|
Post by hibernicus on Feb 9, 2009 15:09:27 GMT
Alasdair: a couple of minor points: (a) Lenin did in fact have one Jewish grandparent; this was revealed when the Soviet files were opened after the fall of the USSR. Fahey may just have made a lucky guess, or he may have got it from White Russians who had some knowledge of the subject. (b) The website to which I linked which denied that the Famine ever took place is not meant seriously - it parodies holocaust deniers by showing that using their standard of argument it could be "proved" that various historical events never took place. There are however some real nutcases out on the Web. Here is a link to a website run by a Protestant fringe group in upstate NEw York which claims that Lord John Russell was a secret Jesuit who engineered the Famine in order to spread Catholic power to America through a vast influx of Irish immigrants: www.reformation.org/irish_famine.html
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Feb 9, 2009 15:44:31 GMT
In relation to my statement that there is no room for debate on whether the Holocaust took place, as distinct from arguments about how it took place (e.g. between functionalists and intentionalists, two terms which I explained in my earlier post), we could do with an exposition of what constitutes proof in the humanities as distinct from the sciences. I have been meaning to do this for some time for the benefit of Hazelireland, but since Sceilg raises the same question we may as well do it here: The pure sciences and mathematics deal with results which can be reproduced as desired, so they are susceptible of exact proof. Humanities subjects such as history deal with unrepeatable events and with texts which are susceptible of a wide (though not usually infinite) range of interpretations. Hence they work by a cumulative process which establishes facts with greater or less degrees of certainty and arranges them in interpretative patterns which can be shaken up by new facts and interpretations. Let me give an example of this related to one of our earlier discussions: During the furore over certain claims in his biography of John Charles McQuaid, John Cooney stated that he wanted to have a debate on whether John Charles McQuaid was a paedophile. It is possible to have a debate on this subject, though it is not very productive; in my opinion the "evidence" which Cooney alleges for his claims is on the same level as the evidence which Patricia Cornwell adduces to support her claim that the painter Walter Sickert was Jack the Ripper (for a refutation cf Matthew Sturgis WALTER SICKERT , 2005. I have stated my reasons for scepticism about the evidence which Cooney produces on the "Catholic integralism"thread; I will repeat them if asked.) It is of course possible that other evidence might come to light supporting Cooney's thesis, and if so I would reassess my opinion. There is considerable scope for debate on how effective JC McQuaid was as a pastor and how far he must bear responsibility for some of the abuses that went on in Church instittutions during his time and the debacle which befell the Irish church after his death. Cooney and Co are not interested in such a debate because it would mean having to take views of Catholicism other than their own serious, but it is a legitimate debate nonetheless and my postings on this blog are meant to contribute to it. Let me reiterate that Cooney is not in bad faith in the sense that many holocaust deniers appear to be in bad faith - that is, he really believes that his interpretation of JCM is true but his mind is so warped by animus against JCM that he cannot weigh the evidence adequately by the accepted standards of the profession. Intellectual fashion and academic politics have given him more scope than he deserves but it has not prevented a somewhat more sympathetic view of JCM being produced by FX Carty. An issue on which there is absolutely no scope for debate is the fact that John Charles McQuaid was in fact Catholic Archbishop of Dublin in communion with the Pope of Rome 1940-72, as that term is normally applied. Anyone who doubted this would place themselves under suspicion of lunacy or deliberate falsehood. Now I would argue that holocaust deniers are generally in the position of the person who denies JCM was archbishop of Dublin, rather than in the position of someone who participates in the two legitimate debates. Their arguments postulate that a vast conspiracy has produced all the physical evidence (including blueprints showing gas chambers) and that all the surviving witnesses are mercenary liars; the slightest discrepancy is taken as proof that the whole thing is a concoction; at the same time the slightest evidence which can be adduced in favour ofthis thesis is hailed as conclusive proof. By the way, Sceilg, which files do you wish to have produced which are presently not available? And how do you explain away the evidence that is available? The power of even the greatest conspiracy is limited. For decades the USSR with all its power, and large numbers of Communist Party members and fellow-travellers in the West, tried to deny or minimise Lenin and Stalin's purges. In our own time we have seen Sceilg's hero Vladimir Putin revive the Stalin cult of personality with assistance from intellectuals who revive the "Eurasianist" and "National Bolshevik" school of the early twentieth century to hail Stalin as the greatest of tsars, who raised Russia to the heights of power and glory from which it has fallen because of evil Western cosmopolitan influences (including the Vatican). In many trendy circles it was uncool to denounce Marxism and point to the crimes of Mao, Lenin and Stalin. There were even academics like J. Arch Getty who claimed (by such measures as discounting memoir evidence wholesale, as holocaust deniers do) that the victims of Stalin's purges numbered only in the tens of thousands and not millions. (To be fair to Getty, I do not think he was in deliberate bad faith - he was an academic trying to explore new possibilities, and he drew back when the evidence was made available.) Yet, however many databases are confiscated by Mr. Putin's friends in the FSB, however many red salonistas indulge their sneers, the truth is widely available for anyone who cares to look. If Sceilg's holocaust-inventing conspiracy are as all-powerfula s he claims, why haven't they hidden away the gulags? There may be holocaust deniers who are simply warped by parti pris (in the same way that Cooney is or that Tom Reilly is when he denies in his CROMWELL AN HONOURABLE ENEMY that Cromwell ever ordered the killing of civilians) and such may be open to argument. But most are either deliberate liars or so blinded by hatred that they are beyond reason, and I believe Sceilg to be one such.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Feb 9, 2009 15:46:55 GMT
By the way, did anyone else notice how Sceilg treated holocaust denial as a matter of opinion when talking about Williamson's right to free speech, and then went on to assert it as unquestionable truth? That's called "bait and switch".
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Feb 9, 2009 15:51:49 GMT
The "Famine hoax" webpage, by the way, is based on the famous essay by the future Anglican archbishop of Dublin, Richard Whately, "Some historic doubts relative to Napoleon Bonaparte" which ridiculed some forms of rationalistic bible criticism which claimed that events recorded in the Gospels could not have taken place because they were inherently unbelieveable. The essay, written when Napoleon was still alive on St. Helena, "proves" by the same argument that Napoleon cannot possibly have existed and must merely be a myth about the sun rising and setting. It's a nice link to my earlier point about the way in which history, dealing with unique events, cannot be reduced to hard and fast patterns in the same way as the physical sciences.
|
|
|
Post by sceilg on Feb 9, 2009 22:23:56 GMT
By the way, did anyone else notice how Sceilg treated holocaust denial as a matter of opinion when talking about Williamson's right to free speech, and then went on to assert it as unquestionable truth? That's called "bait and switch". What are you talking about? I said it was an undeniable truth that people had been jailed, beaten and dragged through the press and courts for merely proffering their opinion on the Holocaust. Either you read what I said incorrectly or you are deliberately trying to mislead people.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Feb 10, 2009 13:02:30 GMT
To get this straight: I think it is not a good idea for the state to make holocaust denial as such illegal because it allows deniers to pose as martyrs, and beause there is a reasonable case that the state's ability to restrict expression of opinion should be very limited. The case for making it illegal is based on the grief caused to holocaust survivors by being presented as money-grubbing liars and the view that attempts to rehabilitate the Nazi regime constitute political sedition as they are linked to attempts to replace democracy with so-called "nationalist" dictatorships on the fascist and nazi model. I may add that survivors who have been libelled as individuals, and scholars who are sued for libel in order to suppress their views, have every right to defend their good names in court as Deborah Lipstadt had when she was sued by David Irving. By the same token, non-state actors are perfectly entitled to express the view (which I share) that holocaust deniers are generally malevolent cranks, some blinded by vanity and others by malice, and to refuse to publish their advertisements, to hire out meeting-places to them, or to employ them. My objection is to Sceilg's use of the term "opinion" in this context. The nature of the case is that there is no middle ground. Either the Holocaust didn't happen, and those who say it did are frauds engaged in a vast conspiracy, or it did happen and those who say it didn't are vicious slanderers.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Feb 10, 2009 13:03:44 GMT
By the way, did anyone notice that in his most recent ravings Bishop Williamson said that he now realises that many honest and intelligent people think the Holocaust really happened and that as a result he will have to examine his views? In other words, by his own admission he previously believed not only that the Holocaust didn't happen but that everyone who believes it did happen is either stupid or dishonest. (Of course it is possible to be both at the same time.)
|
|
|
Post by Michael O'Donovan on Feb 10, 2009 20:17:08 GMT
I see that now they have taken away his job of running the seminary in Buenos Aires. I'm almost starting to feel sorry for him. But it does suggest that Bishop Fellay is firmly in the driving seat and that they are taking the opportunity for reconciliation with Rome rather seriously.
|
|
|
Post by guillaume on Feb 11, 2009 15:48:54 GMT
I see that now they have taken away his job of running the seminary in Buenos Aires. I'm almost starting to feel sorry for him. But it does suggest that Bishop Fellay is firmly in the driving seat and that they are taking the opportunity for reconciliation with Rome rather seriously. Thanks Mike ! That's something i tried to say already ! You are right. Bp Williamson had been dismissed from his function and be replaced by Bp de Gallaretta (who confirmed me ages..... ago!).
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Feb 12, 2009 13:20:47 GMT
I see that now they have taken away his job of running the seminary in Buenos Aires. I'm almost starting to feel sorry for him. But it does suggest that Bishop Fellay is firmly in the driving seat and that they are taking the opportunity for reconciliation with Rome rather seriously. By God, Mgr Fellay has been superior general of the pixies since 1994. The stuff Williamson and his pals have been going on about is older than that. Why has the bishop only found his authority now? Take Father Guilio Tam's candidature for Signora Mussolini's party in the 2004 European elections - could Bishop Fellay not have put his foot down to prevent this? I think both Bishop Fellay and Cardinal Hoyos hoped the reconciliation deal would be quick (as happened with Campos, the Institute of the Good Shepherd group and others). Dickie's Swedish interview slowed the process down considerably. Sceilg has called it a conspiracy. I would be more inclined to see the hand of Divine Providence.
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Feb 12, 2009 13:30:57 GMT
Alasdair: a couple of minor points: (a) Lenin did in fact have one Jewish grandparent; this was revealed when the Soviet files were opened after the fall of the USSR. Fahey may just have made a lucky guess, or he may have got it from White Russians who had some knowledge of the subject. I was unaware of this and I think Father Fahey was too. Even with one Jewish grandparent, Lenin was legally a Russian (and unless this was his maternal grandmother, he wasn't a Jew from a Jewish perspective either). He didn't face the disablities that Jews faced. Far from it, as a chinovik, he was quite privileged. Father Fahey had a different story: that there were many Jewish political exiles in the district the Ulyanov family lived. These moved away and left a small boy, a son of one of them, behind. The Ulyanov family adopted this boy. (Source: The Rulers of Russia). I find this story incredible - an adopted son would still be legally a Russian chinovik and not a Jew and how such a family orientated people as the Jews have the repute of being would leave a small boy behind - it just shows how far Father Fahey would go to prove his point. Point taken and accepted. There is a lot of weird Protestant fundamentalist stuff out there. If anyone is tempted by the Jewish and Masonic conspiracy theories so beloved of Catholic rad trads, they should try some to the Prot fundamentalist Jesuit conspiracy theories, which really put the latter in context.
|
|
|
Post by Askel McThurkill on Feb 13, 2009 14:21:59 GMT
No waste of time, buddy, AS I KNOW, you are the LMSI chief. Don't worry about it. Telling the Truth is a Christian virtue ! Now I know I've been away for a bit but this is a bit of a bombshell to drop Guillaume...that Peadar Laighléis is in fact Alaisdir6. I say that coz I know Mr Lawless quite well. In theory if you are sure that he writes on this forum why single out Alaisdir? Why not Hibernicus,Askel or Sceilg? In any event I couldn't give a monkeys. Well, Monkeyman, you either know the LMSI head very well, or you don't know him at all - you wouldn't be using the Saxon tongue's version of the name if it were otherwise. Guillaume, on the other hand, knows very little about him, or he wouldn't be going as crazy as he is. Does Guillaume have evidence to convict Alaisdir of being in charge of an organisation Guillaume knows very little about?
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Feb 14, 2009 1:34:04 GMT
One point which may have some bearing on the likely outcome of the row within the SSPX is that Mgr Lefebvre, or so I am told, deliberately constructed a leadership structure which gives the Superior far-reaching powers over the members (they regularly expel priests for the slightest disagreement) and makes it almost impossible for the members to depose him against his will. UP to a few years ago the main losers under this appear to have been open advocates of reconciliation with Rome - now it is being used against the other wing. Some commenters on other blog have also been saying that the property of the Society is vested in the Superior and a few close associates (doubtless in reaction to the SSPV schism when the dissident group managed to put much of the American SSPX's real estate in their own names before leaving) and that this would mean a "Williamson faction" if one emerged to carry on the schism, would be reduced to soap-boxes and rented halls. I confess this makes me uneasy. I don't like to see the Anglicans depriving departing congregations of any share in the property they subscribed for, and I don't like the thought of the same being done to Williamson and Co by their former accomplices, however repulsive Williamson and Co may be. I must say I am horrified that a SSPX priest stood as a candidate for Alessandra Mussolini's party (which basically consists of those who think the neo-fascists went too far in repudiating fascism when they allied with Berlusconi).
|
|
|
Post by Beinidict Ó Niaidh on Feb 18, 2009 15:53:18 GMT
No waste of time, buddy, AS I KNOW, you are the LMSI chief. Don't worry about it. Telling the Truth is a Christian virtue ! Now I know I've been away for a bit but this is a bit of a bombshell to drop Guillaume...that Peadar Laighléis is in fact Alaisdir6. I say that coz I know Mr Lawless quite well. In theory if you are sure that he writes on this forum why single out Alaisdir? Why not Hibernicus,Askel or Sceilg? In any event I couldn't give a monkeys. Monkeyman, If you know Peadar Laighleis, you can answer me this. I was in the Shelbourne last night with a couple of my mates. I thought I saw Laighleis with two priests I never saw but who looked like they were Latin - French, Spanish, Italian, whatever, but they were wearing black cassocks. D'ye think the bloke is conducting his own negotiations with the Pixies behind our backs? B. O Niaidh.
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Feb 18, 2009 15:58:34 GMT
Now I know I've been away for a bit but this is a bit of a bombshell to drop Guillaume...that Peadar Laighléis is in fact Alaisdir6. I say that coz I know Mr Lawless quite well. In theory if you are sure that he writes on this forum why single out Alaisdir? Why not Hibernicus,Askel or Sceilg? In any event I couldn't give a monkeys. Monkeyman, If you know Peadar Laighleis, you can answer me this. I was in the Shelbourne last night with a couple of my mates. I thought I saw Laighleis with two priests I never saw but who looked like they were Latin - French, Spanish, Italian, whatever, but they were wearing black cassocks. D'ye think the bloke is conducting his own negotiations with the Pixies behind our backs? B. O Niaidh. I think someone needs to give up the drink for Lent.
|
|