Posted by „Dumb Ox“ in another place:
The following text is a professional translation of a short article written just a few days ago by the universally respected Italian priest of Catholic Tradition, Don Curzio Nitoglia. It is published on his own website and by the online Italian journal
Effedieffe.com, which commands a paid-subscription readership of some 200,000 souls.
Don Curzio Nitogliawww.doncurzionitoglia.comEffedieffe.comwww.effedieffe.comSpanish TranslationSanta Iglesia Militantesantaiglesiamilitante.blogspot.comRadio Cristiandadradiocristiandad.wordpress.comIt is particularly apposite to post this important observation from Don Curzio Nitoglia today; a day in which we have been shocked to witness the vicious hounding, bullying and vile intimidation, by Maximilian Krah, of the former moderator of this forum; a courageous young wife and mother of small children, disabled and afflicted with Multiple Sclerosis, constantly suffering and struggling to fulfill her spiritual and family duties and obligations to the best of her ability while helping to maintain this forum as a voice and meeting point for Catholic laity attached to Tradition.
May God have mercy on you and those who you serve, Mr. Crow.
----------------
The Krah Case: Docuмented Facts or Lies and Slander?The Williamson-Nahrath Case 20101) In mid-November 2010 Bishop Richard Williamson decides to defend himself from the accusation of ‘revisionism’ by employing the lawyer Wolfram Nahrath. So he asks his first defender, lawyer Matthias Lossmann, if he wants to defend him together with Nahrath. Lossman refuses and so Bishop Williamson dismisses him.
2) On November 18th, the lawyer, Nahrath, faxed the judge, Eisvogel, to inform him that Lossmann has resigned and that he, Nahrath, would defend Bishop Williamson.
3) Just 32 minutes after the fax message from Nahrath to Dr Eisvogel, the editorial staff of the weekly
Der Spiegel phoned Nahrath and requested information on the future legal defence of Bishop Williamson.
4) On November 19th,
Der Spiegel published the news that the lawyer, Nahrath, is a political representative of a German neo-nαzι Party so that by association Bishop Williamson would be regarded as nαzι sympathiser. In fact, the German nαzι party has been outlawed since 1945, and Nahrath is part of the National Democratic Party (NPD), a far right party, but not nαzι.
Krah and Zionism1) The lawyer, Lossmann, had been chosen in 2009 by Krah to defend Bishop Williamson. However, Krah – his true intentions only God knows (!) - had participated in the press campaign against Bishop Williamson, which broke out on January 20th, 2009, through interviews with the magazine
Der Spiegel, which has a radical Socialist political orientation very similar to the Italian weekly
L'Espresso owned by Carlo De Benedetti - an industrialist and engineer.
2) In addition Krah is an active member of the Christian Democratic Party (CDU) of the German Chancellor, Angela Merkel. The CDU is a Liberal party, libertarian, pro-abortion, divorce, co-habitation and pro-ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity, and therefore certainly not better, regarding Faith and Morals than the NPD, to which Nahrath belongs. See
Dresdner Union mit neuem Kreisvorstand.
3) Lossmann, the lawyer chosen by Krah to defend Bishop Williamson in 2009, is part of the Green Party (
Die Grünen), which is, as in Italy, a party of the extreme left: radical sixties, pro-abortion, divorce, ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity, paedophilia, euthanasia, and far worse, and more anti-Christian than the National Democratic Party (NPD), the party to which the lawyer Nahrath belongs.
4) Finally, and this is, in fact, the most interesting point (I do not wish to mention all other matters related to this case). In September 2010 in New York, Krah, together with former students of The University of Tel Aviv, took part in a collection to help Jєωιѕн students from the diaspora to reach the Jєωιѕн State of Israel to be trained at the Zionist University of Tel Aviv, (
contra factum non valet argumenum). You can see photos of Krah and his companions, who are described as Jєωιѕн. View the
Chelsea Gallery Party and Auction For Alumni and Friends of Tel Aviv University.The facts mentioned above are described in a commentary published in December 2010 (
EXCLUSIF: les dessous de l'affaire Williamson).
5) Krah’s reply to the comments in the passage came at the end of December 2010, published on the
Ignis Ardens website. It is quite illuminating and disconcerting, and clearly threatening: "Now I know the people who have slandered me and they will [hear from me] ...."
a) Enlightening, in as much as, if he had really been slandered, Krah could have responded to clarify matters, or could have appealed to the courts to seek justice, as was his right, rather than make threats to intimidate people (
"I know who you are, you'll see");
b) because Krah admits: "In September I received a free invitation from a lawyer friend for a very enjoyable evening at the Witzenhausen Gallery, where I met fantastic people from Israel, United States (both Jєωιѕн and non Jєωιѕн), and some Europeans who happened to be in New York. It was a regular annual meeting. And, of course, there was a charity gala. This is what happened";
c) Finally, Krah does not deny fundraising for the University of Tel Aviv, which is not just a simple chat with Jєωιѕн people, which is perfectly lawful. It is not important if Krah is of Jєωιѕн origin, what counts is his faith, not his ethnicity. If Krah is a Catholic traditionalist, this is enough. But the pro-Zionist activities, carried out by Krah, although, in themselves lawful and legal, are hard to reconcile, morally and dogmatically, with the profession of the traditional and pre-Vatican II Catholic Faith. This is the major issue arising from this matter.
St. Pius X (the patron saint of the traditionalists) in 1904 responded to Theodor Herzl (the founder of Zionism, 1896), who had asked him to recognize the Zionist movement and the possible future state of Israel: "As long as Israel does not recognize Christ as the Messiah and God, the Church will not recognize Israel and Zionism."So clearly Catholicism and Zionism are incompatible and dual membership is not lawful.
Current Situation1) We have heard and read that you want to complain to the magistrates about those who dealt with the Krah Case.
2) After Bishop Williamson's trial on July 4th, 2011, in Germany, Maximilian Krah gave an interview in which he launched into an outrageous and slanderous attack against the British bishop. "Bishop Richard Williamson has a serious problem of disconnection from reality, every few years, with a beautiful regularity, he believes the end of the world is coming(...). I think he could be called a wildly eccentric person".
(I)Unfortunately, no one intervened to defend Bishop Williamson, or even to calm the situation down and advise a greater respect in the language directed against him. No one has distanced himself and objected to the personal and public insults from a traditional lay Catholic, which Krah made against a [traditional] Catholic bishop. This is not acceptable.
3) Therefore I feel morally obliged to take a public position in this case, not to gossip, or cause trouble, but to try to establish the real truth of the facts. I hope that this is still legally permissible; morally it is beyond question. I hope to succeed in my purpose. If I am wrong, please correct me. Therefore I am writing publicly. If the threatened complaint is made to ascertain the truth of what I am writing about Krah, that would be lawful. If he has been insulted he will be compensated, otherwise the truth of the facts will be recognised. Also, if anyone slanders a complainant, recourse to justice is a duty and is necessary to defend his own good name. However, it is grossly unfair to keep on about anti-Zionism and denounce as anti-Semitic and an incitement to racial hatred, anyone who has raised the question of whether support for both Zionism and traditional Catholicism
(II) is lawful. Now we can only wait and hope, without making any unnecessary speculation - only that there will be some explanation regarding this business which is disturbing and needs to be resolved.
4) So far I have not wanted to deal with the matter, which is part financial, part ethnic and part 'conspiracy' – some of this I do not think is relevant. I have been waiting for convincing answers, which remove any doubt about the compatibility between the Catholic Faith and Zionist ideology. An answer came from Krah, but it is made as an intimidation rather than as a response, or a clarification. Now it is time to reply. Let us hope and wish that this is done correctly and not as a form of persecution, and that truth will triumph over doubt, which has done and is doing so much harm to the Catholics faithful to the Apostolic Tradition and to the enduring and constant Magisterium of the Church, which starting from the time of
Nostra Aetate (1965) has undergone a growing left-wing tendency and yielded to post-biblical Judaism. If you want to denounce me for expressing these concerns on the consistency and accuracy of this way of thinking and acting, go ahead.
"It is better to obey God rather than men" (Acts of the Apostles), - if you do this you are turning away from God.
Sancte Pie X, ora pro nobis!PS: Many of the sites mentioned in this article have been closed, but the news reported by them has been thoroughly examined and found to conform to the truth. If anyone finds some inaccuracy I will be the first to take note and correct it.
Don Curzio NitogliaI) Extract from: (
Plaudern über Gaskammern.)
St. Thomas Aquinas in
Summa Theologica (II-II, qq. 72-75) deals with
"injustices resulting from words." In question 72, Aquinas speaks of "insults" or rather
'"verbal insults" which are not hidden, but are "openly" made. Now, because words mean something, they can cause much damage. With regard to verbal insult or injury affecting
"honour"; in Article 2, St. Thomas explains that the insult is a mortal sin. Indeed (
in corpore articulo) sins of speech should especially be judged by the intention with which we express ourselves,
i.e. the purpose intended by the insult. But the insult in itself implies an impairment of honour, or morality, in others. Therefore it is
"a mortal sin" - theft takes away material wealth, whereas verbal injury dishonours the soul. Father Tito Centi said: "the severity of the insult, or abuse, which is meant to destroy moral integrity demands redress, that is restitution of good character in respect to the “insult”, or return of the goods stolen in the case of theft, or otherwise “damnation!" In Article 3 St Thomas, explains that in some cases it is necessary to refute the insults - especially for two reasons: firstly, for the good of the person responsible in order to restrain his arrogance and presumption so that such crimes will not be repeated; secondly "for the good of another person, if that person holds public office and is offended" (as is the case of His Excellency Bishop Williamson), so the offence would effect his episcopal office and dishonour it. Therefore whoever holds high office must
"defend the office" and not his person, or someone must do it for him. Anyone who listens to the slander and tolerates it without reaction, by not defending the person vilified, sins gravely. When he does not react, even when given the chance, not because they like the sin but out of respect for the person making the accusation, or out of negligence - this is only a venial sin.
(S. Th., II-II, q. 73, a. 4, in corpore). Even If you can tolerate denigration towards oneself, the denigration of the good name of another is not tolerable
(ivi., ad 1um). Mocking others is a mortal sin, all the more serious when respect is owed to the person being laughed at
(q. 75, a. 2, in corpore).Mocking a bishop is, clearly, very serious.
II) Note that even Paul VI did not wish to openly recognize the State of Israel, and hence, implicitly, the compatibility of Zionism with Christianity. John Paul II did that in 1993.
Topic: The Krahgate File (Read 3525 times)