I am probably the last person fit to comment on theological matters, so I refrained so far from saying anything in view of the ongoing discussion about the ex-excommunication by Pope Benedict XVI of that Holocaust-denying renegate bishop. However, the discussion here in Germany has become so strident, hysterical and impertinent, that I'd like to comment, even if only briefly.While the statement, that the Pope hadn't known about the Holocaust-denial of Williamson (the much-publicized interview was, in fact, given AFTER the excommunication was revoked, but his stance wasn't new) shows that the information system of the Vatican leaves a lot to be desired, it wasn't in any way discussed, let alone the not entirely outlandish conspiracy theory that the pope was conned.
The instead ensuing anti-Catholic hate orgy in the media violated, and is still violating, any common standard of journalistic ethics (an oxymoron if I've ever heard one). I can not tell how many times I had to listen to the tale of the "rehabilitation of the Holocaust denier", and even the very last theological troll was allowed to let loose his inner child. Hans Küng, who called for the "resignation" of the pope and who is particularly qualified to comment on Jewish topic as he considers, for once on the side of traditional Catholicism, "the international law-violating occupation of the Palestinian territories by Israel since 1967" a reason for the deterioration of the Jewish-Catholic relations, concluded in an interview with the "conservative" newspaper Die Welt: "The number of Christians who have left the Holy Land is speaking for itself", conveniently forgetting that it isn't Israeli-Jewish "occupation" who does that but Palestinian-Muslim atrocities, lauding, eerily befitting, Islam's forceful Monotheism in the same interview.
And nobody laughed.
So what is the ex-excomunication really about? The four men may now attend again confession and receive absolution. They may receive communion and will not have to die without the solace of the sacraments of their church. That is all.
All, but very much for a Catholic.
But the public discussion is not really about that, it is about the authority of the pope and the Catholic church, who doggedly refuse to surrender their values to secular ones. The world will cease to despise Catholics once they've accepted the rules of political correctness as above the word of Jesus Christ, in other words, when they have ceased to be Catholics.
Germany is a secular country. Since the revision of paragraph § 166 StGB of the penal code in 1969, blasphemy has been abolished as a punishable crime. Holocaust denial, in contrast, has been elevated to a status where it is liable to prosecution, and the European Union, in the same spirit, refrained to include any reference to God in their constitution but made Holocaust denial a punishable crime as well.
Have superior ethics and morality been thus achieved?
Well, what can I say? There is certainly a difference between the importance that is given to the denial of the past Holocaust and the call for a future one.
If a Muslim-mob haunts the streets of our country chanting "Death to the Jews" it doesn't seem to be a big matter. If German politicians are rubbing shoulders with the Middle Eastern scum who are ready, willing and able to commit a second Holocaust, most of them deniers of the first one themselves, it's mostly a good thing. If a
Thus, the "Never Again" solemnly and hypocritically sworn at any Liberation-of-Auschwitz-Day, turns well-nigh into the precondition for the "Way to go" for the next one.
Cross-posted at Roncesvalles.
7 comments:
Thank you, Editrix. I have not waded into this either because, as a Catholic, the hate and vitriol was so loud it would have done no good. I tried to explain, best I understod, early on what had happened but got no traction.
Good piece, Editrix. Thanks.
It has been hard to get accurate news on the Pope's intentions when it comes to this story. However, the blame lies at least in part on the Vatican itself.
A lot of Catholics get angry at the criticism. But, if the story had been clearly communicated in the first place, it would have helped people like myself who are basically Vatican apologists.
Agreed, Pasto. Where I ran into trouble and backed away was when the criticism and hatred starting moving away from the core issue in to general Catholic bashing which so many just love to do at any given opportunity. Some of the shit I read at Jawa and LGF was just plain moonbat stupid. How do you hold me accountable and evil for something my Church did 600, 700, 800 years ago? Something they have apologised for, recanted etc. That's the thinking of Islam, not Judeo-Christian. That's like an African american, whom I've never oppresed, demanding reparations from me because my ancestor 450 yrs ago owned 2 slaves.
Anyway, that's all rhetorical, not directed at you. But why I backed off this one early.
Here's the thing: I am not Catholic, so it is hard for me to understand the terms Catholics use. I have come to believe the Editrix's phrase that these men have been "ex-excommunicated" is accurate.
However, as a Protestant, there was a significant learning curve required for me to tease the few available facts out of the great morass of negative media.
Many of the media stories referred to the man as being a Bishop. My question from the beginning was, is the Pope reistating this man as a Bishop. It wasn't until yesterday that I found the answer was no.
It seems to me appropriate that the man can break bread at the Communion table. Christ certainly would have eaten with him. But, Christ would not stand for Holocaust denial, and he would not have had a Holocaust deniers as an apostle.
And there was the problem. The fucking media, again. Spinning it the worst way possible, not telling us everything. Even I said though (from my position as a Catholic) un-excommunicating him that the Pope should have then roundhoused him. I didn't know until yesterday that Benedict (apparently) wasn't even aware of the issue when he lifted the excommunication. And it is also true that the statement that caused the uproar was made after excommunication was lifted. But what the media latches onto and spews, in this order, is "Bishop was excommunicated, Bishop denies holocaust, Bishop is rehabilitated." Not that he was ex-com for reasons other than shoah denial, taht that open denial came AFTER rehab., that the Pope didn't knwo about the interview, that he wasn't rehabed back as a priest.
All of which gives the media it's blood orgy of anti-Catholicism.
Anyway, I still say this Pope of mine needs to wake up and STAND UP much more forcefully about the anti-semitism and Islam.
I guess what I mean is the media stirs up the masses and didn't give the Church the chance to explain how it works what happened and why to the non-Catholics the media was stirring up. Instead it made sure they remained in the dark or worse, purposely close-minded.
Good discussion guys, thank you! I have given it its own entry at Roncesvalles.
Post a Comment