Theology IV

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Archbishop Lefebvre was not a heretic, although you are correct to portray him as a schismatic.

Yes, Williamson's positions are unfortunate. Yes, the general trend of the SSPX crowd tends towards anti-Semitism, and that is unfortunate. Yes, their views of the Jewish people are downright wrong. But that is no reason to prolong schism. The Holocaust is an historical fact, not a doctrine of the faith. So long as the doctrines of the faith are held, there is no valid reason for schism to continue.

Note the press release by Bishop Fellay, Superior General of the SSPX, on the matter.

The SSPX was, certainly, started through low reactionary tendencies, and a desire to cling fanatically to a certain old-fashioned conservatism. This survives to an extent, as seen in the likes of Bishop Williamson. However, there is more going on than this. The past twenty years have greatly softened the SSPX, and a desire for reconciliation has arisen to the point where it is, very often, stronger than the reactionary element in the society. There are always going to be priests and even bishops who say crazy things.

The Vatican has done nothing wrong in this matter.

Well, I think it would be safe to say the set-up is, the Pope can't do anything wrong. I mean, that's how it rolls.

However, after the work in my lifetime to bring the Catholic Church into a place where the historical wrongs done the Jews are acknowledged and the friendly relationship between Catholicism and other faiths strengthened, to have this occur is a change in policy.

Of course, to non-Catholics, the problem is that the Pope is a Nazi.

[Willow Oran]

Of course, to non-Catholics, the problem is that the Pope is a Nazi.

I suspect that counts as a problem for many catholics as well.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Sis

Well, I think it would be safe to say the set-up is, the Pope can't do anything wrong. I mean, that's how it rolls.

Don't know what catechism you've been reading, Sis, but it sure ain't the Catholic one. The belief that a Pope is never does anything wrong, whether in his personal life or in terms of prudential (or not-so-prudential) exercise of his jurisdiction, is false, according to any Catholic that knows half of anything about his faith. I am quite free to criticise Rome is matters, and I exercise that freedom when I think a Cardinal, a Congregation, or a Pope errs.

However, after the work in my lifetime to bring the Catholic Church into a place where the historical wrongs done the Jews are acknowledged and the friendly relationship between Catholicism and other faiths strengthened, to have this occur is a change in policy.

There is no change in policy. The Church is in no way denying the wrongs done to the Jews. Just because there's a crackpot bishop somewhere shooting off his mouth, doesn't mean that's what the Church teaches. You can find a bishop who will say pretty much anything. But even so, Rome has said, not only that he should retract his claims, but that he will be barred from episcopal service unless he does so in an unequivocal way.

Anti-Semitism is wrong, and is a terrible thing. But it is not a ground for schism. I'm not sure you understand what schism is to the Church. The disunity and infighting of Christians is the biggest scandal in the history of the Church, and the greatest wound to the Church. It is a horrible, horrible thing. We can only continue in the firm hope that eventually, the Church will be united once again. The Church perpetually clings to the prayer of Christ, "That they might be one, as You and I are one". Ecclesial unity is essential to the Catholic mind. You can criticize this mindset, you can criticize the importance given to union with Rome in favour of a vague, indefinite "invisible unity". But given that the Church holds this, it is absolutely imperative for her to work for the unity of Christians. To fail to do so would be to her condemnation, and a lapse of her duty. The Church is not a social gathering, she is not a political entity, she is an ark, for the salvation of sick souls. To neglect those souls is the greatest crime.

And recall, this is not a matter that touches solely upon bishop Williamson. This is the whole Society of St. Pius X. That means four bishops, hundreds of priests, and hundreds of thousands of laity. Should they all be barred from the Church? Even though the Superior General has rejected the statements of Williamson? Even though the German Superior has done so in the strongest terms? Even though he has been forbidden from public statement on the matter?

Originally Posted by Google Translator

As a District of Upper Priest Fraternity of St. Pius X. in Germany, I am with my brothers shocked by the statements of Bishop Williamson in this country.

The trivialisation killings of Jews of the Nazi regime and its atrocities are unacceptable to us.

The persecution and murder of countless Jews in the Third Reich touched us very painful, but they hurt deeply the Christian commandment of love, which knows no ethnic differences.

I apologize for this behavior and I apologize for any statement of this kind of distance.

For us, such a distancing also be self-evident, because the father of Archbishop Lefebvre himself died in a concentration camp, and many Catholic priests in Hitler's camps Criminal their lives.

For the original German, scroll down to Stellungnahme des deutschen Distriktoberen zu den Aussagen von Bischof Williamson

Of course, to non-Catholics, the problem is that the Pope is a Nazi.

Is not.

I suspect that counts as a problem for many catholics as well.

It would, if he were.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Don't know what catechism you've been reading, Sis, but it sure ain't the Catholic one. The belief that a Pope is never does anything wrong, whether in his personal life or in terms of prudential (or not-so-prudential) exercise of his jurisdiction, is false, according to any Catholic that knows half of anything about his faith. I am quite free to criticise Rome is matters, and I exercise that freedom when I think a Cardinal, a Congregation, or a Pope errs.

I wear shoes, occasionally, Gwai...I'm not listening to some hillbilly version of Catholic doctrine that confuses theological infailability with sinlessness. But the American Catholic church has had a very rough ride recently with their 'freedom to criticise", and the Vatican, and particularly the new pontiff, has been severely unresponsive to SIGNIFICANT issues (like the sheltering of child abusers) that fall into the areas where their pastoral responsibility has failed. You can't say "Your channel to God is through these guys" and then deny your responsibility for their authority. Likewise, when the Catholic Church wishes to get involved in electoral politics, it can't scurry back behind "we're a church, non-profit" . The Church is devoted to the prevention of schism, so it has to encompass anti-Semites? Give me a break. It's not so obsessed with church unity when it's talking about pro-choice Catholics, is it? Apparently it's okay to advocate the murder of Jews, as long as their mothers are required to give birth to them first.

When we look at these priorities, the bias of the leader is easy to question. When we look at his background...it's not difficult to find.

The Assumption of Mary. There's infailability for ya.

[inked]

Lithely and blithely stolen from sf-fandom.com thread for perusal here because it clarifies some very basic issues that seem to have gotten highly confused. Kudos to Shadowfax for his elucidations! See http://www.sf-fandom.com/vbulletin/s...ad.php?t=30549 for the entire thread and discussion there.


"Bishop Williamson is not being re-instated. To be re-instated he would have to be offered a job as a proper bishop with a diocese and the associated staff and powers and responsibilities etc. The pope is most definitely not offering him this. All that he is getting is a suspension of an excommunication. An excommunication is applied to a person by the pope as a severe form of punishment and it bars that person from receiving the sacrement of Holy Communion. All the pope is saying when he suspends this excommunication is that if Williamson turns up in a Catholic Church he may receive communion.

The Catholic Church has numerous apostate and dissident and maverick priests and bishops (including people such as Hans Kung). These have not been excommunicated for their views but merely suspended from their functions. This is a lesser form of punishment. By offering to suspend Willamson's excommunication, he is transitioning towards this lesser form. From there he can, just as Hans Kung can, make steps towards a full rehabilitation by taking back his words and demonstarting that he means it.

Now, Williamson was not excommunicated for denying the Holocaust. He was excommunicated for allowing Lefebvre to make him a bishop in express violation of the Pope's wishes back in the 1980s. By lifting that excommunication, the Pope is showing him that he is prepared to stretch out his hand in forgiveness over that particular violation. If the public or the press or Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany, or Jewish representatives have a problem with their being forgiveness over that particular and specific violation of Church law, let them come forwards and argue why there should be no forgiveness. They don't have those arguments.

Now Williamson has independently of that also done something else to annoy people. He has denied the Holocaust. Maybe he should be excommunicated for that. I'm no expert in Church law so can't judge whether that crime merits such a punishment. But supposing it does, then that is a second excommunication we would be talking about. You can't posteriorly change the reason for an excommunication that has been issued over a completely different matter. This would be comparable to you being issued a parking fine by the police, and when you proved that you were innocent, the police said pay up anyway because you were also speeding. Two separate violations require two separate punishments and you cannot roll one into the other for reasons of expedience.

So when people are shocked that the Pope is willing to forgive Williamson for obeying Lefebrvre back in the 1980s, what they really are saying is that he doesn't deserve to have his excommunication lifted becsuse he deserves another excommunication because he has denied the Holocaust. But so have many other people denied the Holocaust and they haven't been excommunicated. Okay, this is no reason not to start now and why not start of with Williamson? I would support such a move if it were to include all Holocaust deniers rather than just one or two. But that's not what the press or any of these folks are arguing for. They are barking up the wrong tree. There is no connection whatsover between Willimason's excommunication and his Holocaust denial." ***comment #8 in the thread***

and

"Well, Bishop Williamson has now been removed from his teaching job. I think that in deciding to do that, the RCC is making it quite clear that such opinions as his are not welcome.

The present pope has possibly done more than any other pope in history to build bridges to other religions and especially Judaism and to accuse him of complicity in Holocaust-denial is just not tenable. I believe there was a genuine mistake as his advisors failed to do a proper background check on Williamson. I would agree that maybe the Pope ought to be asking his advisors tough questions on why they didn't spot this, seeing there is so much material readily available on Google and YouTube. But to wish to see malice behind this is really not fair." ***comment #16 in the thread***

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Inked, that makes perfect sense to me. Thanks for the posting.

But what does it have to do with schism? *scratches head* Make your peace with the Church, you're no longer excommunicate. That's an individual matter.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

The Church is devoted to the prevention of schism, so it has to encompass anti-Semites? Give me a break. It's not so obsessed with church unity when it's talking about pro-choice Catholics, is it?

The Church doesn't excommunicate pro-abortion Catholics. She condemns their opinion, but she doesn't throw them out of the fold.

Originally Posted by sis

the Catholic Church wishes to get involved in electoral politics, it can't scurry back behind "we're a church, non-profit"

Originally Posted by sis

But what does it have to do with schism? *scratches head* Make your peace with the Church, you're no longer excommunicate. That's an individual matter.

As noted in the quotes by inked (and as I tried, apparently unsuccessfully, to say), the excommunication had nothing to do with Holocaust denial, but with Lefebvre making Fellay, Williamson, and whoever-the-other-two-are bishops without the okay of Rome, and generally ignoring the hierarchy of the Church.
The consecration of these four instigated a schism between the Society and Rome, with the four excommunicate bishops as the heads of the Society.
Rome and the Society have been drifting towards an end of that schism for the past several years. Letters have been exchanged, conditions have been proposed, etc. It seems that they have come to a final agreement, or have come close to a final agreement. The first official step towards unity would logically be to lift the excommunication on the leaders of the Society, and this has been done, as a step towards the healing of the schism.

Does that make sense?

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Yes, thank you.

making bishops without permission=BAD
hating Jews without cause<BAD

*nods*

[inked]

a little simplistic, SACA

See here: http://www.iht.com/articles/2009/02/10/europe/pope.php

AND here: http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,4015374,00.html

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Now, sis, you know very well that it cannot be reduced to such simplistic terms. Canon law mandates excommunication for acts of schism, among which is listed the consecration of bishops without the approval of the Holy See. Denial of the Holocaust is simply something that wouldn't enter into sphere of canon law, although there might well be something about causing grave scandal or somesuch, which could be brought to bear on Williamson.

Why do you insist on painting it in the worst possible terms? You're an intelligent woman, you know these broad strokes you are using are unfair. So why do it?

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Sorry, Gwai.

My respect for the people here interferes with my more natural tendency to start up with anyone for any or no reason. *sigh*

But if no one ever takes an opposing position, there are 11 posts here a day, and they all center on virtual snacks!

Just trying to keep the ball in play. *tears*

[GrayMouser]

Not wishing to keep cluttering up the multi-culti thread...

The Pope, who visited the UK last month, has invited Anglicans to join the Roman Catholic Church An Anglican congregation in Kent has become the first to take up the Pope's offer to leave the Church of England to convert to Catholicism.

The Pope has created a special enclave in the Roman Catholic Church for Anglicans unhappy with their church's decision to let women become bishops.

......
At a conference of Forward in Faith, a group representing traditionalist Catholic Anglicans, its chairman the Bishop of Fulham John Broadhurst announced his intention to convert to Catholicism.

Bishop Broadhurst is currently the "flying bishop" charged with looking after traditionalist parishes opposed to women priests and bishops in the dioceses of London, Southwark and Rochester.

The moves by St Peter's and the Bishop of Fulham come despite a stronger than expected showing by traditionalists in elections to the Church of England's General Synod.

Their success means, in future, they may try to block current legislation to introduce women bishops.

Traditionalists are claiming they have more seats on the synod, and could insist on the provision of male alternative bishops on terms acceptable to them.


Traditionalists are claiming a strong showing at the synod elections They say only a handful of additional votes are needed to make sure future women bishops are bound by legally enforceable rules governing how they deal with clergy and parishes unwilling to serve under them.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11557206

I actually come across this attitude fairly often...but then that's because I teach a lot of elementary school students.

" You aren't gonna let a girl boss you around, are you?! Oooh, you got girl fleas! Girl-cooties! Girl-cooties!"

Most people get over it by the age of 12.

Here's a suggestion for some new headgear for the Bishop to signify his new position

http://calvinandhobbes.me/grosshat.php

[GrayMouser]

Pope Endorses Condom Use








....for gay male prostitutes.


Presumably the same logic would apply to a female prostitute who's sterile or having sex with a sterile john.

Actually, with that reasoning, shouldn't it cover any sexual relationship where one of the partners is infertile?

That still leaves the question of the young African woman whose husband has contracted AIDS -either no to sex for the rest of their lives ( no divorce, of course) or every encounter is a game of Russian roulette not only with her life but also any child that may be being concieved.

Still, one small step toward sanity....

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Really, what the pope said is a no-brainer, given the reasoning for Vatican positions; I mean, contraception is a non-issue in sex between two people of the same sex, and when one of the partners is infertile, as you note, so . . . duh.

The case you mention, of a married couple where one of them has AIDS, is a matter of debate among RC moralists. Myself, I fall in the camp that says condom use is moral in those circumstances.

[GrayMouser]

Looks like the Pope has come down on that side

Pope Benedict XVI's comments about condom use being a lesser evil than transmitting HIV also apply to women, the Vatican said Tuesday, a significant shift for a pope who just last year said condoms only worsen the AIDS problem.

Benedict said in a book released Tuesday that condom use by people such as male prostitutes was a lesser evil since it indicated they were taking a step toward a more moral and responsible sexuality by aiming to protect their partner from a deadly infection.

His comments implied that he was referring primarily to homosexual sex, when condoms aren't being used as a form of contraception, which the Vatican opposes.

Questions arose immediately, however, about the pope's intent because the Italian translation of the book used the feminine for prostitute, whereas the original German used the masculine.

The Vatican spokesman, the Rev. Federico Lombardi, told reporters Tuesday that he asked the pope whether he intended his comments to only apply to male prostitutes. Benedict replied that it really didn't matter, that the important thing was the person in question took into consideration the life of the other, Lombardi said.

"I personally asked the pope if there was a serious, important problem in the choice of the masculine over the feminine," Lombardi said. "He told me no. The problem is this ... It's the first step of taking responsibility, of taking into consideration the risk of the life of another with whom you have a relationship."

"This is if you're a woman, a man, or a transsexual. We're at the same point," Lombardi said.

The pope is not justifying or condoning gay sex or heterosexual sex outside of a marriage. Elsewhere in the book he reaffirms the Vatican opposition to homosexual acts and artificial contraception and reaffirms the inviolability of marriage between man and woman.

But by broadening the condom comments to also apply to women, the pope is saying that condom use in heterosexual relations is the lesser evil than passing HIV onto a partner.

While that concept has long been a tenet of moral theology, the pope's book "Light of the World" — a series of interviews with a German journalist — was the first time a pope had ever publicly applied the theory to the scenario of condom use as a way to fight HIV transmission.

The pope's comments have generated heated debate, mostly positive in places like Africa which has been devastated by AIDS and where the church has been criticized for its opposition to condom use.

This is really, really good news for places like Africa and the Phillipines.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Someone's getting their news from NPR.

[GrayMouser]

Oooops, forgot the link- it comes from AP by way of Talking Points Memo

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/new..._women_too.php

Of course I only listen to the CBC - anyway, the head of Fox news tells me NPR is run by Nazis.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Ah, I'd just read the NPR article, which was exactly the same as what you posted. I made the foolish assumption that they were the one's who came up with it; silly goose that I am!

[GrayMouser]

First they came for the nuns, and I did not speak out, because I was not a nun.

Then, they came for the Girl Scouts....

http://www.csmonitor.com/The-Culture...tholic-bishops

What next?

'The US Conference of Catholic Bishops recently issued a condemnation of puppies, kittens and other small furry animals.
"Sure, they have those cute little tails and wiggly noses", Cardinal Dolan said yesterday, " But when was the last time you heard a bunny rabbit criticizing gay marriage, hmmm?" '

[Insidious Rex]

So the Girl Scouts, a secular organization, is catching hell for not following Catholic doctrine but the Boy Scouts are patted on the back for openly discriminating against gays? I guess that war on women has been extended to 8 year olds selling cookies then? Guess they figured it was just a slippery slope to the "Safe Sex Badge" so they had to do something. Although I do find it amusing whenever I hear the Catholic Church spearheading this kind of thing and acting indignant about the possibility of "problematic relationships" of ANY kind when it comes to children...