theophiles.org - Pope move ignites Holocaust row

Written by Jim

Saturday, 24 January 2009 14:23

BBC News reports:

The Pope has lifted the excommunication from the Roman Catholic Church of four bishops appointed by a breakaway archbishop more than 20 years ago. One of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre's appointees, Briton Richard Williamson, outraged Jews by saying the Nazi gas chambers did not exist.Two of the other three appointees are French while the fourth is Argentinean.

Israel's envoy to the Vatican said the papal decision would "cast a shadow on relations with Jews".

Comments

JRB	\|2009-01-24 22:05:27

Lord forgive me for this but the irony is just too much... I personally would think the Jews outright denial of the Son of God puts just as much strain on any talks between the two.

Truthfully I'm baffled as to why Jewish people would be concerned with the status of someone with a particular view in regards to a church they obviously reject.

SteveGus

|2009-01-25 02:48:33

Quite possibly, because Holocaust denial is just another reminder of the extremely unsavory politics of Roman Catholic right-wing movements. The Society of St. Pius X, which this row revolves around, helped hide the Vichy collaborator Paul Touvier, convicted of crimes against humanity. Given their background, it isn't surprising to find Lefebvrists implicated in Holocaust denial and other forms of neo-Fascism.

OrionBlastar - Like most people on this planet

|2009-01-27 02:27:35

The Jewish people haven't learned how to forgive any more than the Muslim or Christian people learned how to forgive.

Most of these things that happened, happened a long time ago over 50 years or so. The people responsible for them have long since passed away if not 90 or 100+ years old if still alive and hiding out in Brazil.

We got Liberal Professors in many colleges that say the holocaust didn't exist and the Jewish people made it all up and they far outnumber the Catholic Bishops who say the same thing. Why the Jewish people aren't outraged at the Liberal Professors as well as the Catholics, I'll never know.

I guess it is the same when it comes to charges of pedophilia. Most public school teachers that had sex with their students are Atheists and when they are a good looking woman they get good press reviews and sympathies from the judge and jury who give them a slap on the wrist. But if a Catholic Priest is accused of the same thing, off with his head even if there is no credible proof he did it, still the civil lawsuits happen. But no civil lawsuits against the public schools, even when the public school teachers are found guilty of the crime!

What kind of double standard is this?

Jewish people don't even see Jesus as a teacher or philosopher, to Christians Jesus is The Messiah, the son of God, to Muslims Jesus is a prophet, to Jewish people he's just some rabble rouser who threw the money changers out of their temple and tried to tell them they were doing things wrong, so the Roman empire crucified him not them, for no good reason other than he was a "troublemaker" like Loki or Eris.

Yeah we got a lot of work to do to patch up our religious relationship with the Jewish people. This goes far far beyond the holocaust deniers. Back to the Inquisition, the Crusades, etc. Just mentioning Jewish people in our prayers seems to upset them. They think we are trying to convert them by praying for them.

Buddhists, they like us, Muslims, they tolerate us unless they are radical Muslims or terrorists then they hate us.

Worse possible religion relationship is with the Atheists, Secular Humanists, and Agnostics, they are the bulk of the people we have relationship problems with. They hold the opinion that religion ruins minds and controls people like puppets and corrupts them thanks to Richard Dawkins and other Atheists who have no theology degree and only a Natural Science degree they use to attack religion with strawmen, personal attacks, and other fallacies. They call us as superstitious, retarded, socially retarded, insane, and that we have an imaginary friend we all share which they call the "Invisible Sky Giant" which they turned into a strawman attack called "The Flying Spaghetti Monster" now.

Jim	\|2009-01-27 09:00:55

Wow. All I can say is wow.

Google translator has done a great job here. Do you think you could post the original German text while you're at it?

Entity

|2009-01-27 10:28:33

Did you have a legitimate counterargument to post or just a slam? I would guess that you would not allow your response to be uttered by a student in your class.

Jim	\|2009-01-28 16:42:26

Entity, where do you begin a counterargument with a post like that? Seriously! It shows no understanding of Islam, Hinduism, Judaism, Christianity or Atheism. It makes a talking point from FOXNews actually seem learned.

BTW I probably wouldn't respond to a student this way, but that's largely because I would have cut in around Brazil.

Jim	\|2009-01-28 16:47:52

BTW, I think that the archbishop's appointees are valid, but that largely has to do with the Augustine's writings concerning the Donatist controversy.

emperorbma

|2009-01-29 15:41:54

Hooray! I was wondering when someone (besides me) was going to think about that...

Although, I chose not to mention it because it seemed a little different in its debate scope.

laika

|2009-01-29 17:14:29

Jim wrote:

BTW, I think that the archbishop's appointees are valid...

emperorbma wrote:

Hooray! I was wondering when someone (besides me) was going to think about that...

the Pope apparently thought about it, too. getting those people back under Rome's wing could be as much about fixing that problem as it is about some kind of reconciliation.

WebbedFeetOfClay

|2009-01-29 19:29:47

I'm troubled though, the more I've looked into it, because the SSPX by no means acknowledges any wrong doing and openly reject the legitimacy and legality of their excommunication in the first place. their website still openly questions the authority of Vatican II and seems to just ooze a general contempt for the theology of any of the church outside of SSPX. For their to be rehabilitation or reconciliation doesn't there need to be repentance? or is Benedict XVI agreeing with them?

WebbedFeetOfClay

|2009-01-27 13:25:06

OB, I appreciate that you don't mean harm by it, but some of that is pretty frightening misrepresentation or misunderstanding. 50 years is not a long time at all. And if yourself, your spouse, your parents grandparents aunts and uncles and the better part of several generations of family were brutally dehumanized, imprisoned, starved, beaten, raped, worked to death or near it and then gassed en masse, forgiveness would be quite a feat even if an individual legitimately repented for their part to play in the lies, hatred and violence. But it would be downright miraculous compassion if they called you a liar for saying it even happened at all, and said you and your ancestors and entire people were villainous liars that made up the story for political gain, and you weren't downright furious. (for forgiveness to be realized real repentance is necessary). The rhetoric of holocaust deniers echoes the same dehumanization, propaganda, and lies that enabled the holocaust to take place, and be publicly allowed. Anything short of public outcry at the spreading of such ungodly falsehood and filth, risks being complicit in the continuing repetitions of the hate and violence.
A bishop's role is teaching and safe-guarding the truth of the faith. It scandalizes the office and thereby the whole church if the man in it preaches such downright lies as truth. This shouldn't just frustrate Jews and those he is directly slandering in this atrocious way, it should frustrate any Catholic who cares for the sanctity of the Episcopate and the human decency and love commanded of us by Christ. (This on top of the other causes for concern with these four and the contempt they've shown for the canons of the church).

Entity - re:

|2009-01-27 14:22:08

WebbedFeetOfClay wrote:

A bishop's role is teaching and safe-guarding the truth of the faith. It scandalizes the office and thereby the whole church if the man in it preaches such downright lies as truth.

The Holocaust is not a "truth of the faith", but relegated to history. And if the man preaches what he believes to be historically true but is really false, is that greater or less scandal than preaching what he believes to be historically false but is really true?

While this bishop remains outside the Church, the Pope has little hope of reining in errant historical teaching. Once he recognizes the authority of this pope, more can be done.

WebbedFeetOfClay

|2009-01-27 14:35:28

I'm hopeful for the "more can be done bit"
however, as I said, denial isn't simply bad history it's demonizing all those who suffered through it and lost family in it as liars. It's not a scandal that his history is crap, it's a scandal that he would essentially call victims liars to their face, and in his promotion of this idea feed violence and hatred. I'm not necessarily saying the man should be excommunicate, particularly if this is simply profound ignorance and an unwillingness to acknowledge the reality of that suffering, but he certainly ought not be exercising the teaching office of the episcopate until he faces facts, otherwise he risks promoting racism and violence with what will appear to be the acceptance of the church (whether or not it is, that's the nature of scandal and why the Catechism is full of cautions about it)

emperorbma

|2009-01-27 16:29:34

There's two points I'd like to add to this discussion if I may...

1. Are we certain that these bishops are doing this out of malice? I'm not saying that they aren't, but is it not possible that someone might be honestly convinced that the historians have gotten the facts wrong, despite how illogical and downright stupid it seems to us? (i.e. Don't assume malice where simple ignorance will suffice.)

2. Should we really be imposing a criteria on the Christian ministry that requires them to embrace a non-controversial interpretation of events? (N.B. I've generalized this because it seems to apply even in a non-Roman Catholic context)

Suppose a minister has a completely sound doctrinal position (as determined by his Church authority), but personally believes in a conspiracy theory that has him understanding history somewhat differently than most folks. Should this really exclude him from the ministry? Isn't the criteria for ordination the doctrinal integrity of his ministry, not the sanity of his views of history?

I'm afraid that if we take this too far we might end up undermining the separation of ecclesiastical from secular authorities by making the Church have to espouse an "approved" version of history where it is doctrinally irrelevant. Clearly, the historicity of Jesus Christ and the Kingdom of Israel are sine qua non, but does it really behoove us to have the Church determining which version of 20th Century History we must accept? Furthermore, who gets to determine which "history" is right? The Church or the State or someone else?

Needless to say, I agree with you that outright malice is unacceptable from a Christian perspective, regardless of which Catechism one uses.

SteveGus

|2009-01-27 17:38:03

FWIW, my understanding is that while the Vatican's decision removes the sentence of excommunication and reinstates them as Roman Catholics in good standing, I do not know whether it also involves recognition of their status as bishops.

Their ordination as bishops was an act of schism, and brought about their excommunication. They may have always been bishops, valid but in schism in Rome's eyes, rather like Orthodox bishops are. Or they may never have been validly consecrated in the Vatican's eyes. None of the stories I've read say one way or the other.

WebbedFeetOfClay

|2009-01-27 18:45:27

I'm pretty sure they are still bishops. Schimatics can still have valid orders, they just can't really have functional orders. I.e. they can be priests etc. but they can't (with a few exceptions) minister the sacraments legitimately.

Entity

|2009-01-28 09:04:57

Their orders are valid, but not licit. Therefore, their sacraments are valid, but not licit.

Entity

|2009-01-28 09:57:29

One commentator I heard talking about this was saying that one reason the Pope was so eager to bring them back into the fold is that these bishops could anoint other bishops who would be valid, but illicit, bishops. Essentially, they could start up their own Catholic Church with valid orders.

WebbedFeetOfClay

|2009-01-27 18:37:36

I've not actually accused of outright malice. I don't know. I am saying that to insist in expression of his denial, whether malicious or not, displays a serious lack of sensitivity at the very least. One of the many problems of denial is that it isn't simply a historical theory, it has implications about the decency and honesty of victims and their families, who've already been through too much. To be comfortable with a few "scientific" testimonies of doubt to the extent you are willing to believe countless victims and witnesses are liars has deeply disturbing and ought to be deeply offensive.
Historical error is one thing, distrust and callousness to the injury of victims is quite another.

I'm not talking about approved history or socially accepted history, if a priest thinks aliens built the pyramids or that Lincoln was a woman, he can go right ahead. However, if his misconceptions hinder his ability to provide a loving witness to all, if they promote a prejudicial distrust or paranoia, and particularly if this is a paranoia which has caused and still causes murder and hate, he is not fit to teach the faith if he insists on tying in his falsehood.

Entity

|2009-01-27 17:30:07

You will probably like this development.

My position is pretty similar to Emperor's. Antisemitism definitely should be addressed. However, I believe it is possible for someone to be wrong about the history of the Holocaust and not be antisemitic. I don't know if this bishop is actually antisemitic. Do you have any quotes of his that show that he is?

Ignorance of history is abundant. Incorrect history is often taught in schools. (This book looks quite interesting.) What level of ignorance of history prevents someone from being a priest, pastor, bishop, or pope? Or is it only certain hot button history issues that one must not be ignorant about?

WebbedFeetOfClay

|2009-01-27 18:43:19

I do, I found some other good developments that have me very much reassured about a lot of things. (though still confused how they continued to function as bishops outside of Rome's authority if they were truly repentant and obedient)

I'll say again (and a dozen more times if necessary) this isn't about historical ignorance it's about contemporary harm and slander. To say there were no gas chambers is to call victims and their family liars. (For that matter, it also denies the martyrdom of a large number of Catholics as well, which adds another dimension to the theological difficulty)

Entity

|2009-01-28 08:58:17

>>this isn't about historical ignorance it's about contemporary harm and slander.

So are the claims that some Jewish leaders continue to make about Pope Pius XII historical ignorance or contemporary harm and slander?

WebbedFeetOfClay

|2009-01-28 21:23:30

My head is a bit fried as to how that seems at all on equal footing. I'll try to articulate:
a)Pius XII was not the target of genocide based on ignorance and misrepresentation.
b)there are no widespread modern jewish movements that seek the violent extermination of Pius XII or of catholics on the basis of said historical ignorance.
c)The denial of the role Pius XII played in saving Jewish lives isn't claiming that people falsified or are falsifying mass atrocities commited on themselves and their families for political benefit and is thereby not causing those who've already suffered more than anyone ought to to relive that suffering
d)jewish leaders really don't fall under the jurisdiction of christian ethical commentary, nor are they really centralized or unified in such a way that any of their opinions bear quite the same social weight

on a slightly lesser level than the above points:
-have a hard time seeing direct personal harm in those perceptions
-Pius was a big guy, he can deal with it
-The ethical interpretation of the actions of Pius and the vatican during world war II is a bit murkier and less clear cut. (interpretation v. simple fact) (of course it's nonsense to say he sought the extermination of the jews, but how people interpret some of his silence is a bit more subjective, in that we can't really definitavely see inside his head)

it may be slanderous on some level, but him being dead and all makes me move it slightly outside the realm of contemporary slander. (why I allow calling Lincoln a woman, but would take issue with calling obama a woman, because the lack of trust or listening would inhibit dialog, understanding, and compassion)

SteveGus

|2009-01-27 23:15:44

I find it hard to ascribe Holocaust denial to excusable ignorance. The Holocaust narrative is standard history. It is almost universally taught. It is well known enough to be a recurring trope in popular fiction.

A person making public statements denying the Holocaust has either set themselves in wilful opposition to the standard narrative; or, they come from a cultural and intellectual milieu where denial of the Holocaust is a standard and acceptable counter-narrative.

Entity - re:

|2009-01-28 09:03:22

SteveGus wrote:

A person making public statements denying the Holocaust has either set themselves in wilful opposition to the standard narrative

Seems very Nineteen Eighty-Four. One must not think outside of mainstream thought as dictated by p.c. Big Brother, lest one be subjugated to re-education at the Ministry of Love.

WebbedFeetOfClay

|2009-01-28 21:28:58

No. the existence of the holocaust is not an issue of getting behind PC history. That's just a matter of irrefutable fact (with scars and bones to prove it). PC be damned for all I care, whatever behind the scenes theories you want, go ahead. But there is a distinct line between un-PC (which may very well be true) and bat-s*** racially-paranoid nonsense. Denial very much crosses that line.

Entity - Bad History ≠ Heresy

|2009-01-27 10:29:42

Thankfully, believing errant things about history is not heresy. Otherwise, many good Catholics would be excommunicated for what they believe about the Inquisition and the Crusades.

BTW, the Jewish leaders who are upset, do they deny the millions of Catholics killed and the important role the Catholic Church played in saving Jews?

emperorbma

|2009-01-27 13:43:55

Some cantankerous leaders are probably either ignorant about the "righteous among the Nations" or don't actually care in the interest of making a better strawman case against Christians. Many Jewish people (and most leaders) do not share this hostile indifference, thankfully.

The article does say the Vatican has specifically distanced itself from the holocaust denying remarks, so it really shouldn't be "casting a shadow" unless someone is ignoring that fact.

WebbedFeetOfClay

|2009-01-27 14:15:40

Parts of the RCC saved many jews, other parts fed the fires (and in the case of the bishop still feed them) acknowledging gratefully one, doesn't cancel out frustration at tolerance of the other's error. So your question about jewish leaders really seems pretty irrelevant to me. (not to mention it seems like it's a bit of redirection)

Should also say holocaust denial is more than just bad history, especially for a man of his age and experience, it's either downright willful and paranoid ignorance or hateful slander (or both.) It certainly has no trace of the compassion and decency that should be expected of bishops. Bishops must be held to a higher standard. What may not get a layperson excommunicated may certainly get a bishop excommunicated.

I'm not going to claim to be an expert on this, but I've also not really been able to find any discussion or evidence of the bishops' repentance and rejection of the errors that lead to their excommunication. As such their rehabilitation is troubling to me on a whole different level (though if you've further info on that element of it, please do share.)

WebbedFeetOfClay

|2009-01-27 14:18:34

large oops, didn't read this specific article, ignore that last part of my post, some things cleared up there.

Entity

|2009-02-16 15:29:52

Back to this issue for a moment.

Why are people offended when the Catholic Church lifts the excommunication of someone who denies the Holocaust but does not support it, yet believe that politicians who support or allow the modern holocaust of abortion should not be excommunicated?

It seems to me that the greater sin is not in the denial but in the allowance and support.

WebbedFeetOfClay

|2009-02-16 21:37:00

Because we live in a democratic society and export that principal to morality and metaphysics. "reality" is then usually determined by consensus. Unfortunate.

emperorbma

|2009-02-16 21:43:08

Lampooned by Stephen Colbert as "wikiality." :P

Only registered users can write comments!

Our valuable member Jim has been with us since Thursday, 03 April 2008.

Show Other Articles

Pastor Of Gun-Toter At Obama Event Prayed For Obam... (28 August 2009)
God and the Recession (08 July 2009)
Paleontologists brought to tears, laughter by Crea... (01 July 2009)
Courts face new challenges in faith healing cases (30 June 2009)
In Another Step Away from Armstrong, Worldwide Chu... (21 April 2009)

Feeds

Make a Donation

Current Poll

Support Us!

Latest News

Latest Journals

3.20 Copyright (C) 2007 Alain Georgette / Copyright (C) 2006 Frantisek Hliva. All rights reserved."

Popular

Statistics

Who's Online