I am not denying holocaust here. I want to point out that accepting or denying holocaust is just personal choice . I don’t think it should be given much more importance than that.
German law disagrees with you.
He does deny that Jews were killed in gas chambers in concentration camps and it should be noted that some of the survivors of those camps are in agreement with him. He did state that the number of Jewish deaths in concentration camps was between 200,000-300,000. That is likely a gross underestimate but the fact is that the “official” numbers are overestimated/factually incorrect. Historians generally take the number of Jews before the war in each individual country and subtract the number of Jews which remained in Europe after the war. They don’t take emmigration or expuslion into account and, instead, lump them in with the dead. Millions certainly perished at the hands of the Nazis but we’ll never really know just how many. The Holocaust was horrific enough; it doesn’t need to be exagerated nor should people be accused of denying that it happened and slapped with fines for saying so.
I don’t see that this articule bashes the Church. It merely reports on a Bishop being fined by Germany for denying the Holocaust. It doesn’t critique the Church in any way. Did I miss something?
As I have said in similar threads to this one, free speech is a right but it isn’t absolute. We can’t say “Fire!!” in a darkened theatre, or yell “There’s a bomb” in the Airport for obvious reasons.
Since the Vatican has lifted his excommunication, and has been exchanging letters with him concerning the conditions he must meet to be granted episcopal faculties, it would appear that the Church does recognize him as Catholic. However, I would not deny that he is part of a schismatic group.
There’s a difference between the examples you gave and a lie. Lying (While yes, it’s wrong) is not necessarily a clear and present danger to someone’s life. Of course, there are cases in which it can be, but Holocaust denial does not directly threaten someone’s life.
He is not a member of the Catholic Church? So you don’t beleive the Pope who lifted his excommunication?
But wait. Why is it not permissable to go back and look at history and find new results which were not evident before.
If he is not a Catholic, then what does it mean when the Pope lifts your excommunication?
Not sure I understand your question. Are you claiming, as MercyMia did, that Williamson is not Catholic?
The are being driven by Satan… I think to try and block the gains made in reuniting with the Orthodox church and that Anglicans… Just a thought…
This is the part I find rather arrogant, not that he is the first judge to be a legend in his own mind. A German judge has zero authority outside of Germany. He can not bind a citizen of another country from exercising the freedoms allowed in another country. If he wants to fine him under German law, that is his perogative, although actually collecting the fine will not be possible if Williamson has no assets in Germany. But any American has the legal right to speak to the American press, regardless of how little we regard his opinion (or the American press, for that matter
).
“his order” in the sentence you quoted refers to Williamson’s religious order (SSPX), not to a ruling by the court.This is the part I find rather arrogant, not that he is the first judge to be a legend in his own mind. A German judge has zero authority outside of Germany. He can not bind a citizen of another country from exercising the freedoms allowed in another country. If he wants to fine him under German law, that is his perogative, although actually collecting the fine will not be possible if Williamson has no assets in Germany. But any American has the legal right to speak to the American press, regardless of how little we regard his opinion (or the American press, for that matter
I guess I better not make him mad or I might be held in contempt of his court.
Wouldn’t he have to confess and be reconciled back into the Church before he can even receive the other sacraments again? Right now, I think because of his rejection of the faith, he wouldn’t call himself a Catholic (in the way we understand it, meaning loyal to the Holy See). He has basically excommunicated himself, Pope Benedict just made it formally possibly for him to come back. Do I have a grasp on the case? I am not an expert at ex-com issues.