I guess THIS
answers the question as to how involved the Vatican was in the release of Williamson’s most recent APOLOGY
The Vatican on Friday rejected an apology from a bishop whose denial of the Holocaust caused international uproar between Jews and Catholics, saying it did not meet its demand for a full and public recanting.
British Bishop Richard Williamson, who was ordered to leave Argentina and is now in his homeland, on Thursday issued a statement in which he said, “To all souls that took honest scandal from what I said, before God I apologize.”
But chief Vatican spokesman Father Federico Lombardi said Williamson’s statement “does not seem to respect the conditions” set forth by the Vatican on February 4, when it ordered him to “in an absolutely unequivocal and public way distance himself from his positions” regarding the Holocaust.
Perhaps I should have read THIS a bit more carefully.
The positions of Bishop Williamson with regard to the Shoah are absolutely unacceptable and firmly rejected by the Holy Father, as he himself remarked on 28 January 2009 when, with reference to the heinous genocide, he reiterated his full and unquestionable solidarity with our brothers and sisters who received the First Covenant, and he affirmed that the memory of that terrible genocide must lead “humanity to reflect upon the unfathomable power of evil when it conquers the heart of man”, adding that the Shoah remains “a warning for all against forgetfulness, denial or reductionism, because violence committed against one single human being is violence against all”.
In order to be admitted to function as a Bishop within the Church, Bishop Williamson must also distance himself in an absolutely unequivocal and public way from his positions regarding the Shoah, which were unknown to the Holy Father at the time of the remission of the excommunication.
Now I’m curious. Father Lombardi’s statement is so brief, I’m not quite sure what to make of it. Is he saying that Bishop Williamson’s latest attempt doea not fulfill the criteria necessary for him to be “admitted to funcation as a Bishop within the Church?” Because the way the article is written makes it sound a bit broader than that - more of a “we reject this man’s apology” tone to the piece than a “doesn’t fit the bill for reinstatement” one. But I’m not at all sure that the Vatican’s previous statement is even calling for an apology. It’s calling for a change of heart, which will require the Bishop to study the matter further. That, combined with Lombardi’s use of the “does not seem to respect the conditions” language, makes me wonder if the article is trying to make a different point than he was.
Besides, there’s a ton of other material that needs to be covered before any of these four Bishops will be “admitted to function as a Bishop within the Church.” This requirement for distancing on Williamson’s part is just one step in that process.
(Father Z. ASKS an interesting question: “…whatever else may happen with Bp. Williamson, will unambiguous apologies be required now from the more avid pro-abortion Catholic politicians? If there are concerns that someone would deny that 6 million Jews were killed in WWII, and apologies are demanded from such a person, is there going to be equal concern over those who promote or participate in a far more extensive killing of the innocent? Will Catholic pro-abortion politicians be required to issue apologies, as unambiguous as that which they require from Williamson… heck any apology at all…. for voting for abortion rights? I’m just askin’.”)