Posted by PZ Myers on January 29, 2009 Here is Bishop Richard Williamson speaking just last week. This is the kind of gentleman of high character the Pope would see in a leadership position in the Catholic church, since he did revoke his prior excommunication.
I think he’ll fit right in with the pedophiles and other reprobates who find a haven in the church.
(via Do Not Trust Me)
Turn the other cheek seems much more insidious now.
One Nazi rehabilitating another Nazi. Quel surprise!
I can see no reason ***why*** Pope Nazi would rehabilitate this particular bishop! Is there any purpose for this that can be accepted by mature intelligent humans?
Its seems its not only science that has its cranks, history has them too.
Some of his views, as presented on Wikipedia, suggest that he is a unique and superior kind of idiot.
Is there any purpose for this that can be accepted by mature intelligent humans?
No, but due to their scarcity that is not a problem.
If you can believe in an invisible sky fairy and all the bullshit trappings and dogma espoused by the catholic church, then it’s not much of a leap to believing in grand conspiracy theories that deny the historicity of one of the most extensively documented and researched events in human history (the Holocaust). I think we have less evidence that the Roman Empire existed than we do that the Holocaust happened.
Disgusting. Absolutely disgusting. And yet so much of our world looks up to men like him, and likely this man himself. How does a video like this one not raise huge red flags in more peoples’ minds? I am feeling really horrified of the mental status of so many of our world’s citizens right now. In addition to this awful video, I just checked out my facebook account to find that one of my former highschool classmates, who consequently is now teaching children herself, is very upset about the TTC’s new ads (ie., the atheist bus signs), and a huge list of my fellow friends agree with her. Give me a break! How does a video like this one not raise huge red flags in more peoples’ minds?
Fuck me, I just shake my head in bewilderment….
What’s with the weird insistence that there were no gas chambers? He seems more concerned that we stop thinking there were such things as gas chambers than with the numbers of people killed.
Oops, sorry about that accidental copy and paste at the end of my post @#8. I think this video made me a little too worked up.
Hah! My girl-friend just broke up with me because she’s a good Catholic girl and she can’t be with an immoral atheist. I wish I could get her to watch this, but she’d probably come up with an excuse for him.
He says he believes Jewish people were killed in great numbers, but he doesn’t believe gas chambers were used…
I kind of get someone ignoring the obvious facts when they want to deny that the holocaust happened. All manner of weird hatreds or beliefs might provide the motivation to be deliberately obtuse. But I’m having trouble understanding why he would be in denial of one of the common methods of execution… It is kind of like someone understanding and accepting evolutionary theory but denying the existance of ring species. Where’s the motivation? What’s the point?
The Catholic church is consistent. They sided with fascism (fascists in the Spanish revolution, Nazi German, Mussolini’s fascist party), they kept quiet while Jews and others were being exterminated (but they raised a fuss when retarded children were being sterilized) they helped hide Nazis after the war, and now they are putting Holocaust deniers in top positions.
And best of all, when the Pope makes a visit to America it’s paid for with taxpayer money thanks to Reagan.
Is there any purpose for this that can be accepted by mature intelligent humans?
No, but due to their scarcity that’s not a problem.
Yes. They were all taken to a farm.
Sorry for the double post: first time I got a “fail” message
So, I guess all the first-hand accounts of the gas chamber survivors is now refuted???
People like this need to STFU!
FTV:
I believe that the historical evidence… is strongly against… six million Jews having been deliberately gassed in gas chambers as a deliberate policy of Adolf Hitler.”
Oh, I get it. He’s saying that Hitler’s murderous persecution of Jews wasn’t deliberate. You know, it was all just a big misunderstanding… a mistake…
Well that clears things up.
After that it’s scary to imagine what else this depraved collar wearing sociopath believes. Can you imagine leaving children alone with him?
I have days where I feel like I’ve reached my cynicism limit, that it’s just not gonna really produce an emotional rise when the next example of stupidity AND reprehensibility in human expression rears its head.
Then along comes this dude and I stand simultaneously corrected, flummoxed, outraged, and saddened.
No kings,
Robert
Woo! I got PZ to post a link.
But seriously, this is actually really worrying. Where are all the Catholics defending their leader’s decision to reinstate this man? Where are all the Christians apologising for this person’s comments representing a branch of their faith?
Just saying that you disagree with someone is, in this case, incredibly offensive!
Cheers
Benedict
Hey, good thing he’s not going by emotion.
And “quote unquote”, “Holocaust”? This guy has his balls for brains.
I’m reminded of the line from the movie Judgement at Nuremberg:
I was amused when Williamson said that six million jews (and four million non-jews) didn’t die in concentration camps. It was only something like 200,000 to 300,000. Even IF that were true, that’s supposed to be better?! That’s supposed to be okay?! That’s acceptable?! What qualifies as a Holocaust with this guy?
I’m reminded of the line from the movie Judgement at Nuremberg:
There were no Nazis at all in Germany! Germany must’ve been invaded by Eskimos, who took over the whole damn government without anyone knowing about it!
wtf? what’s his hangup on gas chambers, specifically…? is that like a wedge-strategy or something?
Just a quick copy of a post from my own blog (if you can call it that):
The fact that the word for “Shower” in German is now different since the holocaust is enough in itself – the evil connotations of people being tricked into thinking a gas chamber was a shower was enough to CHANGE THE GERMAN DICTIONARY. What more do you need?!
One of the things most conspiracy theorists stress is that their views are “based on their own study.” They think this gives them credibility, because they were thinking for themselves, checking things out, and not just taking the words of the authorities. They did research.
So you have dentists denying evolution, priests denying the holocaust, actresses denying AIDs and hair dressers explaining that the WTC couldn’t have fallen down because they were struck by jets, because that’s not how buildings fall when they’re hit by jets.
They take the reasonable idea that one is supposed to be skeptical and do research, and then forget that, if it’s not their area of expertise, then it’s unlikely that they’re going to easily discover things that the overwhelming majority of experts were either too stupid to see — or too evil to admit.
No. It’s more likely that they’re over their heads, and talking out their hats.
Wasn’t the gas chamber one of the most humane forms of execution at the time?
If the bishop thinks the evidence is compelling, perhaps someone should send him Mr. Death: The Rise and Fall of Fred A. Leuchter, Jr. on DVD.
(Apologies if this is a repeat … something odd happened to the first post.)
His Excellency Bernard Fellay says:
“It?s clear that a Catholic bishop cannot speak with ecclesiastical authority except on questions that regard faith and morals.”
http://ncronline3.org/drupal/?q=node/3182
So take what Williamson said about the gas chambers with a grain of salt.
On the other hand, If Williamson starts blabbing on about God, you are to unquestioningly accept whatever he says.
I think the pope made a bad decision; however, he hasn’t given this man a leadership position in the Catholic church. From the Catholic point of view once a priest or bishop always a priest or bishop even if guilty of killing the Pope (though you might cease to perform as one). So this man is a bishop but he isn’t being allowed (by the Catholic church) to act as a bishop (at least not yet and probably not ever). The pope might give the other 3 something (which is still bad since I suspect their views on women are reactionary even if their views on the holocaust are more accepting of evidence). Williamson btw also believes women should not wear trousers nor go to university.
So was the former bishop reinstated as a bishop, or is he just no longer excommunicated?
On the plus side this is pretty much guaranteed to drive more people away from the Catholic Church – well, other than the anti-Semites and holocause deniers, who might be more inclined to stay because ‘one of their own’ is still involved.
A quick readthrough of Williamson’s background indicates he’s among those strongly opposed to the Second Vatican Council.
Aside from the holocaust denial, he’s also been responsible for several conspiracies regarding the Kennedy Assasination and 9/11. Then there’s his antagonistic views on Jews, other religions, etc, etc.
In short, he’s a complete jackhole that the Vatican shouldn’t have had to reconnect with if they’re serious about repairing their image (Not that it was much of rep in the first place).
Glad I left the faith.
Now let’s be honest here. The pope rescinded Williamson’s excommunication. Bad enough. But that does not mean he wants Williamson “in a leadership position”. Unless someone with better knowledge of Canon law corrects me, all it means is Williamson may again receive the sacraments. And he wasn’t excommunicated for his views in the first place (though imho he should be now) but for being anointed a bishop against John Paul II’s will. He’s still suspended from working as a bishop, I believe, though he probably doesn’t care.
We all stare at this man in frustration,
Who was kicked out over bad consecration,
But was welcomed back in
To that great loony bin
And guaranteed his eternal salvation.
(I admit I’m a mere Cuttlefish mime;
He inspires my mockery in rhyme
Of all the braindead,
F*ed up in the head
Who accept religious truth as divine.)
Wow, he just ruined the English Accent as a social sign of expertise.
*Not that it was much of rep in the first place).
Fixed to (Not that it had much of a rep in the first place)
This is pure insanity. As many have said, this is possibly the most thoroughly investigated and examined period of modern history, and this tool thinks everyone else has gotten it wrong?!?
Fuck me running, then this asswipe tries to downplay the actual number of Jews killed – this is reminiscent of when the church tried to downplay the actual number killed by the Spanish Inquisition.
This sick fucking idiocy needs to die a very undignified death…
Even though he may or may not still be a bishop, does he still get a paycheck or housing from the church? Does he still get to wear his magical super-priest outfit with the posh little white collar thingie?
Unbelievable.
Ratzi is a seriously deluded man.
I wonder if anyone ever asked him about the David Irving trial? That holocaust denier lost his case (a major smack down from the most friendly-to-plaintiffs court system in the world: England’s) based on evidence all of which he had ample opportunity to dispute during the trial. The really good news about this case comes from the decision the defense made at the outset Not to put survivors on the stand. Someday, the survivors will all die of old age. What then? The defendant (Lipstadt) won based on historical sources along with the denier’s total lack of anything even pretending to be honesty. Sweet.
Posted by: Jimminy Christmas | January 29, 2009 8:32 PM
Even though he may or may not still be a bishop, does he still get a paycheck or housing from the church? Does he still get to wear his magical super-priest outfit with the posh little white collar thingie?
Whether he does or not, his opinions are associated with the church.
If I declare myself to be a graduate of Cambridge University and make extremely controversial comments (perhaps in the name of the University), you’d expect the University to aggressively deny any association with me and my ideas.
Do we see this happening here? Not yet…
The bishop was originally excommunicated because he was ordained without the Pope’s permission as part of a schismatic group of Catholics. Rescinding the excommunication is a move to bring this group of people to come back under the Pope’s rule. This bishop was one of several and the decision had nothing to do with these views. I believe he’s still not allowed to perform any of the actions of a bishop and there are still a ton of penalties against him. This is hardly an endorsement of his views.
What a charming man you have discovered.
He reminds me of my life long habit of turning over rocks during country walks to see what is under them, I often find nothing of great interest to a layman such as myself but occasionally I find something wonderfull.
However, this is true….I was put off this habit for a time when I turned a rock over once to find that someone had shat under it.
I puked in my mouth watching this.
It has been my contention that hell and Satan are some of the stupidest ideas ever dreamt up by humanity.
I stand corrected.
That was Satan on that video clip.
I just had the hell scared out of me. What, a BISHOP? I mean it, that guy scares me.
So there really is an anti-krist.
The current pope is turning the clock back on the church. He first reinstated the prayer for the conversion of the Jews, and now this. I don’t think John Paul(with whom I had many problems)who at all be happy about this.
Holy fucking pope!
Yah gotta love the internet – one moment it’s telling me that the holy catholic church really wasn’t that too bothered about that little death factory/genocide thing oh years and years ago, and then with one click it takes to you to the most fantastic mamallian family tree:
http://donottrustme.blogspot.com/2009/01/your-family-tree.html
Zoom in, lose yourself, and try to forget that, after all, Hitler was a catholic…
Considering Himmler himself is on tape declaring the final solution to the Jewish problem is the extermination of the Jews in all of Europe, I’d like to know what “all of the evidence” the bishop has looked at.
The Nationalist Socialist regime was fastidious in not only its use of propaganda but in the maintenance of recordings for posterity. One only has to listen to the words of the regime itself to discern intent. The public message steadily transformed over a fifteen year period from Jews are a scourge, to the Jews must be deported, to the Jews must be exterminated.
This guy is not just a tool but also an idiot.
c’mon PZ…, why be so critical… he looks kinda popeish… and he has a cool beauty spot… and he’s deluded…
perfect for a high position in the god-bothering ranks…
let’s be honest, they need these kinda fuckwits in their ranks to make it easier for us godless cunts to win more heretics, blasphemers and apostates over to our side.
What’s the big deal here? He’s not saying there probably isn’t a god, just that the Holocaust wasn’t that substantial and didn’t involve gas chambers.
Don’t you people know that there are atheist bus adverts in Toronto this very minute?!
Get your priorities straight.
The arrogance of those in power.
http://www.jesusandmo.net/2009/01/28/miss/
Another sad point to consider ? in just about any other vocation, saying something like that publicly would be tantamount to committing professional suicide. You?d be screwed. Not only that but your friends, unless they were creeps as well, would probably abandon you pretty quick. You?d be like a leper. You?d be in a pretty deep hole with a slim likelihood of pulling yourself out.
Ah, but not so if you?re a real man of god. Put on a frock, silly collar and wear a rosary and you have instant credibility with a lot of folks. Spew any kind of bullshit you like ? if you?re in that clique, there?s a way to rationalize anything.
The arrogance of those in power.
http://www.jesusandmo.net/2009/01/28/miss/
Regarding the whole aversion to gas chambers, I think that these people are just going off their visceral (and stupid) reaction to the idea. Dying is dying is dying, but to many people, death by chemicals, and airborne chemicals in particular, is ‘icky’. Hence why chemical weapons are not allowed in war. (unless they explode, of course)
It is funny, though, that Holocaust deniers think if the deaths were not related to gas, then somehow they weren’t as reprehensible.
Sorry about the dup at #62; I really did check to see whether the post had made it through–will wait longer if that happens again.
He needs to watch some footage taken from London’s Imperial War Museum…
It dies not make sense to accept or re-instate anyone in the roman delusional church who uses the word EVIDENCE.
However, the fact that he lies about evidence makes him a perfect candidate to join any delusional organization and the roman delusional church is as good as any.
One more lie on top of a mountain of lies should be a bonus for a delusional organization, not something held against him 
The Catholic church happily made a treaty(Konkordat)with the thugs of the german Hindenburg government(wasnt the “Reich” yet,but Hitler was already chancellor) in 1933 to keep their operations in Germany independent.They didnt have a problem with that at all.
It made sure bishops were German,and loyal to the state,and essentially forbade religious interference in political matters.
The Catholic church will do whatever it takes to secure their interests.
Ratzi would have been a teen when that concordate was signed.I dont know if he is a Nazi,but he sure is what Germans would call an arch-conservative.
Isn’t this simply example number [insert a really big number] of why science should be doing everything possible to “cure” humanity of “religion” of ALL stripes (and plaids)? It is a disease. It makes “putting lipstick on a pig” look like childsplay. It is hurting the world and hurting science. Are any scientists trying to figure out WHY it captures so many otherwise apparently sane and normal and, dare I say, really good people Need I specifically EXCLUDE the bishop from this group)? Isn’t science long overdue for an interdisciplinary effort to ascertain WHY people believe in (and will die and kill for) a Santa Claus figure and to help deprogram them from said delusion? The Pope’s action here is not an aberration. Scientific freedom (honesty, knowledge, integrity, REALITY also come to mind) and Religion cannot peacefully coexist. Isn’t it about time for the scientific community to start DOING something about this underlying root cause of ignorance and disharmony in the world besides blogging about it?
Posted by: Matt | January 29, 2009
It is funny, though, that Holocaust deniers think if the deaths were not related to gas, then somehow they weren’t as reprehensible.
Because Babi Yar was just so clean and neat.
Isn’t this simply example number [insert a really big number] of why science should be doing everything possible to “cure” humanity of “religion” of ALL stripes (and plaids)? It is a disease. It makes “putting lipstick on a pig” look like childsplay. It is hurting the world and hurting science. Are any scientists trying to figure out WHY it captures so many otherwise apparently sane and normal and, dare I say, really good people Need I specifically EXCLUDE the bishop from this group)? Isn’t science long overdue for an interdisciplinary effort to ascertain WHY people believe in (and will die and kill for) a Santa Claus figure and to help deprogram them from said delusion? The Pope’s action here is not an aberration. Scientific freedom (honesty, knowledge, integrity, REALITY also come to mind) and Religion cannot peacefully coexist. Isn’t it about time for the scientific community to start DOING something about this underlying root cause of ignorance and disharmony in the world besides blogging about it?
The official stance of the RCC is that they killed no one during the Inquisition. They just tortured people mercilessly in very inventive ways, and, if they confessed they would be handed over to the secular government to be killed. If they didn’t confess, they were turned over to the secular government to be killed anyway.
If there were no gas chambers in the camps, someone, somewhere in the former Reich has a very large garage chock-full with Zyklon B, waiting for things to cool down and then have a huge garage sale.
Does he really believe this or is he lying? Poor eye contact and guarded responses has me leaning towards the latter. Regardless, what a despicable character. No gas chambers? The Catholic Church deserves the backlash.
@Benedict
I’ve already exhibited my personal protest by leaving the Catholic Church, or any form of organized religion for that matter. I’m quite through being associated with people like Williamson and Ratzinger.
“Quote unquote the Holocaust.” All that really needs to be said, for you to know the speaker is a shithead.
This is just the warm up to making Pius XII (the pro-Nazi Pope) a saint.
maybe he is like the Catholic Church’s PacMan Jones (American football reference)
Mixing science fiction satire with politics. Thought some of you might enjoy the diversion:
The Aliens Among Us
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/timtimes/2009/01/the-aliens-among-us.php
Enjoy.
I’m with #7. I somehow, daily, continue to be amazed, when I very well shouldn’t be. I guess it’s the realization that there really are more of these people than the polite veneer of society would have us believe. And was his questioner German himself? The interviewer seemed vaguely taken aback that this…person…had just said what he did.
I have no clue what evidence Mr. Williamson has seen, but he obviously has not seen all of it. In fact, probably not even 1% of it. But what am I thinking? After all, Hitler cavorted with Williamson’s “professional” forebears.
But, what if the records of the gas chambers were collected in a book made with the skin of a loved one. Wait, I’m not up to the challenge! Paging Pete the fucktard…
#63 Matt
Regarding the whole aversion to gas chambers, I think that these people are just going off their visceral (and stupid) reaction to the idea. Dying is dying is dying, but to many people, death by chemicals, and airborne chemicals in particular, is ‘icky’. Hence why chemical weapons are not allowed in war. (unless they explode, of course)
The rationale behind banning chemical weapons in the Geneva Conventions was their indiscriminate nature. You could not predict exactly where that poison cloud would drift. The warmongers can not look too openly craven in their disregard for non-combatants. Another, less verifiable, rationale was making war too horrible. WWI exposed millions of men to automated horror. What if a politician wanted to call a war again but no one showed up for it?
It is funny, though, that Holocaust deniers think if the deaths were not related to gas, then somehow they weren’t as reprehensible.
I’ll admit this line does not make sense to me either. But given my (thankfully) limited exposure to this sort of insanity (it’s been years since I directly engaged such wackaloons online) I understand that denying the existence of gas chambers opens the door to making excuses for the Nazis, even, for one example, going as far as to blame the allies for the “deaths by starvation” because allied planes bombed German rail lines, blocking food supplies to the camps. It’s as if removing the civil engineered mass death somehow magically makes the mass deaths “an accident of war.” I’m not saying this line makes sense, only that it is something I have encountered.
This is the kind of gentleman of high character the Pope would see in a leadership position in the Catholic church, since he did revoke his prior excommunication.
First, he’s in, then he’s out, then he is in again. In, out, in, out, in, out. Sounds like he is the perfect Catholic clergyman.
Benedict XVI is the greatest gift to the atheist cause since let’s make up the rules as we go Vatican II. Is he on our payroll?
Williamson and the other members of the Pius X society are part of a whole subculture within the catholic church who oppose the theological and political reforms of Vatican II. Many of them insist that John Paul II and even Ratzi are the anti-christ, out to destroy the church. They want the church to revert to its pre-Vatican II practices, and, ideally, to the practices of the middle ages, with a flat earth, an earth centered universe and no Protestants. They’re all nuts.
DEe Dee Dee
So they let this Holocaust denier into the fold, but they excommunicate PZ over Crackergate. Yes, the RC Church sure has its priorities right…
The reinstatement of Bishop Williamson as a member in good standing of the Roman Catholic clergy gives us a fascinating peek into the way the Vatican operates. The pope and the curia either have no concept of “collateral damage” or believe that it doesn’t apply to them (or the God-sanctified church they think they represent). Williamson was identified with the disobedient French archbishop Marcel Lefebvre (who was “more Catholic than the pope”), a member of the clergy who refused to follow the directives of a hierarchy he was sworn to honor. Benedict XVI has decided, probably as a sign to conservative Catholics, to welcome Williamson back into the fold during a period in which Rome has backed away from Vatican II reforms and made it easier for traditionalist Catholics to celebrate the Latin mass (which Lefebvre insisted upon). Since the pope decided to do this, no other consideration is given any weight. Even the fact that Williamson is a denialist looney did not deter the pope.
It’s the same mindset that allowed the Church to ignore the pedophilia scandal until the scope of the abuse grew beyond the point where it could be contained. All along the bishops and cardinals assumed that they were doing God’s work (for the most part) and the abused children were just a small and unfortunate price to pay for keeping abusive clergy on the job.
Amazing obtuseness. Invincible incorrigibility.
Benny Hex is too old to learn any new tricks. His blindness in matters such as these will be the hallmark of the final years (days?) of his papacy.
Posted by: Wowbagger | January 29, 2009 8:22 PM
On the plus side this is pretty much guaranteed to drive more people away from the Catholic Church
I wish that were true, but frankly I doubt it. Many Catholics will make excuses for it or just pretend they never heard about it.
Comment on #72
The roman delusional church did not kill people during the inquisition.
Yes they tortured people but it was god’s decision whether or not they survived.
If god did not want them to die he would have let them survive because he is all powerful and can violate any law of physics.
See how easy this can be explained through a layer of lies on top of the primal lie: there is a god.
Ha ha ha
Comment on #72
The roman delusional church did not kill people during the inquisition.
Yes they tortured people but it was god’s decision whether or not they survived.
If god did not want them to die he would have let them survive because he is all powerful and can violate any law of physics.
See how easy this can be explained through a layer of lies on top of the primal lie: there is a god.
Ha ha ha
“maybe he is like the Catholic Church’s PacMan Jones”
Scrip clubs and handguns!
So this holocaust denying scum gets to be reinstated but the members of Call to Action, who were excommunicated for wanting to end priest celibacy and ordain female priests, don’t?
Comment on #72
The roman delusional church did not kill people during the inquisition.
Yes they tortured people but it was god’s decision whether or not they survived.
If god did not want them to die he would have let them survive because he is all powerful and can violate any law of physics.
See how easy this can be explained through a layer of lies on top of the primal lie: there is a god.
Ha ha ha
From Wikipedia:
Williamson has expressed controversial views about Jews. He called Jews “enemies of Christ” and urges their conversion to Catholicism.[51][52][53] He claims that Jews and Freemasons have contributed to the “changes and corruption” in the Catholic Church[54][55][56][51] He has also stated that Jews aim at world dominion[3][57] and believes The Protocols of the Elders of Zion to be authentic.
Class act, this one!
Birds of a feather …
Rey Fox @ # 31: Wasn’t the gas chamber one of the most humane forms of execution at the time?
Not the way Himmler did it.
Probably the most “humane form of execution” used by the Nazis was the guillotine, but that was much too slow and labor-intensive for mass massacres.
Williamson and the other members of the Pius X society are part of a whole subculture within the catholic church who oppose the theological and political reforms of Vatican II.
And just to be clear, Williamson his other SSPX buddies were excommunicated not because they were anti-Semites, but because they said bad things about Vatican II and the pope. Arguing about theology can get you excommunicated, but apparently Holocaust denialism and virulent racism is A-OK.
The rationale behind banning chemical weapons in the Geneva Conventions was their indiscriminate nature.
Personally, I’m more inclined to believe it is their kill to cost ratio. They empower otherwise poor, technologically-impaired nations in war. I mean, even though people might protest nukes, they are still legal. Oh, and we used two, after the Geneva convention. Talk about indiscriminate destruction. The difference: they are damned hard to make, so we can be reasonably sure very unstable countries wont create them.
Of course, poorer nations have acquired some, and when they do, America usually freaks out about it. So I think the real reasons for bans of this sort are purely strategic.
What a load of “bible” to think this papist retard can confuse real death in a gas chamber with imaginary death in a hell. Hell is far more real than those hearsay gas chambers which were really bread ovens. And he was banished from fantasyland, that is, excommunicated, reinstated, and then allowed to be a mouthpiece for the chief papist. To the ovens with this slime and let’s see if his god will rescue him. Hey dough boy, we are using wood, not gas to cook you, and we will deny it as a freak accident. One piping hot papist retard.
And Pharyngulites don’t sometimes get off the reservation?
Oh, I forgot. You can only point fingers when it makes someone ELSE look bad.
Williamson is a loon, and has been rebuked by his superior:
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Superior General of the SSPX:
Bishop Williamson forbidden to speak
on political or historical mattersCommuniqué of the Superior General of the Society of St. Pius X,
Bishop Bernard FellayIt has come to our attention that Bishop Richard Williamson, a member of our Society, granted an interview to a Swedish network. In this interview, he also commented on historical issues, especially on the genocide of Jews by the National-Socialist regime. It is obvious that a bishop speaks with religious authority solely on matters of faith and morals. Our Society claims no authority over historical or other secular matters.
The mission of the Society is the offering and restoration of authentic Catholic teaching, as handed down in the dogmas. We are known, accepted, and appreciated worldwide for this.
We view this matter with great concern, as this exorbitance has caused severe damage to our religious mission. We apologize to the Holy Father and to all people of good will for the trouble it has caused.
It must remain clear that those comments do not reflect in any way the attitude of our community. That is why I have forbidden Bishop Williamson to issue any public opinion on any political or historical matter until further notice.
The constant accusations against the Society have also apparently served the purpose of discrediting our mission. We will not allow this, but will continue to preach Catholic doctrine and to offer the Sacraments in the ancient rite.
Menzingen, January 27, 2009
+ Bishop Bernard Fellay
Not that I expect for a moment for this to change your lockstep, ossified thinking one iota. Williamson is an idiot, ergo, the Pope is an idiot, ergo, all Catholics are idiots.
Nothing new here.
Myers is an asshat. Ergo, all pharyngulites are asshats, and all scientists are asshats.
Generalizations, what fun they can be.
@99
Actually they were decontamination showers appropriated for the extermination operation. The ovens were to eliminate evidence.
CHRIST you people are sanctimonious. Projection, anyone?
And Pharyngulites don’t sometimes get off the reservation?
Oh, I forgot. You can only point fingers when it makes someone ELSE look bad.
Williamson is a loon, and has been rebuked by his superior:
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Superior General of the SSPX:
Bishop Williamson forbidden to speak
on political or historical mattersCommuniqué of the Superior General of the Society of St. Pius X,
Bishop Bernard FellayIt has come to our attention that Bishop Richard Williamson, a member of our Society, granted an interview to a Swedish network. In this interview, he also commented on historical issues, especially on the genocide of Jews by the National-Socialist regime. It is obvious that a bishop speaks with religious authority solely on matters of faith and morals. Our Society claims no authority over historical or other secular matters.
The mission of the Society is the offering and restoration of authentic Catholic teaching, as handed down in the dogmas. We are known, accepted, and appreciated worldwide for this.
We view this matter with great concern, as this exorbitance has caused severe damage to our religious mission. We apologize to the Holy Father and to all people of good will for the trouble it has caused.
It must remain clear that those comments do not reflect in any way the attitude of our community. That is why I have forbidden Bishop Williamson to issue any public opinion on any political or historical matter until further notice.
The constant accusations against the Society have also apparently served the purpose of discrediting our mission. We will not allow this, but will continue to preach Catholic doctrine and to offer the Sacraments in the ancient rite.
Menzingen, January 27, 2009
+ Bishop Bernard Fellay
Not that this will change the ossified, lockstep sycophantism here one iota.
Williamson is an anti-semite idiot, ergo, the Pope is an idiot; ergo, Catholics are idiots.
Hmm. How about this?
PZ Myers is a small-brained, would-be acadimecian at a third-rate university with the scruples of a weasel and the manners of the Tasmanian Devil. Ergo, all Pharyngulites, nay, all scientists are weasels and devils.
Aren’t generalizations fun?
Try this. The priest is a racist and a holocaust denier. Not a problem for the german pope. We get it. That you don’t is what’s pathetic.
Williamson is an idiot, ergo, the Pope is an idiot, ergo, all Catholics are idiots.
Yes! You seem to finally get it. When the leader of a movement does something this outrageous, and the rank and file support him with their silence, the movement is revealed to be morally, intellectually, and spiritually bankrupt.
>Wasn’t the gas chamber one of the most humane forms of execution at the time?
Dying by cyanide poisoning is suffocation while still retaining the ability to breathe. The air goes in and out, but your body cannot use the oxygen. Imagine the air hunger you have after extereme exertion. multiply it by 100. allow it to continue until you lose consciousness and die.
The guards knew the cyanide had worked when the screaming stopped.
There are a few words I would use, but ‘humane isn’t one of them.
CHRIST you people are sanctimonious. Projection, anyone?
And Pharyngulites don’t sometimes get off the reservation?
Oh, I forgot. You can only point fingers when it makes someone ELSE look bad.
Williamson is a loon, and has been rebuked by his superior:
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Superior General of the SSPX:
Bishop Williamson forbidden to speak
on political or historical mattersCommuniqué of the Superior General of the Society of St. Pius X,
Bishop Bernard FellayIt has come to our attention that Bishop Richard Williamson, a member of our Society, granted an interview to a Swedish network. In this interview, he also commented on historical issues, especially on the genocide of Jews by the National-Socialist regime. It is obvious that a bishop speaks with religious authority solely on matters of faith and morals. Our Society claims no authority over historical or other secular matters.
The mission of the Society is the offering and restoration of authentic Catholic teaching, as handed down in the dogmas. We are known, accepted, and appreciated worldwide for this.
We view this matter with great concern, as this exorbitance has caused severe damage to our religious mission. We apologize to the Holy Father and to all people of good will for the trouble it has caused.
It must remain clear that those comments do not reflect in any way the attitude of our community. That is why I have forbidden Bishop Williamson to issue any public opinion on any political or historical matter until further notice.
The constant accusations against the Society have also apparently served the purpose of discrediting our mission. We will not allow this, but will continue to preach Catholic doctrine and to offer the Sacraments in the ancient rite.
Menzingen, January 27, 2009
+ Bishop Bernard Fellay
Not that this will change the ossified, lockstep sycophantism here one iota.
Williamson is an anti-semite idiot, ergo, the Pope is an idiot; ergo, Catholics are idiots.
Hmm. How about this?
PZ Myers is a small-brained, would-be acadamecian at a third-rate university with the scruples of a weasel and the manners of the Tasmanian Devil. Ergo, all Pharyngulites, nay, all scientists are weasels and devils.
Aren’t generalizations fun?
The Tasmanian Devil stands proud to be associated with PZ!
(It’s my avatar over on Prof Dawkin’s site)
whoopsie, Williamson gave his Swedish TV interview in November, and it was broadcast January 22. If the SSPX folks were so gosh-darned upset about his views, why did they wait to denounce them until after the uproar had occurred? It’s not like they didn’t know he was a loose cannon (so to speak) — just look at the letter the SSPX General Superior wrote to the Swedish TV station (a letter that was written before the one you cite above). Does the language used there sound like they denounce Williamson’s views, or instead that they know he is going to embarrass the SSPX on worldwide TV?
How many more times will this tripe be posted?
The Tasmanian Devil stands proud to be associated with PZ!
(It’s my avatar over on Prof Dawkin’s site)
It is obvious that a bishop speaks with religious authority solely on matters of faith and morals. Our Society claims no authority over historical or other secular matters.
Yeah, because denying that the worst massacre in human history didn’t occur because of obvious antisemitism, has nothing to do with morals. It’s purely an historical matter./sarcasm
That is why I have forbidden Bishop Williamson to issue any public opinion on any political or historical matter until further notice.
So they’re going to coach him and make sure he doesn’t hurt their image. How noble… You know, if they only just now realized their error, and don’t want to look like assholes, why don’t they simply excommunicate him again? The pope seems to have no problem doing that for other minor infractions (see # 92).
Where’s that dribbling fuckhole Bill Donohue? Does that lunatic have anything to say on this matter?
All Catholics are idiots if they believe in the magic sky-fairy, zombie Jesus, the virgin birth, and any other superstitious nonsense their archaic religion claims is true. That they may not be idiots about other things does not diminish this.
All Catholics are scumbags for supporting their church in protecting child-rapists from justice. That they may not be scumbags about other things does not diminish this.
Whoopsie, and specifically Whoppsie alone, is a pissant, a douchebag and an asshat who wouldn’t recognise a clue if someone jammed it in his/her ass with walnuts.
How’s that for generalisations, dickface?
PZ Myers is a small-brained, would-be acadimecian at a third-rate university with the scruples of a weasel and the manners of the Tasmanian Devil. Ergo, all Pharyngulites, nay, all scientists are weasels and devils.
Aren’t generalizations fun?
They are only fun when they are right. You know, like “Catholics are delusional.” Wheee, that was fun!
Know what else is fun? STFU, that’s what.
whoopsie @ 102
Ergo, have your imaginary god come down and kick the crap out of us. Freaking bible, you mean it can’t be done? Your god is imaginary, but you are for real, and all your insane puke ranting will never cause it to happen, you brain-rotted- by religion moron, who should be attending that gas chamber to make sure Williamson does not over cook. Aren’t religious rantings made all the more crazy by funny generalizations?
I wouldn’t besurprised if whoopsie was Donohue. Or perhaps just a member of the catholic league.
If badmouthing a sexist, anti-Semitic Holocaust denier is sanctimonious, then I’m proud to be sanctimonious.
I’ve noticed a correlation between the funny hats and outfits that people wear and the level of bilge that they spew without being called on it. I just thought, is that where the term “asshat” comes from?
Is this guy ‘avin a giraffe??
There were a lot of long pauses in there. I wonder what he was thinking?
Must not blurt out that I hate Jews… oh, but I do hate them, how I hate them… must be diplomatic here, this is being recorded… ^%$#@!! Jews… sigh… OK, how about 6 million of them are only worth a couple thousand of us… no, then they’ll know I hate them…. how I hate them… anyway, let’s see… I know, we, I mean, the Nazis, only actually killed 2 or 3K of them… yeah, that’s it. Oh wait, that’s bullshit and I know it… oh, the creationists love to say they studied the evidence (hee hee, that’s a good one), I’ll say that… I just came to a different conclusion, yeah, that’s it. They’ll have to respect that… can’t say I hate the Jews if I studied the evidence and came to a batshit insane conclusion. I’m just bad at math.
“I hate the Jews.” Damn!
He’s upset about the gas chambers because their existence would signify that the Nazis had intent to kill someone. He’s not upset about the however many Jews he thinks died (of whatever handwaving reason) because, well, they were Jews, and it’s not like Jews are real people or anything, right?
Nazi Popes
Nazi Popes
Nazi Popes
FUCK OFF!
whoopsie
Frankly, I’m surprised that they haven’t defrocked Williamson yet.
It’s not like Williamson is some kind of outlier in the SSPX — they’ve been accused of anti-Semitism before, and have done such wonderful things as harbour WWII war criminals at their priory.
For more insight, read this lovely screed at the official SSPX site. “This article claims to be an explanation of the Jew”, and says, for example:
It was the Jewish chief priests who persuaded the people to call for the crucifixion of the Savior and who cried out, “His blood be upon us and our children!” (Mt. 27:25) Jews stoned St. Stephen; Jews martyred St. James and laid traps for the apostles. The greatest crime of all time ?the death of the God-Man ?was perpetrated by this forlorn people.
and
just as in the kingdom of goodness the Jewish people had and still has the first place (for history is all present together in God?s eyes), so also the first place in the kingdom of evil must go to it. The other peoples, if wishing to do the work of evil, follow the example of the carnalized, unrepentant Jewish people.
and
Judaism is inimical to all nations in general, and in a special manner to Christian nations.
and
Christendom and Jewry are destined inevitably to meet everywhere without reconciliation or mixing. It represents in history the eternal struggle of Lucifer against God, of darkness against the Light, of the flesh against the spirit.
and
Catholics are not to enter into commercial, social, nor political relations which are bound hypocritically to seek the ruin of Christendom. Jews must not live together with Christians because this is what their own Jewish laws ordain and also because their errors and material superiority have virulent consequences among other peoples. If the other peoples reject these precautions, they will invite upon themselves these consequences, namely, to serve the Jewish people to whom belongs superiority in the kingdom of the material.
and
If Christians wish to remain free, let them avoid entanglements with the Jewish people. It dominates in every branch of commerce and finance, in philosophy and the universities. Its action is felt in the consequences of the French Revolution, in the socialization of socialist countries, and in the slavery of Communism. If the Gentile people wishes for a civilization based on economic greatness and the comfortable life, with everything set at the epitome of organization and technical development?then it can have it, with the Jewish people as master and the all the rest as slaves.
and
acts of aggression by Judaism must be resisted. A characteristic strategy of Judaism is to perpetrate falsehood.
Tell us again how Williamson’s views are not those of the SSPX?
It’s hard to take anyone seriously who believes in Transubstantiation, and even harder to take those who willingly partake in ritual cannibalism. If the Eucharist was symbolic I could understand, but having it transform into the body of Christ THEN eating it? What kind of fucked-up shit is that?
Idiocy is its own justification. Unless a fact is mentioned. Them is us. Us is them.
Somehow, we must find a way to make life incrementally more secure, a bit at a time. Unfortunate that we must struggle so.
Gassing is humane? Guillotine is humane? There is no, none at all, not one humane way to kill another sentient being.
There are lawful ways, and in some jurisdictions times, to kill someone. There are moral reasons to kill someone. But there is no humane way. It is always, always, killing. Spelling it a different way changes it not one iota
Why are they so pissy about the Jews allegedly killing Jesus? Wasn’t his death necessary to get them into heaven, according to their beliefs? Christians should be thanking the Jews for their part in saving Christians from Hell. Christians owe the Jews big time.
I’ve always thought the focus on details by Holocaust denialists to be basically a pretext to weasel in their actual position without catching all of the flak that THAT would entail. That guy’s no exception.
On the contrary, I think he’s a very good example:
“I believe that the historical evidence… is strongly against… six million Jews having been deliberately gassed in gas chambers as a deliberate policy of Adolf Hitler.”
The focus on the method of execution in the rest of the babble is there to make the reading of this sentence with the emphasis on the gassing plausible. Out of context that’s not how it reads, and I’m pretty sure that’s not how it’s meant to read to anybody willing to listen to that noise.
After all, what’s implied isn’t a scholarly dispute. It’s a conspiracy.
tim Rowledge | January 30, 2009 12:39 AM
Gassing is humane? Guillotine is humane? There is no, none at all, not one humane way to kill another sentient being.
If that’s true, why is marriage legal?
*ba-dum-pum*
Wow, Dan, sorry you had such a bad time…. (I hope that deserves a smiley -if not, then my commiseration).
Personally I’ve been married since dinosaurs had saddles.
@101
Actually they were decontamination showers appropriated for the extermination operation. The ovens were to eliminate evidence.
Yeah but even that failed. I remember my grandmother who went thru the London Blitz saying, they knew something was very wrong. There were warehouses upon warehouses of belongings that people had shipped over to England from Europe and not claimed. And then they found out why. Their belongings were still there years later. She didn’t need the see the gas chambers to know that a holocaust had occurred.
I’ll never forget that.
Of course the most damaging evidence comes from the Nazis themselves. I mean they documented all of it for crying out loud. What evidence is this idiot looking at?
“I believe there were no gas chambers.”
You can believe whatever you want, but everyone else thinks you’re a bloody moron. Isn’t it all too typical of Christians to rewrite history when it’s convenient for them?
“I believe there were no gas chambers.”
You can believe whatever you want, but everyone else thinks you’re a bloody moron. Isn’t it all too typical of Christians to rewrite history when it’s convenient for them?
Steve Fisher said – …Can you imagine leaving children alone with him?
Well, I imagine that he would confess that he did indeed fondle and molest the child but he would deny that he ever put anything in their gas chamber.
@99 & 116 – Holbach; easy does it. Try cutting back on the caffeine. What some people say might be despicable, but, thoughts / ideas should not elicit a death penalty.
Please remember that the reason why this guy had been excommunicated in the first place had absolutely nothing to do with his denialist views. It’s just because he’s part of a group of “integrist” Catholics. True, they and their former leader Lefevre (now deceased) are a pretty crazy bunch of right wing radicals. But of course, the only things that were a problem for their hierarchy were their opinions on liturgy (symbolised by “the mass in Latin”). And they were only considered as having crossed the line when Lefevre ordered bishops, a thing that the Pope only is allowed to do.
Ratzi the Nazi is just showing his stripes with this, but what does anybody expect? This is a persistent psychosis of the right: if they can twist things so people will believe that they didn’t happen exactly the way they’d always thought, well, that means they didn’t happen at all.
Actually, most people probably don’t realize that not all of the 6,000,000 Jews died in gas chambers in the huge Vernichtungsläger in Poland; an astonishing number were simply shot en masse and plowed under by Einsatzgruppen in the East, or worked to death in various industrial facilities.
Ask this fucker about the Gypsies. The Nazis got a lot closer to their goal of wiping out all the Gypsies in Europe than the did with the Jews. Is that better…or worse?
R/C Clergy sound so sincere and reasonable they seem almost human, whilst saying and doing the most outrageous things. There are times when I would swear they understand every word we say.
To make clear:
Richard Williamson was not excommunicated for being a Holocaust denier. He was excommunicated, along with six other clergy, for being unlawfully consecrated by a renegade Archbishop called Marcel Lefevre. They were members of the Society of St Pius X, a Traditionalist Catholic organisation which split from the Church after Vatican II. Pope Benedict lifted the excommunications as part of the overall process of trying to move SSPX back into full communion with the Church and to undo the schism.
His views about the Holocaust are abhorrent. But since the excommunication was nothing to do with his views on the Holocaust, it isn’t totally fair to see Pope Benedict’s decision as any sort of tacit approval of those views.
Just what you’d expect from pope Nazinger, I suppose… not that that makes it any better, of course.
He’s right, 6 million Jews weren’t deliberately gassed to death! A lot of them were actually deliberately shot to death, deliberately starved to death, deliberately worked to death… And then at the end, when the war was obviously lost, the few survivors were sent on death marches from one death camp to another dressed in thin paper clothes in the middle of one of the worst East European Winters on record. A lot of them died of natural causes too, such as typhus, in the overcrowded camps.
But since the excommunication was nothing to do with his views on the Holocaust, it isn’t totally fair to see Pope Benedict’s decision as any sort of tacit approval of those views.
…surely all that means is that two popes considered his insane bigotry insufficient reason to sever all ties with him. Much better.
I really don’t see what people are complaining about.
Isn’t the connection between his excommunication and his views on the holocaust simply a non-sequitur?
Yes, he might be a Nazi sympathizer.
Some others might be pedophiles or serial killers.
None of these, however, are grounds for excommunication – unlike a scenario where you deliberately trod on the big toe of the second angel on the left.
In the words of Father Jack “that would be an ecumenical matter!”
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6765799421338733335
Unf*cking believeable…but then Catholics..they believe anything..sky fairies, zombies, bread and wine that turns into blood and flesh (but they’re not cannibals ..or are they ??)
Ratzi is a Nazi…simple as that
A Bishop? Is that like getting to be Dungeon Master or something? This fellow is a dickhead with a stupid opinion and no real job. If we didn’t have some residual feeling that the priest-gear was important we would treat him like any crank-tard conspiracy blogger: point, laugh, and, from then on, ignore.
Yes, he’s right, there’s no real evidence – except for the documents….and the film…and the clothes….and the lamps made from skin….and the Allied forces witnesses…and the survivors’ testimony…and the meticulous records of those gassed…and the receipts for the gas….and the records of the factory making the gas…and the orders for the gas…and the pictures of people being gassed…and the gas chambers found after the war…and the film made by the Allies…and ten million missing people…
Back in the 60s, I went to Dachau. We got lost (it wasn’t well sign-posted!) and people living nearby ‘had never heard of it’.
After the war, it was my one of father’s jobs to round up the locals to watch film of the camps at cinemas, as part of the de-Nazification programme. He says reaction ranged from denialism of the ‘it’s just Allied propaganda’ sort, to people being violently sick in the cinema.
makes me want to puke.
but can he put it on the side of a bus?
We shouldn’t be hearing much more from this Bishop:
“There are none so blind as those who will not see”
…especially those who are willfully blind.
I assume I’m not the only one to note the irony of someone who denies the occurrence of an historical event as well-documented as the Holocaust yet believes in a character called Jesus and a God for whom the evidence is flimsy to non-existent?
Whoopsie @100,
Not that I expect for a moment for this to change your lockstep, ossified thinking one iota. Williamson is an idiot, ergo, the Pope is an idiot, ergo, all Catholics are idiots.
Ergo Whoopsie is a idiot… oh wait, I’m changing my thinking one iota, the current Pope is not an idiot, he is actually a profoundly evil bastard!
This guy is using the same inverted & peverted logic of David Irving. Irving says Hitler never signed an order for the extermination of the Jews (& that may well be true) but nobody would have set up the machinary (camps, train shipments etc)to deport & exterminate the Jews in Europe without Hitler’s approval even if unsigned. I have been to Birgen-Belsen, Dachau & Auschwitz & it’s true most of the gas chambers were badly designed, inefficient & not fully utilised but that didn’t stop the killing. Birelen-Belsen, for instance, has innumerable mounds bearing on each “Under this mound lie 10,000 people”.
Why did John Paul II go to Auschwitz & pray for the dead people there?
Of course, don’t you just lve the irony of a Bishop saying “I know of no evidence” to support mass gassing of Jews but he believes in the Bible!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
His views about the Holocaust are abhorrent. But since the excommunication was nothing to do with his views on the Holocaust, it isn’t totally fair to see Pope Benedict’s decision as any sort of tacit approval of those views.
I somewhat agree given that the Pope came out with a statement on Wednesday expressing “solidarity with the Jews”. However, this is a continuation of religion’s (and in particular Catholic’s) need to compartmentalize their religion so as not to muddy it up with the real world.
“No we’re just trying to heal a schism, never mind that this guy hold some incredibly despicable opinions. Us bringing him back into the fold is not the Church supporting those views.”
Sounds good unless you think about it at all.
To Ian H Spedding
Sorry but off topic. You and I have the same surname. If you go to Facebook you will find the “Spedding Grou”.
David
Bishop Fellatio notes in his letter that a bishop?s authority pertains only to questions of Faith and Morals
If Holocaust denial is not a moral issue then nothing is. If this Bishop Blowjob can’t see that then he is as complete a scumbag as Williamson.
My ancestors were driven from their homes in Europe by Catholics whipped into a frenzy by priests. Whether jew, gypsy, huguenot or German protestants they were forced to come to America stripped of all they owned. The Catholic church is the greatest evil in all history. Only PZ’s call for non-violence prevents me from saying what I think should be done to all the employees of this criminal gang.
I do realize the irony that forcing my ancestors out of Europe may have kept my existence possible, my family would probably have disappeared with the six million jews and who-knows-how-many gypsies.
I dont know if anyone’s mentioned this, but, while this douche was welcomed into the fold, the guy in the linked story below is being treated like a mob target for not being enough of a bigot.
I don’t like the sound of these “boncentration bamps.”
It’s amazing how he keeps insisting that he looks at the ‘evidence’ to draw his conclusion.
Does he do the same for the existence of Jesus? The miracles? The virgin birth?
I’ve looked at the ‘evidence’ and it doesn’t look convincing.
However, the gas chambers are STILL THERE….
#29: The fact that the word for “Shower” in German is now different since the holocaust is enough in itself – the evil connotations of people being tricked into thinking a gas chamber was a shower was enough to CHANGE THE GERMAN DICTIONARY. What more do you need?!
Maybe I’m not getting a joke here (and if that is the case consider me embarrassed!) but what on earth are you talking about?
On the bright side: I think that this might be a huge PR problem for the Catholic Church and embarrassing to most of its members, so I’m looking on this as a good thing. People like him get marginalized pretty quickly and maybe he’s gonna take some of the church’s remaining prestige with him.
There have been many jokes here and elsewhere on the web concerning Ratzinger’s membership in the Hitler Youth during the Third Reich. But I have never seen an actual investigation into the details of his membership. How active was he? What did he do? To what rank had he risen? etc. I don’t know a lot about the Hitler Youth, but I believe you could avoid joining if you really wanted to, were clever enough and kept a low profile. Has anyone seen any detailed information on his activities?
Walton:
Duly noted. Just as mobster Al Capone could only be sent to prison for tax evasion and OJ Simpson was convicted of multiple conspiracy charges in an unrelated case to the murders of Ronald Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson, many people revel in the karmic sense of justice.
Your points are very valid, but most people here are just venting their outrage for the accumulative transgressions of the Catholic Church, its manipulation of reality through the squelching of reason and the hypocrisy of its moralistic stance.
So you did well even if it didn’t result in an Emily Latella moment. i.e. “Oh, that’s different… never mind!”
Walton@141,
I disagree. The SSPX is a group of antisemitic apologists for fascism: Williamson is just more blatant about it than the rest.
It seems quite evident to me that this bishop is suffering from a severe case of persecution envy.
I visited Dachau in the mid ’70s. There is one moment that has always stuck with me, a vivid memory that has always defined the Holocaust for me since then. That moment was when I stepped into one of the oven buildings and stood in front of the ovens. Even more than the visual, the smell of the place dominated my attention. I have not smelled anything even remotely like it since. The emotions evoked left me unable to do anything except stand there and try to contain them until they waned. It was, fittingly, a miserable overcast day.
@Hank, 164;
Since 1936 the Hitler Youth was mandatory, and since 1939 it was so even against the parents’ wishes. It was more or less like the draft: you could avoid it when you were in prison, or physically unable to join, or when you did something “dishonourable” … though I don’t know what exactly that meant. But when you reflect on how homosexuals, dissenters or disabled people were treated, I don’t think that those kinds of excuses (like those that would get you out of the draft today) were good strategies.
On Jay Ratzinger: The guy was 6 when Hitler became Reichskanzler, 14 when he joined the Hitler Youth in the middle of a war. I don’t think he had a lot of choice, and by all accounts he wasn’t very fond of being there. Not many boys or girls managed avoid the HJ back then, but this was not their fault. They lived under a regime that in the end sent 15 and 16 year olds to the front. Hitler wanted those kids, and he had the means to get them.
None of this is evidence that old Ratzi ain’t a Nazi, but membership in the Hitler Youth says very little.
The face of quasi Opus Dei wannabees.
This odious little toad is just one of a long line of them…all Roman Catholic and all severely evil!
The Pope is an ex Nazi…he defends pro Nazi attitudes…
‘Pope Benedict XVI said new research showed that the former Pontiff ?spared no effort? in trying to save Jews from extermination by Nazi Germany and fascist Italy.
Pope Pius XII has been condemned by some scholars and many Jewish groups for not speaking out more stridently against Nazism and the Final Solution.”
One does wonder where they get their ‘research’ from…
Seems ‘research’ in science is flawed when it blows their delusion to smithereens whereas ‘research’ to save the RC’s collective butts in the tricky business of proving they are all round misunderstood good guys… is A-OK…
Especially when aimed at trying to discount the widely held view that RC’s dogma holds the tenant of Anti-Semitism as a core value!
Allowing this odious cretin back under Vatican management has nothing to do with repairing unfortunate rifts b’twixt ‘n’ b’tween cults..it has a lot more to do with keeping enemies closer and using their ideas which Ratty hankers to do!
Ratty wants a RC church to adopt middle ages dogma in style and substance…the burning stench of female virgin flesh has been sorely missed in some quarters of Ratty’s kingdom..he wants that attitude and pleasure back where it belongs under RC auspices!
Those fine upstanding examples of slime effluence…Society of St. Pius X…even rush to this turds defence with this priests tacit support….
“Rev. Floriano Abrahamowicz echoed, in an interview published Thursday by an Italian daily, the prelate’s doubts that Jews were gassed during World War II.
“I know gas chambers existed at least to disinfect, I can’t say if anybody was killed in them or not,” Abrahamowicz told “La Tribuna di Treviso,” a newspaper in northern Italy….”
It gets better…or worse depending on the angle of the dangle…
” The priest, who heads the society in northeast Italy, said in the interview he did not doubt that 6 million Jews were killed in the Holocaust, but then added that the figure may have been “exaggerated.”
He compared the Holocaust to the Allied bombing of German cities in World War II and the recent Israeli offensive in Gaza.
Abrahamowicz also referred to Jews as being “the people of God who then became the God-killing people” – a remark that contradicts the Vatican II teaching that Jews as a people cannot be held responsible for the crucifixion of Jesus Christ.”
So a trustworthy and extremely moral leadership of the masses…are we not blessed?
The mere idea that Ratty even wants to play with these vermin makes my stomach heave…there is no defence…only condemnation…but seeing as it is the RC church…then you will not hear a whimper of complaint …Ratty is listening!
#163: The word “Brausebad” has been pretty much completely replaced in German. At least, so I’ve been told – I don’t really speak it myself…
http://bose.smugmug.com/gallery/1740921_3ZUee/4/86461278_4SvNp#86461278_4SvNp
I disagree. The SSPX is a group of antisemitic apologists for fascism: Williamson is just more blatant about it than the rest.
To be fair, I don’t think Walton claimed that SSPX is or isn’t ant-Semitic (and it’s pretty clear they are), rather that the issue is completely orthogonal (at least ostensibly) to the reasons that the SSPX bishops were excommunicated. Technically this is true — the problems the Vatican had with SSPX were about issues of doctrine and authority, and not anti-Semitism. While anti-Semitism is ostensibly sinful, it’s not a direct challenge or repudiation of the authority and doctrine of the Church, and so isn’t (generally speaking) an excommunicatible offense.
Yeah, it’s nuts, but there’s a certain insane logic to it all.
@170,
Interesting. I don’t think that’s quite the story, seeing as “Brause” (~showerhead) und “brausen” are still in use. I think it’s more like “automobile” vs. “car”, or “poppycock” vs. “bullshit” . I also think the word “duschen” has been used a lot longer than ’45 here, but it’s an interesting thought. Gotta look that up at my university on monday!
Okay then, I’ll see what our history library has to offer on that subject. It’s gonna be the first time I’ll have to look up something interesting there. Let’s reconvene here on monday.
If the Catholic church doesn’t want him, he can always get a job with the government of Iran.
Christoph “Disinformation Institute” Cardinal Schönborn has said he thinks the rehabilitation of Williamson was a mistake by Vatican bureaucrats…
Wasn’t the gas chamber one of the most humane forms of execution at the time?
Nope. Took easily a quarter of an hour till everyone in the chamber had suffocated.
The pope might give the other 3 something
Only if they accept the 2nd Vatican Council, which they haven’t so far.
So they let this Holocaust denier into the fold, but they excommunicate PZ over Crackergate.
Please. Where did you get this bullshit from? PZ was not excommunicated and cannot be — for the simple reason that he never was Catholic! He was brought up Lutheran and then deconverted.
It has come to our attention that Bishop Richard Williamson, a member of our Society, granted an interview to a Swedish network. In this interview, he also commented on historical issues, especially on the genocide of Jews by the National-Socialist regime. It is obvious that a bishop speaks with religious authority solely on matters of faith and morals. Our Society claims no authority over historical or other secular matters.
Thank you for posting this, whoopsie (…though you should have read the error message instead of posting everything again). At first sight, it looks entirely reasonable, and it certainly does improve my opinion of the SSPX. So why have I put it in Comic Sans?
Because… if this is not a matter of morals, what is?
Is there no ethics of belief? Is it not a matter of morals how to inform yourself, when to believe you have successfully studied the evidence, when to believe you can responsibly inflict the results of your naïveté on mankind?
Think about it.
Donohue. Or perhaps just a member of the catholic league.
You’re repeating yourself.
Vernichtungsläger
For — presumably — some reason, the plural of Lager is again Lager.
Birgen-Belsen [...] Birelen-Belsen
Bergen-Belsen.
There have been many jokes here and elsewhere on the web concerning Ratzinger’s membership in the Hitler Youth during the Third Reich. But I have never seen an actual investigation into the details of his membership. How active was he? What did he do? To what rank had he risen? etc. I don’t know a lot about the Hitler Youth, but I believe you could avoid joining if you really wanted to, were clever enough and kept a low profile. Has anyone seen any detailed information on his activities?
Not really, but he seems to have been one of those who (like my grand-aunt, for example) were too conservative to be Nazis, who wanted to obey God more than men.
The word “Brausebad” has been pretty much completely replaced in German.
Correct (what people say nowadays is Dusche), though this didn’t happen overnight, and I’m not quite sure what the causes are, though it really wouldn’t surprise me if the gas chambers were an important factor.
Yeah, it’s nuts, but there’s a certain insane logic to it all.
That’s the usual sophistication of Catholic theology.
“Brause” (~showerhead) und “brausen” are still in use.
Not where I come from. All generalizations across the whole German-speaking area are wrong
Steve_C @ #117:
I wouldn’t besurprised if whoopsie was Donohue. Or perhaps just a member of the catholic league.
Wait, the catholic league has members OTHER than Donohue? 
Tulse@171,
That’s true. But why is Ratzi so keen to have the SSPX back in the fold? Implicitly, he’s saying he has no problem with their far-right convictions.
Seems that ‘Donkeyshit’ is a not so secret agent of Benny baby…
If captured by the atheist scum…or indeed by their own scum…then the Catholic church disavows all knowledge of him…
Bit like the SOE bunnies working in East Berlin after the wall was built..if captured they were solo politically motivated rogue operators…and nothing to do with either the country of origin or what was written in their passport!
“I don’t know you right!”
Dying is dying is dying,
Matt:
Okay, given a choice would you like to be beaten to death, die of intestinal blockage, die of radiation poisoning, die of pancreatic cancer or be killed instantly? Obviously you’ve never experienced excruciating pain for any length of time ) or pants-pissing/shitting terror.
You are discounting agony and suffering.
Sure, once you’re gone – your gone.
Yet the process of dying matters a great deal. So I’ll take a falling-piano-instantaneously-crushed-dying-relatively-young option over a drawn-out -lingering-agonizing-death-at-a-ripe-old-age since I’ve really had all the agonizing pain I care to feel in my lifetime.
That’s true. But why is Ratzi so keen to have the SSPX back in the fold? Implicitly, he’s saying he has no problem with their far-right convictions.
It’s pretty clear the Benny is way more conservative than most of his modern predecessors, so I don’t doubt what you say. I don’t know the details of the doctrinal disputes the Vatican has with SSPX, and you’re certainly right that this pope seems more favourable to their conservative approach. But I do think it’s useful to make clear that, technically at least, the excommunication and its revocation were orthogonal to the issue of Williamson’s anti-Semitism. Benny is within his rights theologically to revoke the excommunication, and it may very well be more consistent with current Catholic doctrine. The problem isn’t so much that Benny is wrong as that doing it now is a terrible PR move.
“His views about the Holocaust are abhorrent. But since the excommunication was nothing to do with his views on the Holocaust, it isn’t totally fair to see Pope Benedict’s decision as any sort of tacit approval of those views.”
True – it simply means that the current Pope doesn’t approve of them, nor does he see them as any more than a simple public relations problem.
“On Jay Ratzinger: The guy was 6 when Hitler became Reichskanzler, 14 when he joined the Hitler Youth in the middle of a war. I don’t think he had a lot of choice, and by all accounts he wasn’t very fond of being there. Not many boys or girls managed avoid the HJ back then, but this was not their fault. They lived under a regime that in the end sent 15 and 16 year olds to the front. Hitler wanted those kids, and he had the means to get them.”
Except that there seems to have been a good number of exclusions for religious preferences, although how and when they were granted isn’t clear.
In addition, Ratzinger’s details of leaving his forced service is given differently in different accounts, but the one constant is that his “brave decision to leave” came after the youth were freed of all duty by the remaining military commanders.
I don’t know how much (or how little) he chafed while in the military, but it would be nice to see an honest detailing of those times.
Hey Ted Powell at 65ish. Thanks for the link. Jesus and Mo are hilarious.
I don’t know why it is that the holocaust deniers are always non-Germans.
One of the more notorious ones is Robert Faurison, a French professor of literature. He accused Peter Longerich of forgery for his treatment of the minutes of the Wannsee conference, in his book “Politik der Vernichtung”. The Wansee conference took place in January, 1942, and planned the “final solution.”
Peter Longerich is professor of modern German history at the University of London, author of (according to the “Spiegel”) the only existing biography of Himmler, and was born in Krefeld, Germany.
The original minutes read;
“Unter entsprechender Leitung sollen nun im Zuge der Endlösung die Juden in geeigneter Weise im Osten zum Arbeitseinsatz kommen. In großen Arbeitskolonnen, unter Trennung der Geschlechter, werden die arbeitsfähigen Juden straßenbauend in diese Gebiete geführt, wobei zweifellos ein Großteil durch natürliche Verminderung ausfallen wird.
Der allfällig endlich verbleibende Restbestand wird, da es sich bei diesem zweifellos um den widerstandsfähigsten Teil handelt, entsprechend behandelt werden müssen, da dieser, eine natürliche Auslese darstellend, bei Freilassung als Keimzelle eines neuen jüdischen Aufbaues anzusprechen ist. (Siehe die Erfahrung der Geschichte.)”
He then provides a translation:
” In the course of the final solution, the Jews should be brought under appropriate direction in a suitable manner to the east for labor utilization. Separated by sex, the Jews capable of work will be led into these areas in large labor columns to build roads, whereby doubtless a large part will fall away through natural reduction.
The inevitable final remainder which doubtless constitutes the toughest element will have to be dealt with appropriately, since it represents a natural selection which upon liberation is to be regarded as a germ cell of a new Jewish development. (See the lesson of history.)”
The meaning is clear; the Jews are to be worked to death building roads, and any survivors are to be killed because if they are freed, they will form the core of a new Jewish population.
He then goes on to quoting Peter Longerich’s account:
Heydrich trennte also deutlich das bereits angelaufene Deportationsprogramm von dem weit umfangreicheren späteren Plan ab. Über die vorgeschene »Endlösung« machte Heydrich laut Protokoll folgende Ausführungen:
»Unter entsprechender Leitung sollen nun im Zuge der Endlösung die Juden in geeigneter Weise zum Arbeitseinsatz kommen. In großen Arbeitskolonnen, unter Trennung der Geschlechter, werden die arbeitsfähigen Juden straßenbauend in diese Gebiete geführt, wobei zweifellos ein Großteil durch natürliche Verminderung ausfallen wird.« [which is the first paragraph]
[He then goes on to paraphrasing the second paragraph and adding a continuation] Der allfällig endlich verbleibende Restbestand« werde, da »es sich bei diesem zweifellos um den widerstandsfähigsten Teil« handele, »entsprechend behandelt werden müssen«, um zu verhindern, daß hieraus wiederum eine »Keimzelle eines neuen jüdischen Aufbaues« entstünde. Zunächst sollten die Juden in »Durchgangsgettos« gebracht werden, um von hier aus weiter nach Osten transportiert zu werden.
The main difference is that Peter Longerich omitted “bei Freilassung” “on release” (translated as “upon liberation” and also “(See the lesson of history)”.
Robert Faurisson then goes on to state his interpretation of what the minutes meant:
“The Germans intended to release (to liberate) those Jews who, after having worked hard with their hands, would have constituted an elite, a germ cell of a new Jewish development. This was altogether a National-Socialist and a Zionist view. “See the lesson of history” means that history shows (or is supposed to show) that, for a group or a nation, revival may come after hardship and toil”, which is one of the most bizarre interpretations I have seen.
He approves of Jews being worked to death, and then reckons that the survivors should then be grateful, because they have been proven to be the fittest, and that the Nazis didn’t really intend to kill the Jews, just to make them tougher.
VernichtungslägerFor — presumably — some reason, the plural of Lager is again Lager.
D’oh! Sorry, my last German class was in 1969!
KnockGoats: I disagree. The SSPX is a group of antisemitic apologists for fascism: Williamson is just more blatant about it than the rest.
I wasn’t claiming otherwise. They’re a fairly bizarre, reactionary organisation, and have been accused of institutional antisemitism by the Anti-Defamation League and the Southern Poverty Law Center, among others. So I don’t disagree with you.
However, I was just pointing out the fact that the excommunication of Williams and six other SSPX members was for participating in an illicit consecration; it was nothing to do with their views about the Honocaust. Pope Benedict – being a staunch conservative himself – seems keen on reuniting the Traditionalists with the mainstream of Catholicism. (I think he’s wrong to do so, incidentally. His reactionary attitude is threatening to put the Church back to the pre-Vatican II era, which will have serious repercussions for the relationship between Catholicism and wider civil society.) But while I’m no fan of Pope Benedict or the Vatican hierarchy in general, I don’t think the Pope is antisemitic, nor do I suspect him of secretly sympathising with Williamson’s views.
By the way, there’s something that I don’t think anyone has mentioned yet. You may want to turn off your irony meters, unless it’s one of the newfangled ones with fractal irony detection.
Piltdown Man pointed at Richard Williamson on youtube just a few days ago. The video was too choppily edited to make a whole lot of sense, but there was a related video on the same page.
Richard Williamson gave a lecture about Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four.
Yes, a right-wing, conservative Catholic, proud of the long history of the Church as an institution with power over people’s lives, knowing full well and approving of that institution’s torture and murder of dissidents from creeds which include the trinity and the consubstantiality of man and god and the very idea that an eternal “God” could “die”… spoke in condemnation of the worship of an institution (the IngSoc Party), the worship of power, and O’Brien torturing Smith into saying that “2+2=5″ (or anything else that the Party wanted it to be).
That is purified, highly concentrated, fractal irony, right there.
Maybe it’s all just performance art? Maybe Williamson is a secret atheist doing his damndest to make the Catholic Church look like the gilded monstrosity it really is?
Or perhaps, like Pilt, he really is that blind to his own hypocritical bigotry?
“If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot lead-weighted crozier smashing a human face to pulp … forever”
I’m telling you, that’s John Cleese in makeup.
FWIW, Williamson has publicly apologized for what he said:
………………………………………………….
To His Eminence Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos
Your Eminence
Amidst this tremendous media storm stirred up by imprudent remarks of mine on Swedish television, I beg of you to accept, only as is properly respectful, my sincere regrets for having caused to yourself and to the Holy Father so much unnecessary distress and problems.
For me, all that matters is the Truth Incarnate, and the interests of His one true Church, through which alone we can save our souls and give eternal glory, in our little way, to Almighty God. So I have only one comment, from the prophet Jonas, I, 12:
“Take me up and throw me into the sea; then the sea will quiet down for you; for I know it is because of me that this great tempest has come upon you.”
Please also accept, and convey to the Holy Father, my sincere personal thanks for the document signed last Wednesday and made public on Saturday. Most humbly I will offer a Mass for both of you.
Sincerely yours in Christ
+Richard Williamson
FWIW, Williamson has publicly apologized for what he said:
He most certainly has not.
“I beg of you to accept, only as is properly respectful, my sincere regrets for having caused to yourself and to the Holy Father so much unnecessary distress and problems.”
That means “I’m sorry that you, the Cardinal, and the Pope, got upset, unnecessarily, over the complaints.”
Weasel-worded notpology, that is, and only to his superiors, not to anyone else.
And look at the quote he chooses. Melodramatic paranoid with a martyr complex.
Bah.
Williamson is apologizing for bad PR, not anything else. He isn’t disavowing his Holocaust denial, he isn’t apologizing to the Jews, he’s just sorry to have caused problems for the pope.
I really don’t see how the fact that the official reasons for Williamson’s original excommunication didn’t include him being a weaselly old denialist actually changes anything about how we should judge the excommunication being reversed DESPITE him being a weaselly old denialist.
Don’t we need to do more than “preach to the choir,” (sorry), that is, mostly our-non-believing selves, about the hypocrisy of the Catholic Church? Isn’t it time to find a cure for religion generally? Most of these people are the way they are because they have been brainwashed from the moment of their birth. I’m not defending any of them, but as participants in a scienceblog, don’t scientists have an obligation, a responsibility to try to figure out what makes these people tick and attempt to deprogram as many of them as possible? All ignorance and superstitition is problematic, but religious ignorance kills people and retards human progress. We have a four to eight year window with a president who understands that science is more important to our future than religion (despite sucking up to religion to get votes, but at least he appealed to their “better angels” [sorry again]). We need to use every minute of it to find a cure for religion and the god-myth. Is any such effort being conducted? The religious right is not going away easily or without a fight but not all of them are irrational. Many of them surely can be reached if science can figure out how to “open” their minds to reality, reason, etc. They KNOW Santa Claus and Zeus and the Easter Bunny aren’t real, but still believe god is. Unless we plan on killing them all, and I don’t think we do, we need to figure out HOW to educate them; and/or what genes to turn on or off. The fact that it will not be easy or simple does not make the attempt any less important. PLEASE tell me someone in the scientific/freethinker/atheist/bright community is working on this.
Jack:
What makes you think we aren’t?
He’s clearly not denying that the holocaust took place. He simply states that he doesn’t believe gas chambers were utilized to kill anyone. I think a lot of the people here really need to start paying more attention overall.
This is the only event in history which you can be imprisoned in many countries for questioning. You might want to ask yourself why.
“He’s clearly not denying that the holocaust took place. ”
He is understating the number of deaths by more than an order of magnitude. Apparently that’s not enough denial for you.
- , you ignorant denialist. Do you think that by redusing the numbers murdered that the crimes become more palatable? Even with out the population murdered in the gas chambers, (Which happened.) there is enough proof of premeditated murder. This ranges from forced labor with inadequate food to the mass graves of Babi Yar.
Why would we give any credence to anyone who denies facts and why should we give credence to the people who protect them. You might want to ask yourself why?
But you won’t.
“- , you ignorant denialist.” lol, I never made such claims. This is exactly what I mean when I say you have to start paying more attention.
You should find the full, unedited version of this interview if you care at all about learning what this “ignorant denialist’s” true opinion is. I know you don’t care, that’s why you attempt to smear anyone with a controversial opinion as a “denialist”. Really, who’s the closed minded one here? Grow up.
He’s clearly not denying that the holocaust took place. He simply states that he doesn’t believe gas chambers were utilized to kill anyone. I think a lot of the people here really need to start paying more attention overall.
And this is a meaningful distinction why?
“He’s clearly not denying that the holocaust took place. He simply states that he doesn’t believe gas chambers were utilized to kill anyone. I think a lot of the people here really need to start paying more attention overall.”
Everybody, or very nearly so, in this thread has noted their awareness of what your fellow denialist “simply stated.” You’re the one who should pay more attention.
Oh, and he takes pains to signify that he’s putting the term the Holocaust in scare quotes. It’s not about gas chambers.
Is that apology real, or some subtle joke?
If it’s real then he’s apologising for the wrong thing to the wrong people. What a twat.
Walton @186:
[The SSPX] have been accused of institutional antisemitism by the Anti-Defamation League and the Southern Poverty Law Center
They must be doing something right then.
Who’s doing something right, ADL and SPLC or SSPX?
Since Pilt has a fetish (looking for all the world like some sort of actual paraphilia) for anti-modern Catholicism, and anti-modern Catholicism has institutional anti-semitism, it must follow that the SSPX, with its institutional anti-semitism, is indeed doing something right.
Of course, Pilt is a conflicted hypocrite. That is, he likes the modern world well enough to use its tools and toys, and enjoy books and music that the Church, when the Index was still enforced, would have him reject. He has also claimed to have Jewish acquaintances, and I would bet he doesn’t call them “deicides” — out loud, anyway. He’s not going to either repudiate the SSPX or join with it entirely, but rather, will no doubt continue to enjoy the modern world while continuing to repudiate it and masturbate to the idea of the anti-modern Catholic world.
I don’t know why it is that the holocaust deniers are always non-Germans.
Unfortunately, this is not the case…
Robert Faurisson then goes on to state his interpretation of what the minutes meant:
“The Germans intended to release (to liberate) those Jews who, after having worked hard with their hands, would have constituted an elite, a germ cell of a new Jewish development. This was altogether a National-Socialist and a Zionist view. “See the lesson of history” means that history shows (or is supposed to show) that, for a group or a nation, revival may come after hardship and toil”, which is one of the most bizarre interpretations I have seen.
Nope. It’s not a bizarre interpretation, because it’s not an interpretation at all. It’s the precise opposite of what the text says.
Incredible.
That means “I’m sorry that you, the Cardinal, and the Pope, got upset, unnecessarily, over the complaints.”
I disagree, because he describes himself as “having caused [...] distress and problems” which could have been avoided — which he could have avoided.
Still, however, he only apologized for saying out loud what he thought. What he should have apologized for is that he fell for the Dunning-Kruger effect — that he used insufficient means to arrive at far-reaching conclusions, and that he then went on to believe them certainties.
Williamson is apologizing for bad PR, not anything else. He isn’t disavowing his Holocaust denial, he isn’t apologizing to the Jews, he’s just sorry to have caused problems for the pope.
Exactly.
This is the only event in history which you can be imprisoned in many countries for questioning. You might want to ask yourself why.
Here we go again.
In Austria at least, what is really forbidden is “to make National Socialism appear harmless”. The reason is that, if you’ve gone to school, you simply cannot be ignorant about it; the law considers it proven that you must be lying — lying, that is, in order to seize power and then immediately abolish the very freedom of speech you are hypocritically using for your defense.
It’s a case of democracy defending itself.
Yes, it’s not forbidden to make for example Stalinism appear harmless. That’s because there has never been a potentially dangerous Stalinist movement in Austria.
So,-, considering the charges of a Holocaust denialist is a sign of maturity and open mindedness. If so, I will deal with false civilities and inform you to go fuck yourself.
This fuckwit, Richard Williamson, goes off about facts and evidence yet he cannot keep his facts straight. The claim is not the six million Jews were killed in gas chambers; it is the six millions Jews were murdered by Nazi activities. The major murder sites were in Poland and the Soviet Union, not Germany.
In the last two decades the details of how the exterminations happened can be read in works like Christopher Browning’s Ordinary Men: Reserve Police Battalion 101 and the Final Solution in Poland and Richard Rhodes’ Masters of Death: The SS Einsatzgruppen and the Invention of the Holocaust. The fuckwit’s claim of three to four hundred thousand Jews being murdered is laughable.
So, no -, I will not read anymore of the fuckwit’s words. This video is enough to show how dishonest this anti-semite it. And your false civility and “maturity” adds no dignity to the fuckwit’s words.
Good-bye you toxic pile of sludge.
That means “I’m sorry that you, the Cardinal, and the Pope, got upset, unnecessarily, over the complaints.”I disagree, because he describes himself as “having caused [...] distress and problems” which could have been avoided — which he could have avoided.
I think we’re quibbling over what he meant by “unnecessarily”. I am inferring a more sneakily arrogant tone implied by the rest of the context (For me, all that matters is the Truth Incarnate — and by implication, his detractors do not).
But I definitely agree that even a more charitable interpretation of “unnecessarily” gives nothing more than (as stated in #192) an apology for bad publicity.
“Posted by: Azkyroth | January 31, 2009 12:19 AM
Jack:
What makes you think we aren’t?” [#197]
I’ve been asking around on these blogs for a week now and you are the first person kind enough to respond, albeit a little vaguely. Can you steer me to the appropriate websites? I’d like to keep informed, possibly even make a donation. I want to leave the world a better place for my grandchildren than I found it. Curing “religion” strikes me as just as important (maybe more!) than curing cancer. They’re working to “save” me and I think it is only fair to return the favor. My brother just sent me “Don’t think like an Elephant.” Who knows? Maybe I’ll even get involved!
Owlmirror @ 207:
Since Pilt has a fetish (looking for all the world like some sort of actual paraphilia)
Cheeky bugger. You mean like PZ’s tentacle paraphilia?
for anti-modern Catholicism, and anti-modern Catholicism has institutional anti-semitism
Catholicism is traditionally (& inherently) anti-modern. It has traditionally taken a negative attitude towards rabbinism and if you want to call that anti-semitism, well, I can’t stop you, although I think such a designation generates more heat than light.
it must follow that the SSPX, with its institutional anti-semitism, is indeed doing something right.
From what I know of the FSSPX, it exhibitsthe exemplary traditional Catholic opposition to secular modernity, liberalism, communism, freemasonry etc. Can’t fault that.
(Archbishop Lefebvre’s father died in a Nazi concentration camp, BTW.)
Of course, Pilt is a conflicted hypocrite. That is, he likes the modern world well enough to use its tools and toys, and enjoy books and music that the Church, when the Index was still enforced, would have him reject.
Of course I’m conflicted – I’m a child of the revolution.
He has also claimed to have Jewish acquaintances, and I would bet he doesn’t call them “deicides” ? out loud, anyway.
I also have Jewish relatives and no, I don’t call them Christ-killers just as they don’t call me the idolatrous worshipper of that bastard son of a whore Yoshke. We try to keep it civil.
He’s not going to either repudiate the SSPX or join with it entirely
Don’t know what you mean by “join with it” – the FSSPX is a priestly fraternity, not the Clerico-Fascist Party or the Marcel Lefebvre Appreciation Society. I would certainly have no problem about attending Mass at a Society chapel if there were one in my vicinity.
From what I know of the FSSPX, it exhibitsthe exemplary traditional Catholic opposition to secular modernity, liberalism, communism, freemasonry etc.
“etc.” includes the Jews.
Archbishop Lefebvre’s father died in a Nazi concentration camp
So? Even your Holocaust denying hero, Bishop (more or less) Williamson says the Nazis killed some people in the camps. Guess that Papa Lefebrvre was one of the unlucky ones.
I was just over at Orac’s Respectful Insolence, where he does a fine job taking apart the “classic holocaust denier talking points” exhibited by the ex-ex-communicated priest. But someone there gave the url to an absolutely incredible “letter” online, where Williamson outlines his reasons why women should not go to universities.
http://www.sspx.ca/Documents/Bishop-Williamson/September1-2001.htm
Apologies if someone has already posted this (I haven’t read all the comments), but it contains such gems as:
Alas, women going to university is part of the whole massive onslaught on God’s Nature which characterizes our times. That girls should not be in universities flows from the nature of universities and from the nature of girls: true universities are for ideas, ideas are not for true girls, so true universities are not for true girls.
and
Universities in this sense were a creation of the Catholic Church in the Middle Ages, and, as the Cardinal splendidly recalls, theology held pride of place there because, as science of the Supreme Being, it is the supreme science which alone can appoint to all other sciences their proper place.
and
Survey the waste on any “university” campus today – feckless unmen and trashy unwomen whose noblest activity is throwing frisbees at one another!
That last should be on a t-shirt.
I also like how he appeals to Aquinas “for a sane grasp of woman’s nature” — which is to be swayed by feelings and instincts, so that her mind (and body) needs to be kept in control by men.
“I’m sorry, dear — that is an idea, and ideas are not for women.”
Oh, he’s also apparently a 9-11 truther, too.
But none of this of course got him ex-communicated. He was ex-communicated for consecrating a Bishop without papal permission.
“Survey the waste on any “university” campus today – feckless unmen and trashy unwomen whose noblest activity is throwing frisbees at one another!”
Someone call Nerdlinger, this guy is in serious need of a bra-bombing.
(Simpson writers are infinitely wiser than this clown)
Well, maybe he likes his “unwomen” on the trashy side.
JSA, I believe you’re responding from a place of deep-seated conditioning. Think of all the Hollywood movies and television shows that have been produced over the years reaffirming that figure of six-million along with the “Zyklon-B” gas-chambers. It’s bound to have an effect over time. This is why when anyone tries to revise anything associated with that historical event people get extremely upset. Even the word “Jew” or “Semitic” causes emotion for most. I am anything but a racist. I have the utmost respect and adoration for every people of this earth. I only feel that you shouldn’t be so quick to disregard this man’s statements simply because, “I’ve heard otherwise” or “but he’s not an Athiest!:(“. You guys are supposed to be responsible adults, but by the way you behave it reminds one of the kind of antics an infant would employ.
That’s it from me. Please don’t fall into double-think!
The Holocaust is one of the most documented events in history. There are literally tons of paper showing that it actually did happen. What’s more, it happened in living memory. There are people who were prisoners in the camps who are still living today. There are people living today who liberated the camps.
Anyone who denies that millions of people, not just Jews, were systematically murdered in the concentration camps is either a Nazi sympathizer or seriously deluded. So “-” which are you?
Posted by: – | January 31, 2009
JSA, I believe you’re responding from a place of deep-seated conditioning. Think of all the Hollywood movies and television shows that have been produced over the years reaffirming that figure of six-million along with the “Zyklon-B” gas-chambers.
Believe what you want you smug pile of toxic sludge. I bring up two serious works about how Jews were exterminated you you claim that I got it from the movies. Nice disconnect.
Sastra, thanks for the fine slices of rancid meat. That bishop is a piece of work.
-, did you read any of what Sastra provided? Not that it would matter. And, yes, you are a racist and you and defending a racist. And no hiding behind false civility, you are a smug fuckwit.
OK, Shea Stadium seats (or seated) approximately 57,000 people. If we accept Williamson at his word and just believe him when he says only 300,000 Jews were killed for a moment, we already have enough bodies to occupy Shea Stadium five times over with 15,000 remaining. This isn’t funny. If we also factor in the amount of non-Jews killed in the war, we now have at least enough to fill up six or seven baseball stadiums easily.
Now, if we believe the established version of history at its figure of 6,000,000, this scenario claims that there were enough dead Jews to house 105 baseball stadiums all by themselves. I’m not claiming that either figure is more plausible, I’m only trying to paint a picture in order so you can see just how many lives we’re talking about here.
It seems everyone is afraid to discuss this historical event for some reason, probably due to the fear of being labelled an anti-Semite or Nazi. For one of the most widely acknowledged events it sure has a lot of confusion surrounding it. Only by discussing it will it ever be made clear what truly happened. But like I said, that’s illegal in many countries, in fact, I can probably be thrown in prison for leaving these very comments. I think it’s time I quit to ensure I stay out of trouble.
JSA, isn’t “false civility” a bit of an oxymoron?
Before World War II, there were 3.3 million Jews living in Poland. After the war less than two hundred thousand could be accounted for. So where did the other three million plus Jews go?
Also, between them the Soviets and the Nazis killed over three million other Poles. Not even you Holocaust deniers pretend otherwise.
I can probably be thrown in prison for leaving these very comments.
If you live in any English speaking country you will not be prosecuted for your Holocaust denial. Your protestation of pending martyrdom will not gain you any sympathy. Quite the contrary, in fact.
“…your Holocaust denial.” No, again, I never made such claims. I think you’re just jealous because I’m so erudite in my articulation. An excellent book you’d all do well in reading is one titled “Obedience to Authority” by Stanley Milgram (same guy who conducted the Milgram prison experiment that I’m sure you’ve heard of).
You mean like PZ’s tentacle paraphilia?
Sure, why not? PZ has never denied having his paraphilia.
Are you denying yours?
Catholicism is traditionally (& inherently) anti-modern. It has traditionally taken a negative attitude towards rabbinism and if you want to call that anti-semitism,
Citing from the link @#125 above:
The greatest crime of all time ?the death of the God-Man ?was perpetrated by this forlorn people.
That bloody and ancient accusation against an entire people… that’s a “negative attitude towards rabbinism”?
I ask only for information.
From what I know of the FSSPX, it exhibitsthe exemplary traditional Catholic opposition to secular modernity, liberalism, communism, freemasonry etc. Can’t fault that.
Of course I can, since they are utterly hypocritical, and/or utterly malicious, in several different ways, in said opposition.
As noted above, “etc” does appear to include “Judaism”, and from Sastra’s comment, the concept that women are fully human.
Out of curiosity, do you agree with Williamson’s assertion about “true girls”? If so, does your wife know?
(Archbishop Lefebvre’s father died in a Nazi concentration camp, BTW.)
For aiding the French Resistance, I note.
And yet the SSPX does not appear to oppose Nazism or fascism. Why should that be, I wonder?
Of course I’m conflicted – I’m a child of the revolution.
?
I also have Jewish relatives and no, I don’t call them Christ-killers just as they don’t call me the idolatrous worshipper of that bastard son of a whore Yoshke. We try to keep it civil.
Well, hoo-ray for civility, then.
(Yoshke??? Where did you hear that one?)
(I would have been less surprised by “Bar Panthera” or similar)
“‘…your Holocaust denial.’ No, again, I never made such claims.”
Would you prefer “Holocaust conspirationist”? Just a rethorical question.
Now, if we believe the established version of history at its figure of 6,000,000, this scenario claims that there were enough dead Jews to house 105 baseball stadiums all by themselves. I’m not claiming that either figure is more plausible, I’m only trying to paint a picture in order so you can see just how many lives we’re talking about here.
Are you familiar with the
Battle of the Somme from WWI? Over a million people were killed over the course of a few months; given the time involved in the period over which the Holocaust took place, why would the figure of 6,000,000 be so far-fetched?
‘Tis Himself provided before and after figures for Polish Jews – how do you account for that?
An excellent book you’d all do well in reading is one titled “Obedience to Authority” by Stanley Milgram (same guy who conducted the Milgram prison experiment that I’m sure you’ve heard of).
I’ve heard of the Stanford prison experiment, but that was conducted by Phil Zimbardo, not Milgram. Milgram’s obedience studies were not conducted in a prison setting, but were done in a university and at a commercial office, and were presented to the test participants as learning experiments.
I suppose I should not be at all surprised that someone who questions the Holocaust would get such basic historical information wrong.
“I’ve heard of the Stanford prison experiment, but that was conducted by Phil Zimbardo, not Milgram.” You’re right. Thanks for correcting that typo.
“Would you prefer “Holocaust conspirationist”? Just a rethorical question.”
What would you think if everyone all of a sudden adopted the phrase “God denial” as a slur towards anyone who dares discuss Agnostic ideas? Just a rhetorical question.
These people are revisionists, not denialists.
“Your protestation of pending martyrdom will not gain you any sympathy.”
I’m not looking for sympathy (as I’m sure you know). I only bring that up to show how absurd things have become.
Here’s the full video interview with Williamson for anyone who’s interested…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6C9BuXe2RM
“I think you’re just jealous because I’m so erudite in my articulation.”
Well, damn. Look who swallowed a thesaurus and shat out a piece of nonsense.
Trust me, scum, we’re not jealous of you. You’re an idiot. Sad, but probably just the result of a bad throw of the genetic dice.
Nah, we’re just hating on you because you’re a nasty piece of denialist shit.
Millions of people got murdered. Everybody in the world knows it except you antisemitic morons.
And I’ll bet you really know it too, but you’d love to obscure the facts so you can do it again.
“Well, damn. Look who swallowed a thesaurus and shat out a piece of nonsense.”
That sentence actually makes perfect sense, and I meant it as a sarcastic reference to the sort of banter that’s being passed off as “intellectual discussion” in this thread. I didn’t expect many people to fully grasp the gist of it, but you my friend have just proven your ability (or should I say inability?) to critically think. lol
And here I am stooping to a new low. <-Don’t expect to decode that one, I can already tell you that your efforts will be in vain.
I’m done with this malarky. Have fun in your closed states of mind.
What would you think if everyone all of a sudden adopted the phrase “God denial” as a slur towards anyone who dares discuss Agnostic ideas? Just a rhetorical question.
These people are revisionists, not denialists.
If there was even one hundredth the evidence for the existence of something answering the description of “god” that there is for the systematic murder of multiple millions of Jews and others by the Nazi regime, atheists would be rarer than hens’ teeth. There is a difference between witholding belief in a proposition for which no evidence has been provided; and denying a well-supported historical claim, that perfectly explains well-documented events and conditions for which no non-absurd purported explanation has ever been offered, merely because it does not fit with one’s pre-existing prejudices. Attempting to equate the two is deeply dishonest (much like characterizing reference to the scholarly historical record as “‘I’ve heard otherwise’ or ‘but he’s not an Athiest!:(‘”, to say nothing of your pretense of martyrdom after discovering that arguing in bad faith about events that are quite reasonably extremely emotionally charged for some people tends to generate impatient and intemperate responses). This dishonesty underscores the fact that for all your pretense of impartiality and fairness, you and your ilk are no more interested in an objective examination of the facts than is Kent Hovind.
Well, no, it doesn’t make sense. “Articulation” refers to making sounds, and only applies to verbal speech. To articulate clearly doesn’t mean to write easily-understood prose, but to physically use the speech organs to make clear phonemes.
Had you said, instead, that you are “articulate and erudite”, you would have been in the clear. The adjective has migrated toward a dual meaning and applies to both speech and writing.
Oddly, the word diction, which one might suppose means the same, has also lost its earlier speech-only connotation and now primarily means “choice of words, especially with regard to correctness, clearness, or effectiveness” in writing.
Thus, you could write of “erudite diction”; but your articulation is of no concern to us, since we can’t hear you speak.
Were I marking your essay, as I did so often while I was still teaching composition, I would scribble “diction -5″ on it, neatly executing a witty wordplay which both describes the error and offers a correct substitute for your infelicitous choice of word.
I grasped the gist of it just fine; but as many who try for the impressive high-falutin’ phrase find to their cost, your reach exceeded your grasp, and the result quite contradicted your intent.
And in other news – the Pope has now promoted to Bishop of Linz one Gerhard Maria Wagner – yes, the guy who argued that Katrina was just punishment for the gays and the sexually open minded of New Orleans. He also campaigns against Harry Potter.
If Benny carries on like this then he will create so much cognitive dissonance that every single Catholic head on the planet will explode.
And some more other news (albeit a bit old, apologies if this has previously been mentioned), Vatican to be sued over sex abuse claims (15-Dec-2008):
Three men who claim they were abused by Catholic clergy in America have succeeded in naming the Vatican as sole defendant in a lawsuit and are hoping to force Pope Benedict XVI to give evidence in the case.
The 6th US circuit court of appeal recently ruled ? the plaintiffs could proceed with their argument that its officials were involved in a deliberate effort to cover up evidence of sexual abuse by American priests.
Their case centres on a 1962 directive from the Vatican telling church officials to hide sex abuse complaints against clergy.
William F McMurray, a lawyer representing the men, ? says the document ? makes the Vatican liable for the acts of clergy whose crimes were kept secret because of the directive. ?
?The fact he is pope does not change anything. He knew what nobody else knew and what the Vatican knew is crucial. They were supposed to be disciplining priests: how were they doing it? We would call him as a witness so I could find out what he did for two and a half decades.?
?
Jeffrey Lena, the Vatican’s attorney, has said the plaintiffs would find it difficult to establish the Vatican’s liability for the sexual misconduct of US clergy.
I wonder if McMurray is getting hate-mail from Bill O’Whathisarse’s sheep?
- and Piltdown Man, lying antisemitic scum, both of them – if indeed they are not the same sad excuse for a human being.
-:
“I’ve heard of the Stanford prison experiment, but that was conducted by Phil Zimbardo, not Milgram.” You’re right. Thanks for correcting that typo.
The original error was not a “typo”, it was a conflation of two historically distinct (and very well-known) studies. It was not a slip of the fingers, but an example of poor scholarship (and presented in a rather pompous manner). Again, if your historical knowledge of these issues is so poor, why should anyone take your opinions on the nature of the Holocaust seriously?
maureen:
If Benny carries on like this then he will create so much cognitive dissonance that every single Catholic head on the planet will explode.
With regard to the SSPX incident, I heard one commentator say that Benny is trying to get a church that is smaller but with more loyal and intense followers. I think that’s a pretty good analysis, although I think it will mean the Church becoming increasingly irrelevant both socially and politically.
You mean like PZ’s tentacle paraphilia?
Why am I not surprised that you don’t recognize an obvious joke when you see it.
And in other news – the Pope has now promoted to Bishop of Linz one Gerhard Maria Wagner – yes, the guy who argued that Katrina was just punishment for the gays and the sexually open[-]minded of New Orleans. He also campaigns against Harry Potter.
Worse yet. He said in all seriousness that the tsunami of 2006 was punishment for those few hundred tourists who spent Christmas in cesspools of sin at the beach instead of with their families and in church. The hundreds of thousands of victims who actually lived there were just Divine collateral damage, it seems. Hey, they weren’t Christians, so do they even count?
We’re talking about an asshole, ladies and gentlemen. We’re talking about an evil man.
With regard to the SSPX incident, I heard one commentator say that Benny is trying to get a church that is smaller but with more loyal and intense followers.
Makes a lot of sense.
I think that’s a pretty good analysis, although I think it will mean the Church becoming increasingly irrelevant both socially and politically.
Sort of like the Reptilian Party: everyone except the Religious Wrong has left, and the Religious Wrong is more zealous than ever in its support of its messiah, Sarah Failin’.
“These people are revisionists, not denialists.”
They’re denialists because they’re not revendicating a new interpretation of historical facts, they’re revendicating their own set of facts. Different facts is one thing nobody is entitled to.
I don’t think I have anything more to say on the subject.
Owlmirror @223:
PZ has never denied having his paraphilia.
Are you denying yours?
As I remarked on a previous thread, a common tactic of liberal controversialists is to dismiss their opponents’ opinions as being merely the exterior manifestation of some subconscious psychological dysfunction. Because the liberal position is defined a priori as the only possible one that a rational person could hold, it follows that contrary positions cannot derive from the interaction between experience and reason, but rather from psychopathic hatred, misdirected sexuality, etc.
That bloody and ancient accusation against an entire people… that’s a “negative attitude towards rabbinism”?
The well-respected and much-loved British broadcaster Sir David Attenborough blames the devastation of much of the planet on a particular passage in the Torah. Does that make him an anti-semitic scumbag or just an extremely silly man?
From what I know of the FSSPX, it exhibitsthe exemplary traditional Catholic opposition to secular modernity, liberalism, communism, freemasonry etc. Can’t fault that.Of course I can, since they are utterly hypocritical, and/or utterly malicious, in several different ways, in said opposition.
You may disagree with their stance – of course you do, as you approve of secular modernity – but why do you think it’s hypocritical or malicious? Are you incapable of conceiving disagreement in any other way?
Out of curiosity, do you agree with Williamson’s assertion about “true girls”?
I haven’t read his letter, so I don’t know what his thesis is & I’m not going to judge on the basis of a few quotations torn from context. He’s obviously a quixotic character who enjoys saying “outrageous” things.
I do believe in distinct gender roles – you know, a time when men were men and women weren’t.
the SSPX does not appear to oppose Nazism or fascism. Why should that be, I wonder?
Do you mean “appears to support”? If so, what’s your evidence for that?
Of course I’m conflicted – I’m a child of the revolution.?
I was born and raised in a strongly liberal secular milieu which I accepted unquestioningly. My parents, teachers and television told me what was reasonable, normal & real and by the time I went to university I was a supercilious libertarian atheist who regarded religion as the crutch of the weak-minded and/or cudgel of the bigoted. And although, by the grace of God, I came to recognize and reject my conditioning, there are inevitably still a few nanoprobes lurking about.
We try to keep it civil.Well, hoo-ray for civility, then.
You prefer incivility?
Pilty, your imaginary god doesn’t exist. So your claims of god are false, just self delusion. You are showing incivility with constant claims of god. Get the picture. God = bad.
The well-respected and much-loved British broadcaster Sir David Attenborough blames the devastation of much of the planet on a particular passage in the Torah. Does that make him an anti-semitic scumbag or just an extremely silly man?
Which passage is that?
I do believe in distinct gender roles – you know, a time when men were men and women weren’t.
And then a moment later you ask for evidence. *snicker*
Do you mean “appears to support”? If so, what’s your evidence for that?
Failure to oppose evil is equivalent to supporting it.
You prefer incivility?
We prefer substantive discussion to pretentious, vapid handwringing, ultimately grounded in a scandalously blatant attempt to Gerrymander the rules of acceptable discourse, which is what 90% of concern trolling about “civility” reduces to.
Nerd of Redhead @240:
Pilty, your imaginary god doesn’t exist.
You missed out “probably”
No Pilty, he doesn’t exist. Period, end of story. If you won’t be polite with your godbotting, why should I be pointing our your irrationality. Try your god probably exists, and I will change my tune. Get the picture?
religion…the crutch of the weak-minded and/or cudgel of the bigoted.
Very prosaic. Do you mind if I borrow it?
I was born and raised in a strongly liberal secular milieu which I accepted unquestioningly. My parents, teachers and television told me what was reasonable, normal & real and by the time I went to university I was a supercilious libertarian atheist…by the grace of God, I came to recognize and reject my conditioning, there are inevitably still a few nanoprobes lurking about.
This, dear readers, is why we encourage cyclists to wear helmets. Serious head trauma can have devastating consequences. Pilty obviously didn’t fall too hard because he appears not only to have retained but magnified his pre-brainwashing superciliousness. And if you’re so inclined you can look at it as having had one positive effect: at least he’s not a libertarian anymore…
As I remarked on a previous thread, a common tactic of liberal controversialists is to dismiss their opponents’ opinions as being merely the exterior manifestation of some subconscious psychological dysfunction. Because the liberal position is defined a priori as the only possible one that a rational person could hold, it follows that contrary positions cannot derive from the interaction between experience and reason, but rather from psychopathic hatred, misdirected sexuality, etc.
Oh, too ironic; too funny!! This, from someone who accused a liberal of being possessed by a demon! This, from someone whose entire theology is based on all humans being inherently evil! I don’t have the patience right now to comb through all of your posts, picking out the utterly outrageous accusations against secular liberalism, but they are there, and they are wild.
And don’t think I didn’t note that the entire paragraph was an evasion. That’s OK. I understand that denial of the paraphilia might be necessary for your current psychological peace-of-mind.
Still. *snrk*
The well-respected and much-loved British broadcaster Sir David Attenborough blames the devastation of much of the planet on a particular passage in the Torah. Does that make him an anti-semitic scumbag or just an extremely silly man?
False equivocation, false dichotomy, and ad hominem. He didn’t accuse Jews specifically of anything; he cited Genesis. You know, the book the Christians use too? The book that’s an integral part of your own Catholic theology?
See, Pilt, what I should have written instead of “join with [the SSPX]“, is “commit to defending the SSPX’s more extreme political and theological stances”. You don’t assert that the SSPX (or the Catholic Church in general) was right to condemn the Jews en toto, you evade the entire question with a clumsy and fallacious distraction.
You may disagree with their stance – of course you do, as you approve of secular modernity – but why do you think it’s hypocritical or malicious?
For some of the hypocrisy spelled out, see #188 above. In addition, the SSPX thrives as fanatical Catholics in non-Catholic countries only because those countries have embraced the secular values they despise — as I’m sure you have seem me note before. There’s more detail that I could go into, but that strikes me as being the major point of all of their hypocrisy.
And as for malice… I perceive real spite in Williamson’s denigration of women, and that condemnation of the Jews. Hey, maybe it’s all just a theological stance, right?
Out of curiosity, do you agree with Williamson’s assertion about “true girls”?I haven’t read his letter, so I don’t know what his thesis is & I’m not going to judge on the basis of a few quotations torn from context.
See, there’s that avoidance again; that refusal to commit yourself one way or the other. You don’t even bother to read the sentences in the original context which is offered to you, to see if they in any way misrepresent his thesis!
I just now skimmed it, and I assure you, they do indeed represent exactly what he was saying, which is, basically:
Girls are dumb. So girls should stay home and be mommies like God wants them to.
That’s pretty much it.
Pfui.
He’s obviously a quixotic character who enjoys saying “outrageous” things.
Don Quixote was a crazy person. And Williamson does not just say outrageous things; he says indefensibly offensive and stupid things.
Is that the best defense you can come up with? Williamson is a crazy person who mouths off a lot?
Hey, are you sure he’s not possessed by a demon?
I do believe in distinct gender roles – you know, a time when men were men and women weren’t.
“Hey! You ambiguously-gendered punks! GET OFF OF MY LAWN!”
Can you quit avoiding the question? Assume, for the sake of argument, that you had seen the sentences quoted in #214 without knowing who wrote them.
Would you agree with them or not?
the SSPX does not appear to oppose Nazism or fascism. Why should that be, I wonder?Do you mean “appears to support”? If so, what’s your evidence for that?
No, I meant exactly what I wrote. Your words, again: “From what I know of the FSSPX, it exhibitsthe exemplary traditional Catholic opposition to secular modernity, liberalism, communism, freemasonry etc.”
Nazism and fascism are not on the list. I am wondering, “Why are they not on the list?”
I was born and raised in a strongly liberal secular milieu which I accepted unquestioningly. My parents, teachers and television told me what was reasonable, normal & real and by the time I went to university I was a supercilious libertarian atheist who regarded religion as the crutch of the weak-minded and/or cudgel of the bigoted.
Is that why you hang out here? As we are, you once were?
And although, by the grace of God, I came to recognize and reject my conditioning,
Oh really? What, exactly, brought this about?
Heddle might say that you were regenerated by the grace of God, but I’m not sure what he would think of God regenerating you as a Catholic rather than a Calvinist.
(CAN HAS UNCONDISHNAL ELECSHUN?)
You prefer incivility?
Oh, no. I just perceived a certain bitterness and repressed rage in your particular choice of words. Which is why I wondered about that “Yoshke”.
Owlmirror @245:
As I remarked on a previous thread, a common tactic of liberal controversialists is to dismiss their opponents’ opinions as being merely the exterior manifestation of some subconscious psychological dysfunction. Because the liberal position is defined a priori as the only possible one that a rational person could hold, it follows that contrary positions cannot derive from the interaction between experience and reason, but rather from psychopathic hatred, misdirected sexuality, etc.Oh, too ironic; too funny!! This, from someone who accused a liberal of being possessed by a demon!
What I actually wrote was:
There’s been some online speculation among Catholics as to whether FSMdude and PZ Myers are suffering from demonic obsession, or even full-blown possession.
Judging from FSMdude’s actions, facial expressions and voice, it is conceivable that this misguided youth has succumbed to demonic influence. Rest assured Catholics are praying for him.
As for Prof Myers, it would explain his rather worrying semi-erotic fixation with cthuloid cephalopods. (Then again, maybe he just feels a natural affinity with all things cold, slimy and spineless.)
You will note that my opinion of poor FSMdude was not based on his opinions but on his actions and mannerisms. And the remark about PZ was obviously teasing.
This, from someone whose entire theology is based on all humans being inherently evil!
That’s putting it a bit strong. What am I, a Calvinist?
And don’t think I didn’t note that the entire paragraph was an evasion.
I would have thought the answer to your question was sufficiently implicit, but if it makes you happy — yes, I do deny that my religious and political beliefs are a form of ‘paraphilia’.
That’s OK. I understand that denial of the paraphilia might be necessary for your current psychological peace-of-mind.
Very funny. This is where this kind of Freudian psycho-analysis shows its unfalsifiable nature. Because any rejection of the theory’s presuppositions can be blandly assimilated by the theory as one more instance of the psychological mechanisms described therein, the theory is inherently not testicle. I mean testable.
The well-respected and much-loved British broadcaster Sir David Attenborough blames the devastation of much of the planet on a particular passage in the Torah. Does that make him an anti-semitic scumbag or just an extremely silly man?False equivocation, false dichotomy, and ad hominem. He didn’t accuse Jews specifically of anything; he cited Genesis. You know, the book the Christians use too? The book that’s an integral part of your own Catholic theology?
Genesis is part of the Torah, the most sacred text of Judaism. Attenborough is saying that this quintessentially Jewish book is responsible for planetary devastation. So what if Christians also accept that book? You know very well that many anti-semites are extremely hostile to Christianity, which they perceive as an alien, inherently Jewish creed that has enervated the healthy pagan Aryan nations. To these people, the Church is merely a particularly cunning part of the Jewish conspiracy to undermine the gentiles.
Of course I don’t for one moment believe David Attenborough is a Jew-hater, any more than I believe Richard Dawkins is a Jew-hater for attacking “Abrahamic” religions or for writing stuff like: if it had not been for religion, the very concept of a Jewish state would have had no meaning in the first place. By the same token, I don’t accept that traditional Catholics are Jew-haters because they hold the Jewish religious authorities of the time primarily responsible for Christ’s crucifixion — nor because they believe that the Jewish nation incurred God’s displeasure for their rejection of Christ* — nor even because some believe many Jews are determined to pursue a vendetta against Christianity. (* The FSSPX has stated unambiguously that this does not mean all Jews are collectively guilty of deicide.)
I am not saying there are no Jew-haters among the ranks of traditional Catholics. I’m sure there are some — just as I’m sure there are some Jew-haters among the liberal lefties who devote themselves to the Palestinian cause or among the secular atheists who believe “Abrahamic religion” is the root of all that’s wrong in the world.
… the line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either, but right through every human heart, and through all human hearts. This line shifts. Inside us, it oscillates with the years. Even within hearts overwhlemed by evil, one small bridgehead of good is retained; and even in the best of all hearts, there remains a small corner of evil.
You may disagree with their stance – of course you do, as you approve of secular modernity – but why do you think it’s hypocritical or malicious?For some of the hypocrisy spelled out, see #188 above.
At 188 you wrote:
Richard Williamson gave a lecture about Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four.
Yes, a right-wing, conservative Catholic, proud of the long history of the Church as an institution with power over people’s lives, knowing full well and approving of that institution’s torture and murder of dissidents from creeds which include the trinity and the consubstantiality of man and god and the very idea that an eternal “God” could “die”… spoke in condemnation of the worship of an institution (the IngSoc Party), the worship of power, and O’Brien torturing Smith into saying that “2+2=5″ (or anything else that the Party wanted it to be).
No hypocrisy at all. The Church believes it possesses the Truth with a capital T. The Church has traditionally insisted that the State has a duty to publicly acknowledge this Truth – ie that Christianity should be a social cult embodied & propagated in social institutions, not merely a matter of private belief. And the Church has traditionally claimed the right to call upon secular power – ie force of arms, violence – to maintain and defend this Christian society against perceived threats. Furthermore, it would also be fair to say that Catholic social teaching has traditionally accepted the broadly ‘conservative’ position that a strong, authoritarian state is necessary to preserve social order (although, as a counterbalance, it has also strongly upheld the principle of subsidiarity.)
Now IngSoc’s Party, as described by Orwell, is a different animal altogether. It has a cynical disregard for the very idea of Truth – truth is whatever the Party deems to be expedient at any given time. It’s motivating principle is not truth or order but power and the sadistic pleasure in the exercise of power:
” ‘The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power. Not wealth or luxury or long life or happiness: only power, pure power. … Power is not a means, it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?’ ”
In addition, the SSPX thrives as fanatical Catholics in non-Catholic countries only because those countries have embraced the secular values they despise ? as I’m sure you have seem me note before. There’s more detail that I could go into, but that strikes me as being the major point of all of their hypocrisy.
It would depend how the FSSPX reacted if these secular societies became significantly less liberal, less tolerant. If the FSSPX clammed up and kept their heads down, you would have grounds for an accusation of hypocrisy, or at least of cowardice. Until then, you don’t. “With the grace of God, we’ll stand by the truth, cost what it may – and if they brutally murder us, hey, that’s the fastest elevator to Heaven!” – Bishop Williamson.
See, there’s that avoidance again; that refusal to commit yourself one way or the other. You don’t even bother to read the sentences in the original context which is offered to you, to see if they in any way misrepresent his thesis!
I just now skimmed it, and I assure you, they do indeed represent exactly what he was saying, which is, basically:
? Girls are dumb. So girls should stay home and be mommies like God wants them to.
It’s not avoidance and it’s not a question of me “not bothering” to read an article. I have a wife and three children, plus a full-time job which requires me to work irregular & unsocial hours. My free time is thus severely limited. I will be happy to comment on Bp Williamson’s piece when I get a chance to read it.
the SSPX does not appear to oppose Nazism or fascism. Why should that be, I wonder?Do you mean “appears to support”? If so, what’s your evidence for that?
No, I meant exactly what I wrote. Your words, again: “From what I know of the FSSPX, it exhibitsthe exemplary traditional Catholic opposition to secular modernity, liberalism, communism, freemasonry etc.”
Nazism and fascism are not on the list. I am wondering, “Why are they not on the list?”
Probably because they are concerned to identify and combat the enduring root causes of modern irreligion and coercive statism. Nazism and fascism, although evil, were transitory reactions to that dominant modern current, which were themselves corrupted & vitiated by adopting many of modernity’s most objectionable features — eg the totalitarian concept of the state, advocacy of revolutionary violence, etc. However, you are mistaken if you think the FSSPX are complicit or complacent regarding such movements – the threat posed by revolutionary fascism attempting to infiltrate counter-revolutionary Catholicism has been dissected in an article (sadly no longer online) by a militant FSSPX-affiliated organization.
I just perceived a certain bitterness and repressed rage in your particular choice of words.
Just as you “perceive real spite” in Bp Williamson’s writings? Clearly you possess a clairvoyant insight into men’s souls …
Because the liberal position is defined a priori as the only possible one that a rational person could hold, it follows that contrary positions cannot derive from the interaction between experience and reason, but rather from psychopathic hatred, misdirected sexuality, etc. – Pilt
Well in your case, the obvious delight in torture and murder indicated by your love for the Inquisition puts the matter beyond serious doubt.
I do believe in distinct gender roles – you know, a time when men were men and women weren’t. – Pilt
You’ve got the quote wrong. It’s “when men were real men, women were real women, and small furry creatures from Alpha Centauri were real small furry creatures from Alpha Centrauri.”
You’ve got the quote wrong. It’s “when men were real men, women were real women, and small furry creatures from Alpha Centauri were real small furry creatures from Alpha Centrauri.”
I always thought that was about Wyoming.
Wyoming, where the men are men and the sheep are scared.
Catholic apologists are so damn boring.
Demon possessions really? Maybe you are joking… but it is considered real by the RCC.
However, you are mistaken if you think the FSSPX are complicit or complacent regarding such movements – the threat posed by revolutionary fascism attempting to infiltrate counter-revolutionary Catholicism,/I> – Pilt
Of course historically, the two were closely aligned – as indicated by Levebvre’s undisguised admiration for Franco, the Vatican’s sucking up to Franco, Mussolini and Hitler, etc. They share a detestation for freedom, democracy and socialism as well as poisonous antisemitism and an enthusiasm for violence and cruelty.
Nazism and fascism, although evil, were transitory reactions to that dominant modern current [...] However, you are mistaken if you think the FSSPX are complicit or complacent regarding such movements
I guess you don’t see Lefebvre’s support for Vichy France or the National Front as complicity. I guess it was not complicity that led a SSPX priory to harbour WWII war criminal Paul Touvier, accused of murdering seven Jews.
Your attempt to whitewash the rot of SSPX’s abhorrent views is despicable.
This, from someone whose entire theology is based on all humans being inherently evil!That’s putting it a bit strong. What am I, a Calvinist?
What is the doctrine of Original Sin, if not the moral condemnation of humanity?
I see far more similarities between Calvinists and Catholics than I see differences. But then, I see more similarities than differences between Sunni and Shi’a Muslims, and they hate each other too.
By the same token, I don’t accept that traditional Catholics are Jew-haters because they hold the Jewish religious authorities of the time primarily responsible for Christ’s crucifixion — nor because they believe that the Jewish nation incurred God’s displeasure for their rejection of Christ* — nor even because some believe many Jews are determined to pursue a vendetta against Christianity. (* The FSSPX has stated unambiguously that this does not mean all Jews are collectively guilty of deicide.)
Yet the statements above @#125, and the entire screed they are embedded in, say otherwise.
Pfui.
No hypocrisy at all. The Church believes it possesses the Truth with a capital T.
Um, yes hypocrisy. It’s right there: The Church asserts that it has Truth. In other words, it defines that which is true and that which is not, and asserts that it cannot possibly be wrong.
And IngSoc, too, asserts that it cannot possibly be wrong.
truth is whatever the Party deems to be expedient at any given time.
Much like for the Church. Have you read up on how doctrine has changed over time?
Hey, do you remember your response when I pointed out that the change from celebrating Sabbath on the seventh day of the week was officially changed to Sunday by the Synod of Laodicea?
You wrote: “The Church can do what the Church has done”
How is that different from “The Party can do what the Party has done”?
” ‘The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power. Not wealth or luxury or long life or happiness: only power, pure power. … Power is not a means, it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?’ “
When O’Brien says those words to Smith, he is making a statement that IngSoc would never make publicly. There, in the torture room, he has the opportunity to be brutally honest.
I can easily see one of the torturers for the Inquisition saying something similar to those words to a heretic or Jew the night before the victim was due to be burned alive, knowing that no-one else would ever hear.
” ‘The Church seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power. Not wealth or luxury or long life or happiness: only power, pure power. … Power is not a means, it is an end. One does not establish a Magesterium in order to safeguard a religion; one makes the religion in order to establish the Magesterium. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?’ “
See? It works just as well.
Of course, not every Catholic Church leader was as sociopathic as O’Brien; not every Papacy was so bloodthirsty.
But the core of that sociopathy is there, in the assertion that they “possesses the Truth with a capital T” — and no-one else does, and anyone who claims otherwise should be set on fire.
It’s not avoidance and it’s not a question of me “not bothering” to read an article. I have a wife and three children, plus a full-time job which requires me to work irregular & unsocial hours. My free time is thus severely limited. I will be happy to comment on Bp Williamson’s piece when I get a chance to read it.
And you took the time to compose this very response….
However, you are mistaken if you think the FSSPX are complicit or complacent regarding such movements – the threat posed by revolutionary fascism attempting to infiltrate counter-revolutionary Catholicism has been dissected in an article (sadly no longer online) by a militant FSSPX-affiliated organization.
And yet the articles against Jews and against women still are online…
Just as you “perceive real spite” in Bp Williamson’s writings? Clearly you possess a clairvoyant insight into men’s souls …
Much like Catholics, then?
Very funny. This is where this kind of Freudian psycho-analysis shows its unfalsifiable nature. Because any rejection of the theory’s presuppositions can be blandly assimilated by the theory as one more instance of the psychological mechanisms described therein, the theory is inherently not testicle. I mean testable.
A stopped clock is right twice a day. Piltdown Man still has a lot of catching up to do, but it’s a start.
Just to clarify as the media distorted what was actually published. The group, and this ignorant bishop, had their excommunications rescinded, however, they are not recognized and are not reconciled because they have not accepted all of the tenets of Vatican II. Both Pope Benedict, Cardinal Kasper, and others have spoken out against “Bishop” Williamson. Even before being elected as Pope, and as a Priest, and as a drafted soldier in the German Army, Pope Benedict has spoken out against the work of the Nazi’s so his record is solid when it comes out to his support of the Jewish people. There was a German citizen who was fined for slander for stating that Pope Benedict was anti-semitic and a nazi a few years ago by the German government.
Again, lets get the facts straight, go to the source. Although the excommunications are lifted, this group and this “bishop” (as their ordinations have not yet been validated) has not been reconciled.
Both Pope Benedict, Cardinal Kasper, and others have spoken out against “Bishop” Williamson. Even before being elected as Pope, and as a Priest, and as a drafted soldier in the German Army, Pope Benedict has spoken out against the work of the Nazi’s so his record is solid when it comes out to his support of the Jewish people. There was a German citizen who was fined for slander for stating that Pope Benedict was anti-semitic and a nazi a few years ago by the German government.
[Citation needed]
this group and this “bishop” (as their ordinations have not yet been validated) has not been reconciled.
Not yet been reconciled, and clearly being anti-Semitic will not be an obstacle to such a reconciliation.
Since the Society of Pius X is being discussed, I thought I’d do a little research into why a reactionary, conservative bunch of Catholics name their club after one particular pope.
Looking at the Catholic Encyclopedia article on Pius X I discovered that Pius condemned “modernism.” This vile philosophy “aims at that radical transformation of human thought in relation to God, man, the world, and life, here and hereafter, which was prepared by Humanism and eighteenth-century philosophy, and solemnly promulgated at the French Revolution.” (From the Catholic Encyclopedia article on Modernism, linked in the Pius X article)
Archbishop Lefebvre condemned the French Revolution (he was an absolute monarchist) so Pius’s stance against what was modern in the 18th Century can’t be surprising.
Pius objected to the state of Italy. He wanted the return of the Papal States. When the President of France made a formal visit to the King of Italy in 1903, Pius was so incensed that he refused to see the President. The quarrel became so intense that both sides withdrew their ambassadors and severed diplomatic relations.
Initially Pius played the “prisoner in the Vatican” game, pretending that the Italian government would arrest him if they could get their hands on him. After several years, long after it became obvious that nobody took this idea seriously, Pius visited several cities in Italy. Unarrested, he was always able to return home.
Initially Pius demanded that no Catholic should vote in an Italian election. In 1910, worried that the socialists might come into power, Pius allowed Catholic Italians to vote as long as they didn’t vote for socialists. Voting for a socialist was declared a sin.
Pius died at the beginning of World War I (20 August 1914) and was canonized in 1954.
Even Angela Merkel, the German Chancellor, is pissed off:
German Chancellor Angela Merkel called on Pope Benedict XVI to make a “very clear” rejection of Holocaust denials after a former bishop was rehabilitated by the Vatican.
Her rare and public demand came amid increasing outrage among Germany’s Roman Catholic leaders over the pope’s decision to lift the excommunication of British-born Richard Williamson, who questioned whether 6 million Jews were gassed during the Nazi Holocaust.
Merkel said she “does not believe” there has been adequate clarification of the Vatican’s position on the Holocaust amid the firestorm of controversy that broke out after Williamson’s rehabilitation by the German-born pope.
Williamson interview on Swedish Television is a conspiracy against the Pope !!
http://www.thelocal.se/17346/20090204/
http://www.svd.se/nyheter/utrikes/artikel_2417671.svd
I have a wife and three children – Piltdown
They have my deepest sympathy.
Knockgoats:
I have a wife and three children – Piltdown
They have my deepest sympathy.
Something tells me you’d agree with the Dawkinsian view that sees a religious upbringing as a form of child abuse.
A fortiori in the case of a racist, sexist, fascist homophobe individual such as myself.
Of course, our children are not ours. Oh no. They are the property of the state to allocate and indoctrinate as it sees fit.
So whaddya think, Goaty? Should the state send its myrmidons to rescue my children?
So whaddya think, Goaty? Should the state send its myrmidons to rescue my children?
I wonder if showing the appropriate officials a computer message in which their father calls for the wholesale slaughter of readers of the Guardian might perhaps influence them, far more than said father’s bigoted Catholicism?
Say, how does that new anti-terrorism law run again?
Terrorism is defined, in the first section of the Act, as follows:
- Section 1. -
- (1) In this Act “terrorism” means the use or threat of action where-
- (a) the action falls within subsection (2),
- (b) the use or threat is designed to influence the government [or an international governmental organisation] or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and
- (c) the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious [, racial] or ideological cause.
Hm. Very interesting.
I wonder if showing the appropriate officials a computer message in which their father calls for the wholesale slaughter of readers of the Guardian might perhaps influence them, far more than said father’s bigoted Catholicism? Say, how does that new anti-terrorism law run again?
Go ahead and sing to the stinkin’ Feds, ya fink. They’ll have to prise my rosary from my cold dead hands. It’ll be Ruby Ridge all over again!
Go ahead and sing to the stinkin’ Feds, ya fink. They’ll have to prise my rosary from my cold dead hands. It’ll be Ruby Ridge all over again!
No-one wants your rosary.
But we may have to contact the Pope to get you to calm down and surrender, no doubt muttering and clutching your precious rosary as the nice people put the white coat with the long sleeves on you. There’s a nice room with soft walls waiting for you, where you can say your rosary many, many, many times.
Finally got around to reading Bp Williamson’s letter on women and universities.
(The original link Sastra supplied didn’t seem to be working — possibly part of the FSSPX’s ongoing purge of all “controversial” online material including all articles on Jews and Judaism. Simultaneously, Bp W. has been ordered to shut up by his superior, has been sacked from his position at his Argentine seminary, and is currently under threat of legal proceedings by leftist zealots in Germany & Argentina. Meanwhile, liberal Catholics in Germany are calling for police surveillance of FSSPX-run schools. A case of John 7:13 perhaps?)
Anyway, I don’t accept Eulenspiegel’s summary of the bishop’s letter:
Girls are dumb. So girls should stay home and be mommies like God wants them to.
Bp W. doesn’t say girls are stupid, or less than human. He doesn’t say they shouldn’t receive an education.
He does say girls typically (not universally) exhibit distinct psychological traits which contrast with those typically exhibited by boys – intuitive and concrete rather than logical and abstract – and that these tend towards domesticity and nurturing.
I think he’s right.
I think he’s right.
Color me surprised.
Sastra, you should have been a housewife.
Janine:
Sastra, you should have been a housewife.
I don’t know where you got that from.
It seems to be an emotional rather than a logical response.
*ducks*
Besides, what’s wrong with housewives?
Is keeping a house a trivial thing? Is it demeaning?
Is motherhood?
Where the fuck could I have gotten that idea? Oh wait!
He does say girls typically (not universally) exhibit distinct psychological traits which contrast with those typically exhibited by boys – intuitive and concrete rather than logical and abstract – and that these tend towards domesticity and nurturing.
Just how do you purpose which young women are not suited for higher learning? But, damn it, I am just too emotional to understand.
Is keeping a house a trivial thing? Is it demeaning?
Is motherhood?
It is demeaning when it is implied that this is the proper course for a woman.
The original link Sastra supplied didn’t seem to be working
Indeed, I see that it is now 404-ing. Well, the Google cache still exists.
and is currently under threat of legal proceedings by leftist zealots in Germany & Argentina.
He does appear to have broken German law. If he doesn’t want to receive lawsuits, perhaps he should not be a criminal.
Indeed, if he confesses that he sinned, he may be absolved of his crime. I understand that Catholicism works that way, so it should be an obvious solution to his little problem.
There is the little issue of being truly penitent and agreeing to sin no more. Perhaps he isn’t up to that, though, given his obvious hubris.
Assuming that the SSPX manages to reunite properly with the Mother Church, but that Williamson does not actually repent, he may find himself in Bolgia 6, or even Bolgia 10, of the Eighth Circle.
A case of John 7:13 perhaps?
While Williamson may be as psychopathic as Jesus was, they are not otherwise alike.
Bp W. doesn’t say girls are stupid,
Liar.
“women are not usually perfect in wisdom”. [...] While a university professor is teaching, the boy will be listening to and learning from the words but the girl will naturally be listening to the man and learning by osmosis. Only by an effort will she listen to the words, because her heart is elsewhere – usually on the boys.
or less than human.
If man is defined as the animal that reasons, he most certainly is defining all woman as less than human in being inferior in reason.
He doesn’t say they shouldn’t receive an education.
Yes, he’s in favor of women learning how to be proper mommies.
One needs no university to learn most of what secondary schoolgirls need to be taught, for instance “domestic economy, setting up home, running a house, the care and education of children, the spiritual and social preparation for marriage”
I think he’s right.
Does your wife know how thoroughly you hold her intellect in contempt?
Has she read Williamson’s letter? Or is it too long with too many hard words, so you have kept her from taxing her poor little over-emotional brain from having to focus on all of those words? Or maybe you want to prevent her from getting too excited and overwrought by reading it?
Pfah.
Owlmirror @ 270:
He does appear to have broken German law. If he doesn’t want to receive lawsuits, perhaps he should not be a criminal.
As St Augustine said, an unjust law is no law at all.
Indeed, if he confesses that he sinned, he may be absolved of his crime.
If his remarks were motivated by Jew-hatred, he certainly needs to repent.
Bp W. doesn’t say girls are stupid,Liar.
“women are not usually perfect in wisdom”. [...] While a university professor is teaching, the boy will be listening to and learning from the words but the girl will naturally be listening to the man and learning by osmosis. Only by an effort will she listen to the words, because her heart is elsewhere – usually on the boys.
OTOH he also refers in his letter to intelligent “brainy” women.
I think the context of Bp Williamson’s remarks makes it clear that he’s talking about the kind of abstract intellect associated with his concept of the ideal academic institution. A lack of that particular type of “wisdom” does not mean one is lacking in intelligence, as intelligence can manifest itself in many ways other than the purely academic. Practical intelligence, for instance, or what is sometimes called emotional intelligence.
or less than human.If man is defined as the animal that reasons, he most certainly is defining all woman as less than human in being inferior in reason.
Again, you’re taking a one-size-fits-all view of what constitutes intelligence (“reason”).
He doesn’t say they shouldn’t receive an education.Yes, he’s in favor of women learning how to be proper mommies.
One needs no university to learn most of what secondary schoolgirls need to be taught, for instance “domestic economy, setting up home, running a house, the care and education of children, the spiritual and social preparation for marriage”
Your words seem to imply a contempt for domestic economy, setting up home, running a house etc, as if those pursuits were somehow intrinsically less important or required less intellect than hard physical labour or academic studies. Misogynist.
I think he’s right.Does your wife know how thoroughly you hold her intellect in contempt?
I don’t hold her intellect in contempt. You, on the other hand, seem to do just that, judging from your words above.
Has she read Williamson’s letter? Or is it too long with too many hard words, so you have kept her from taxing her poor little over-emotional brain from having to focus on all of those words? Or maybe you want to prevent her from getting too excited and overwrought by reading it?
No, she’s just got more important things to do.
+++
Janine @ 269:
Sastra, you should have been a housewife.I don’t know where you got that from.
Where the fuck could I have gotten that idea? Oh wait!
He does say girls typically (not universally) exhibit distinct psychological traits which contrast with those typically exhibited by boys – intuitive and concrete rather than logical and abstract – and that these tend towards domesticity and nurturing.
Typically – not universally. One only needs to think of Philippa Foot or Iris Murdoch.
Just how do you purpose which young women are not suited for higher learning?
I guess it would depend on their aptitude, same as with anyone.
Besides, what’s wrong with housewives?
Is keeping a house a trivial thing? Is it demeaning?
Is motherhood?It is demeaning when it is implied that this is the proper course for a woman.
Why? Humans are mammals and female mammals bear & nurture their young. As an evolutionist I would have thought you’d be keen to emphasize our animal nature.
But, damn it, I am just too emotional to understand.
There, there, dear – don’t you trouble your pretty little head about a thing …
*ducks*
As St Augustine said, an unjust law is no law at all.
So the Bible is no law at all? Canon law is no law at all?
I mean, I agree, but that pretty much denies the basis of the monotheistic religions.
OTOH he also refers in his letter to intelligent “brainy” women.
? Whom he insists should not be educated!
Williamson: That is why even really intelligent girls should not be at university.
I think the context of Bp Williamson’s remarks makes it clear that he’s talking about the kind of abstract intellect associated with his concept of the ideal academic institution.
Rubbish. His condemnation is absolute.
A lack of that particular type of “wisdom” does not mean one is lacking in intelligence, as intelligence can manifest itself in many ways other than the purely academic. Practical intelligence, for instance, or what is sometimes called emotional intelligence.
And, what, he’s somehow competent to tell which is which and that the entire human race is evenly divided into those who only have the one and those who only have the other?
Williamson isn’t competent to tell his arse from his elbow, which might explain why he keeps waving his arms around and farting noxious clouds of anti-semitic and misogynistic gas.
or less than human.If man is defined as the animal that reasons, he most certainly is defining all woman as less than human in being inferior in reason.
Again, you’re taking a one-size-fits-all view of what constitutes intelligence (“reason”).
Because I’m pointing out that that is what Williamson is doing.
He doesn’t say they shouldn’t receive an education.Yes, he’s in favor of women learning how to be proper mommies.
One needs no university to learn most of what secondary schoolgirls need to be taught, for instance “domestic economy, setting up home, running a house, the care and education of children, the spiritual and social preparation for marriage”Your words seem to imply a contempt for domestic economy, setting up home, running a house etc, as if those pursuits were somehow intrinsically less important or required less intellect than hard physical labour or academic studies.
No, I am pointing out that Williamson has that contempt, and is sneeringly saying that that is all women are good for.
Misogynist.
Yes, Williamson is indeed a misogynist.
Just how do you purpose which young women are not suited for higher learning?I guess it would depend on their aptitude, same as with anyone.
No, Williamson says no women should go to university. He doesn’t care if they have aptitude or not.
There, there, dear – don’t you trouble your pretty little head about a thing …
*ducks*
I’m tempted to offer Janine a shotgun and holds up a sign saying “DUCK SEASON OPEN”. Because somebody is certainly Daffy and dethpicable…
JEWS STILL NEED CATHOLIC CHURCH FOR MORAL TEACHINGS !!!
Read this :
ROME, February 11, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The dissident, leftist movement in the Catholic Church over the last forty years has severely undermined the teaching of the Catholic Church on the moral teachings on life and family, a prominent US Orthodox rabbi told LifeSiteNews.com. Rabbi Yehuda Levin, the head of a group of 800 Orthodox rabbis in the US and Canada, also dismissed the accusations that the Holy See had not sufficiently distanced itself from the comments made by Bishop Richard Williamson of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) on the Holocaust.
“I support this move” to reconcile the traditionalist faction in the Church, he said, “because I understand the big picture, which is that the Catholic Church has a problem. There is a strong left wing of the Church that is doing immeasurable harm to the faith.”
Rabbi Levin said that he understands “perfectly” why the reconciliation is vital to the fight against abortion and the homosexualist movement.
“I understand that it is very important to fill the pews of the Catholic Church not with cultural Catholics and left-wingers who are helping to destroy the Catholic Church and corrupt the values of the Catholic Church.” This corruption, he said, “has a trickle-down effect to every single religious community in the world.”
“What’s the Pope doing? He’s trying to bring the traditionalists back in because they have a lot of very important things to contribute the commonweal of Catholicism.
“Now, if in the process, he inadvertently includes someone who is prominent in the traditionalist movement who happens to say very strange things about the Holocaust, is that a reason to throw out the baby with the bathwater and start to condemn Pope Benedict? Absolutely not.”
During a visit to Rome at the end of January, Rabbi Levin told LifeSiteNews.com that he believes the media furore over the lifting of the excommunications of the four bishops of the Society of Saint Pius X is a red herring. He called “ridiculous” the accusations that in doing so Pope Benedict VXI or the Catholic Church are anti-Semitic and described as “very strong” the statements distancing the Holy See and the Pope from Williamson’s comments.
Rabbi Levin was in Rome holding meetings with high level Vatican officials to propose what he called a “new stream of thinking” for the Church’s inter-religious dialogue, one based on commonly held moral teachings, particularly on the right to life and the sanctity of natural marriage.
“The most important issue,” he said, is the work the Church is doing “to save babies from abortion, and save children’s minds, and young people’s minds, helping them to know right and wrong on the life and family issues.”
“That’s where ecumenism and inter-religious dialogue has to go.”
Although numbers are difficult to determine, it is estimated that the Society of St. Pius X has over a million followers worldwide. The traditionalist movement in the Catholic Church is noted for doctrinal orthodoxy and enthusiasm not only for old-fashioned devotional practices, but for the Church’s moral teachings and opposition to post-modern secularist sexual mores. Liberals in the Church, particularly in Europe, have bitterly opposed all overtures to the SSPX and other traditionalists, particularly the Pope’s recent permission to revive the traditional Latin Mass.
The Vatican announced in early January that, as part of ongoing efforts to reconcile the breakaway group, the 1988 decree of excommunication against the Society had been rescinded. Later that month, a Swedish television station aired an interview, recorded in November 2008, in which Bishop Richard Williamson, one of the four leaders of the Society, said that he did not believe that six million Jews were killed in the Nazi death camps during World War II.
At that time, the media erupted with protests and accusations that the Catholic Church, and especially Pope Benedict XVI, are anti-Semitic.
Rabbi Levin particularly defended Pope Benedict, saying he is the genius behind the moves of the late Pope John Paul II to reconcile the Church with the Jewish community.
“Anyone who understands and follows Vatican history knows that in the last three decades, one of the moral and intellectual underpinnings of the papacy of Pope John Paul II, was Cardinal Ratzinger.
“And therefore, a lot of the things that Pope John Paul did vis-à-vis the Holocaust, he [Benedict] might have done himself, whether it was visiting Auschwitz or visiting and speaking in the synagogues or asking forgiveness. A lot of this had direct input from Cardinal Ratzinger. Whoever doesn’t understand this doesn’t realise that this man, Pope Benedict XVI, has a decades-long track record of anti-Nazism and sympathy for the Jews.”
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/printerfriendly.html?articleid=09021112
Owlmirror @ 272:
OTOH he also refers in his letter to intelligent “brainy” women.? Whom he insists should not be educated!
So you accept that he does in fact attribute intelligence to women.
I think the context of Bp Williamson’s remarks makes it clear that he’s talking about the kind of abstract intellect associated with his concept of the ideal academic institution.Rubbish. His condemnation is absolute.
Did you actually read his letter or just skim it through a fog of self-righteous liberal indignation?
A lack of that particular type of “wisdom” does not mean one is lacking in intelligence, as intelligence can manifest itself in many ways other than the purely academic. Practical intelligence, for instance, or what is sometimes called emotional intelligence.And, what, he’s somehow competent to tell which is which and that the entire human race is evenly divided into those who only have the one and those who only have the other?
He’s talking in general terms and acknowledges the existence of exceptions. As for distinguishing between academic and non-academic intelligence, aren’t universities supposed to have an admissions selection process (a kind of process of natural selection)?
If man is defined as the animal that reasons, he most certainly is defining all woman as less than human in being inferior in reason.Again, you’re taking a one-size-fits-all view of what constitutes intelligence (“reason”).
Because I’m pointing out that that is what Williamson is doing.
You’re not “pointing it out”, you’re just bellowing it in bold type as if that makes it so.
He doesn’t say they shouldn’t receive an education.Yes, he’s in favor of women learning how to be proper mommies.
One needs no university to learn most of what secondary schoolgirls need to be taught, for instance “domestic economy, setting up home, running a house, the care and education of children, the spiritual and social preparation for marriage”Your words seem to imply a contempt for domestic economy, setting up home, running a house etc, as if those pursuits were somehow intrinsically less important or required less intellect than hard physical labour or academic studies.
No, I am pointing out that Williamson has that contempt, and is sneeringly saying that that is all women are good for.
Utter crap. If there’s one thing you can be sure of it’s this – that when a traditional Roman Catholic priest talks about “domestic economy, setting up home, running a house, the care and education of children, the spiritual and social preparation for marriage”, he is praising those things & those who practise them, not denigrating them. The Church has always emphasised the super-eminent importance of these virtues to the health of society. In fact traditionalists of all stripes tend to recognise and appreciate these things — as the remarks by Rabbi Levin quoted above by simon bear witness.
It is because these things are despised by fashionable LIBERAL opinion that the family & hence society are disintegrating.
Men have become like gods. Isn’t it about time that we understood our divinity? Science offers us total mastery over our environment and over our destiny, yet instead of rejoicing we feel deeply afraid. Why should this be? … Far from being the basis of the good society, the family, with its narrow privacy and tawdry secrets, is the source of all discontents. – British anthropologist Edmund Leach, 1968 Reith Lecture A Runaway World?
Huh, I completely forgot to respond to this.
OTOH he also refers in his letter to intelligent “brainy” women.? Whom he insists should not be educated!
So you accept that he does in fact attribute intelligence to women.
Only in the most superficial, sneering, condescending way.
Did you actually read his letter or just skim it through a fog of self-righteous liberal indignation?
I read what he wrote. He didn’t hide his contempt for women… or for liberals, come to think of it.
You often make a least some minimal attempt to mask your contempt, which makes your defence of Williamson’s blatant extremism somewhat incongruous.
He’s talking in general terms and acknowledges the existence of exceptions.
Garbage. He invokes God, and insists that that God made women to be inferiors.
As for distinguishing between academic and non-academic intelligence, aren’t universities supposed to have an admissions selection process (a kind of process of natural selection)?
Admissions selection that Williamson asserts that woman should not even attempt to pass.
You’re not “pointing it out”, you’re just bellowing it in bold type as if that makes it so.
Do I need to cite the text itself?
Richard Williamson:
For a sane grasp of woman’s nature, let me appeal to the Church’s Common Doctor, St. Thomas Aquinas, distant now by three-quarters of a millennium from our own disturbed times. The three reasons he gives in his Summa Theologiae (2a, 2ae, 177,2) why woman should not teach in Church in public can all be applied to why she should not teach or learn in a public university. Firstly, he says, teaching is for superiors, and women are- not to be superior, but subject, to their men (Gen III,16). Secondly, women stepping up to teach in public can easily inflame men’s lust (Ecclus IX,11). Thirdly, "Women are not usually ("communiter") perfect in wisdom".
[...]
For to do the work of generation, i.e. to ensure nothing less than the survival and continuation of mankind, God designed her mind to run on a complementary and different basis from her man’s. His mind is designed not to be swayed by feelings but on the contrary to control them, so that while his feelings may be inferior to hers, his reason is superior. And reason being meant to rule in rational beings, then he is natured to rule over her (Gen. III, 16), as can be seen for example whenever she needs to resort to him for her feelings not to get out of control.
[...]
Correspondingly, while she senses family (and loves to talk about it), he responds to the world around and wants to master it (Gen II,15,19,20). While she is people-oriented, he is reality-oriented. (How often will a woman pull an idea or a question of reality back to family! – "You’re against drink? You’re attacking my husband!" This is in woman’s nature. One does not mock her for it.) So while she is queen of feeling within the home, he must be king of reason over the home. So while he must love her and listen to her, at the end of the day she must obey him, because he is natured to take the broader view and to be the more reasonable (Eph V 22,25: Col III, 18,19).
/Richard Williamson.
Good grief, he makes a pathetic generalization, and then hypocritically and condescendingly tacks on that “One does not mock her for it.”
No, I am pointing out that Williamson has that contempt, and is sneeringly saying that that is all women are good for.Utter crap. If there’s one thing you can be sure of it’s this – that when a traditional Roman Catholic priest talks about “domestic economy, setting up home, running a house, the care and education of children, the spiritual and social preparation for marriage”, he is praising those things & those who practise them, not denigrating them.
Utter crap, right back at you. Some Roman Catholic priests, if you can find any who would concede that woman have equal rights. But not those primitive troglodytes who use high-flown language and biblical citations to deny that women have any other choice in society to be anything other than a slave to men.
The Church has always emphasised the super-eminent importance of these virtues to the health of society. In fact traditionalists of all stripes tend to recognise and appreciate these things — as the remarks by Rabbi Levin quoted above by simon bear witness.
Pft. Patriarchal thinkers do indeed have contempt for women in common.
It is because these things are despised by fashionable LIBERAL opinion that the family & hence society are disintegrating.
Oh, garbage again. Society is not “disintegrating”, nor will it “disintegrate” just because women are considered to have equal rights to men, including the right to education.
January 29, 2009
January 29, 2009
January 29, 2009
January 29, 2009
January 29, 2009
January 29, 2009
January 29, 2009
January 29, 2009
January 29, 2009
January 29, 2009
January 29, 2009
January 29, 2009
January 29, 2009
January 29, 2009
January 29, 2009
January 29, 2009
January 29, 2009
January 29, 2009
January 29, 2009
January 29, 2009
January 29, 2009
January 29, 2009
January 29, 2009
January 29, 2009
January 29, 2009
January 29, 2009
January 29, 2009
January 29, 2009
January 29, 2009
January 29, 2009
January 29, 2009
January 29, 2009
January 29, 2009
January 29, 2009
January 29, 2009
January 29, 2009
January 29, 2009
January 29, 2009
January 29, 2009
January 29, 2009
January 29, 2009
January 29, 2009
January 29, 2009
January 29, 2009
January 29, 2009
January 29, 2009
January 29, 2009
January 29, 2009
January 29, 2009
January 29, 2009
January 29, 2009
January 29, 2009
January 29, 2009
January 29, 2009
January 29, 2009
January 29, 2009
January 29, 2009
January 29, 2009
January 29, 2009
January 29, 2009
January 29, 2009
January 29, 2009
January 29, 2009
January 29, 2009
January 29, 2009
January 29, 2009
January 29, 2009
January 29, 2009
January 29, 2009
January 29, 2009
January 29, 2009
January 29, 2009
January 29, 2009
January 29, 2009
January 29, 2009
January 29, 2009
January 29, 2009
January 29, 2009
January 29, 2009
January 29, 2009
January 30, 2009
January 30, 2009
January 30, 2009
January 30, 2009
January 30, 2009
January 30, 2009
January 30, 2009
January 30, 2009
January 30, 2009
January 30, 2009
January 30, 2009
January 30, 2009
January 30, 2009
January 30, 2009
January 30, 2009
January 30, 2009
January 30, 2009
January 30, 2009
January 30, 2009
January 30, 2009
January 30, 2009
January 30, 2009
January 30, 2009
January 30, 2009
January 30, 2009
January 30, 2009
January 30, 2009
January 30, 2009
January 30, 2009
January 30, 2009
January 30, 2009
January 30, 2009
January 30, 2009
January 30, 2009
January 30, 2009
January 30, 2009
January 30, 2009
January 30, 2009
January 30, 2009
January 30, 2009
January 30, 2009
January 30, 2009
January 30, 2009
January 30, 2009
January 30, 2009
January 30, 2009
January 30, 2009
January 30, 2009
January 30, 2009
January 30, 2009
January 30, 2009
January 31, 2009
January 31, 2009
January 31, 2009
February 1, 2009
February 1, 2009
February 1, 2009
February 1, 2009
February 2, 2009
February 2, 2009
February 4, 2009
February 22, 2009
February 22, 2009