View Single Post
Old 02-10-2009, 09:10 AM   #19
jonathan7
Exiled Jedi...
 
jonathan7's Avatar
 
Status: Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Ivory Tower
Posts: 3,676
Contest winner - Modding LFN Staff Member Veteran Modder Helpful! 
Quote:
Originally Posted by EnderWiggin View Post
I think it should be.

_EW_
Why? And is that for all jobs?

Quote:
Originally Posted by EnderWiggin View Post
Well, J7, I would first say that the reason that the Pope is apologizing for this Bishop is because anything that an ordained member of the R. Catholic church reflects upon him. This is doubly the case as Benedict (I'm not a fan) recently lifted the excommunication of this Bishop, when he should be condemning the man's viewpoints. The Papacy has to worry about public image as much as the next world leader.
Partly conceded, however, I differentiate between the thoughts of an individual and the organisation he represents.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EnderWiggin View Post
As for freedom of speech, yes, all have it, but Freedom of Speech does not protect you from being fired from your job if you tell your boss that his wife is fat, etc.
What happens if that happens to be true?

Quote:
Originally Posted by EnderWiggin View Post
The bishop is a representative of the whole, and I know John Paul II believed in the holocaust, so I understand why the Bishop is being admonished if he chooses not to recant (remember, he has the option to recant and save himself from the punishment if he so desires).
This strikes me a bit like tyranny though, you will believe what we believe or we will hurt you...

Quote:
Originally Posted by EnderWiggin View Post
Lastly I would argue that the Bishop is not being censored, but told that if he is going to be affiliated with the R. Catholic Church in the future he is not permitted to speak out about (if he had kept his mouth shut it wouldn't have mattered) that viewpoint._EW_
Good point

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arátoeldar View Post
Well Stated EW. Too many Americans and others around the world want rights without the responsibilities or their consequences. The bishop can speak his mind on any street corner in London. However he won't be doing it as a representative of the seminary.
a) I'm not American
b) Read this before making any presumptions as to what I think about Freedom of speech - http://infomotions.com/etexts/philos...ill-on-215.htm Overall jist, of my point; those with evil/wrong opinions must be allowed to speak so that their opinions can be shown to be incorrect.

Take a scientist banned in the last year from speaking on how Africans are inferior to White's - based apparently on science. He was barred from talking, and as such the myth's he presents can hang on, had he been allowed to speak those in the scientific profession could of destroyed his fallacious arguments. By stopping him from speaking, you don't give them the opportunity to rip his data to shreds.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth InSidious View Post
Except... Fellay, Williamson, Tissier de Mallerais and de Galaretta weren't excommunicated for holocaust denial (and there's no evidence that the other three hold those views). They were excommunicate for accepting consecration as bishops from bishop Marcel Lefebvre, a man who was specifically forbidden from doing so. By accepting consecration, they automatically incurred that censure.

The Society of St. Pius X, which they belong to, has been and is suspended from practicing as priests. What has not happened is that they are not accepted into the Catholic Church again yet. As Jae pointed out, the group in question denies the validity of the Second Vatican Council (1962-65) and that situation must be resolved before they can be fully accepted into the Church.

What has happened is that the excommunication, the specific penalty incurred automatically upon their consecration by Bp. Lefebvre has been lifted. The Pope has not apologised, since neither he nor his predecessor either did anything (the penalty was automatically imposed by the actions taken), or allowed anything to happen that was contrary to Canon Law. They may once again legitimately receive the sacraments - i.e., go to confession, the eucharist, etc. Previously they were forbidden. They have not been returned to positions in the Church.

The four bishops are still bishops because they were ordained validly, that is, according to the correct manner, despite the ordination being gained illicitly, i.e., without a Papal mandate (in this case, specifically against being forbidden to do so).

A couple of years ago, the leader of the S.S.P.X., Bp. Fellay, asked for two signs of willingness from the Pope that they could return to communion with Rome - one was allowing a wider use of an older form of the Mass, and the other was the lifting of the excommunications.

About a day before the excommunication was lifted, however, an interview was released with Bp. Williamson chattering quite happily about his theories on Swedish TV. It seems no-one picked up on it in Rome, however, and in any case, it didn't really relate to the canonical offences committed by the man. The excommunications were lifted, his superior apologised, he apologised (though not for his views, but the letter makes interesting reading in light of the latest business) and finally he either stepped down or was sacked by the SSPX (it's not entirely clear which, further muddied by said letter).

The bishop's views have not been endorsed, any more than any other bishop's political views are endorsed, held binding or approved (i.e., not at all). Nevertheless, the bishop seems to believe ahistorical rubbish extremely detrimental to all, and which makes dialogue with Jewish groups strained at best (several have threatened to break off ties with the Vatican altogether over this). It would be foolish to deny that the situation is delicate, and it has been made clear that the bishop must repudiate his views if he wants to function as a bishop within the Church.



While his private views are obviously his own business, the risk of him attempting to preach this (which is in any case beyond his authority) needs to be removed. At the very least, allowing him to influence others with his views on the subject would be unwise. This is probably what the current state of play is about. Nevertheless, you can't expect the press to catch subtleties.

Confirmation of Bp. Williamson's removal (French language), Bp. Williamson promises to apologise if wrong, clarification from the Vatican in L'Osservatore Romano (Italian), Bp. Fellay denies such views himself, Bp. Williamson's letter, Bp. Fellay forbids Williamson to speak on political or historical matters, 1988 decree of excommunication, the interview in question.

Apologies for the huge dump of links, but this issue needs to be understood clearly.
Thanks for a most enlightening post indeed DI

Quote:
Originally Posted by EnderWiggin View Post
Interesting. Thank you for the clarification, DI.

The article now seems a bit misleading, in hindsight.

_EW_
QFT



"Love is the only reality and it is not a mere sentiment. It is the ultimate truth that lies at the heart of creation." - Rabindranath Tagore

"Many a doctrine is like a window pane. We see truth through it but it divides us from truth." - Kahlil Gibran
jonathan7 is offline   you may: quote & reply,