P
pnewton
Guest
I went back and ready that like you see it and think you are right. It’s interesting that even professional journalist still accidentally throw out a grammatical ambiguity now and then.
German court orders Bishop Williamson to pay fine for denying Holocaust
- Status
S
Santi2
Guest
Horrible and offensive as it is to deny that the Holocaust ever happened, do the German courts have jurisdiction over Williamson in the first place?
C
catharina
Guest
Funny you should ask.
"from Saturday, April 17, 2010
SPIEGEL ONLINE International
German Court Fines Bishop Williamson 12,000 Euros for Denying Holocaust
Bishop Richard Williamson, is a member of the Society of Saint Pius X, an ultra-traditionalist splinter group of the Catholic church.
Richard Williamson, the British bishop who caused an international by denying the Holocaust in a media interview last year, has been fined €12,000 by a German court for his comments. His lawyer has indicated he will contest the ruling.
A German court has fined British bishop Richard Williamson €12,000 ($17,800) for denying the Holocaust in an interview he gave to Swedish television last year that caused outrage around the world.
The Regensburg district court said Williamson, a member of the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX), an ultra-traditionalist Catholic splinter group, was being fined for incitement and that he had two weeks to appeal against the ruling.
Williamson’s German lawyer, Matthias Lossmann, told the Tagesspiegel newspaper that Williamson had been ordered to pay €12,000. The report said Williamson looks set to fight the ruling. “There are certain things that must be contested,” it quoted Lossmann as saying.
The court has jurisdiction because Willamson gave the interview in Germany, where denying the Holocaust is a crime. Speaking on the sidelines of a consecration ceremony in the town of Zaitzkofen, the bishop had claimed that historical evidence indicated there were no gas chambers during the Nazi period, and that 200,000 to 300,000 Jews had been murdered, not the figure of 6 million generally accepted by historians.
Vatican Talks
Meanwhile, the Vatican began talks on Monday with the SSPX with the aim of re-integrating it fully into the Church. Vatican officials and SSPX leaders discussed “doctrinal differences still outstanding” between the group and Rome, a Vatican statement said.
The traditionalists reject many of the reforms of the 1962-1965 Second Vatican Council, which modernized the Catholic Church. The SSPX has several hundred thousand members and insists that it represents the true faith.
Last January German Pope Benedict XI tried to start bringing SSPX back into the fold by lifting the excommunications of four of its bishops, including Williamson. That decision coincided with reports about Williamson’s comments on the Holocaust and prompted international criticism of the pope." *******
link spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,657572,00.html
******* Actually Williamson’s comments were unknown to the Pope when he lifted the censure.
S
Santi2
Guest
Many thanks, Catharina. All I have heard of this case is that Williamson denied the Holocaust on Swedish TV but, did not know that he was in Germany at that time.
C
catharina
Guest
You’re welcome.
I agree that fact (his location) should have been emphasized.
C
catharina
Guest
PS -
Good night to you from California.
Is it “Good morning” time there?
God bless you too, Santi2.
S
Santi2
Guest
Yes, then it is elementary that he has committed an offence where it is a crime to deny the Holocaust.
Yes. It is “Good morning” from here at this time but, shall wish you a “Goodnight” all the same.
God bless, Catharina.
C
catharina
Guest
Thanks - and a Good Morning to you.Yes, then it is elementary that he has committed an offence where it is a crime to deny the Holocaust.
Yes. It is “Good morning” from here at this time but, shall wish you a “Goodnight” all the same.
God bless, Catharina.
S
Santi2
Guest
We also have laws here that compels one to be cautious over speech lest it incites hatred towards particular communities based on race, religion, age etc. Not to tether our freedoms but, a necessity in multi-cultural societies. I think, Germany has done well to legislate against denying the Holocaust ever happened and it’s moral authority rests on the responsibility that the Holocaust happened and must never happen again.The article is very respectful of Bishop Williamson. I don’t see anything anti-Catholic. He is a Catholic bishop. He’s just a suspended bishop with no canonical standing in the Church. But he is Catholic.
As far as the free speech argument that some people want to use in his defense, that’s a matter of perspective. Even the Holy Father does not tolerate this kind of speech. He commanded the Bishop to put distance between himself and his opinion about the Shoah. Bishop Williamson is not the only person who has stated his opinion on a secular matter and been directed by the Church to be quiet and not repeat it again. Religious superiors do it every day to religious. I can’t say everything I think, feel, want, desire, wish or believe. It doesn’t bother me. It’s part of being a religious in the Catholic Church. When my superior gives me permission to express my opinion I do so. When he makes is point and concludes with, “That’ll be all.” I know that my opinion is not being solicited and I may not offer it. Or when my superior says “You said X about this subject and you may not say that.” That’s the end of the story. I just don’t see why many people feel that Bishop Williamson was not given a fair deal when he is told that he may not say this by the State and by the Pope.
Does Germany have the moral authority to make this into a law? That’s a matter of dispute. As far as the Church is concerned, the answer is yes, because it’s not a law that does harm to its citizens. The moral code is that nations may not impose laws that do harm to their citizens. Barring a specific statement such as this, is not damaging to the citizens of Germany. The Church would not oppose it. If the State said that all public expression has to be censored and edited by the government, that does moral harm to the citizens, because it impinges on their religious freedom, such as is the case in some totalitarian countries.
As Americans, it sounds strange to us. Part of it is that we don’t have these restrictions; but we are also way over the top at times with freedom of speech. Look and listen to the vulgarity and blasphemy that we tolerate on the airwaves, because of freedom of speech.
It’s a tough call to say that you draw the line here or there. I don’t think that there is a simple answer to it.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
The problem over there is that freedom of speech is often taken as an absolute right. It is not. One only has to consider other law e.g. libel and slander, which curtail it.
God bless you, Br. JR and I continue to pray that all be well with you.
J
JReducation
Guest
I believe that we have to put things in their proper context. Priests and religious do not have the right to freedom of opinion, wishes, desires, expressions, and so forth, except for those that the Church gives you. Isn’t this one of the constant criticisms that we often raise about the weakness of religious life during the last 40 years? On these forums I have seen many posts wishing for the good old days when male and female religious wore habits and secular priests wore cassocks. We seem to mourn the fact that many of our religious and our secular priests have lost their identity and that they act like the laity.
Here we have a situation where a bishop is doing something that is inappropriate for a clergyman or a male or female religious to do, because the Holy Father himself opposes such a statement and is opposed to us expressing such things. When he gets into trouble for it, then some people want to call it anti-Catholic.
We can’t have it both ways. Either we continue the way that we have gone for the last 40 years, which has been a disaster to both the priesthood and the religious life or we return to our roots where those of us who are religious or clergy obey without questioning, except in matters of sin. The rule of obedience is not just about matters of theology and morals. The rule of obedience is about obeying all legitimate laws both secular and ecclesial.
The bishop’s lawyers can put the law on trial and say that it is an unjust law and does not have to be obeyed. But there is one problem here. The German law coincides with the opinion of the Pope and his wishes that Bishop Williamson put distance between him and this opinion. Even the superiors of the Society have banned him from their leadership.
We have two situations here.
First, for any Catholic to disobey a civil law he must be certain that the law is contrary to moral law or to doctrine. Otherwise, disobedience would be sinful, because the law is legitimate. Here is where the glitch enters the picture. The law in Germany and the Pope agree that it’s wrong to deny the Holocaust. It’s very hard to call this law unjust. Maybe the penalty is a little steep. $13,000 is a lot of money for making a foolish statement. It would be inappropriate for any priest or religious to question this law, because that would be questioning your religious superiors, since they agree that you may not underestimate or minimize the Shoah.
Second, the most important part of the reform of the priesthood and religious life concerns obedience in all things. Unless one can prove that what is being asked of the person is sinful, there is nothing to argue. Ecclesial superiors have the authority to tell you that they don’t like your haircut and that you have to get another. If you ask for a reason, they have no obligation to give you one. It is considered an act of charity when a superior gives you a reason or when he or she asks for your opinion on a matter, not an obligation on the part of the superior. That was always the form of religious and clerical obedience until someone thought it was a good idea to let everyone have an opinion and that everyone had feelings and thoughts and they should be allowed to express them. The dumbest thing yet, suddenly making inappropriate statements and doing inappropriate things became a right of conscience. When was conscience given the right to be disrespectful or foolish?
We all do and say foolish things; this is true. We don’t have to pay a fine for doing so. But it’s not anti-Catholic to call someone on it. It would be anti-Catholic if the article blamed it on the Church rather than on the individual. It would be anti-Catholic if the article spoke about the bishop in disrespectful terms. But it simply says what he did and what the courts did in return. It’s actually one of the few articles that I have ever read, involving a priest, which gives just the facts without the author’s opinion on the facts.
I’m still not allowed to say what Bishop Williamson said in an interview either. If I did, I would be on a fast train to some remote village in the Yukon where no one would hear from me again. My superior would not put up with it, because the Holy Father feels very strongly about this issue and our vow of obedience says that we may not think or feel anything that is in conflict with our superiors or any legitimate civil law.
Bishop Williamson is a priest. The Holy Father’s position on this subject and the German position on this subject were not unknown to him. He spoke contrary to both. I would not have fined him more than I would fine someone for yelling fire in a movie theater or saying bomb in an airport. I don’t know how much that fine is, but I’m sure it’s not $13,000.00.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
Here we have a situation where a bishop is doing something that is inappropriate for a clergyman or a male or female religious to do, because the Holy Father himself opposes such a statement and is opposed to us expressing such things. When he gets into trouble for it, then some people want to call it anti-Catholic.
We can’t have it both ways. Either we continue the way that we have gone for the last 40 years, which has been a disaster to both the priesthood and the religious life or we return to our roots where those of us who are religious or clergy obey without questioning, except in matters of sin. The rule of obedience is not just about matters of theology and morals. The rule of obedience is about obeying all legitimate laws both secular and ecclesial.
The bishop’s lawyers can put the law on trial and say that it is an unjust law and does not have to be obeyed. But there is one problem here. The German law coincides with the opinion of the Pope and his wishes that Bishop Williamson put distance between him and this opinion. Even the superiors of the Society have banned him from their leadership.
We have two situations here.
First, for any Catholic to disobey a civil law he must be certain that the law is contrary to moral law or to doctrine. Otherwise, disobedience would be sinful, because the law is legitimate. Here is where the glitch enters the picture. The law in Germany and the Pope agree that it’s wrong to deny the Holocaust. It’s very hard to call this law unjust. Maybe the penalty is a little steep. $13,000 is a lot of money for making a foolish statement. It would be inappropriate for any priest or religious to question this law, because that would be questioning your religious superiors, since they agree that you may not underestimate or minimize the Shoah.
Second, the most important part of the reform of the priesthood and religious life concerns obedience in all things. Unless one can prove that what is being asked of the person is sinful, there is nothing to argue. Ecclesial superiors have the authority to tell you that they don’t like your haircut and that you have to get another. If you ask for a reason, they have no obligation to give you one. It is considered an act of charity when a superior gives you a reason or when he or she asks for your opinion on a matter, not an obligation on the part of the superior. That was always the form of religious and clerical obedience until someone thought it was a good idea to let everyone have an opinion and that everyone had feelings and thoughts and they should be allowed to express them. The dumbest thing yet, suddenly making inappropriate statements and doing inappropriate things became a right of conscience. When was conscience given the right to be disrespectful or foolish?
We all do and say foolish things; this is true. We don’t have to pay a fine for doing so. But it’s not anti-Catholic to call someone on it. It would be anti-Catholic if the article blamed it on the Church rather than on the individual. It would be anti-Catholic if the article spoke about the bishop in disrespectful terms. But it simply says what he did and what the courts did in return. It’s actually one of the few articles that I have ever read, involving a priest, which gives just the facts without the author’s opinion on the facts.
I’m still not allowed to say what Bishop Williamson said in an interview either. If I did, I would be on a fast train to some remote village in the Yukon where no one would hear from me again. My superior would not put up with it, because the Holy Father feels very strongly about this issue and our vow of obedience says that we may not think or feel anything that is in conflict with our superiors or any legitimate civil law.
Bishop Williamson is a priest. The Holy Father’s position on this subject and the German position on this subject were not unknown to him. He spoke contrary to both. I would not have fined him more than I would fine someone for yelling fire in a movie theater or saying bomb in an airport. I don’t know how much that fine is, but I’m sure it’s not $13,000.00.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
Z
Zoe_Brain
Guest
Seconded.
Brother JR, your sanctity scares me. You’re the Real Deal. Thank you for your presence here.
God Bless,
Zoe
P
puzzleannie
Guest
the press is reporting on the trial and its results, and that reporting includes the reason for the charge and why it is an offense in that country. Had the person not been charged and found guilty, there would have been no story.
J
JReducation
Guest
Nooooooo, I’m not a saint. I’m just a simple Franciscan Brother of Life.
But thanks for the compliment and pray for me. I have my own foolishness to overcome.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
J
JReducation
Guest
We have to put this into an ecclesial context. Priests, brothers and sisters are not allowed to express any opinions, feelings, wishes, desires or make statements that are in conflict with those of their religious superiors. The vow of obedience is not limited to morality and doctrine.
Religious superiors, be they the Pope, a bishop or a major superior of a religious order have absolute authority over all those persons under their jurisdiction. One of the disasters that has happened during the last 40 years is that many bishops and religious superiors have become very lax on the matter of obedience. As I said in another thread about this same subject, suddenly making foolish statements or doing inappropriate things became a matter of conscience. My question has always been, when did conscience get the right to be foolish and inappropriate?
Priests, Brothers and Sisters must always obey all legitimate authority, civil and ecclesial. Authority is legitimate when it does not order you to do something that is immoral or approves of something that is immoral, such as abortion laws. That’s not a legitimate exercise of authority. Therefore, it can be challenged.
Germany’s law prohibiting the kind of statement that the Bishop made is legitimate, because it’s not asking him to sin, nor is it approving a sin. In fact the Holy Father also believes that it is very wrong to deny the gravity and extensiveness of the Holocaust. In this case, the civil law and the Apostolic See agree. They may disagree on the fine, but not on the principle.
As a religious, I’m not allowed to question that law or to violate it. Why not? To do so would be to call into question the Pope’s position. Obedience says that I may never call into question my superiors, except for sin, as I have already said. There are opinions and feelings that I’m not allowed to have. When an ecclesial authority says that I must put distance between me and those feelings or opinions, I must make every possible effort not to think about that again and never to mention it again.
In context, Bishop Williamson disobeyed. He knew that the statement was illegal in Germany. He admitted knowing it during the interview. Who did not know how strongly the Holy Father feels about the Holocaust and about Jewish-Catholic relations? If I’m a religious, which I am, I cannot make this statement. It defies both the State and my religious superior, the Holy Father. Clergy and religious men and women do not have a right to dissent on any matter with their superiors, unless the superior asks for your opinion. Which neither the State nor the Pope asked for the Bishop’s opinion on this matter and the bishop knew how strongly both feel about this subject.
Unfortunately, many clerics, brothers and sisters believe they have the right to make statements that oppose the Church’s authority on the grounds that they are speaking from their conscience or that they are not saying anything bad. They may be doing exactly as they say. However, when you’re a priest or a religious, your conscience should tell you that you have a moral obligation to obey and that you do not have the right to be selective in your obedience.
I feel badly that the Bishop has to pay this much money over a foolish statement. The fine is truly outrageous. But I can’t give him a pass and expect every other priest, brother or sister to tow the line and clean up the mess that we have made in the last 40 years on the grounds of personal freedom and conscience. I know that if I made such a statement in a public forum, my superior would have my head served on a platter, for the simple reason that it is in conflict with the position of the Holy Father and we vowed to be faithful and obedient. Sometimes obedience demands silence.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
Religious superiors, be they the Pope, a bishop or a major superior of a religious order have absolute authority over all those persons under their jurisdiction. One of the disasters that has happened during the last 40 years is that many bishops and religious superiors have become very lax on the matter of obedience. As I said in another thread about this same subject, suddenly making foolish statements or doing inappropriate things became a matter of conscience. My question has always been, when did conscience get the right to be foolish and inappropriate?
Priests, Brothers and Sisters must always obey all legitimate authority, civil and ecclesial. Authority is legitimate when it does not order you to do something that is immoral or approves of something that is immoral, such as abortion laws. That’s not a legitimate exercise of authority. Therefore, it can be challenged.
Germany’s law prohibiting the kind of statement that the Bishop made is legitimate, because it’s not asking him to sin, nor is it approving a sin. In fact the Holy Father also believes that it is very wrong to deny the gravity and extensiveness of the Holocaust. In this case, the civil law and the Apostolic See agree. They may disagree on the fine, but not on the principle.
As a religious, I’m not allowed to question that law or to violate it. Why not? To do so would be to call into question the Pope’s position. Obedience says that I may never call into question my superiors, except for sin, as I have already said. There are opinions and feelings that I’m not allowed to have. When an ecclesial authority says that I must put distance between me and those feelings or opinions, I must make every possible effort not to think about that again and never to mention it again.
In context, Bishop Williamson disobeyed. He knew that the statement was illegal in Germany. He admitted knowing it during the interview. Who did not know how strongly the Holy Father feels about the Holocaust and about Jewish-Catholic relations? If I’m a religious, which I am, I cannot make this statement. It defies both the State and my religious superior, the Holy Father. Clergy and religious men and women do not have a right to dissent on any matter with their superiors, unless the superior asks for your opinion. Which neither the State nor the Pope asked for the Bishop’s opinion on this matter and the bishop knew how strongly both feel about this subject.
Unfortunately, many clerics, brothers and sisters believe they have the right to make statements that oppose the Church’s authority on the grounds that they are speaking from their conscience or that they are not saying anything bad. They may be doing exactly as they say. However, when you’re a priest or a religious, your conscience should tell you that you have a moral obligation to obey and that you do not have the right to be selective in your obedience.
I feel badly that the Bishop has to pay this much money over a foolish statement. The fine is truly outrageous. But I can’t give him a pass and expect every other priest, brother or sister to tow the line and clean up the mess that we have made in the last 40 years on the grounds of personal freedom and conscience. I know that if I made such a statement in a public forum, my superior would have my head served on a platter, for the simple reason that it is in conflict with the position of the Holy Father and we vowed to be faithful and obedient. Sometimes obedience demands silence.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
A
AnotherVoice
Guest
Brother JR OSF, nicely put; thank you. It would be great if Bishop Williamson would read this and return to some very simple religious practices.
L
Lypher
Guest
As well as the historical example of yelling “Fire” in a theater when none exists…
God Bless You…
J
JReducation
Guest
Actuallly, in many states and counties in the USA it is illegal to yell fire, even when there is a fire, because it creates a panic where people get hurt. Instructions are to be given by someone in authority for a calm evaculation. This applies especially to theaters, schools, hospitals and airplanes. They are supposed to have a protocol in place for evacuating without the need to yell “Fire!”. If you incite a panic, you can be punished to the full extent of the law.
We also have laws in our miliary that do not allow you to make certain political comments. You will be fined if you are caught doing partisan politics in the Armed Forces. You can vote anyway you want to vote. But our men and women in uniform may never speak against the government or in favor of any political party. That the reason that no member of the Armed Forces can hold public office. They have had to retire before accepting a public appointment or running for an office.
Public school teachers may not talk partisan politics or promote a religious preference. They may discuss religion and political issues. But they may not promote. You can lose your teaching license in some states.
Even in the USA, we do have censorship in certain situations.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
L
Lypher
Guest
I knew about the “Fire” rule I never pondered the underlying “Panic” aspect. The logic makes sense to me.
I know this rule very well…
The CNO is now berating an Admiral for asking his sailors to voice their opinion on don’t ask don’t tell advocating their disdain. He would have been allowed to tell the sailors to contact their elected officials, so long as he did not take a stance. Something like let your elected officials now how you feel, and why, on this issue, either way.Well I certainly did not see this in the public schools my kids have been in. They are constantly bombarded with political viewpoints tauted as Non Partisan, i.e. Birth control and abortion being pushed as “Safe Sex”
More then we need that is for certain…
God Bless You Brother…Thank you for your service to the flock…Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
C
canadianguy1143
Guest
One could argue that denying the holocaust, and the implications forthwith, could endanger Jews worldwide.
C
canadianguy1143
Guest
There is nothing wrong with researching about the holocaust. But any intelligent person, before making a public statement, would make sure the information is authentic. The person whom Bishop Williamson relied upon for his views, has made critical flaws in his analysis.
- Status