Williamson fined $18,000 over Holocaust remarks [CN-USA]

[pnewton]

Does one go around being an accidental holocaust denier? I have to say that I find that very doubtful, you know, most holocaust deniers I’ve ever come across do it very seriously.

We will never know what is in anyone’s heart. Catholics like to accept the most charitable possibility. In this instance, we do have the evidence of Williamson backing off the position and agreeing to re-examine it. All deserve the benefit of the doubt when they are willing to be open. He may be a day late and a dollar short for the harm he has done, but all deserve forgiveness.

 

[chosen_people]

Not that I would wish this on anyone but for the sake of example imagine a priest who was having an affair with a parishioner. It would be clear that such a person who was relied on to give moral guidance would be deemed to be unfit to be a priest must less a Bishop.

Now Bishop Williamson is an extreme anti-Semite to the point of being a holocaust denier - an offence he has now been convicted of committing. However to many of his supporters here on this thread and in the past., his being a racist anti-Semite not only does not in anyway disqualify him from being a Bishop it is entirely a separate issue. This reflects on how anti-Semitism is perceived in the Catholic Church and by Catholics even after Vatican II. The message here is that hatred of Jews in no way makes you a bad Catholic - that it is not an immoral act - that it does not impugn on his ability to be a moral guide - that it is not connected with his Church office of Bishop. This is compounded by the fact that Bishop Williamson’s attitudes and ideas about Jews were well known.

 

[Aramis]

I would say it can’t disqualify him from being a bishop, but it sure DOES impede his ability to be an ordinary.

Bishop is an ordination, a permanent change to one’s soul. It sets a higher bar to be met, and while he doesn’t meet that bar, we can’t undo what ABp. Marcel Lefebvr did in ordaining him a bishop.

On the other hand, HH Pp. Benedict has made it abundantly clear that Bp. Williamson is unfit to serve in any official capacity as a pastor of souls, especially as an ordinary. Heck, his removal from the SSPX seminary by Bp. Fellay implies much the same.

The functions most associate with being a bishop are those of an Ordinary; only one function of a bishop isn’t that of an ordinary: ordination. Only a bishop can ordain. Only an Ordinary may approve ordination, and only the pope and Eastern Patriarchs can approve episcopal ordinations.

Vote in councils is restricted to bishops who are also ordinaries; it’s neither the bishopric nor the being the ordinary that grants that synodal vote, but the confluence of the two.

 

[JReducation]

Does one go around being an accidental holocaust denier? I have to say that I find that very doubtful, you know, most holocaust deniers I’ve ever come across do it very seriously.

I’m not using the word mistake in that manner. I’m using the word mistake refering to his interview. He should have kept his opinion to himself.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

The issue here is very simple. Bishop Williamson made a mistake. His opinion is not the opinion that the Church holds. As a bishop he is bound by a promise of obedience to follow orders. His denial of the Shoah is not acceptable to the Apostolic See. And yes, the Apsotolic See has the moral authority to demand that any Catholic refrain from representing Catholicism.

In this case, the autority takes on a more serioius note, because we’re talking about a cleric. Clerics, religious sisters and religious brothers are bound by obedience to represent the Church as the Church says we can and should, not as we say that we can and should. Diosobedience is never justifiable,

On a site such as CAF where so many complain about relativism, I find that I do not understand how we cannot see disobedience by a vowed cleric as relativism. … . Bishop Williamson’s statements are in conflict with his pope …

A few comments:

1.) You’ve just accused a Bishop of the sin of disobedience. Please show us what vow of obedience Bishop Williamson broke. Did he ever take a vow saying he will not give his personal opinions on historical matters? If not, he broke no vow. Since you made the accusation, please show us the vow he took saying he would not give his opinions on historical matters.

2.) Please show us the official position on the Church as to how many Jews were killed by Hitler, and the means by which they were killed. I didn’t know the Church had an official position on this. If you think the Church does, please produce the document.

If the Church does not have an official position on the number of Jews killed, and the manner in which they were killed, then you have accused a Bishop of the Church of a sin, where no sin was involved. That itself would be a sin on your part.

You also said he disagrees with the Pope on this issue. Please produce the quote showing the Pope’s position on the number of Jews killed and the manner in which they were killed.

And please don’t simply quote a Bishop, as Bishops today can be quoted saying just about anything. I am looking for an official Church document, to which assent is required, giving the position of the Church on these matters. If you can’t produce it, you owe the Bishop a public apology.

Also, you claim here to be a “cleric” or “religious”. I read through many of your previous posts over the weekend, not only the posts here, but also on the Comcast message board, and the AT&T message board where you used to post.

You give many similar personal stories on the various message boards. In a 2005 post on the AT&T message board, you said you were not a Christian. You later say you recently converted. In some of your earlier posts on this message board you said you only converted 5 years ago, which corresponds pretty close with your posts on the AT&T board.

Now you claim to have converted when you were 18, were previously in the Seminary, and are a lecturer to the “novices”. **On the Comcast message board you claimed that you were a doctor **- “a doctor, educator, and parent” - who often lectured physicians and neurosurgeons.

You’ve gone through quite a transformation on this board alone. From converting 5 years ago, to converting when you were 18. You now claim to be a Franciscan brother, and probably soon a Priest. Heck, if things continue on this pace, you should be the* Pope* by next Christmas.

 

[pnewton]

There is a parallel. Williamson had no problem breaking the rules of the Church and being quiet when silence would have been best*. *Apparently his supporters show a similar trait. Disobedience begats disobedience.

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

The problem is, he presents himself as an authority, just like he did on the other message board. Over their he was a doctor; here he is a former seminarian, a *“Franciscan, Lecturer of Mystical Theology, Formation team, Formation of religious”. *

He posts as an authority on all kinds of theological and spiritual matters without ever providing a quote or source to support his position. Instead, he makes *himself *the authority by pretended experience. You may not have seen examples of that in this section of the message board, but in the Traditional section where theology is discussed, he does it continuously. He often has no idea what he is talking about, but presents his posts as if they are absolutely factual, thereby misleading a lot of people.

And there’s a difference between not giving our real names or personal information, and presenting ourselves as an authority when we’re not.

 

[pnewton]

The problem is, he presents himself as an authority, just like he did on the other message board. Over their he was a doctor; here he is a former seminarian, a *“Franciscan, Lecturer of Mystical Theology, Formation team, Formation of religious”. *

He posts as an authority on all kinds of theological and spiritual matters without ever providing a quote or source to support his position. Instead, he makes *himself *the authority by pretended experience. You may not have seen examples of that in this section of the message board, but in the Traditional section where theology is discussed, he does it continuously. He often has no idea what he is talking about, but presents his posts as if they are absolutely factual, thereby misleading a lot of people.

And there’s a difference between not giving our real names or personal information, and presenting ourselves as an authority when we’re not.

This relates to the thread topic how?

 

[NeelyAnn]

This relates to the thread topic how?

Interesting, pnewton!

First you reply to Ultima Ratio, then when he gives a sensible reply you come back with this is related to the thread how question.

His response to JReducation was directly related to this thread and the Bishop Williamson topic. Then he went on to question JReducations because he portends to be a religious when he states the following:

"On the flip side, as individuals, we clerics and religious do not decide what opinions we can share. That’s decided for us by the Church. We surrender our will, our opinion, our wishes, and our aspirations to the Church when we vow obedience. Otherwise, the vow has no meaning. If I had the authority to make up my own mind about what I can say in public, even if what I say is in conflict with what the Church says or wants me to say, then the vow of obedience is relative."

UR’s question seems to be a very valid one, especially since he seems to have evidence to the contrary.

The comments that followed from you and the other poster may not have been related, but UR’s were related when taken in context of his post.

Now it is my experience that most Catholic messageboards (like Angelqueen, and most likely Fisheaters, CathInfo, Ignis Ardens,The Incorruptibles, etc.) do not allow anyone to use a screen name, or indicate in their posts, that they are a priest, religious, seminarian, etc. without first providing verifiable evidence that it is the truth. It would seem that CAF would also have such a policy. The reason being is the great harm that can be done by those who portend to represent the Church when in fact they do not. It is understandable that they may not use their real name, but they still must prove to the forum management that they are who they claim and then management should verify that info for the safety of all.

Based on the links provided, JReducation maybe fudging on who he really is when he claims to be a religious, theology professor, or ex-seminarian. This needs to be reported and verified. This is a very unfortunate situation. The only question I have is why did no one verify this info from the start?

 

[pnewton]

Interesting, pnewton!

First you reply to Ultima Ratio, then when he gives a sensible reply you come back with this is related to the thread how question.

We will see. Those here capable of both reading and thinking will note that I did at least make an effort to tie back into the topic, you know, obey the rules. It is what I an all with integrity at least try to do here. And this relates directly back to Williamson who has been a disobedient bishop and a violator of German law while he was on German soil. Even though I do not agree with with the law, I uphold that great Catholic TRADITION of rendering unto Caesar what belongs to Caesar.

 

[pnewton]

What a sad and disturbing statement from one who wishes to be a leader in the Catholic Church. He who is desiring to be first may wind up last.