So the Vatican “rehabilitated” an excommunicated bishop who also happens to be a Holocaust denier. This has pissed off the Jewish community.
What does “rehabilitate” mean? Is he a priest or bishop again (I’m assuming that since he was excommunicated because his consecration was unauthorized, he isn’t really a bishop in the eyes of the Vatican), or just a Roman Catholic again? I’m also assuming that he was a priest before the unauthorized consecration.
If this process just means he’s again a member in good standing of the Catholic Church, I don’t know what is the furor, as his personal views wouldn’t matter. But if he’s a priest (again), what responsibility does the CC have for the views of its clergy?
My understanding (not being a Catholic) is that “rehabilitated” simply means that they are no longer excommunicated from the Church. In other words, they can return to participation in the Church including the ability to receive the sacraments. It essentially means that these men have done their penance, shown that they are repentant of whatever sins, and those sins have been absolved.
I’m not sure why, other than just to make a fuss, this would be such a big deal. Certainly the “Jewish community” doesn’t think this guy is the only holocaust denier in the Catholic Church, do they? And he wasn’t excommunicated because of his holocaust denial, so rehabilitation doesn’t seem to represent any endorsement of those statements. I think it’s just the proximity in time of the announcement and the holocaust statements that is driving this.
The vatican has much bigger problems then rehabed holocaust deniers…stick n stones stuff…they have a whole cadre of padres in hiding who are guilty of heinous acts against children…men that they seem willing to shield from the law and at some point “rehabilitate” and send back out to the parishes.
That’s why I’m wondering. Is he still a bishop or a priest, or just a Catholic again? If the former, then is the CC supposed to take his opinions into account when reinstating him to said position?
What is or should be the CC’s position on clergy who hold such opinions publicly?
I think that they replaced all of his vital organs, gave him a blood transfusion, hair plugs, caps and put him into a small rural parish as a recent seminary graduate. This, of course, comes with a 12 month guarantee.
“So the Vatican “rehabilitated” an excommunicated bishop who also happens to be a Holocaust denier”
It’s not like the Catholic Church hasn’t demonstrated anti-semitism on numerous occassions before. The beautification of Pius IX (known for his anti-Jewish sermons in the 19th century) and the conduct of Pius XII in WWII come immediately to mind. Are you really surprised?
I believe the rehabilitation only clears the way for these men and their followers to re-join the CC. While they were excommunicated, they were ineligible to re-join. I don’t think they have yet rejoined the fold so to speak and I don’t know what that would entail other than subscribing to the teachings and doctrine of the CC. Also, my understanding is that the one bishop who denies the extent of the holocaust is one of three or more who were purportedly made bishops without Vatican approval or consent. The rehabilitation does not cure that problem and does not mean that the Pope approves or has ignored that man’s beliefs.
“So the Vatican “rehabilitated” an excommunicated bishop who also happens to be a Holocaust denier”
It’s not like the Catholic Church hasn’t demonstrated anti-semitism on numerous occassions before. The beautification of Pius IX (known for his anti-Jewish sermons in the 19th century) and the conduct of Pius XII in WWII come immediately to mind. Are you really surprised?
Who said I’m surprised? I’m trying to figure out what “rehabilitation” means in this context, and what responsibility the CC takes for the publicly stated opinions of its clergy.
Oh, and even Jesus himself couldn’t “beautify” a Pope: have you seen some of them? Ewww.
I believe the rehabilitation only clears the way for these men and their followers to re-join the CC. While they were excommunicated, they were ineligible to re-join. I don’t think they have yet rejoined the fold so to speak and I don’t know what that would entail other than subscribing to the teachings and doctrine of the CC. Also, my understanding is that the one bishop who denies the extent of the holocaust is one of three or more who were purportedly made bishops without Vatican approval or consent. The rehabilitation does not cure that problem and does not mean that the Pope approves or has ignored that man’s beliefs.
Thanks for the info. So, does the CC allow clergy to take public opinions contrary to Vatican positions (on other than religious topics, of course)?
So, does the CC allow clergy to take public opinions contrary to Vatican positions (on other than religious topics, of course)?
I am not certain that the Vatican has too many stated positions that are not religious positions. I suppose as a head of state the Pope can take political positions that are presumably informed by his faith. For example, he may have a stated position on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict that would not necessarily be an article of faith. There are many priests who take positions that are contrary to Vatican positions and against whom the Vatican does not impose disciplinary measures. So, I suppose you can say the Vatican allows priests to take contrary positions. The more serious the issue and the more public the position will likely determine the response from the Vatican. I would be surprised if the Vatican would consent to the consecration of a holocaust denier.
But the next day a priest who is a regional leader of the same ultra-traditionalist group as Williamson, the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX), made headlines by telling a local newspaper “gas chambers existed at least for disinfecting” inmates but he wasn’t sure if they were used to kill them.
The priest, Floriano Abrahamowicz, defended Williamson. He said it was “impossible for a Christian to be an anti-Semite” and that the whole controversy was part of a “very powerful campaign against the Vatican.”
So, does the CC allow clergy to take public opinions contrary to Vatican positions (on other than religious topics, of course)?
I am not certain that the Vatican has too many stated positions that are not religious positions. I suppose as a head of state the Pope can take political positions that are presumably informed by his faith. For example, he may have a stated position on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict that would not necessarily be an article of faith. There are many priests who take positions that are contrary to Vatican positions and against whom the Vatican does not impose disciplinary measures. So, I suppose you can say the Vatican allows priests to take contrary positions. The more serious the issue and the more public the position will likely determine the response from the Vatican. I would be surprised if the Vatican would consent to the consecration of a holocaust denier.
I guess this is a position that the Vatican won’t allow to be contradicted:
VATICAN CITY, Feb 4 (Reuters) - The Vatican on Wednesday ordered a traditionalist bishop who denies the Holocaust to publicly recant his views if he wants to serve as a prelate in the Roman Catholic Church. Pope Benedict was not aware of Bishop Richard Williamson’s denial of the Holocaust when the pontiff lifted excommunications on him and three other traditionalist bishops last month, the Vatican said in a statement. “Bishop Williamson, in order to be admitted to the episcopal functions of the Church, must in an absolutely unequivocal and public way distance himself from his positions regarding the Shoah,” the statement said, using the Hebrew word for the Holocaust.
Two separate issues, as far as I can tell. Rehabilitation, or voiding the excommunication, simply allows Williamson back into the Church. This new statement is with regard to his ability to hold an office in the Catholic Church (Prelate).
So, does the CC allow clergy to take public opinions contrary to Vatican positions (on other than religious topics, of course)?
I’m not Catholic, so I have a hard time really caring about the internal affairs of the Catholic Church.
But as a Mormon, I can comment on what may be similar questions directed at our Church.
As you may know, Mormons denied blacks its priesthood until 1978. While some Church members still justify the policy as doctrinal, I tend to believe it was largely a matter of early Church leaders being a product of their time – in other words, racism. In the 1900s, the Mormon church may not have been too different from other American religious organizations with regard to its treatment and inclusion of blacks. Indeed, it may have even been more “progressive.” And while it’s an extremely complex matter, it unfortunately took the Church much longer than others to recognize and make the corrections. In the meantime, and for some years after, we would have a mix of comments from various Church leaders, some upholding the priesthood ban as doctrinal while others disavowing it in it’s entirety. Which of these inconsistent statements, if any, were binding on the Church and which were not? I think when you look at a church as a community rather than as a corporation or business entity, the principles of agency that we would normally apply don’t necessarily hold up. That a particular church leader holds an opinion or makes a comment doesn’t mean that is binding upon the church, or that the church’s silence or failure to rebuke or clarify can be considered acceptance or approval of the opinion.
Sometimes we Mormons get hit with a two edge sword. We’re accused of not being able, or not being allowed, to think for ourselves. It’s said that we’re forced to tow the line in order to be in good standing. But when someone says something unorthodox, the Church is responsible for reigning that person in. I recognize that the Mormon church is more authoritarian than others, but I wonder if other religious organizations find themselves in a similar bind.
Two separate issues, as far as I can tell. Rehabilitation, or voiding the excommunication, simply allows Williamson back into the Church. This new statement is with regard to his ability to hold an office in the Catholic Church (Prelate).
Apparently, at least his congregation is not willing to let him hold office:
ROME — A rehabilitated bishop at the heart of a Vatican uproar for denying the Holocaust ever happened has been dismissed as the head of an Argentine seminary, the seminary said in an official announcement.
The announcement, released on Sunday, said the bishop, Richard Williamson, who has asserted that he does not believe the Nazis used gas chambers, was no longer the director of the La Reja seminary on the outskirts of the Argentina capital.
Bishop Williamson’s views “in no way reflect the position of our congregation,” Rev. Christian Bouchacourt, the director of the Latin America branch of the Catholic Society of St. Pius X, said in the statement. He expressed “sadness” that Bishop Williamson’s statements had “discredited” the congregation.