Thank you for the answer Sarahfeena.
You are welcome! I hope it helps. 
It did.
Update. Williamson is in no hurry to recant but leaves the possibility open that he will at some future time.
Meanwhile the Pope’s demand has satisfied many of his critics, even though all it means is that Williamson cannot progress to the next step of acting as a Bishop within the Church unless he does. The broader discussion of what this does or does not foretell in terms of parsing Vatican 2 rightward is absent in most media coverage.
I am really quite surprised his comments about women have not received more press than they have. I guess the Pope does want to take the Catholic world back 1000 years.
http://www.sspx.ca/Documents/Bishop-Williamson/September1-2001.htm
Someone who does not recognize state religious coercion as evil in itself, but merely accepts that he can’t have it (for now) is not to be trusted with a full place at the table, any more than a kleptomaniac who restrains himself out of fear (for now) is to be trusted with your bankroll.
Williamson, you mean. There’s no evidence the pope shares his views.
So much for this healing the schism, I guess.
Gah, it’s like bad song lyrics.
Maybe Williamson can make amends to female Catholics through his own recording of the Dwight Twilley song Girls:
Hint: the evidence is not to be found in your dog-eared copy of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
Auschwitz-Birkenau, the “Reinhardt Aktion” camps – the whole of the Holocaust – were all “internal governance matters”, too!
Just because something is “an internal governance matter” doesn’t make it any less despicable. Pedantic arguments in academic, doctrinal defense of what in the real world genuinely amounts to official reconciliation with vociferous, boastful, blatant Holocaust deniers from the very pinnacle of the Roman Catholic hierarchy are utterly without moral integrity and honesty. They are facile to say the least.
It disgusts most people simply because it is, in fact, thoroughly disgusting. No scholarly recitation of official Catholic doctrine or punctilious academic defenses such as: “To deny the Holocaust is not a heresy even though it is a lie,…The excommunication can be lifted because he Williamson is not a heretic, but he remains a liar” can ever remove the rancid stink of this morally indefensible decision, despicably brought to us by former Hitler Youth, Pope Benedict XVI.
See my post above.
As simple as that, huh? There’s no room for morality in Catholicism? Get in the way of our goal and you’re dead or as good as?
Ah, certainty: The greatest enemy of truth.
Well, my Catholic teacher of Church Dogma and also Church History at the Catholic High School I attended would certainly agree with you on that (much to our horror). He was a scrupulously honest man who refused to pull any punches in regard to revealing the unspeakable evil of what happens when the Church takes that view.
The view you espoused is certainly very popular with anti-Semites, anyway. Roman Catholic or otherwise.
They appear to also be figments of your imagination.
Of the four bishops whose excommunication was lifted, only one has denied the event of the Holocaust. His denial was first made public in a televiion interview in Sweden the week that the long-negotiated lifting was announced.
His comments were immediately condemned by his own superior in the organization when they were noted in France.
His comments were immediately condemned by the pope when they became public.
His own organization has dismissed him from his position as rector of a seminary when his comments were aired.
The Vatican also announced that if Williamson persisted in his views, his reconciliation with the church would go no further than it already has.
When Williamson defended his comments, the Vatican upped the ante by declaring more strongly that his position was not defensible and demanding that he recant them.
The wiki page on him shows he has been a known Holocaust denier for decades.
Many of the footnoted links go to now ‘unavailable’ SPXX web pages.
He also believes the US Govt was behind 9/11 and has a long history of good old fashioned Jew hating.
None of this was a secret except to you and Ratso.
Articles from 1989 are in the footnotes.
Yes, but so what? Nobody’s saying he’s a nice guy or that he’s not nutso. But none of that stuff…the anti-semitism, denying the holocaust, believing 9/11 is a conspiracy, is grounds for excommunication.
Seems like we need a recap:
The schism was formed over the fact that the SPXX boys objected to Vatican 2, both in its liturgical changes and more so in its call to treat other religions (at least the other Abrahamic religions) as something other than the enemy. They did not like the idea that the use of force to enforce the acceptance of the Church’s truth statements was officially now a Not Good Thing. The line to excommunication was crossed when they were elevated to Bishops “illegally.” They are still Bishops; that act remains undone. The grounds for excommunication still exist as much as they ever did.
Again a major, perhaps the major cause for the schism was regarding how the Church interfaced with other faiths including Judaism.
The SPXX group have not publicly done anything different since excommunication other than to state that the excommunication is painful.
Williamson’s views are well known.
The Pope has rehabilitated them anyway. They cannot yet function as Bishops but they are again in communion with the Church. This in the service of healing the schism: undo the excommunication without any public show of remorse for actions which remain done and underlieing antipathies to Vatican 2 that are apparently still held - even to the point of one member of the group continuing to actively engage in Holocaust denial.
There is speculation that the Pope must have obtained assurances that they will negotiate on the interpretation of Vatican 2. Or else why rehabilitate now when they have not done anything to demonstrate that the conditions or beliefs that led to their still done act have changed? Of course the converse is that the Pope must have agreed to revisit how to interpret Vatican 2 as well.
The Pope’s Cardinal in charge of Jewish relations was not consulted.
So the Pope has clearly signaled that there will be some movement regarding how the Church and the SPXX group each view Vatican 2 and clearly holding explicitly anti-Semitic beliefs is not a deal breaker in that negotiation. Ecumenism and tolerance as a key part of Vatican 2 is clearly signaled as passe.
The goal was to heal the schism by basically telling the SPXX group that they would be back in communion with the Church without any change on their part. The message has been sent to all who care that Vatican 2’s call for better relations with Jews and Muslims is something that a Pope may make nice statements about but that are not really so important. The climate for virulent anti-Semitism and Islamophobia is encouraged. The Pope has responded to the firestorm of concerns resulting from this action, including perhaps most effectively from Angela Merkel, by reassuring the public that he does not personally hold those beliefs and by demanding that Williamson recant else not progress to being able to function as a Bishop (the elevation to which was the cause of the excommunication in the first place). Williamson has responded that he is no hurry to comply with that demand. And judging from the response of some Bishops and Cardinals (see upthread) the schism doesn’t appear too healed as a result either.
Holocaust denial is not the most critical issue here. It merely potently illustrates the facts that exist. The Church’s positions on tolerance, in place since Vatican 2, are open for compromise. How far the compromise will go is unknown.
:rolleyes: Tepid relations =/= pogroms. Besides it’s Jews in this case making all the threats to good relations.
You are essentially saying that Catholics should subordinate their beliefs to Jewish political opinion.
Oh, and that you are ‘certain’ that your opinion is the more moral one.
Heh, polemics.
:rolleyes: Yes, the Catholic church not subordinating its purpose to Jewish political opinion is anti-semitism. It seems to me that not agreeing with Jews 100% down the line is anti-semitism in that case.
I wonder if they have an opening at Trinity.
Essentially what people are saying is that Excommunication should be something that Jews can vote upon.
Tell me mswas -
Do you think that Jews have no reason or justification to be interested in how Catholics are encouraged to think about them and their relationships to them?
Has the Church’s past been something that should reassure Jews (and other “others”) that “internal” Church dealings regarding how to consider Jews (among others) presents no risk to any one’s safety?
Are the interests of “good relations” best served by Jews ignoring actions that signal the acceptance of that which can only create a climate that allows for the hate of others (such as Jews) to grow?
No I think they have every reason.
No, but taking your ball and going home doesn’t make you safer.
Recent events do not qualify under this category.