Translation of piece about Card. Castrillon and Bp. Arborelius available

At Forma et Fides there is now a translation of the piece about the response of Card. Castrillion in the wake of the claims by Bp. Arborelius.

FacebookEmailPinterestGoogle GmailShare/Bookmark

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in SESSIUNCULA. Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to Translation of piece about Card. Castrillon and Bp. Arborelius available

  1. Traductora says:

    Bp Arborelius has been the focus of a lot of commentary in Europe. The bishop himself is rather interesting – brought up in a technically (but I believe non-practicing) Lutheran family, a convert in the 1970s, and now bishop of a place that has a very tiny number of Catholics and where the Socialist state is all-intrusive.

    The question that most people seem to have is not whether this was an attempt to undermine the Pope, but why he did it. The general thought is that he is allied with more powerful enemies of BXVI (particularly in Austria) and that he is being used by this group of heavily Lutheran/Masonic influenced bishops. Bear in mind that this is a European interpretation, and they do tend to see Freemasonry under every stone and pebble, so maybe it’s a bit out of line. After all, Judas wasn’t a Mason – just a traitor under the influence of the Evil One.

  2. chironomo says:

    A question for Fr. Z if you have time!

    Would the Church be obligated, perhaps even required to suspend the faculties of any priest or Bishop upon discovering that they hold “holocaust denying” views? What if they hold anti-muslim views or some other “anti whatever” views? If the Church wouldn’t be obligated or required to suspend the faculties of a priest or Bishop for such a reason, then why is it considered somehow imperitive that an excommunication not be lifted for such a reason?

    For those who keep hammering away at the lifting of the excommunication of Bp. Williamson, what other transgressions are serious enough to suspend a priest or Bishop’s faculties? How about openly opposing Church teachings? Openly opposing Church laws? This clearly has nothing to do with the issue of holocaust denial and has everything to do with opposing the lifting of the excommunications….

  3. chonak says:

    Caveat lector. People shouldn’t rely on this weak and awkward translation for much precision. E.g., it renders “unseriöse” as “untrustworthy” instead of “frivolous”.

  4. robtbrown says:

    chironomo,

    A few years ago I heard a priest in a homily say that the Aztecs never hurt anyone, apparently oblivious that human sacrifice hurts someone. Other than PC, I don’t see a lot of difference between that and holocaust denial.

    IMHO, the likely MO would be prohibition of speaking publicly on the offending topic.

  5. trespinos says:

    I rather suspect a jagged cross-out line has been entered against Bp. Arborelius’ name on the list of TV series hosts to be invited back to EWTN. Cooperating with news organizations that one has reason to believe have an axe to grind against the Holy Father is a black mark on his record. Cdl. Castrillon defended himself ably; may he be forgiven the closing crack about Germans.

  6. Tobias H says:

    The Bishop of Stockholm is pious, fully orthodox, and loyal to the Holy Father. Some of the comments here are properly characterized as faeces tauri.