A close acquaintance of mine received an email recently addressed to "Mr. Q."  Obviously, "Mr. Q." is a pseudonym, selected by +W himself.  The true identity of this person can not be revealed at the present time.  
Before reading +W's email reprinted verbatim below, you might want to quickly review the two reports, (discussed at length on other Cathinfo threads), which HE's email addresses.  These reports had been emailed to HE earlier for his perusal and comment:

1) The short update from Prof. Arthur Butz: http://mauricepinay.blogspot.com/  Monday,  (Scroll down a bit)

2)The article entitled Maximilian Krah and Menzingen: A Cause for Serious Concern?
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=13316

Following is a copy of that email, word for word,untouched and unexpurgated from His Excellency.  I guarantee, as a traditional Catholic and an SSPX chapel member, that it is not a forgery:

Dear Mr. Q,

The reports, (i.e. referenced above) you send are essentially accurate, give or take a few details.

As for the confusing events, here is my version:--

I employ Nahrath. BpF sends Fr Angles to tell me (Friday mid-day) that unless I give up Nahrath he will expel me from the SSPX. It seems to me that my appeal can only go ahead with either a non-defending lawyer approved by Menzingen, or a truly defending lawyer that will not be approved by Menzingen. On my behalf Fr A e-mails (about 13h00 GMT Friday) to BpF that I give up appealing in front of the German courts, and ironically I add that it would be a kindness if Menzingen would pay the fine. BpF soon e-mails back, "Deo Gratias. No problem for paying the fine" (Friday, about 15h00 GMT).

On Saturday at a time I do not know, BpF has the SSPX Secretary make the Press Declaratiuon that unless I renounce the "neo-nαzι", I shall be expelled. But also that afternoon, I learn that I could for instance make a Declaration in front of the Regensburg court, hardly needing any lawyer except to be there physically present (German law requires somebody to be there to stand for the accused). The dilemma above mentioned is solved. I decide to continue with the appeal, because Lawyer Nahrath is not after all the only pebble on the beach, but I do not go back on the decision to renounce Nahrath himself. He perfectly understands the whole shemozzle.

BpF does recognize my right to defend myself. He only does not want the SSPX in any way to be associated with "neo-nαzιs". That is why I acted the willow on Lawyer Nahrath, but the oak on the appeal.

I hope that makes things more clear. By all means share these details with anyone else who may be confused.


All good wishes,          +Richard Williamson.



 

 
Thank you hollingsworth1, for posting that correspondence.

BpF ... only does not want the SSPX in any way to be associated with "neo-nαzιs".

But it's kosher that he's associated with racial supremacist Zionism via his lawyer Mr. Krah ...

A close acquaintance of mine received an email recently addressed to "Mr. Q."  Obviously, "Mr. Q." is a pseudonym, selected by +W himself.  The true identity of this person can not be revealed at the present time.  
Before reading +W's email reprinted verbatim below, you might want to quickly review the two reports, (discussed at length on other Cathinfo threads), which HE's email addresses.  These reports had been emailed to HE earlier for his perusal and comment:

1) The short update from Prof. Arthur Butz: http://mauricepinay.blogspot.com/  Monday,  (Scroll down a bit)

2)The article entitled Maximilian Krah and Menzingen: A Cause for Serious Concern?
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=13316

Following is a copy of that email, word for word,untouched and unexpurgated from His Excellency.  I guarantee, as a traditional Catholic and an SSPX chapel member, that it is not a forgery:

Dear Mr. Q,

The reports, (i.e. referenced above) you send are essentially accurate, give or take a few details.

As for the confusing events, here is my version:--

I employ Nahrath. BpF sends Fr Angles to tell me (Friday mid-day) that unless I give up Nahrath he will expel me from the SSPX. It seems to me that my appeal can only go ahead with either a non-defending lawyer approved by Menzingen, or a truly defending lawyer that will not be approved by Menzingen. On my behalf Fr A e-mails (about 13h00 GMT Friday) to BpF that I give up appealing in front of the German courts, and ironically I add that it would be a kindness if Menzingen would pay the fine. BpF soon e-mails back, "Deo Gratias. No problem for paying the fine" (Friday, about 15h00 GMT).

On Saturday at a time I do not know, BpF has the SSPX Secretary make the Press Declaratiuon that unless I renounce the "neo-nαzι", I shall be expelled. But also that afternoon, I learn that I could for instance make a Declaration in front of the Regensburg court, hardly needing any lawyer except to be there physically present (German law requires somebody to be there to stand for the accused). The dilemma above mentioned is solved. I decide to continue with the appeal, because Lawyer Nahrath is not after all the only pebble on the beach, but I do not go back on the decision to renounce Nahrath himself. He perfectly understands the whole shemozzle.

BpF does recognize my right to defend myself. He only does not want the SSPX in any way to be associated with "neo-nαzιs". That is why I acted the willow on Lawyer Nahrath, but the oak on the appeal.

I hope that makes things more clear. By all means share these details with anyone else who may be confused.


All good wishes,          +Richard Williamson.



 

He doesn't answer the Krah questions.

He doesn't answer the Krah questions.

Krah is Bp. Fellay's lawyer and business partner. It's for Bp. Fellay to answer those questions.

When clerics get into bed with big business, the demands of money-changing can take over. Krah seems to be a high-flyer with global ambitions in the field of capital management and promoting non-profit projects. His work for Zionist groups will be one such activity but one can be forgiven for asking whether it can happily co-exist alongside work on behalf of a Catholic organisation. Obviously, it can not if Krah is influencing the Williamson affair and plotting an unhealthy outcome. It is remarkable that the once tough fearless Society has come to this.  

Caminus:

Quote

He (+W, I assume) doesn't answer the Krah questions.

What specific questions are those?  The article by (William of Norwich?), which +W seems to confirm as essentially true, devotes quite a few lines on Krah.  What other questions do you have?

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 Jєωιѕн when he was taken into your confidence?


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?


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?


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?

Well thought out and succint Questions.