And the article is actually fairly skimpy on the foulness of Williamson. here is a lovely newsletter from the man. McVeigh wasn't responsible for the Oklahoma City bombing, and Israel and the US were responsible for 9/11.
And in this one, he says: "God puts in men's hands the 'Protocols of the Sages of Sion' and the 'Rakovsky Interview', if men want to know the truth, but few do."
This is a rundown of Williamson's demented antisemitism and conspiracy theory madness. The Catholic Church should be ashamed of what the Pope has done in de-excommunicating this person.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Fair's fair, he wasn't excommunicated for being a deluded fool, he was excommunicated for not following orders. For which he is now apparently apologising, which is the usual procedure for being de-excommed. Being a Holocaust denier is not a sin in the Catholic church, or any other church for that matter. If church membership required following the best evidence available, there would not be many theist organisations left.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The goal of excommunication is always de-excommunication.
I agree that the guy's views on the holocaust are an embarrassment, but since they weren't the reason he was excommunicated I don't see why they should have anything to do with his restored communion.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Church has held almost since the very beginning that the personal detestability of any given priest doesn't invalidate his ordination. I'm fairly sure Pope Benedict wishes this guy wasn't such an embarrassment of a priest, but he can't keep the SSPX excommunicated over it. As much as people seem happy that the SSPX schism is coming to an end, there's a lot of foot-shuffling and embarrassed muttering that this guy comes with.
Posts: 2849 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
How many religions are you an ecclesiastical leader of, KoM? I thought that wasn't your thing.
Posts: 4089 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sarcasticmuppet: How many religions are you an ecclesiastical leader of, KoM? I thought that wasn't your thing.
It sounds like one of his War games to me.
For me it brings to mind Gregory VII or some other such pope. Edit: Or perhaps Boniface VIII would be better. I haven't studied papal history in a while and, even when I did, I always mixed the names up.
Posts: 2705 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Good grief, I've never had anything against you, Thor, but if you have no idea what this is about, just keep quiet or something.
Posts: 2849 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why would he want to de-excommunicate a holocaust denier specifically? This is a very stupid move.
Posts: 50 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
How would it be a pleasant surprise? I think it's disheartening that someone who preaches for compassion like the pope would open someone who denies the holocaust into their community.
Posts: 50 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Colonel Graff: Why would he want to de-excommunicate a holocaust denier specifically? This is a very stupid move.
If anything, I would think that it's a very respectable move. He cares more for what is just by the laws of the church (what he views as just, regardless of whether or not they are from others standards), and doesn't bend in response public disapproval of unrelated activities. Quite virtuous, imo.
Edit: We laud people standing up for freedom of speech... unless we disagree with them.
Posts: 2705 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Colonel Graff, part of being compassionate is hearing the case of someone who wants to be reconciled with the Church. If he has repented of what got him excommunicated in the first place(he has), and nothing else he insists on doing is an excommunicable offense(it isn't), then he is let back into full communion with the Church. People are going to be offended either way. The Pope is doing what's right by the laws of the Church, not making decisions based on public reaction. Truth is not decided by a majority vote, as they say.*
*Note: I'm not agreeing with this guy's views on the Holocaust in any way. I think it was an atrocious thing, and reparations should be made, where possible, to the Jewish community, and those involved should be punished. I'm just stating that his beliefs on the matter are not grounds for excommunication, by Canon law.
Posts: 1591 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, but what if he keeps on going on and brainwashing people in his church to think that the holocaust didn't happen? What if he goes back to his old ways? Holocaust deniers have this grudge against Israel for some reason that doesn't seem to ever go away. So who's to say that he'll change his ways?
Posts: 50 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Where did you get that he's "brainwashing people to think the holocaust didn't happen."
What he said is that the Nazis killed the Jews in concentration camps, but there were no gas chambers. Not to mention that doesn't mean that he was spreading his views at mass. Not to mention that even if he did, that's irrelevant.
Posts: 2705 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Phanto: Is it just me that thought the title was a set up to a joke?
The Pope, two Jews, a secret Muslim, and a holocaust denier walk into a bar...
The barman says, "we don't serve your kind here..."
A holy war rages for a thousand years.
HAHAHA.
(Edit: Or alternatively, the secret Muslim blows up the bar, the two Jews suffer, the Pope apologizes for the whole thing, and the other guy, well, he denies the whole thing ever happened).
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, there is some interesting discussion going on here, but I have to say...
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: (Edit: Or alternatively, the secret Muslim blows up the bar, the two Jews suffer, the Pope apologizes for the whole thing, and the other guy, well, he denies the whole thing ever happened).
That was the best part of the entire thread. Posts: 324 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Colonel Graff: Okay, but what if he keeps on going on and brainwashing people in his church to think that the holocaust didn't happen? What if he goes back to his old ways?
Ok, what if he does? Would that make him a sinner in the eyes of the church? Answer: It would not. Again, he was not excommed for being a Holocaust denier, he was excommed for disobeying the Pope's orders on who could be made a bishop. In any case, it seems to me that the man is actually admirably suited to being a Catholic saint, having convincingly demonstrated his ability to believe silly things in the face of huge evidence to the contrary. His next move should be to preach the gospel of denial among the heathens of Hollywood; surely he can find a martyr's death there.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
T:man, Pope Benedict XVI was drafted into the army in Nazi Germany, after having been forced into the Hitler Youth, and ended up deserting the army and running away to be a priest. If he was a "nazi," it was by force, because he happened to live in Germany. Get your facts straight, please.
Posts: 1591 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maybe make it more obvious that you're joking, then. It's hard to read that sort of thing online- I'm not offended, per se, it just bugs me because I've heard that accusation as serious multiple times.
Posts: 1591 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I suppose from a certain right-to-life perspective, Holocaust denial doesn't actually cause death directly, whereas abortion would.
Of course, holocaust denial is just a symptom of a disease that does cause much death and destruction, so wrap your mind around that.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
I always thought that Abortion was a sin because in the eyes of the church, and many others, it broke the commandment--"Thou Shall Not Murder".
What this priest does is just a line or two down from that commandment--"Thou Shall Not Bear False Witness".
His only excuse for committing this sin is that he believes what he says to be true. Yet for him to believe it he must willfully ignore the evidence presented to him. He denies God's creation -- reality -- in favor of a simpler, easier reality that fits his limited point of view.
Doesn't that behavior border on the heretical?
Is that behavior worth some ecclesiastical condemnation?
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
True. Amend my statement to "an abortion." And of course in that case, the equivocation cuts both ways.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Catholic Church does not so much excommunicate people for being sinners - we wouldn't have anyone left. Nor does that Catholic Church excommunicate people for being stupid or foolish - ditto. Excommunication tends to be for acts of willful, public, persistant defiance of Church teaching.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
My catholic theology teachers seemed to be under the impression that people can be "excommunicated" in a kind of "don't ask don't tell" sense. If you do certain things as a Catholic, you are "excommunicated" even if no one knows... including yourself. I found that interesting because I always wondered how many Catholics were "excommunicated" and didn't even know, and thought it was probably a high percentage.
Don't tell me my theology teachers were wrong, or whatever- I don't really care. It's all superstitious nonsense to me. For others, I'm sure it's just fine.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
What I've been hearing is that the Church's official stance on the Holocaust and antisemitism in general is definitive - it's unacceptable. There's still a big chance Williams will be censured (or even re-excommunicated) once he's back in communion. As it stands now, the Pope can't punish someone who's not technically part of the Church. I wish I could find the article about this that I was reading yesterday, but it seems to be gone.
Posts: 2849 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
So who owns "bible.com" or whatever the domain may be. I clicked on that once out of sheer curiosity, and the first thing I read on it had to do with AIDS being God's natural answer to homosexuality.
But then, my Catholic school textbook praised the work of scientists studying the dead sea scrolls for giving evidence of the Bible's veracity, and claimed that Jesus' geographically ambitious itinerary was easy for him because he was capable of walking 40 miles in a day, because people were "really good walkers" back then.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
40 miles a day is hardly outside the realm of human possibility. Large armies have been known to do 30, and that's with supply wagons and guns and stuff.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
A brisk walking pace would require 12 hours a day of traveling to reach 40 miles, and that would be if there were no rests at all. I find it unlikely.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: A brisk walking pace would require 12 hours a day of traveling to reach 40 miles, and that would be if there were no rests at all. I find it unlikely.
Bah. I've walked 30 miles in a day, my husband has done 50 on numerous occasions. They are long days and we were walking at a brisk pace but we were never running. I can walk comfortably at 3 miles per hour over rough terrain as long as we aren't talking about really steep climbs and I'm not carrying more than about 20 pounds. In 12 hours I can easily walk 30 miles with time for breaks. My husband can walk comfortable at 4 miles an hour. I have friends who are trail runners and its not uncommon for them to do 60+ miles in a day.
This isn't at all unlikely unless they are claiming he walked 40 miles everyday.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
What she said. 40 miles in a day is within reach even for modern suburbanite car people, if they exert themselves and are prepared to be sore the next day. Men in their twenties who have never seen a car in their lives, and who are by all accounts traveling light, can do it repeatedly every day for a week, easily. There is nothing very unlikely about walking for 12 hours in a day; the working day used to be 14 hours long, and that's for boring, repetitive factory work in a noisy environment.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've managed 40m/day in southern utah, though that's definitely not 'as the crow flies.' And if you could pull it off in the canyonlands, it's not hard to anticipate its possibility in or around the fertile crescent.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The question then would be *why*. This particular rationale was given to explain why Jesus could possibly appear in so many different places, seemingly at the same time. I believe also that this particular book stretched the upper limit of a day's walk into 60 miles to allow for some things. I don't know- I'm not a biblical scholar, so I can't say exactly the distances or the claims made.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So today in my history class my teacher said that Obama should make an official statement to the Pope with his disapproval of the Holocaust Denier, because Obama beilives in the "moral high ground."
I argued to him that Obama has no reason to, and that it would be best to keep out of affairs of the church.
He told me that it does not fall into the "seperation of church and state" and that i was wrong. Other than my distaste for his telling people thier opinion is wrong, what do you think.
Posts: 549 | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
