Stunning: Text of Bishop Williamson's Apology

  • Thread starter Thread starter Dauphin
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
thistle said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by maurin View Post
Excuse me, Knaninchen, but I must ask you a question: can you show me in Williamson’s own words where he denied the Holocaust? All I can see is that he has questioned the numbers and the scope of the methods used. I have not seen him denying the fact that the attempted genocide of the Jewish People took place. Can you show me where he has?

3/4 of my siblings children, my beloved neice and nephews, are Jewish. They have asked me the same things, and levelled the same objections. I am still awaiting their response to the question I have asked you above.

Didn’t he deny that any Jews were killed in gas chambers? He said there were no gas chambers.
Click to expand...
Does that deny that people suffered terrible deaths via other means. Via starvation, sickness, being shot, etc.
 
I was surprised and very pleased to see the apology. I had been worried that when the excommunications were lifted the response on the part of the bishops was far less grateful than one should expect (sounding at times like “see we were right all along” as opposed to “thanks for helping us fix this”), but the wording of Bp. Williamson’s apology is exactly the sort of filial sentiment one would desire to see. I hope the rumors of a quick reconciliation are indeed true.
 
Andreas_Hofer said:
I was surprised and very pleased to see the apology. I had been worried that when the excommunications were lifted the response on the part of the bishops was far less grateful than one should expect (sounding at times like “see we were right all along” as opposed to “thanks for helping us fix this”), but the wording of Bp. Williamson’s apology is exactly the sort of filial sentiment one would desire to see. I hope the rumors of a quick reconciliation are indeed true.
Click to expand...
Amen! I love the good Bishop, but I have to admit that I had my doubts (shame on me) about him accepting any goodwill from the Pope. Deo Gratias!
 
thistle said:
Didn’t he deny that any Jews were killed in gas chambers? He said there were no gas chambers.
Click to expand...
maurin said:
show us his exact words in context, thistle, or desist your slander.
Click to expand...
youtube.com/watch?v=k6C9BuXe2RM

In this video he says that no gas chambers were used.

So thistle committed no libel. Slander is when one makes an oral statement that is false and defamatory. Libel is when one does the same thing but uses the written word.

This is not libel as it is true not false.

As for this…
latinmasslover said:
So what?
Click to expand...
Its the same thing as if I punch you in the face and apologize to everyone for the fight that was started by that act rather than truly being apologetic for the act. Its almost like saying that if the fight had not of started then there would be no need for me to apologize for the punch in the first place.

He is not apologizing for the act, just the outcome of the act.
 
What always amazes me about Holocaust deniers is how little they respect factual data, ie documented records from Nazi Germany on how best to implement the “Final Solution”.

I wonder if he harbours a dark and shameful family secret? Better to deny a horror that be associated with it I guess.

Mabey he need to speak with the soldiers who liberated the camps. Those men are mostly Christians without bias. Ask them to recount what they saw, the terrible images that haunt many of them to this verry day.

Just a random thought…
 
This is no apology. He didn’t retract his statement, and he didn’t even apologize to the people he needs to apologize to (the Jews, for his remarks about the Holocaust). It is the typical modern “I’ll apologize but I won’t admit I did anything wrong” non-apology.
 
ByzCath said:
youtube.com/watch?v=k6C9BuXe2RM

In this video he says that no gas chambers were used.

So thistle committed no libel. Slander is when one makes an oral statement that is false and defamatory. Libel is when one does the same thing but uses the written word.

This is not libel as it is true not false.
Click to expand...
my dinosaur of a computer does not allow me to download videos or audio…

FOR NOW, I will take back my post to thistle, with sincere apologies, until I can find a written transcript of the interview, so that I can see for myself what he said in the larger context of the interview.

If you are able to link me to a transcript (I’ve googled and googled to no avail) I would appreciate it.

If, after reading a transcript, I find that I am wrong, I will gladly offer my apologies again.

thanks for the help. maurin
 
ChristIsLord said:
the bishop is apologizing for causing unneeded scandal upon the church… he isn’t apologizing for his remarks because he believes them to be true
Click to expand...
That is my sense from the apology. He isn’t backing down from his morally repugnant beliefs - he is apologizing that his speaking about them have given the Catholic Church trouble.

He was forbidden by Bishop Bernard Fellay, superior-general of the Society of St. Pius X, to speak about his unusual and highly offensive beliefs. Bp. Williamson makes no mention of this order in his apology. I wonder if he will abide by it.
zenit.org/article-24930?l=english
 
maurin said:
my dinosaur of a computer does not allow me to download videos or audio…

FOR NOW, I will take back my post to thistle, with sincere apologies, until I can find a written transcript of the interview, so that I can see for myself what he said in the larger context of the interview.

If you are able to link me to a transcript (I’ve googled and googled to no avail) I would appreciate it.

If, after reading a transcript, I find that I am wrong, I will gladly offer my apologies again.

thanks for the help. maurin
Click to expand...
Here is a link to the transcript.

globalfire.tv/nj/09en/religion/church_for_revisionism.htm
 
I think it would be both phony and hypocritical of Williamson to say that he recanted from his actual views unless he truly does.

And it’s unreasonable to expect that he would do such an about face as to completely give up today what the other week he believed so firmly - and just because his belief got him in trouble. 🤷

There’s nothing wrong with apologising for scandal caused - many of us wouldn’t even have the grace to admit that we were wrong even to that extent.
 
ByzCath said:
Here is a link to the transcript.

globalfire.tv/nj/09en/religion/church_for_revisionism.htm
Click to expand...
Thank you for the link, ByzCath.

I offer my sincere apologies to thistle for having accused her of slander or libel. I was wrong. mea culpa.

Although the Bishop is free to have his opinions, I do not agree with them in this particular case, based on my own “research” of the subject in my younger years. I am sure that many Jews, as well as other “enemies” of Nazism died in the gas chambers, as well as firing squads, etc.
 
LilyM said:
I think it would be both phony and hypocritical of Williamson to say that he recanted from his actual views unless he truly does.
Click to expand...
Which is why he didn’t. While people, especially Jews are angry at him for his denial of the Holocaust, at least in the normal use of the word, they miss the far more serious log in their own eye: that is, the leap in logic that denying the Holocaust most stem from anti-Semetism. This holocaust issue is hardly his only quirk when it comes to such matters. Being gullible to conspiracy theories and just plain wrong about history does not equate to hating Jews (or theological error).
 
pnewton said:
Which is why he didn’t. While people, especially Jews are angry at him for his denial of the Holocaust, at least in the normal use of the word, they miss the far more serious log in their own eye: that is, the leap in logic that denying the Holocaust most stem from anti-Semetism. This holocaust issue is hardly his only quirk when it comes to such matters. Being gullible to conspiracy theories and just plain wrong about history does not equate to hating Jews (or theological error).
Click to expand...
Good thing to note, but it does not mean the opposite is true.

He could very well be against the Jews, all we can do is go by his statements and what he has said does seem to go against the prevailing knowledge and facts in this matter.
 
ByzCath said:
He could very well be against the Jews, all we can do is go by his statements and what he has said does seem to go against the prevailing knowledge and facts in this matter.
Click to expand...
He could well be for all I know. If so, any anti-Semetic statement has been lost in all this Holocaust hype.
 
Dauphin said:
I’m stunned. The work of God’s Grace in this whole affair is becoming undeniable. I never thought I’d see such words from His Excellency:

"To His Eminence Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos

Your Eminence

Amidst this tremendous media storm stirred up by imprudent remarks of mine on Swedish television, I beg of you to accept, only as is properly respectful, my sincere regrets for having caused to yourself and to the Holy Father so much unnecessary distress and problems.

For me, all that matters is the Truth Incarnate, and the interests of His one true Church, through which alone we can save our souls and give eternal glory, in our little way, to Almighty God. So I have only one comment, from the prophet Jonas, I, 12 -

“Take me up and throw me into the sea; then the sea will quiet down for you; for I know it is because of me that this great tempest has come upon you.”

Please also accept, and convey to the Holy Father, my sincere personal thanks for the document signed last Wednesday and made public on Saturday. Most humbly I will offer a Mass for both of you.

Sincerely yours in Christ

+Richard Williamson"

http://dinoscopus.blogspot.com/2009/01/letter.html
Click to expand...
A complete retraction of the statements would have been better than nothing, but I guess it’s a start…
 
Lujack said:
This is no apology. He didn’t retract his statement, and he didn’t even apologize to the people he needs to apologize to (the Jews, for his remarks about the Holocaust). It is the typical modern “I’ll apologize but I won’t admit I did anything wrong” non-apology.
Click to expand...
Yeah, it’s kind of like the lame, “I’m sorry if you were offended” non-apology. The person “apologizing” isn’t truly sorry about the act that caused the offense, only for the fact of the offense taken.

Hardly the true contrition that motivates a true apology.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top