Ferrara on Lifting of SSPX Excommunications, Vatican II, and Williamson
#21
columba Wrote:Jewish power has forced Rome to renege by demanding the SSPX first swallow man-centered Holocaust dogma as a test of religious faith.
It is not dogma; it is fact and there were too many first-hand witnesses for anyone to deny it credibly.  If the story was faked by conspirators, it would have meant that tens of thousands of people from all kinds of different nations and groups would have had to agree on the details of a lie and keep their stories consistent over many years.  Statistically, it is impossible.  Declaring that the Holocaust was anything less than a holocaust is on the same intellectual level as declaring that the Earth is flat.
Reply
#22
Perhaps we need to put the Williamson problem in terms that Catholics can more easily understand and relate to. 

For example, hypothetically speaking, the crime of abortion could be outlawed in the US in say 10 years time.  Later, some folks start to negate or minimize the full extent of the horror of abortion in America.  Arguments will follow the lines of "only 300 Thousand abortions have been performed" and "there were never any violent proceedures such as partial birth abortion -- it is a myth" and "abortion was never harmful to the mother".  

Such assertions would cause outrage and lead to a crack down against "abortion denial" in the US.  
Reply
#23
Quote: Declaring that the Holocaust was anything less than a holocaust is on the same intellectual level as declaring that the Earth is flat.

Sorry, but that is just your opinion. The bishop stated the reasons for his views. This site forbids debating the holocaust, pro or con.

If the Bishop believed the world was flat, or some other eccentric theory that has nothing to do with faith or morals, there would be no outcry.

Reply
#24
"I suppose he has a right to his views -- but nobody has an unlimited license to propogate errors.  There is no right to error, as such.  Furthermore, he does not have a right to use the status of Bishop to profess his views."

I KNOW the bishop has a right to his own views. And, how can we be certain his views are "errors?" I think there's still room for debate on my aspects of the Holocaust. I'm not willing to accept every "official" aspect of the Holocaust story, which dates back some 50 years. Debate on this or any other historical subject should not be a hate crime, as it is today in my European countries.

Lastly, I do not believe Bishop Williamson has ever said to an audience, "I am a Roman Catholic bishop; thus, you must accept my views on every non-religious issue." Status or position should have no bearing on individual freedom of speech.
Reply
#25
newschoolman Wrote:Perhaps we need to put the Williamson problem in terms that Catholics can more easily understand and relate to. 

For example, hypothetically speaking, the crime of abortion could be outlawed in the US in say 10 years time.  Later, some folks start to negate or minimize the full extent of the horror of abortion in America.  Arguments will follow the lines of "only 300 Thousand abortions have been performed" and "there were never any violent proceedures such as partial birth abortion -- it is a myth" and "abortion was never harmful to the mother".  

Such assertions would cause outrage and lead to a crack down against "abortion denial" in the US.  

Do you really think that's a valid comparison? Why would anyone care if people denied that there was once legal abortion?

Something of a stretch. A rather ironic comparison, since those criticizing the Pope for his decision are partisans for (the Jewish groups) or collaborators with abortion, like Cardinal Lehmann.


Reply
#26
newschoolman Wrote:Such assertions would cause outrage and lead to a crack down against "abortion denial" in the US. 

No it wouldn't. There would still be freedom of speech here.Your analogy fails.

Plus there is indisputable proof of abortion and partial birth. Catholic apologists would make public mince meat of abortion deniers and nobody would take them seriously much less get upset at them.

If there is indisputable proof of gas chambers and "6 million" why isn't it being brought forward and Williamson publicly discredited, instead of yelling "anti-semite" and "Holocaust denier" with absolutely no logical counter arguments posited? Would Catholics in your example just rabidly yell "denier" with absolutely no intellectual challenge? Hardly.

Reply
#27
Quote:No it wouldn't. There would still be freedom of speech here.Your analogy fails.

Actually, it holds up rather well.  The reason is because "freedom of speech" is not unlimited and unqualified.  In other words, all natural rights have their natural limits.

Reply
#28
Michael_G Wrote:Declaring that the Holocaust was anything less than a holocaust is on the same intellectual level as declaring that the Earth is flat.

Well, pardon my ignorance, but I thought that first and foremost a holocaust was a sacrificial offering to God that was consumed entirely by flames, as we can read in Holy Scripture.

Now, in the sense of a great destruction resulting in the extensive loss of life, especially by fire, or a massive destruction of humans by other humans, "holocaust" shouldn't be exclusively used to refer to the massacres of Jews in WWII, especially when one tends to mystify it by calling it the Holocaust, with a capital h, don't you think?

The fact that many Jews, amongst other groups, were targeted, persecuted and killed by the Nazi regime, regardless of the actual number of victims, shouldn't earn them the right to monopolize the tragedies of human suffering by somehow copyrighting the term "holocaust" to refer to their tragedy alone. Furthermore honest historical inquiry into theses facts, even if it involves the questioning of some of these accepted "truths" about this event, should be encouraged and not scorned or even forbidden.
Reply
#29
StevusMagnus Wrote:If there is indisputable proof of gas chambers and "6 million" why isn't it being brought forward and Williamson publicly discredited, instead of yelling "anti-semite" and "Holocaust denier" with absolutely no logical counter arguments posited?
I suggest that it does not need to be proved and has not needed to be proved for the past 50 years.  The Germans were good at record keeping.  They recorded all the Jews who lived in Germany before 1935, they recorded what happened to them and those other prisoners (note how their careful filing system allowed for the canonisation of St Maximilian Kolbë) and it was not too difficult to subtract one from the other.  Even if someone could show that they put all the Jews in internment camps and most of them died of some galloping contagious disease, would it make any difference to the fact that millions of people of Jesus's own race were dispossessed and rounded up, because of their race, and mistreated to the point where they died?
Reply
#30
newschoolman Wrote:
Quote:No it wouldn't. There would still be freedom of speech here.Your analogy fails.

Actually, it holds up rather well.  The reason is because "freedom of speech" is not unlimited and unqualified.  In other words, all natural rights have their natural limits.

There is no natural right to err on matters of Faith.

Hopefully Vatican II will be definitively interpreted to ensure that no one will be able to argue the contrary without contradicting the current Pope's statements on the matter.

The Pope does not have authority to tell Catholics they must believe something is a matter a of historical fact when it is not a question of the Deposit of Faith.

You are confusing the situation by considering a rather outlandish hypothetical situation that would not be a threat to the Church in any case.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)