Bishop Richard Williamson and three other bishops were excommunicated 20 years ago after they were consecrated by an ultra conservative archbishop without papal consent, a move the Vatican at the time called a schism.

Pope Benedict has lifted the excommunication because he said the bishops had "repeatedly shown their deep suffering over the situation."

However, this has caused a strong reaction from the Jewish Religious Leaders in Israel. One of the bishops, Bishop Richard Williamson, denies the numbers of the Holocaust.

Why would the Pope bring a Holocaust denier back into the fold, and risk alienating so many people not only in Israel, but around the world?

Your thoughts please?

For a start, it's a good question and many thanks for making a string on it.

I don't have an answer... it's beyond me. Shocking stuff.

Dear Meredith,

I don't understand it either. I was totally shocked
when I watched the news this evening.
And I was raised as a Catholic. This makes me feel
ashamed.

As a religious leader the Pope is supposed to be
concerned with building bridges between people.
He's supposed to be - for compassion, and justice.
He's supposed to set an example for his flock.

I don't believe that he can justify his actions.

Foxy,

I think we need to pressure as loudly as we can for them to reform. Christianity form our basic social structure this and a few other problems (killing abortionist Drs and the priests raping kids)

As far as we could get on here, that I can imagine, is to get the big OLO Christens representatives to condemn it, which I am sure they will?

But maybe people should write to the pope.

Dear Meredith,

I've already written a letter to the Pope
(I was that upset). Here's the address in case
you want it:

His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI
Vatican City State, 00120
Italy

and his email is:

benedictxvi@vatican.va

I haven't sent him an email yet so I don't know if it
works - but I'll do it tomorrow - when my brain is
working better. I'm just to tired (from the heat) tonight.

All The Best,

I'm the same, I can't spell, but I will most definatly write and email..

thanks very much, Foxy..

I agree with every post so far.
During ww2 the Catholic Pope and parts of the Church did much harm.
After the war some helped Nazi,s get away.
This act is strange and dark, why? some may remember those past acts.
I liked the last Pope , well the world did, but unlikely I will ever say that about this one now.

I'm encourage to see Foxy doing something practical in accordance with her convictions.

To offer my 'thoughts' about why the Pope might do such a thing.....

1/ Rome does...what is seen as good for Rome.... this pattern is identifiable in many aspects of it's behavior.

2/ The primary objective of the Roman Catholic Church is to promote it's own welfare, and interests but most of all..it's authority.

If you examine the viewpoints of those speaking 'for' Catholicism in debates with articulate protestants (Dr James White is a prolific protestant/reformed writer and debater and often interacts with Catholic apologists) you will see this pattern of approach.

So..bottom line.. if the Pope sees the relative value to the Church as being greater than the damage his decision might cause.. then..it figures that he will do it.

Foxy,
I am not religous at all so have no axe to grind here and I am not familiar with the matter, but I do have a question.

If a person says the numbers are wrong, why does that make him a 'denier'? Surely a person can question the figures without saying the event(s) never took place.

I have been called a 'denier' about climate change, yet i only question the human involvement in climate change.

I think the word 'denier' is simply used to put a person with differing views on the defensive. Bit like a person with views against high immigration being called 'racist' straight off.

Dear Meredith,

I have just sent off that email to the Pope.
Hopefully it will work, and the Vatican will get it.

By the way, just for your interest - I was brought up
to believe that hatred, prejudice, bigotry, are the
destroyers of a civilized world, - and should be discouraged
by every means possible. My family suffered greatly during
the Second World War - relatives perished in concentration
camps, my father's brother was tortured to death. He was
a high school student.

BOAZ_David,

Here you are making some sense David. But you only go so far in your hypothesis that "if the Pope sees the relative value to the Church as being greater than the damage his decision might cause.. then..it figures that he will do it."

The damage side of your equation is clear enough. Today's Age covers that aspect pretty clearly.
www.theage.com.au/world/pope-responds-to-rising-fury-over-holocaust-denier-bishop-20090129-7t21.html

Yout next step is to analyse what gain the Pope sees deriving from his action and why that gain would outweigh the more obvious (but not necessarily greater) damage. If one can't identify the supposed gains then we need a better explanation and risk analysis of a pretty 'courageous' decision ('courageous in the 'Yes Minister' sense, not in any moral sense).

Perhaps being a holocaust denier or whatever slant that others in here put on it wasn't the reason for the excommunication.

Perhaps the Bishops were excommunicated for being part of the Society of Pius X and in schism with the Church and perhaps their group has now moved back toward Catholicism. Perhaps the Pope at the time of their excommunication didn't chat with them about their opinion of the holocaust and the current Pope hasn't either.

Have you considered that irrespective of what dirt the media may dig up on one of them as individuals that might be the explanation?

"Pope Benedict XVI has lifted the excommunication of four bishops ordained against papal orders in 1988 by the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre...

The head of the society, Bishop Bernard Fellay, had requested the annulment of the excommunication in a letter Dec. 15...

The decree removing the excommunications, issued by the Congregation for Bishops, underlined the hope that this step would be followed by full communion..."

...Bishop Richard Williamson, provoked Jewish protests with assertions that the Holocaust was exaggerated ...

The Vatican spokesman,..."Saying a person is not excommunicated is not the same as saying one shares all his ideas or statements," Father Lombardi said.

The removal of the excommunication was a key condition of the Society of St. Pius X in its on-again, off-again talks with the Vatican over reconciliation."

Is it fair to say that there was no public knowledge of Williamson's views on the holocaust before mid January? Do you really think that information moves through the Vatican that quickly? I bet they know now though since the media frenzy and approach to Fr Lombardi for comment.

MJ,

Maybe true, maybe not, who knows, thing is, if this guy is in any measure anti-semetic, which any level of holocaust denyal is, the reasons he was out then back in in the past don't really matter... what matters is his reform or removal.

Foxy, I have one typed out... I'll post on Monday, how many stamps did you put on?

So on the (evening of the? I think I read somewhere) 21st January, 2009 this guy for a Society which most people have never heard of made some offensive comments on Swedish TV and by the 25th January, 2009 it was being reported that the Pope had lifted the excommunications.

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/39269

So some time presumably on the 24th or 25th the excommunications were lifted. So we are so certain that the Pope must have known about it that we are bad mouthing him in here. In my religion there is a belief that it is wrong to bear false witness against your neighbour. Personally I think that is a wise approach any way you slice it whether secular or religious.

Foxy

"As a religious leader the Pope is supposed to be
concerned with building bridges between people.
He's supposed to be - for compassion, and justice.
He's supposed to set an example for his flock."

With the greatest of respect, Foxy, this issue to my mind is a storm-in-a-teacup compared to the blatant and systemic dishonouring of the principles you've outlined above, which the Catholic Church has engaged in for centuries.

The fact that one of the world's wealthiest institutions can amass fortunes worth untold billions and and have its leaders live in the lap of luxury - while millions of its devotees and its country parishes routinely languish in poverty, the fact that the Church actively promotes discrimination against homosexuals and denies women the right to control their own fertility, and the way this is contributing to the world's population blowout, just for starters, puts a different perspective on this little matter, well for me at least.

Not to say, I'm not in agreeance with your point that Holocaust deniers should remain excommunicated for life. I agree with you totally that they should.

Banjo

"Surely a person can question the figures without saying the event(s) never took place. I have been called a 'denier' about climate change, yet I only question the human involvement in climate change."

Ah, Banjo, how disingenuous of you! Of course you're a climate change 'denier'. If you deny the well documented and widely accepted reasons for the occurence of climate change, which you do, then you are in all probability also in denial about the solutions that are needed. This is the real problem.

If you did agree with the scientific consensus that we should reduce our carbon emissions and our general human footprint on this earth, regardless of what you believe the causes of climate change to be, then your denial in itself is not going to hinder progress towards achieving that goal. But I doubt very much that that's your position.

Most people who deny the anthropogenic causes of climate change also deny the need to radically reduce emissions.

Bronwyn,
Not wishing to detract from Foxy's thread, I will save your comments about 'denial' and take you up on them when next a climate change thread comes up. I think the word 'denier' is inappropriate though if the fellow has said the figures are wrong and has not disputed the Holocaust took place. It is a tactic used to put the accused on the defensive.

Ah Banjo, it would only have taken a sentence or two, not enough to derail Foxy's thread in the slightest, but I'll allow you that little cop out!

As for the 'denier' tag in the context in question here, if Bishop Williamson has denied the extent of the numbers of people killed, that's still denial in my book. Purely out of consideration for Holocaust survivors and relatives of victims, it seems particularly insensitive and straight out crass to even think of quibbling over numbers. And my guess is that if he's pushed the envelope that far, he's more than likely got some broader sort of denial agenda regarding the Holocaust more generally - not unlike most climate change 'deniers' really when you think about it! :)

Dear Meredith,

Sorry that I didn't respond earlier but I had used
up my post limit and had to wait until now.

The letter to the Vatican cost me $2.05.
I sent it Air-Mail.

Dear Banjo,

The reason Bishop Richard Williamson has been called a
Holocaust denier is because he has stated quite openly
that no Jews died in Nazi gas chambers. He totally
denies the crematorium system of Nazi Death Camps
that operated from 1942-1945. Despite the fact that
physical evidence exists to the contrary.

The Bishop was interviewed on Swedish State TV on Saturday
where he made his controversial comments. If you google
the subject, there are videos that can be viewed of the actual
interview.

Dear mjpb,

I'm sure that Pope Benedict XVI has his own reasons for re-instating
Bishop Richard Williamson (and the three others). However, the
re-instatement did occur after the interview was aired.
The Pope may not have known about it. But someone at the Vatican
should have. Because the effect was instant, and world-wide.

It was also unfortunate to announce the re-instatement
at a time when people worldwide were having an annual Holocaust
Commemoration.

The Pope should forbid the man from speaking publicly (at the
very least).

Personally, I don't feel that the man should have been re-instated.
I don't think he's the type of role-model we need in the Church.
He's doing a great deal of damage. And undoing the work of Vatican II.
Which had succeeded in building bridges between the Catholic Church
and Judaism.

As I stated earlier, the Pope seems to want to do things right, but
in this case he need to do the right things. Advocating tolerance
is one thing, but actions speak louder than words.

Foxy,
Until now it has not been disclosed that this Bishop Williamson had said anymore than that the numbers were wrong. I refer to your first post and I think someone else mentioned the same thing. That is why I raised the question about him being called a 'denier' on that basis.

Now you disclose that he did far more than that. You say he denied that certain events did not take place. That indeed changes things. That being the case it is lodical to call him a denier.

Bronwyn,
I can see our debate going on for a good bit, not just one or two lines. It is no cop out as I copied and also printed your post for reference. I think it will not be long before a climate change thread appears but you can start a thread in the General section if you so desire.

The question is not only what they said before but what they say now.
If they change mind, if NOW they promote the truth let's give them a second change! I mean forgivness and understanding and a new begin is not the worst things in the world.
I HOPE AND I WISH THEY CHANGE MIND
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

From a "Statement of Bernard Fellay, Superior of the Fraternity of St. Pius X" issued on 27th January:

"The affirmations of Bishop Williamson do not reflect in any sense the position of our Fraternity. For this reason I have prohibited him, pending any new orders, from taking any public positions on political or historical questions.

We ask the forgiveness of the Supreme Pontiff, and of all people of good will, for the dramatic consequences of this act. Because we recognize how ill-advised these declarations were, we can only look with sadness at the way in which they have directly struck our Fraternity, discrediting its mission."

Dear George,

That statement is very commendable and speaks well for
the organisation.

What action will the Pope take I wonder regarding
this entire matter?

The whole world is watching. The Church has a lot to answer
for as Bronwyn pointed out so well in her post. Their stand
on so many issues has found them lacking. This is another
one that needs more than words.

That particular man should never have been re-instated.
It's as simple as that.

Hello George,

I read about that thanks for sharing it. Good on Fellay for dealing with him.

Foxy,

"The Pope should forbid the man from speaking publicly (at the
very least)."

As you can see that has already been dealt with by Fellay. If it hadn't been handled more directly I note that the Pope wouldn't have had the power to do so had he not lifted the excommunication. A touch of irony.

"I don't think he's the type of role-model we need in the Church."

Really? You don't think that goes without saying? Unfortunately I suspect that he isn't the only jerk who has been appointed Bishop.

"Advocating tolerance is one thing, but actions speak louder than words."

And I maintain that you have no reason to believe that he has made any culpable action.

"Because the effect was instant, and world-wide."

It might have just been me but ... I'm not managing a Church of 1.5 billion buried away in the Vatican and I didn't hear about it until the Pope reinstated the Bishops. Was the identification of a jerk in an organisation noone had heard of really such a big event? I suspect it's significance is simply that the almost contemporaneous lifting of excommunications enabled the Pope to get a mention with him. That is of course all that is needed to bad mouth the Pope. No personal culpability is required.

"That particular man should never have been re-instated.
It's as simple as that."

The overall lifting of the excommunications in order to retrieve some lost sheep may have been a very shepherdly thing to do and is probably appropriate if the grounds for excommunication have been addressed. Unfortunately one of them seems to be a black sheep. I'm not up to speed on that type of stuff but is being a jerk and holding a silly belief on historical fact that offends people grounds for excommunication? In other words, if Williamson doesn't otherwise qualify, does the Pope have the power to excommunicate him on that basis?

I know this won't change anything for people determined to bag the Pope no matter what and I don't expect to find this in an Australian newspaper because a silence by the Pope is more an appearance they would like to manipulate but:

http://www2.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/story.html?id=9a0f5291-1c76-486c-a458-7f60e06ea6e7

Pope condemns Holocaust denial

"The whole world is watching."

and most elements of the mass media will spread the mischief further by not reporting things like this.

Dear mjpb,

The point that I was trying to make was why re-instate
a Bishop that is obviously going to cause problems for the
image of the Church?

We all know its not an easy thing to get a promotion at work.
We have to go through an interview process. They have to feel that
we deserve that promotion. That we possess the qualifications and
experience to be able to do the job, and also that we're the most
qualified and suited of all the applicants for that position.
That we will also do justice in representing the organisation to
its clients. Image and reputation matter.

It seems to me that this excommunicated Bishop
could have been replaced by another member of the
Fraternity who would have been better suited for the job.

If the Pope and the Church distance themselves from this man, why
did they choose to re-instate him to a position in which he
represents them both?

You can't say one thing and do another and expect to remain
credible.

Dear Foxy,
as far as I can tell, Williamson was not “reinstated” as bishop, he just became again one of the 1.1 billion Catholics throughout the world, some of them certainly with even sillier and weirder views about history than Williamson‘s, as offensive as they were to many.

The explanation (about the reasons for lifting the excommunication, condemning at the same time Williamson‘s - or anybody else‘s - attempts to “explain away” the horrors of Holocaust) should have come BEFORE and not AFTER the announcement of receiving the four back into the fold. That was undoubtedly a PR “faux pas“ and it probably would not have come to it had the Pope FIRST consulted Cardinal Kasper responsible for “diplomatic relations” with other faiths.

Truly, Willimason keeps on being a bishop, which is a consecration not a position - Lefevre had the right to consecrate bishops, although he was forbidden to do so (mjpb would probably know more about matters of cannon law): a priest remains a priest even if he leaves the church and marries or what, because the Catholic Church views ordination, consecration, marriage (unless annulled a posteriori) as indelible “marks“.

Williamson was not being given any diocese where he could “function” as a bishop, and it is most unlikely he will ever get one. He “represents” the Church only to the same extent as any other of the 1.1 billion Catholics; actually even less than that after the public exhortation he received from Fellay.

Should he write a book on theology, or make theological statements about Judaism that contradict the official teachings of the Catholic Church after Vatican II, he would be asked to retract and if not, be excommunicated for THOSE reasons. Again, judging from his reaction to the admonition he received, it is not likely that he would expose himself in that way.

After all, as I understand the Pope, his rapprochement towards the Brotherhood of Pius X. was mainly on the liturgical level, not that he would want to enter with them into theological discussions about Vatican II, certainly not Nostra Aetate.

Dear George,

Thank you so much for clearing things up for me. I'm finally
beginning to understand the situation. You've explained things
quite clearly and now I can see what a little knowledge on my
part did. I made the wrong assumptions for which I apologise.

Next time I'll know to wait and judge when all the facts are
known. Apologies to mjpb as well.

Dear Foxy,

Thank you but someone else probably deserves an apology more than even George. I deserve it least because of my contribution. I contributed by responding to things directly rather than explaining pretty significant issues that didn't arise in the discussion but which made all the difference to your understanding.

George,

"The explanation ... condemning at the same time ... should have come BEFORE and not AFTER the announcement of receiving the four back into the fold. That was undoubtedly a PR “faux pas“ ..."

Given the time frame, was it a PR bungle or just a failure to assume the media were out to get him? Can the Pope reasonably be assumed to have known that the approach you suggested was necessary? What if he agreed to the SSPX request to remove the excommunications from that group of Bishops and then heard about Williamson's comments and the fact it was in the mass media? He then made the condemnation comments. Even publically explaining an apparently unnewsworthy (outside of Catholic circles) move may have reasonably not been considered necessary.

Williamson not only “represents” the Church only to the same extent as any other of the 1.1 billion Catholics but if his reputation for hating the Vatican as much as Jews is correct he may well leave altogether if the SSPX move closer.

Personally I think there is an irony relating to Vatican II. Some people like SSPX have difficulty accepting 'it' and some people call for rather radical changes based on the 'spirit of Vatican II'. The irony would seem to be that, in spite of the strong reactions by extremists at both ends, no Pope to date has yet interpreted conciliar documents. There seems to be an assumption amongst such people that Gaudium Et Spes preaches Martin Luther's ideas on conscience except without the Bible as an anchor. However my copy deals with conscience quite briefly and succinctly and reads very much like traditional Catholic teaching. Perhaps when a Pope actually does interpret the conciliar documents both sides will realise that the fuss doesn't have a foundation?

Dear Foxy,
Thanks for the kind words.

mjpb,
I agree, the Pope is not to blame, at least not to the extent he is being blamed by some. Truly, he should have consulted Cardinal Kasper, and I am pretty sure he would have had he been informed about Williamson’s absurd escapades even if they had nothing to do with the reasons for his excommunication. No doubt, he should have been informed.

I am not going to speculate whether this was on purpose - as some have suggested - to keep him isolated (because some dislike him for being too traditionalist, others for being too open minded, e.g. towards Jews but also Muslims), or simply a PR bungle. Besides, I got my ideas about this from John L. Allen (http://ncrcafe.org/node/2382) who is certainly more knowledgeable in matters relating to Vatican.

I noticed that even the original “Decree on the remission of excommunication latae sententiae of Bishops of the Fraternity of St. Pius X” is officially available in five languages, none of them English (c.f. http://www.vatican.va/latest/latest_en.htm). It was apparently not intended to be of much interest outside the Church.

My husband has just told me the good news.
He heard on the news this evening that
the Pope has asked Bishop Williamson to
make a retraction of his statements.

That should appease the situation.

Well, not the Pope but his "Foreign affairs minister", just a technical difference.

From the "NOTE OF THE SECRETARIAT OF STATE" of February 4, 2009:

<< The positions of Bishop Williamson on the Shoah are absolutely unacceptable and firmly rejected by the Holy Father, as he himself remarked this past January 28, when, referring to that brutal genocide, he reconfirmed his full and indisputable solidarity with our brothers who received the First Covenant, and affirmed that the memory of that terrible genocide must lead “humanity to reflect on the unpredictable power of evil when it conquers the human heart,” adding that the Shoah remains “a warning for all against hate, against denial or reductionism, because violence against even a single human being is violence against all.”

Bishop Williamson, in order to claim admission to episcopal functions in the church, must distance himself in absolutely unequivocal and public fashion from his positions regarding the Shoah, which were not known by the Holy Father when the excommunication was lifted. >>

and here is link for that news

http://www.ewtn.com/vnews/getstory.asp?number=93538

Dear George and mjpb,

Thanks to both of you for providing me with this
added information.

I must confess that the action of the Vatican has
restored my faith in the Church.

Grace and Peace,

Foxy,

Thanks.

George,

"I am not going to speculate whether this was on purpose - as some have suggested - to keep him isolated (because some dislike him for being too traditionalist, others for being too open minded, e.g. towards Jews but also Muslims), or simply a PR bungle. Besides, I got my ideas about this from John L. Allen (http://ncrcafe.org/node/2382) who is certainly more knowledgeable in matters relating to Vatican."

It sure makes an interesting conspiracy theory (and I don't mean anything pejorative by the term 'conspiracy theory'). In one hit he could be undermined in anything (including anything promoting tradition) by undermining him personally and contemporaneously demolish his rapport with Jews. In the context of bringing some traditional Catholicish people toward the fold the discouragement of promoting tradition would be quite accentuated. However I lean toward the typical characteristic of the Vatican as having news move slowly as my preferred culprit. Some day that might change but old habits die slowly.

Certainly it wasn't a well-handled situation. Of course, these things can slip through the most competent of fingers, but still - the Catholic Church is on show at all times and has many, many people who jump at any opportunity to criticise it.

I am glad that the Pope is calling for a retraction of the statement, but what effect will the retraction have (if it ever occurs)? The Bishop will still believe what he believed before - it's basically an instruction for the man to lie. Perhaps some sort of re-education is in order. Not in the communist sense, but by sending the man on a fact-finding mission. Send him to the death camps. Send him to meet with some Holocaust survivors. In the interview, he stated that the evidence he had seen had not supported the idea that gas chambers existed. If this is the case, then maybe he just needs to see some more evidence.

Of course, there are many more Holocaust deniers in the Catholic Church, and if he is not to be given a post as a Bishop, then maybe he shouldn't be treated any differently. If he was not given a post, then he would probably have every right to refuse such an excursion. But if he truly wants to be part of the Church, and this is what the Church demands of him, then how could he refuse?