Statement of Bishop Alexander K. Sample In Response to Bishop Thomas Gumbleton’s Public Appearance in the Diocese of Marquette

[canadianguy1143]

For a start as far as I know His Excellency Bishop Williamson has never stated that the Holocaust did not happen, rather has has questioned the ‘official’ story. He is completely within his rights to do so and should not be degraded to such an extent that he is compared to a paedophile for his belief!

Yours sincerely,
Murphy Bhoy.

Which rights? Civil or Moral rights? Civilly, he can hold any belief he desires but as a Catholic Bishop he can’t tell lies and present them as the truth.

To question the “official” story as you put it, is to question the integrity and intelligence of hundreds if not thousands of eye witness testimony against the erroneous theory put by the person whom Bishop Williamson believes in. Furthermore since Bishop Williamson is an educated man, he should do what any educated person would do and investigate what the rebuttals are against this theory that he believes in. He did not do this.

Bishop Williamson can’t hold the belief that there is no gas chambers, just as I can’t hold the belief that the Yankees beat the Twins in the playoffs, since I didn’t see it.

 

[Tsuwano]

No I think you are wrong. The fact that he publicly supports the ordination of women is no different than doing the act itself. What if he had said, “Go kill the abortionist,” but wasn’t involved in the actual shooting? Do you think that would make a difference?? If you do, then you need to study our faith better.

Your analogy is faulty. Bishop Gumbleton, though personally believing the Church’s teaching regarding the ordination of women is wrong, has not violated that teaching by ordaining women or by encouraging another bishop to ordain women. He is not similar to someone who tells another to kill an abortionist and is responsible for that killing even though he did not pull the trigger. Gumbleton has expressed his opinion that the Church’s teaching on female ordination is wrong and he has given his reasons for that belief, but he has not encouraged others to violate that teaching and has not violated it himself. Your statement “The fact that he publicly supports the ordination of women is no different than doing the act itself” may be a personal opinion you find plausible, but it is not held by the Vatican.

 

[Tsuwano]

While it was good he respected the other bishop’s request, that doesn’t change the fact that his views are in conflict with Church teachings.

Bishop Gumbleton’s views are indeed in conflict with those held by the Church, but his actions are not. Thus he is a bishop in good standing, though presently retired. Gallileo’s views on the relationship between the Earth and the Sun were also in conflict with Church teaching, and though he was publicly forced to recant his views, it is clear he continued to hold his views privately. Gumbleton has not been subjected to the same pressure as Gallileo and has not recanted his views publicly and is therefore not allowed to speak in some dioceses for fear of leading others to think his views are in line with those of the Church. Nevertheless, like Gallileo, he is still considered a Catholic in good standing with the Church unless his actions place him in conflict with the Vatican. As mentioned in a previous post, Williamson is a different bird altogether. His actions have placed him in conflict with the Vatican.

 

[canadianguy1143]

Your analogy is faulty. Bishop Gumbleton, though personally believing the Church’s teaching regarding the ordination of women is wrong, has not violated that teaching by ordaining women or by encouraging another bishop to ordain women. He is not similar to someone who tells another to kill an abortionist and is responsible for that killing even though he did not pull the trigger. Gumbleton has expressed his opinion that the Church’s teaching on female ordination is wrong and he has given his reasons for that belief, but he has not encouraged others to violate that teaching and has not violated it himself. Your statement “The fact that he publicly supports the ordination of women is no different than doing the act itself” may be a personal opinion you find plausible, but it is not held by the Vatican.

Oh really? What about Jesus who said, “whoever thinks about lust, has already committed the act”. A Bishop is not permitted to question or to think that a particular teaching is wrong.

 

[Murphy_Bhoy]

Which rights? Civil or Moral rights? Civilly, he can hold any belief he desires but as a Catholic Bishop he can’t tell lies and present them as the truth.

Civily and morally. As a Catholic Bishop he cannot tell lies about the faith and present it as truth. However he is free to question matters of history until his heart’s content.

To question the “official” story as you put it, is to question the integrity and intelligence of hundreds if not thousands of eye witness testimony against the erroneous theory put by the person whom Bishop Williamson believes in.

When there is evidence to the contrary…

Furthermore since Bishop Williamson is an educated man, he should do what any educated person would do and investigate what the rebuttals are against this theory that he believes in. He did not do this.

I believe Bishop Williamson has said so himself that he will study it further. But you bring up an interesting point… why is one version of events allowed to be defended and another not?

Why is one record of events held on high to such an extent that many people place it on par with God Himself? Why is it that anyone who questions the story is no better than paedophile and racist?

Bishop Williamson can’t hold the belief that there is no gas chambers, just as I can’t hold the belief that the Yankees beat the Twins in the playoffs, since I didn’t see it.

If you think that is the reason why Bishop Williamson does not believe that Jews were killed in gas chambers, then you really need to read up on the subject.

I am not sure if debate on this subject is allowed, so I will leave it at that. If you want to carry on the discussio though, send me a PM.

Yours sincerely,
Murphy Bhoy.

 

[Tsuwano]

Oh really? What about Jesus who said, “whoever thinks about lust, has already committed the act”. A Bishop is not permitted to question or to think that a particular teaching is wrong.

Do you mean Bishops like LeFebvre, Fellay and Williamson, as well as Gumbleton? It doesn’t really matter who you mean. My point stands. The Vatican does not hold the same opinion as you. The public actions of a bishop are given more weight than private opinions. Now, of course, Gumbleton’s opinions are publicly known, and so various Bishops will not give him permission to speak in their diocese, but as far as the Vatican is concerned, it seems that it recognizes Bishop Gumbleton as a bishop in good standing within the Church at this point. This is not a recognition given to Bishop Williamson or Fellay.

 

[canadianguy1143]

Do you mean Bishops like LeFebvre, Fellay and Williamson, as well as Gumbleton? It doesn’t really matter who you mean. My point stands. The Vatican does not hold the same opinion as you. The public actions of a bishop are given more weight than private opinions. Now, of course, Gumbleton’s opinions are publicly known, and so various Bishops will not give him permission to speak in their diocese, but as far as the Vatican is concerned, it seems that it recognizes Bishop Gumbleton as a bishop in good standing within the Church at this point. This is not a recognition given to Bishop Williamson or Fellay.

In one regard you are right. The Vatican isn’t as concerned with Bishop Gumbleton as they are with Bishop Williamson. However, my contention is that, THEY SHOULD BE. Bishop Gumbleton’s views on female ordination are wrong and the Vatican should intervene in a greater way.

 

[canadianguy1143]

Civily and morally. As a Catholic Bishop he cannot tell lies about the faith and present it as truth. However he is free to question matters of history until his heart’s content.

No Catholic can morally lie about anything. If a child is asked by his parent, “Are you doing your homework,” and the child is watching TV and says, “Yes”, then the child is lying. That is a sin. Watching TV or doing homework is not about the faith. Even moreso, some Catholic saints were gassed by the Nazi’s during WW2. That makes even more a matter of faith and morals.

When there is evidence to the contrary…

Its not just a matter of evidence, its a matter of CREDIBLE evidence. There is NO credible evidence that there weren’t gas chambers.

I believe Bishop Williamson has said so himself that he will study it further. But you bring up an interesting point… why is one version of events allowed to be defended and another not?

Bishop Williamson should have studied it prior to going on TV and publicly revealing it. As to your question, defending an erroneous set of events that never took place is not something that should be defended.

Why is one record of events held on high to such an extent that many people place it on par with God Himself? Why is it that anyone who questions the story is no better than paedophile and racist?

Who the heck cares. Its history and it can never change no matter whether we like it or not.

If you think that is the reason why Bishop Williamson does not believe that Jews were killed in gas chambers, then you really need to read up on the subject.

I don’t know why Bishop Williamson doesn’t believe that people weren’t killed in gas chambers.

I am not sure if debate on this subject is allowed, so I will leave it at that. If you want to carry on the discussio though, send me a PM.

Yours sincerely,
Murphy Bhoy.

I don’t know either but I feel compelled to speak on this matter.

 

[Tsuwano]

In one regard you are right. The Vatican isn’t as concerned with Bishop Gumbleton as they are with Bishop Williamson. However, my contention is that, THEY SHOULD BE. Bishop Gumbleton’s views on female ordination are wrong and the Vatican should intervene in a greater way.

I suppose this is a point where we simply disagree. I do not think Bishop Gumbleton presents a greater danger to the Church than Bishop Williamson and I don’t think it is necessary for the Vatican to take action against Bishop Gumbleton at this point.

 

[Murphy_Bhoy]

No Catholic can morally lie about anything. If a child is asked by his parent, “Are you doing your homework,” and the child is watching TV and says, “Yes”, then the child is lying. That is a sin. Watching TV or doing homework is not about the faith. Even moreso, some Catholic saints were gassed by the Nazi’s during WW2. That makes even more a matter of faith and morals.

The main point is that Bishop Williamson is not lying about anything. He holds a different view on historical events than the mainstream. Also, we both know that the Church cannot err in matters of faith and morals and canonising someone as a saint falls under faith and morals. However, I am not sure that the exact manner of death is protected as the same.

As to the rest of your post… I believe some poor people were indeed killed in Gas Chambers. I don’t believe that 6 million Jews died and I don’t think the Holocaust should be put on a pedestal above other crimes against humanity. As far as I am concerned one innocent death is one death too many, but the attitude most people have regarding the Holocaust is that you cannot question anything where as everything else from the Armenian Genocide and the USSR mass-murders are perfectly acceptable to be questioned.

Bishop Williamson is free to question historical events, he is free to hold different opinions on the matter and I don’t think he should be attacked for it. He should be allowed to question and he should be allowed to learn as we all are.

But certain elements of society are not allowing this. I mean after all, he could possibly be facing criminal charges in Germany for “denying the Holocaust”…

Yours sincerely,
Murphy Bhoy.

 

[Ockham]

It’s good to see the new generation of bishops standing up to the past. Interesting how this is being played out, forty years since V2.

 

[Abenadar]

I know I’m jumping in here waaaay late, but what the heck…

I think there’s definitely a big different between a bishop who questions a historical event versus one who objects to what God has given us.

One can always question details of a historical event.

It is something else entirely to believe that the Church should (or even could) ordain women when it is impossible for this to happen. Women cannot be priests…This will never change…sorry. You’d think that if women could be ordained, our Blessed Mother would have been the prime candidate for the priesthood, given her perfection.

Bottom line: I’d rather have a bishop question history and take his faith seriously than a bishop who questions dogma and accepts what’s in the most recent editions of history books. Dogma is defined and it is fact. OTOH our understanding of historical “fact” on every subject is constantly changing with newer and newer scholarship etc.