"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 Would a priest who denied that Jesus was crucified have his excommunication rescinded?"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.