The Hound Of Ulster

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’.”)
 

NRO’s folks had a great LINE from Charlie Krauthammer on Obama’s “budget:”

The president used the word “honest.” That’s astonishing. Look, all budgets are fiction. This one is fantasia.

Pay no attention to the fact that the fellow leading the parade in that picture has huge ears.  It’s a complete conincidence.  Nothing to see here.  Move along.
 

And yes, I know it’s usually “1,000.”  I’m just taking the impending inflation into account.
 

As my miniscule readership knows by now, I’ve been SOMEWHAT OBSESSED with the recent RECENT LIFTING of the SSPX bishops’ EXCOMMUNICATIONS.  They are also, no doubt, aware that I was UNIMPRESSED by the good bishop’s apology to the Holy Father, because it seems a bit too legalistist to my mind.  And because it seemed to leave out the issue of the offended parties altogether.

Today, however, BRIETBART, ZENIT, and FATHER Z. all linked to a more complete (and for me, more satisfying) statement:

The Holy Father and my Superior, Bishop Bernard Fellay, have requested that I reconsider the remarks I made on Swedish television four months ago, because their consequences have been so heavy.

Observing these consequences I can truthfully say that I regret having made such remarks, and that if I had known beforehand the full harm and hurt to which they would give rise, especially to the Church, but also to survivors and relatives of victims of injustice under the Third Reich, I would not have made them.

On Swedish television I gave only the opinion (…”I believe”…”I believe”…) of a non-historian, an opinion formed 20 years ago on the basis of evidence then available and rarely expressed in public since. However, the events of recent weeks and the advice of senior members of the Society of St. Pius X have persuaded me of my responsibility for much distress caused. To all souls that took honest scandal from what I said, before God I apologise.

As the Holy Father has said, every act of injust violence against one man hurts all mankind.

+Richard Williamson

While still feeling that his statement is very (perhaps “too”) carefully worded, there are two things I’d particularly like to note here.

The first is that he sincerely seems to be taking responsibility for the imprudence of his remarks without disavowing them altogether.  And that makes a lot of sense.  I disagree with his opinion - drastically so - but while I might wonder how someone could possibly hold such opinions, I don’t see how anyone could possibly say that he was simply lying about his beliefs.  If he truly believes that the Holocaust resulted in “only” 300,000 Jewish dead and that gas chambers were not used in the Nazi concentration camps, then he should not disavow such a belief.  (He should still read a lot more history, though.  Or at least try to find a few works from a difference perspective.)

Second, he actually addresses “survivors and relatives” this time around.  And that makes a big difference to me.  His first attempt seemed directed exclusively towards the Vatican and Benedict, and while that was certainly an area that could have expected an apology, the affront to them was definitely secondary.  Now, he’s at least willing to concede that there was a broader victim to his comments.

I feel better about him now.  And I’m not even that bothered by the video of his confrontation with the Argentinian reporter.  More signs of imprudence, perhaps.  But probably pretty understandable.
 

Houston taxpayers could start footing the bill to help first-time homebuyers pay off debts and improve their credit scores, under a proposal before City Council this week.

The “Credit Score Enhancement Program” will give up to $3,000 in grants to individuals who are trying to qualify for mortgages through the city’s homebuyers assistance program. City officials say some applicants fall short of eligibility by only 10 or 20 points on their credit scores, and paying off some debt balances can quickly improve their numbers.

Why wasn’t this sort of thing around when I was trying to buy a house?  Or trying to “enhance” my credit score?  (Come to think of it, that wouldn’t have helped.  My problem was not that my credit score was bad, it was that it didn’t exist.  It would have been easier for me to get a loan with bad credit than with no credit.  Who’s running this thing, anyway?  Anyone?  Stanford?  The same folks running THIS?)
 

Sort of.  At least this ARTICLE is written by the same guy that wrote Moneyball.  And it tends to focus on the same idea; the “there’s more to the sport than meets the eye, or than is understood by the common man/scout” claim is just as interesting in basketball as it in in baseball.  Actually, it’s probably a bit more interesting, given the increased importance a single player has in the sport.

Interesting side article HERE which suggests that the Rockets have been better this season with Battier playing while “star” McGrady is hurt than with McGrady playing while Battier is hurt.  Course, McGrady’s been trying to play through a pretty serious injury; that might have something to do with it.  Even a Moneyball-inspired GM would be reluctant to pick Shane over McGrady.

I’ve always enjoyed Battier, for some reason.  He seems like the basketball equivalent of Scott Hatteberg: someone that the “traditionalists” can’t (or don’t) appreciate because his skills don’t ”look right.”  But they can be difference-makers in their own right.
 

It’s nice to see Hobson’s Choice finally getting the TREATMENT it deserves.

An unsung comic triumph from David Lean, Hobson’s Choice stars the legendary Charles Laughton as the harrumphing Henry Hobson, the owner of a boot shop in late Victorian northern England. With his haughty, independent daughter Maggie (Brenda De Banzie) decides to forge her own path, romantically and professionally, with none other than Henry’s prized bootsmith Will (a splendid John Mills), father and daughter find themselves head-to-head in a fiery match of wills. Equally charming and caustic, Hobson’s Choice, adapted from Harold Brighouse’s famous play, is filled to the brim with great performances and elegant, inventive camera work.

I understand why Lean’s epics are so famous.  And I don’t begrudge them that attention; at least, not much.  But I cannot escape the belief that his “little” films - Hobson’s Choice, Brief Encounter, perhaps even Great Expectations - are significantly better films.  I think it has something to do with their small scope; an ironic fact, given the massive scope for which Lawrence of Arabia, Bridge on the River Kwai, and Dr. Zhivago are so frequently praised.  (OK, perhaps Dr. Z isn’t praised anywhere near as much.)

Brief Encounter, in particular, is a masterpiece.  Few films are as nuanced (or as accurate) in their examination of marital infidelity and a true understanding of marital love.  And Hobson’s Choice is not far behind.  It does, however, feature a lot more humor, making it significantly more palatable to many.
 

Film Chat LINKED to this “intriguing” STORY.

Columbia Pictures is bringing a time-traveling Jane Austen drama to the bigscreen, with Sam Mendes aboard as producer.

Based on the Brit miniseries “Lost in Austen,” film will center on Amanda, an ardent Jane Austen fan, lives in present day New York with her boyfriend, until she finds she’s swapped places with Austen’s fictional creation Elizabeth Bennett.

The show’s original writer, Guy Andrews, is penning the screenplay.

A couple of quick thoughts:

First, how did I not know this TV series was happening?  Second, why would Sam Mendes be inteersted in it?  Third, if Sam Mendes is interested in it, how can I be interested?  And fourth, by “intriguing” I mean “insane.”
 
I’m in.