Very interesting. Does this learned man know of the 1983 canon law under which Archbishop Lefebvre legally consecrated his four bishops? Without this law, was the archbishop likely to put all their immortal souls in jepardy? I think not. So, in justice, would you polycarp 1 research this law and put it in context with the above. Thank you.Bishop Richard Williamson was not excommunicated for his views on the Holocost so that could not “legally” be considered in his reinstatement along with the other SSPX bishops. His views on the Holocost, however strange, are not a matter of him teaching something contrary to Church Doctrine.
Not all offenses are worthy of excommunication in the Church’s eyes. This is similar to the civil law where penalties are dispensed according to the severity of the crime. For example, life in prison might be a just penalty for a cold-blooded murder, but it would be unjust for theft of a bicycle. Similarly, consecrating bishops without papal mandate is a much more serious offense under canon law than the theft of a candle from the sacristy.
"Excommunication is a word that is often bandied about by Catholics, non-Catholics, and the media. However, when properly understood within the context of canon law, it is a penalty that the Church only applies in the rarest of cases, as a last resort, and for the purpose of helping to bring about the offender’s repentance
Excommunication is one of three types of censure (the other two are suspension and interdict). Censures are otherwise known as medicinal penalties. Their purpose is not to punish an individual for violating the law. The purpose is to act as medicine for the soul that will bring about repentance, so that the person can return to full communion with the Church.
Excommunicable offenses begin with canon 1364. Those who embrace schism, heresy, or apostasy incur automatic excommunication. Schism, heresy, and apostasy are offenses against the Catholic faith and the unity of the Church. The schismatic refuses subjection to the Roman Pontiff, or to maintain communion with those subject to the Holy Father; the heretic, despite having been baptized into the faith, obstinately denies a well-defined Christian truth; and the apostate totally renounces Christ and the Christian faith. The canon permits the competent ecclesiastical authority to add other penalties, including dismissal from the clerical state, when the offense is committed by a deacon, priest, or bishop.
Canon 1370 imposes an automatic excommunication upon any individual who physically attacks the Holy Father.
Canon 1378 automatically excommunicates a priest who absolves, through the sacrament of confession, his partner in a sexual sin. This excommunication is also reserved to the Holy See.
One of the most serious crimes, as we have seen already, is the consecration of a bishop without a papal mandate. This is because bishops enjoy the fullness of the priesthood, which allows them to ordain and consecrate more clergy.
Canon 1388 severely punishes a priest who violates the seal of confession.
Finally, as already noted, canon 1398 imposes an automatic excommunication upon those who successfully procure an abortion, provided no diminishing causes are present. This should not surprise any Catholic: Abortion is one of the most serious offenses against human life. The act is intrinsically evil and the child in the womb is among the most defenseless of human life.
I don’t know what avenues are open to the Church to address the damage done to the Bishop’s and the Church’s credibility but I don’t think ecommunication is an option.
And here is the apology that tuviskazinai and others don not fully accept.I wouldn’t reject his apology outright, but I personally don’t think it suffices. He apologized for bringing bad publicity to the Church, not for his views or for the pain they caused to Jews and to others around the world.
Peace,
+AMDG+
Legally? It was valid, but illicit, hence, the excommunications. Now they are lifted. And yes, that did put their souls in jeopardy. Thanks to Pope Benedict XVI, this has now been lifted.Very interesting. Does this learned man know of the 1983 canon law under which Archbishop Lefebvre legally consecrated his four bishops? Without this law, was the archbishop likely to put all their immortal souls in jepardy?
I think its more like “Bishop takes part in plot to cover up genocide”. It is very serious, and by saying its not serious, we’re making ourselves look callous.It’s annoying that a great day for the Church has been hijacked by this garbage.
“Bishop has eccentric views that many people don’t like”. Call the police!
[Yawn]
JPII did not excommunicate them, they excommunicated themselves by their schismatic act(NB: I do not hold them to be in Schism, but this is how Ecclesia Dei has described the act).
However, if Pope Benedict has decided to lift the excommunications, it has not been without careful consideration. This has been a main goal(as it should be, with a group that claims over a million lay supporters). The SSPX has been saying this has been coming since back in November, when they started a Rosary Crusade for the intention(said to have totaled ~1,703,000 rosaries), and there have been several previous efforts to do the same thing.
To be honest, I may not fully embrace the SSPX the second they come back, but I will be glad to know they are back, so that they may once again be in full communion, and offer licit Masses, as well as valid marriages and confessions. They have a great zeal and a great passion. I do not agree with all they stand for, but then again, I find that with every Order I have looked at, which is why I discerned not to join each of them.
In addition, holocaust denial is a crime in many European countries. When one is a guest in a country, it is expected that one will not commit crimes which could cause trouble and lead to imprisonment?I think its more like “Bishop takes part in plot to cover up genocide”. It is very serious, and by saying its not serious, we’re making ourselves look callous.
That is a point I had not thought of. Was Bishop Williamson unaware of this law, or did he not respect it, not that either situation should affect the excommunication.In addition, holocaust denial is a crime in many European countries. When one is a guest in a country, it is expected that one will not commit crimes which could cause trouble and lead to imprisonment?
I thought that I heard Bishop Williamson mention that it was a crime in his interview? I didn’t think it was an example of prudent behavior on the part of the bishop to openly flaunt the laws of a country which had accepted him as a guest?That is a point I had not thought of. Was Bishop Williamson unaware of this law, or did he not respect it, not that either situation should affect the excommunication.
Doesn’t the author of this letter have a reputation as an anti-semite and a neo-nazi?On the decision by His Holiness to require a public repudiation by Bishop Williamson of his views on the Holocaust before the excommunication can be lifted the following letter, addressed to the Holy See, has a bearing
rense.com/general84/letsr.htm
I nave no idea if that’ true but that is not a reason not to judge his letter on its meritsDoesn’t the author of this letter have a reputation as an anti-semite and a neo-nazi?
Good Post Layman.Bah, you can’t criminalise opinions. You’re going to end up looking stupid.
I’m very tired of reading endless hand-wringing drivel about middle-class ‘hot button’ issues.** It’s pseudo-morality.** We’re competing on being the most ‘right on’ while desperately trying to make enough money to send our children to private schools and move away from the consequences of this savage culture.
I think political correctness began in Californian universities in the '80s. Those intellectuals who hated their own society saw the Socialist-Communist project fail in the USSR. They then turned to oppressing their own people with their attacks on WASP culture.
Their aim, same as any other monkey lower down on the tree: power.
You now have social workers who can take your kids from you for trivial reasons, give them to homosexuals to be fostered and there’s nothing you can do about it.
It’s not a big problem until it happens to you.
If I call a black man a ****** in the street, I can be arrested. If I procure abortions, I can probably get a government grant.
Millions died in the Irish potato famine, Armenia, the two World Wars, the USSR under Stalin. The only unusual thing about the Jewish massacre is how German organisation was applied to it.
It occurred because the ‘Chosen People Of God’ came up against ‘The Master Race’. They were handy scapegoats.
The only time you should be arrested for expressing your opinion is for shouting ‘fire!’ in a crowded theatre or for egging on a mob.
It’s a pity it’s overshadowing the reconciliation of the SSPX in our Church, but watch and understand: good will come out of this, but not in the way the ‘cabal of liberal opinion’ thinks.
That is your opinion, but it is not the law in Germany and many other European countries. If you do not like the laws of those countries, then is it not best to avoid visiting them as a guest? I don’t see where it is pruident to go around visitng countries which have laws that you do not like and then publicly flaunt the laws of a country which has accepted you as a guest? Why doesn’t such a person stay in his own country and try to change the laws that he does not like there, rather than committing crimes in a country which has accepted him as a guest?The only time you should be arrested for expressing your opinion is for shouting ‘fire!’ in a crowded theatre or for egging on a mob..
The interview was in Sweden, not in Germany…That is your opinion, but it is not the law in Germany and many other European countries. If you do not like the laws of those countries, then is it not best to avoid visiting them as a guest? I don’t see where it is pruident to go around visitng countries which have laws that you do not like and then publicly flaunt the laws of a country which has accepted you as a guest? Why doesn’t such a person stay in his own country and try to change the laws that he does not like there, rather than committing crimes in a country which has accepted him as a guest?
I would like to see your support for your claim.The interview was in Sweden, not in Germany…
For most of us, this has no bearing. Rome has spoken. Are we going to start with a new reason for dissent less than a month after these excommunications are lifted? Who is Michael Hoffman and what right does he have to tell the Holy Father his business?On the decision by His Holiness to require a public repudiation by Bishop Williamson of his views on the Holocaust before the excommunication can be lifted the following letter, addressed to the Holy See, has a bearing
rense.com/general84/letsr.htm