Pope rehabilitates Holocaust denier

[minionofmidas]

The whole position of the Vatican, and to an extent that of many of the bishops in Europe, was that the trend towards authoritarianism, whether fascistic or not in 1930's Europe, seemed to these Catholics as coterminous.

Eh... what do you mean by "coterminous"? I *think* I understand you, I just want to make sure...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Theoretically. Somehow, the fact that the Savoy kings had never done anything of the kind, and that Mussolini not only had never done anything of the kind but had signed the Lateran treaties, might have given the Vatican strategists a clue here, don't you think? Given the catholicism of the Italian people, it just absolutely wasn't worth it no matter what the popes said or did (and they were less cautious with what they said in the 1870s... they were less cautious with what they said as late as 1937). As long as they weren't exactly raising an army on the premises, I suppose.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

not sure what you're referring to here... WWI or WWII?

[afleitch]

The whole position of the Vatican, and to an extent that of many of the bishops in Europe, was that the trend towards authoritarianism, whether fascistic or not in 1930's Europe, seemed to these Catholics as coterminous.

Eh... what do you mean by "coterminous"? I *think* I understand you, I just want to make sure...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Theoretically. Somehow, the fact that the Savoy kings had never done anything of the kind, and that Mussolini not only had never done anything of the kind but had signed the Lateran treaties, might have given the Vatican strategists a clue here, don't you think? Given the catholicism of the Italian people, it just absolutely wasn't worth it no matter what the popes said or did (and they were less cautious with what they said in the 1870s... they were less cautious with what they said as late as 1937). As long as they weren't exactly raising an army on the premises, I suppose.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

not sure what you're referring to here... WWI or WWII?

By coterminous, I mean that an authoritarian and patriarchal society, in the minds of some Catholics better reflected Catholic social theory.

By after the war, I mean after WWII and by extension after the end of the monarchy.

[minionofmidas]

Alright, thanks.

[12th Doctor]

I don't have time to address everything that is wrong with what the two of you have said, in any detailed way, at this precise moment, but let me assure you, I will be back here to do so.

I'll just leave you with the old adage:

Nothing is so false as modern history.

[JSojourner]

I have really mixed feelings.  I've never cared for Cardinal Ratzinger or his borderline Opus Dei approach to Catholocism.  The previous Holy Father was much more appealing to me.

But that said, I will never understand the passionate hatred some people have for the Roman Catholic Church.  While I am not Roman Catholic, I can cite hundreds -- probably thousands if given enough time -- of marvelous, beautiful and socially just things the RCC has done and stood for over the centuries.

Yes, the Church has done evil.  Mainline Protestant, Evangelical-Fundamentalist-Pentecostal, Orthodox and non Christian religions have ALSO done evil.  And there's no shortage of completely secular atheistic folks who have done both horrible and wonderful things.

While discussion of The Pontiff's decision certainly merits a place here, let's all take a step back and not broad brush an entire denomination as Anti-Semitic or pro-Hitler.

[afleitch]

While discussion of The Pontiff's decision certainly merits a place here, let's all take a step back and not broad brush an entire denomination as Anti-Semitic or pro-Hitler.

Those who have discussed this in great detail (myself and Lewis) have not used a broad brush. My main concern is infact that we can't make a reasoned critique of the actions of the Vatican during WWII without being accused of some sort of 'anti-Catholicism' or at worst historical revisionism.

As an academic historian, I have to be critical and reached a balanced view. I have to grapple with some uncomfortable truths in the process but anything else would be a whitewash.

[Matt Damon™]

The inordinate obsession people have over the holocaust and the question of if it happeend or not is just pointless and quite disturbing. What the spanish did in the new world and what Belgium did in Africa were worse in terms of scale/amount dead but yet there's no legal tribunals or social ostracism of people who try to whitewash/ignore those crimes.

[JSojourner]

While discussion of The Pontiff's decision certainly merits a place here, let's all take a step back and not broad brush an entire denomination as Anti-Semitic or pro-Hitler.

Those who have discussed this in great detail (myself and Lewis) have not used a broad brush. My main concern is infact that we can't make a reasoned critique of the actions of the Vatican during WWII without being accused of some sort of 'anti-Catholicism' or at worst historical revisionism.

As an academic historian, I have to be critical and reached a balanced view. I have to grapple with some uncomfortable truths in the process but anything else would be a whitewash.

That's how I feel, Andrew.  And you, as a Catholic, certainly have more ground than I, as an Anglican, from which to criticize.

My beef is not with thoughtful, reasoned criticisms of the RCC.  Especially such criticisms coming from within its membership.  My criticism is aimed at those who see the church doing wrong, either now or in the past, and presuming that is always -- or even usually -- the case.  I don't think it is.

But I certainly do concur with the belief that the Catholic Church has much to repent for.  Yet I also feel precisely the same way about my denomination.  We Anglicans and Episcopalians have no shortage of embarassing history.

[afleitch]

While discussion of The Pontiff's decision certainly merits a place here, let's all take a step back and not broad brush an entire denomination as Anti-Semitic or pro-Hitler.

Those who have discussed this in great detail (myself and Lewis) have not used a broad brush. My main concern is infact that we can't make a reasoned critique of the actions of the Vatican during WWII without being accused of some sort of 'anti-Catholicism' or at worst historical revisionism.

As an academic historian, I have to be critical and reached a balanced view. I have to grapple with some uncomfortable truths in the process but anything else would be a whitewash.

That's how I feel, Andrew.  And you, as a Catholic, certainly have more ground than I, as an Anglican, from which to criticize.

My beef is not with thoughtful, reasoned criticisms of the RCC.  Especially such criticisms coming from within its membership.  My criticism is aimed at those who see the church doing wrong, either now or in the past, and presuming that is always -- or even usually -- the case.  I don't think it is.

But I certainly do concur with the belief that the Catholic Church has much to repent for.  Yet I also feel precisely the same way about my denomination.  We Anglicans and Episcopalians have no shortage of embarassing history.

What's of the most concern, as some Catholic academics have voiced, is that if the Church has full faith in Pius then it should release it's records and vindicate him. Those who have concern with Pius and his Vatican have to contend with copies formal diplomatic correspondence coming from the Vatican. Both 'pro' and 'anti' are not granted access to the Vatican record.

I agree that all church's have their secrets and their shames. I am involved with an effort that is pushing for Christian churches in Britain to give full account for betraying the confidence of it's flock and alerting the police to gay parishioners in the 50's. This was a time when arrests were made, men were institutionalised and 'experimented on' with electric shocks, hormones and aversion therapy. Many of them survived and still live. No one want's a public apology, or money or anything like that - just an account, so that there can be a proper examination and an attempt at understanding. While by no means comparable to the suffering during World War II, it is a similar effort.

[longtimelurker]

I'm sorry but while I obviously disagree with Holocaust deniers, I'm not sold on the idea that they ought to be excommunicated from the Church for that reason.

He was not excommunicated for being a Holocaust denier.  He was excommunicated years ago for reasons regarding Catholic theology.  The argument being made is that it looks like a deliberate slap in the face to Jews by reinstating him now, just a few weeks after he made his his revisionist views known on Swedish television.

[Keystone Phil]

I'm sorry but while I obviously disagree with Holocaust deniers, I'm not sold on the idea that they ought to be excommunicated from the Church for that reason.

He was not excommunicated for being a Holocaust denier.  He was excommunicated years ago for reasons regarding Catholic theology.  The argument being made is that it looks like a deliberate slap in the face to Jews by reinstating him now, just a few weeks after he made his his revisionist views known on Swedish television.

I was just pointing out why people here wanted him to remain excommunicated.

[minionofmidas]

I'm sorry but while I obviously disagree with Holocaust deniers, I'm not sold on the idea that they ought to be excommunicated from the Church for that reason.

He was not excommunicated for being a Holocaust denier.  He was excommunicated years ago for reasons regarding Catholic theology.  The argument being made is that it looks like a deliberate slap in the face to Jews by reinstating him now, just a few weeks after he made his his revisionist views known on Swedish television.

I was just pointing out why people here wanted him to remain excommunicated.

For "people" read "benconstine".

While discussion of The Pontiff's decision certainly merits a place here, let's all take a step back and not broad brush an entire denomination as Anti-Semitic or pro-Hitler.

Those who have discussed this in great detail (myself and Lewis) have not used a broad brush. My main concern is infact that we can't make a reasoned critique of the actions of the Vatican during WWII without being accused of some sort of 'anti-Catholicism' or at worst historical revisionism.

As an academic historian, I have to be critical and reached a balanced view. I have to grapple with some uncomfortable truths in the process but anything else would be a whitewash.

That's how I feel, Andrew.  And you, as a Catholic, certainly have more ground than I, as an Anglican, from which to criticize.

My beef is not with thoughtful, reasoned criticisms of the RCC.  Especially such criticisms coming from within its membership.  My criticism is aimed at those who see the church doing wrong, either now or in the past, and presuming that is always -- or even usually -- the case.  I don't think it is.

But I certainly do concur with the belief that the Catholic Church has much to repent for.  Yet I also feel precisely the same way about my denomination.  We Anglicans and Episcopalians have no shortage of embarassing history.

Repent? Meh. If the Christian churches were to "repent" and change their ways on every wrong they've done, I don't think they'd qualify as "Christian" any more, so I'm certainly not asking them to do anything of the kind.

I would be perfectly content with knowing that the bad old pre-58 days are not to return.

[Middle-aged Europe]

I finally looked this Williamson guy up and it seems that the Holocaust denial thing is just one aspect about him.

Wikipedia claims that he called Jews "enemies of Christ" and believes that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion are authentic. He also opposes the wearing of trousers by women and thinks that women shouldn't be attending universities. In addition, he claims that 9/11 was staged by the U.S. government.

If all of those allegations are true I'd classify him as a christian fundamentialist and conspiracy theory nut. The denial of a Holocaust is also some form of conspiracy theory, so it probably fits. He's a cross between Pat Robertson, Lyndon LaRouche, and Ernst Zündel.

[12th Doctor]

I finally looked this Williamson guy up and it seems that the Holocaust denial thing is just one aspect about him.

Wikipedia claims that he called Jews "enemies of Christ" and believes that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion are authentic. He also opposes the wearing of trousers by women and thinks that women shouldn't be attending universities. In addition, he claims that 9/11 was staged by the U.S. government.

If all of those allegations are true I'd classify him as a christian fundamentialist and conspiracy theory nut. The denial of a Holocaust is also some form of conspiracy theory, so it probably fits. He's a cross between Pat Robertson, Lyndon LaRouche, and Ernst Zündel.

All views he is perfectly welcome to.  I wonder, why is it that the same people who always complain that the Catholic Church is too involved in trying to control people's thought, are now also the same people who are chastising the Church for allowing someone back in, whoholds unpopular views?

Perhaps some hypocrisy there.  One would would think that if someone was opposed to the Catholic Church for not being a "big tent" Church and accepting all points of view (like a good modern church should), would then be happy to see this man readmitted to the flock.

Of course, people who degrade the Church have never really quite seemed to grasp that the Church doesn't really care about modern social trends; and that is why they truly dislike it.  Because the Pope is not on talk shows, acquiescing to ever new cultural and theological fade that comes around... and really, its more cultural, because most people who oppose the Church haven't the slightest idea what it actually teaches.

And, once again, people have taken something that is really about theology, and made it into something about social norms.  This is yet another excuse for people to point at how "out of touch" the Church is with society. 

[pbrower2a]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Solution: Give an order that that bishop visit the site of a Nazi murder camp so that he can be disabused of his folly. Let him see the death list for one day. Let him see manifests for shipments of Zyklon-B.  Let him see a gas chamber. Let him find out how deadly hydrogen cyanide gas is.

Holocaust deniers are fools.  But "only 300,000 Jews perished under in Nazi concentration camps"? Isn't that moral relativism? What is the threshold of evil? The Nazis aren't "that bad" because they "only" killed 300,000 Jews instead of six million?

Ted Bundy and John Gacy both murdered about 30 people, and I consider them monsters beyond redemption.

So how do 300,000 people deserve to die in a concentration camp? What did Jews do to deserve being sent to concentration camps?  Why shouldn't they have been left unmolested? Aren't human rights moral laws -- absolute ones?

[12th Doctor]

I'm coming back to this tomorrow, BTW.  Finally time to do something I enjoy for a moment.

[dead0man]

I hate holocaust deniers and normally enjoy bashing Catholics, but this is a bit of a stretch.

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

I heard that the pope could finally not reintegrate Williamson in the Church. Good.

Through what he said there was that Shoah was "a crime against humanity and against God".

It might be because I'm not monotheist, but, I wonder the hell how a crime against "God" is possible??

[Keystone Phil]

LOL @ MSNBC...

They were just reporting how the Pope apparently said Holocaust denying is unacceptable and then, to recap the scandal, the reporter described the outcry over this issue as "the furor."