Bishop Williamson is an SSPX bishop who had been excommunicated for allowing himself to be ordained by Archbishop Lefebvre. He is also so badly informed about historical events that he claims the Holocaust did not happen.
Being ordained without papal permission is automatic excommunication.
Denying the Holocaust, on the other hand, is merely gross stupidity.
Being stupid is not a sin.
In order to assist with the regularization of the status of the SSPX, his excommunication was lifted by Pope Benedict XVI. Since stupidity is not a sin, his denial of the Holocaust is not really relevant to whether or not he is excommunicate.
Given the lifting of the excommunication, Bishop Williamson is a valid Catholic bishop who is suspended - he has no one under his authority.
Cardinal Mahoney has decided to bar Bishop Williamson from speaking anywhere in the Los Angeles Diocese. That is his right. No one can have a quarrel with that decision.
But in his decree barring Bishop Williamson, Cardinal Mahoney also took the trouble to state, "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."
That is OUTRAGEOUS.
Cardinal Mahoney is directly contradicting a papal directive. By his statement, Mahoney effectively denies that Williamson's excommunication has been lifted. He refuses to recognize Williamson's valid episcopal orders, when Williamson's reception of that sacrament is just as valid as Mahoney's own.
Bishop Williamson denied the reality of the Holocaust.
Through his decision to be ordained bishop, Bishop Williamson denied the authority of Rome.
Cardinal Mahoney's bombast essentially denies Rome's authority and verges on denying the reality of the sacrament Bishop Williamson received.
Exactly how is Cardinal Mahoney different than Bishop Williamson?
Holocaust deniers generally deny the existence of unicorns too - I mean, just how misguided can one get?
ReplyDeleteYea, right. Have a look at this link to see low they go! They even doubt the holy word of windbag Wiesel!
ReplyDeletehttp://globalfire.tv/nj/09en/religion/holo_vs_piusXII.htm
You Holocaust deniers slay me.
ReplyDeletePius XII did, indeed, get reports of atrocities. The fact that Pius took enormous steps to hide the Jews from the Nazis and the fascists demonstrates that he recognized Jews were in enormous danger. Pius XII broke the cloisters on convents and monasteries in order to protect Jews.
Saying that he didn't seem to know about the Holocaust, therefore it didn't happen, is asinine. He clearly did know something tremendously evil was going on, or he wouldn't have taken the steps he did. No other single living person did more to safeguard the Jewish population.
Cardinal Mahony (by the way, note the lack of the letter "e") is just grandstanding. He probably knows that his decree is canonically null and void (and superfluous, since Bishop Williamson is highly unlikely to step foot in a church in the L.A. archdiocese). On the other hand, he seems to have a pretty poor grasp of the Catholic faith, so maybe he really does think he was say someone is not a member of the Church that the Pope says is a member of the Church.
ReplyDeleteThe Church would not be well served to have someone like Bishop Williamson as a bishop, just as she is wounded to have Archbishop Mahony as an archbishop and cardinal.
With respect, the Bishop didn’t say 6 million didn’t die at the hands of the Nazis – thereby denying the reality of the holocaust - but merely challenged certain assumptions. In his assessment he considers that there’s no evidence to substantiate the numbers, something some Jewish historians have themselves stated (to their detriment).
ReplyDeleteHe has simply assessed the holocaust evidence and has concluded that it does not support the numbers. What could be wrong with that?? He may be wrong, but there are Jewish scholars who hold the same view.
There are credible arguments against the moon-landings – and on scientific grounds alone I tend to doubt that these ever took place – yet no-one is being vilified for holding such a view.
In my opinion, the holocaust debate can be compared to that of the creationist v evolutionist. An evolutionist will become hysterical anytime anyone labels purported evidence an assumption. He expects people to accept the now debunked theory as secular dogma without applying critical thinking. In other words, we must assume that evolution is a scientific fact notwithstanding the lack of evidence to support the theory.
The holocaust has been revised many times so it’s natural for people, including scholars, to question assumed facts.
Here are just 3 uncontroversial examples:
1. Historians on both sides of the argument now accept that stories of lamp shades, soaps etc from Jewish corpses was propaganda. Yet most people still assume these stories to be historical facts. This demonstrates that even historical errors which have been righted are seldom communicated to the masses.
2. In 1989 the Auschwitz museum revised the 4.1 million that supposedly died in the camp down to a maximum of 1.5 million deaths. Now how many people are aware of this fact?
3. After WWII, it was said that 22 camps had gas chambers. In 1950s this number was revised by a UN Commission (which included Israel) to 6 camps, which could not be investigated because the Polish communists wouldn’t give the commission access. Again most people assume there were gas chambers in all of the camps.
I accpet, however, that the bishop be better off tending to his flock than engage in the holocaust controversy.