faithful to what he sees as the truth; as the last line shows, he has no intention of trivializing any individual's suffering under the Nazis... he simply came to a false historical opinion about numbers. He condemns every act of murder perpetrated by the nazis, he is simply not yet convinced how many murders they committed and how they did them. Pray for him, but do not be too scandalized and think he hates Jews or doesn't mind if they get killed, he does not! On the contrary, he wishes all the Jewish people to be welcomed into the New Covenant of Christ, into the Catholic Church.

[MithLuin]

I am certainly very leery of some of the things I have heard about the SSPX. Williamson's remarks are not helping me change my mind. Their website is not helping, either. One of the [i]only[/i] good things I am hearing about them is that they are providing the Latin mass for those who would like to attend it. It would just be nice if that could be done within the Church, which is what Pope Benedict certainly seems to be working towards.

But as for demonizing them? Certainly not. I think they have been a rogue element for too long, which leads to an 'us against the whole world' mentality. A turn off, but hardly 'evil.'



I understand that the correct way of explaining the current situation is that, while Williamson was ordained a bishop 20 years ago, he has never been given permission by the Church to exercise that office. Until very recently, he was excommunicated, which means outside the communion of the Church. He is still not fully reconcilied, and thus not recognized as a bishop in good standing by Rome. Depending on how talks go over the next year or so, that may change...but [b]he has [i]never[/i] been in a position to represent himself as a Catholic bishop. [/b]

Men who leave the priesthood are still ordained priests, but they aren't allowed to present themselves as such. They are certainly still Catholic (unless they go to the trouble of formally leaving the Church).

So, sure, the Cardinal should have said that Bishop Williamson has no permission to exercise the office of bishop within the Catholic Church, or something to that effect. Statements such as "He's not Catholic" and "He's not a Catholic bishop" are not true. But if you want to explain, 'he has nothing to do with us' to a layman, how would you put it?



The opening post asked if a Cardinal bishop got to make that call. I was merely trying to explain that this particular cardinal was not saying anything new or different, but rather trying to explain the situation to the media. But even so, he actually [i]does[/i] have the right to personally refuse to have anything to do with Williamson, even if the SSPX is fully reconciled:

[quote]Refusal of ecclesiastical communion
Finally, real excommunication must not be confounded with a measure formerly quite frequent, and sometimes even known as excommunication, but which was rather a refusal of episcopal communion. It was the refusal by a bishop to communicate in sacris with another bishop and his church, in consideration of an act deemed reprehensible and worthy of chastisement. It was undoubtedly with this withdrawal of communion that Pope Victor threatened (or actually punished) the bishops of Asia in the paschal controversy (Eusebius, Church History V.24); it was certainly the measure to which St. Martin of Tours had recourse when he refused to communicate with the Spanish bishops who caused Emperor Maximinus to condemn to death the heretic Priscillian with some of his adherents (Sulpicius Severus, Dial., iii, 15). Moreover, a similar privation of communion was in early Christian times imposed by councils as a regular penalty for bishops found guilty of certain minor faults; the most frequent example is that of bishops who, without good reason, neglected to attend the provincial council (so the Councils of Carthage, 401, can. xi; Agde, 506, can. xxxv; Tarragona, 516, can. vi; II Mâcon, 585, can. xx; etc.). These bishops were evidently not excommunicated, properly speaking; they continued to govern their dioceses and publicly to hold ecclesiastical services; they were simply deprived, as the aforesaid texts say, of the consolation of communion with their episcopal brethren.

[url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05678a.htm"]Catholic Encyclopedia[/url][/quote]

While I am not saying he [i]should[/i] do something like this, he certainly does have the [i]power[/i] to do so - which was what the first post asked. It wouldn't make Williamson 'not a Catholic' or 'not a bishop' - but it would mean they wouldn't concelebrate mass together.

I really can't see that happening anyway, to be honest.

[Aloysius]

it does not matter if he is trying to convince people who have a hard time making distinctions, saying "he is not Catholic" is a LIE and is SLANDER. just because distinctions can be hard to make, doesn't mean one should LIE rather than make them. as was pointed out by Apo that Mother Angelica pointed out that Cardinal Mahoney was not a good theologian (technically, +Williamson's a better theologian than he is), it is quite likely that the good Cardinal simply does not understand the distinction himself. Which, in my estimation, means it is he who should not have a large Archdiocese that looks to him for answers, it is he who should not be allowed to represent himself as a Catholic bishop.

+Williamson has been suspended a divinis from excercising his office, he has not been punished to act ut sacerdotes or ut laicus; ie, as a priest or as a layman; he is still able to present himself as a bishop who has no office or see to excercise. for all intesnive purposes, this means he may wear the clerical dress of a bishop and be called "bishop" (or "monsignor" in Europe) and he can sign his name with the "+" next to it. he is simply not permitted to celebrate mass or ordain priests. this is a much different type of ecclesiastical censure than laicization is, the two are not comparable. +Williamson is a Catholic and is permitted to recieve the sacraments of the Catholic Church; Cardinal Mahoney's treatment of him is outrageous and even though the bishop has no intention of going to LA, Cardinal Mahoney's barring him from the sacraments is an injustice. He may have the power as a bishop, but he still must do so only as it conforms with canon law; and I'm sorry, but there's no canon that says "those who deny the historical events of the twentieth century are to be barred from communion"

[Aloysius]

the proper way to tell people that what +Williamson said does not represent the Church is the same way to tell people why you still let your crazy and slightly racist Uncle Willy still come to Thanksgiving dinner... "hey, he's still family, he's still my uncle; he might be crazy and a little racist, but that doesn't mean we disown him... we disagree with him on those issues". ie, "hey, Bishop Williamson's still Catholic, he's still a bishop; he might be a little crazy and very wrong on the historical aspects of the holocaust, but that doesn't mean we re-excommunicate him... we disagree with him on those issues"

[cmotherofpirl]

It was not a media mistake, here is the document itself:
Catholic-Jewish relations: Resilient in face of Williamson episode
By Cardinal Roger Mahony, Rabbi Gary Greenebaum and Seth Brysk
In January, Pope Benedict XVI lifted the excommunication of four bishops of a small ultra-traditionalist group that broke from the Catholic Church over the reforms of the Second Vatican Council. The pope's action might have passed largely unnoticed had not one of the bishops, Richard Williamson, questioned the historicity of the Holocaust in a previously-taped television interview that was broadcast the very day his excommunication was lifted.

Williamson's outrageous comments set off alarm bells among Jews and Catholics alike. Jews wondered whether the lifting of Williamson's excommunication suggested that anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial would be seen as acceptable positions for those within the Catholic Church. Both Jews and Catholics questioned why the Vatican apparently had not thoroughly investigated Williamson, an unrepentant Holocaust denier and open anti-Semite, prior to the lifting of his excommunication.

Subsequent statements by the Vatican and the pope reiterated the Catholic Church's deep respect and esteem for the Jewish people, while sharply rebuking Williamson and other Holocaust deniers. In a mid-February meeting with American Jewish leaders at the Vatican, Pope Benedict said that denying or minimizing the Holocaust "is intolerable and altogether unacceptable." He added, "This terrible chapter in our history must never be forgotten."

Also reassuring to Catholics and Jews was the Vatican's declaration that the Society of St. Pius X, the group to which Williamson belongs, must fully recognize the Second Vatican Council and the legitimacy of all the popes from Pope John XXIII to Benedict XVI before it can rejoin the Catholic Church. The Vatican also singled out Williamson, saying that before he can be reconciled with the Catholic Church he must distance himself in an "absolutely unequivocal and public way" from his positions regarding the Holocaust.

Williamson's recent "apologies" fall far short of satisfying the letter or the spirit of the Vatican's directives. Yet while Williamson seems unwilling or unable to reject his odious positions, many religious and civic leaders have used his situation to acknowledge the Holocaust and to affirm its unique and terrible place in history.

We are heartened by the many leaders around the world who have rejected Williamson's views. In particular, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, and Argentine Minister of the Interior Florencio Randazzo, whose country recently expelled Williamson, not to mention nearly 50 Catholic members of the U.S. Congress who wrote to the Vatican to express their concerns.

In the Los Angeles Archdiocese, Williamson is hereby banned from entering any Catholic church, school or other facility, until he and his group comply fully and unequivocally with the Vatican's directives regarding the Holocaust. Later this year, I, Cardinal Mahony, will visit Israel and pay my respects to the Jewish victims of the Holocaust at the Yad Vashem Memorial in Jerusalem.

Holocaust deniers like Williamson will find no sympathetic ear or place of refuge in the Catholic Church, of which he is not --- and may never become --- a member. In rejecting the Second Vatican Council, the Society of St. Pius X and Williamson also reject Nostra Aetate ("In Our Time"), one of the most remarkable documents to come out of the Second Vatican Council. Published in 1965, the document changed forever the Catholic Church's fundamental understanding of other religions, including Jews and Judaism.

In Nostra Aetate, the Church explicitly rejects the charge of deicide against the Jews, and affirms the kinship between the Catholic and Jewish faiths. "The Church, mindful of the patrimony she shares with the Jews and moved not by political reasons but by the Gospel's spiritual love, decries hatred, persecutions, displays of anti-Semitism, directed against Jews at any time and by anyone."

Let us remember that the American Jewish Committee worked closely with the Vatican at the time of the Council toward the creation of Nostra Aetate. The horror of the Holocaust, which took place a mere 20 years before, certainly was fresh in the minds of Catholic leaders as they composed the document.

Admittedly, the past two months have been difficult for Jews and Catholics. However, we can take heart that Catholic-Jewish relations in Southern California remain strong. Our commitment to this relationship is exemplified in the many initiatives that bring us together, like the annual InterSem Retreat for seminarians from various denominations; Model Seders that teach Catholic school students about this important Jewish ritual; and, the Catholic-Jewish Educational Enrichment Program, which educates our children and future leaders in each other's traditions.

For our part, as Catholic and Jewish leaders in Los Angeles, we recognize that only by working together with renewed vigilance will we be able to keep anti-Semitism at bay and prevent its reassertion as a legitimate expression.

Cardinal Roger Mahony is Archbishop of Los Angeles; Gary Greenebaum is U.S. Director of Interreligious Affairs of the American Jewish Committee; and Seth Brysk is Los Angeles Executive Director of the American Jewish Committee. A report on InterSem will appear in The Tidings' March 13 issue.

[url="http://www.the-tidings.com/2009/030609/statement.htm"]http://www.the-tidings.com/2009/030609/statement.htm[/url]

[Brother Adam]

Did he ever have any intention of going to Mahony's diocese?

[Apotheoun]

Catholics must not return to the shadows and types (Jewish passover) when they have the reality (Eucharist).

[CatherineM]

Who is or isn't worthy of being a bishop, either Mahoney or Williamson, isn't for us to decide or debate. That decision is up to Pope Benedict. As an ordinary, Mahoney is allowed to decide who will be allowed facilities to say mass within his diocese. He can base that decision on pretty much anything he wants to. Some may not think Mahoney is a good theologian, but he was apparently considered a good enough theologian by Pope John Paul who named him to that position. He is certainly a better trained theologian than I am. I may not agree with everything he does or says, but I have no authority to criticize him. I think it is better to leave that up to his boss.

[Aloysius]

+Williamson already doesn't have faculties to celebrate sacraments in any diocese from any ordinary. What +Mahoney did contrary to +Williamson's canonical rights as a Catholic in communion with the Church was to bar him from entering Catholic Churches in his diocese, effectively barring him from the sacraments in his diocese. +Mahoney has no canonical ground to stand on for barring him from the sacraments (he would have canonical ground to stand on if he would bar pro-abortion politicians from receiving the sacraments, though)

I did not claim he was a bad theologian, I merely pointed to the fact that Mother Angelica thought him to be a bad theologian. Mother Angelica has just a much a right to criticize him as St Catherine of Sienna had to criticize the pope... I merely point to her.

[ironmonk]

Isn't Mahoney the one that we all were discussing years ago? Referred to as being proof about the 1/3 of the stars falling from the sky?

I don't understand how many of the things Mahoney has been publicized about doesn't get him excommunicated.

God Bless,
ironmonk

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1798243' date='Mar 5 2009, 01:44 PM']That decision is up to Pope Benedict.[/quote]
That is only the case in the Latin Church.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='ironmonk' post='1798251' date='Mar 5 2009, 01:52 PM']I don't understand how many of the things Mahoney has been publicized about doesn't get him excommunicated.[/quote]
That is a mystery.

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='Lil Red' post='1797891' date='Mar 5 2009, 01:46 AM']+J.M.J.+
i'm not accusing anyone of this, but i'd like to remind everyone of one of the guidelines:


that includes 'liberal' bishops/cardinals, no matter how distasteful we may find them.[/quote]
Duly noted.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1798227' date='Mar 5 2009, 01:22 PM']It was not a media mistake, here is the document itself:

Catholic-Jewish relations: Resilient in face of Williamson episode
By Cardinal Roger Mahony, Rabbi Gary Greenebaum and Seth Brysk

. . . Model Seders that teach Catholic school students about this important Jewish ritual . . .[/quote]
Catholics should not be participating in the Old Testament shadows, when they have the reality in the Eucharist. The Church Fathers condemned these kinds of practices during the first millennium.

Edited March 6, 2009 by Apotheoun