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.
Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
you can de-excommunicate someone? weird!
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
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.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
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.
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
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.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw: The goal of excommunication is always de-excommunication.
You are mistaken; when I excomm someone, my goal is to win the war by making his peasants revolt.
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
How many religions are you an ecclesiastical leader of, KoM? I thought that wasn't your thing.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
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.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
ahem. "our" war games, crusader kings to be precise.
Posted by Starsnuffer (Member # 8116) on :
I find the idea of blayne and KoM having mutual activities somewhat amusing.
Posted by JonHecht (Member # 9712) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
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.
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
Is it just me that thought the title was a set up to a joke?
Posted by Danlo the Wild (Member # 5378) on :
This speaks volumes about the quality of thought in the Catholic corp....church.
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
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.
Posted by Colonel Graff (Member # 11872) on :
Why would he want to de-excommunicate a holocaust denier specifically? This is a very stupid move.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
That would not only be a first, it would be a pleasant surprise.
Posted by Colonel Graff (Member # 11872) on :
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.
Posted by JonHecht (Member # 9712) on :
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.
Posted by Tinros (Member # 8328) on :
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.
Posted by Colonel Graff (Member # 11872) on :
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?
Posted by JonHecht (Member # 9712) on :
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.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by Colonel Graff: Why would he want to de-excommunicate a holocaust denier specifically? This is a very stupid move.
Maybe he REALLY likes apologies...
Posted by Sean Monahan (Member # 9334) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Originally posted by dkw: The goal of excommunication is always de-excommunication.
You are mistaken; when I excomm someone, my goal is to win the war by making his peasants revolt.
I lol'd.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
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).
Posted by Jeorge (Member # 11524) on :
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. Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
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.
Posted by Tinros (Member # 8328) on :
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.
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
I'm only joking. I'm sorry if I offended you Tinros.
Posted by Tinros (Member # 8328) on :
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.
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
Oh, What's Wrong with the World, you're so wacky!
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Foust, is that site serious or a parody site? I honestly can't tell.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
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.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Well, I suppose from a certain right-to-life perspective, Holocaust denial doesn't actually cause death directly, whereas abortion would.
I should point out that legalizing abortion doesn't cause death directly either.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
How is this for a perspective...
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?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
True. Amend my statement to "an abortion." And of course in that case, the equivocation cuts both ways.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
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.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
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.
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
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.
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
Lisa - It's a completely legit, very conservative Catholic site.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
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.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
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.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
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.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
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.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
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.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Does this remind ANYONE else of their DND campaigns?
I'm not encumbered! I SWEAR!
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
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.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
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.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
The Vatican is demanding the he recant his Holocaust denial in order to be fully reinstated.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Cool.
Posted by Xann. (Member # 11482) on :
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.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
He can believe that Obama should do that, but what he can't do is make that a sound move on Obama's part, or give Obama any reason to feel compelled to noodle in Vatican business with such a statement.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xann.: He told me that it does not fall into the "seperation of church and state"
What has that to do with anything?
Posted by Xann. (Member # 11482) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Xann.: He told me that it does not fall into the "seperation of church and state"
What has that to do with anything?
Not sure, I know that this week was my fifth time being told i am not allowed ot switch my history class though.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Ouch.
Although having to deal with a person in authority who you have strong reason to believe is an idiot is a very useful life skill. Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
Thou shalt not bear false witness
i.e. TO LIE IS TOO SIN, lieing is sinning. The Pope said that he is not a heretic, but he is still a lyer. Turns out the Pope chose the proper name, Benedict.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Patron saint of speliologists, spelunkers, and coppersmiths?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:i.e. TO LIE IS TOO SIN, lieing is sinning. The Pope said that he is not a heretic, but he is still a lyer.
"Lying" and "liar." FYI.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
Sort of like "frying" and "friar".
Posted by Sean Monahan (Member # 9334) on :
It's not a lie if you believe it.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
That doesn't make him a liar. It may (and I believe it does) make him a moron, and unfit to be a representative of the church though.
I think your teachers point was that there was no legal reason why Obama couldn't make such a statement, and he is correct.
That doesn't mean that making a comment like that would be a good idea, even if everything said in it was completely true.
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)