The Vatican wanted a recantation from him. Is this it? And whether it is or not, is it an adequate apology? It isn't long since Richard Williamson was saying he would review the historical evidence concerning the Holocaust. Has he done so? Here, in any event, is his latest statement:
The Holy Father and my Superior, Bishop Bernard Fellay, have requested that I reconsider the remarks I made on Swedish television four months ago, because their consequences have been so heavy.
Observing these consequences I can truthfully say that I regret having made such remarks, and that if I had known beforehand the full harm and hurt to which they would give rise, especially to the Church, but also to survivors and relatives of victims of injustice under the Third Reich, I would not have made them.
On Swedish television I gave only the opinion (... "I believe"... "I believe"...) of a non-historian, an opinion formed 20 years ago on the basis of evidence then available and rarely expressed in public since. However, the events of recent weeks and the advice of senior members of the Society of St. Pius X have persuaded me of my responsibility for much distress caused. To all souls that took honest scandal from what I said before God I apologise.
As the Holy Father has said, every act of injust violence against one man hurts all mankind.
He regrets his remarks and the distress they caused; they expressed only the opinions of a non-historian; he apologizes to those hurt by them. The one thing he doesn't say - and you have to assume that this statement has been thought about carefully - is that he has now concluded in light of a review of the evidence that those opinions were wrong. It looks, again, like an apology because some were offended, as opposed to an apology for a falsehood now recognized by him.