Vatican orders bishop who denied Holocaust to recant if he is to take office as a prelate

[JReducation]

They all denied Christ-isnt that worse than denying the Holocaust?

Is believing in the Holocaust a requirement to be Catholic?

First of all, Peter denied Christ, not Thomas or Paul. Thomas did not trust what he was hearing about the resurrection. He was not denying Christ. Paul was not a Christian. Therefore, denial does not apply to him. He was a convert to Christianity and once he converted he never turned back.

As to the holocaust, this falls under another area of Church discipline. The point that I fail to see is why so many people on these boards want to defend the SSPX bishops and take an opposing side to what the Pope orders them to do?

The real question here is where is our obedience? Is it with the SSPX bishops or with the Holy Father?

If we believe that we must obey the Holy Father and he says that one must distance himself from a certain opinion and keep silent on it, that is that. He has given an order and those bound by obedience must comply. Why are we defending the right of someone who is bound by obedience, not to comply? Why are we questioning the right of the Pope to demand obedience?

I’m looking at it this way. I belong to a religious community. In our community we have a superior whom we call the Minister. The Minister does not have to speak on matters of faith and morals for us to obey. When we made vows we promised to live the Gospel in obedience all the days of our lives. When our Minister says something such as, you may not say that in public, we obey. We do not argue the merit of our statement. That’s not what is on the table. What is on the table is obedience. For whatever reason, he wants me to be silent on a subject. Unless he’s asking me to sin, I have to obey or I’m in a state of mortal sin.

If I disobey, he can pull out the big guns, which rarely happens. He can word it this way, “I order you under holy obedience.”. The first time you are given a chance to obey without a threat. The second time there is a threat of serious ecclesiastic penalty.

We don’t push the envelop to see if the Minister will go that far. We simply obey, without murmuring, without resentment, without defenses as our holy father Francis told us to obey.

A bishop, who has a vow of obedience to the Holy Father is in the same situation as a religious who has a vow of obedience to his superior. The question is not a matter of who’s opinion on the holocaust is right. The question is whether or not you’re willing to obey as you promised to do.

I raise the question again. Why are we focusing on the holocaust and not on the order to obey?

Some of the statements made here give the impression that Catholics believe that a pope does not have the right to demand obedience even in the smallest and most insignificant things. The holocaust is not small or insignificant; therefore, he has even more right to demand obedience.

Fraternally,

JR

 

[Dauphin]

First of all, Peter denied Christ, not Thomas or Paul. Thomas did not trust what he was hearing about the resurrection. He was not denying Christ. Paul was not a Christian. Therefore, denial does not apply to him. He was a convert to Christianity and once he converted he never turned back.

As to the holocaust, this falls under another area of Church discipline. The point that I fail to see is why so many people on these boards want to defend the SSPX bishops and take an opposing side to what the Pope orders them to do?

The real question here is where is our obedience? Is it with the SSPX bishops or with the Holy Father?

If we believe that we must obey the Holy Father and he says that one must distance himself from a certain opinion and keep silent on it, that is that. He has given an order and those bound by obedience must comply. Why are we defending the right of someone who is bound by obedience, not to comply? Why are we questioning the right of the Pope to demand obedience?

I don’t think you understand what the Holy See requested (the media almost never gets facts right concerning the Church). Card. Bertone said that, in order to assume episcopal duties in the Church, Bishop Williamson would have to change his views on the Holocaust.

He didn’t say that a Catholic cannot hold these views (since they have nothing to do with the faith). Bishop Williamson has not been ordered to change his mind; he has simply been informed that he will not be granted an office unless he does.

 

[D_M]

It is not a question of sacredness. It is a question of motive. One can rationally deny the existence of God without bearing hatred to any people.

God Bless,

Hi Valke,

Many people deny the existence of God out of hatred for Him or they would claim that if He did exist, that He is a terrible Being.

I will re-state my query then:

If a person denied that God existed, out of hatred for Him, is that less worse than denying the full extent of the Shoah, out of hatred for jews?

Is the Shoah more sacred than God?

I also have another question. Is it impossible for a person to deny the full extent of the Shoah without hatred for jews?

I know that many people who deny the Shoah do so out of a lack of love for the jews, however, is it really rationally impossible for such a person to exist in that they could deny a historical fact out of mere ignorance or mistaken confusion?

God Bless,

 

[bobzills]

Hi Valke,

Many people deny the existence of God out of hatred for Him or they would claim that if He did exist, that He is a terrible Being.

I will re-state my query then:

If a person denied that God existed, out of hatred for Him, is that less worse than denying the full extent of the Shoah, out of hatred for jews?

Is the Shoah more sacred than God?

I also have another question. Is it impossible for a person to deny the full extent of the Shoah without hatred for jews?

I know that many people who deny the Shoah do so out of a lack of love for the jews, however, is it really rationally impossible for such a person to exist in that they could deny a historical fact out of mere ignorance or mistaken confusion?

God Bless,

I think that many of Bishop Williamson’s views are problematical. He quotes approvingly from the protocols of the Elders of Zion and says that 9/11 was a conspiracy on the part of the US government? At least that has ben reported in a recent issue of Newsweek magazine. And further, Bishop Williamson has said that: “…domestic girls are not by nature for public universities” and “almost no girl should go to any university.”
This view would be seriously out of the mainstream, since many Catholic schools accept women, not only as students, but even as professors.

 

[JReducation]

I don’t think you understand what the Holy See requested (the media almost never gets facts right concerning the Church). Card. Bertone said that, in order to assume episcopal duties in the Church, Bishop Williamson would have to change his views on the Holocaust.

He didn’t say that a Catholic cannot hold these views (since they have nothing to do with the faith). Bishop Williamson has not been ordered to change his mind; he has simply been informed that he will not be granted an office unless he does.

I understand exactly what the Holy See asked. But the fact remains the same. He has a vow of obedience to the Pope. He has to work on his view and until he does, he will not get faculties.

As to Episcopal duties, those are not even in the making yet. Before you can get assigned an episcopal see you must have faculties. He has been told that he will not get those faculties until he obeys.

Well, all of us who have promised obedience have to obey. He is not an exception. I understand that the issue is not a matter of faith. But we are often asked to obey on less significant issues. Rarely are we asked to obey on major issues. Obedience is the hardest cross of all for clerics and religious. Sometimes it demands that we change our thinking. There is nothing that those of us who are bound by obedience can do, but obey.

The best thing that the laity can do is to support the Holy Father’s or a religious superior’s right to demand obedience. If the laity cannot support that, then the laity should at least sit back politely and let the players in the arena do what they have to do.

Fraternally,

JR

 

[Dauphin]

I understand exactly what the Holy See asked. But the fact remains the same. He has a vow of obedience to the Pope. He has to work on his view and until he does, he will not get faculties.

As to Episcopal duties, those are not even in the making yet. Before you can get assigned an episcopal see you must have faculties. He has been told that he will not get those faculties until he obeys.

Well, all of us who have promised obedience have to obey. He is not an exception. I understand that the issue is not a matter of faith. But we are often asked to obey on less significant issues. Rarely are we asked to obey on major issues. Obedience is the hardest cross of all for clerics and religious. Sometimes it demands that we change our thinking. There is nothing that those of us who are bound by obedience can do, but obey.

The best thing that the laity can do is to support the Holy Father’s or a religious superior’s right to demand obedience. If the laity cannot support that, then the laity should at least sit back politely and let the players in the arena do what they have to do.

Fraternally,

JR

Again, you don’t seem to understand that this has nothing to do with obedience. Bishop Williamson hasn’t been “ordered” to do anything; he’s simply been informed that he will not be able to assume episcopal ministry if he maintains his position on the Holocaust.

 

[JReducation]

Again, you don’t seem to understand that this has nothing to do with obedience. Bishop Williamson hasn’t been “ordered” to do anything; he’s simply been informed that he will not be able to assume episcopal ministry if he maintains his position on the Holocaust.

I understand this. You don’t understand the language of obedience. When our religious superior tell us “you will not be able to assume episcopal ministry if you maintain your position on the holocaust” the message is “make a choice, your position or your ministry but you can’t have both.”

That’s a very common way of giving orders among religious men. Maybe you have not lived in a religious house as long as I have. But that’s the way it goes. There is no dialogue involved whe it’s put that way. It’s a choose A or B, but do so fast. That’s religious life and that’s the vow of obedience of a secular bishop.

JR

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Absolutely! Look what happend when Jesus accpeted Peter, Thomas and Paul back into the fold!!!

You equating the Bishops of SSPX with Saints Peter Thomas and Paul?

Remember, Peter Thomas and Paul converted to follow Jesus.

SSPX members revolted against the Church established by Jesus and have not converted in order to return.

Jim

 

[JimR-OCDS]

I think he was speaking of when Jesus was deserted at the crucifixion.

Well, St Paul wasn’t at the Crucifixion as far as we know.

Jim

 

[estesbob]

You equating the Bishops of SSPX with Saints Peter Thomas and Paul?

Remember, Peter Thomas and Paul converted to follow Jesus.

SSPX members revolted against the Church established by Jesus and have not converted in order to return.

Jim

Then why did the Pope lift their excommunications?

Why do i get the impression you are not a big fan of the SSPX?

 

[JimR-OCDS]

They all denied Christ-isnt that worse than denying the Holocaust?

Is believing in the Holocaust a requirement to be Catholic?

The denial of the Holocaust by Bishop Williamson, had nothing to do with their excommunication.

Hope this helps.

Jim

 

[miguel]

Again, you don’t seem to understand that this has nothing to do with obedience…

 

[JimR-OCDS]

estesbob;

Then why did the Pope lift their excommunications?

I’m not entirely sure, for like I’ve been saying, I think Pope Benedict made a mistake.

From what I understand, the Pope , made another compromise with them, so that they can continue dialog in getting them back in union with the Church. The first compromise the Pope gave them, was allowing the TLM back. As we’ve seen since then, the trads are still not happy and it has caused more division than unity in the Church.

Why do i get the impression you are not a big fan of the SSPX

Why should I be?

Remember, they left the Church, the Church didn’t leave them.

Jim

 

[CTA1967]

I think that many of Bishop Williamson’s views are problematical. He quotes approvingly from the protocols of the Elders of Zion and says that 9/11 was a conspiracy on the part of the US government? At least that has ben reported in a recent issue of Newsweek magazine. And further, Bishop Williamson has said that: “…domestic girls are not by nature for public universities” and “almost no girl should go to any university.”
This view would be seriously out of the mainstream, since many Catholic schools accept women, not only as students, but even as professors.

That’s been bothering me too… I hope this won’t turn out too badly.

 

[D_M]

I think that many of Bishop Williamson’s views are problematical. He quotes approvingly from the protocols of the Elders of Zion and says that 9/11 was a conspiracy on the part of the US government? At least that has ben reported in a recent issue of Newsweek magazine. And further, Bishop Williamson has said that: “…domestic girls are not by nature for public universities” and “almost no girl should go to any university.”
This view would be seriously out of the mainstream, since many Catholic schools accept women, not only as students, but even as professors.

Hi Bobzills (I was about to call you Bobzilla for a moment),

I agree with you that the bishop holds views that would likely prove harmful to the church. I was simply raising the question of whether his views were worse than the denial of Christ or the divine which is found among many outside the church who are criticizing this move.

I tend to agree with the other posters who say that the holocaust is almost replacing the crucifixion in our popular imagination. And we don’t talk about denial of God in the same way that we talk about denial of the holocaust.

For the record, there are and have been priests in full communion with Rome who have held those sorts of anti-semitic conspiracy theories and worldviews. Some of them have been suspended and some of them have not been.

There’s also this: spectator.sk/articles/view/31550/2/archbishop_prays_for_tiso.html

The church in Slovakia has been honouring the nazi-allied fascist dictator of Slovakia Msgr Jozef Tiso (he was a catholic priest), who was harshly anti-semitic and was responsible for the deportation of three quarters of the country’s jews to the death camps. I’m unsure what to make of that at the moment.

I wonder if bishop Williamson’s rejection of women at university has anything to do with Pope Pius XI’s condemnation of co-education in his Divini Illius Magistri:

1. False also and harmful to Christian education is the so-called method of “coeducation.” This too, by many of its supporters, is founded upon naturalism and the denial of original sin; but by all, upon a deplorable confusion of ideas that mistakes a leveling promiscuity and equality, for the legitimate association of the sexes. The Creator has ordained and disposed perfect union of the sexes only in matrimony, and, with varying degrees of contact, in the family and in society. Besides there is not in nature itself, which fashions the two quite different in organism, in temperament, in abilities, anything to suggest that there can be or ought to be promiscuity, and much less equality, in the training of the two sexes. These, in keeping with the wonderful designs of the Creator, are destined to complement each other in the family and in society, precisely because of their differences, which therefore ought to be maintained and encouraged during their years of formation, with the necessary distinction and corresponding separation, according to age and circumstances. These principles, with due regard to time and place, must, in accordance with Christian prudence, be applied to all schools, particularly in the most delicate and decisive period of formation, that, namely, of adolescence; and in gymnastic exercises and deportment, special care must be had of Christian modesty in young women and girls, which is so gravely impaired by any kind of exhibition in public.

God Bless,

 

[JReducation]

I fail to see why this needs so much discussion. The Pope has told Bishop Williamson that he must distance himself from his ideas on the holocaust. A bishop owes obedience to the Pope. There is not debate on this.

Why is this being dragged on so long on this thread as if looking for a fifth leg on a cat?

These brings back to mind my days in novitiate when we were taught that the superior was the voice of Christ and Francis, unless he ordered us to sin. Therefore, his voice was final, even if we believed that what he asked of us was nonsensical or impossible. Our job was to make the impossible happen. This was the soul of true humility and penance.

JR

 

[bobzills]

I wonder if bishop Williamson’s rejection of women at university has anything to do with Pope Pius XI’s condemnation of co-education in his Divini Illius Magistri:,

Is it for sure that the Vatican has condemned coeducation? I find your assertion on this surprising. If this is true, how do you explain the hundreds of coeducational Catholic schools which operate with the permission of the local bishop? And many of the classes in Catholic schools in sensitive topics are coeducational also. I can’t believe that anyone would advocate that highly conservative Catholic Christendom college be shut down because it is coeducational and therefore condemned by the Vatican?

 

[Digitonomy]

Is it for sure that the Vatican has condemned coeducation? I find your assertion on this surprising.

I found that surprising as well. Here is a link to the encyclical, from 1939:
Divini illius magistri

As D M noted, the relevant paragraph is 68. Despite it being a rather long-winded document, Pius uses only general terms to spell out the extent of what he considers false and harmful coeducation.

 

[bobzills]

I found that surprising as well. Here is a link to the encyclical, from 1939:
Divini illius magistri

As D M noted, the relevant paragraph is 68. Despite it being a rather long-winded document, Pius uses only general terms to spell out the extent of what he considers false and harmful coeducation.

Does the Vatican condemn coeducation or not?
In any case, Bishop Williamson appears to be opposed to enrolling women in universities ?

 

[Neil_Anthony]

I sure hope Williamson doesn’t jump the SSPX ship and join the SSPV and declare himself pope