Pope condemns denial of Holocaust

[Neil_Anthony]

Pope condemns denial of Holocaust

Pope Benedict XVI has told American Jewish leaders that any denial of the Holocaust is “intolerable”, especially if it comes from a clergyman.

He was speaking at the Vatican at his first direct talks with Jewish leaders since he lifted the excommunication of a Holocaust-denying bishop.

One of the Jewish leaders thanked the pontiff for showing solidarity.

…]​

Thank you Pope Benedict. What this Bishop did was horribly un-christian. Thank you for being a good example to the rest of the world of how Christians really are.

Minimizing the holocaust is very mean, insensitive and dishonest. Jesus told us to love one another and to love our enemies. Anyone who acts in such an un-Christian way can not serve as an example to Christians.

 

[CapIV]

I’ll have a problem if he gives into pressure to excommunicate Williamson for his statements as some of these Jewish leaders are “demanding”. Of course, the excommunication wouldn’t really be valid would it?

It is good to see him condemning denial of the Shoah though. Not that he really needed to. Anyone who knows anything about Benedict knows how much he talks about Jews and past tragedies and sincere hope for meaningful dialogue.

 

[pnewton]

I appreciate the tact of our Holy Father in face of those who are ignorant of our faith. The press keeps using the word “recant” even though the Holy Father has not. On Rabbi had a very balanced appreciation for the authority of the Pope. Another demanded Bishop Williamson’s excommunication. I wonder what canonical grounds he thinks he should be excommunicated on? Does anyone versed in canon law see any legitimate grounds to do this?

 

[JReducation]

I appreciate the tact of our Holy Father in face of those who are ignorant of our faith. The press keeps using the word “recant” even though the Holy Father has not. On Rabbi had a very balanced appreciation for the authority of the Pope. Another demanded Bishop Williamson’s excommunication. I wonder what canonical grounds he thinks he should be excommunicated on? Does anyone versed in canon law see any legitimate grounds to do this?

I’m not a Canon Lawyer, I’m a Mystical Theology STD, but I did put in my year of Canon Law while getting my degree. I’ll respond from the little knowledge that I have.

There are two ways to be excommunicated, you walk right into it by doing something that carries the penalty of excommunication or you do something that the Pope or the Bishops feel place you outside of communion with the Church and they impose the excommunication.

Denying the Shoah is not a heresy or apostasy. He cannot be excommunicated that way.

However, he is a suspended bishop who is now under the authority of the Congregation for Bishops and the Ecclesia Dei Commission. Unless His Excellency does something to distance himself from his statement and from other issues that have come out about his past associations with left wing political groups, he may remain a suspended bishop.

A suspended cleric cannot celebrate the sacraments, preach or teach theology. Bishop Williamson has a history of diosbeying the Church. It is hard to believe that he will suddenly stop celebrating the sacraments.

If he violates the terms of his suspension by believing in something that the Pope doesn’t want him to believe or by saying it, the Pope can excommunicate him, the Congregation for Bishops can do so without the Pope’s approal, Ecclesia Dei can also do it without the Pope’s approval.

I doubt and hope that such a thing will happen, but that’s where he puts himself on the line.

Religious orders, Secular orders and diocesan priests all make a solemn vow of obedience. The religious authority can pull this trump card whenever they want to do so. They can order you to stop thinking a certain way “under holy obedience.”

When an order is given “under holy obedience” it carries with it a threat of stiff penalties, including excommunication, if you fail to comply.

Right now he has not been ordered under obedience to stop thinking this way. He has been ordered to put distance between himself and these beliefs, but the vow of obedience has not been invoked, that we know of. He can still say what he wants to. If he becomes too problematic for the Pope, the bishops or Ecclesia Dei, any of them can invoke the vow of obedience.

That’s how he can put himself on the line for excommunication; because we know that he has disobeyed in the past when he allowed the Archibishop to consecrate him a bishop.

We also know, from history, that religious superiors have put their subjects under this kind of presure to have them change the way they think. They have the canonical right to do this. The vow of obedience implies that you accept their voice as the voice of Christ, unless they order you to sin.

Hope this sheds some light on the possibility.

Fraternally,

JR

 

[miguel]

Canon 915
“Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion.”

This law is often cited as an arguement to bar pro-abortion Catholic politicians from the Eucharist. These politicians are in a public state of denial about the murder of innocent unborn babies. By failing in their duty to oppose it, they’re abetting mass murder in progress. It seems that public denial of the Shoah, if obstinately persevered in, is morally equivalent, even though the mass murder occurred in the past. It’s the same type of vicious lie. And I think our Lord made the connection between murder and the type of lying that leads to it.

John 44
“You are of your father the devil: and the desires of your father you will do. He was a murderer from the beginning: and he stood not in the truth, because truth is not in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father thereof.”

 

[pnewton]

These politicians are in a public state of denial about the murder of innocent unborn babies. By failing in their duty to oppose it, they’re abetting mass murder in progress. It seems that public denial of the Shoah, if obstinately persevered in, is morally equivalent, even though the mass murder occurred in the past.

But being that this all happend in the past makes all the difference in the world. One can simply not materially cooperate with evil that happened seventy years ago, without a time machine at least.

 

[pnewton]

Denying the Shoah is not a heresy or apostasy. He cannot be excommunicated that way…However, he is a suspended bishop who is now under the authority of the Congregation for Bishops and the Ecclesia Dei Commission. Unless His Excellency does something to distance himself from his statement and from other issues that have come out about his past associations with left wing political groups, he may remain a suspended bishop…A suspended cleric cannot celebrate the sacraments, preach or teach theology. Bishop Williamson has a history of diosbeying the Church. It is hard to believe that he will suddenly stop celebrating the sacraments.

If he violates the terms of his suspension by believing in something that the Pope doesn’t want him to believe or by saying it, the Pope can excommunicate him, the Congregation for Bishops can do so without the Pope’s approal, Ecclesia Dei can also do it without the Pope’s approval.

I see. So grounds could exist apart from the issue of the Holocaust and that could be used, albeit selectively enforced.

 

[miguel]

But being that this all happend in the past makes all the difference in the world. One can simply not materially cooperate with evil that happened seventy years ago, without a time machine at least.

If the evil you’re talking about is murder that occurred in the past, agreed. The evil I’m talking about is the lie denying what occurred. And that lie is an injustice to those who suffered at the hands of the Nazis.

 

[JReducation]

If the evil you’re talking about is murder that occurred in the past, agreed. The evil I’m talking about is the lie denying what occurred. And that lie is an injustice to those who suffered at the hands of the Nazis.

I see what Miguel and Pnewton are both saying and there is logic. However, there is the issue in moral theology of material participation. To be guilty of the murders committed during the Shoah, the bishop would have to have formally participated in some way. Such is not the case. Therefore, he is not guilty of the crimes of the Shoah.

To deny that they ever happened or to minimize what happened is a different material action. It is the denial of a historical event. It does not implicate participation in the event or even approval of the event. The Bishop cannot lend his approval to the Shoah, if he questions that it ever happened. Therefore, he is not guilty of approving.

That leaves only one charge against him, the minimization of the event. He never actually says it did not happen. He says that it did not happen as people say it did. He minimizes it.

The moral conflict into which he falls is his failure to denounce an evil. He never participated in it. Therefore he is not materially guilty of it. He finds that he cannot denounce it, because he does not believe it to be so.

Moral theology argues that you do not need historica proof to denounce evil. Evil is evil, whether you can see it or not. If someone says that 6 million jews were murdered, whether it was 6 million or 6 hundred, the evil perpetrated on these people is real. Morally he has an obligation to denounce it, instead of minimizing it.

In baptism we are asked if we reject sin and reject satan. This is part of the Baptismal commitment of every Christian. We need not prove an event as historical or not. The fact of murder is evil. That’s all that he has to denounce.

As to the numbers and the details, if the Holy Father says to him, that he cannot speak on this again, he has to obey. This places a second moral obligation on him.

Now he has to moral obligations: 1) denounce the evil of the Shoah and 2) obey the order to silence on this subject.

Instead he has decided to read more on the subject before he denounces anything. This places him in an awkward situation, which only aggravates his already compromised status within the Church and also aggravates the image of the Church.

Fraternally,

JR

 

[pnewton]

If the evil you’re talking about is murder that occurred in the past, agreed. The evil I’m talking about is the lie denying what occurred. And that lie is an injustice to those who suffered at the hands of the Nazis.

This is why the idea of excommunication and denial of the Eucharist is limited in scope. We can not have it the Holy Sacrament become the tool for every pet project that comes alone. I do not condone what Bp. Williamson did, but if we allowed communion to be denied for this, there are few of us that would escape the scrutiny of every other Catholic in every other sin. No, the case of abortion is vastly different and unique. Now if one was denying the Holocaust while it was going on in order to protect it, that would be an apt comparison.

 

[JReducation]

This is why the idea of excommunication and denial of the Eucharist is limited in scope. We can not have it the Holy Sacrament become the tool for every pet project that comes alone. I do not condone what Bp. Williamson did, but if we allowed communion to be denied for this, there are few of us that would escape the scrutiny of every other Catholic in every other sin. No, the case of abortion is vastly different and unique. Now if one was denying the Holocaust while it was going on in order to protect it, that would be an apt comparison.

If you deny an evil while is it happening, you are either materially culpable or at the very least remotely culpable.

JR

 

[miguel]

This is why the idea of excommunication and denial of the Eucharist is limited in scope. We can not have it the Holy Sacrament become the tool for every pet project that comes alone. I do not condone what Bp. Williamson did, but if we allowed communion to be denied for this, there are few of us that would escape the scrutiny of every other Catholic in every other sin. No, the case of abortion is vastly different and unique. Now if one was denying the Holocaust while it was going on in order to protect it, that would be an apt comparison.

I hear what you’re saying pnewton. I’m not talking about denying the Eucharist for any sin that is committed in private. In this case, we’re talking about what is objectively a public lie by a bishop. Apparently he has agreed to reconsider the matter. So it removes the question of obstinate perseverance for now. But there is still the question of the gravity of denying or minimizing the Shoah. Is a lie of this sort venial or grave? It sure upsets alot of folks and rightfully so. It also gave fuel to the Church’s enemies.

 

[miguel]

I see what Miguel and Pnewton are both saying and there is logic. However, there is the issue in moral theology of material participation. To be guilty of the murders committed during the Shoah, the bishop would have to have formally participated in some way. Such is not the case. Therefore, he is not guilty of the crimes of the Shoah…

I agree. Lying and murder are different sins. Holocaust denial is a particularly disgusting form of lying.

 

[narrowpath]

They complain when he takes some time before making a statement on the Nazi holocaust.

They complain when he makes statements on the abortion holocaust.

I don’t see why he should bother trying to please the media…

 

[JReducation]

I agree. Lying and murder are different sins. Holocaust denial is a particularly disgusting form of lying.

One should never deny the gravity of such a crime, regardless of the numbers.

JR

 

[pnewton]

Is a lie of this sort venial or grave? It sure upsets alot of folks and rightfully so. It also gave fuel to the Church’s enemies.

If the man is really convinced, or has convinced himeself that he is right, it is not a grave sin. He sure sounds convinced to me, but who can know anothers heart. That is the rub, both in condemning and defending him.

 

[cassini]

I agree. Lying and murder are different sins. Holocaust denial is a particularly disgusting form of lying.

Are you guys for real? No doubt the whole lot of you were present and witnessed 6,000,000 jews being gassed. How many of you have ever read the conclusions of those who investigated this ‘holocost’ (there was only one holocost and that was the crucifixion of Christ) on site and in the documents available? Well Bishop Williamson has read these researches and he has come to the only conclusion that this number of Jews could not have been gassed to death as the world has been indoctrinated to believe. No one denies the fact that vast numbers died from many causes at the hands on the Nazis but the FACT of 6,000,000 jews gassed can be disputed.

Now since when did such a conclusion become a ‘terrible sin’? If the Pope has to bow to the power of the Jews today, he cannot impose it as a matter of faith or morals on the flock. God your all so naive. Catholicism as ordered by American Jewish organisations.

Oh, and yes, the answer is to get Bishop Williamson to lie that he no longer holds this opinion.

 

[CTA1967]

Are you guys for real? No doubt the whole lot of you were present and witnessed 6,000,000 jews being gassed. How many of you have ever read the conclusions of those who investigated this ‘holocost’ (there was only one holocost and that was the crucifixion of Christ) on site and in the documents available? Well Bishop Williamson has read these researches and he has come to the only conclusion that this number of Jews could not have been gassed to death as the world has been indoctrinated to believe. No one denies the fact that vast numbers died from many causes at the hands on the Nazis but the FACT of 6,000,000 jews gassed can be disputed.

Now since when did such a conclusion become a ‘terrible sin’? If the Pope has to bow to the power of the Jews today, he cannot impose it as a matter of faith or morals on the flock. God your all so naive. Catholicism as ordered by American Jewish organisations.

Oh, and yes, the answer is to get Bishop Williamson to lie that he no longer holds this opinion.

First of all, these posters are not God (to whom you are referring, apparently). Second, it’s spelled “you’re”. And what are these reliable resources that so undisputably affirm that there were no gas chambers?

Oh yeah, there was no “holocost”. However, there was a “Holocaust”. Maybe that’s why whatever resources he had are so skewed?

 

[JReducation]

Are you guys for real? No doubt the whole lot of you were present and witnessed 6,000,000 jews being gassed. How many of you have ever read the conclusions of those who investigated this ‘holocost’ (there was only one holocost and that was the crucifixion of Christ) on site and in the documents available? Well Bishop Williamson has read these researches and he has come to the only conclusion that this number of Jews could not have been gassed to death as the world has been indoctrinated to believe. No one denies the fact that vast numbers died from many causes at the hands on the Nazis but the FACT of 6,000,000 jews gassed can be disputed.

Now since when did such a conclusion become a ‘terrible sin’? If the Pope has to bow to the power of the Jews today, he cannot impose it as a matter of faith or morals on the flock. God your all so naive. Catholicism as ordered by American Jewish organisations.

Oh, and yes, the answer is to get Bishop Williamson to lie that he no longer holds this opinion.

To interchangeably use the term holocaust between the crucifixion of Christ and the Shoah is incorrect in that it has never been used that way. Therefore, instead of clarifying the issue it only muddles the waters. Let’s keep them separate and use the terms as they have always been used. The Church has never referred to the crucifixion as “holocaust”.

As to the numbers, the point is mute. The numbers are not the issue. The issue is the horror of it. If there were no such thing as the Shoah, did the writings of St. Maximilian Kolbe and St. Edith Stein lie? Were their deaths falsehood that were perpetrated by the Jews to win over Catholic sympathy? Were the journals kept by Angelo Roncalli who is now Blessed John XXIII and Karol Woytila, now Servant of God John Paul II all lies? Were the letters written by the Franciscans in Assisi who ran the Assisi underground also lies?

If the Shoah is a scam, then the Catholics have cooperated with the scam since day one.

We have more proof of the existence of the Shoah, than we have historical proof of the resurrection of Christ. There are more writings and more people who are still alive. How much writing and reporting is there on the resurrection of Christ? How much writing is there on the existence of Jesus of Nazareth? Basically we can only go on oral tradition and the little that was written by the evangelists and the Catholic letters.

I guess we can be accused of a scam as well and we have been.

I believe this is the point that the Holy Father is making. If we deny a historical event because we have not read enough or found enough documentation, when in fact we see the results of it, we are blinding ourselves and are leaving ourselves wide open to the possibility of such a thing happening again.

Yes, the Holy Father can demand that the Shoah be believed as a historical fact. He cannot create a new dogma, because it is not a matter of dogma. But he can make it a discipline that is required of all bishops and laity. I don’t know how far he is willing to go with it.

I can only read from his statement to the world that he will not tolerate dissent on this issue among the bishops. Therefore, he has made it a discipline for the bishops. Now they must tow the line, not just the SSPX bishops. It becomes a matter of “think it, but don’t say it unless you can prove it.”

Benedict is very strong disciplines. My recommendation to Catholics is to be very careful with him. He wants unity at all costs and he will discipline anyone who stands in the way of unity.

Fraternally,

JR

 

[cassini]

First of all, these posters are not God (to whom you are referring, apparently). Second, it’s spelled “you’re”. And what are these reliable resources that so undisputably affirm that there were no gas chambers?

Oh yeah, there was no “holocost”. However, there was a “Holocaust”. Maybe that’s why whatever resources he had are so skewed?

Oh, I spelled it wrong, Does this mean I am excommunicated?