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.