Holocaust-denying bishop Richard Williamson must “unequivocally and publicly” change his views before he can be admitted to office in the Roman Catholic Church, the Vatican said Wednesday.
Marking a major U-turn for under-pressure Pope Benedict XVI, the Vatican statement also said that Williamson’s remarks were “not known” to the German pontiff “at the moment of lifting the excommunication” of the Englishman and three other renegade bishops last month.
Williamson is on record as denying that the Nazis used gas chambers to eliminate millions of Jews during World War II, saying only 200,000-300,000 Jews were killed in concentration camps.
From the Bangkok Post! You picked it up before my Google alert generator did. Congrats.
I think this is a proper move.
Rabbi Kula gets it:
http://wdtprs.com/blog/2009/02/rabbi-comments-on-official-jewish-reaction-to-the-pope/
Thank you ++Benedict XVI! This is an honorable and Christian action.
#4, I withdraw my prior accusation, sir. God bless!
It will be interesting to see how this all continues to develop.
In an Episcopal Church USA context I have attended one parish that prays for ‘the perfidious Jews’ in the Good Friday collects. I wonder if they will reexamine that practice in light of His Holiness’s reaction to this controversy.
“Williamson is on record as denying that the Nazis used gas chambers to eliminate millions of Jews during World War II, saying only 200,000-300,000 Jews were killed in concentration camps.” Even if only 200,000 Jews were killed, it would still be a holocaust. The FACT that over 6 million Jews were exterminated just makes it worse.
“German Chancellor Angela Merkel became the first world leader to attack her compatriot’s handling of the row.” How ironic (and excellent) that the German chancellor would call the Pope on this.
I’m thankful the Pope changed his mind on this and I can continue to respect his leadership.
I don’t think the Pope “changed his mind” so much as he based his original decision on the relevant criteria. Williamson wasn’t excommunicated for his loathsome views on the Holocause, so neither should his reinstatement be conditioned on them.
#8… I think Jeffersonian is likely to be right here.
Although, strangely, what the Pope said implies indirectly that Willaimson’s views on the Holocaust WOULD have been relevant to the pope’s decision to reinstate had he only known of those views:
I also find the language in the Vatican statement troubling because it feels too carefully worded, in a Bill Clinton “I did not have…” fashion. As stated it is probably true. The pope was almost certainly unaware of the “remarks” — meaning the specific Holocaust denying remarks made by Williamson in an one specific interview. It’s true that that specific interview was broadcast like the day after the Pope made the reinstatement, so yes, the Pope almost certainly did not know about THOSE remarks.
But the Vatican statement allows the casual reader to assume the Pope meant that he had no idea that Williamson had been on record as a major anti-Semite, which seems immensely improbable to me. I did a few minutes of research and saw that the guy had been on record for some time.
I wish the Vatican statement had simply stated two things:
(1) What Jeffersonian said above — the readmission back into the church of Rome wasn’t based on their views (on way or the other) regarding Jews.
(2) The pope and indeed the Church of Rome abhors Holocaust denial and anti-Semitism and that this guy will never be permitted to hold office in the church unless he sincerely recants.
9:1–such fine distinctions are lost on a hostile press–but the Vaticn press office could have handled the whole thing better. Actually, they could hardly have handled it worse.
I thought the Vatican statment was pretty clear that denial was unacceptable. The Church is on record as denouncing anti-semitism for at least 1,000 years (not that one would guess it from the press). Williamson does not hold office in the church; his consecration was illicit, the SSPX is suspended and its bishops have no jurisdiction recognized by the Church. So what you are requiring is, in fact, not an issue. His ordination to the episcopacy was valid, however, so he is in bishop’s orders. But a bishop has to be allowed to act as one by the Vatican. Of that, there is no chance.
I am still looking for some evidence that the SSPX bishops have repented of that for which they were excommunicated: disobedience, schism, and denial of teachings made by a properly constituted Council of the Church. They incurred excommunicated when they received episcopal ordination without papal authority (in direct defiance of the pope, IIRC); have they repented in public as they were ordained in public?
As a Jew whose relatives family died in the holocaust, I think that everything should be up for debate and discussion: including the verity of the holocaust. Shutting up stupid, misguided individuals is a stupid, misguided tactic. If we are so certain of the truth, why shut down those who question it?
Since the pope heads a private organisation, he is well within his rights to allow or deny membership to whomever he wishes.
12 is right. Proof of the the Holocaust is a slam dunk. It happened and is well documented. We should put the deniers to the proof. It will sharpen our arguments and proof and end this nonsence.
But it hits more than the Germans. It hits the Russians, Poles, Italians, French and others.
Frankly, it is far more worthwhile to take the 5 minutes required to read this:
http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/214368?eng=y
which essentially is directly from the Vatican. The NYT article really is only commentary on this Chiesa article, and the article posted here may be no more than that either.
I find it remarkable that on the same on-line page as the coverage of this matter the NYT matter-of-factly announces the success doctors have had in San Francisco showing through their work on aborted second trimester babies that cells cross the placenta from mother to baby to provide immunity. In their parallel universe a baby in the womb is not a person and has no rights, and so they must also persistently attack the foremost institution which declares this to be a morally bankrupt assessment of human life.
If only other churches could tell bishops that flakey beliefs were unacceptable. But then they would be called bad names, wouldn’t they? Is not believing the Holocaust happened better or worse than not believing every word of the Creed?