Thank you, Editrix. I have not waded into this either because, as a Catholic, the hate and vitriol was so loud it would have done no good. I tried to explain, best I understod, early on what had happened but got no traction.
Agreed, Pasto. Where I ran into trouble and backed away was when the criticism and hatred starting moving away from the core issue in to general Catholic bashing which so many just love to do at any given opportunity. Some of the shit I read at Jawa and LGF was just plain moonbat stupid. How do you hold me accountable and evil for something my Church did 600, 700, 800 years ago? Something they have apologised for, recanted etc. That's the thinking of Islam, not Judeo-Christian. That's like an African american, whom I've never oppresed, demanding reparations from me because my ancestor 450 yrs ago owned 2 slaves.
Anyway, that's all rhetorical, not directed at you. But why I backed off this one early.
Here's the thing: I am not Catholic, so it is hard for me to understand the terms Catholics use. I have come to believe the Editrix's phrase that these men have been "ex-excommunicated" is accurate.
However, as a Protestant, there was a significant learning curve required for me to tease the few available facts out of the great morass of negative media.
Many of the media stories referred to the man as being a Bishop. My question from the beginning was, is the Pope reistating this man as a Bishop. It wasn't until yesterday that I found the answer was no.
It seems to me appropriate that the man can break bread at the Communion table. Christ certainly would have eaten with him. But, Christ would not stand for Holocaust denial, and he would not have had a Holocaust deniers as an apostle.
And there was the problem. The fucking media, again. Spinning it the worst way possible, not telling us everything. Even I said though (from my position as a Catholic) un-excommunicating him that the Pope should have then roundhoused him. I didn't know until yesterday that Benedict (apparently) wasn't even aware of the issue when he lifted the excommunication. And it is also true that the statement that caused the uproar was made after excommunication was lifted. But what the media latches onto and spews, in this order, is "Bishop was excommunicated, Bishop denies holocaust, Bishop is rehabilitated." Not that he was ex-com for reasons other than shoah denial, taht that open denial came AFTER rehab., that the Pope didn't knwo about the interview, that he wasn't rehabed back as a priest.
All of which gives the media it's blood orgy of anti-Catholicism.
Anyway, I still say this Pope of mine needs to wake up and STAND UP much more forcefully about the anti-semitism and Islam.
I guess what I mean is the media stirs up the masses and didn't give the Church the chance to explain how it works what happened and why to the non-Catholics the media was stirring up. Instead it made sure they remained in the dark or worse, purposely close-minded.