Monday, 31 January 2011
Maximilian Krah and Menzingen: A Cause for Serious Concern?
The Timeline -
A Corporate Attorney by the name of Maximilian Krah became publicly linked with the affairs of the Society of Saint Pius X.
January 20, 2009
Fr. Franz Schmidberger, Superior of SSPX in Germany, issued a press release in which it was stated: “We have not seen the interview given by Bishop Williamson to Swedish television. As soon as we see it we will submit it to scrutiny and obtain the advice of attorneys.”
But, in fact, the attorney to whom Menzingen would turn had already been put into place.
It was none other than Maximilian Krah of the Dresden Corporate Law company, Fetsch Rechtsanwälte: the partners being Cornelius J. Fetsch, Maximilian Krah and Daniel Adler.
Link: Fetsch Rechtsanwälte
January 19, 2009
One day before Fr. Schmidberger’s press release, Maximilian Krah was appointed as delegate to the Board, and manager, of the company Dello Sarto AG. The Chairman of the company is Bishop Bernard Fellay and the Board Members are First Assistant, Fr. Niklaus Pfluger, and the SSPX Bursar General, Fr. Emeric Baudot.
The purpose of the company is stated as being (Google translation):
“Advice on asset management issues and the care and management of assets of domestic and foreign individuals, corporations, foundations and other bodies, in particular of natural or legal persons which the Catholic moral, religious and moral teaching in its traditional sense of obligation and see, and the execution of projects for the mentioned persons, as well as advising on the implementation of these projects; whole purpose of description according to statutes.”
In other words, Dello Sarto AG appears to be an investment company that speculates, one has to assume, with SSPX funds in financial and other markets in the search for profits for various SSPX projects. But is it possible to get involved in today’s financial markets without being exposed to the risk and/or practice of usury?
The company was commercially registered on January 13, 2009 and issued 100 shares at 1,000 Swiss francs, giving it an initial capital of 100,000 Swiss francs.
As far as the checkbook is concerned, Maximilian Krah and Bishop Fellay alone are enabled individually to issue a payment of funds, while Frs. Pfluger and Baudot are required to obtain a co-signature to do so. Krah is not a cleric, but exercises greater financial powers than the First Assistant or Bursar. Curious.
Link: Dello Sarto AG http://translate.google.co.uk/translate?hl...D813%26prmd%3Db
Maximilian Krah is a Board Member of other associations that control SSPX funds.
In the September 2010 edition of a publication issued by EMBA-Global we read that the “EMBA-Global programme is designed for experienced managers, professionals and executives who seek to develop the skills, knowledge and networks to operate as successful Global leaders, anywhere in the world,” and that it “brings together an elite international network of business professionals.”
Link: EMBA-Global http://www.emba-global.com/EMBA-Global_Cla...tember_2010.pdf
Maximilian Krah is pictured on page 6 of the September 2010 publication along with the following, accompanying text:
“Maximilian Krah. German. Lawyer. Jaidhofer Privatstiftung, Vienna, Austria. Lawyer with substantial international experience. Currently a Board Member of an Austrian foundation. Responsible for wealth and asset management of the settlement capital, and for the project development of non-profit projects all over the world, which are sponsored by using the achieved funds.”
The full name of the company mentioned above is Jaidhofer Privatstiftung St. Josef and Marcellus. Jaidof is the seat of the SSPX District headquarters in Austria.
The fact that the SSPX appears to be involved in international financial markets will worry many of their faithful who would, rightly, believe that such activity is both risky on the material plane, and questionable on the moral level. There may, of course, be those who are less concerned, feeling that it is acceptable practice in the modern world, and aimed at “a final good.” Are the latter right?
Krah first made his appearance in the international sphere, as far as rank-and-file traditionalists are concerned, in the wake of what has been dubbed by the mainstream media as “the Williamson Affair.” His comments on the bishop were less than flattering, exuded a liberal view of the world, and poured oil on the fire of controversy that raged across the world, and against both the bishop and the SSPX, for months on end. It has been plain for a long time now that the “interview” and the “ensuing controversy” were a set-up, but it was, and still is, a matter of conjecture as to which person(s) and/or agencies engineered the set-up. Perhaps subsequent information in this email will throw more light on this troubling question?
What is beyond conjecture, however, is that Bishop Fellay’s attitude towards Bishop Williamson changed dramatically. Even those who will hear nothing against Bishop Fellay have noticed this change. The change has been public and persistent, and has been both insulting and humiliating for Bishop Williamson. It has also been largely carried out in the mainstream media, and, in Germany, the notoriously anti-Catholic communist magazine, Der Spiegel, has found a favored place, much to the astonishment of traditionalists everywhere. It has been there that we heard the shocking references to Bishop Williamson as “an unexploded hand grenade,” “a dangerous lump of uranium,” etc, as well as the insulting insinuations that he is disturbed or suffering from Parkinson’s Disease. The question, let it be remembered, is not whether one agrees or disagrees with Williamson, whether one likes or dislikes either Bishop Williamson or Bishop Fellay, but whether or not a man has a right to express a personal opinion on a matter of secular history. The ambush of Williamson by the Swedish interviewer, Ali Fegan, said by some Swedes to be a Turkish Jew, left Williamson on the spot: to get up and walk out in silence, thereby providing the media with the hook “that his refusal to speak is proof of his revisionist beliefs” or simply to lie. Williamson made his choice. Whether we agree or not is neither here nor there.
In the past, nearly two decades earlier in Canada, Williamson made “controversial comments” on the same subject at what was understood to be a private meeting of Catholics. A journalist, however, found out and made a story out of it. The relevance of this episode is that the attitude of Archbishop Lefebvre contrasts remarkably with that of Bishop Fellay. The first just ignored the “controversy,” treating a secular and anti-Catholic media with total disdain, and the matter quickly became a dead issue. The latter played to the media gallery, broke corporate unity with his brother in the episcopacy (specifically warned against by Archbishop Lefebvre during the 1988 consecrations), and turned what should have been a molehill into a mountain.
Krah is instructed to find an attorney to defend Williamson. He opts for Matthias Lossmann as defense attorney, a strange choice. It is strange, because Lossmann is a member of the extremist Die Grünen party (The Greens), an organization that is well-known in Germany as a water melon: green on the outside, red on the inside. A party that is pro-feminist, pro-homosexual, pro-abortion and harbors Daniel Cohn-Bendit, a member of the European Parliament in its ranks. Besides his frontline involvement in the 1968 Red turbulence in the universities in France, he is a known advocate of pedophilia, as his autobiography demonstrates. What was Krah thinking of, then, in choosing such an attorney to represent a Catholic bishop? Was Lossmann really the only attorney in Germany prepared to take this case?
Krah’s choice is strange for a second reason. Krah is a member of a political party, but not the Greens. Krah is a prominent political activist and officer in Dresden, in the east of Germany, of the liberal, pro-abortion, pro-homosexual Christian Democratic Union, led by Angela Merkel. Chancellor Merkel also comes from the east of Germany and is commonly referred to in that country as “Stasi-Merkel” after revelations and photographic evidence came to light hinting that she was recruited and formed by the Stasi, the former East German State Secret Police; a common approach made to young people, particularly those seeking professional careers, in the former Communist State of the German Democratic Republic. The same Merkel that publicly reproached Benedict XVI for having lifted the so-called “excommunication” of “holocaust denier” Williamson, and demanded that the Pope reverse the decision.
Krah is pictured on the editorial page, page 3, of a CDU publication, of May 2006, in the link below:
Link: Die Dresdner Union, May 2006. http://www.cdu-dresden.de/index.php?mo=mc_...40107b868a48%7D
He portrays himself in the journal as some kind of Christian (though we are informed via SSPX faithful that he attends the SSPX chapel in Dresden), yet chooses an attorney for Williamson that could not have been worse.
Remember, too, that after the first Der Spiegel hatchet job on Williamson, Krah turned up at the British HQ of the SSPX in London at short notice and sought to get Williamson to do a second interview with the disreputable magazine. Williamson refused to do so, in spite of the fact that Krah had come with these journalists with the express sanction of Bishop Fellay! How in God’s name could Mgr. Fellay have thought that a second bite at the apple by Der Spiegel journalists would help the cause of Williamson or the SSPX? Go figure.
Moreover, consider the approach of both Krah and Lossmann in Williamson’s first trial. There was no attempt to defend him, though it is plain that Williamson had not broken German law, contrary to public perceptions generated by the media. What occurred, according to non-Catholics who attended the trial, was a shocking parody of a defense: Krah, unctuous, smug and mocking in respect of the bishop; Lossmann, weak, hesitating, insipid. Both effectively “conceded” Williamson’s “guilt,” but nevertheless argued for “leniency.” At no time did they address the legal questions at hand, questions that did not relate directly to the “Holocaust” and its veracity or otherwise, but as to whether or not the provisions of the law actually applied to the Williamson case. In other words, a Caiphas defense.
Link: American Friends of Tel Aviv University http://www.aftau.org/site/PageServer?pagen...0_AlumniAuction
The attendees of this fundraising party are alumni of Tel Aviv University. They are raising scholarship funds to assist diasporan Jews to travel to the Zionist State of Israel to receive a formation at Tel Aviv University. Look at the photographs. Every single person is identified and every single one is clearly Jewish. There is no problem whatever with this, Krah included.
1) Were you aware that Maximilian Krah, who currently has significant power and influence in important areas of the internal workings of the SSPX, was Jewish when he was taken into your confidence?
4) Why does Krah, who is not a cleric of the SSPX or even a longtime supporter of the Society, have such singular power to handle SSPX funds?
5) Who are the shareholders of Dello Sarto AG? Are they all clergy of the SSPX or related congregations? Are the shares transferable through purchase? In the event of the death, defection or resignation of a shareholder, how are the shares distributed? Who in any of these cases has the power to confer, designate, sell or otherwise dispose of these shares? You? The Bursar? The Manager? The Board Members? The General Council?
6) Why is the Society of Saint Pius X engaged in financial activities which may be common in modern society, but which are hardly likely to be in conformity with Church teaching pertaining to money, its nature, its use and its ends?
7) Why was Krah allowed to keep the pot boiling in the “Williamson Affair” by arranging interviews and providing stories for Der Spiegel magazine? How could an alleged Christian Democrat be the intermediary with a notorious communist journal?
8) Why was Krah permitted to impose upon your brother bishop an attorney belonging to the extreme left-wing Die Grünen?
9) Why was your brother bishop threatened with expulsion from SSPX for merely hiring an attorney who was actually interested in fighting the unjust and ridiculous charge of incitement? Is it not the case that those of the Household of the Faith must take precedence over those who are without?
For those who think that the writer is muckraking, I would like to point out that it was me that made public the impending sell-out of the Transalpine Redemptorists several months before it took place. I received brickbats for the relevant post at the time, and some calumniated me – but I was shown to be correct after a short period. This writer has not posted anywhere since that time. He does so now because he possesses information, as he did in regard to the Redemptorists, which needed to be made known widely for the good of Catholic Tradition. Nothing would please me more than to have Bishop Fellay answer these serious questions and put Catholic minds everywhere at rest.
10) Can you explain why your public attitude to Williamson has changed, why you have continuously belittled him in public – while he has not responded in kind at any time?
11) What do you intend to do about Mr. Krah given that his position within the Society is one of influence, but who cannot seriously be regarded as someone who has the best interests of Catholic Tradition at heart? Will you move as quickly to resolve this question as you have in respect of Williamson?
There is no malice meant or intended in this communication. There is quite simply a tremendous fear for the future of the SSPX and its direction
2) Who introduced, or recommended, Maximilian Krah in his professional capacity to the Society of Saint Pius X?
3) If you were not aware of Krah’s background and political connections, why was he not carefully investigated before being brought into the inner-circle and inner-workings of SSPX?
However, Krah is at the financial center of the SSPX; he has done no favors to Williamson and his case by his statements and actions; and may be responsible for things yet unknown or unseen.
Since his arrival on the scene, traditionalists have witnessed
1) The abrupt disappearance of important theological articles from District websites regarding Judaism and the pivotal role played by our “elder brothers,” as Bishop Fellay referred to them this year, in Finance, Freemasonry and Communism, none of which could have been construed as “anti-semitic” by the time honored standards of the Catholic Church.
2) Bishop Williamson being continuously and publicly denigrated, humiliated and grossly insulted.
3) The communist journal, Der Spiegel, being favored with arranged interviews and stories to keep the “Williamson Affair” on-the-boil, thereby tending toward the “marginalization” of Williamson.
4) A scandalous and erroneous article being published in The Angelus, in which the faithful were taught that a Talmudic rabbi was a saint, and that the said rabbi was positively instrumental in preparing the Incarnation of Our Lord Jesus Christ and the conversion of St. Paul.
All these facts combined necessarily raise a whole series of questions. These questions can only be answered by those in a position to know all the facts. In this case that person is Bishop Fellay, since he is the Superior General, has unrestricted access to all aspects of the Society’s work, and obviously has taken Mr. Krah into his confidence on both the financial and legal levels.
This writer is making no accusations or insinuations against Bishop Fellay at any level. He is simply requesting that he make public reply to the following questions in order that the doubt and worry, which is widespread among the clergy and faithful since the events of last year, is allayed, and soothed by the balm of Truth.
It can, therefore, come as no surprise that Williamson decided to appeal the Court’s decision, and to engage an independent attorney who would address the actual legal questions of the case. That Bishop Fellay, on the basis of media reports, ordered him publicly to sack this attorney or face expulsion is a great surprise, one might even say a scandal, for such situations require knowledge of all the facts, serious reflection, and sagacity. The Press Communiqué demonstrated none of these requirements, and merely represented one more example of Bishop Fellay’s unexplained public hostility to Mgr. Williamson. It is significant that the DICI statement referred to Williamson’s new attorney as someone who was associated with “neo-nazis,” this being a reference to the German National Democrats, an organization that has been in existence for about 50 years and has elected members in some regional German parliaments. If it had been “Nazi” it would have been banned under the German Constitution a long time ago – as many such groups have found out over the years in Germany. Moreover, while DICI chose the term “neo-nazi,” the British Daily Telegraph chose “far right,” as did those well-known anti-semitic journals, The Jerusalem Post and Haaretz.
Did Krah have an input into this communiqué? We cannot know for sure, but we do know something about Krah that is not common knowledge. Maximilian Krah is Jewish. He presents himself as some sort of ‘Christian’ in the link provided above, yet we find a more revealing picture of Maximilian Krah, at this link below, in attendance at a fundraising event in New York during September 2010.
Those murdered by the British forces in Derry were remembered yesterday.
Thousands of people have taken part in what is expected to be the last march to commemorate the events of Bloody Sunday in Derry.
It was the first mass demonstration since the Saville report last year exonerated the 14 people killed by British paratroopers who opened fire on a civil rights march in 1972.
After the actions of the soldiers were found to be "unjustified and unjustifiable" -- sparking an apology from British prime minister David Cameron -- the crowds that gathered in Derry marched behind a banner bearing the word "vindicated".
Despite calls from some bereaved relatives for the annual march to be continued, most are said to have backed proposals to bring the event to an end, with alternative commemorations to be chosen instead.
"This time last year we were waiting for Saville," he said.
"We got Saville on June 15 and certainly there is a major change in the atmosphere of the people here."
The day began with a wreath-laying ceremony, where speakers included Presbyterian clergyman Reverend David Latimer, who expressed hopes that healing the pain of Bloody Sunday could help unite the divided Protestant and Catholic communities.
A relatively small number of people, including some bereaved relatives, broke off from the main parade as part of their call for the annual demonstration to continue.
Options to mark future anniversaries of the shootings include a remembrance ceremony, religious service or a yearly human rights event.
Sunday, 30 January 2011
The Sovereign Independent are correct to point out the lies of Enda Kenny and Fine Gael in relation to the upcoming election. Remember what Fine Gael promised during the campaign on the Lisbon Treaty. Who can trust Enda Kenny and Fine Gael now? They are politicians and the Irish people and Ireland can do better. Again the lies of the political establishment are exposed.
Fine Gael jobs pledge ahead of election…’Now Enda, Were Have We Heard That Crap Before, Remember Your Lisbon 2 Campaign, Lies Lies Lies And More Bleedin Lies’
Fine Gael will create 80,000 jobs over the next four years if returned to power, party leader Enda Kenny vowed today.
Launching his election campaign, Mr Kenny also promised a completely new health service, low taxes and a smaller Oireachtas.
“It’s a sensible plan, a realistic plan, to get people working, to get systems working, to get government working,” he said.
The party claims it can create 20,000 jobs every year until 2014 through a cut in employers’ PRSI and welfare reform.
It would use €7bn from State pension funds and the sell-off of State assets to fund infrastructure projects.
I think it was Veritas that posted that Jaidhofer Privatstiftung was incorporated in 2006. However, at the website http://www.boerse-express.com/neugruendungen? searching on "Jaidhofer" under the "Firmensuche" heading brings up:-
Jaidhofer Privatstiftung St. Josef und Marcellus (321626f)
1010 Wien, Plankengasse 7
Very curious...it lists the company start up on the 14-1-09 unless I'm mistaken ... same week as the start date of "Dello Sarto AG"
These details are confirmed on another site: http://firmenbuch.unternehmen24.info/anfrage/321626f
"Firmenbuch-Nummer: FN 321626f
Firmenname: Jaidhofer Privatstiftung St. Josef und Marcellus
Gericht: HG Wien
Adresse: 1010 Wien, Plankengasse 7 : Wien - Österreich - Austria
No details on www.moneyhouse.ch and the above site wants a fee for any other searches.
The next statement by me is non-factual and speculative (which I know is not required, but others may know the means to search this): I wonder if there were any other start-ups of SSPX companies in other Countries, at or around the start-up of Dello Sarto AG in Switzerland, and Jaidhofer Privstiftung in Austria??
We are happy to republish a letter being sent to Boots in Ireland. Thought and Action has already called for a boycott of Boots and this Zionist establishment is not deserving of support. We commend the NUIG Life Society for taking this lead and action against Boots. Take action against Boots, TODAY.
The following is their letter:
To Whom It May Concern,
We, the members of ________________, request that you cease selling the morning- after pill (also known as ‘emergency contraception’) and remove it from your shop in_________. In conjunction with pro-life groups all over Ireland, we hope you will urge your managers, owners, and executives to withdraw the morning-after pill from all Boots stores in Ireland. If necessary, we will step up our campaign and take further action to ensure that the morning-after pill is no longer offered for sale in your chain.
The reasons for our opposition to the pill are as follows:
1. The pill can and does cause early abortions. If conception has already occurred (perhaps due to delay in taking the pill), the tiny human life within the mother’s body will be threatened. By softening the lining of the woman’s uterus, the pill may prevent implantation and the woman may subsequently miscarry without being aware of it.
2. The morning-after pill is poisonous to women. It can cause serious side effects such as liver disorders, gallbladder disease, high blood pressure, and blood clots in the heart, intestines, and lungs. After using the pill, many women suffer from nausea, vomiting, dizziness, diarrhoea, abdominal pain, headache, irregular bleeding and breast tenderness. It causes serious health complications in women suffering from diabetes, heart diseases or migraine. Adverse effects have also been reported in women who are over 35 years of age and have cardiovascular disorders. Incidences of deep vein thrombosis, liver problems and breast cancer were associated with this group.
3. The use of morning-after pill raises the risk of an ectopic pregnancy. In such a pregnancy, the embryo gets lodged in the fallopian tubes rather than the womb. If one uses the morning-after pill, the pregnancy can remain undetected. This is because the symptoms of ectopic pregnancy are similar to the side effects of the pills: nausea and abdominal pain. If an ectopic pregnancy remains undetected, it can prove to be fatal.
4. Studies have shown that the use of the morning after pill increases the risk of miscarriage in subsequent pregnancies.
5. Emergency ‘contraceptive’ pills also have a wider social impact. The easy over-the-counter access to the morning-after pill raises questions about its misuse. Far from empowering women, unregulated access to contraception/abortifacients in Ireland has and will lead to an increase in promiscuity, sexually transmitted infections (STIs) and increased sexual violence against vulnerable women.
The Irish College of General Practitioners (ICGP), the body comprising over 90 per cent of Irish GPs, came out strongly against the Boots move. Dr. Mel Bates, the Chair of ICGP, stated: ‘Women should be offered advice about contraception and sexually transmitted infections not just given the pill. When you increase availability like that or you advertise it, you increase demand. If GPs advertised it, I’d have the same misgivings . . . there can be an overuse and the only one it benefits is manufacturers, GPs and pharmacists.’
We look forward to your favourable response.
The weekly column from Bishop Richard Williamson SSPX.
ELEISON COMMENTS CLXXXV (Jan. 29, 2011) : TRADITIONAL INFECTION
Liberalism is an unbelievable disease, capable of rotting out the best hearts and minds. If we define it, most briefly, as the liberation of man from God, it is as old as the hills, but never has it been so deep or widespread or seemingly normal, as it is today. Now religious liberty is at the heart of liberalism -- what use is it to be free from everything else and everybody else if I am not free from God ? So if Benedict XVI lamented three weeks ago that "religious freedom is threatened all over the world", he is certainly infected. Nor let even followers of Catholic Tradition be confident that they have immunity from the disease. Here is an e-mail I received a few days ago from a layman in Continental Europe:--
"For the longest time, about 20 years, I was moulded by liberalism. It is through the grace of God that I underwent a conversion with the Society of St Pius X. To my shock I have found liberal behaviour even in the ranks of Tradition. People are still saying that one should not exaggerate how bad things are at present. Freemasonry is hardly mentioned as being an enemy of the Church, because to do so might damage one's personal interests, so people go on reacting as though, overall, the world is still in good shape.
"Some Traditionalists even recommend psycho-drugs to deal with the stress that goes with being a Traditional Catholic, and if you are looking for happiness, they say, you should go to a medical doctor to make life easier.
"The consequence of such behaviour is an indifferentism which is the seed-bed of liberalism. All of a sudden it is no longer so bad to attend the Novus Ordo Mass, to make common cause with modernists, to change one's principles from one day to the next, to give up showing one's faith in public, to study at a State university, to trust the State, and to act on the assumption that everybody does after all mean well.
"Our Lord has harsh words for this sort of indifferentism : the lukewarm he will "begin to spit out of his mouth" (Rev. III, 16). It may sound paradoxical, but the greatest enemies of the Church are liberal Catholics. There is even a liberal Traditionalism !!!" (end of layman's quote).
What then is the antidote for this poison that threatens every one of us ? Sanctifying grace, no doubt (Rom.VII, 25), which can clear the mind of confusion, and strengthen the will to do what the mind sees to be right. And how do I make sure of sanctifying grace ? That is a little like asking, how can I guarantee my final perseverance ? The Church teaches that one cannot guarantee it, because it is a gift - or the gift -- of God. But what I can always do is pray the Holy Rosary, an average of five Mysteries a day - better, if reasonably possible, fifteen. Whosoever does that is doing what the Mother of God asks all of us to do, and she has a virtually unlimited maternal power over her Son, Our Lord and God, Jesus Christ.
Saturday, 29 January 2011
Friday, 28 January 2011
Many thanks to ISOC for putting on these conferences.
"We can't begin to thank you for the wonderful 'Restoration' weekend. It was a blessing, healing, strengthening of our souls, minds and bodies. We came away renewed and with hope and faith in that we are not abandoned by God and are two of an ever growing 'remnant' which will persevere. "We soaked up every prayer, every word and every moment like two thirsty sponges. Our souls are restored. "In our prayers we thank God, Our Blessed Mother and you for making all this possible."
Ed & Rosemary Kotter, Sedona, AZ
Following the first "In the Spirit of Chartres" Committe's Pilgrimage, ISOC organized the first of four annual major three-day conferences. Hundreds of attendees from the United States and beyond, for example England and Argentina, had the privilege of hearing some of the countries foremost traditional Catholic speakers and scholars. Each conference had a theme and attendees were provided presentations on a myriad of topics concerning the current state of the Church and the fight for Catholic Truth.
Video tapes of the CRC IV Roundtables are also availabe.
And if you'd like to organize a conference in your hometown and need help, give ISOC a call at 757-925-7904. We'd be happy to help.
Thursday, 27 January 2011
The following is a google translation from the original French.
Sunday 23rd January
The "old" to me stating: Having my good behavior in prison, given the training that I followed, saw the course as I found out I was going to receive at least 30 days of remission additional [PR].
Some even tells me 45 days (about 63, at most, only I could be granted).
They did not know yet the nature of my "crime". And indeed, the result was announced me yesterday: "We, Jean-Paul Marichal, J. Application of penalties at TGI Valenciennes, make no further reduction in sentence Reynouard Vincent [...]. For the following reasons: refusal [to compensate the plaintiff] Refuse to work [in prison]. "
The second reason is totally false. I have never refused to work in prison, I leave my place to be indigent in need of money, or to prisoners who have no occupation cell and take the opportunity to go to work time. Lorqui, moreover, I announced my decision to the warden, it was perfectly understood and supported my approach based primarily on love of neighbor.
(...) In short, it's an open secret: the decision of the Japanese is primarily ideological in nature: no mercy for these heretics are the modern revisionists, especially when sticking to their guns, what I did refusing to pay the civil parties and not hiding in interviews broadcast on the Net, my desire to continue the struggle for historical truth (even if we now avoid falling within the scope of the law Gayssot this Internet and some strategies can easily).
Admittedly, my heart aches thinking about my wonderful wife who, in a state of extreme exhaustion, fighting for our 8 children suffer the least possible without their father. Without his exceptional determination and without your generosity, God knows where she is.
Unable to answer us on the intellectual level, our opponents attack to the wallet and rely on family needs to break you down. I bet that if I had paid the plaintiffs and wrote a letter of repentance, I am now on the threshold of freedom, the Japanese love me given my 63-day PHI. But no, then it does not give me nothing, hoping that I get tired or my family will finally be destroyed. "Reynouard! You keep as much as possible in prison regardless of whether you have a large family and your wife is almost destitute. The prisons are full? Whatever. You've found an internship? Whatever. You may receive an electronic bracelet under a recent law? Whatever ... "
Yes, my heart aches thinking of Marina and our eight children, but I console myself by saying that their sacrifice will be heavy passenger and in exchange the cause of truth will be strengthened. For, later, the fanatics of Memory agree say: "You pretend to have plenty of evidence and you were reduced to whether unfair methods of combat against a person who demanded a public debate?"
Unwittingly, therefore, JP Marichal has rendered an immense service to the cause that we defend. If I had received 30, 40 or 50 days PHI, the message was clear: "You persist in your delusions, Reynouard, but you are so insignificant and pathetic if you break it anyway, so release from prison and a place to put a truly dangerous individual to society. "
By not giving me anything, not even a day of RPS (when I saw my friends Gypsies, seasoned burglars, benefit from 10 out of 30 they could hope ...), the Japanese Valenciennes confirmed, although involuntarily, our "dangerous" intellectual, thus the rightness of our cause.
This zero-day PHI is a new part to be paid in the evidence against the fanatics of Memory. That is why, far from being slaughtered by this decision, I'm calm now. I just ask you, my friends, not to give up my wonderful wife, the only real hero in this race we are experiencing. Show our opponents that their unfair methods - proof of their lies - no longer work and will eventually turn against them.
A few days ago I was rereading the book of "Proverbs" in the Bible. One of them states: "The first to plead his cause seems right, come the party and she will ask for evidence" (Proverbs, ch. 18, verse 17). When you throw in jail those who demand evidence is that it has none at present ... This is what history will remember, and that alone counts.
I am in prison but I sleep well, peace of conscience. I prefer to be me rather than that of my opponents live liar worried about being discovered to be painful, much more painful that being locked in 8 m2.
Thank you all. Count on me to continue ...
The Party System
The Party System, co-authored by Hilaire Belloc and the brother of G.K.Chesterton, is a frontal assault on parliamentary democracy. The authors favor representative government but argue convincingly that modern Parliaments and Congresses are the antithesis of true representation. Bearing out what is illustrated by the current political paralysis on almost every important social question from war to poverty to finance, this book reads like it was written as an answer to today’s problems. A welcome breath of fresh air
Wednesday, 26 January 2011
REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE FROM THOSE WHO LOVE CATHOLIC TRADITION
The Krahgate Team, for want of a better term, is an informal body that is determined to get answers to the many troubling questions raised by the initial posting of “William of Norwich” on November 28, 2010.
These questions, let it be always remembered, are centred upon Maximilian Krah and his meteoric rise in importance in the internal work of the SSPX in Germany, Austria and Switzerland, most specially in relation to finance, administrative “asset management” and legal matters.
These questions are only tangentially and incidentally related to Mgr. Williamson, and whether one likes or dislikes him, agrees or disagrees with him on any subject, is not relevant to the work of the team.
The work of the team is concentrated on why Krah has emerged, what he is involved in, and why he has received patronage at high level. That many reasonable questions, backed by irrefutable evidence in the public domain, have been posed and not responded to only adds to the suspicion that replies have not been forthcoming because the truth would be something less than edifying.
There is no campaign against Mgr. Fellay, no campaign against Menzingen. There is a campaign, however, for the truth to be known, and this truth will be eventually made known.
Many of the team are unknown to one another beyond email contact, contact often being maintained between intermediaries. The team includes both members of the laity and the clergy, and membership remains permanently open. The sole qualification for entry is the supplying of information that is substantiated and verifiable on a host of questions, large and small, that are deemed important in piecing together the picture that has begun to emerge in the Catholic blogosphere in the last two months.
The team is, also, drawn from four continents (at least to this writer’s knowledge) and so draws upon a range of different language capabilities.
We invite, then, any assistance, direct or indirect, indicative or substantive, that will help fill out the information void on the following questions. These questions are not exhaustive, but are only the beginning of the process. If or when new information appears necessary, new requests for assistance will be made in this file.
Information is needed on the evangelical Protestant school that Krah attended in East Germany, a school set up in 1947 in Dresden with the approval of the East German Communist Party; one of the most fanatically anti-Catholic and anti-Christian Communist Parties in the European communist world. It is all the more strange that Dresden, which had been almost completely flattened by Allied bombing, should have been chosen for a school since millions of Germans were without shelter, were living in bombed-out ruins and the rebuilding programme was slow to take off. It also should be noted that the building – which survived the bombardment – was handed over to the “evangelical Protestants” although it had previously belonged to the Masonic order.
QUESTION: WHY WOULD COMMUNIST ATHEISTS HAND OVER A VALUABLE SHELTER TO EVANGELICAL PROTESTANTS?
QUESTION: WHO GAVE THE ORDER TO APPROVE THIS SCHOOL? WHO PRESIDED OVER THE RUNNING OF THE SCHOOL? WHO FINANCED THE SCHOOL? WHERE DID THE PUPILS COME FROM, AND WHAT WAS THE CRITERIA FOR THEIR SELECTION?
QUESTION: IS THERE ANY INDICATION THAT FORMER STUDENTS OF THIS SCHOOL – AT ANY TIME FROM ITS FOUNDATION TO THE PRESENT DAY - WENT ON TO SUCCESSFUL CAREERS IN THE EAST GERMAN REPUBLIC IN THE FIELDS OF FINANCE, LAW, POLITICS, RELIGION, EDUCATION AND ECONOMICS? ARE ANY POSSIBLE CANDIDATES NOW AT WORK IN THE REUNITED GERMANY?
In his application to EMBA-GLOBAL, the elitist international business school with structures in London and Columbia University, Maximilian Krah gave written evidence to the business school’s administrative body that he worked for the Jaidhofer Privatstiftung. He listed himself as being “a Board delegate.” This Austrian Foundation has little internet presence, is controlled by the SSPX, but the purpose of its existence is not public knowledge.
QUESTION: WHY DID MR. KRAH GIVE THE FOUNDATION AS HIS EMPLOYER, WHEN IT IS ON PUBLIC RECORD – SEE THE INITIAL POSTING IN THE COMPLETE KRAHGATE FILE – THAT HE IS LISTED AS THE MANAGER OF ANOTHER SSPX-CONTROLLED ENTITY, “DELLO SARTO,” AND IS ALSO A PARTNER IN A LEGAL FIRM IN DRESDEN, AS WELL AS ON THE BOARD OF LAETITIA AG WHOSE ORIGINS AND PURPOSE ARE OPAQUE TO SAY THE LEAST?
QUESTION: DOES MR. KRAH RECEIVE A SALARY OR STIPEND FROM EITHER THE FOUNDATION and/OR “DELLO SARTO”?
QUESTION: HOW CREDIBLE IS IT THAT MR. KRAH, A FAMILY MAN – SEE HIS “REPLY” IN THE COMPLETE KRAHGATE FILE – RUNS A LEGAL BUSINESS IN DRESDEN, “DELLO SARTO” IN SWITZERLAND, THE JAIDHOFER PRIVATSTIFTUNG IN AUSTRIA, LAETITIA AG IN SWITZERLAND, SPENDS 3 OR 4 DAYS PER MONTH IN LONDON OR NEW YORK IN ROTATION, AND REMAINS AS AN ACTIVE OFFICIAL IN THE DRESDEN BRANCH OF THE GERMAN CDU PARTY?
Our research indicates that there appears to be some kind of connection between “Dello Sarto” and the Jaidhofer Privatstiftung, although they are based in two different countries and are therefore subject to different legal jurisdictions.
QUESTION: DOES A GERMAN LAWYER HAVE A RIGHT TO PRACTISE HIS PROFESSION IN AUSTRIA AND/OR SWITZERLAND AUTOMATICALLY, OR DOES SOME KIND OF ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL HAVE TO TAKE PLACE IN ONE OR BOTH OF THESE TWO COUNTRIES?
QUESTION: WHAT IS THE AIM AND PURPOSE OF THE JAIDHOFER PRIVATSTIFTUNG? WHO, BESIDES MR. KRAH, SITS ON THE BOARD? ARE THE OTHER BOARD MEMBERS EXCLUSIVELY CLERICAL, OR ARE OTHER LAYMEN/WOMEN INVOLVED?
QUESTION: DOES THE DISTRICT SUPERIOR OF AUSTRIA HAVE AN AUTOMATIC POSITION ON THE BOARD OF THE FOUNDATION GIVEN THAT THE FOUNDATION IS WITHIN THE DISTRICT? IF NOT, WHY NOT?
QUESTION: ARE THE OTHER MEMBERS OF THE FOUNDATION’S BOARD, BESIDES MR. KRAH, AUSTRIAN? IF NOT, WHY NOT GIVEN THAT THE FOUNDATION IS WITHIN THE AUSTRIAN DISTRICT?
Much play has been made by Fr. Laisney and others – see “A Reply from Fr. Laisney” in the Complete Krahgate File – of the legal competence and assistance of Mr. Krah. It is this alleged competence and assistance which has, we are told, led to him being appointed the primary legal point of reference for the German district of the SSPX. It appears that Mr. Krah qualified as a lawyer in 2001, and yet is in a commanding position within SSPX structures within a five years or so:
QUESTION: IN WHAT FIELD OF LAW DOES MR. KRAH SPECIALISE?
QUESTION: WHAT CASES DID MR. KRAH UNDERTAKE IN THE EARLY DAYS FOR THE SPPX WHICH DREW ATTENTION TO HIS ALLEGED COMPETENCE? WERE THE SAID CASES ONLY IN DRESDEN, OR DID THEY EXTEND TO THE WHOLE OF GERMANY?
CONCLUSION: Help, however minor it might appear, in relation to any question, in whole or in part, will be most welcome. Remember that: while vital and disturbing questions remain unanswered by those in a position (laymen, laywomen, priest or bishop) to furnish those answers to the faithful who are the raison d’être of the SSPX, Catholic Tradition remains at risk. Vatican II was not the cause of subversive Modernism, but the long-prepared fruit of subversion by Modernists working in the dark at all levels of the Church.
Tuesday, 25 January 2011
A prayer vigil outside the Family Planning Clinic in Limerick featured on the RTE Radio show ‘Liveline’. Hopefully these protests continue and more people are encouraged to attend the prayer vigils. The Friars of the Renewal and other groups organise these events on a regular basis. The truth about abortion/contraception will be told.
This individual needs to be caught and serve his prison sentence in his country of origin.
GARDAI are investigating a complaint by an 18-year-old student that she was subjected to a terrifying ordeal by a taxi driver over an alleged debt of 50 cent.
The Limerick woman, who is a first-year student at NUI Galway, was recovering at her family home over the weekend after being driven away in the back of a taxi, without knowing where she was being taken.
Liz (not her real name) and three friends had taken a taxi on the five-minute journey from their accommodation to Eyre Square, in the centre of Galway city, last Thursday.
The trip always costs €8 and the women had each paid €2 and were getting out of the taxi when the driver started to shout at them, said Liz.
She was the only passenger remaining when the driver, who is a foreign national, drove off.
"He was shouting. He seemed to be saying that I owed him 50 cent. My friends got a terrible fright and contacted gardai who were at Eyre Square.
"The driver drove around for 10 minutes, shouting," said the shaken student.
Liz got a call on her mobile from one of her anxious friends and she put it on speaker phone to let the driver know gardai had been alerted.
Liz said she did not have any change and only had a €50 note, which she threw at the driver. When he halted the car to pick it up she fled from the vehicle.
- Brian McDonald
Monday, 24 January 2011
The Sovereign Independent have re-posted a blog post from Caroline Simons.
There was an interesting clash last week between columnists Fintan O’Toole (FOT) and Kevin Myers(KM) on our resources. FOT believes that we have significant oil and gas in our waters, and that the Irish people should get a fair return on them.There seems to be a story here, but the papers have taken a position, and I have been unable to get my response printed. Link to the articles and the only letter published in response follow -
Letter from Irish Offshore Operators Association in response
My letter sent to the Independent (similar sent to Irish Times – neither published) -
Re Kevin Myers column of 7 January ‘oil conjures up every lazy stereotype etc’. One wonders if Mr Myers’ lack of reporting of oil finds and the state of prospecting in Irish waters is an omission, or an example of his own laziness.
How about some facts? Serica plc struck oil off Achill in May 2009. It has since acquired licences to 2025 over additional acreage. Providence Resources has frontier licences in the Porcupine running to 2020. They reported in November that new data suggests their field at Spanish Point contains as much as 200 million barrels of oil and gas. Providence also has a licensing option to August 2011 over the Dalkey Island prospect. (Is the rig which has arrived in Dublin bay theirs?). Studies of the area suggest there will be gas and oil finds there also. It obtained a licence over Rathlin Island in October 2010.
Oil and gas companies have been given frontier licences to 2025. The remaining 250,000km2 of our seabed is up for grabs. In November Minister Conor Lenihan unveiled the Atlas Of Ireland’s deepwater seabed, a resource which should inform our future licensing.
Norwegians, through their State company Statoil, own more than a third of the Corrib gas field. Because of political incompetence we own none. The terms given to the oil companies have resulted in little drilling. Finds have been played down so that further acreage and ever more favourable terms have been given.
An independent Indecon report of 2007 assessed the value of our oil and gas offshore and our resources onshore at €430 billion. Mr Myers might note that in the six months to June 2010, 55 onshore prospecting mineral licences were granted. Many of these are for precious metals like gold, silver and platinum. Since August 2009, licences have been granted in 22 areas to prospect for rare earth elements. These are hugely valuable, and are used in everything hi-tech from mobile phones to space shuttles.
Could it be that the holders of all these licences know a thing or two? I believe we have vast natural resources. While I appreciate the need to incentivise the companies which risk their capital, it has never been more important that we examine the terms given to those companies, and their observation of them, and ensure an equitable return to the Irish people.
Is the platform reported in the IT today to be carrying out investigations for water treatment either of those licensed by the authorities to do so? According to the report the licensed platforms are named ‘Aran 250′ and ‘Excalibur’. The platform photographed in the Irish Times piece appears to have a different name.
I can’t help my curiosity – particularly given the vulnerability of our assets and revenues as collateral under the IMF and ECB/ EU Commission loans. (See my blog entry 3 December 2010)
The Spanish speaking world continue to read and discuss ‘El Krahgate’. There is now a Spanish section on the leading internet forum, Ignis Ardens. Our Spanish readers and friends can bookmark the following url.
El Krahgate, Espanol
Maximiliano Krah y Menzingen: ¿una causa de grave preocupación?
Sunday, 23 January 2011
The weekly column of Bishop Richard Williamson SSPX
ELEISON COMMENTS CLXXXIV (Jan. 22, 2011) : FEW ELECT ?
Why is it so seemingly difficult to save one's soul ? Why - as we are told - are few souls saved in comparison with the number of souls damned ? Since God wishes for all souls to be saved (I Tim.II, 4), why did he not make it somewhat easier, as he surely could have done ?
The swift and simple answer is that it is not that difficult to save one's soul. Part of the agony of souls in Hell is their clear knowledge of how easily they could have avoided damnation. Damned non-Catholics might say, "I knew there was something to Catholicism, but I chose never to go into the question because I could see ahead that I would have to change my way of life." (Winston Churchill once said that every man runs into the truth at some time in his life, but most men turn the other way.) Damned Catholics might say, "God gave me the Faith, and I knew that all I needed was to make a good confession, but I reckoned it was more convenient to put it off, and so I died in my sins..." Every soul in Hell knows that it is there by its own fault, by its own choice. God is not to be blamed. In fact looking back on their lives on earth, they see clearly how much he did to try to stop them from throwing themselves into Hell, but they freely chose their own fate, and God respected that choice... However, let us delve a little deeper.
Being infinitely good, infinitely generous and infinitely happy, God chose -- he was in no way obliged - to create beings that would be capable of sharing in his happiness. Since he is pure spirit (Jn. IV, 24), such beings would have to be spiritual and not just material, such as animal, vegetable or mineral. Hence the creation of angels with no matter in them at all, and men, with a spiritual soul in a material body. But that very spirit by which angels and men are capable of sharing in divine happiness necessarily includes reason and free-will, indeed it is by the free-will freely choosing God that it deserves to share in his happiness. But how could that choice of God be truly free if there was no alternative to choose that would turn away from God ? What merit does a boy have in choosing to buy a volume of Shakespeare if there is only Shakespeare for sale in the bookstore ? And if the bad alternative exists, and if the free-will is real and not just a pretence, how are there not going to be angels or men who will choose what is not good ?
The question may still be asked, how can God have foreseen to allow the majority of souls (Mt.VII, 13-14; XX, 16) to incur the terrible punishment of refusing his love ? Answer, the more terrible Hell is, the more certain it is that to every man alive God offers grace and light and strength enough to avoid it, but, as St Thomas Aquinas explains, the majority of men prefer the present and known joys of the senses to the future and unknown joys of Paradise. Then why did God attach such strong pleasures to the senses ? Partly no doubt to ensure that parents would have children to populate his Heaven, but also surely to make all the more meritorious any human being's putting the pursuit of pleasure in this life beneath the true delights of the next life, which are ours for the wanting ! We need only want them violently enough (Mt.XI, 12) !
God is no mediocre God, and to souls loving him he wishes to offer no mediocre Paradise.
Friday, 21 January 2011
Thursday, 20 January 2011
Kevin Barry was born on this day in 1902. He was 18 when executed by the British in 1920 in Mountjoy Jail in Dublin.
Over 5,000 gathered outside the prison on the day of his execution and prayed the rosary and sang hymns.
Immigration continues in Ireland and cheap foreign labour means the Irish working man is unemployed in his own town.
MORE than 1,000 people a week are being forced to leave the country in a desperate bid to find work abroad.
The extent of the emigration crisis -- the worst in the history of the State -- is revealed today in a major new report by the State's economic think-tank.
Up to 60,000 people will have left the country between April 2010 and this April, alarming new figures by the Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI) show.
Just 44,000 emigrated in 1989 when the last recession reached its peak.
According to the forecasts, Ireland will lose the equivalent of the population of Galway city this year and twice the population of Kilkenny city next year.
And the real loss is even higher because some people are still immigrating to Ireland. The ESRI's figures only look at the net figure or how the population changes.
Confirmation of the huge numbers emigrating undermine government claims the unemployment crisis is easing.
Although the numbers on the Live Register have fallen by 30,000 to 437,000 since last August, analysts have claimed this is mainly down to more young people leaving.
The drop in those signing on was most pronounced among under-25s -- the people who are fleeing the country in the largest numbers.
The ESRI's latest quarterly report on the economy holds out little hope for those without a job. Unemployment is forecast to average 13.5pc this year and post a slight drop next year following a "minuscule" rise.
Employment will remain elusive as economic growth is limited to the export sector, which produces few jobs.
Long-term unemployment is now at 6.5pc. Unemployment among the young is particularly severe with more than one- third of 15 to 19-year-olds out of work and more than a quarter of 20 to 24-year-olds.
"The weakness in the labour market for younger people in particular has given rise to the return of emigration and our forecasts envisage a continuation of this," the ESRI report said.
ESRI economist Alan Barrett declined to say how many people are actually leaving the country when immigration is excluded. He also could not say what percentage are Irish and what percentage are foreigners returning home.
A recent investigation by the Irish Independent found almost 46,000 Irish citizens travelled to five key overseas destinations to find work in the last year.
This included almost 24,000 people who headed to Australia on work visas. Another 3,462 people emigrated to Canada, 4,444 went to New Zealand, over 1,700 travelled to the US and 600 headed for Germany.
More than 11,000 people are believed to have emigrated to the UK for work during 2010.
This is based on UK government figures showing 5,500 Irish citizens obtained UK national insurance numbers in the first six months of the year.
Peter Hammond, the director of the London Irish Centre in Camden, last night said most of the new people coming to the centre are in their 20s.
"Most other migrant groups emigrate as families to the UK, the Irish comes in twos and threes," he told the Irish Independent. "There are very few middle-aged people."
Wednesday, 19 January 2011
The ‘Krahgate’ file can be viewed by clicking the link at the top of the blog. This leading Traditional Catholic internet forum also has translations in the main languages.
The Complete Krahgate File
Tuesday, 18 January 2011
Monday, 17 January 2011
Veritas1961, postiert am 4. Dezember 2010
1 ZEITLICHER ABLAUF DER EREIGNISSE UND BEWEGGRÜNDE DER AKTEURE: KRAH UND MENZINGEN- http://z10.invisionfree.com/Ignis_Ardens/i...dpost&p=9641714
Der letzten Samstag von William von Norwich zu diesem Thema ins Internet gestellte Artikel hat hohe Wellen geschlagen und dazu geführt, dass eine ganze Reihe neuer Informationen ans Licht gekommen ist. Einige davon wurden im einen oder anderen Internetbeitrag angefochten, doch ein erheblicher Teil wurde allgemein als unwiderlegbar akzeptiert.
In den letzten paar Tagen habe ich mir die verschiedenen Kommentare und Internetartikel nochmals angesehen und bin dabei zum Ergebnis gelangt, dass der zeitliche Ablauf der Geschehnisse bohrende Fragen aufwirft. Sollte ich mit dieser Einschätzung recht haben, drängen sich schwerwiegende Schlussfolgerungen auf.
Unbestritten ist folgendes: Am Mittwoch den 17. November 2010 setzte sich Matthias Lossmann mit der deutschen Presse-Agentur (DPA) in Verbindung und liess diese wissen, er räume seinen Platz als Verteidiger von Bischof Williamsons einem anderen Anwalt, dessen Namen “in Kürze bekanntgegeben wird…. Sie werden dann sehen, weshalb meine Dienste nicht länger benötigt werden.”
Diese Aussage Lossmanns lässt einen stutzig werden. Weswegen hielt er es für nötig, sich an eine Presseagentur zu wenden und dieser mitzuteilen, er habe mit dem Fall Williamson künftig nichts mehr zu tun? Dass ein Mitglied der politisch superkorrekten Grünen Partei den Zorn der Öffentlichkeit oder der Herrschaften von der Presse auf sich gezogen hat, mag man nicht so recht glauben, um so mehr, als sich Lossmannn während des Gerichtsverfahrens vom April 2010 bis zum Gehnichtmehr von Williamsons Ansichten distanziert hatte. Tatsächlich liess sein Verhalten während des Prozesses keinen Zweifel daran aufkommen, dass er gegen die Interessen seines Mandanten arbeitete. Wir folgern daraus, dass er den Medien mit seiner Mitteilung an die DPA den Ball zugespielt hat, damit diese wieder einmal eine “Kontroverse” heraufbeschwören konnten. Er hätte ganz einfach schweigen und sich damit begnügen können, allfällige Fragen aus dem Stegreif zu beantworten. Doch genau dies tat er nicht – was Bände über seine Motivation spricht, und zwar nicht erst zu diesem späten Zeitpunkt, sondern von Beginn der “Williamson-Affäre” an.
Ebenfalls unbestritten ist, dass der Williamsons neuer Anwalt, Wolfram Nahrath, Donnerstag den 18. November eine Mitteilung an die neue Richterin Birgit Eisvogel sandte, und zwar via ihr persönliches Bürofax. In seiner Botschaft hielt er fest, er handle jetzt im Auftrag Williamsons und beantrage eine Verschiebung des Prozesses, damit rascher über die dabei grundsätzlich zur Debatte stehenden Fragen entschieden werden könne.
Schliesslich steht eindeutig fest, dass sich Stefan Winters von Der Spiegel schon innerhalb einer halben Stunde telefonisch mit Nahrath in Verbindung setzte, weil er bereits wusste, dass Williamson diesen zu seinem neuen Anwalt erkoren hatte. Wer hatte ihm diese Information zugespielt? Etwa die Richterin oder ein anderer Justizbeamter? Beides wäre im Prinzip möglich, aber doch recht unwahrscheinlich, denn nicht einmal Eisvogels Sekretärin wusste, dass Nahrath dieses Fax abgesandt hatte. Wäre das Leck von der Richterin ausgegangen, so hätte diese ihre alsbaldige Entlarvung und zweifellos auch Sanktionen wegen unethischen beruflichen Verhaltens riskiert. Wäre der Schuldige ein Justizbeamter gewesen, so hätte dieser seinen Arbeitsplatz aufs Spiel gesetzt. Man mag hier einwenden, es könnten politische Beweggründe mitgespielt haben. Auch dies wäre grundsätzlich möglich, doch da nicht die Spur eines Beweises dafür vorliegt, dürfen wir diese Variante wohl ruhigen Gewissens ausschliessen.
Wir wissen, dass Lossmann über die Identität des neuen Anwalts im Bild war. Der Grund dafür, dass er sein Amt als Verteidiger niederlegte, bestand darin, dass er nicht imstande oder nicht gewillt war, mit Nahrath zusammenzuarbeiten. Somit gibt es zwei Möglichkeiten: Entweder hat sich Lossmannn selbst mit dem Spiegel in Verbindung gesetzt, oder er hat die Information an Maximilian Krah weitergeleitet, der als Zuträger des Hamburger Nachrichtenmagazins bekannt ist. Erstere Variante mutet unglaubhaft an, weil es für Lossmannn ein Leichtes gewesen wäre, den Spiegel selbst zu kontaktieren und die Sache hiermit publik zu machen. Somit spricht alles für die zweite Variante, um so mehr, als es hier einen historischen Präzedenzfall gibt.
EIN KURZER EXKURS
Kehren wir für einen Augenblick zum ersten Prozess gegen den Bischof zurück, der auf den 16. April 2010 anberaumt worden war. Am 4. März 2010 erhielt Williamson eine Mitteilung von Pater Thouvenot, der ihm im Namen Bischof Fellays allerlei Auflagen machte. Unter anderem erteilte er ihm“ein formelles Verbot, vor dem Gericht von Regensburg zu erscheinen”, und die Anweisung, er möge es seinen Anwälten (Lossmann und Krahl) überlassen, “die Situation zu Ihren Gunsten, und zu jenen der Priesterbruderschaft St. Pius X. zu regeln, der Sie angehören“.
Warum hatte Fellay diesen Befehl erteilt? Lag letzterem nackte Furcht zugrunde, oder besass der Bischof andere Beweggründe? Hält man sich vor Augen, dass Lossmannn so ziemlich der ungeeignetste Anwalt war, den man sich hätte denken können, und dass er mit keinem Wort auf die brüchige rechtliche Grundlage des Verfahrens gegen Williamson hinwies, und bedenkt man ferner, dass Krah, wie William von Norwich nachweist, gezielt gegen seinen Mandanten intrigiert hat, liegt (insbesondere im Lichte der folgenden Ereignisse) meiner Überzeugung nach der Schluss nahe, dass Fellay den von ihm gewählten Anwälten freie Hand verschaffen wollte, damit sie ohne Rücksicht auf allfällige Einwände Williamsons agieren konnten. Wäre letzterer beim Prozess zugegen gewesen, so hätte er die Umtriebe Krahs und Lossmannns schwerlich geduldet; da er der deutschen Sprache mächtig ist, hätte er sich gegen ihre lügenhaften und absurden Behauptungen verwahrt. Unter Umständen hätte er sie sogar auf der Stelle entlassen und seine Verteidigung selbst übernommen. Dies ist freilich eine Spekulation, denn erstens können wir Bischof Fellays Gedanken nicht lesen und kennen seine Beweggründe nicht, solange er sie uns nicht selbst mitteilt, und zweitens wissen wir nicht, was Williamson möglicherweise gesagt oder getan hätte.
Keine Spekulation ist hingegen folgendes: Wenige Tage vor Prozessbeginn rief ein Spiegel-Journalist Lossmann an. Das Gespräch verlief ungefähr so: “Wird Bischof Williamson beim Prozess persönlich erscheinen?” “Nein.” “Warum nicht?” “Befehl von seinem Vorgesetzten.” “Ein schriftlicher Befehl?” “Ja.” “Darf ich den Text sehen?” “Nein.”
Bald nach diesem Wortabtausch erhält Lossmann einen Anruf von Krah: “Haben Sie den Brief aus Menzingen?” “Ja.” “Können Sie eine Kopie für mich anfertigen?” Lossmann bejaht diese Frage und schickt Krah die angeforderte Kopie. Ungefähr zwei Stunden später ruft derselbe Spiegel-Reporter abermals bei Lossmann an und teilt diesem mit, mittlerweile besitze er eine Kopie von Fellays Befehl.
Somit spricht alles dafür, dass Lossmann seine beruflichen Verpflichtungen wiederum verletzt und Krah Informationen über Williamson und Nahrath zugespielt hat. Dass der Spiegel innerhalb einer halben Stunde von Nahraths Ernennung erfuhr, lässt auch die letzten Zweifel an der Komplizenschaft von Lossmann und Krah mit der Zeitschrift schwinden.
LÜGT HIER JEMAND?
Wir wissen, dass das Generalhaus der Priesterbrüderschaft St. Pius X. Samstag den 20. November 2010 etwa um 9.00 Uhr Schweizer Zeit auf Geheiss Fellays eine Erklärung von Pater Thouvenot auf ihrer Website postierte, in der es unter anderem hiess: “Der Generalobere, Bischof Bernard Fellay, hat aus der Presse erfahren, dass Bischof Williamson den mit seiner Verteidigung beauftragten Anwalt zehn Tage vor seinem Prozess entlassen hat.” Die Erklärung endete, wie uns mittlerweile allen bekannt ist, mit der Drohung, falls sich Williamson nicht von seinem “dem Vernehmen nach neonazistischen Anwalt” trenne, werde Fellay ihn aus der Priesterbruderschaft ausschliessen.
Weniger allgemein bekannt ist, dass Pater Thouvenat – wiederum auf Anweisung Fellays – eine zweite Erklärung zu Williamson veröffentlicht hat. Dies tat er Sonntag den 21. November, am frühen Nachmittag. Der Text wurde den Bischöfen und Distriktoberen der Priesterbruderschaft St. Pius X. per e-mail zugestellt; er trug die Überschrift: “Klarstellung zur Presseerklärung des Generalhauses”und verfolgte das Ziel, die am Vortag abgegebene Erklärung genauer zu “erläutern”.
Im zweiten Abschnitt dieses Textes hiess es: “Bischof Williamson wünschte einen zweiten Anwalt anzuheuern, der politisch wohlbekannt ist (“der einzige neonazistische Rechtsanwalt in Deutschland, der noch nicht im Gefängnis sitzt.*)… Der Gerichtshof von Regensburg wurde Mittwoch den 17. November 2010 über die Entlassung des ersten Anwalts [Lossmann] in Kenntnis gesetzt, und die Identität seines Nachfolgers begann Freitagmorgen den 19. November 2010 durchzusickern.”
[*Wer genau hat dies gesagt? Und was soll die Anspielung darauf, dass sämtliche sogenannt “neonazistischen” Anwälte hinter Gitter gehören? Warum dann nicht auch die marxistischen, liberalen und zionistischen?]
Dass ich Bescheid über diese zweite, weit weniger bekannte Erklärung weiss, verdanke ich einem deutschsprechenden geistlichen Freund, der sie mir zugestellt hat. Dank Hollingsworth kennen wir folgenden, von Bischof Williamson stammenden Text:
“Ich [Williamson] werde von Nahrath vertreten. Bischof F. schickt Pater Angles, um mir [am Freitagmittag] mitzuteilen, dass er mich aus der Priesterbruderschaft St. Pius X. ausschliessen werde, sofern ich Nahrath nicht fallen lasse. Mir scheint, mein Berufungsverfahren kann nur stattfinden, wenn ich entweder einen von Menzingen gebilligten Anwalt habe, der mich nicht verteidigt, oder einen Anwalt, der mich ernsthaft verteidigt, aber von Menzingen nicht abgesegnet worden ist. In meiner Sache hat Pater A. [am Freitag ungefähr um 13 Uhr] an Bischof F. gemailt, ich verzichte auf ein Berufungsverfahren vor den deutschen Gerichten, und ich habe ironisch hinzugefügt, es wäre doch nett, wenn Menzingen die Busse bezahlen würde. Bischof F. mailt bald zurück: ‘Deo Gratias. Kein Problem mit der Bezahlung der Busse” (Freitag, ca. 15 Uhr mittlere Greenwich-Zeit).
Der hier nachgezeichnete zeitliche Rahmen, innerhalb dessen sich die Geschehnisse abgespielt haben, wird durch die zweite, weniger bekannte Erklärung bestätigt. In Anschnitt 4 heisst es dort: “Bischof Williamson setzte Bischof Fellay Freitag den 19. November 2010 am frühen Nachmittag darüber in Kenntnis, dass er den Prozess nicht weiterzuführen wünscht” – im Interesse der Priesterbruderschaft wohlverstanden.
Hier gilt es darauf hinzuweisen, dass Pater Angles Freitagmorgen den 19. November in England eintraf und mit dem Bischof frühstückte. Den Auftrag, sich zu Verhandlungen mit Williamson nach London zu begeben, hatte er jedoch erst am späten Donnerstagabend erhalten; damals hielt sich Fellay in Rom auf, wo er in Albano zwei Tage lang Gespräche mit Priestern des italienischen Distrikts führte. Angles sollte Williamson dazu überreden, Nahrath den Laufpass zu geben und hierdurch seinem Ausschluss aus der Priesterbruderschaft zuvorzukommen.GERADE HIER LIEGT JEDOCH DAS PROBLEM. Dies würde nämlich bedeuten, dass Fellay bereits Donnerstag den 18. November wusste, dass sich Williamson für Nahrath entschieden hatte - dem gleichen Tag also, an dem Nahrath seinen Brief an Richterin Eisvogel sandte und der Spiegel Wind von Nahraths Ernennung bekam. In der Erklärung vom 20. November heisst es unmissverständlich: “Der Generalobere, Bischof Fellay, hat aus der Presse erfahren…” HIER STOSSEN WIR AUF EIN ZWEITES PROBLEM.
Wer folgenden Link einschaltet, wird sehen, welche Ergebnisse die Suchmaschine google.com unter dem Stichwort “Nahrath and Williamson” zutage fördert:
Am 4. Dezember 2010 (neun Uhr mittlere Greenwich-Zeit) gab es hierzu 55 Treffer, von denen der erste auf S. 6 und der letzte auf S. 1 figurierte. Laut einer Meldung der Deutschen Presse-Agentur war die Geschichte zuerst Samstag den 20. November in der israelischen Zeitung Haaretz erschienen. Kurz danach wurde sie von einer wenig bekannten italienischen online-Zeitung namens Il Giornalettismo und anschliessend vom Spiegel aufgriffen.
Eine Recherche ergibt, dass Der Spiegel in seiner deutschen sowie seiner englischen online-Version erstmals Samstag den 20. November über die Beziehungen zwischen Nahrath und Williamson berichtet hat. In anderen Worten: Vor diesem Datum hat weder das Hamburger Nachrichtenmagazin noch irgend ein anderes Presseorgan vermeldet, dass der Bischof Nahrath zu seinem Anwalt gewählt hatte. Andererseits wissen wir mit Bestimmtheit, dass Fellay Donnerstag den 18. November abends mit Angles über diese Angelegenheit gesprochen und letzteren als Emissär nach London geschickt hat, und laut der zweiten Erklärung der Priesterbruderschaft begann Nahraths Identität “Freitagmorgen den 19. November durchzusickern”.
WIE KANN BISCHOF FELLAY DONNERSTAG DEN 18. NOVEMBER AUS DER PRESSE VON DEN BEZIEHUNGEN ZWISCHEN NAHRATH UND WILLIAMSON ERFAHREN HABEN, WENN ERST ZWEI TAGE SPÄTER DIE ERSTEN PRESSEBERICHTE ZU DIESEM THEMA ERSCHIENEN?
Es gibt nur drei möglicher Erklärungen:
Fellay hatte eine instinktive Vorahnung.
Fellay wurde in dieser Angelegenheit eine himmlische Botschaft zuteil.
Fellay wurde von einem Eingeweihten via Anruf, Fax oder e-mail informiert.
Für mich steht fest, dass Erklärung Nummer drei zutreffen muss, ist sie doch die einzig logische. Wer könnte Fellay ins Bild gesetzt haben? Es gibt drei Kandidaten? Der Spiegel, Matthias Lossmann oder Maximilian Krah. Wer war’s von den drein?
Der Spiegel scheidet unseres Erachtens aus, weil er in seinem Artikel vom 20. November Pater Thouvenot als Quelle zitiert, was mit hoher Wahrscheinlichkeit bedeutet, dass letzterer am Tag zuvor, dem 19., von der Zeitschrift telefonisch kontaktiert worden ist. Noch unwahrscheinlicher mutet an, dass Fellay die Information von Lossmann erhalten hat. Dieser hätte sich Mittwoch den 17. November direkt an Fellay wenden können, wählte als Ansprechpartner jedoch entweder den Spiegel oder Krah. Ausserdem hätte die Priesterbruderschaft Lossmann aufgrund seiner politischen Orientierung kaum Vertrauen geschenkt. Somit kommt als Schurke im Spiel einzig und allein unser alter Freund Krah in Frage.
Der im vorhergehenden nachgezeichnete zeitliche Rahmen bedeutet, dass Fellay entgegen seinen eigenen Aussagen keineswegs erst aus der Presse von der Ernennung Nahraths zum Verteidiger Bischof Williamsons erfahren hat. Es bedeutet ferner, dass er Freitag den 19. November eine Vereinbarung mit Williamson abschloss, die zumindest theoretisch den Schlussstrich unter die Angelegenheit zog. Des weiteren bedeutet es, dass die Erklärung der Priesterbruderschaft vom 20. November bewusst irreführend war und dass die Vorstellung, ihr Ziel habe in der Verhütung einer “riesigen Pressekampagne” bestanden, schlichter Unfug ist, weil Fellay den Spiegel-Leuten am Freitagabend, als sie ihn anriefen, hätte mitteilen können, dass Nahrath bereits von seinem Posten als Verteidiger Williamsons zurückgetreten war. Dass Fellay kein Wort über die früher an jenem Tag getroffene Verabredung mit Williamson verlor, spricht für sich selbst, ebenso wie die Tatsache, dass er seine Drohung, letzteren aus der Bruderschaft auszuschliessen, noch am 20. November auf deren Website wiederholte. Noch widerwärtiger sind die seit Williamsons Interview mit dem schwedischen Fernsehsender ständig wiederholten Hinweise auf die angeblich bedrohliche Lage der Bruderschaft in Deutschland. In ihrer zweiten, Sonntag den 21. November veröffentlichten Erklärung griffen Fellay und Thouvenot abermals zu diesem fadenscheinigen Trick:
“Die Situation in Deutschland ist immer noch gespannt; dort wird dieser neue Zwischenfall wie eine Bombe einschlagen und unser Apostolat direkt bedrohen, ganz zu schweigen von unserem Image, d. h. unserem Ruf.”
Dergleichen haben wir seit Anfang 2009 immer wieder gehört. Man teile uns doch bitteschön mit, welche von der Priesterbruderschaft geleiteten Schulen, Priorate oder andere Institutionen von den deutschen Behörden geschlossen worden sind! Wieviele Priester, Mönche, Nonnen oder anderen der Bruderschaft nahestehenden Personen haben eine Vorladung erhalten, sind verhört oder wegen irgendwelcher Delikte angeklagt worden? Meines Wissens nicht eine einzige! Das Ganze ist nichts weiter als Panikmache, die den Zweck verfolgt, Williamson zu isolieren und sich bei den Modernisten in Rom anzubiedern. Wer in diesem Punkt nicht mit mir einverstanden ist, möge mich eines Besseren belehren – nicht indem er blosse Behauptungen von deutschen oder sonstigen Angehörigen der Priesterbruderschaft wiederholt, sondern indem er konkrete Verfolgungsmassnahmen des deutschen Staates gegen letztere schildert.
Noch eine weitere Information für den Leser: Sonntag den 21. November 2010 postierte “The Clarification” einen Internet-Artikel, in dem sie die am Vortag auf Fellays Verlangen erfolgte Verurteilung Williamsons rechtfertigte. Obgleich diese beiden Männer ihre Vereinbarung bereits Freitag den 19. November getroffen hatten, drohte Fellay Williamson einen Tag darauf abermals mit dem Ausschluss, ungeachtet der Tatsache, dass sich letzterer bereits von seinem Anwalt Nahrath getrennt hatte. Fellay rechtfertigte diesen Schritt damit, dass Williamson das deutsche Gericht nicht über seinen Entscheid informiert habe. Dies ist Sophisterei der übelsten Sorte.
Wiederholen wir: Freitag den 19. November informierte Angles Fellay um 13 Uhr mittlere Greenwich-Zeit über Williamsons Entscheid. Die Antwort Fellay erfolgte um 15 Uhr mittlere Greenwich-Zeit. In der Schweiz und Deutschland war es damals vier Uhr nachmittags. Persönlich habe ich nie mit der deutschen Bürokratie zu tun gehabt, doch meine Erfahrung anderswo sagt mir, dass ein Freitagnachmittag der denkbar ungünstigste Zeitpunkt ist, um einen Bürokraten, der nur noch an das bevorstehende Wochenende denkt, um irgend etwas zu ersuchen. Reichte es denn wirklich nicht, wenn Williamson das deutsche Gericht am Montag über seinen Entscheid ins Bild setzte? Offenbar nicht. Warum nicht? Wegen der “unmittelbar drohenden Pressekampagne”. Wieso, bitteschön, hat Fellay der Presse dann nicht persönlich – oder durch Thouvenot – mitgeteilt, dass Nahraht bereits den Laufpass bekommen hatte? Fellay hätte übrigens auch Krah anrufen können, da letzterer über weitgefächerte Kontakte verfügte und somit der rechte Mann war, um Williamsons und Fellays Problem bereits am Freitag aus der Welt zu schaffen? Aber nein, diese Idee ist Fellay schon gar nicht erst gekommen!
Falls meine Arbeit und meine Reisetätigkeit mir die erforderliche Zeit dazu lassen, werde ich in ein paar Tagen einen weiteren Artikel ins Internet setzen, in dem es um Krah und den Spiegel geht. Ich schliesse hier mit dem Hinweis auf eine Passage aus der zweiten, weniger bekannten Botschaft Pater Thouvenots an die Bischöfe und Distriktoberen. Im zweitletzten Abschnitt liest man dort:
“Wir hoffen inständig, dass Bischof Williamson keine irreparable Handlung begehen wird, indem er es zulässt, von politischen Gruppierungen benutzt zu werden, die unsere heilige Religion zu Zwecken missbrauchen, welche ihr fremd sind.”
Selbstverständlich sollten sich sämtliche Priester und Bischöfe tunlichst hüten, sich für unannehmbare und anrüchige politische Ziele einspannen zu lassen, doch gilt dies ebenso für die zionistische Lobby, die jetzt durch Krah und seine Clique von Hintermännern auf die Priesterbruderschaft St. Pius X. einwirkt, wie für die Neonazis. Der grosse Unterschied zwischen den beiden Gruppierungen besteht darin, dass es sich bei letzteren um eine winzige Sekte handelt und bei ersteren um eine weltumspannende Macht.
Es gilt also: Eure Rede sei ja ja, nein nein!