Roman Catholic Blog

In the year of... Obama.

From www.politico.com

May 03, 2010

Posted by Ben Smith 07:01 PM

White House drops Christian dating

for Jewish proclamation

The White House, in the midst of an intense charm offensive aimed at the Jewish and pro-Israel communities, has dropped an archaic phrase that has, in the past, rankled Jewish groups.

The use of the proclamation boilerplate "in the year of our Lord" for a celebration of Jewish Heritage Month had struck a slightly off-key note for Jewish groups in Obama's last proclamation, as in those of Bill Clinton and George W. Bush.

This year, the phrase has been replaced by the simple phrase, "in the year two thousand ten.”

Steven Freeman, an official at the Anti-Defamation League, tells Andrew Silow-Carroll that "we see it as a welcome, sensitive, and attentive gesture," though it doesn't seem ever to have been a major bone of contention.

And regardless of the phrase employed, the year is still calculated from the birth of Christ, after all.

See: http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0510/White_House_drops_Christian_dating_for_Jewish_proclamation.html?showall

The unrelenting march of secular humanism in our Republic!

Published: April 19, 2010

Will the president appeal?

Federal judge rules National Day of Prayer unconstitutional

Washington D.C. (CNA) -- A federal judge’s ruling that the National Day of Prayer is unconstitutional had no legal basis and was not in keeping with American traditions of expressing “dependence on the Almighty,” critics said.

On April 15, U.S. District Judge Barbara B. Crabb in Madison, Wisconsin, declared unconstitutional a 1988 federal law giving the president authority to designate the first Thursday in May as the National Day of Prayer.

Her decision came in response to a case filed by the Madison-based atheist group Freedom from Religion Foundation, which argued it was unconstitutional because it endorses school prayer.

Judge Crabb agreed with the group, saying that atheists feel marginalized by the law, CNSNews.com reports.

Granting that many people are not harmed by the proclamation, she ruled that individuals who do not pray and feel marginalized by the government’s message of prayer suffer “a distinct harm.”

The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) had represented 31 members of Congress in an amicus brief defending the National Day of Prayer.

Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the ACLJ, said the decision was badly thought out. “It is unfortunate that this court failed to understand that a day set aside for prayer for the country represents a time-honored tradition that embraces the First Amendment, not violates it," he commented, according to CNSNews.com.

Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas), a former judge and one of the 31 congressmen backed by the ACLJ, said in his view it was “obvious” that Judge Crabb “had not received a very good education” in American history. He cited Benjamin Franklin’s exhortation to prayer at the Constitutional Convention and his motion that prayers be held in Congress every day.

Sekulow thought the case would “very likely” go to the U.S. Supreme Court, especially because the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has been “difficult at times on religion cases.”

“I think we will carry the day, but it is going to be a close case,” he continued, warning that the issue could be decided by the next appointee to the Supreme Court.

“An issue like this underscores the importance of why it's so critical for the nominee to answer direct questions about their judicial philosophy, how they view the role of judges, and their view of the rule of law,” Sekulow continued.

President Barack Obama, his press secretary Robert Gibbs, and National Day of Prayer Task Force Chairman Shirley Dobson were named as defendants in the suit. According to CNSNews.com, Judge Crabb dismissed the case against Dobson.

Dobson, the wife of Focus on the Family Founder Dr. James Dobson, also cited American history as justification for the practice. “Since the days of our Founding Fathers, the government has protected and encouraged public prayer and other expressions of dependence on the Almighty,” she said in a Thursday statement. “This is a concerted effort by a small but determined number of people who have tried to prohibit all references to the Creator in the public square, whether it be the Ten Commandments, the Pledge of Allegiance, or the simple act of corporate prayer -- this is unconscionable for a free society.”

Joel Oster, senior counsel with the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), said the Day of Prayer was “America’s heritage.”

“ADF urges the Obama administration to appeal this terrible ruling that not only undermines the National Day of Prayer, but the underlying heritage and tradition of the American people which dates back to the nation's founding,” he continued.

In 1952 President Harry Truman signed into law a joint resolution of Congress to set aside a National Day of Prayer. Congress amended the law in 1988 to establish a more particular date.

According to the ADF, all 50 governors and U.S. presidents have issued proclamations in honor of the National Day of Prayer.

CNSNews.com said that President Obama last year issued a proclamation for the National Day of Prayer but refused to host ceremonies at the White House as previous administrations had done. He said that the statute is simply an “acknowledgement of the role of religion in American life” that is similar to other ceremonial practices that courts have upheld in the past.

See:

http://www.calcatholic.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?id=b25b430d-1bb7-45e3-a116-82edd47d1e0f

NYT Attack Mode

The New York Times and Pope Benedict XVI:
how it looks to an American in the Vatican

by Cardinal William J. Levada
Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith

In our melting pot of peoples, languages and backgrounds, Americans are not noted as examples of “high” culture. But we can take pride as a rule in our passion for fairness. In the Vatican where I currently work, my colleagues – whether fellow cardinals at meetings or officials in my office – come from many different countries, continents and cultures. As I write this response today (March 26, 2010) I have had to admit to them that I am not proud of America’s newspaper of record, the New York Times, as a paragon of fairness.

I say this because today’s Times presents both a lengthy article by Laurie Goodstein, a senior columnist, headlined “Warned About Abuse, Vatican Failed to Defrock Priest,” and an accompanying editorial entitled “The Pope and the Pedophilia Scandal,” in which the editors call the Goodstein article a disturbing report (emphasis in original) as a basis for their own charges against the Pope. Both the article and the editorial are deficient by any reasonable standards of fairness that Americans have every right and expectation to find in their major media reporting.

In her lead paragraph, Goodstein relies on what she describes as “newly unearthed files” to point out what the Vatican (i.e. then Cardinal Ratzinger and his Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) did not do – “defrock Fr. Murphy.”  Breaking news, apparently. Only after eight paragraphs of purple prose does Goodstein reveal that Fr. Murphy, who criminally abused as many as 200 deaf children while working at a school in the Milwaukee Archdiocese from 1950 to 1974, “not only was never tried or disciplined by the church’s own justice system, but also got a pass from the police and prosecutors who ignored reports from his victims, according to the documents and interviews with victims.”

But in paragraph 13, commenting on a statement of Fr. Lombardi (the Vatican spokesman) that Church law does not prohibit anyone from reporting cases of abuse to civil authorities, Goodstein writes, “He did not address why that had never happened in this case.” Did she forget, or did her editors not read, what she wrote in paragraph nine about Murphy getting “a pass from the police and prosecutors”? By her own account it seems clear that criminal authorities had been notified, most probably by the victims and their families.

Goodstein’s account bounces back and forth as if there were not some 20 plus years intervening between reports in the 1960 and 70’s to the Archdiocese of Milwaukee and local police, and Archbishop Weakland’s appeal for help to the Vatican in 1996. Why? Because the point of the article is not about failures on the part of church and civil authorities to act properly at the time. I, for one, looking back at this report agree that Fr. Murphy deserved to be dismissed from the clerical state for his egregious criminal behavior, which would normally have resulted from a canonical trial.

The point of Goodstein’s article, however, is to attribute the failure to accomplish this dismissal to Pope Benedict, instead of to diocesan decisions at the time. She uses the technique of repeating the many escalating charges and accusations from various sources (not least from her own newspaper), and tries to use these “newly unearthed files” as the basis for accusing the pope of leniency and inaction in this case and presumably in others.

It seems to me, on the other hand, that we owe Pope Benedict a great debt of gratitude for introducing the procedures that have helped the Church to take action in the face of the scandal of priestly sexual abuse of minors. These efforts began when the Pope served as Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and continued after he was elected Pope. That the Times has published a series of articles in which the important contribution he has made – especially in the development and implementation of Sacramentorum Sanctitatis Tutela, the Motu proprio issued by Pope John Paul II in 2001 – is ignored, seems to me to warrant the charge of lack of fairness which should be the hallmark of any reputable newspaper.

.......................................

The Times editorial wonders “how Vatican officials did not draw the lessons of the grueling scandal in the United States, where more than 700 priests were dismissed over a three-year period.” I can assure the Times that the Vatican in reality did not then and does not now ignore those lessons. But the Times editorial goes on to show the usual bias: “But then we read Laurie Goodstein’s disturbing report . . .about how the pope, while he was still a cardinal, was personally warned about a priest … But church leaders chose to protect the church instead of children. The report illuminated the kind of behavior the church was willing to excuse to avoid scandal.” Excuse me, editors. Even the Goodstein article, based on “newly unearthed files,” places the words about protecting the Church from scandal on the lips of Archbishop Weakland, not the pope.  It is just this kind of anachronistic conflation that I think warrants my accusation that the Times, in rushing to a guilty verdict, lacks fairness in its coverage of Pope Benedict.

As a full-time member of the Roman Curia, the governing structure that carries out the Holy See’s tasks, I do not have time to deal with the Times’s subsequent almost daily articles by Rachel Donadio and others, much less with Maureen Dowd’s silly parroting of Goodstein’s “disturbing report.” But about a man with and for whom I have the privilege of working, as his “successor” Prefect, a pope whose encyclicals on love and hope and economic virtue have both surprised us and made us think, whose weekly catecheses and Holy Week homilies inspire us, and yes, whose pro-active work to help the Church deal effectively with the sexual abuse of minors continues to enable us today, I ask the Times to reconsider its attack mode about Pope Benedict XVI and give the world a more balanced view of a leader it can and should count on.

See the full story at:

  http://www.vatican.va/resources/resources_card-levada2010_en.html

Stupak Caves!

The Executive Order promised by President Obama

to Bart Stupak is illusory and meaningless.

US Conference of Catholic Bishops: “No regulation, policy letter from HRSA, or other executive action can withstand a statutory mandate, construed by federal courts applying a constitutional decision on abortion.”

National Right to Life Committee: “If the [Senate] bill is signed into law, these statutory requirements and defects are not subject to correction or nullification by the chief executive or his appointees, whether by Executive Order, regulation, or otherwise.”

Americans United for Life: “The proposal to address the problem of abortion funding in the health care bill through use of an Executive Order is a tacit acknowledgment that the bill as it stands is pro-abortion legislation … [I]t also does not succeed in application. An Executive Order cannot prevent insurance companies that pay for abortions from participating in the exchanges. Further, Executive Orders can be undone or modified as quickly as they are created. This is a blatant attempt to subvert democracy and should be quickly quashed.”

Family Research Council warns against the promise of: “an Executive Order (EO) that would magically fix the fact that the Senate bill (H.R. 3590) would spend government funds to pay for elective abortions. Further, the Reconciliation bill will make matters worse by increasing funding for community health centers, which will bypass any abortion funding restrictions in appropriations bills because it is directly appropriated. Both taken together will fund abortion, regardless of any EO.”

(Source - Dan Perrin @ Redstate blog)
---------------------------------------

For what shall it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and suffer the loss of his soul?
MARK 8:36

Ah but for Michigan's First Congressional District you take the chance Congressman Stupak?

Can this be true?

Cruise ships still find a

Haitian berth

Luxury liners are still docking at private beaches near Haiti's devastated earthquake zone for holidaymakers to enjoy the water

by Robert Booth, Guardian, UK

"Sixty miles from Haiti's devastated earthquake zone, luxury liners dock at private beaches where passengers enjoy jetski rides, parasailing and rum cocktails delivered to their hammocks.

The 4,370-berth Independence of the Seas, owned by Royal Caribbean International, disembarked at the heavily guarded resort of Labadee on the north coast on Friday; a second cruise ship, the 3,100-passenger Navigator of the Seas is due to dock.

The Florida cruise company leases a picturesque wooded peninsula and its five pristine beaches from the government for passengers to "cut loose" with watersports, barbecues, and shopping for trinkets at a craft market before returning on board before dusk. Safety is guaranteed by armed guards at the gate.

The decision to go ahead with the visit has divided passengers. The ships carry some food aid, and the cruise line has pledged to donate all proceeds from the visit to help stricken Haitians. But many passengers will stay aboard when they dock; one said he was "sickened"."

See the full story - http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jan/17/cruise-ships-haiti-earthquake

________________

I hope that this story is not true.

Environmentalism as Religion

You may have missed this small article in last month's Time magazine.

 

 

Tim Nicholson - referred to in the UK press as a

GREEN MARTYR

 

 

Saturday, Nov. 07, 2009

Environmentalism, the British Religion

By Eben Harrell / London

From animism to naturalistic pantheism, there are various belief systems that deify the natural world. But should a fervent belief in the need to fight climate change be given the same legal protection as an actual religion? A London judge said yes, ruling this week that environmentalism should carry the same legal weight as religion under Britain's employment laws.

The case involved Tim Nicholson, 42, who was laid off last year from his job as head of sustainability at Grainger Plc, Britain's largest residential-property company. Nicholson contended he was laid off because his views on the environment were not shared by Grainger executives, and he sued the company for unfair dismissal under Britain's six-year-old Religion and Belief Regulations, which make it unlawful to discriminate against a person on the grounds of their religious or philosophical beliefs. Grainger argued that Nicholson's climate-change convictions did not qualify for protection under the law. But in a landmark ruling on Nov. 3, Justice Michael Burton found that "a belief in man-made climate change, and the alleged resulting moral imperatives, is capable, if genuinely held, of being a philosophical belief for the purpose of [the 2003 law]." 

Nicholson, who now works for an organization lobbying for greener health care, tells TIME he feels the decision is a victory for those pushing for corporate responsibility. "Organizations that already take sustainability seriously, they have nothing to fear from this judgment," he says. "There are so many positive reasons why companies should take steps to reduce their consumption of fossil fuels, this decision only adds to an already substantial list."

Nicholson's case came about because of a peculiarity of British law. Prior to 2003, Britain had no statute that protected employees from religious discrimination. The Religion and Belief Regulations were meant to remedy this. But because the law offered only a vague definition of "religious or philosophical beliefs," it has fallen to judges to interpret it and define which beliefs deserve protection. In the most important ruling so far, Burton's generous interpretation of the law will have far-ranging and complicated ramifications, employment experts say.

Caroline Doran, an employment specialist at the London law firm Sprecher Grier Halberstam LLP, tells TIME the decision will "result in a tidal wave of philosophical-related litigation to employment tribunals." And because employees claiming unfair dismissal on the grounds of discrimination are entitled to much higher payouts than those with standard claims, the strain on employers could be immense.

"The concept of philosophical beliefs is so wide that it will open a Pandora's box for employers and give individuals a foothold to obtain six- and seven-figure 'jackpot' payouts," Doran says. "It is only a matter of time before an employee with a marginal philosophical belief will get a million-pound payout after his exceptional views were not appreciated by management or colleagues."

But not all experts agree. Victoria Phillips, head of employment law at the London firm Thompson's Solicitors, says Burton's ruling laid out several tests to prevent frivolous claims: to qualify for protection, beliefs must focus on a weighty and substantial aspect of human life, they must have a certain level of seriousness and importance, and they must be worthy of respect in a democratic society and not be in conflict with the fundamental rights of others. Along with climate change, "the political philosophies of socialism, Marxism, communism or free-market capitalism might qualify," Burton said in his ruling. But he noted that fringe beliefs — the belief in the supreme nature of Jedi knights, for example — would not qualify for protection.

"I certainly would advise companies to be careful about how they treat employees with strongly held political beliefs, but I think common sense will prevail," Phillips says. "There were similar concerns among employers about a flood of claims when a law was brought in to protect whistle-blowers in 1998. But the courts have been pretty astute at seeing through bogus claims. I suspect a similar situation with this law."

Nicholson had argued that he was dismissed because his views on how to make the company environmentally sustainable had put him at odds with other senior staff at Grainger and had been ignored by managers. The Independent newspaper reported that Nicholson ran afoul of executives when he complained that the CEO had ordered an employee to fly from London to Ireland to deliver a BlackBerry he had left behind. Nicholson must now appear before a British employment tribunal with his former employers and prove that he was laid off because of his environmental beliefs, not corporate restructuring. The tribunal will then decide if he's eligible for compensation.

Dave Butler, Grainger's director of corporate affairs, said in a statement that the decision to lay off Nicholson was driven solely by "the operational needs of the company during a period of extraordinary market turbulence. Grainger rejects outright any suggestion that there was any other motivation relating to Mr. Nicholson's beliefs or otherwise." 

Whatever the outcome of the case, climate campaigners can at least take heart in knowing that in British employment courts, if nowhere else, the earth is considered a holy place.

_________________________

 

When environmetalist views are afforded the same protections under civil law as religious belief  - we should all be afraid, very afraid.

Vox Populi?

America is Now a Pro-Life Nation

Politics Daily

David Knowles, Editor

Posted: 05/15/09

 

A new poll by Gallup shows a stunning reversal in American perceptions on the question of abortion. For the first time since Gallup started surveying the country on this subject, more Americans self-identify as being "Pro-Life" than "Pro-Choice." And the turn around has been marked over the course of the past year. 51% of those surveyed now say they are "Pro-Life" whereas a year ago that number was just 44%. Those who declare themselves "Pro-Choice" saw their numbers fall from 50% in 2008 to just 42%.

So, what accounts for this sea-change? Could the election of Barack Obama have something to do with it? A staunch supporter of abortion rights who won in November by a margin of 8 million votes, it would seem unlikely that Obama's rise to power would coincide with a dramatic shift away from with "Pro-Choice" identification. Then again, Obama has played the abortion issue differently from many politicians of the past, attempting to find common ground with anti-abortion supporters, and striving to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies.

But a deeper look at Gallup's numbers reveals that the real movement in the polling history is coming from Republicans and Independents who lean rightward:

The percentage of Republicans (including independents who lean Republicans) calling themselves "pro-life" rose by 10 points over the past year, from 60% to 70%, while there has been essentially no change in the views of Democrats and Democratic leaners.

This shows that there are certainly enough Republicans left in America to make a statistical difference.

See: http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/05/15/america-is-now-a-pro-life-nation/

What price life?

Recession linked to more

abortions, vasectomies

By Rebekah Kebede (Yahoo News)

NEW YORK (Reuters) – The pregnancy was unexpected, and for one 32-year-old single mother in Syracuse, New York, the ailing economy became a factor in her decision to have an abortion.

"More so now that we are in a recession ... I felt I had to go through with the procedure because I cannot afford another child," said the woman, a registered nurse who spoke on condition of anonymity.

With a recession on, she was worried about job security.

"People say, 'You're a nurse, you'll always have a job.' I think it's not as true as people think it is."

The recession may be a factor influencing more Americans to opt out of parenthood with abortions and vasectomies, although there is no data available yet to suggest a trend.

Even so, there is some anecdotal evidence that would-be parents are factoring the rough economic times into the most personal of reproductive choices, some experts said.

In 2005, the last year for which data is available, the U.S. abortion rate fell to the lowest level since 1974, according to the Guttmacher Institute in New York, a nonprofit group focusing on reproductive issues.

But at the National Abortion Federation, a hotline for women seeking abortion information has been "ringing off the hook," according to the group's president, Vicki Saporta.

"We are currently getting more calls from women who report that they or their partner have recently lost their job, and we are also hearing from more women facing eviction," she said.

One recent inquiry came from a 24-year-old married woman in Colorado who was evicted after her landlord went into foreclosure. Another came from a 32-year-old pregnant mother in Virginia who had lost her job and health insurance.

"As more and more women and families are struggling due to the crisis, it's affecting more than just low-income families. Now more middle-class and working class families are facing the types problems that we've heard from low-income women," Saporta said.

As with many other nonprofits, abortion assistance groups are being inundated with requests for aid just as funding is drying up.

In the first quarter of 2009, the New York Abortion Access Fund increased funding for abortions 60 percent from year-ago levels, and the number of women receiving assistance more than doubled.

The reach of the recession may stretch beyond women's reproductive decisions to those of men.

Lawrence Ross, a urologist and former president of the American Urological Association, said he and his colleagues have noticed a roughly 50 percent increase in vasectomies in the past four to six months, which he attributes in part to the ailing economy.

About half a million men opt for vasectomies in the United States each year, a number which has remained flat over the years, Ross said.

"Many of them are afraid that they are going to lose their jobs and their health insurance. So while they are covered, a lot more patients, it pushed them over the edge to get it done more quickly," he said.

"A lot of them are saying that we've decided to limit our family, the costs of education and raising kids is so high."

At the same time, urologists have seen a drop in the number of men seeking vasectomy reversals.

While a vasectomy is a relatively simple procedure and typically costs between $1,000 to $1,500, a reversal costs roughly ten times as much.

(Reporting by Rebekah Kebede; Editing by Ellen Wulfhorst and Chris Wilson)

See: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090422/hl_nm/us_usa_economy_births/print

_________

I hope this is not true. But in today's society? Perhaps I should rephrase and say I "wish" this is not true. Twenty years ago my old novice master went to great lengths to explain to we postulants the difference between {ἐλπίς} "hope," one of the three theological virtues, and "wish." (Father Thomas More Nelson, O. Praem - what a guy, what a solid guy, what the Jews would call a "mensch." I think he runs the Norbertine High School in San Pedro now.)

Of course there is also the ancient maxim:

Dum vita est spes est.

(Where life is hope is)

 

We are reaching such a level of barbarism, where even the self-evident tenets of the Natural Law are denied, that reinforces my belief that a renewed Catholicism, an awakened Church Militant, is the only HOPE for our Republic.

No Nonsense in Moscow!

Patriarch-Elect Kirill of Moscow

and all Russia

Sounds like a good good man. No nonsense. Here's some excerpts from an interview with him in Der Spiegel on 10 JAN 09.

SPIEGEL: It's clear to see that many Russians have adopted a liberal Western lifestyle. Sex before marriage is normal for many people, and only a small minority attends church services regularly. How firmly established are Christian values in Russia?

Kyrill:

Spirituality can't be measured with statistics. Nevertheless, we aren't afraid of comparisons. Less than 20 years after the fall of the Soviet Union, the number of churches has quadrupled, we now have twice as many dioceses, and the number of monasteries has grown by a factor of 32 -- to 700 -- today. Fifteen thousand young people are studying theology. On the other hand, even though 80 percent of newborns are baptized in Russia, only 60 percent of Russians call themselves Orthodox Christians, and less than 10 percent attend church regularly -- even fewer in some provinces. In other words, we don't have to build any new churches, but what we must do is help our people understand how important it is to adhere to Christian values. Whether we succeed also depends on whether we can rid ourselves of outside influences.

SPIEGEL:

You are referring to the liberal West. What troubles you, for example, about homosexuals marching through the streets of Moscow in a parade, just as they do in Berlin or Amsterdam?

Kyrill:

It distorts the boundary between good and evil, between sin and sanctity. Even adultery is apparently no longer considered a sin, despite the fact that every adulterer senses that he has done something wrong. But human beings have a conscience. That's something even the Marxists were unable to eliminate. They had an explanation for everything, a self-contained philosophy in which being determined consciousness -- just as your philosophers in Germany say, the conscience is the result of cultural development. But whether you are in Papua New Guinea, Munich or Novosibirsk in Siberia, the principles are the same everywhere: Thou shall not steal, though shall not kill…

SPIEGEL:

… but not everyone says: Thou shall not be gay. Why should people have to conceal their homosexuality?

Kyrill:

The Bible calls it a sin. But we do not condemn these people. The church is opposed to these people being persecuted or offended. But why should sin be propagated? The gay parade is a blatant display of sodomy. In that case, we might as well promote other sins, as has long been the case on television. This degenerates public morality. It is the church's job to call a sin a sin. Otherwise it no longer serves a purpose. Unfortunately, the tendency in today's world is to champion the freedom of choice, while freedom from evil is virtually forgotten.

Full Interview may be found at:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,527618,00.html

I wish we had more bishops like him in the Catholic Church in the USA!

 

Wheat from the chaff.....

Vatican: Comments by Holocaust denier unacceptable

Nicole Winfield

The Vatican said Monday that comments by a recently rehabilitated bishop that no Jews were gassed during the Holocaust were unacceptable and violate Church teaching.

In a front-page article, the Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano reaffirmed that Pope Benedict XVI deplored all forms of anti-Semitism and that all Roman Catholics must do the same.

The article was issued amid an outcry from Jewish groups that Benedict last week lifted the excommunication of a traditionalist bishop, Richard Williamson, who has denied that 6 million Jews were murdered during World War II.

The Vatican has stressed that removing the excommunication by no means implied the Vatican shared Williamson's views.

Williamson's statements, broadcast last week in a Swedish state TV interview, "contradict this teaching and are thus very serious and regrettable," L'Osservatore said. While broadcast before the Jan. 21 document lifting the excommunication, they remain "unacceptable," it said.

See the full article at: http://www.realclearworld.com/printpage/?url=http://www.realclearworld.com/news/ap/international/2009/Jan/26/vatican__comments_by_holocaust_denier_unacceptable.html

_________________

I don't know what the root is of this type of anti-Semitism among SOME traditionalists. It is found among the SSPX crowd here in the States too. Twenty years ago while taking a tour of their US seminary, then in Connecticut, I left mid-tour and in shock after seeing "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" for sale in their seminary bookstore!

 

St. Maximillian Kolbe, by thy powerful intercession may the Church be healed of this error too!