• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Vatican: bishop's apology on Holocaust not enough

Hatuey

Rule of Two
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2006
Messages
59,298
Reaction score
26,919
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Vatican: bishop's apology on Holocaust not enough

The Vatican said Friday that the apology issued by an ultraconservative bishop who denied the Holocaust was not good enough to admit him into the Catholic Church as a clergyman.

Vatican spokesman Rev. Federico Lombardi said Bishop Richard Williamson's statement "doesn't appear to respect the conditions" the Vatican set out for him.

In an interview broadcast last month on Swedish state TV, Williamson denied 6 million Jews were killed during the Holocaust, saying 200,000 or 300,000 were murdered. He said none were gassed.

Williamson apologized for his remarks on Thursday, saying he would never have made them if he had known "the full harm and hurt to which they would give rise."

The Society of St. Pius X has distanced itself from Williamson's remarks and removed him as the director of its seminary in La Reja, Argentina.

The Switzerland-based society was formed in 1969 by the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, opposed to the liberalizing reforms of the Second Vatican Council, particularly its outreach to Jews.

Brother in Christ be damned. He wasn't born a bishop.
 
Hatuey--why you have such a hard-on for the Vatican?
Bishop Williamson did not stipulate that he is in error in regards to the Holocaust.

What he did instead was apologize for... vocalizing his viewpoint.

The two different actions above are not equivalent.
 
Brother in Christ be damned. He wasn't born a bishop.

And he wasn't ex-communicated for anything having to do with the Holocaust. Of course, that fact doesn't deter those who have an irrational hatred for the Church of Christ as embodied in the Catholic Church.
 
Bishop Williamson did not stipulate that he is in error in regards to the Holocaust.

What he did instead was apologize for... vocalizing his viewpoint.

The two different actions above are not equivalent.

But as he was not ex-communicated for Holocaust denial, it is not relevant to his being re-communicated. It is simply manufactured by certain elements of the Jewish lobby and those who hate the Catholic Church, like Hatuey.
 
Bishop Williamson did not stipulate that he is in error in regards to the Holocaust.

What he did instead was apologize for... vocalizing his viewpoint.

The two different actions above are not equivalent.

Do you have a problem with the Church's actions on this? I recognize, and agree with what you say above. Hatuey is simply trying to find fault with the Church from every angle.
 
Do you have a problem with the Church's actions on this? I recognize, and agree with what you say above. Hatuey is simply trying to find fault with the Church from every angle.
I'm not Hatuey. But from my perspective, Holocaust-revisionism from a Catholic Bishop is not an insignificant 'angle'. I find it shocking and disgusting.
 
I find it shocking and disgusting.

So does the Vatican--That's why they are not letting him act as a bishop. He was "illicitly ordained"--The Catholic Sacrament of ordination is not something that can be "taken back," it marks the soul eternally. The Bishop that ordained Williams was validly ordained--he was ordained in a direct line from the Apostles. However, he went into schism and Williams was ordained when he was acting outside the Church. Still, the ordination is "valid, but not licit." It's like men who decide they don't want to act as a priest anymore don't become "ex-priests," one is a priest forever once ordained as such. They are "laicized." but they are still a priest, just not able to act as such. Likewise, this guy is a "bishop" but not able to act as one.

Did you read the article? It seems pretty clear in the article that the Vatican is not impressed.
 
Last edited:
I'm not Hatuey. But from my perspective, Holocaust-revisionism from a Catholic Bishop is not an insignificant 'angle'. I find it shocking and disgusting.

Felicity has already said most of what I wanted to say.

Tashah, you know very well that I, like most devout Catholics, am strongly pro-Jewish and pro-Israel. I think denial of the Holocaust is disgusting and I similarly praise the Church for its work in saving an estimated 800,000 from the Nazis during World War II.

However, as Felicity said, the sacrament of Holy Orders can NOT be rescinded. Just as the sacraments of Baptism, Confirmation, and Marriage can not be rescinded. These later three are only done ONCE in the lifetime of a Catholic. Holy Orders can be received (like the other three sacraments of Eucharist, Reconcilation, and Last Rites) multiple times. NONE of these sacraments can be cancelled AFTER they have been given. They can only be denied before they are granted.
 
Felicity has already said most of what I wanted to say.

Tashah, you know very well that I, like most devout Catholics, am strongly pro-Jewish and pro-Israel. I think denial of the Holocaust is disgusting and I similarly praise the Church for its work in saving an estimated 800,000 from the Nazis during World War II.

However, as Felicity said, the sacrament of Holy Orders can NOT be rescinded. Just as the sacraments of Baptism, Confirmation, and Marriage can not be rescinded. These later three are only done ONCE in the lifetime of a Catholic. Holy Orders can be received (like the other three sacraments of Eucharist, Reconcilation, and Last Rites) multiple times. NONE of these sacraments can be cancelled AFTER they have been given. They can only be denied before they are granted.
I know your stance on Israel ludahai, and it is greatly appreciated.

I admit that I know very little of Catholic rules and regulations. What I do know, is that I have no wish to see your church tainted by this person.
 
Where is "freedom of expression?"

One has the right to agree or disagree with any historical event as long as the historical event shows lots of failures in order to be proved as accurate without doubts.

It is sad the current and ridiculous tendency that because someone disagrees with the killing of "millions" of Jews as being true must be a reason to be "discriminated".

All this pressure to make believe that such killing of millions of people with use of gas really happened enforces the idea that this event might not be true and there are special interests manipulating the media and the authorities to impose their version as being the only true.

And the lovers of freedom of speech simply say: hell with that!:coffeepap
 
-- as long as the historical event shows lots of failures in order to be proved as accurate without doubts--

What does that even begin to mean?

I'm also interested to see you surface on another thread about a holocaust denier...
 
Moderator's Warning:
Let's get back on topic. This could be a very good discussion.

Thanks for your cooperation.
 
What I do know, is that I have no wish to see your church tainted by this person.
Our Church believes all sinners can be redeemed, and while there is breath, there is hope.
 
I know your stance on Israel ludahai, and it is greatly appreciated.

I admit that I know very little of Catholic rules and regulations. What I do know, is that I have no wish to see your church tainted by this person.

I don't wish it to be tainted by him either, and the response by both the Vatican and the government of Argentina to this point has been both measured and appropriate.

The lifting of ex-communication was to heal a rift of schism which is internal to the Church, and had nothing to do with alleged anti-Semitism or Shoah-denial. However, as Felicity pointed out, he has not been permited to resume duties as a bishop because of this row to this point. This is mostly a non-issue that has been blown out of proportion by people who have an irrational hatred for the Church.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom