The following is written by Fr. Francois Laisney, originally appearing on http://sspxasia.com, and is published with permission.
 
For some time now, certain persons have been publishing the most grievous accusations against the superiors of the SSPX to an almost obsessive degree without realising that they themselves have lost contact with reality; they have fallen into errors which I will call “pseudo-anti-liberal”, because they pretend to be anti-liberal, though they themselves fall into the very defect they condemn, as wrote St Paul: “Wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou dost the same things which thou judgest” (Rom. 2:1).
 
A CANONICAL REGULARISATION – SOMETHING GOOD IN ITSELF
 
After having defined the notion of a liberal – someone who rejects the authority of God and of His Law – in order to conclude that the authorities of the SSPX are liberal, they logically need to prove that these authorities have rejected God and His Law. Now, not only have they failed to prove that Bishop Fellay and the authorities of the SSPX reject God and His Law, they have also failed to recognise that is precisely in order to obey the Law of God that – following the example of Archbishop Lefebvre (who always rejected sedevacantism) – these authorities are attached to the Catholic Church, as it is concretely today (sadly disfigured by modernism and liberalism as Christ was disfigured on the Cross), but remaining nonetheless the Catholic Church founded by Christ on Peter and against which the gates of Hell shall not prevail. St Thomas Aquinas explains that all law is essentially an order, ordo rationis: this submission to the Law of God therefore implies necessarily the love of order, and thus the desire to be in order within the Church of God; a canonical regularisation has no other purpose. There is therefore nothing liberal in this, on the contrary.
 
DISTINCTION: SUBMISSION TO THE SUCCESSOR OF PETER
 
Where is the problem then? It comes from the fact that many of those who possess authority in the Church today are infected by liberalism to diverse degrees. This neither Bishop Fellay nor any priest of the SSPX denies. But, while Bishop Fellay and the faithful priests of the SSPX, following the example of Archbishop Lefebvre, make the distinction between being subject to the successor of Peter as successor of Peter and not as liberal, nay, while resisting his liberalism, those who oppose Bishop Fellay seems to be viscerally unable to make such distinction and persevere in their ignorance of the teaching of St Augustine against the Donatists: in the Catholic Church communion with the bad ones does not harm the good ones so long as they do not consent to their evilness. The words bad ones translate the Latin mali. Put liberals in place of bad ones, since liberalism is bad, and the principle of St Augustine is exactly the position of Bishop Fellay and the refutation of those who oppose him: in the Catholic Church, communion with the liberals does not harm the good ones so long as they do not consent with their liberalism.
 
To understand the principle of St Augustine, one must remember the great truth which Father Calmel often recalled: the head of the Church is Christ; the Pope is only his vicar. It is because the communion with the members of the Church is first of all communion with Christ that it does not harm the goods, so long as they do not consent to the evil. And it is because they forget Christ at the head of the Church that certain persons are so afraid of this communion, paying attention only to the human side of the Church and forgetting the Sacred Heart who is in control of everything in His  Church. Their zeal so bitter – so opposed to the spirit of Archbishop Lefebvre – manifests this neglect  of the Sacred Heart. Let us pray for them.
 


DEGREES OF LIBERALISM
 
Archbishop Lefebvre often pointed out that there are many degrees of liberalism. Some reject  systematically the very principle of any law and any obligation: such liberals have clearly not the true  Faith. Others, while recognising God and His Law, and all the truths of the Catholic Faith, do not apply them sufficiently to concrete situations or don’t have the courage to recognise their consequences in modern society; and among these liberals there are also many degrees. These still have the Faith, though they deserve this reproach of Our Lord to His Apostles: “Oh ye of little faith!” (Mt. 8:26, 17:16, etc.) One must not therefore indifferently condemn all those infected by liberalism, as if they were all equally guilty of the most horrible crime, viz. to be at war with God. Moreover one ought not systematically to interpret every action of a liberal as evil; in the 19th century, some great anti-liberal Catholics such as Pope Pius IX or Cardinal Pie did not fear to praise the good done by some liberals such as Mgr Dupanloup or the Count Montalembert, while vigorously denouncing their liberalism.
 
THE VISIBLE CHURCH
 
Moreover there is a surprising dearth of logic in the Bishop Fellay’s accusers. I quote: “They say we must rejoin the visible Church because that is the Catholic Church. But the Anglican ‘church’ is still visible, all over England. Does that make it Catholic?” This argument would stand only if the leaders of the SSPX would have said: “because it is visible, it is Catholic,” or “all visible churches are Catholic.” But they evidently have not said anything like this; thus the pretended rebuttal (‘But the Anglican…’) is a mere sophism.
 
The truth upon which Bishop Fellay and the authorities of the SSPX insist is that the Catholic Church is visible, not only yesterday but also today. It was this visible, concrete, Roman, Catholic Church which yesterday was acknowledged by Archbishop Lefebvre and which today is recognised by Bishop Fellay and the SSPX (of which we have been living members from its beginning in 1970, and in which our duty is to be “in order”). There is nothing liberal in all that.
 
If those who oppose Bishop Fellay today reject this visible, concrete, Roman Catholic Church, which church is theirs? Where is it? Is it visible? Or is it like their “loose association”, without authority nor obligations? Such a concept has nothing Catholic about it! Not that I think that this is their idea of the Church. But it seems to me that their error consists in considering the unity of the Church as secondary and accessory with regards to the Faith, as if having the Faith would dispense them from ecclesiastical communion with other members of the Church if these be liberals. Indubitably, one ought to hold fast to the Faith in all its purity, because “without faith it is impossible to please God” (Heb. 11:6); but faith without charity does not profit anything (1 Cor. 13:2). It is charity, “the bond of perfection” (Col. 3:14), which obliges use to keep that bond of communion, as St Augustine often explained (Archbishop di Noia has given some beautiful passages on this matter, and one could easily find a great number of similar ones). Here is a real and odd danger: to save the traditional faith, they lean towards the sola fide?
 
Three months ago, I wrote in a text entitled Various churches? : “One can read [in one of their articles]: ‘That part alone of the visible Church is Catholic which is one, holy, universal and apostolic. The rest is various sorts of rot.’ Immediately the question is raised: is the Catholic Church merely ‘a part of the visible Church’? And this leads to another more fundamental question: is it legitimate to distinguish between the Catholic Church, Christ’s Church and the visible Church? On the contrary, does not the Catholic Faith oblige us to profess the identity between Christ’s Church, the CatholicChurch and the visible Church? Yes! Christ’s Church is the Catholic Church, and this Church is visible!” Such was the faith of Archbishop Lefebvre.
 
THE FIGHT AGAINST ‘CONCILIAR ROME’
 
It seems to me that those who “never understood the faith of Archbishop Lefebvre” are truly those who reject this visible, concrete, Roman Catholic Church, in which Archbishop Lefebvre believed and to which he devoted his whole life, his last years included. Another accusation against Bishop Fellay is that he “uses his authority to oblige his inferiors to follow a direction contrary to that which they had when they joined the SSPX, i.e. the refusal of the fight against the Conciliar Rome.” From the start, one must clarify the expression conciliar Rome: if by that they mean the conciliar spirit, the errors of Vatican II and their multiple applications, such an accusation is a calumny, i.e. it is false and grievously offending to the reputation of Bishop Fellay. The very choice of the SSPX members for the theological discussions with Rome shows that Bishop Fellay wanted no weakness in the defence of the Catholic truth against the conciliar novelties, and at the very beginning of last year he clearly set as his first principle: no compromise on the Faith! And the following months only proved that he was faithful to this principle, in spite of the false prophecies announcing that he would compromise the SSPX. If on the contrary one means by conciliar Rome another ecclesial structure than that of the Catholic Church, then one must say that such persons had a wrong conception of the crisis of the Church, a conception other than that of Archbishop Lefebvre! No, Bishop Fellay is not a “depraved father”, but rather a faithful father (with a small number of rebel children!)
 
FOR CATHOLIC ROME
 
Let us add, and this is a fundamental argument, that the essential position of Archbishop Lefebvre is not primarily a position against but rather a position for. It was because he was for a total fidelity to the Catholic Faith of all times, that Archbishop Lefebvre was against the conciliar novelties. Such an attitude first of all for and then against is very clear in his famous Declaration: “We adhere with our whole heart, and with our whole soul to Catholic Rome, the Guardian of the Catholic Faith and of those traditions necessary for the maintenance of that Faith, to eternal Rome, Mistress of Wisdom and Truth. On the contrary we refuse and have always refused to follow the Rome of neo Modernist and neo Protestant tendencies, such as were clearly manifested during the Second Vatican Council, and after the Council in all the resulting reforms.” But those who set themselves primarily against a situation of triumphant modernism as that of the 70s and 80s, can no longer position themselves in a different situation, as under Benedict XVI where there was an effort (incomplete but real) to correct some evident deviations and to return to a more traditional approach to liturgy and the life of the Church. They do not know how to position themselves because they did not have (or forgot) the superior positive principle, which itself remains valid in every situation.
 
INEPT RESISTANCE
 
There is another all too frequent illusion among these critics: they compare their resistance to Bishop Fellay with the resistance of Archbishop Lefebvre to the conciliar novelties; we hear them put in parallel “the conciliar revolution and the accordist revolution.” But this comparison rather shows the inanity of their position. Nay, this comparison turns out to be rather a striking contrast. We can consider three aspects. First, Archbishop Lefebvre resisted the conciliar novelties after they were introduced: it was after the Council and after the New Mas that he started his work at Ecône; it was after Assisi that he did the Consecrations. On the contrary, it was before any compromise, in the fear of a future compromise which never came that these critics attack bishop Fellay. Secondly, let us consider the magnitude of the cause: on one hand, the Council, the New Mass (and the whole liturgical reform, since no sacrament was spared), and Assisi: these are huge scandals, causingimmense damages to millions of souls. On the other side, they put forth a few words in an impromptu interview and on a few other occasions that one can count on one’s hand. There is here such a contrast that one can but wonder at the blindness of those who do not see it. Thirdly Archbishop Lefebvre never requested the resignation of Paul VI in spite of the gravity of the conciliar and liturgical reforms, nor of John Paul II in spite of the gravity of Assisi; but these critics request the resignation of Bishop Fellay. St Augustine teaches that it is not suffering and death that makes the martyr, but first and foremost his cause: Archbishop Lefebvre had a just and proportionate cause for his resistance to the conciliar and liturgical novelties, but Bishop Fellay’s critics have no proportion for their resistance which is bare rebellion.
 
LIBERAL ANTI-LIBERALS
 
I wrote at the beginning that “they pretend to be anti-liberal, though they themselves fall into the very defect they condemn.” Indeed, the characteristic of liberals is the refusal of authority, be it the authority of dogmatic truth, of divine law or ecclesiastical authority. “The liberal is a fanatic of independence, he promotes it even to the point of absurdity, in all domains”, this is how Canon Roussel defined him, quoted by Archbishop Lefebvre (They have uncrowned Him, p.14). And now, behold our great anti-liberals are proposing “independent cells”, i.e. a loose association among them… without authority! Because they have not known how to obey, now they know not how to command. And since authority comes from above, having cut themselves from their legitimate superiors, they have lost all authority. On the contrary, Archbishop Lefebvre founded his Society, as a living branch well rooted in the trunk of the Church by the canonical approval of Mgr Charrière, and thus with a legitimate line of authority, as any truly Catholic work… not so among our critics.
 
Archbishop Lefebvre himself knew how to exercise this authority (among other examples, by expelling the sedevacantists). Here again one sees the contrast between the legitimate resistance of Archbishop Lefebvre and the rebellion of our critics, who, by their refusal of authority, have fallen in the very fault that they criticised.
 
There is a great illusion in pretending to “rely on a model of paternity (which includes authority) and not on an authoritative structure as such”, because precisely by rejecting that authoritative structure they fall back willy-nilly on a paternity without authority, typical of liberalism. They say: “if it weren’t contradictory, I would envisage a structure without authority, but with paternity, yes, with paternity! This is indispensable!” Unfortunately for them, it is contradictory! The very word authority comes from the word author; a father who would not be the author of his children would not really be father! A father who would refuse to have a true authority on his children would be… a liberal father! There is no true paternity without authority. They do well to denounce liberalism as “a religion with no rules except their own will.” But why then are they making a free association of priests, association with no rules except their own will?
 
Let us pray that they correct themselves and humbly ask to be readmitted in the Society of St Pius X. May St Joseph obtain this grace for them!
 
Fr. François Laisney

I figured something like this was coming. Have a look at this rubbish:

http://angeluspress.org/blog/?p=108

(...)

Indeed it is rubbish.

http://cathinfo-warning-pornography!/Ignis_Ardens/index.php?showtopic=6634&hl=

Dear Fr Laisney,
I guess that it is fifteen years or more since we spoke together. I still have fond memories of that meeting, and I thank you once again for the small gift that you presented to me on that occasion. I wish you to bear in mind these opening lines given that you may take what comes after as an attack on your person or your integrity or both. I emphasise now that neither one nor the other is being called into question.
There follows what is alleged to be a letter from you to an unknown correspondent. It was posted on the English language forum, Ignis Ardens, by “Credo” on December 16, 2010, at 04:07 PM. In posting this purported letter from you, “Credo” made it clear that it had been sent to him anonymously with the request that it be posted on the internet. Viewing the content and deeming it worthy of posting, he did so but he did not guarantee its authenticity for the good reason that ONLY YOU could guarantee that it was your work. After its posting, I took direct communication with “Credo” and asked him did he have any knowledge of either the unknown correspondent or the anonymous person requesting its posting. The answer to both questions was in the negative. In his defence, he pointed out that you were a known figure in the SSPX, that you had addressed a subject that was a major issue in Tradition right now, and he saw nothing that smacked of rumour, hearsay or bad faith in the posting. I would also point out that Ignis Ardens has been in existence for a good number of years and it has earned, unlike other forums in Tradition, a reputation for moderation in expression as well as a deep loyalty to the Catholic heritage handed down by Archbishop Lefebvre.


My first request of you, then, is to ask you to read the unedited letter below:
I am apalled at the art to raise unsubstantiated suspicions and calumnies! I quote: "Two of his fellow senior Bishops, Bishop Williamson and Bishop Tissier de Mallerais do not appear to be on any boards representing SSPX assets, which indeed appears odd." Bishop Williamson used to be a member of our association at Winona so long as he was the superior there; he was also on several local associations in the N.E. USA so long as they were served by the seminary. Bishop Tissier was in many companies when he was secretary general. And I was also in many companies when I was district superior in USA, or bursar general. But in the SSPX, we hold positions in companies by virtue of our office in the SSPX, not in our personal name; so when we change office, our successor takes our place in these companies. NOTHING ODD there at all, on the contrary! This is precisely the spirit of poverty and detachment befitting priests and ministers of Christ. Another example of calumnies: "The fact that the SSPX appears to be involved in international financial markets..." Sorry, this is simply not true. Assets management was the purpose of the company mentioned at the previous paragraph; how did "asset management" become "involvement in international financial markets" is precisely how calumnies start... Again, as previous bursar general, I can testify that the SSPX is NOT involved in financial markets speculation or usury of any kind! On the contrary, we strive to avoid the financial world; thus if a chapel has some savings, we organise that it be lent to another chapel that had a debt, either at no interest at all, or at low interest to offset devaluation. Thus even that low interest that one chapel pays still goes to help another chapel's future projects: the collections of the faithful do not go to feed the bankers, but rather to foster good Catholic projects. Maximilian Krah is one of our faithful, and an competent attorney that has helped us many times before in cases mainly dealing with legacies in our favour, contested by others. He successfully defended our rights. He gives us competent "legal counsels" especially in matters of legacies in the German speaking world; there is nothing unusual at that at all, on the contrary (we have similar legal counsels in each big district: France, USA... usually our faithful. Honesty and competence is the criteria, not political views). Note that Mr. Krah's involvement with the CDU consisted in a donation to a convent (Kloster St Marienthal): if that is the only thing you found against him, that is not much to worry... Mr Krah is not a Jєω, though he may have some Jєωιѕн friends, which is not uncommon in the legal world. If DICI said that Wolfram Nahrath was linked to neo-nαzιs, it was not because of his link with the NPD, but rather with his link with two other groups (Bishop Fellay told me the names, but I don't remember, one of them has the word "viking" in it), one of them has already been condemned in Germany for being neo-nαzι. Bishop Fellay did the right thing in requesting that he be dismissed. Bishop Williamson obeyed; this also was the right thing. Deo gratias. "Our wrestling is not against flesh and blood; but against principalities and power, against the rulers of the world of this darkness, against the spirits of wickedness in the high places" (Eph 6:12). We fight for the Faith, for the Mass, for the supernatural truth and grace, relying on the testimony of God. Historical facts are not at that level, they rely on the testimony of men, we leave that to the historians. May Our Lady of Fatima help us not to be sidetracked from our duty. Father François Laisney


A FEW QUESTIONS
1. Can you please confirm for me that you are the author of this letter?
2. If the answer is in the negative, can you explain why anybody would undertake to write a letter in your name given that hitherto your name had not been mentioned in the matter of what is now known as “Krahgate”?
If you did not write this letter, your reply will be put into “The Complete Krahgate File” which is to be found highlighted in red under the “Pinned Threads” section of the “General Discussion” category of Ignis Ardens at http://cathinfo-warning-pornography!/Ignis_Ardens/i...php?showforum=1 Should you not be the author of the letter, you may rest assured that members of Ignis Ardens and others will begin an exhaustive search for the perpetrator of this wanton lie.


However, knowing you, I believe that the language and content does appear to coincide with your style, while some of the information given in this letter demonstrates knowledge that was not previously in the public arena and therefore demands explanation. I will as a result present a list of questions to you based exclusively on “your” letter and invite you to reply publicly to them. If I prove to be wrong in this matter of authorship, I will apologise to you on this forum without any kind of mental reservation, and offer a rosary for your intentions by way of reparation.
1. The opening sentence begins: “I am apalled at the art to raise unsubstantiated suspicions and calumnies!” Forgive me, Father, but I have to ask you to highlight the alleged “calumnies.” In “The Complete Krahgate File,” there are no calumnies of any kind. What has been laid out, by myself and others, are facts that are IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN, CAN BE ACCESSED BY ANYONE ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD, ARE SITES ABOVE SUSPICION OF ANY KIND (no blogs, no questionable websites etc) AND HENCE ARE IRREFUTABLE. It is upon these substantiated facts (please note, Father, the word “substantiated”) that a series of important questions have been directed towards the final authority in the SSPX, Bishop Fellay. Furthermore these questions have avoided accusation, smear, charge, personal denigration, slander or defamation. Indeed the original posting by “William of Norwich” on this matter at the end of November 2010 ended with this statement: “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.” Respectful questioning of authority, based upon public docuмentation of unquestionable authenticity and transparency, does not in Catholic moral teaching amount to “calumny.” So: please substantiate by proofs, by examples, not assertions, that these docuмents posted by faithful members of Catholic Tradition contained calumnies.


2. The second sentence states: “Two of his fellow senior Bishops, Bishop Williamson and Bishop Tissier de Mallerais do not appear to be on any boards representing SSPX assets, which indeed appears odd.” I have used the “Find” function on my computer to seek this sentence within the docuмentation that comprises “The Complete Krahgate File” and I can find it only once: in the letter that you purportedly wrote and which was placed under the heading “Putative Replies.” I can only assume that this phrase appeared in some comment or other of the many hundreds of comments that have been made on Ignis Ardens, or that you have seen this phrase elsewhere in the blogosphere. If it came in such a comment on Ignis Ardens, I have no memory of it. But the issue is that it is only that: a comment and no more. It no more comprises the information brought to light on a number of vital matters concerning the SSPX than your statement that “calumny” appears as information. So: perhaps you can identify the source of this phrase for us?


3. More importantly, however, is a statement that you make: “But in the SSPX, we hold positions in companies by virtue of our office in the SSPX, not in our personal name; so when we change office, our successor takes our place in these companies. NOTHING ODD there at all, on the contrary!” I think, Father, that you have misunderstood the concerns of the faithful in a number of ways. First, nobody has questioned the need for the SSPX to possess legally established structures to protect its assets so as to further the mission of the Society. Second, most of us who have been SSPX supporters for decades are well aware of the fact that such structures have existed for decades as well. Third, nobody has suggested that there was or is anything irregular in SSPX personnel holding office at different times, for differing durations, and in different legal structures. What is being questioned, and which you have studiously avoided in my honest but respectful opinion, are the following points: First, why is someone like Mr Krah, a layman, of only a few years attendance at SSPX masses, who has a known political profile in Germany, and who has questionable contacts for someone who describes himself as “an unimpeachable catholic” in a position of such important authority? Second, and more importantly, the questions posed about business structures were directed almost exclusively to discovering something about two legal structures, Dello Sarto and the Jaidhofer Privatstiftung, in which Mr Krah is involved, whose role in both is vague at best, and both of which structures are of very recent origin. Dello Sarto was established in 2009 and the Jaidhofer Privatstiftung in 2006, the timeframe during which Mr Krah appeared on the SSPX scene. That you chose not to address these questions, THE ESSENTIAL QUESTIONS OF THE WHOLE KRAHGATE AFFAIR, but talked about various small legal associations in different districts, has not calmed the fears among the faithful worldwide at all. On the contrary, the apparent evasion of such questions has heightened the very “suspicions” that you have deplored! It may be, naturally, that you read the essential posts rapidly and fired off your reply to your unknown correspondent too rapidly. If that is so, you have the opportunity now to present a more considered response to these important matters, and I would urge you to do so because silence will only encourage further speculation – something that is not desired nor desirable.


4. You state: “Another example of calumnies: “The fact that the SSPX appears to be involved in international financial markets...” Sorry, this is simply not true.” I take it that you mean that the SSPX is NOT involved in international financial markets, and for that information we are both grateful and relieved. However, there was no calumny involved at all. The poster, “William of Norwich,” just said that it “appears to be.” This is NOT a statement of fact, it is a CONDITIONAL statement based on what was found at Link: Dello Sarto AG
http://translate.google.co.uk/translate?hl...D813%26prmd%3Db


5. However another question logically arises. If Dello Sarto is only concerned with “asset management” in the limited sense that you give it, why was the company so recently set up at all and which employed the services of a Zurich based law firm? Their website, http://www.internationallawoffice.com/dire...47-4d5d5e739909 shows that this company is large, high-powered and clearly expensive. It seems to an outsider something like overkill. Moreover, another question remains: why were none of the other “asset management” companies set up years ago by the SSPX not used? What is it about the purpose of Dello Sarto that none of the other structures could cover? And what in the nature of Dello Sarto necessitated the employment of Mr Krah as its manager? Could not a suitably qualified cleric have done this job? After all your description of the work involved - “we strive to avoid the financial world; thus if a chapel has some savings, we organise that it be lent to another chapel that had a debt, either at no interest at all, or at low interest to offset devaluation. Thus even that low interest that one chapel pays still goes to help another chapel's future projects” - does not strike me as particularly onerous nor requiring the services of an internationally connected law firm. Perhaps you would like to clarify these matters in order that we, the faithful, the people who actually supply the money to the SSPX to allow “asset management” to become necessary, have our minds put to rest?



6. You make this statement: “Again, as previous bursar general, I can testify that the SSPX is NOT involved in financial markets speculation or usury of any kind!” With all due respect, I am sorry to tell you Father that that is not something that you can substantiate. You can certainly say that there was no speculation or usury DURING YOUR TIME as bursar, but you CANNOT testify to something after your bursarship finished. How long has it been since you ceased to be bursar? Five years? Eight years? Ten years? This is not an attack on you, it is only to say that NO PERSON once he has left any post can testify to what happened AFTER his departure. Your good faith is NOT being called into question here. What is being called into question is your competence to make such a wide-ranging assertion.


7. In reference to Mr Krah you say: “He gives us competent "legal counsels" especially in matters of legacies in the German speaking world.” Upon what do you base this statement regarding his alleged competence? Is it upon what you have personally witnessed through interaction with him, or is it based only upon what you have been told?


8. You write:“Mr Krah is not a Jєω, though he may have some Jєωιѕн friends, which is not uncommon in the legal world.” What is the basis of your statement that Mr Krah is not a Jєω? Mr Krah in a statement posted on December 28 2010, at 02:12 PM on Ignis Ardens made a number of statements, but at no point did he deny that he was a Jєω? He only asserted that he was a Catholic. Well, Cardinal Lustiger called himself a Catholic, did he not, but he equally asserted that he was a Jєω? Given that this was one of the more astonishing statements made by “William of Norwich” does it not strike you as significant that Mr Krah did not make plain his – according to you – non-Jєωιѕн status? It could hardly be construed as the oversight of a very minor detail can it? Moreover, while you assert that Mr Krah is not a Jєω, you give no evidence, circuмstantial or otherwise, to support this assertion. You cannot say that he denied it, because in his one and only public statement he has not done so. Nor can you retort that “William of Norwich” is in the same boat as you: making an assertion without any kind of evidence. “William of Norwich” gave the following link by way of support: Link: American Friends of Tel Aviv University
http://www.aftau.org/site/PageServer?pagen...0_AlumniAuction If you would care to look carefully at all of the photographs available at this link, you will see that every person has been named. I do not believe that one has to be an expert in family names to recognise that they are all Jєωιѕн, at a Jєωιѕн event, in the city with the highest Jєωιѕн population in the world (Israel notwithstanding), and supporting the work of an Israeli university that is dominated by the Israeli security forces which have a long history of anti-Catholic and anti-Christian activity of the most murderous kind. Is it really credible, in the absence of a forthright denial by Mr Krah of being Jєωιѕн, to believe, as you clearly believe, that he was the only NON-Jєω present?

9. A small but related question: You said that “ he MAY have some Jєωιѕн friends.” “William of Norwich” showed beyond any doubt that he DOES through the link just cited. One question, since I assume that you must know Mr Krah to make these statements, is this: would he happen to be a friend of Mischa Morgenbesser, a lawyer with BADERTSCHER Rechtsanwälte AG (Zurich), who is the sole Hebrew speaker with the firm, the firm that advises the SSPX in relation to Dello Sarto? Do you know if this firm was suggested by Mr Krah to the leadership of the SSPX?


10. In your letter you comment: “Note that Mr. Krah's involvement with the CDU consisted in a donation to a convent (Kloster St Marienthal): if that is the only thing you found against him, that is not much to worry.” My dear Father Laisney, this one sentence alone leads to several questions and which, at the same time, raises questions about your actual knowledge and intimacy with the whole affair. Let me explain. Mr Krah’s involvement with the CDU was NOT limited to seeking a donation for the convent of St. Marienthal. If you went to the link given by “William of Norwich” concerning Mr Krah and his actual relations with the CDU, you would see that according to the “Journal of the Dresdener Union” (the July/August 2005 number) Mr Krah was elected the Pressesprecher, Press Officer, for Dresden’s CDU governing committee in June 2005 with 81.66% of the branch’s membership. Moreover, the May 2006 number of the same “Journal” reveals that he had by then become a member of the editorial board of the “Journal.” Mr Krah’s involvement with politics does not concern me greatly beyond the fact that the CDU is neither Christian in any sense worthy of the name, nor is it democratic in any profound sense. But it is clearly anti-Catholic when it wishes to be, as the occasion when Angela Merkel publicly rebuked the Pope about the so-called “rehabilitation” of Mgr Williamson demonstrates – a public scandal about which the SSPX has said little or nothing, made all the more worrying given the cant of the CDU about the “benefits” of the separation of Church and State. I would invite you to check these details for yourself, but since “William of Norwich” posted the CDU/Krah link it has mysteriously disappeared from the internet. However, one brave Catholic soul had the foresight to save the two files about the CDU cited, and they will be posted to”The Complete Krahgate File” in the near future so that you and others may see the facts for yourself.


11. There is, however, one surprising thing in your sentence. You make reference to the Kloster St. Marienthal and say that Krah’s only involvement in the CDU was to seek donations for it. Let us leave aside the fact that the St. Marienthal Convent, the oldest women’s Cistercian monastery in Germany, is a conciliar structure and seems to be more a place for hosting conferences on “Justice, Peace, Ecology” and the rest of the conciliar agenda, than a place full of nuns working out their salvation in prayer and sacrifice; let us leave aside also the fact that one wonders why a person who claims to be a traditional Catholic would seek to raise money for a conciliar structure when undoubtedly there are better claims to be made for SSPX structures in Germany; let us leave aside as well that the Convent in question is less than a hour’s drive from Krah’s home, is incredibly beautiful, a glory to the faith, clearly worth a financial fortune if put on the market, and is run by a “Board of Trustees,” the composition of which I have not been able to identify as yet, and come to one crucial question. At NO POINT in “The Complete Krahgate File” or anywhere else on Ignis Ardens was ANY REFERENCE MADE TO THIS CONVENT AND KRAH MAKING AN APPEAL FOR FUNDS FOR IT! The convent is not mentioned in either of the two CDU files that were available online until they disappeared. So your statement is a piece of information that none of us were aware of, and we would invite you to let us know how you came across this information? It may be of little importance, but given that Mr Krah appears to have many fingers in many pies, one can never be sure that that is so.


12. Although I could ask you another half dozen questions on the basis of your short letter, I will confine myself to just one more. You say in relation to Mr Krah, and by implication to others, that when the SSPX requires legal advice and assistance that “Honesty and competence is the criteria, not political views.” To that I am sure that I speak for all supporters of the SSPX when I say “Amen.” Thus, Mr Krah, if he were both honest and competent and available to the SSPX, would be a good choice irrespective of his political affiliation – and no traditionalist could or would argue with that decision. The problem, however, is twofold. First, Mr Krah’s choice of Matthias Lossmann as counsel for Mgr. Williamson in the trial of April 2010 did not show competence at all. What it demonstrated was a woeful inability or will to find someone who would address the issues pertaining to Williamson’s case: namely the manifest deficiency of German law as it pertained to this particular case. It had nothing effectively to do with so-called “h0Ɩ0cαųst denial” but everything to do with whether or not Mgr. Williamson fell within the bounds of the law being evoked by the Regensburg court. That woeful decision cost Mgr. Williamson a great deal, and we can only speculate as to whether Mr Krah’s clear incompetence was honest or dishonest. On that God alone knows. The second problem with your position of “Honesty and competence is the criteria, not political views” is contradicted by actual facts. Put simply if Mr Krah, appointed by Mgr. Fellay, was good enough for the job, in theory, to deal with Mgr. Williamson’s case in the first instance, despite his open affiliation with the CDU, why was Mr Nahrath, chosen by Williamson in the second instance, unacceptable to Mgr. Fellay. It cannot be seriously argued that Mr Nahrath was not competent in such delicate [in Germany] matters, for his success in Germany, even in 2010, in such questions is a matter of public record. Neither can his honesty be seriously impugned since it is evident that, unlike Messrs. Krah and Lossmann, he risks in a very real way his liberty every time he takes on a “controversial case.” You say that Mr Nahrath was not unacceptable, not because of his affiliation with the NPD, a legal political party in Germany, but with something called “Viking” though you could not remember the name that Mgr. Fellay mentioned to you. The name is, of course, “Viking Youth” which any Google search would have given you. What is remarkable is that Mgr. Fellay should make Nahrath’s political leadership of the Viking Youth the pretext for denying Mgr. Williamson good, honest and legal counsel. The Viking Youth was banned in 1994, sixteen years ago! Would anyone suggest that Fr. Schmidberger was unfit to hold high office in the SSPX because of his activity in a sedevacantist youth group many years ago? Would anyone suggest that Mgr. Lefebvre was unfit to be the founder of the SSPX because he praised Marshal Petain and a number of other political figures, now regarded as “politically incorrect”? I do not think so. Does it not strike you, my dear father, that what Mgr. Williamson required was a decent lawyer; and does it not strike you as unacceptable, as shown in “The Complete Krahgate File”, that Mr Krah – the self-confessed “unimpeachable catholic” - should have made Nahrath’s appointment known to Der Spiegel within the hour of his appointment?


My dear Father Laisney, I suspect that while you may believe what you have written in this letter, you are acting upon the basis of third hand information. If it was designed to bring serenity to Catholic souls it failed completely. The information and related questions outlined in this email prove, I believe, that there is much still to be unmasked in the Krahgate Affair in the quest for the truth, a truth that the praying, obeying and paying faithful have an absolute right to receive.
I reiterate what I said at the outset. There is no intention to accuse you of anything improper or immoral. Indeed your entry into the picture with your letter was a surprise to everybody since you had never been mentioned in connection with Krahgate. What I would exhort you to do is to furnish the faithful with answers to the above queries, and to the best of your knowledge and ability. Failing that, perhaps you could ask the SSPX leadership to answer these and other questions in order to bring a peaceful end to what is, quite frankly, one of the most disturbing episodes in the life of Society in decades.

Okay, it might be unfair to say they're dense.  But I think "uninformed" is not
really fair either.  In this age of Internet and Google, anyone who continues to
be uninformed has to be willfully so

Quote

Okay, it might be unfair to say they're dense.  But I think "uninformed" is not
really fair either.  In this age of Internet and Google, anyone who continues to
be uninformed has to be willfully so

I agree of course and at this stage it is a case of "Which Side Are You On?" One is either for an agreement or not.

I was admonished for judging. You can't win, can you? I made the point some will stick with Bishop Fellay regardless. It's better to stick within a comfort zone than launch out into the deep.

Apart from pray for them, there is not much more you can do for those who want an agreement. It is not as if you can physically beat it into them.

You can give them a copy of  The Recusant, inform them about the Carmel, the priests in France etc etc. It's rather repetitive though to be fair very few want an agreement.

How anyone can be for the deal beggars belief? Offer it up for them. I don't get it.

Of course  Fr Laisney became part of 'El Krahgate'. Did Fr Laisney ever answer the questions put to him by Veitas1961.

Quote

http://cathinfo-warning-pornography!/Ignis_Ardens/index.php?showtopic=6634&hl=

Dear Fr Laisney,
I guess that it is fifteen years or more since we spoke together. I still have fond memories of that meeting, and I thank you once again for the small gift that you presented to me on that occasion. I wish you to bear in mind these opening lines given that you may take what comes after as an attack on your person or your integrity or both. I emphasise now that neither one nor the other is being called into question.
There follows what is alleged to be a letter from you to an unknown correspondent. It was posted on the English language forum, Ignis Ardens, by “Credo” on December 16, 2010, at 04:07 PM. In posting this purported letter from you, “Credo” made it clear that it had been sent to him anonymously with the request that it be posted on the internet. Viewing the content and deeming it worthy of posting, he did so but he did not guarantee its authenticity for the good reason that ONLY YOU could guarantee that it was your work. After its posting, I took direct communication with “Credo” and asked him did he have any knowledge of either the unknown correspondent or the anonymous person requesting its posting. The answer to both questions was in the negative. In his defence, he pointed out that you were a known figure in the SSPX, that you had addressed a subject that was a major issue in Tradition right now, and he saw nothing that smacked of rumour, hearsay or bad faith in the posting. I would also point out that Ignis Ardens has been in existence for a good number of years and it has earned, unlike other forums in Tradition, a reputation for moderation in expression as well as a deep loyalty to the Catholic heritage handed down by Archbishop Lefebvre.


My first request of you, then, is to ask you to read the unedited letter below:
I am apalled at the art to raise unsubstantiated suspicions and calumnies! I quote: "Two of his fellow senior Bishops, Bishop Williamson and Bishop Tissier de Mallerais do not appear to be on any boards representing SSPX assets, which indeed appears odd." Bishop Williamson used to be a member of our association at Winona so long as he was the superior there; he was also on several local associations in the N.E. USA so long as they were served by the seminary. Bishop Tissier was in many companies when he was secretary general. And I was also in many companies when I was district superior in USA, or bursar general. But in the SSPX, we hold positions in companies by virtue of our office in the SSPX, not in our personal name; so when we change office, our successor takes our place in these companies. NOTHING ODD there at all, on the contrary! This is precisely the spirit of poverty and detachment befitting priests and ministers of Christ. Another example of calumnies: "The fact that the SSPX appears to be involved in international financial markets..." Sorry, this is simply not true. Assets management was the purpose of the company mentioned at the previous paragraph; how did "asset management" become "involvement in international financial markets" is precisely how calumnies start... Again, as previous bursar general, I can testify that the SSPX is NOT involved in financial markets speculation or usury of any kind! On the contrary, we strive to avoid the financial world; thus if a chapel has some savings, we organise that it be lent to another chapel that had a debt, either at no interest at all, or at low interest to offset devaluation. Thus even that low interest that one chapel pays still goes to help another chapel's future projects: the collections of the faithful do not go to feed the bankers, but rather to foster good Catholic projects. Maximilian Krah is one of our faithful, and an competent attorney that has helped us many times before in cases mainly dealing with legacies in our favour, contested by others. He successfully defended our rights. He gives us competent "legal counsels" especially in matters of legacies in the German speaking world; there is nothing unusual at that at all, on the contrary (we have similar legal counsels in each big district: France, USA... usually our faithful. Honesty and competence is the criteria, not political views). Note that Mr. Krah's involvement with the CDU consisted in a donation to a convent (Kloster St Marienthal): if that is the only thing you found against him, that is not much to worry... Mr Krah is not a Jєω, though he may have some Jєωιѕн friends, which is not uncommon in the legal world. If DICI said that Wolfram Nahrath was linked to neo-nαzιs, it was not because of his link with the NPD, but rather with his link with two other groups (Bishop Fellay told me the names, but I don't remember, one of them has the word "viking" in it), one of them has already been condemned in Germany for being neo-nαzι. Bishop Fellay did the right thing in requesting that he be dismissed. Bishop Williamson obeyed; this also was the right thing. Deo gratias. "Our wrestling is not against flesh and blood; but against principalities and power, against the rulers of the world of this darkness, against the spirits of wickedness in the high places" (Eph 6:12). We fight for the Faith, for the Mass, for the supernatural truth and grace, relying on the testimony of God. Historical facts are not at that level, they rely on the testimony of men, we leave that to the historians. May Our Lady of Fatima help us not to be sidetracked from our duty. Father François Laisney


A FEW QUESTIONS
1. Can you please confirm for me that you are the author of this letter?
2. If the answer is in the negative, can you explain why anybody would undertake to write a letter in your name given that hitherto your name had not been mentioned in the matter of what is now known as “Krahgate”?
If you did not write this letter, your reply will be put into “The Complete Krahgate File” which is to be found highlighted in red under the “Pinned Threads” section of the “General Discussion” category of Ignis Ardens at http://cathinfo-warning-pornography!/Ignis_Ardens/i...php?showforum=1 Should you not be the author of the letter, you may rest assured that members of Ignis Ardens and others will begin an exhaustive search for the perpetrator of this wanton lie.


However, knowing you, I believe that the language and content does appear to coincide with your style, while some of the information given in this letter demonstrates knowledge that was not previously in the public arena and therefore demands explanation. I will as a result present a list of questions to you based exclusively on “your” letter and invite you to reply publicly to them. If I prove to be wrong in this matter of authorship, I will apologise to you on this forum without any kind of mental reservation, and offer a rosary for your intentions by way of reparation.
1. The opening sentence begins: “I am apalled at the art to raise unsubstantiated suspicions and calumnies!” Forgive me, Father, but I have to ask you to highlight the alleged “calumnies.” In “The Complete Krahgate File,” there are no calumnies of any kind. What has been laid out, by myself and others, are facts that are IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN, CAN BE ACCESSED BY ANYONE ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD, ARE SITES ABOVE SUSPICION OF ANY KIND (no blogs, no questionable websites etc) AND HENCE ARE IRREFUTABLE. It is upon these substantiated facts (please note, Father, the word “substantiated”) that a series of important questions have been directed towards the final authority in the SSPX, Bishop Fellay. Furthermore these questions have avoided accusation, smear, charge, personal denigration, slander or defamation. Indeed the original posting by “William of Norwich” on this matter at the end of November 2010 ended with this statement: “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.” Respectful questioning of authority, based upon public docuмentation of unquestionable authenticity and transparency, does not in Catholic moral teaching amount to “calumny.” So: please substantiate by proofs, by examples, not assertions, that these docuмents posted by faithful members of Catholic Tradition contained calumnies.


2. The second sentence states: “Two of his fellow senior Bishops, Bishop Williamson and Bishop Tissier de Mallerais do not appear to be on any boards representing SSPX assets, which indeed appears odd.” I have used the “Find” function on my computer to seek this sentence within the docuмentation that comprises “The Complete Krahgate File” and I can find it only once: in the letter that you purportedly wrote and which was placed under the heading “Putative Replies.” I can only assume that this phrase appeared in some comment or other of the many hundreds of comments that have been made on Ignis Ardens, or that you have seen this phrase elsewhere in the blogosphere. If it came in such a comment on Ignis Ardens, I have no memory of it. But the issue is that it is only that: a comment and no more. It no more comprises the information brought to light on a number of vital matters concerning the SSPX than your statement that “calumny” appears as information. So: perhaps you can identify the source of this phrase for us?


3. More importantly, however, is a statement that you make: “But in the SSPX, we hold positions in companies by virtue of our office in the SSPX, not in our personal name; so when we change office, our successor takes our place in these companies. NOTHING ODD there at all, on the contrary!” I think, Father, that you have misunderstood the concerns of the faithful in a number of ways. First, nobody has questioned the need for the SSPX to possess legally established structures to protect its assets so as to further the mission of the Society. Second, most of us who have been SSPX supporters for decades are well aware of the fact that such structures have existed for decades as well. Third, nobody has suggested that there was or is anything irregular in SSPX personnel holding office at different times, for differing durations, and in different legal structures. What is being questioned, and which you have studiously avoided in my honest but respectful opinion, are the following points: First, why is someone like Mr Krah, a layman, of only a few years attendance at SSPX masses, who has a known political profile in Germany, and who has questionable contacts for someone who describes himself as “an unimpeachable catholic” in a position of such important authority? Second, and more importantly, the questions posed about business structures were directed almost exclusively to discovering something about two legal structures, Dello Sarto and the Jaidhofer Privatstiftung, in which Mr Krah is involved, whose role in both is vague at best, and both of which structures are of very recent origin. Dello Sarto was established in 2009 and the Jaidhofer Privatstiftung in 2006, the timeframe during which Mr Krah appeared on the SSPX scene. That you chose not to address these questions, THE ESSENTIAL QUESTIONS OF THE WHOLE KRAHGATE AFFAIR, but talked about various small legal associations in different districts, has not calmed the fears among the faithful worldwide at all. On the contrary, the apparent evasion of such questions has heightened the very “suspicions” that you have deplored! It may be, naturally, that you read the essential posts rapidly and fired off your reply to your unknown correspondent too rapidly. If that is so, you have the opportunity now to present a more considered response to these important matters, and I would urge you to do so because silence will only encourage further speculation – something that is not desired nor desirable.


4. You state: “Another example of calumnies: “The fact that the SSPX appears to be involved in international financial markets...” Sorry, this is simply not true.” I take it that you mean that the SSPX is NOT involved in international financial markets, and for that information we are both grateful and relieved. However, there was no calumny involved at all. The poster, “William of Norwich,” just said that it “appears to be.” This is NOT a statement of fact, it is a CONDITIONAL statement based on what was found at Link: Dello Sarto AG
http://translate.google.co.uk/translate?hl...D813%26prmd%3Db


5. However another question logically arises. If Dello Sarto is only concerned with “asset management” in the limited sense that you give it, why was the company so recently set up at all and which employed the services of a Zurich based law firm? Their website, http://www.internationallawoffice.com/dire...47-4d5d5e739909 shows that this company is large, high-powered and clearly expensive. It seems to an outsider something like overkill. Moreover, another question remains: why were none of the other “asset management” companies set up years ago by the SSPX not used? What is it about the purpose of Dello Sarto that none of the other structures could cover? And what in the nature of Dello Sarto necessitated the employment of Mr Krah as its manager? Could not a suitably qualified cleric have done this job? After all your description of the work involved - “we strive to avoid the financial world; thus if a chapel has some savings, we organise that it be lent to another chapel that had a debt, either at no interest at all, or at low interest to offset devaluation. Thus even that low interest that one chapel pays still goes to help another chapel's future projects” - does not strike me as particularly onerous nor requiring the services of an internationally connected law firm. Perhaps you would like to clarify these matters in order that we, the faithful, the people who actually supply the money to the SSPX to allow “asset management” to become necessary, have our minds put to rest?



6. You make this statement: “Again, as previous bursar general, I can testify that the SSPX is NOT involved in financial markets speculation or usury of any kind!” With all due respect, I am sorry to tell you Father that that is not something that you can substantiate. You can certainly say that there was no speculation or usury DURING YOUR TIME as bursar, but you CANNOT testify to something after your bursarship finished. How long has it been since you ceased to be bursar? Five years? Eight years? Ten years? This is not an attack on you, it is only to say that NO PERSON once he has left any post can testify to what happened AFTER his departure. Your good faith is NOT being called into question here. What is being called into question is your competence to make such a wide-ranging assertion.


7. In reference to Mr Krah you say: “He gives us competent "legal counsels" especially in matters of legacies in the German speaking world.” Upon what do you base this statement regarding his alleged competence? Is it upon what you have personally witnessed through interaction with him, or is it based only upon what you have been told?


8. You write:“Mr Krah is not a Jєω, though he may have some Jєωιѕн friends, which is not uncommon in the legal world.” What is the basis of your statement that Mr Krah is not a Jєω? Mr Krah in a statement posted on December 28 2010, at 02:12 PM on Ignis Ardens made a number of statements, but at no point did he deny that he was a Jєω? He only asserted that he was a Catholic. Well, Cardinal Lustiger called himself a Catholic, did he not, but he equally asserted that he was a Jєω? Given that this was one of the more astonishing statements made by “William of Norwich” does it not strike you as significant that Mr Krah did not make plain his – according to you – non-Jєωιѕн status? It could hardly be construed as the oversight of a very minor detail can it? Moreover, while you assert that Mr Krah is not a Jєω, you give no evidence, circuмstantial or otherwise, to support this assertion. You cannot say that he denied it, because in his one and only public statement he has not done so. Nor can you retort that “William of Norwich” is in the same boat as you: making an assertion without any kind of evidence. “William of Norwich” gave the following link by way of support: Link: American Friends of Tel Aviv University
http://www.aftau.org/site/PageServer?pagen...0_AlumniAuction If you would care to look carefully at all of the photographs available at this link, you will see that every person has been named. I do not believe that one has to be an expert in family names to recognise that they are all Jєωιѕн, at a Jєωιѕн event, in the city with the highest Jєωιѕн population in the world (Israel notwithstanding), and supporting the work of an Israeli university that is dominated by the Israeli security forces which have a long history of anti-Catholic and anti-Christian activity of the most murderous kind. Is it really credible, in the absence of a forthright denial by Mr Krah of being Jєωιѕн, to believe, as you clearly believe, that he was the only NON-Jєω present?

9. A small but related question: You said that “ he MAY have some Jєωιѕн friends.” “William of Norwich” showed beyond any doubt that he DOES through the link just cited. One question, since I assume that you must know Mr Krah to make these statements, is this: would he happen to be a friend of Mischa Morgenbesser, a lawyer with BADERTSCHER Rechtsanwälte AG (Zurich), who is the sole Hebrew speaker with the firm, the firm that advises the SSPX in relation to Dello Sarto? Do you know if this firm was suggested by Mr Krah to the leadership of the SSPX?


10. In your letter you comment: “Note that Mr. Krah's involvement with the CDU consisted in a donation to a convent (Kloster St Marienthal): if that is the only thing you found against him, that is not much to worry.” My dear Father Laisney, this one sentence alone leads to several questions and which, at the same time, raises questions about your actual knowledge and intimacy with the whole affair. Let me explain. Mr Krah’s involvement with the CDU was NOT limited to seeking a donation for the convent of St. Marienthal. If you went to the link given by “William of Norwich” concerning Mr Krah and his actual relations with the CDU, you would see that according to the “Journal of the Dresdener Union” (the July/August 2005 number) Mr Krah was elected the Pressesprecher, Press Officer, for Dresden’s CDU governing committee in June 2005 with 81.66% of the branch’s membership. Moreover, the May 2006 number of the same “Journal” reveals that he had by then become a member of the editorial board of the “Journal.” Mr Krah’s involvement with politics does not concern me greatly beyond the fact that the CDU is neither Christian in any sense worthy of the name, nor is it democratic in any profound sense. But it is clearly anti-Catholic when it wishes to be, as the occasion when Angela Merkel publicly rebuked the Pope about the so-called “rehabilitation” of Mgr Williamson demonstrates – a public scandal about which the SSPX has said little or nothing, made all the more worrying given the cant of the CDU about the “benefits” of the separation of Church and State. I would invite you to check these details for yourself, but since “William of Norwich” posted the CDU/Krah link it has mysteriously disappeared from the internet. However, one brave Catholic soul had the foresight to save the two files about the CDU cited, and they will be posted to”The Complete Krahgate File” in the near future so that you and others may see the facts for yourself.


11. There is, however, one surprising thing in your sentence. You make reference to the Kloster St. Marienthal and say that Krah’s only involvement in the CDU was to seek donations for it. Let us leave aside the fact that the St. Marienthal Convent, the oldest women’s Cistercian monastery in Germany, is a conciliar structure and seems to be more a place for hosting conferences on “Justice, Peace, Ecology” and the rest of the conciliar agenda, than a place full of nuns working out their salvation in prayer and sacrifice; let us leave aside also the fact that one wonders why a person who claims to be a traditional Catholic would seek to raise money for a conciliar structure when undoubtedly there are better claims to be made for SSPX structures in Germany; let us leave aside as well that the Convent in question is less than a hour’s drive from Krah’s home, is incredibly beautiful, a glory to the faith, clearly worth a financial fortune if put on the market, and is run by a “Board of Trustees,” the composition of which I have not been able to identify as yet, and come to one crucial question. At NO POINT in “The Complete Krahgate File” or anywhere else on Ignis Ardens was ANY REFERENCE MADE TO THIS CONVENT AND KRAH MAKING AN APPEAL FOR FUNDS FOR IT! The convent is not mentioned in either of the two CDU files that were available online until they disappeared. So your statement is a piece of information that none of us were aware of, and we would invite you to let us know how you came across this information? It may be of little importance, but given that Mr Krah appears to have many fingers in many pies, one can never be sure that that is so.


12. Although I could ask you another half dozen questions on the basis of your short letter, I will confine myself to just one more. You say in relation to Mr Krah, and by implication to others, that when the SSPX requires legal advice and assistance that “Honesty and competence is the criteria, not political views.” To that I am sure that I speak for all supporters of the SSPX when I say “Amen.” Thus, Mr Krah, if he were both honest and competent and available to the SSPX, would be a good choice irrespective of his political affiliation – and no traditionalist could or would argue with that decision. The problem, however, is twofold. First, Mr Krah’s choice of Matthias Lossmann as counsel for Mgr. Williamson in the trial of April 2010 did not show competence at all. What it demonstrated was a woeful inability or will to find someone who would address the issues pertaining to Williamson’s case: namely the manifest deficiency of German law as it pertained to this particular case. It had nothing effectively to do with so-called “h0Ɩ0cαųst denial” but everything to do with whether or not Mgr. Williamson fell within the bounds of the law being evoked by the Regensburg court. That woeful decision cost Mgr. Williamson a great deal, and we can only speculate as to whether Mr Krah’s clear incompetence was honest or dishonest. On that God alone knows. The second problem with your position of “Honesty and competence is the criteria, not political views” is contradicted by actual facts. Put simply if Mr Krah, appointed by Mgr. Fellay, was good enough for the job, in theory, to deal with Mgr. Williamson’s case in the first instance, despite his open affiliation with the CDU, why was Mr Nahrath, chosen by Williamson in the second instance, unacceptable to Mgr. Fellay. It cannot be seriously argued that Mr Nahrath was not competent in such delicate [in Germany] matters, for his success in Germany, even in 2010, in such questions is a matter of public record. Neither can his honesty be seriously impugned since it is evident that, unlike Messrs. Krah and Lossmann, he risks in a very real way his liberty every time he takes on a “controversial case.” You say that Mr Nahrath was not unacceptable, not because of his affiliation with the NPD, a legal political party in Germany, but with something called “Viking” though you could not remember the name that Mgr. Fellay mentioned to you. The name is, of course, “Viking Youth” which any Google search would have given you. What is remarkable is that Mgr. Fellay should make Nahrath’s political leadership of the Viking Youth the pretext for denying Mgr. Williamson good, honest and legal counsel. The Viking Youth was banned in 1994, sixteen years ago! Would anyone suggest that Fr. Schmidberger was unfit to hold high office in the SSPX because of his activity in a sedevacantist youth group many years ago? Would anyone suggest that Mgr. Lefebvre was unfit to be the founder of the SSPX because he praised Marshal Petain and a number of other political figures, now regarded as “politically incorrect”? I do not think so. Does it not strike you, my dear father, that what Mgr. Williamson required was a decent lawyer; and does it not strike you as unacceptable, as shown in “The Complete Krahgate File”, that Mr Krah – the self-confessed “unimpeachable catholic” - should have made Nahrath’s appointment known to Der Spiegel within the hour of his appointment?


My dear Father Laisney, I suspect that while you may believe what you have written in this letter, you are acting upon the basis of third hand information. If it was designed to bring serenity to Catholic souls it failed completely. The information and related questions outlined in this email prove, I believe, that there is much still to be unmasked in the Krahgate Affair in the quest for the truth, a truth that the praying, obeying and paying faithful have an absolute right to receive.
I reiterate what I said at the outset. There is no intention to accuse you of anything improper or immoral. Indeed your entry into the picture with your letter was a surprise to everybody since you had never been mentioned in connection with Krahgate. What I would exhort you to do is to furnish the faithful with answers to the above queries, and to the best of your knowledge and ability. Failing that, perhaps you could ask the SSPX leadership to answer these and other questions in order to bring a peaceful end to what is, quite frankly, one of the most disturbing episodes in the life of Society in decades.