When a Priest Denies the Holocaust
By Dennis PragerFor those of us, Christians and non-Christians, who count themselves as friends of Catholics and their church, these have been a bad few weeks.
On Jan. 21, Pope Benedict XVI revoked the excommunication of four priests who, in 1988, were illegally ordained bishops by the late renegade archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. Those ordinations led to Pope John Paul II excommunicating Lefebvre and the four priests. (Read Full Article)
(Click Here to Comment on All RCP Articles)
Join the Discussion | 3 Comments | | | Post Comment |
|
Feb 10, 12:36 AM |
Report Abuse Reply |
"On the assumption that there not only theological but also moral criteria to being reinstated in the Catholic Church, an excommunicated priest who denies the Holocaust should automatically remain excommunicated. Would a priest who denied that Jesus was crucified have his excommunication rescinded?"
Prager obviously doesn't know the first thing about excommunication. Denial of the Holocaust, no matter how distasteful it may be in modern society, isn't a denial of an article of faith, and therefore, not an offense meriting excommunication. A priest who denied that Christ was crucified would, in fact, be denying an article of faith, and would be excommunicated ipso facto.
Furthermore, Prager shows his lack of knowledge by referring to Bishop Williamson and his SSPX colleagues as merely "priests." While they were illicitly ordained by Archbishop (capital A, Prager!) Lefebvre, they were (and are still) consecrated bishops. That they were ordained without ecclesiastical permission is the reason they were excommunicated, and it would be rather impossible to claim they were both excommunicated for being illicitly ordained and yet not bishops.
It would be refreshing if opinion columnists and "religious affairs" correspondents did the least amount of research into Canon Law before they set about writing their poorly crafted, illogical drivel. The issue merits discussion, but only by rational individuals who know and understand the Catholic legal structure. Prager is most definitely not in this group.
Prager obviously doesn't know the first thing about excommunication. Denial of the Holocaust, no matter how distasteful it may be in modern society, isn't a denial of an article of faith, and therefore, not an offense meriting excommunication. A priest who denied that Christ was crucified would, in fact, be denying an article of faith, and would be excommunicated ipso facto.
Furthermore, Prager shows his lack of knowledge by referring to Bishop Williamson and his SSPX colleagues as merely "priests." While they were illicitly ordained by Archbishop (capital A, Prager!) Lefebvre, they were (and are still) consecrated bishops. That they were ordained without ecclesiastical permission is the reason they were excommunicated, and it would be rather impossible to claim they were both excommunicated for being illicitly ordained and yet not bishops.
It would be refreshing if opinion columnists and "religious affairs" correspondents did the least amount of research into Canon Law before they set about writing their poorly crafted, illogical drivel. The issue merits discussion, but only by rational individuals who know and understand the Catholic legal structure. Prager is most definitely not in this group.
|
|
Feb 10, 10:08 AM |
Report Abuse Reply |
This is the first time I've been moved to comment on one of Mr. Prager's pieces---mainly because "I agree with Dennis" would not make an interesting addition to the conversation.
Vasya is correct about the particulars of the case, but I take issue with his characterization of Mr. Prager as irrational, or his essay as "poorly crafted, illogical drivel." Mr. Prager is a religious Jew who seeks out every opportunity to strengthen the bonds between his people and the Catholic Church. That this scandal has outraged him doesn't surprise me at all---I am Catholic, and I am outraged as well.
Mr. Prager, please believe that Pope Benedict is heartbroken over this turn of affairs, not least because there seems to be no way out of it. The bishops are no longer excommunicated. It is not possible to "take it back." There is no basis for excommunicating this particular bishop on the basis of being a Holocaust denier. If excommunication were to be pronounced on everyone who was a sinner---no matter how vile---who would be left in the church?
Yesterday, it was announced that Bishop Williamson has been removed from his position as rector of the Argentinian seminary for the Society of St. Pius X. The Vatican has stated, "the four bishops, though liberated from the excommunication, have [no] canonical function in the Church and they do not licitly exercise a ministry in it." In the case of Bishop Williamson, it should stay that way.
Vasya is correct about the particulars of the case, but I take issue with his characterization of Mr. Prager as irrational, or his essay as "poorly crafted, illogical drivel." Mr. Prager is a religious Jew who seeks out every opportunity to strengthen the bonds between his people and the Catholic Church. That this scandal has outraged him doesn't surprise me at all---I am Catholic, and I am outraged as well.
Mr. Prager, please believe that Pope Benedict is heartbroken over this turn of affairs, not least because there seems to be no way out of it. The bishops are no longer excommunicated. It is not possible to "take it back." There is no basis for excommunicating this particular bishop on the basis of being a Holocaust denier. If excommunication were to be pronounced on everyone who was a sinner---no matter how vile---who would be left in the church?
Yesterday, it was announced that Bishop Williamson has been removed from his position as rector of the Argentinian seminary for the Society of St. Pius X. The Vatican has stated, "the four bishops, though liberated from the excommunication, have [no] canonical function in the Church and they do not licitly exercise a ministry in it." In the case of Bishop Williamson, it should stay that way.
|
|
Feb 10, 11:58 AM |
Report Abuse Reply |
"On the assumption that there not only theological but also moral criteria to being reinstated in the Catholic Church, an excommunicated priest who denies the Holocaust should automatically remain ....."
With the admission that theology and morality are separate ideas, it should not be surprising that the Pope, the ultimate magistrate and final interpreter of Catholic doctrine can remain without error. Moral mistakes have never interfered with Catholic dogma. The legal conscience is, as always, a dangerous thing. It is political activism at its most sinister and perilous.
With the admission that theology and morality are separate ideas, it should not be surprising that the Pope, the ultimate magistrate and final interpreter of Catholic doctrine can remain without error. Moral mistakes have never interfered with Catholic dogma. The legal conscience is, as always, a dangerous thing. It is political activism at its most sinister and perilous.