B
bobzills
Guest
There is a problem because many Traditional Catholics have a politically incorrect view of Vatican II.I sure hope Williamson doesn’t jump the SSPX ship and join the SSPV and declare himself pope
Vatican orders bishop who denied Holocaust to recant if he is to take office as a prelate
- Status
D
D_M
Guest
Hi Bobzills,
I think the answer to your question lies in better understanding how tradition works.
Papal encyclicals are written by the supreme head of the church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and while they are infallible in spirit, they are not infallible in terms of the literal words written on the page. The same is true of the Second Vatican Council for that matter, as there was not a single infallible decree or definition that came out of the council, although in its spirit (as it is the Holy Spirit who guides ecumenical councils) the council is infallible.
Pope Pius XI said he condemned coeducation, and he claims that ‘levelling equality’ of the sexes should not exist in education. While Pius might have literally written that the method of coeducation was evil ( a product of denial of original sin), the spirit of what he meant, as Digitonomy referred to, was a rejection of the kind of levelling equality that sees the sexes as interchangeable.
I think a person could interpret this to mean that coeducation is not really what was condemned therefore (even if Pius technically wrote that), but rather what is being condemned is the levelling equality, and he gives one example in terms of gymnastics. I don’t know what specifically we could give for other examples, although I wonder if coed housing would be included.
This isn’t really so different, in one sense, from the theological position that came from Pope John Paul II’s theology of the body that saw the sexes as having different roles ordained by God, although I’m not aware of him ever condemning coeducation
Is it a legitimate question to ask if catholic universities and institutions are following this teaching. We could pray for guidance concerning that too.
I mentioned the document, because I find that the SSPX tends to be very knoweldgable in the tradition of church teaching, although on many occassions I’ve found they will misinterpret the teaching or make it look like it means something other than what it does.
God Bless,
B
bobzills
Guest
Ok. It’s a lot clearer now. “Pope Pius XI said he condemned coeducation…” and “I think a person could interpret this to mean that coeducation is not really what was condemned…”
In any case, it appears that Bishop Williams is not in favor of women attending a university, which is not in accord with mainstream Catholic practice where women are seen as both students and professors in Catholic universities.
B
bobzills
Guest
At any rate, the main question is whether or not Bishop Williamson will reconsider his views on the existence of gas chambers. There have been several books written on this. For example, according to: AUSCHWITZ:
Technique and operation of the gas chambers
Jean-Claude Pressac
holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/pressac/technique-and-operation/pressac0429.shtml
“
This inventory indicates that the equipment installed for “Leichenkeller 1 / Corpse cellar [morgue] 1” included:
• “1 gasdichte Tür / 1 gas-tight door,” AND
• “14 Brausen / 14 showers”, “
“This inventory is absolute and irrefutable proof of the existence of a gas chamber fitted with dummy showers in Krematorium III.
These dummy showers were not placed there by chance, or for purposes of decoration, but with a very precise purpose: to mislead the people entering Leichenkeller 1 / gas chamber l, a misrepresentation implying the deliberate intention to cause them to die by inhaling a deadly gas.”
Technique and operation of the gas chambers
Jean-Claude Pressac
holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/pressac/technique-and-operation/pressac0429.shtml
“
This inventory indicates that the equipment installed for “Leichenkeller 1 / Corpse cellar [morgue] 1” included:
• “1 gasdichte Tür / 1 gas-tight door,” AND
• “14 Brausen / 14 showers”, “
“This inventory is absolute and irrefutable proof of the existence of a gas chamber fitted with dummy showers in Krematorium III.
These dummy showers were not placed there by chance, or for purposes of decoration, but with a very precise purpose: to mislead the people entering Leichenkeller 1 / gas chamber l, a misrepresentation implying the deliberate intention to cause them to die by inhaling a deadly gas.”
D
D_M
Guest
Hi,
I think the historical argument that Williamson gave is not too difficult to refute either.
The gas used at the death camps was a cyanide-based insecticide called ‘Zyklon B’. It was invented in Weimar Germany and was used in industries and other functions both in and outside Germany for several years before the second world war broke out. Zyklon B, like other insecticides of that time or even today, is dangerous or even lethal to humans if they are given too much exposure and for that reason if a person wanted to fumigate a building, a freight car, a ship, or whatever else, with the chemical, you would take everyone outside first before you filled it up with the chemical.
I’m not an expert on gas chambers, but I’m assuming if this agent could be used effectively in industrial environments for a few decades, which obviously were not even built to be gas chambers in the way that the chambers at Aushwitz were, without anyone dying in the process, than surely the Nazis would not have had difficulty in operating gas chambers safely and effectively without all those problems that Bishop Williamson and the revisionists have claimed refutes their existence.
God Bless,
I think the historical argument that Williamson gave is not too difficult to refute either.
The gas used at the death camps was a cyanide-based insecticide called ‘Zyklon B’. It was invented in Weimar Germany and was used in industries and other functions both in and outside Germany for several years before the second world war broke out. Zyklon B, like other insecticides of that time or even today, is dangerous or even lethal to humans if they are given too much exposure and for that reason if a person wanted to fumigate a building, a freight car, a ship, or whatever else, with the chemical, you would take everyone outside first before you filled it up with the chemical.
I’m not an expert on gas chambers, but I’m assuming if this agent could be used effectively in industrial environments for a few decades, which obviously were not even built to be gas chambers in the way that the chambers at Aushwitz were, without anyone dying in the process, than surely the Nazis would not have had difficulty in operating gas chambers safely and effectively without all those problems that Bishop Williamson and the revisionists have claimed refutes their existence.
God Bless,
J
JReducation
Guest
The Church does not condemn co-education. At the time that Pope Pius XI wrote this encyclical the threat to the family was what concerned him the most. It was the beginning of the brith control movement, women’s suffrage in many countries, women in politics in other countries, career women, etc. In other words, families were in danger of losing their stability in the name of education and the equalizing of the genders. He was speaking to this broader issue.
This issue is still with us. In her decree on Christian education the Council did not even address co-education. In his talk to religious in New York, Pope Benedict praised the many sisters and brothers who have educated children in the USA. Most of these schools are co-educational.
All of the Pontifical Universities around the world offer co-education, including in theology, philosophy, Canon Law, scripture, ministry, and catechesis. This includes the big three in Rome: Gregorian, Angelicum and North American College. On the Vatican’s staff there are women theologians, canon lawyers, exegetes, church historians and justices in the apostolic tribunal educated at Pontifical Universities. The first woman to attend an Ecumenical Council was Emanuela de Nuncio, SFO. She sat on the commision that reviewed the document on religious life, Perfectae Caritatis. Sister Emanuela was educated in Canon Law at the Gregorian University and after Vatican II she became the first female Superior General of the Secular Franciscan Order in 750 years.
If the Church had an issue with co-education, it would certainly have an issue with accrediting the degrees that these women receive at our most prestigious universities.
I’m not sure if Bishop Williamson is on the same page as Pius XI on protecting the genders and the family or if he is just being a male chauvenist. I do not know the man. Being a well educated man, I hope that he was speaking about the larger picture, not about the classroom per se.
Fraternally,
JR
B
bobzills
Guest
G
goofyjim
Guest
I know I am joining late but the holocaust happened. If this one bishop wants to deny that he should leave the Church or recant and request reconciliation. We know the holocaust happened by the very witnesses who thanked Pius XII and the Catholic Church for their help during those troubling times. This just goes to show that we are being attacked by both sides now. Those who admit the holocaust happened but we did nothing and those who deny the holocaust-neither side is correct and both should come to terms with true history.
N
Neil_Anthony
Guest
I agree with you. Unfortunately Pope Pius XII is never going to get canonized after this. Might as well just give up the cause for his canonization. Thanks, suspended-Archbishop Williamson.
S
Steeltemplar
Guest
The Pope is acting as he should act - he is doing what is right, seeking the good of souls, and specifically trying to rehabilitate Williamson. Anyone who has ever thought to accuse the Pope of being “political”, please remember this whole incident, as it shows that his values are concerned with goodness and not the appearance of goodness.
What is better? For Williamson to remain excommunicated so that people feel good about it, but that his soul be lost? Or for the Pope’s kindness to help him to recant his wrongful beliefs and find the righteous path?
It is typical of the secular world to be so outraged by a real act of mercy by the Pope. At the least, the Pope’s critics are showing a great deal of ignorance as to what excommunication is for and what lifting it means.
Certainly, excommunication does not mean “we agree with everything this guy says”.
What is better? For Williamson to remain excommunicated so that people feel good about it, but that his soul be lost? Or for the Pope’s kindness to help him to recant his wrongful beliefs and find the righteous path?
It is typical of the secular world to be so outraged by a real act of mercy by the Pope. At the least, the Pope’s critics are showing a great deal of ignorance as to what excommunication is for and what lifting it means.
Certainly, excommunication does not mean “we agree with everything this guy says”.
L
luminoushope
Guest
Fox News quoted Bishop Williamson as saying something like “The Jews invented the Holocaust so they could force all the rest of us to prostrate ourselves before them.” This goes beyond “holocaust denial.” That said, what I didn’t like about this situation was the appearance that the German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, gave orders to the Pope that he obeyed. I doubt this is really true, but the news media made it appear so.
Holocaust denial is a crime in Germany. Absurd! When you punish people for having an opinion it only makes the opinion, and beyond it, more attractive. I prefer free speech, threatened though it is. Whatever happened to “I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”–a quaint old American saying.
However, the Catholic Church is not a civil entity, and as a brand new Catholic-to-be I agree with and support the Pope both in his lifting of the excommunication and his disciplining of Bishop Williamson, which he could not do if Bishop Williamson remained “outside.”
G
gilliam
Guest
I don’t think he said that. Gotta link?
J
JReducation
Guest
There are severa layers of issues here.
Like Francis, there are many such positions regarding obedience in the Tradition of the Church, beginning with St. Benedict’s rule and teachings, which are the best writings on the subject of obedience.
Whether the laity agrees with the bishop or the Pope, the bottom line is that no Catholic can justifiably disagree with the bishop’s obligation to obey, since all bishops make a vow of obedience. The vow not only includes the Magisterium, but also specific persons. This is what lay people often do not know about puublic vows of obedience. They are worded so that one is bound to obey God, Church and very specific individuals and they are interpreted by those individuals whom one is to obey. That’s included in the vow itself. One promises to obey one’s superior and the interpretation that one’s superior should choose to apply to his wishes and to what he considers obedience. Religious obedience is not like obeying mom and dad. It’s not that black and white.
Fraternally,
JR
- Germany is a sovereign nation. Whether we agree with their law or not, it is not a law that causes moral harm to its citizens or to the world. There is no justifiable reason for the bishop to violate their law.
- Lifting the excommunication is not going to save the bishop’s soul. Salvation has to be worked out by the individual who cooperates with grace. It is in the bishop’s hands.
- Lifting the excommunication is not an endorsement of the bishop’s statements regarding the Shoah.
- The Holy Father and Bishop Fellay have ordered the bishop to distance himself from this position. Being a religious, I know the difficulty that obedience to this kind of order presents. It requires that you put aside your personal opinion and accept the opinion of your superior. To those of us who are vowed to obedience, this is often the most difficult part of religious life; but it is what we have chosen. Like Paul, we have chosen to submit to the voice of authority in all things but sin. The Holy Father is not asking the bishop to sin. He is asking him to change an opinion or keep silent. In this sense, Evengelical obedience is contra natura or against nature. It is not in our human nature to give up our own thoughts and opinions that easily. Yet, this is what we are called to do for the sake of the Kingdom. This is what Jesus prayed for in the Garden, to do the Will of his Father.
- There is another layer. The bishop is now under the direct authority of the Congregation for Bishops. He not only has to respond to the Holy Father, but also to the Congregation. He’s going to have many people ordering him about. He’ll either have to obey or he may find himself in the same situation that he was in before the lifting of the excommunication. One is not going to be excommunicated for not believing in the holocaust, but one can certainly be suspended indefinitely for not obeying one’s religious superiors, whomever they are. The idea that only disobedience to the Pope is a valid reason for a canonical censure or penalty is not true at all. Any person in a vow of obedience must surrender his will to legitimate authorities above him, even state authorities. The key word being legitimate. The Congregation for Bishopps is a legitimate authority, Ecclesia Dei Commision is a legitimate authority, a synod of bishops is a legitimate authority and when you’re in a nation, its government is a legitimate authority.
Like Francis, there are many such positions regarding obedience in the Tradition of the Church, beginning with St. Benedict’s rule and teachings, which are the best writings on the subject of obedience.
Whether the laity agrees with the bishop or the Pope, the bottom line is that no Catholic can justifiably disagree with the bishop’s obligation to obey, since all bishops make a vow of obedience. The vow not only includes the Magisterium, but also specific persons. This is what lay people often do not know about puublic vows of obedience. They are worded so that one is bound to obey God, Church and very specific individuals and they are interpreted by those individuals whom one is to obey. That’s included in the vow itself. One promises to obey one’s superior and the interpretation that one’s superior should choose to apply to his wishes and to what he considers obedience. Religious obedience is not like obeying mom and dad. It’s not that black and white.
Fraternally,
JR
M
mlchance
Guest
Liking chocolate better than vanilla is an opinion. Thinking the Holocaust didn’t happen isn’t an opinion. It is an error at best, a deliberate falsehood at worst. Either way, it is an affront to the truth, and is not excusable by tossing out the word “opinion” along with jingoistic slogans about defending free speech. The right to freedom of speech presupposes the responsibility to be truthful.
– Mark L. Chance.
L
luminoushope
Guest
I’m sorry you feel the need to be so unkind and patronizing. I will post no longer on this thread; perhaps on this site. By the way, it might interest you to know that my family background is 100% Jewish.
L
luminoushope
Guest
There are severa layers of issues here.
.
- Germany is a sovereign nation. Whether we agree with their law or not, it is not a law that causes moral harm to its citizens or to the world. There is no justifiable reason for the bishop to violate their law.
Fratk ernally,
JR
The issue here is not the sovereignty of Germany. Bishop Williamson is not a German national, nor were his statements made in Germany. The issue is that the German head of state took advantage of the Pope being German, to lean on him and garner photo-ops and column inches for herself.
C
CTA1967
Guest
To be quite honest, if you were that offended by Mark’s post, there aren’t many other forums you would enjoy.
L
luminoushope
Guest
No, I’m sorry to say I don’t. This came from the line of news reports that runs at the bottom of the screen on Fox News. However, I’ve found their reporting fairly reliable, and don’t think they would have run this without checking it.
P.S. to Mark Chance: I know the Holocaust happened. I’m not an antisemitic Jew, either. I refused to go see “The Passion” because I knew what Mel Gibson was about. However, I don’t think it’s “jingoistic” to say that free speech works better than censorship.
L
luminoushope
Guest
Thanks for the advice. I have been enjoying another thread, of a more experiential nature. But being new to cyberspace in general, and not liking the heat, maybe it’s time to get out of the kitchen.
A
adamsapple
Guest
JR, thank you so much for your detailed description of how the Church views obedience and authority. I had to read it twice to absorb what you were saying.There are severa layers of issues here.
Our holy father Francis always wrote and taught that one may never disobey any superior, even when that superior is wrong, unless one is to sin against God. Other than that, one should rest assured of God’s mercy. Even when the superior is wrong or one believes the superior to be wrong, God in his mercy will pour forth his grace upon the obedient disciple and the authority in error will have to answer for his error and that which he causes for others.
- Germany is a sovereign nation. Whether we agree with their law or not, it is not a law that causes moral harm to its citizens or to the world. There is no justifiable reason for the bishop to violate their law.
- Lifting the excommunication is not going to save the bishop’s soul. Salvation has to be worked out by the individual who cooperates with grace. It is in the bishop’s hands.
- Lifting the excommunication is not an endorsement of the bishop’s statements regarding the Shoah.
- The Holy Father and Bishop Fellay have ordered the bishop to distance himself from this position. Being a religious, I know the difficulty that obedience to this kind of order presents. It requires that you put aside your personal opinion and accept the opinion of your superior. To those of us who are vowed to obedience, this is often the most difficult part of religious life; but it is what we have chosen. Like Paul, we have chosen to submit to the voice of authority in all things but sin. The Holy Father is not asking the bishop to sin. He is asking him to change an opinion or keep silent. In this sense, Evengelical obedience is contra natura or against nature. It is not in our human nature to give up our own thoughts and opinions that easily. Yet, this is what we are called to do for the sake of the Kingdom. This is what Jesus prayed for in the Garden, to do the Will of his Father.
- There is another layer. The bishop is now under the direct authority of the Congregation for Bishops. He not only has to respond to the Holy Father, but also to the Congregation. He’s going to have many people ordering him about. He’ll either have to obey or he may find himself in the same situation that he was in before the lifting of the excommunication. One is not going to be excommunicated for not believing in the holocaust, but one can certainly be suspended indefinitely for not obeying one’s religious superiors, whomever they are. The idea that only disobedience to the Pope is a valid reason for a canonical censure or penalty is not true at all. Any person in a vow of obedience must surrender his will to legitimate authorities above him, even state authorities. The key word being legitimate. The Congregation for Bishopps is a legitimate authority, Ecclesia Dei Commision is a legitimate authority, a synod of bishops is a legitimate authority and when you’re in a nation, its government is a legitimate authority.
Like Francis, there are many such positions regarding obedience in the Tradition of the Church, beginning with St. Benedict’s rule and teachings, which are the best writings on the subject of obedience.
Whether the laity agrees with the bishop or the Pope, the bottom line is that no Catholic can justifiably disagree with the bishop’s obligation to obey, since all bishops make a vow of obedience. The vow not only includes the Magisterium, but also specific persons. This is what lay people often do not know about puublic vows of obedience. They are worded so that one is bound to obey God, Church and very specific individuals and they are interpreted by those individuals whom one is to obey. That’s included in the vow itself. One promises to obey one’s superior and the interpretation that one’s superior should choose to apply to his wishes and to what he considers obedience. Religious obedience is not like obeying mom and dad. It’s not that black and white.
Fraternally,
JR
I have been deeply troubled by Williamson’s position on the Holocaust. We all know that he is not alone in his opinion of history, to include his anti-semitic views.
That said, you made it very clear in your post that a religious is required to obey and submit to their superiors, regardless of personal views. So the question here is not Williamson’s opinion but his reluctance to submit to his vow of obedience.
My question to you is this: is Williamson required to do objective research, to examine the evidence, to read the Nuremberg Trials, to read the interviews of survivors, to examine the population archives in Berlin, etc. to come to the truth?
Obedience to one’s vows is one thing. But harboring lies and sins in one’s soul is something else. Does a man like Williamson really belong to an institution like the Church which is so focused on the truth?
Thank you again for your detailed explanation.
- Status