http://cathinfo-warning-pornography!/Ignis_Ardens/index.php?showtopic=6720&hl=

REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE FROM THOSE WHO LOVE CATHOLIC TRADITION
The Krahgate Team, for want of a better term, is an informal body that is determined to get answers to the many troubling questions raised by the initial posting of “William of Norwich” on November 28, 2010.


These questions, let it be always remembered, are centred upon Maximilian Krah and his meteoric rise in importance in the internal work of the SSPX in Germany, Austria and Switzerland, most specially in relation to finance, administrative “asset management” and legal matters.
These questions are only tangentially and incidentally related to Mgr. Williamson, and whether one likes or dislikes him, agrees or disagrees with him on any subject, is not relevant to the work of the team.


The work of the team is concentrated on why Krah has emerged, what he is involved in, and why he has received patronage at high level. That many reasonable questions, backed by irrefutable evidence in the public domain, have been posed and not responded to only adds to the suspicion that replies have not been forthcoming because the truth would be something less than edifying.


There is no campaign against Mgr. Fellay, no campaign against Menzingen. There is a campaign, however, for the truth to be known, and this truth will be eventually made known.


Many of the team are unknown to one another beyond email contact, contact often being maintained between intermediaries. The team includes both members of the laity and the clergy, and membership remains permanently open. The sole qualification for entry is the supplying of information that is substantiated and verifiable on a host of questions, large and small, that are deemed important in piecing together the picture that has begun to emerge in the Catholic blogosphere in the last two months.
The team is, also, drawn from four continents (at least to this writer’s knowledge) and so draws upon a range of different language capabilities.
We invite, then, any assistance, direct or indirect, indicative or substantive, that will help fill out the information void on the following questions. These questions are not exhaustive, but are only the beginning of the process. If or when new information appears necessary, new requests for assistance will be made in this file.


Information is needed on the evangelical Protestant school that Krah attended in East Germany, a school set up in 1947 in Dresden with the approval of the East German Communist Party; one of the most fanatically anti-Catholic and anti-Christian Communist Parties in the European communist world. It is all the more strange that Dresden, which had been almost completely flattened by Allied bombing, should have been chosen for a school since millions of Germans were without shelter, were living in bombed-out ruins and the rebuilding programme was slow to take off. It also should be noted that the building – which survived the bombardment – was handed over to the “evangelical Protestants” although it had previously belonged to the Masonic order.


QUESTION: WHY WOULD COMMUNIST ATHEISTS HAND OVER A VALUABLE SHELTER TO EVANGELICAL PROTESTANTS?


QUESTION: WHO GAVE THE ORDER TO APPROVE THIS SCHOOL? WHO PRESIDED OVER THE RUNNING OF THE SCHOOL? WHO FINANCED THE SCHOOL? WHERE DID THE PUPILS COME FROM, AND WHAT WAS THE CRITERIA FOR THEIR SELECTION?


QUESTION: IS THERE ANY INDICATION THAT FORMER STUDENTS OF THIS SCHOOL – AT ANY TIME FROM ITS FOUNDATION TO THE PRESENT DAY - WENT ON TO SUCCESSFUL CAREERS IN THE EAST GERMAN REPUBLIC IN THE FIELDS OF FINANCE, LAW, POLITICS, RELIGION, EDUCATION AND ECONOMICS? ARE ANY POSSIBLE CANDIDATES NOW AT WORK IN THE REUNITED GERMANY?


In his application to EMBA-GLOBAL, the elitist international business school with structures in London and Columbia University, Maximilian Krah gave written evidence to the business school’s administrative body that he worked for the Jaidhofer Privatstiftung. He listed himself as being “a Board delegate.” This Austrian Foundation has little internet presence, is controlled by the SSPX, but the purpose of its existence is not public knowledge.


QUESTION: WHY DID MR. KRAH GIVE THE FOUNDATION AS HIS EMPLOYER, WHEN IT IS ON PUBLIC RECORD – SEE THE INITIAL POSTING IN THE COMPLETE KRAHGATE FILE – THAT HE IS LISTED AS THE MANAGER OF ANOTHER SSPX-CONTROLLED ENTITY, “DELLO SARTO,” AND IS ALSO A PARTNER IN A LEGAL FIRM IN DRESDEN, AS WELL AS ON THE BOARD OF LAETITIA AG WHOSE ORIGINS AND PURPOSE ARE OPAQUE TO SAY THE LEAST?


QUESTION: DOES MR. KRAH RECEIVE A SALARY OR STIPEND FROM EITHER THE FOUNDATION and/OR “DELLO SARTO”?


QUESTION: HOW CREDIBLE IS IT THAT MR. KRAH, A FAMILY MAN – SEE HIS “REPLY” IN THE COMPLETE KRAHGATE FILE – RUNS A LEGAL BUSINESS IN DRESDEN, “DELLO SARTO” IN SWITZERLAND, THE JAIDHOFER PRIVATSTIFTUNG IN AUSTRIA, LAETITIA AG IN SWITZERLAND, SPENDS 3 OR 4 DAYS PER MONTH IN LONDON OR NEW YORK IN ROTATION, AND REMAINS AS AN ACTIVE OFFICIAL IN THE DRESDEN BRANCH OF THE GERMAN CDU PARTY?


Our research indicates that there appears to be some kind of connection between “Dello Sarto” and the Jaidhofer Privatstiftung, although they are based in two different countries and are therefore subject to different legal jurisdictions.


QUESTION: DOES A GERMAN LAWYER HAVE A RIGHT TO PRACTISE HIS PROFESSION IN AUSTRIA AND/OR SWITZERLAND AUTOMATICALLY, OR DOES SOME KIND OF ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL HAVE TO TAKE PLACE IN ONE OR BOTH OF THESE TWO COUNTRIES?


QUESTION: WHAT IS THE AIM AND PURPOSE OF THE JAIDHOFER PRIVATSTIFTUNG? WHO, BESIDES MR. KRAH, SITS ON THE BOARD? ARE THE OTHER BOARD MEMBERS EXCLUSIVELY CLERICAL, OR ARE OTHER LAYMEN/WOMEN INVOLVED?


QUESTION: DOES THE DISTRICT SUPERIOR OF AUSTRIA HAVE AN AUTOMATIC POSITION ON THE BOARD OF THE FOUNDATION GIVEN THAT THE FOUNDATION IS WITHIN THE DISTRICT? IF NOT, WHY NOT?


QUESTION: ARE THE OTHER MEMBERS OF THE FOUNDATION’S BOARD, BESIDES MR. KRAH, AUSTRIAN? IF NOT, WHY NOT GIVEN THAT THE FOUNDATION IS WITHIN THE AUSTRIAN DISTRICT?


Much play has been made by Fr. Laisney and others – see “A Reply from Fr. Laisney” in the Complete Krahgate File – of the legal competence and assistance of Mr. Krah. It is this alleged competence and assistance which has, we are told, led to him being appointed the primary legal point of reference for the German district of the SSPX. It appears that Mr. Krah qualified as a lawyer in 2001, and yet is in a commanding position within SSPX structures within a five years or so:


QUESTION: IN WHAT FIELD OF LAW DOES MR. KRAH SPECIALISE?


QUESTION: WHAT CASES DID MR. KRAH UNDERTAKE IN THE EARLY DAYS FOR THE SPPX WHICH DREW ATTENTION TO HIS ALLEGED COMPETENCE? WERE THE SAID CASES ONLY IN DRESDEN, OR DID THEY EXTEND TO THE WHOLE OF GERMANY?


CONCLUSION: Help, however minor it might appear, in relation to any question, in whole or in part, will be most welcome. Remember that: while vital and disturbing questions remain unanswered by those in a position (laymen, laywomen, priest or bishop) to furnish those answers to the faithful who are the raison d’être of the SSPX, Catholic Tradition remains at risk. Vatican II was not the cause of subversive Modernism, but the long-prepared fruit of subversion by Modernists working in the dark at all levels of the Church.

To have a pop-singer among is more a sign of honesty than of depravity.

 And the people who speak so are true Catholics. So please don´t blame them, but understand them. :

Krahgate A Reply to Fr. Laisney
'Veritas' asks Fr Laisney SSPX some questions.
http://cathinfo-warning-pornography!/Ignis_Ardens/index.php?showtopic=6634
 
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 Jew, 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 Jew, 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 Jew? 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 Jew? 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 Jew? 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 Jew, 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-JEW 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.

Ok, John, although I am not an insider, let me try to explain it a bit deeper, on the base of German general knowledge.

One point you mention is the highschool he attended. It´s Kreuzschule, in latin schola crucis. This is a school with great reputation due to it´s choir and tradition. I remember that even nation-wide media had reported about the school in the 1990s. Most German major cities have one or two highschools with great tradition and history; Stuttgart, for instance, has Eberhard-Ludwigs-Gymnasium and Hölderlingymnasium (Gymnasium = Grammar School). If you are a bit interested in German culture, you know these names. Kreuzschule is one of the oldest schools in Germany and has an own Wikipedia-article: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kreuzschule There you also find the former students, including Richard Wagner. All schools were run by the state during communist times and later given back to the (Lutherian) church. There is a bestseller novel in Germany now, Der Turm (The Tower), in which you can read about the situation of the burgeoisie in the city of Dresden under the communists: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Der_Turm_(Tellkamp) Because I read it, I am a bit familiar with. Kreuzschule was known as the least communist school there. As he attended the school from 1991 to 1995, he wasn´t there during communist times. He simply attended an elitist highschool in united Germany.

Another point is his visit at an event of the alumni of Tel Aviv university. So what? TA-university is an academic institution. Dr. Krah has an excellent academic background. There are less than 10 % of German law graduates who have a doctorate, and now he is going to graduate from an Ivy League University. As you know, the academic world is interconnected, and Israelis are part of the academic community. Nobody in the SSPX will find anything about it, as the academic teacher of Father Schmidberger (and some other German SSPX-priests and laity of the first generation) was Professor Lauth, who used to be the first German guest professor to Israel, teaching at both Tel Aviv University and Hebrew University Jerusalem: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinhard_Lauth - what everybody knows, including Archbishop Lefebvre who knew Lauth personally. And I remember a SSPX-statement some time ago after which there are no doubts on the legitimacy of the state of Israel as it is recognized by the Vatican and the UN.

Concerning the existence of corporations run by the SSPX: how many of them there are in the US? 20, 30? It is the best way to limit liability, right? I already wrote about the issue of the power of signature.

As I told you, this is just what I know from general knowledge, what everybody should know and can know. Of course, I have no detail knowlegde on legal affairs. But just on the base of such general knowledge, it is quite clear, that "Krahgate" is complete nonsense. It is a typical "conspiracy theory" like thousend others. And hence all who forced it, have violated the 8th (tks, Clare) commandment.

Unfortunately, we have lost the issue of this thread, the Regensburg appeal. So let´s come back to it. The nαzι-time and it´s results were a catastrophe for Germany. The country has re-established its renommee now and is proud and happy about it´s new role and acceptance. No wonder at all, that it dislikes people who seem to sympathize with the nαzιs, and be it by denying their crimes. As I already wrote, I always try to understand the position of the other side before judging. In my mind, the German anti-denying-law is understandable when looking at the German history of the 20th century. It was introduced in 1960 by the then-chancellor Adenauer, a decent and devout Catholic. I wish +Williamson all the best, but I have to concede that he cannot take over any public position within the SSPX as long as he remains into his political position. It would bring the SSPX and the whole Catholic tradition in fundamental opposition to Germany, and as Germany is the most powerful country in continental Europe, this would affect the other nations, too. Alas, +Fellay´s position seems to me very reasonable.

. You write:“Mr Krah is not a Jew, 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 Jew? 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 Jew? 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 Jew? 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 Jew, 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-JEW present?

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?

Quote from: clare

This liberal use of the word "liberal" is getting ridiculous. It's an abuse of language.

You only have yourself (and others like you) to blame for that. It became ridiculous because some liberals wanted to be apart of the "right" side of the sphere without actually being apart of it. This is why you see neo-Catholics who would love to believe that they're "conservative" (far from it) and neo-Trads who would love to believe that they're "trad" (also far from it).

See, you can't be anything BUT a liberal if you have a liberal way of thinking. Hanging around traditionalists or conservatives won't change the fact that you're a liberal.