Forums > Personal > Argentinian authorities decide to expel Catholic bishop. And a movie. :)

forum rss feed
Author

Yara user not visiting Queenzone.com

Royalty: 1430 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 19 Feb 09, 21:04 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

Being Jewish, and very committed to both my people and the Jewish law, I was slightly interested in this. Let's see if I manage to sum it up and take a dispassionate look at the whole stuff.   

The Argentinian authorities decided to expel English Catholic Bishop Williamson because of an interview in which he allegedly denied or undermined the scale of the extermination of the Jews by the Nazis - the holocaust. 
 
The event is the outcome of a series of misunderstandings between the Vatican, the press and the public opinion at large which brought the aforementioned Bishop to public attention. The Pope had been doing efforts to fully reintroduce the Society of St.Pius X, founded by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, to the Church.

The stalemate between the Church and the Society had nothing to do with holocaust denial. Two decades ago, French Archbishop Lefebvre, chief of the said Society, was excommunicated for consecrating four Bishops without Pope John Paul II's consent. 

And why didn't he get the consent? 

There's has been a feud between the Society of St. Pius X and the Church for years now. The main reason has been the Society's more critical view of the Vatican Council II, which would have, according to their views, opened the way for error, aposthasy and heresy by promoting a modernization of the Church which, according to their views again, was in contradiction with the extraordinary - that is, infallible - authority of previous papal documents and Councils - mainly the Vatican Council I, Pius IX's Syllabus and another one the name of which I forgot. The Society claims that, contrary to the previous councils, the Vatican Council II doesn't have the extraordinary, infallible authority; it'd be, according to them, a pastoral Council, aiming not at establishing doctrinal points, but doing some recommendations for the Church members and the Catholics in general. It seemed, however, that John Paul II disapproved of their attitude towards the Vatican Council II, which the Pope was a strong supporter of.  

Things got really bad when, some years before John Paul II being consecrated, Pope Paul VI approved a new text for the Catholic liturgy, allowing for the use of the vulgar languages, instead of the Latin, and introducing controversial words and ommitting parts which are considered essential by the Society. The Society has also claimed that the new liturgy had been conceived of by very controversial Catholic figures with the collaboration of pastors and religious authorities from other faiths.  

Come 2008 and 2009, and Pope Benedictus XVI, realizing that there was a substantial demand by the Catholics for the return of the ancient liturgy, the roots of which date back to the Trent Council in the XVI Century, remmitted the excommunication of the four Bishops that had been irregularly consecrated by Archbishop Lefebvre.

It was a way of trying to bring both the Society St. Pius X and those who longed for the ancient liturgy closer to the Church. The Pope finally issued a document authorizing the Church authorities to perform the ancient rite, arguing that, in fact, it had never been cancelled or invalidated - so the local authorities would have to work with the communities to acommodate the wishes of those who wanted to attend the rite according to the older cerimony and those who were more closely linked to the newer one. 

So far, so great! But...an incident happened. Not long after the remittance of the excommunication of the four bishops from the Society St. Pius X, the interview with Bishop Williamson "suddenly" came up and, much to the Vatican's embarrassement, the said Bishop was a member of the Society St. Pius X !!!

The Pope fiercely condemned the Bishop's attitude and clearly stated that the denial of the holocaust was unacceptable.
 
So...

-----

a) Do you think I'd make for a good, balanced, impartial, reasonable journalist? : ))) Have I done a good job in reporting the whole thing despite the fact the Bishop's remarks are offensive to us Jews?

b) Do you think that people should suffer legal penalties, ranging from fees to prison? Should denying the Holocaust be considered a crime or otherwise illegal, as it is in some countries? 

c) Do you think that the Argentinian authorities took too harsh a measure or, taking into account Argentinian authorities efforts to clearly repudiate the horrible fascist dictatorship established there around the late 70's, you think it was a fair penalty?

d) Have you watched the movie called "Doubt", featuring Meryl Streep and Seymour Hoffman? In a more sensitive and indirect way, it deals with some of these issues, the Church going through changes and each one of them representing one side of the historical process, so to speak. 

---

Bye all, have a nice FRIDAY.


Yara
thomasquinn 32989 user not visiting Queenzone.com
thomasquinn 32989
Deity: 6257 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 20 Feb 09, 06:36 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

a) You could have mentioned that the concept of papal infallibility (which only goes when the pope speaks ex cathedra) only dates back to 1870 (First Vatican Council), to stress that prior to that, no one in their right minds (and most people not in their right minds) considered the pope infallible. Rather ironic for an anti-modern group like the Pius X movement to seek support in a modern dogma.

b) Difficult. Making it a crime creates a dangerous precedent (a hypothetical extremist government later on then has a pretext to outlaw expressing anything they don't like you to), but if it is legal, the far-right will have a field-day. I'd say denial of the holocaust per se should not be a crime, but anti-semitism should. Depending on the phrasing of any specific holocaust denier, it could then be prosecuted under racism laws

c) Ironic (considering Argentina's history, especially the late '40s...) but well-deserved.

d) No.



Not Plutus but Apollo rules Parnassus

Yara user not visiting Queenzone.com

Royalty: 1430 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 20 Feb 09, 08:20 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote



ThomasQuinn wrote:

a) You could have mentioned that the concept of papal infallibility (which only goes when the pope speaks ex cathedra) only dates back to 1870 (First Vatican Council), to stress that prior to that, no one in their right minds (and most people not in their right minds) considered the pope infallible. Rather ironic for an anti-modern group like the Pius X movement to seek support in a modern dogma.

b) Difficult. Making it a crime creates a dangerous precedent (a hypothetical extremist government later on then has a pretext to outlaw expressing anything they don't like you to), but if it is legal, the far-right will have a field-day. I'd say denial of the holocaust per se should not be a crime, but anti-semitism should. Depending on the phrasing of any specific holocaust denier, it could then be prosecuted under racism laws

c) Ironic (considering Argentina's history, especially the late '40s...) but well-deserved.

d) No.


You see how hard it is to be a Jewish journalist? I'm talking about A. 

Had I said that, people would accuse me of being inacurate and biased against the Church. Why? Because the dogma has not been created by Pius IX's whismical desire, as if he had come up with the thing out of nothing and done that. No! People would be mad at my bias. Because there was actually pressure at the time for thim to express this dogma, such as the other one, the immaculate conception. 

Now. There was pressure inside the Church both FOR and AGAINST the pronouncement of both dogmas. Those who were for the pronouncement could indeed back up their claim theologically by pointing out that many Doctors of the Church had espoused such views over time and the Pope wouldn't be doing nothing more than declaring what had always been true, to their minds. Those who were against it inside the Church argued that there was not enough support, or the support was at least faint and ambiguous. There were huge theological discussion that resulted in fierce controversy and fight during the Vatican Council I. 

So, many dogmas of the Catholic Church have been declared - or invented, by those who don't believe in it, as me - centuries after St. Peter's death, which according to the Church was the Christ successor on Earth and his representative. Countless dogmas had been declared later. Even the celibacy was only established in the Middle Ages, if my memory serves me right. 

That's the BASIS of the Catholic Faith.

If I ran against it, I'd biased, because that's been the Church view of things for centuries. So, had I made this input you implied, I'd be suggesting that the whole thing about the dogma was a SCAM!!! Or worse: that it had only political motivations, and therefore I'd be passing a judgement over the Catholic faith itself. And they'd retort: no, there were legitimate theological reasons, be you for or against it!

THOMAS QUINN!!!

You don't know how hard it is to be a Jewish reporter. See my predicament. Let's suppose I were INFLUENTIAL: I could have created a hell (oops) of a fuss and been accused of incurring in simplistic views and biased judgement.

I would answer:

"But it's IMPOSSIBLE NOT TO BE BIASED AT SOME EXTENT". 

To which they would answer: "Yes, it is, but there's a thing called historical record, and this record shows that's the way the Church has functioned for centuries and that there have been over time supporters of the dogmas which would be only declared in the XIX Century."

And I'd say: "But...it was all...see the situation of Europe and Italy at the time..."

And the Catholic would answer: "You don't have the time to go into it in your article, Yara! It's an overview of XIX century's history, but what are the reasons behind the misunderstanding between the Vatican and what we could call the Traditionalist Catholics. You can't turn your article, being a religious Jewish yourself, in an attack against the Catholic faith - it'd be pointless".    

I'd be loss for words at this point. 

I'd say that I'm only studying to be a musician, that I had no intent of becoming a journalist, after all, and that for me it's enough to play on the piano pieces composed by people who died long ago or singing words that have been uttered by thousands of dead lips, to give it a more dramatic spin. 

Then the Catholic would say...I don't know what he'd say at this point.

I'd just say that, as long as he doesn't try to force his views on me and offend the Jewish people, I'm all for peace. But denying the holocaust, and the extent of it, is unacceptable, I'd say, and the Pope agrees with me on that!!! So don't come with your intolerant, bloody and ugly IDEOLOGY...bastard!!!!

It's so hard...because I don't want to spend my life playing badly things composed by dead people - if it's about that, well, I could well have become a GRAVEDIGGER. 

Yes, and I'd even write an article pointing out the similarities between what I do in music and the work of a gravedigger!

That'd be my doctoral dissertation, how depressing is that?????          








Yara
Poo, again user not visiting Queenzone.com
Poo, again
Deity: 4776 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 20 Feb 09, 09:23 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote

I don't see how denying the holocaust makes one antisemitic.

It is merely denying a historical event. Some may not accept the moon landing, evolution, etc...

It upsets me that it's very taboo to deny this certain event.


[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Jake? wrote: I want him to shove it down my throat and shoot. Shoot! Shoot! C'mon! SHOOT! SHOOT!

[/QUOTENAME]



[/QUOTE]







thomasquinn 32989 user not visiting Queenzone.com
thomasquinn 32989
Deity: 6257 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 20 Feb 09, 11:24 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote



Poo, again wrote:

I don't see how denying the holocaust makes one antisemitic.

It is merely denying a historical event. Some may not accept the moon landing, evolution, etc...

It upsets me that it's very taboo to deny this certain event.


...which is why I said not to make that a crime, but to prosecute people when they express racist ideology.







Not Plutus but Apollo rules Parnassus

thomasquinn 32989 user not visiting Queenzone.com
thomasquinn 32989
Deity: 6257 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 20 Feb 09, 11:26 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote







Yara wrote:



















ThomasQuinn wrote:







a) You could have mentioned that the concept of papal infallibility (which only goes when the pope speaks ex cathedra) only dates back to 1870 (First Vatican Council), to stress that prior to that, no one in their right minds (and most people not in their right minds) considered the pope infallible. Rather ironic for an anti-modern group like the Pius X movement to seek support in a modern dogma.

b) Difficult. Making it a crime creates a dangerous precedent (a hypothetical extremist government later on then has a pretext to outlaw expressing anything they don't like you to), but if it is legal, the far-right will have a field-day. I'd say denial of the holocaust per se should not be a crime, but anti-semitism should. Depending on the phrasing of any specific holocaust denier, it could then be prosecuted under racism laws

c) Ironic (considering Argentina's history, especially the late '40s...) but well-deserved.

d) No.







You see how hard it is to be a Jewish journalist? I'm talking about A. 

Had I said that, people would accuse me of being inacurate and biased against the Church. Why? Because the dogma has not been created by Pius IX's whismical desire, as if he had come up with the thing out of nothing and done that. No! People would be mad at my bias. Because there was actually pressure at the time for thim to express this dogma, such as the other one, the immaculate conception. 

Now. There was pressure inside the Church both FOR and AGAINST the pronouncement of both dogmas. Those who were for the pronouncement could indeed back up their claim theologically by pointing out that many Doctors of the Church had espoused such views over time and the Pope wouldn't be doing nothing more than declaring what had always been true, to their minds. Those who were against it inside the Church argued that there was not enough support, or the support was at least faint and ambiguous. There were huge theological discussion that resulted in fierce controversy and fight during the Vatican Council I. 

So, many dogmas of the Catholic Church have been declared - or invented, by those who don't believe in it, as me - centuries after St. Peter's death, which according to the Church was the Christ successor on Earth and his representative. Countless dogmas had been declared later. Even the celibacy was only established in the Middle Ages, if my memory serves me right. 

That's the BASIS of the Catholic Faith.

If I ran against it, I'd biased, because that's been the Church view of things for centuries. So, had I made this input you implied, I'd be suggesting that the whole thing about the dogma was a SCAM!!! Or worse: that it had only political motivations, and therefore I'd be passing a judgement over the Catholic faith itself. And they'd retort: no, there were legitimate theological reasons, be you for or against it!

THOMAS QUINN!!!

You don't know how hard it is to be a Jewish reporter. See my predicament. Let's suppose I were INFLUENTIAL: I could have created a hell (oops) of a fuss and been accused of incurring in simplistic views and biased judgement.

I would answer:

"But it's IMPOSSIBLE NOT TO BE BIASED AT SOME EXTENT". 

To which they would answer: "Yes, it is, but there's a thing called historical record, and this record shows that's the way the Church has functioned for centuries and that there have been over time supporters of the dogmas which would be only declared in the XIX Century."

And I'd say: "But...it was all...see the situation of Europe and Italy at the time..."

And the Catholic would answer: "You don't have the time to go into it in your article, Yara! It's an overview of XIX century's history, but what are the reasons behind the misunderstanding between the Vatican and what we could call the Traditionalist Catholics. You can't turn your article, being a religious Jewish yourself, in an attack against the Catholic faith - it'd be pointless".    

I'd be loss for words at this point. 

I'd say that I'm only studying to be a musician, that I had no intent of becoming a journalist, after all, and that for me it's enough to play on the piano pieces composed by people who died long ago or singing words that have been uttered by thousands of dead lips, to give it a more dramatic spin. 

Then the Catholic would say...I don't know what he'd say at this point.

I'd just say that, as long as he doesn't try to force his views on me and offend the Jewish people, I'm all for peace. But denying the holocaust, and the extent of it, is unacceptable, I'd say, and the Pope agrees with me on that!!! So don't come with your intolerant, bloody and ugly IDEOLOGY...bastard!!!!

It's so hard...because I don't want to spend my life playing badly things composed by dead people - if it's about that, well, I could well have become a GRAVEDIGGER. 

Yes, and I'd even write an article pointing out the similarities between what I do in music and the work of a gravedigger!

That'd be my doctoral dissertation, how depressing is that?????          






I think you worry too much. Some people are always going to get upset, whether you're Jewish, an agnostic (like me), an atheist, a Muslim, a Christian, a Paganist or whatever, but they will anyway, even if you're not even there in the first place, they'll find something to whine about. It's like conspiracy theorists: they want there to be cover-ups so badly that they start seeing them everywhere, and miss them on those rare occasions that they are there because they seem to mundane in comparison to their own hallucinations.







Not Plutus but Apollo rules Parnassus

Poo, again user not visiting Queenzone.com
Poo, again
Deity: 4776 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 20 Feb 09, 12:30 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote



ThomasQuinn wrote:



 



Poo, again wrote:



I don't see how denying the holocaust makes one antisemitic.

It is merely denying a historical event. Some may not accept the moon landing, evolution, etc...

It upsets me that it's very taboo to deny this certain event.



...which is why I said not to make that a crime, but to prosecute people when they express racist ideology.





Honestly, I didn't even bother to read what you wrote.

But yeah.








[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Jake? wrote: I want him to shove it down my throat and shoot. Shoot! Shoot! C'mon! SHOOT! SHOOT!

[/QUOTENAME]



[/QUOTE]







thomasquinn 32989 user not visiting Queenzone.com
thomasquinn 32989
Deity: 6257 posts
add to buddy list send PM

Posted: 21 Feb 09, 06:31 Edit this post Reply to this post Reply with Quote



Poo, again wrote:







ThomasQuinn wrote:











 







Poo, again wrote:







I don't see how denying the holocaust makes one antisemitic.

It is merely denying a historical event. Some may not accept the moon landing, evolution, etc...

It upsets me that it's very taboo to deny this certain event.







...which is why I said not to make that a crime, but to prosecute people when they express racist ideology.





Honestly, I didn't even bother to read what you wrote.

But yeah.



I should've guessed :P








Not Plutus but Apollo rules Parnassus