There is no conflict. All that molestation stuff is just like the Holocaust in that it never happened!
According the the article linked to in the OP, the Bishop made his statements “near Regensburg” which is a German city. If the interview was conducted in Germany, then that solves your problem.
But, I was curious about this and I was doing some research, and I did find this article:
So, it appears that German courts claim jurisdiction for any Holocaust denial published on the Internet which finds it’s way into Germany. I would assume the same is true regardless of the medium–so my guess is that an interview broadcast over a cable or satellite system would also qualify.
Nah, the RCCC (Roman Catholic Criminal Conspiracy) admits that RCCC priests sexually abused children. The part that they pretend didn’t happen is the involvement of the RCCC hierarchy in covering up those crimes, in pressuring victims and their families to remain silent, and in moving the abusive priests to new parishes where they could take advantage of a whole new group of children.
I don’t think it’s as sweeping a change as you suggest - the European arrest warrant system appears to preserve the double criminality condition for offences other than a particular list of offences, and those that carry a custodial sentence of more than three years:
But I’d be interested to hear from any EU lawyers who might be able to comment.
I asked my Priest about this case. It bothered me very much. He emailed me back that the Bishop is nuts and is part off some of shoot of the Catholic church, Society X, that broke off in the 1970’s. I’m sure he could not be as frank as he wanted with me but he said the Vatican is very political. He said it’s much like our own government here in the US. We cover up and it looks like Rome is going to cover this up for the sake of the Church.
The Bishop is an embarrassment and I think he may have some mental issues. What makes me mad is he did this on purpose to embarrass the Pope right before the peace talks were about to start between the Pope and the Jewish church.
Don’t kill the messenger. I went and found out what I could about this issue and am posting it because someone might want to know.
He doesn’t have to be extradited; the prosecution had asked for a fine, not a custodial sentence. He didn’t attend the proceedings because his order told him not to, per the OP’s link.
Nitpick: it would be more accurate to say that the Episcopalian Church is the equivalent of the Anglican Church in the US.
Anglican clergy have to swear allegiance to the Queen (or whoever the British monarch is at the time), as Supreme Defender of the Church of England. In the US, for obvious reasons, this was not considered kosher following the Revolutionary War, so the Anglican Church reorganized itself in the US as the Episcopalian Church. It’s the Anglican Church in all but name and allegiance.
Nitpick: the term church refers specifically to Christian practice. There is, by definition, no such thing as a Jewish church.
This is not correct. The Queen is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, but not of any of the other churches in the Anglican Communion. The individual national churches in the communion are autonomous. The Queen has no role in the governance of the Anglican Church of Canada.
Sorry, I mixed up my tenses. Non-English Anglican Churches have been independent since 1861. I meant to say Anglican clergy had to swear allegiance to HM at the time of the American Revolution.
I did not know that, I thought the other churches were just autocephalic. Ignorance fought.
Sure, but in terms of the current position of the Anglican Church of Canada and the Episcopalian, I think one can say that either is the equivalent of the other. The historical difference in the origins of the two churches doesn’t have much relevance on a day-to-day basis.
This is a copy of another e-mail I received today that goes more in depth about the Bishop in question. -
The controversy that you identify concerns the status of a group of Catholics, disaffected by the Second Vatican Council, and formally led by the now deceased Archbishop Marcel Levebrve which is called “The Society of St. Pius X.”. The bishop who made the statements about the Holocaust is a member of this group.
The relationship of the Church to this disaffected group is complex, but because of their defiance to papal teaching, the clergy associated with Archbishop Levebrve, and the Archbishop himself were excommunicated decades ago. They were not excommunicated because someone held odd views about Jewish suffering during the Second World War, but because they had defied papal authority and teaching. The excommunication of this particular bishop had nothing to do with his twisted understanding of the Holocaust, but because he was associated with a group that had defied the magisterium of the Church. One can only be excommunicated for their defiance of Church authority in grace matters or for the blatant and intentional rejection of the essential dogmatic content of the Faith, not for opinions about historical events, no matter how problematic these opinions might be.
What Pope Benedict did was remove the excommunication that had been placed on all the clergy associated with this group. This included this strange bishop. The Holy Father’s intention was to move forward in resolving a division in the Church that had happened as a result of the Second Vatican Council. It was not a gesture meant to ratify the historical understandings of this particular bishop, or a statement on the moral character of the bishop or any other member of the Society of Saint Pius X, it was a gesture intended to reconcile a large group of Catholics who were living in alienation from the Church.
I hope these insights help.
Peace be with you,
Father Steve Grunow
I don’t know that it’s a “mental issue” – souinds like he’s a meatspace troll.
Perciful, does your priest know you’re sharing his e-mails with random strangers?
yes, I asked him to answer some questions on the board. The priest is on Utube.
BTW, is a confession confidential on BOTH sides? Are you not allowed to say what you confessed to a priest?
Well, God’s allowed to listen.
On the Sacrament of Confession:
I can tell anyone what I confessed to a priest. It is a priest that is bound to secrecy. What I posted here is not private information.
If you don’t believe me go ask a priest yourself.
Apologies if my question implied I doubt your word. It was just the issue of confidentiality popping up that brought it to mind. Also, it doesn’t seem as if this information was conveyed through a confession anyway.
No problem. I was kind of relieved to find out the truth and wanted others to know it too.