´óÏó´«Ã½

Since Bishop Williamson has clearly been wrong about relatively recent historical events for which there are countless documented records as well as countless living people who saw it with their own eyes, why should we believe he is right about anything else such as his theological proclamations for which there is scant documented evidence and no one left alive to give direct testimony?

By accepting the Bishop back into the fold of the Catholic Church, the Pope has similarly cast doubt on both the infalibility of the Church and of himself in every way including theologically.

We have seen an enormous spate of hatred for Jews expressed lately in the media including on many ´óÏó´«Ã½ blog sites. This is not surprising when it comes from the Islamic world where lies about Jews are taught as a matter of course but coming from Europeans it shows that they learned nothing from World War II. In the 1990s they were ready to fight World Ware I over the Balkins all over again. The US had to intervene militarily to prevent Greece and Turkey from coming to blows triggering resumption of unresolved ancient hostilities faught to exhaustion all over Europe 70 years earlier. It would not surprise me if somewhere in Europe one or more demagogues arises unchallenged to take up the ancient hatred towards Jews that culminated in mass murder and the worst blodbath the world ever saw just over 60 years ago. If and when Europe fights World War II over again, I hope this time America has the sense to stay out of it no matter how many Europeans are killed by each other.

People who ask why I hate Europe so much, it is because of the lies, hatred, and stupidity that always permeates it. The years since the end of World War II when America was the major power and occupied it has been the longest stretch of peace in probably over 2000 years. But the cost to the American people has been too much and it is time for the US to walk away and leave Europe to its fate at its own hands.

The only thing that matters is the truth, which is confirmed by the use of evidence and logic. This applies to any area of historical research and no subject should be "off-limits". I personally emphatically do not accept the views of those who deny the holocaust, but if such people are able to present historical evidence to question any aspect of the history of WWII, then that evidence should be considered. If that is not allowed, then we have to concede to what can only be described as an intellectual tyranny of censorship. This suppression of dissent inevitably undermines the very stability, which such censoriousness claims to be upholding.

Furthermore, there is a serious problem with the way the historical record is used - or should I say "abused" - to further current political positions. It seems to me that the holocaust can be used in this way. Yes, we should certainly remember the horrors perpetrated by the Nazis - and certainly we should acknowledge the sufferings of the Jews. We should also equally remember the horrors perpetrated against the Roma people, Jehovah's Witnesses, homosexuals and others under the Nazis, as well as the sufferings of all races throughout history - and especially recent history. To argue that one people in particular has suffered more than any other is a serious claim, which if not supported by sound historical evidence, could itself be an inverted form of racism.

I note the comment above by MarcusAureliusII, which is a bizarre example of hypocrisy. He (or she?) rails against hatred towards the Jews and yet I quote: "People ask why I hate Europe so much, it is because of the lies, hatred and stupidity which always permeates it."

Those who advocate hatred (or, at least, unrepentantly admit to it) have no right to condemn it. It is just this sort of attitude of making sweeping and prejudicial judgements against millions of people (many of whom are, in fact, Jews), the vast majority of whom he/she has never met - and will, of course, never meet - which is the instigator of the very horrors of which the holocaust was one terrible notorious example.

Furthermore, I would like to know exactly what "lies" Europe is "always permeated" with, which have aroused such animosity in this blogger? Please enlighten me.

The list of lies Europeans have told throughout history is so long and so detailed that you could write an encyclopedia of them and still barely scratch the surface. Most of the lies they tell have been about each other. But even today, their entire civilization is based on lies. Here's an example. The citizens of the UK were given a chance to vote on a trade agreement. Now they find that they were lied to by all three major political parties and had unwittingly ceded their sovereignty to a supranational organization they will never be given a chance to escape from. Had they known what they were really letting themselves in for they probably would have turned the EEC down cold. That Britain is a democracy or that any of the European governments are democracies are lies. Ireland will be forced to vote again and again on Lisbon until they get it right and the French will never be allowed to vote on an EU constitution again whatever it's called because having gotten one chance they got it wrong. Every one of these countries lies about their own history and that of other countries. None will admit it about themselves. But isn't it obvious when you listen to what people in the Balkins said about each other before the shooting started? Your own government does the same. Calling the brutal terrorist civil war that raged for centuries in Ireland "the troubles" as though it was some mere inconvenience is a lie.

So then why should it come as a surprise that so many have argued that the mass murder of Jews by the Nazis never happened or that they didn't just stand by as the forces that perpetrated these crimes gathered steam, never dreaming that they too would be vicitims. They deny their complicity but that too is a lie. Was France not complicit? How about all of the lies about the USSR. The only surprise about it when the USSR fell and the truth was allowed to come out about it for a short time during Yeltsin's era was that it was even more brutal than its worst critics claimed. I've yet to hear the left, even in the US admit that their version of it all throughout its history was dead wrong. Yet even today, Russians who are Europeans by the way look with nostalgia for the return of the USSR and regard the worst mass murderer in human history Joseph Stalin as a national hero.

Then why should I be surprised at the lies the Vatican tells, denying and then ignoring the sexual perversions of its priests and the crimes they committed against children? Their lies about Jews throughout history. Europe's lies about America which it can now count among its new found enemies, the result of its own stupidity.

Don't tell me this didn't happen, doesn't happen, won't continue to happen. I was there for two years watching it up close with my own eyes, hearing with my own ears. Will Europe succumb to new demagogues who will bring it back to the same internecine wars it fought for millenia? It would not surprise me in the least if it happens.

#3 -

The kind of deceit you're speaking against is true of any nation including America. I suppose you think that America is whiter than white and purer than pure? This is a nation which went to war against itself, which enslaved millions of people simply because of the colour of their skin, and even up to a few decades ago would not allow blacks and whites to eat together or learn together in certain states. And you call that a civilised nation?

That is also a nation which does not treat its own poor in a civilised manner, with no or minimal health provision for some of the most vulnerable people in that society. Only the other day I saw a TV programme about how a British charity, which normally works in the developing world, is now working in America to provide health-care to the poor. Some of these people were dying of cancer and simply could not obtain the help they needed, because of their lack of what seems to be America's god: money. And yet in so-called "evil" Europe, these people would be cared for.

You give the example of perverted Catholic priests. But many of these paedophiles were American priests. So I don't see what that has to do with Europe, which does not also implicate America.

I am certainly not anti-American (in fact quite the opposite), but I understand that "lies" are not the sole preserve or any nation, continent or race, but are endemic among all peoples. "Lies" are a problem of human nature, and the human race, I hate to remind you, includes the United States of America.

Besides all of the wonderful things America has done for the world often out of pure generousity, many of which are forgotten, many taken for granted, America has done a lot of bad things in the past too it cannot change. But it has faced up to them openly, learned from many of them, and has worked hard to improve its society. The election of Barack Obama is one more step along the path away from racism and slavery America inherited from Europe during colonial times is just one of them.

Europe by contrast will never improve because it lies to the world pretending that it doesn't even have problems. It lies even to itself. That is why problems with race, Islam, Jews, each other only get worse. It seems as antisemetic as it was before WWII. Europe is on the verge of economic and social collapse. Let's see how they handle it. I predict they'll be at each other's throats again.

Recently, the oncology department in one of the largest hospitals in Texas lamented that it could no longer give free world class cancer treatment to illegal aliens. America doesn't have a problem of health care the way it is portrayed. Contrary to the UN's assessment, the US has the finest health care available in the world. What's broken is a way to pay for it. But nobody dies in the street for lack of money to buy health care. Certainly not any more so than in Europe. And we do not throw illegal aliens into prison as felons the way Europe now does. Europe managed to anger every Latin American government from extreme left to extreme right with this recent law.

The cover up of the child molesting priests went right up to the Pope himself. He said nothing about the priests until a few weeks ago. I don't recal that he said anything about the conspiracy to cover it up.

Many of the people we in America classify as poor live better than people classified as middle class in other countries including in Europe.

We could save a lot of money by pulling all of our troops out of Europe. I'd begin tomorrow morning and have them all out by tomorrow night. America wasted a lot of money defending Europe during the cold war. But that's water under the bridge, there is no reason for it to continue.

It's worth mentioning that Hitler was a Catholic, he grew up in a religion and a culture that was anti-semitic, and in persecuting Jews, he repeatedly proclaimed he was doing the "Lord's work."
Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf: "Therefore, I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Creator. By fighting off the Jews, I am doing the Lord's Work."
Hitler said it again at a Nazi Christmas celebration in 1926: "Christ was the greatest early fighter in the battle against the world enemy, the Jews . . . The work that Christ started but could not finish, I, Adolf Hitler, will conclude."
In a Reichstag speech in 1938, Hitler again echoed the religious origins of his crusade. "I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty Creator. By warding off the Jews, I am fighting for the Lord's work."
Hitler regarded himself as a Catholic until he died. "I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so," he told Gerhard Engel, one of his generals, in 1941.

The past shapes the present. The Catholic church, the Vatican in particular, still has enormous difficulty in coming to terms with what happened in WWII and the part it played. It is also unsurprising that the present Pope, whose formative years were spent in wartime Germany, has taken this decision.

The Vatican under Pope Pius XII (a hugely controversial Pope) maintained a pretence of neutrality during WWII, a position largely interested in maintaining Church authority. It found reassurance in Mussolini’s and Hitler's regime favouring the Catholic church, challenging Marxism and championing of a conservative social vision.
In June 1941, when the Vichy French government introduced ‘Jewish laws' closely modelled upon the Nuremberg Laws, the Pope responded to appeals from French bishops by stating that such laws were not in conflict with Catholic teaching.
Throughout the war, although well informed via a network of Catholic priests throughout Europe of the persecution and atrocities being committed, the most Pius XII would do was to encourage humanitarian aid by subordinates within the Church and issue vague appeals against the oppression of unnamed racial and religious groups.
As the war in Italy brought fighting closer to Rome Pope Pius XII seemed increasingly concerned with the safety of the Vatican and presumably himself. In 1944, Pius wrote to Berlin's Bishop Preysing that he had been deeply saddened by what was happening to the Jews, but that he could not have spoken out for fear the Germans would destroy Rome.
In Pius's favour, when the SS began rounding up Jews for deportation he did secretly instruct Catholic institutions to take in Jews. The Vatican itself hid 477 Jews and another 4,238 Jews were protected in Roman monasteries and convents. Publicly the Pope stayed silent, even when it found out from the SS that all other Jews deported from Rome were due to be exterminated in Auschwitz.
I will mention that there were individual Catholics in Europe that broke ranks and took enormous risks, some even giving their lives, in order to save others.
The present Pope, Pope Benedict XVI, was not one of them. Aged 14 yrs in 1941, he joined the Hitler Youth and was later drafted into the German army; though biographers point out that he was an unwilling conscript - unsurprising late in the war when many Germans must have known that defeat was all but inevitable.
It is a well documented fact that some Nazis fleeing Germany after the fall of the Third Reich received assistance from the Vatican, via the notorious 'ratlines' across the Alps, via monasteries.
Pius XII even sought clemency for Arthur Greiser, who had murdered thousands of Polish Catholics and Jews (the Poles executed him anyway) and for Otto Ohlendorf, head of one of the notorious Nazi mobile killing squads (the U.S. Military rejected the Pope's appeal) and for other mass murderers.

The best I can say about Pope Pius XII is that he was weak, prevaricating, vacilliationary and cowardly - unwilling or unable to give firm moral leadership, intellectually sympathetic to fascism and unwilling to face up to its consequences, who turned a blind eye to atrocities perpetrated on a massive scale and seemingly mainly interested in maintaining his own position and that of the Vatican.

The present Pope's position over Bishop Williamson is deeply regrettable - and wrong - but unsurprising.

Let's not forget that after the war, the Vatican prepared documents that got Nazi war criminals out of Europe and safely to South America. There is evidence of a rebirth of Nazism and the mindset that led to its rise to power in many parts of Europe this very minute. Most Europeans don't know, don't care, are entirely indifferent to it...just as they were in the 1930s. The loud outcry against Isreal every time it takes steps to defend itself under any pretense such as "anti-Zionism" is evidence that Europe's hatred for Jews is alive and well. Europe's hatred for America in part stems from its unyielding support of Israel. This alone is enough to make Americans disgusted with Europe. Who did we really defend against the USSR for 50 years and why?

#5 - "The election of Barack Obama is one more step along the path away from racism and slavery America inherited from Europe during colonial times is just one of them."

You know who you sound like, MarcusAureliusII? Robert Mugabe. Go on, blame everything on European colonialism - even when you are at fault. So now America's enslavement of blacks was the fault of Europe! And apparently "Europe" (whatever that is) can't change. You clearly know almost nothing about the diverse societies of Europe. Take, for example, Germany. Are you saying that they are all still Nazis? Because if you are, you are revealing an attitude no different from the racist evil you claim to be speaking against. And are you not aware that Britain abolished the slave trade 200 years ago. Of course it was evil, but your argument is that "Europeans" (whoever they are) can't learn from their mistakes, but I am presenting evidence to you that we can and that we have done. You can bluster on all you like, but I am confronting you with evidence, which is indisputable. So if you ignore this evidence you are only make a fool of yourself.

You say that "Europeans" are at each other's throats. So I suppose you think that Britain was not allowed to resist the tyranny of Hitler? And of course, if we didn't resist Hitler, then we would be accused of being wimpish appeasers. Do you think we were just being "typical Europeans" by wanting to defend our country from naked aggression? But of course the "righteous paradise" called the USA can instigate wars in different parts of the world - e.g. Vietnam and Iraq - and that's OK. In your intemperate and prejudicial thinking they cannot possibly be categorised as lying warmongers!

Furthermore, you talk about "Europeans" as if such a race exists, but this word has no more meaning than "Americans" when referring to all peoples of the Western Hemisphere. So according to such a continental definition Fidel Castro is an "American". So I could just as easily say to you that "Americans are always at each other's throats because of the childish spat between the USA and Cuba". After all, they are both "American" nations, being in "The Americas". Can't you see how ridiculous and immature your reasoning is?

It sounds to me like your patriotism has morphed into a kind of fanatical idolatry, which has blinded you to consistent logic. I sincerely hope under your new president that people like you have an ever diminishing influence in the life of your great nation, so that global affairs can be conducted with intelligence and without this kind of blind fanaticism and propagandism.

lsv. If you knew any history, you'd see how right I am and how wrong you are. But the most amazing thing is that Europeans who pride themselves on their long histories don't know much if anything about it really. And most certainly don't know much American history either.

Robert Mugabe may not be the cleverest or most humane man leading a nation, and he may have led Zimbabwe to economic ruin...but he was dead right on target about white rule, make that English rule in Rhodesia. That land was stolen and the population held as slaves to their white masters. His role in throwing them out is why Black leaders in Africa are reluctant to criticize him. Europeans did the same to their countries. as well. Of all of the piratical nations of the world who invaded, tyrannized, oppressed, plundered, enslaved, and stole from other nations throughout history, Great Britain leads the list.

Was the slave economy of the Southern colonies in America created by Europeans, British in particular? Without the slightest doubt. The cotton economy they devised depended on cheap slave labor which they provided by kidnapping victims in Africa and bringing them to America via the Carribean to work the fields. Abolitionists in the north ended slavery long before Britain did but the South's economy was inextricably tied to cotton, the British saw to that during colonial times.

Are there still Nazis in Germany? Without doubt there are lots of them, mostly born in what was East Germany. Not only are they very much like the Nazis of old, when they commit violent racial crimes, the police turn away and refuse to arrest and prosecute them. Just ask Turks who live in Germany. Even Turks who were born in Germany and lived there for generations can't become citizens.

If Britain or France had been alarmed about the rise of Nazism in 1933 or 1934, and not waited until 1939 to do something about it, WWII might never have happened. But why should Britain and France have cared if the only likely victims of Hitler were going to be a few million German Jews. France was more anti-semitic than Germany was. Of course the rise of Hitler was made inevitable by the cruel vindictive Treaty of Versailles, the end of the previous European blood bath. How long has it been going on? for a couple of Thousand years? Learing European history at times seems like memorizing dates of wars and treaties that settled them. How long did England fight Ireland, 400 years? 800 years? How long did the hundred years war take? They didn't call it the hundred years war for nothing. France against Britain. France against Germany, Britain and France against Austria and Hungary, France against everybody, Russia against Sweden, the list seems to go on forever. And when there weren't major wars, animousities went on at a lower level with persecutions, ethnic cleansings, brutal beating of innocent people, seemingly forever. Do you think the Balkins are peaceful? What if all foreign troops pulled out today? How about Russia and the Baltic states? Russia and Ukraine? Russia and Georgia? The Basque against Spain? Nothing changes, just the names.

I cannot think of even one part of the world, Europe has not committed heinous crimes against and not merely individuals but entire societies in its endless plunder. Europe didn't acquire wealth through its own industry, it stole practically everything it ever had. That is why left to its own devices today, it is going broke.

America's conflict with Cuba is more than a little spat. In 1961 Fidel Castro invited the USSR to emplace missiles with nuclear warheads on Cuban soil aimed at many major American cities. He tried to persuade Premier Nikita Khrushchev to launch a nuclear first strike on the US even though that would have resulted in Cuba being vaporized in about 15 minutes and the entire world plunged into a world war that would have ended all human life on earth. Then he tried to spread the cancer of communism all over the Western Hemisphere. Hardly what I'd call a "spat."

Yes Castro is an American. We refer to him as a Latin American. Technically he is from North America. So what. Don't be surprised if President Obama pursues an even more aggressive foreign policy than President Bush did. Obama is clearly an American who will defend American interests, not European interests. That delusion may be dispelled before much longer.

#9

OK, let's pretend that you are right in all that you have said. What exactly are you proposing? That we all bow down and worship at the altar of America? That Europe should be annihilated?

What exactly is your great solution to the world's problems?

Instead of being so pompous and negative, let's see if you have any solutions? I'd be fascinated to hear them.

#9 - "America's conflict with Cuba is more than a little spat."

Further to my last comment, yes, you are right that the USA's conflict with Cuba was more than a little spat. But is it not interesting how upset you are that I should have referred to it in such terms? Perhaps you will therefore understand how offensive you are being in trivialising the conflicts within Europe by saying that "Europeans are always at each others' throats".

I was simply making the point that if I apply your method of reasoning to the Americas, then it would be justifiable to lump two American nations together - Cuba and the USA - and trivialise their differences as being the result of the fact that they are "Americans". The conflict between Cuba and the USA had nothing to do with the fact that both nations are "American", as if there is something peculiar about people from The Americas that they should engage in such conflicts. I am sure you would agree with that assessment. So why use the same method of reasoning with regard to Europe? That is why you are writing utter nonsense by singling out some mysterious people called "Europeans" and casting them in the worst possible light in relation to the peoples of other continents and regions.

I seriously think you need a lesson in logic, pal.

I don't think I've read so much rubbish since I found a copy of Heat magazine on the train.

Hitler wasn't a Catholic. The Nazis hated the Catholic Church. Pius XII is a saint. And all the liberals protesting over the rescinding of excommunications are the very people who would most protest at the imposition of excommunications. Hypocrites and liars.

#6 - "Hitler said it again at a Nazi Christmas celebration in 1926: "Christ was the greatest early fighter in the battle against the world enemy, the Jews . . . The work that Christ started but could not finish, I, Adolf Hitler, will conclude."... "

So, SheffTim, you are willing to believe the words of someone like Adolf Hitler when he claimed to be doing the work of Jesus Christ? Has it perhaps not occurred to you that he was lying, in order to justify his evil intentions?

Anyone with even a basic understanding of the Christian faith would know that Jesus was himself a Jew and he said "Salvation is of the Jews" (Gospel of John 4:22). Now whether you are a Christian, atheist, agnostic or of some other creed, you cannot deny that the Christian faith, as laid out in the Bible, emphatically does not condemn Jews. It may be true that there are those who call themselves Christians who persecute Jews, but that is not the same thing. Anyone can say anything about themselves and then bear a false witness to what they profess.

So your reasoning is spurious, I'm afraid.

Just to comment on post 7's assertion about the source of "The loud outcry against Isreal every time it takes steps to defend itself under any pretense such as "anti-Zionism" following on from my post about the role of the Vatican during WWII (Post 6).
Fundamentalist Protestant churches in the USA (and Fundamentalist Jews) believe that Israeli actions in Palestine (I use the name used since Roman times to refer to the region between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River that runs parallel with it.) can be justified by a similar acts by the Hebrews as described in the book of Joshua (the fall of of Jericho etc).
e.g.
"They devoted the city to the Lord and destroyed with the sword every living thing in it - men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep and donkeys." Joshua 6:21
And the Lord said unto Joshua, Fear not, neither be thou dismayed: take all the people of war with thee, and arise, go up to Ai: see, I have given into thy hand the king of Ai, and his people, and his city, and his land. Joshua 8:1
"All these kings and their lands Joshua conquered in one campaign, because the Lord, the God of Israel, fought for Israel." Joshua 10:42
And the Lord said unto Joshua, Be not afraid because of them: for to morrow about this time will I deliver them up all slain before Israel: thou shalt hough their horses, and burn their chariots with fire. Joshua 11:6

Some Fundamentalists even see the conflict as heralding the end of days as described in the apocalyptic Book of Revelation.
Religion is part of the problem, not part of the solution. Even across the Atlantic in the USA.

ST#14
Whatever Zionism meant in the past, today it is used on the internet and in the media as a code word for anti-semitism, anti-Israel, Jew hating.

Nobody and especially of all people Europeans have any right to criticize the State of Israel in whatever actions it takes to defend its citizens. Europeans have committed uncountable crimes against humanity in their long contemptable history, crimes of every sort with unexceeded brutality, cruelty, and indifference to human suffering. Now Europe pontificates to Israelis that the remnants of a civilization that once lived peacefully among them, that they either tried to wipe out in its entirety or stood by passively while other Europeans tried to, is over reacting as it desperately tries to fend off new implacable enemies who surround them and want to destroy them too. Europeans should just shut up, they have nothing meaningful to say, nothing to contribute. The only thing they can do is make matters worse, by reminding those Jews left alive that Europe always has been and still is largely their enemy.

Why do I lump all Europeans together? Because they lump themselves together. Just read any of the endless rhetoric of the proponents of the EU. It is they who claim they are as one. Having observed them over a lifetime, I think there is plenty in common among them to justify that claim. They share some of the worst human traits possible. There is not a corner of the earth I can think of where they were not at one time or another been guilty of some horrific crime against the indigenous population.

Which part of my posting that was referred to the moderators didn't someone like?

The part where I said that the word Zionism as used on the internet today means hatred of Jews?

The part where I reminded Europeans that over millenia, Europe has been responsible for perpetrating the worst crimes ever committed in numbers and barbarity beyond measure including genocide to murder all the Jews in Europe and therefore has no standing to criticize those who remain alive when they choose whatever means they find available to them to defend themselves from also becoming victims of those who hate them?

Or was it the part where I lumped all Europeans together in much the same way advocates for the EU do?

Which of these unpalatable truths broke the rules? Or was it just the fact that it is so unpalatable that Europeans don't like being reminded of it?

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

#15/16 I'm afraid that peoples of all races, ethnic groups and states, across all continents, have "at one time or another been guilty of some horrific crime against the indigenous population".
Read some detailed histories of Central Asia, China, India, Africa, Pacifica or Mesoamerica for example. Human history is notable for it's wars, battles, invasions, massacres, slavery and power struggles.
Europe's history is indeed steeped in blood, but please don't think that excuses the actions of others. We all need to outgrow the past.

At what point in its history does 'America' start taking responsibility for taking the lands of the Native Americans?
You did win your independence in 1766; the Wounded Knee Massacre was in 1890.
And what about American invasion of the Philippines in 1899? The Filipinos thought America was helping them to gain their freedom from Spain, but the USA instead installed a military government; the Philippines only gained independence in 1946.
I could go on. America the nation is a little over 200 years old, don't think your nation's youth makes its citizens or politicians immune from the many faults that humanity has; after all, you've already had one civil war.

On the plus side for Europe, it was the ideas that sprang from the Enlightenment in Europe that inspired America's founders and resulted in the American Constitution and Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man; two great achievements of the modern age.

MarcusAureliusII wrote

"I for one have never believed a word of their explanation. "

A statement which no doubt carries great weight for everyone.

ST, at least we don't deny it ever happened the way Europe denies its far greater crimes.

Britain, the most piratical nation in history created as slave empire around the world upon which the sun never set.

You know almost nothing about the exploration and settlement of vast unoccupied areas of the Western United States. Just because a small tribe of Indians claimed hundreds of thousands of square miles as their own hunting ground didn't mean they could simply prevent anyone from living on it, using it. I'm sure you and other Europeans wish the United States of America had never come into existance as the pre-eminent power in the world but that is your problem.

America could have walked away from the Phillipines after it threw off the tyranny of Spain and created another Zimbabwe but it stayed until it was ready to be independent...and defended it with its blood and treasure against the brutal cruel empire of Imperial Japan. A 47 year occupation is hardly the time span of a major power with aspirations of empire.

Meso America from the Rio Grande south was brutally destroyed by Spain. They destroyed the civilizations of the Aztecs, Incas, and Mayans among others. I think it was Coronado who burned his ships so that his Conquistadors wouldn't have any thoughts about returning to Spain until he was satisfied that he'd plundered enough gold in the name of the Spanish crown.

Europe's "enlightenment" was a direct threat to the rule of divine right of kings and the Catholic Church. Had they discovered Da Vinci performing autopsies to make his remarkable anatomical drawings, they'd have burned him at the stake. They threatened to torture Galileo if he didn't recant his theories of astronomy that didn't put the Catholic Church at the center of the universe. The age of European exploration was a prelude to Europe's age of explotation. A very sorry history. How can you learn anything from what you deny ever even happened. Denying the holocaust sets Europe up for another one. Not my words but a paraphrase of those of a European....Santyana

#20 - MarcusAureliusII

I can't help but notice that MarcusAureliusII has chickened out of answering the question I posed in message #10. I think this person's silence is very revealing. Does this blogger have anything constructive to say, or could some positive proposals be forthcoming, I wonder?

So we Europeans are the bane of history for some reason. What are we supposed to do? Pay tribute to the American Empire? Hand over our chattels to Uncle Sam (after all, due the USA's recent economic irresponsibility, I think we've done that already)? Spend our days in worship of "the land of the brave and the free"?

Frankly I don't know why this person is bothering to sound off like this on a UK blog. What is this blogger trying to achieve?

Even a "first grader" (as the Americans say) has the intelligence to work out that all nations have blood on their hands. It is the depth of delusion to imagine that one nation is somehow exempt from guilt. But what we have been subjected to today is a gross and crass example of what is termed "American exceptionalism" - a highly immature view of the world, which will inexorably hasten America's decline (and unless the USA does something about its 10 trillion dollar debt then its decline is inevitable - and history teaches that all self-righteous empires crumble - WITHOUT EXCEPTION).

By the way... I recommend people read John Steinbeck's book "The Grapes of Wrath" - it gives great insight into the social experience of the poor in the land of the "American dream".

It was Cortes who burnt his ships in Veracruz in 1519, as a sign to his men that there was no turning back from his intention to conquer the interior of Mexico.

I don't deny that the Holocaust happened, quite the opposite. Nor deny the slave trade, European imperialism, colonisation and exploitation, the Inquisition, Crusades and so on
I also have read quite widely about the seizure of Indian lands in Northern America.
There were well over 500 tribes, comprising many millions of peoples, inhabiting the entire continent when the Europeans arrived. Your thinking justifying it (and the Philippines occupation) is the same mindset as that which Europeans used to justify conquest and colonisation in other countries such as those in Africa ~ and in northern America when Europeans first arrived, you merely completed what we had started.
(An apt quote from George Santayana: 'Those who cannot remember the past, are condemned to repeat it'. (Santayana also lived for 39 yrs in the U.S.A.))
American history has been largely shaped by Europeans and those descended from them (including you?). Clearly the US has now forged its own distinct identity.
I'm not anti-American, quite the opposite in fact - I'm an admirer, but not uncritical - of any country.

Clearly nothing will shift your dislike of Europe, but don't let your patriotism lead to believing that America is naturally immune from making the same mistakes that various European powers have made in the past.

ST, it is not merely dislike, it is intense detestation. It's not just the eternal lying, pontificating, self serving hypocricy of Europe that disgusts me. It was the betrayal in 2003. Europe didn't merely disagree with America over the threat of Iraq to America and the decision to invade. It actively worked against America. We saw the rage in the streets on our television sets. 90% of Europeans were against us. 50% in the UK the nation we supposedly had a "special relationship" with. France and Germany didn't merely abstain at the UN, they voted NO, France's vote a veto. France lobbied against America. I heard Chirac and de Villepin with my own ears say that Europe should "challenge" America. We expected it from China and Russia but it came as a shock from people we looked upon as allies. That is why were it up to me, American troops would all be out of Europe by tomorrow night, never to return.

There was no reason to even have a vote at the UN, Iraq broke the terms of the truce countless times. It was only done for Tony Blair's domestic political benefit. The delay from September 2002 to March 2003 gave Saddam Hussein time to hide his weapons probably in Syria if he had them, now we may never know. These Europeans are the people we would have blown up the world for including ourselves to keep them from being slaves of the USSR. Europeans are the worst trash on this earth. Not all of America will fogive or forget. Now Europe wants to pretend that the genocide it was guilty of only a few decades ago, the culmination of 1000 years of barbarism to people who were no threat to them never happened. It is up in arms that they defend themselves effectively, something Europe could never do on its own, and even angrier that America gives them the means to do it. For all the blood spilled in keeping Europe free, not one American died fighting Arabs to protect Israel.

We know what you are, we know who you are, we know what your "civilization is about." I'm just the messinger telling you what so many other millions of Americans won't.

Logica and Shefftim:

Wise up! DFTT

#23 - "I'm just the messinger telling you what so many other millions of Americans won't."

Well I would like to take this opportunity to thank you, MarcusAureliusII, for the noble service you have rendered to us this last weekend.

You have unequivocally and unashamedly reminded us of the reality of a great evil, which, in the aftermath of the change of leadership in your country, we were in grave danger of ignoring. We have perhaps been too ready and willing to believe President Obama's words about "humility", about "greatness being earned", about "greater cooperation and understanding between nations", about America being "a friend of each nation". His inspiring oratory could have easily lulled us into a deep sleep - and this complacency would have duped us into imagining that the old prejudices and forces of self-seeking, arrogance, greed, ignorance and belligerence had at last been defeated in your young nation.

Thank you for alerting us to the danger that still obviously creeps around the underbelly of America, ready to reassert itself at the first opportunity. We will heed the warning, and we will be on our guard.

Logica:

Exactly. Let the world beware!

Archbishop Romero of San Salvador went to John Paul II to beg for his help in stopping the genocide which was taking place in his country (planned, put into practice and paid for by... The USA.) John Paul II showed him the door, gently nudged on by a certain Cardinal Ratzinger.) Romero was in tears as he left, having just been abandoned to the mercy of the wolves, by the Church he loved.
One week later he was shot dead while saying Mass, by a CIA gunman. America got the green light for the hit as soon they saw the Vatican reject him. They knew their would be no serious outcry from the Vatican at the disappearance of this troublesome cleric.

Ratzinger rejected this saint's plea for help and he opens his arms to these four barmy bishops.

Aaaaah I've just twigged. Ratzinger is so overcome with guilt by what he did to one bishop, that it is now his life's mission to be kind to all Bishops, no matter how off the wall they are, to make restitution.

My apologies for having even doubted Ratzinger's purity of motive.

M2
You are trolling again. Go have a look at the pretty lady (that you'd like to eat) on the Vegetarian thread, and calm down. Then stop plotting Europe's annihilation and get back to the arguments.

What is wrong with you lately??!!

Hi Graham,

"What is wrong with you lately??!! "

Yeah. Those who have been on this blog longer may remember that MAII (Mark on the old server software) used to say things that for much of it made good sense.

I'm sure he has turned so crazy lately because he has been discussing things with Europeans for too long, and has been infected. Not that I would want to inspire self-loathing in you Mark.

London was never attacked by the Germans. The V1s and V2s were a myth. The killed and injured from the supposed attacks pure fiction. The bomb craters, blown up buldings, the news footage, all faked to win sympathy of Americans to persuade them to fight the war in Europe for Britain. None of it ever happened. Pure lies and fiction.

Mark

Deep breaths.Fight the inner troll, man. Come on, a sensible thought.

GV

MA2

Okay. Finish these sentences *without* reference to Europe.

"I think that the greatest threat to USA's primacy in Global Affairs is..."

or

"Obama's foreign policy should focus on..."

GVeale

Bishop Williamson's Holocaust denial is only the tip of the iceberg. A closer look at the various SSPX websites reveals a deep theologically-based prejudice against Jews, much of it recapitulating the anti-Jewish arguments (and closely related "Judeo-Masonic" conspiracy theories) of such early 20th Century traditionalists as Denis Fahey. In brief, the SSPX believes that Jews are inherently predisposed towards promoting a "naturalism" that is destructive of a Catholic social order.

While the SSPX would rather convert or shun Jews than murder them, they are still a very long ways indeed from accepting the principles of religious toleration and respect embodied in the declarations of the Second Vatican Council. All four SSPX bishops, and not just Williamson, are in open rebellion against the teachings of this Council, which is why they were excommunicated in the first place. If the current Pope now chooses to ignore their transgressions, what does this say about where the Church stands, not just in relation to Jews, but in relation to all non-Catholics?

All these decisions also have ramifications for 'ordinary' catholics too. Ratzinger's welcoming back this crowd has angered many. Its only the latest farse from many.
But catholics have absolutely no power to do anything about it.
I dont think it has really been reported anywhere yet the strength of feeling, at a grass roots level, against the present Pope and his Roman Curia - from catholics.
People tend to just drift away rather than stay and attempt to do anything about it.

The real question is: what is the authoritative teaching of the Catholic Church? The answer is: that which is contained within the catechism.

Now if any Catholic, in whatever position, adheres to that teaching, then why should that person be excommunicated? If such a person holds controversial views which technically lie outside the scope of the catechism, then is it right for such a person to be disciplined or censured?

While I certainly do not accept the views of holocaust deniers, what troubles me is that some non-Catholics (and I am a non-Catholic) seem to expect the Catholic Church to come down like a ton of bricks on someone who is exercising freedom of speech concerning a particular aspect of history (traumatic though that subject is), and yet the moment the Catholic Church takes a stand on some issue that is not to the liking of secular society, she is accused of being bigoted, self-righteous and stifling freedom. You can't have it both ways. Such double standards are a quite nauseating hypocrisy.

There are many things I dislike about the Catholic Church, but I am not going to start telling them that they should excommunicate anyone, since that is an internal matter to which I, as a non-Catholic, should not be privy.

Furthermore, Bishop Williamson has stated that he does not believe in the gas chambers on the basis, not of emotion, but evidence. Well, in my view, it's very simple. Let him present his evidence, and see whether it stands up to scrutiny. What are people so afraid of? If someone denied that the earth orbited the sun, then we could easily disabuse such a person of that idea. Likewise, if our friend from over the pond denies the reality of the London Blitz, we can put him straight as well. We don't need to conduct a witchhunt against those who hold erroneous views. Unless, of course, their inconvenient views happen to be right.

The authoritative teaching of the catholic church in the mid sixties and seventies was apparently The Second Vatican Council. Williamson and his cronies refused to accept it and the only reason they are being allowed back into the fold is because Ratzinger and his cronies refused to accept it too.

#36 - romejellybean - "The authoritative teaching of the catholic church in the mid sixties and seventies was apparently The Second Vatican Council."

I don't dispute for one minute what you're saying, but my point was about holocaust denial. How does that fit into the teaching of the Catholic Church? If you perhaps might say that it is to do with the question of tolerance, then I would agree that there could have been an infringement of Catholic teaching if the only reason - or the overriding reason - for Williamson to deny the gas chambers was simply to spite the Jews. But that judgement on him would have to have been proven.

But what if someone denied the reality of the gas chambers, because they claimed their view was supported by historical evidence? My argument is that the proper approach of the Catholic church - and society in general - is to then address the historical questions. The whole issue becomes a matter of intellectual debate.

But what we are seeing is a witchhunt, and those in the Catholic Church who would want to see Williamson excommunicated (or his excommunication not revoked) are being egged on by people who themselves cannot possibly have a commitment to the Catholic Church, and who would in other circumstances and on other issues be opposed to the teaching of the Catholic Church, thus standing themselves in a position of "excommunication".

So I find this situation bizarre and hypocritical.

So far, I could count on one finger 'prominent' catholics who have spoken out against the tridentinists being welcomed back. So the egging onners arent doing a very good job, are they?
You are being unkind to those catholics who criticize the church. Are they not allowed to have as deeply held feelings as the Tridentinists?
And as for excommunication? The catholic church's own teaching on the primacy of conscience kinda takes away its bite, does it not?

#38 - romejellybean -

I think we are at cross purposes a bit here.

I am not trying to defend Ratzinger or Williamson. My problem is with people outside the Catholic Church who are upset that the Pope has revoked the excommunication of Bishop Williamson because of his views on the holocaust. How can people who are not committed to the teachings of the Catholic Church have the right to demand that the Pope excommunicate (or, in this case, refuse to revoke the excommunication of) another Catholic?

The concept of "excommunication" relates to the question of non-adherence to the teachings of the Catholic Church. Therefore the only people who have the right to support any instance of excommunication are those who signed up to the law - the standard - by which the judgement is made. If someone doesn't accept the validity of a particular law, then that person has no moral right to demand that anyone be judged according to that law. It's a bit like someone saying that they agreed with Jonathan Ross being suspended from the ´óÏó´«Ã½, but they don't accept the moral principles by which he was suspended.

I am sure those rabbis in Israel would be pretty upset if Catholics started meddling in the internal affairs of their religious institutions. They are free to criticise as much as they like concerning Williamson's views on the holocaust, but they have no right to demand an "excommunication", since that is something internal to the Catholic Church.

I don't know whether I've made my point clear or not. It seems clear in my mind, but maybe my ability to communicate it is letting me down.

Sorry, but I just want to add something else to my last comment.

If Bishop Williamson has committed a crime against the law of a nation state, then he should be prosecuted according to that law. That would, of course, also apply to the sexual crimes of Catholic paedophile priests. But for non-Catholics that is all the justice they can demand. How the Catholic Church deals internally with the employment status of such people is a matter for the Church alone. If a priest is sent to prison for five years and then is re-employed by the church as a priest after his release, that is a matter for the church alone. Catholics can protest about it, but it has nothing to do with non-Catholics.

So if the rabbis and others (like Angela Merkel who has waded into the debate) have a case against Williamson, then it should be based on secular law. If they cannot prosecute him in this way, then they have no case against him. They should not be appealing to ecclesiastical law as a way of circumventing secular law. Ecclesiastical law is a matter for those who believe in it and accept it - in other words, it is a matter for Catholics alone.

The fact that non-Catholics (such as rabbis) are appealing to ecclesiastical law seems to suggest that they have no secular case against Williamson.

I'll shut up now.

#35 logica_sine_vanitate:
"Now if any Catholic, in whatever position, adheres to that teaching, then why should that person be excommunicated?"

Williamson's holocaust denial, along with the other anti-Jewish/conspiracy oriented beliefs of the SSPX, is symptomatic of the SSPX's rejection of the Second Vatican Council and its call for religious liberty and respect for other religions. It is this rejection of Council that was the basis for the excommunications.

Since the SSPX hasn't recanted such beliefs, Ratzinger's rehabilitation of its bishops suggests that he isn't very strongly committed to upholding the principles of the Council.

"There are many things I dislike about the Catholic Church, but I am not going to start telling them that they should excommunicate anyone, since that is an internal matter to which I, as a non-Catholic, should not be privy."

But as a non-Catholic, you should also be concerned about the Church respecting your internal matters. It is precisely such respect that is put at risk by the traditionalist attack on the Second Vatican Council.

Who is going to ex-communicate the Pope? OK, if nobody will step up to the plate, I will. Pope Benedict, by my proclamation you are hereby excommunicated from the Catholic Church. You are an anathema. By word, deed, and example you have spread division and confusion among the faithful. You have transgressed and have not abided by the word of our Lord Jesus Christ. Furthermore, all of your pronouncements as Pope are hereby nullified. Henceforth, you shall not be permitted to attend the holy mass, you shall not be permitted to receive the sacrement, your confession cannot be heard by any priest of the Church. You are hereby cast out. You are barred from participating in the liturgy in a ministerial capacity and from receiving the eucharist or the other sacraments. This decree is issued latae sententiae and is effective immediately. OK what do you have to say to that?

I'll bet you're speechless.

I can't hear you!

(Guess he's still in shock. Shock and awe.)

OK all the rest of you, back to work. If you break my orders regarding Pope Benedict, I'll ex-communicate you too and your immortal souls will also be damned to eternal hell. And I don't do ex-ex-communications. When I ex-communicate you, you stay ex-communicated so you'd better watch your step.

And the debate was just getting back to what it should be about, i.e. the acceptance or rejection of the second vatican council.
I dont wish to trivialise the subject of Williamson's holocaust denials, but my point is that he and his cronies should never have been accepted back into the fold in the first place.
Epikoros has it spot on!
The Vatican were hoping to quietly slip these people back into the fold but unfortunately, Williamson drew the unwanted attention.
The furore will dissipate and Ratzinger will get back to dismantling Vat II supported by the Roman Curia, Opus Dei and now our Tridentine friends. All dissenters will be silenced (as they already have been) and catholics will continue, not so much to drift away, but to actively walk away, appalled at what is being done in their name.
Nothing can be done because there is absolutely no collegiality in Rome.
And for those who think that the machinations of the Catholic Church have little or nothing to do with them, think again. In Ireland, for example, the church still wields tremendous power from making sure that pubs are not allowed to open on Good Friday and Christmas Day, to having a huge say on issues such as abortion and birth control and education.
It is one of the world's most powerful institutions and people who want to see a more just order in society should be extremely concerned and alarmed at the direction it is presently taking.

Logica - if the Roman Catholic Church were an enclosed community of hermits making no public pronouncements and offering no moral leadership then your argument would have some merit. Such is not the case. The Church claims a universal moral and spiritual authority, the right to teach the world and interpret the will of God for mankind - that claim opens all its words and actions to the scrutiny of any human being.

We are entitled to look at the whole, indeed we have a duty to do so. If there is an inconsistency between the 'talk' and the 'walk' we can legitimately challenge the validity of the authority claimed.

Marcus - call that an Excommunication??? If you ask me Americans just can't curse - if there's no mingengo and cacando it doesn't cut the mustard with me. Now (courtesy of Laurence Sterne).

#44. - portwyne - "Logica - if the Roman Catholic Church were an enclosed community of hermits making no public pronouncements and offering no moral leadership then your argument would have some merit."

I must say that I'm pleased that this discussion is now back "on topic".

I simply think that non-Catholics who appeal to the ecclesiastical law of the Catholic church to censure someone they don't agree with, are acting like hypocrites. Why do we have the secular law? Isn't that good enough? If Bishop Williamson has committed a crime worthy of punishment under secular law, then he should be duly arrested, charged and tried. If such a process were to take place, then there would be no need to appeal to the internal ecclesiastical law of the Catholic Church, which most people don't recognise anyway. The concept of "excommunication" falls outside secular law, does it not?! It is a judgement based on ecclesiastical law. And therefore it is a judgement I cannot possibly morally recognise as a non-Catholic, quite irrespective of what I think of Bishop Williamson.

The fact that non-Catholics are demanding his "excommunication" is a terrible indictment of the scope and power of secular law and undermines the democratic basis of our western society. It is certainly contrary to any "Enlightenment" concepts.

I certainly do not agree with Bishop Williamson, but within the context of secular society governed by secular law, what exactly has he done wrong?

We cannot have it both ways and opt in and opt out of the Catholic Church when it suits us. So I am being consistent as a non-Catholic and refusing to judge Bishop Williamson on any other law other than the one to which I am bound, which is the secular law. If that leads to uncomfortable conclusions, then perhaps we should start to question the whole basis of secularism.

Sorry Logica but your argument, by focusing on the miserable Williamson, completely ignores the bigger picture. The interest here is not Williamson it's the Vatican and specifically the pontificate of Benedict XVI.

Communion for the Roman church expresses solidarity, belonging, acceptance, orthodoxy, and unity. The rescinding of an excommunication is therefore not just a legal nicety it is a theological and moral pronouncement. It makes a statement at the most fundamental level possible for the church about its concerns and priorities. That statement, in these circumstances, exposes the moral vacuum at the heart of Benedict's pontificate and the hypocrisy of the institution he heads.

Those of us who could not care less whether Benedict and Williamson break bread together still have every right to comment about what the pope's actions mean for his personal moral authority and the authority of the church.

The introspection, retrogression, narrowness of focus, insensitivity and detachment from reality which this decision displays should interest every Christian and concern every Roman Catholic.

#45. I understand that British born Williamson is currently a rector of a Seminary in Argentina. His remarks, though recorded in Germany last year were broadcast by Swedish TV, the day the excommunication was lifted. German media report that Austrian prosecutors are looking to see if a prosecution is possible, as happened with David Irvine. A prosecution, if possible, would be nice.

To say that Williamson is a hard line ultra-conservative is an understatement.
He opposes compromise between the SSPX and the Church leadership in Rome having accusing the latter of deceit and of being under "the power of Satan", and previously criticised Pope John Paul II, on grounds of a "weak grasp of Catholicism".
He opposes women attending college or university, or wearing of trousers or shorts, claimed that the 9/11 attacks on the US were carried out by the American military in order to justify the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, and has in the past called Jews "enemies of Christ". He has also endorsed the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion", a notorious anti-Semitic forgery that enjoys widespread currency in neo-Nazi circles.
He is also on record as saying that Jews are fighting for world domination "to prepare the anti-Christ's throne in Jerusalem".

portwyne, are you kidding? The real fun doesn't begin until I start the exorcism. Obviously Pope Benedict is bedeviled by demons who have taken possession of him. It's up to those of us who can to save him. I say the old ways work best. Now what was it they did during the dark ages? Something about a rack? This man's blasphemy and sacrelige are a sure sign his immortal soul is in great peril. I'm sworn to do whatever it takes to rid him of their evil intent. They are using him for their own purposes and if left unchecked, there's no telling what terrible things could happen to this world. Anyone care to pitch in and help or are you all going to just stand around and gawk while I do all the hard work myself?

#45 logica_sine_vanitate:
"I certainly do not agree with Bishop Williamson, but within the context of secular society governed by secular law, what exactly has he done wrong?"

The SSPX categorically rejects the entire notion of a secular society governed by secular laws--they see secularism as a manifestation of a malign "Jewish naturalism" that supposedly undermines Catholic cultural domination. Thus, the antisemitism expressed by Williamson is also closely tied to a severe antisecularism.

This guy is also incredibly demeaning and insulting towards women and they make up half the general population and over half the church population. However, as usual, we get upset by perceived anti-Semitism and make an issue of it, rightly so, but blatant sexism is allowed to pass without comment - when will church leaders be held to account for the way they've spoken about and treated women for nearly 2 thousand years?

Of course the Holy Father has made it clear on many occasions that denial of the "shoah" is unacceptable and there can be no doubt as to the teachings of the Church on the matter. There are a number of attitudes which have emerged as erroneous and sinful belief in the SSPX which still are and will remain problems and are to be addressed by the Church. The leadership of SSPX has drifted into error by setting itself against the teachings of the Second Vatican Council but still remain Catholics but with an excommunicate leadership. The lifting of excommunication does not mean that they are right, nor does it mean that the Church condones or approves the errors. The Church does not give a "get out of the sin-bin" card as if all is forgiven. Far from it. The SSPX has given in. It has surrendered and will now be guided with christian charity and the firm but fair hand of the Church into a reconciliation. The admission that they will accept papal discipline means that they have surrendered to the Church's authority and will be guided towards a full communion. The Popes letter to 'Bishop' Fellay points out that the Pope is inviting them to return, accepting their assurances of contrition. The talk was to begin.

The Church is no 'Inquisition' in the music hall sense so many would seem to like to believe.

Clearly the Holy Father has been let down big time. Perhaps the admission that the Pope is the Holy Father is too much for one English member of the SSPX. The isolation of the group meant that it was not subject to moderation and control. Notions evolved which are theologically unacceptable to all Catholics. There was the danger the error would deepen into cult. Thousands of well meaning and generally innocent Catholics were being led along a route which would lead to spiritual pain and destruction as a cult. The Holy Father has acted as the BridgeBuilder (the Pontifex) as the Pastor of Lost Sheep who will forgive but will not condone the error of the schismatics. They are far from being 'clear' as Williamson lunatic utterances make plain. The 'World' has its own agenda and stereotypes. It is in a state of tension and issues and old stereotypes are bubbling to the surface from all sides. Once again to all who see this from the outside, the Holy Father does not condone the error of schism but has allowed the ship to harbour for the healing of lost souls. Much will have to be recanted and abjured, healing takes time; but the Holy Father will not humiliate them in the eyes of an incomprehending, baying world.

Marcus - sorry to disappoint you but, while the rack was a weapon in the arsenal of Benedict's old stomping ground, The Holy Office of the Inquisition, it was not used in exorcisms. They missed a trick there didn't they?

Now I am rather concerned about one thing... The ancient rite of Exorcism requires the Exorcist to be "properly distinguished for his piety, prudence, and integrity of life. He should fulfill this devout undertaking in all constancy and humility, being utterly immune to any striving for human aggrandizement... Moreover, he ought to be of mature years, and revered not alone for his office but for his moral qualities". Now be honest, are you sure you qualify on all points? We don't want some chink in your armour to cause you to be consumed by the task you are undertaking here...