Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: Bishop Williamsons Appeal  (Read 46220 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Ethelred

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1222
  • Reputation: +2267/-0
  • Gender: Male
Bishop Williamsons Appeal
« Reply #165 on: August 05, 2011, 03:23:13 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Thank you Nemmersdorf, for that clarification, which also brings us back on topic.

    So what did Krah say again in his testimony in the court, on 4 July 2011 of the "Bishop Williamson Appeal" ? You already quoted it via translation of the two reporting German newspapers. Please see my quotation on 2 August 2011 here in the thread for it.


    Elizabeth wrote in another thread about Krah:

    Quote from: Elizabeth
    I think someone should put the stuff up here, with proof of its source.

    I wouldn't know how to go looking for robots--but I see bullying and we need to protect our friends.



    Since Hollingsworth already summed up the testimony "stuff" nicely in another place, and we got proof of its source, let's quote him:

    Quote from: Hollingsworth on 4 August 2011
    I reiterate, avoiding all the verbal clutter, some of the most precious little testimonial gems which Krah displayed to the press for public consumption. Mind you, these were not private, in house, remarks. They were meant to be read and 'appreciated' by any or all of the planets 6 billion inhabitants:

    He declared shamelessly about his own bishop that “the idea (in +W's mind) that something positive could happen, is in general alien” ;

    described his bishop as a “colourful bird

    He stated glibly, even arrogantly, that his Episcopal superior was
    Quote
    without any special function or prominent position in the Society (reportedly)


    and that "for reasons of mercy" had not been thrown out of the Society

    He described his Bishop as an eccentric, one who has a “persistent problem with recognizing reality

    He portrayed him as a false prophetic nut who with “monotonous regularity assumes the end of the world every two years

    I will do my part to keep those kinds of utterances before the eyes of forum members and all other who happen upon the site.



    Thank you, Hollingsworth.

    Offline JPaul

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3832
    • Reputation: +3723/-293
    • Gender: Male
    Bishop Williamsons Appeal
    « Reply #166 on: August 05, 2011, 08:13:55 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Ethelred,

    Quote
    Thank you Nemmersdorf, for that clarification, which also brings us back on topic.



    It is irritating that things are constantly having to be re-explained, clarified, or repaired, due to so many various naysayers, who seem to constantly attack the sources and parse the content so as to distract from the meaning and import.


    Facts in evidence that need no clarification and are indisputable:

    1) Mr. Krah testified on more than one occasion, the latest being the current appeal.

    2) His testimony on both occasions was very negative

    3)His most recent testimony was negative, damaging, insuting, and amounts to public detraction.

    4) Mr. Krah is employed by the SSPX and it is almost impossible that his bad actions have not been approved of in Menzingen. This is directly implied by the fact, that he was not instructed between the first incidence and the second, to alter his tone and characterization of Bishop Williamson.

    Based upon these simple facts and Mr. Krah's questionable affiliations with the enemies of the Faith, there is certainly justification for serious concern and more intensive scrutiny of these and other related matters.



    And one question, did not one of the clerics from the Society state in a communique or interview that Mr. Krah's duties with the Society had been terminated?   If so who is responsible for issuing the false statement which objectively, would be a lie?   Please correct me if this is not so.


    Offline John Grace

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5521
    • Reputation: +121/-6
    • Gender: Male
    Bishop Williamsons Appeal
    « Reply #167 on: August 05, 2011, 11:12:57 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Nemmersdorf
    To clear the confusion created by Henry V on Ignis Ardens:

    1) Lady Renouf had confirmed on the 2 August 2011 that Maximilian Krah was present at the appeal 4 July 2011 :

    “I can confirm as an eyewitness at both court hearings in Regensburg that Max Krah attended and gave his testimony verbally to the judge in Regensburg Courtroom on both occasions (16 April 2010 and 4 July 2011).”


    2) Dr. Krah stated wrongly that he was called by the Defence as a witness in his letter to Clare.

    There is now a correction to be made to the above point 2). The following correction is not according to Dr. Krah, but rather according to Prof. Dr. Weiler:

    Bishop Williamson’s lawyer, Prof. Dr. Weiler has been contacted and was asked whether the Defence had called Dr. Krah to give testimony.

    Prof. Dr Weiler stated that he did not call Dr. Krah, as it was not necessary, but that it was the judge who had called Dr. Krah.

    He also said that witnesses are always appointed as such by the court, the Defence cannot have their “own” witnesses, they can only ask for them. If such a witness appears, he/she is witness of the court.

    This should settle the matter once and for all.


    Thanks for postiing this, Nemmersdorf

    Offline John Grace

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5521
    • Reputation: +121/-6
    • Gender: Male
    Bishop Williamsons Appeal
    « Reply #168 on: August 05, 2011, 11:19:21 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote
    And one question, did not one of the clerics from the Society state in a communique or interview that Mr. Krah's duties with the Society had been terminated?  If so who is responsible for issuing the false statement which objectively, would be a lie?  Please correct me if this is not so.


    It would be a lie as Maximilian Krah has the full backing of Bishop Fellay.My understanding is that Maximilian Krah is still the lawyer for Menzingen. Has it ever been established as to why Fr Laisney went public in relation to 'Krahgate'? His name had never been mentioned in the material first posted by 'Willliam of Norwich' on Angel Queen last year. Fr Laisney's input raised more questions than answers.


    Offline s2srea

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 5106
    • Reputation: +3896/-48
    • Gender: Male
    Bishop Williamsons Appeal
    « Reply #169 on: August 05, 2011, 11:21:13 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • My curiosity is, what do we do now that we've exposed this Krah? 'Can' we even do anything, apart from what's being done. Obviously this guy is no good.


    Offline hollingsworth

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2842
    • Reputation: +2932/-517
    • Gender: Male
    Bishop Williamsons Appeal
    « Reply #170 on: August 07, 2011, 09:08:54 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • J. Paul :4)
    Quote
    Mr. Krah is employed by the SSPX and it is almost impossible that his bad actions have not been approved of in Menzingen. This is directly implied by the fact, that he was not instructed between the first incidence and the second, to alter his tone and characterization of Bishop Williamson.


    This is the point to keep in mind.  We may be tempted to isolate M.K. and treat him as an aggrieved individual seeking redress through the courts.  But it is very difficult to separate his intended actions from Menzingen.  Whatever he does, he does ultimately with the approval of Bp Fellay, one is almost forced to conclude.  I would like to be disabused of that notion.  This is not just about the individual M.K..  This is about the whole SSPX apostolate and its work, from the top down.  

    Offline JPaul

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3832
    • Reputation: +3723/-293
    • Gender: Male
    Bishop Williamsons Appeal
    « Reply #171 on: August 07, 2011, 08:33:18 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: hollingsworth
    J. Paul :4)
    Quote
    Mr. Krah is employed by the SSPX and it is almost impossible that his bad actions have not been approved of in Menzingen. This is directly implied by the fact, that he was not instructed between the first incidence and the second, to alter his tone and characterization of Bishop Williamson.


    This is the point to keep in mind.  We may be tempted to isolate M.K. and treat him as an aggrieved individual seeking redress through the courts.  But it is very difficult to separate his intended actions from Menzingen.  Whatever he does, he does ultimately with the approval of Bp Fellay, one is almost forced to conclude.  I would like to be disabused of that notion.  This is not just about the individual M.K..  This is about the whole SSPX apostolate and its work, from the top down.  



    Absolutely, the truly disturbing subject is just what has and is happening to the Society insofar as its policies and direction.  It is extremely difficult to hold on to one's trust and confidence when things are being said and done which we have never seen before.  Mr. Krah, no matter what is his place in these things, is only an agent in these changes. The true cause is still unseen, and it does seem that all good faith, and other efforts to penetrate this mystery are being systematically blocked or shut down.  Hidden things can never be a good omen.

    Offline Ethelred

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1222
    • Reputation: +2267/-0
    • Gender: Male
    Bishop Williamsons Appeal
    « Reply #172 on: August 10, 2011, 04:04:28 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Please allow me to copy Nemmersdorf's latest post from the thread ...
    Maximilian Krah Implies Legal Action Against IA, Again
    ... to this topic, because I think it also clears some misunderstandings which were posted here.

    Thanks to Nemmersdorf for the following update:


    Quote from: Nemmersdorf
    Comestor has posted an important clarification on Ignis Ardens about Bishop Williamson's appeal:

    Comestor on IA
    Aug 10 2011, 08:34 PM

    As someone who was present at the Regensburg appeal hearing in July, though not at the initial Regensburg hearing last year, it might be helpful for me to summarise the position as I understand it.

    When asking whether Kr was a witness for the defence, British and American readers may not fully appreciate the difference between their courts and those in Germany.

    The "common law" tradition as used (for example) in Britain and the USA involves an adversarial court procedure. In other words the defence and prosecution counsel engage in courtroom combat, each with their list of witnesses, and cross-examining the other side's witnesses.

    The "Napoleonic" or "Roman" law tradition used in many European countries, including Germany, involves an inquisitorial court procedure, whereby witnesses are called and questioned by the judges. The lawyers for the two sides (and sometimes lawyers for other interested parties) are present, but witnesses are called and questioned by the court.

    Juries were abolished in Germany in 1924 (and apart from a two year period in Bavaria, 1948-50) have not been restored.

    Sometimes the defence might request the court to call a particular witness. In the case of the Regensburg appeal Dr Weiler (unsuccessfully) requested that the court should call the Swedish television journalist. It was not at the defence's request that Kr. was called as a witness.

    Therefore it was at best confusing for Kr. to refer in his PM to:
    "my witness, which I gave on request of the defence".

    The whole point is that at the initial trial he was very much part of the defence team: after that he was not, as he was perceived to be working contrary to Bishop Williamson's interests.

    The last few pages of this thread have seen:
    i) persistent efforts to cast doubt on whether Kr. even attended the July 2011 appeal, and occasionally flat denials that he did so;
    ii) further efforts to cast doubt on press reports or translations of those reports concerning the words Kr. used in his testimony;
    iii) an implication that whatever words Kr. used were in some sense part of an agreed defence strategy for Bishop Williamson.

    While the defence did not exercise their right to block Kr. from testifying, and in some sense his derogatory remarks about Bishop Williamson could be seen as potentially mitigating sentence, Kr. was not speaking as part of the Bishop's defence, as has been implied here.

    It is unfortunate that this forum has been used several times to cast doubt on the integrity of the press reports (which in this limited instance do not seem to have been untruthful or wrongly translated) and to calumniate Lady Renouf, who travelled to Regensburg for each court hearing as part of her campaign to highlight German law's denial of the European tradition of free, source-critical historical inquiry. As it happens it is only as a result of Lady Renouf's earlier endeavours (in putting together a legal defence for Dr Fredrick Toben) that the German authorities are precluded from simply extending their tyranny to Britain via a European Arrest Warrant, in which case the Bishop could be arrested and extradited from Wimbledon!

    While it is no secret that Lady Renouf is not a Catholic, neither is it relevant to this topic. The press correctly reported that Lady Renouf mobilised Toben's successful legal team, who were on standby for Bishop Williamson's arrival at Heathrow in case he had any legal trouble on landing – recalling that Dr Toben was arrested and readied for extradition while merely in transit at that same airport.

    It is for this reason that Lady Renouf was first in email contact with Bishop Williamson, and while she is in no sense a "representative" of the Bishop, it is for this reason that some forum members have sought her first hand reports on the trial.

    Despite the fact that for whatever reason Kr.'s own account of this topic has been confusing, and at one stage wrongly gave the impression that his derogatory remarks about Bishop Williamson were a deliberate defence strategy, might it not be helpful to leave this thread open so as to allow him (or a representative) to clarify whether or not he was responsible for the internal forum private message to hollingsworth?

    As things have been left, Kr. is portrayed as a monstrous autocrat, which if the PM did not actually come from him, he might not deserve.


    http://cathinfo-warning-pornography!/Ignis_Ardens/index.php?showtopic=7525&st=375&#last



    Offline JPaul

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3832
    • Reputation: +3723/-293
    • Gender: Male
    Bishop Williamsons Appeal
    « Reply #173 on: August 10, 2011, 09:11:03 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote
    Please allow me to copy Nemmersdorf's latest post from the thread ...
    Maximilian Krah Implies Legal Action Against IA, Again
    ... to this topic, because I think it also clears some misunderstandings which were posted here.



    By tomorrow we will likely see the soldiers of doubt begin to attack this account.

    Offline Augstine Baker

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 985
    • Reputation: +274/-1
    • Gender: Male
      • h
    Bishop Williamsons Appeal
    « Reply #174 on: August 10, 2011, 09:34:23 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • What about the portrayal of Mr. Krah as a Grima Wormtongue?

    Even if Dr. Krah were merely a puppet of Bishop Fellay's designs, I think it will be much easier to attack Krah instead of attacking His Lordship, since  Krah has no aura of ecclesiastical authenticity surrounding him which we need fear damaging.

    More important still, if Krah were dismissed, would the policy of the SSPX change?

    You would think there would have to be a more discrete representative in the world with the requisite piety and respect for the authority of anointed hands and heads.

    Offline Wessex

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1311
    • Reputation: +1953/-361
    • Gender: Male
    Bishop Williamsons Appeal
    « Reply #175 on: August 11, 2011, 07:57:00 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • No, Krah articulates the leadership in very clear terms. His credentials and associations indicate the way the Society wants to go. Away from the integrist world of the archbishop and towards making friends with neo-conservatists.


    Offline JPaul

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3832
    • Reputation: +3723/-293
    • Gender: Male
    Bishop Williamsons Appeal
    « Reply #176 on: August 11, 2011, 08:15:15 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Wessex
    No, Krah articulates the leadership in very clear terms. His credentials and associations indicate the way the Society wants to go. Away from the integrist world of the archbishop and towards making friends with neo-conservatists.


    If one judges objectively by the actions, words, and expanding business venture into the realm of mammon, of the present administration as well as its demonstrable expansion of its control of all facets of disclosure and information, your conclusion is both sound and logical. We are not required to know the ultimate destination to know that the road which we travel, is both dangerous and frightening.

    Offline Elizabeth

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 4845
    • Reputation: +2195/-15
    • Gender: Female
    Bishop Williamsons Appeal
    « Reply #177 on: August 11, 2011, 10:37:31 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Augstine Baker




    You would think there would have to be a more discrete representative in the world with the requisite piety and respect for the authority of anointed hands and heads.


    Beautiful, AB

    .  And who can fault us for remaining hyper-vigilant after all we have been through.  We have seen this before; we know the warning signs.  Maybe some of us misinterpret the signs and don't have insider knowledge, but we do need to watch and pray.


    Offline Augstine Baker

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 985
    • Reputation: +274/-1
    • Gender: Male
      • h
    Bishop Williamsons Appeal
    « Reply #178 on: August 11, 2011, 11:28:21 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Wessex
    No, Krah articulates the leadership in very clear terms. His credentials and associations indicate the way the Society wants to go. Away from the integrist world of the archbishop and towards making friends with neo-conservatists.


    I find it hard to believe that the Society is entirely happy with Krah's litigious, and strikingly self-interested, behavior.

    Offline Telesphorus

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 12713
    • Reputation: +28/-13
    • Gender: Male
    Bishop Williamsons Appeal
    « Reply #179 on: August 11, 2011, 11:54:06 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Quote from: Augstine Baker
    I find it hard to believe that the Society is entirely happy with Krah's litigious, and strikingly self-interested, behavior.


    The society has recently filed some suits against St. Remy and Father Schoonbroodt that certainly fit your description above.

    And what of the public threat to expel Bishop Williamson unless Nahrath was dismissed, something that first appeared in the media reported as a promise made to a Jєωιѕн organization?

    This sort of behavior is that of bullies that seem confident they act with impunity.